Appendix E09

NEPA Package SR 548

Washington State Department of Transportation

I-5 & SR 548 Tributaries to California Creek – Fish Passage Project

Request for Proposal June 24, 2019

ECS Standard Report WIN: A00596K I-5/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage Project Title: SR 548/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage WSDOT APPROVAL

______George Carlson ______02/21/2019 Beth A. Toberer 360-757-5996 Region Environmental Manager Date Region Environmental Contact Phone:

______Date

PART 1 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION WIN: A00596K I-5/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage Intent of Documentation: Scoping (ERS) Project Title: SR 548/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage NEPA/SEPA Documentation (ECS)

Pin(s): 100596K

Federal Aid Number: NHPP-0055(249)

Project Description: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to replace a fish barrier to improve fish passability in Unnamed Tributary to California Creek as it flows under State Route (SR) 548. The project will replace the existing 36-inch diameter concrete culvert with a new structure with a minimum span of 12 feet. Project construction will include traffic control, excavation, stream diversion, culvert removal, new structure installation, and restoring disturbed areas with native vegetation. Purpose: To replace the fish barrier in accordance with federal court injunction No. C70-9213 Subproceeding No. 01-1 dated March 29, 2013.

Need: This existing structure on SR 548 has been identified as a partial fish barrier by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and WSDOT Environmental Services Office (ESO) (Site ID 996003) due to possible high velocities based on scour lines in the pipe.

Project Location: SR: 548 Begin MP: 0.25 End MP: 0.31 WSDOT Region: Northwest: Mt Baker Township/Section/Range: S6, T39N, R2E W.M. County/Counties: Whatcom

Right of Way -- Check all that apply Will ROW be acquired for this project? Yes No If ‘no’ skip indented questions. If ‘yes’ will people and/or businesses be relocated and/or displaced? Yes No Will early acquisition be necessary? Yes No

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Confirmation Are All phases of the project included in the STIP? Yes No If ‘yes’ list STIP/STIP addendum date: 18-21 Approved 1/10/2018 If ‘no’ attach plan for inclusion

1 ECS Standard Report WIN: A00596K I-5/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage Project Title: SR 548/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage PART 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION The information provided is based on review of GIS data in the WSDOT Environmental Workbench and field reviews by qualified WSDOT staff. NEPA Classification: FHWA Categorical Exclusion (CE) 23 CFR SEPA Classification: Categorical Exemption - 771.117

Subsection: C25: Environmental restoration and pollution Subsection: 43.21C.0382 RCW Watershed restoration and fish abatement (including fish passage projects) habitat enhancement projects

Endangered Species Act (ESA) USFWS Consultation Type: Programmatic Completion date: 2/19/2019 NOAA Consultation Type: Programmatic Completion date: 2/19/2019

National Historic Preservation Act: Section 106 – Check all that apply. Has a Cultural Resources Specialist reviewed this project? Yes No If ‘yes’, provide date: 3/13/2017

Is the project on tribal lands? Yes No If ‘yes’, list tribe:

Is the project exempt under the 2012 Programmatic Agreement with FHWA & SHPO? Yes No If ‘yes’, list exemption:

Is the project located on Forest Service land? Yes No If ‘yes’ is the project exempt under the 2012 Programmatic Agreement with USFS? Yes No If ‘yes’ list exemption: 2/1/2019 Was a Cultural Resources Survey completed for this project? Yes No

If ‘yes’, provide completion date: If ‘yes’, Historic Cultural Archeological resources will be affected. See attached.

The project is not exempt under either Programmatic Agreement. DAHP concurrence is required: 2/4/2019 Consultation and concurrence by and/or is required Date of approved Section 106 MOA: See attached.

PART 3 - PERMITS3 & APPROVALS Federal: Check all that apply State: Check all that apply US Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) General Hydraulic Project Type: Type:

US Coast Guard Section 401 Water Quality Certification Coordination is required to complete NEPA. Certifying Entity: Contact Date: Aquatic Use Authorization (WDNR)

Coastal Zone Management Certification (CZM) Section 4(f) County: De minimis approval Temporary Occupancy approval Forest Practice Approval Section 4(f) Evaluation See attached. Issuing Agency: Section 6(f) Compliance (RCO/NPS) NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit See attached Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Coordination with Temporary Erosion Sediment Control Plan (TESC) administrator required. MOA attached Authorization for Use of Federal Land GEO 05-05 See attached Issuing Agency: Tribal Farmland Conversion Name of tribe: see attached NCRS documentation List of permits and approvals: See Notes Section Below Local: Check all that apply Other Plans/Approvals: Check all that apply Critical Areas Ordinance Compliance (CAO) Ecology Issuing Agency: List CAO Permits: See Notes Section Below Jurisdictional Stormwater Manual Issuing Municipality: Noise Variance (e.g. nighttime construction or maintenance) Issuing Agency: Flood Plain Development Permit Issuing Agency: Shoreline Management Program Issuing Agency: Permit Type: Notes PART 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION The information provided is based on review of GIS data in the WSDOT Environmental Workbench and field reviews by qualified WSDOT staff. NEPA Classification: SEPA Classification:

Subsection: Subsection:

Endangered Species Act (ESA) USFWS Consultation Type: Completion date: NOAA Consultation Type: Completion date:

National Historic Preservation Act: Section 106 – Check all that apply. Has a Cultural Resources Specialist reviewed this project? If ‘yes’, provide date:

Is the project on tribal lands? If ‘yes’, list tribe:

Is the project exempt under the 2012 Programmatic Agreement with FHWA & SHPO? If ‘yes’, list exemption:

Is the project located on Forest Service land? If ‘yes’ is the project exempt under the 2012 Programmatic Agreement with USFS? If ‘yes’ list exemption:

Was a Cultural Resources Survey completed for this project?

If ‘yes’, provide completion date: If ‘yes’,

The project is not exempt under either Programmatic Agreement. DAHP concurrence is required: Consultation and concurrence by and/or is required Date of approved Section 106 MOA: See attached.

ECS Standard Report WIN: A00596K I-5/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage Project Title: SR 548/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage PART 3 - PERMITS & APPROVALS

Federal: Check all that apply State: Check all that apply US Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) Section 404 Section 10 General Hydraulic Project Nationwide Type: Fish Habitat Enhancement Type: Fish Habitat Enhancement Individual US Coast Guard Section 401 Water Quality Certification Coordination is required to complete General Bridge Act NEPA. Certifying Entity: Ecology Contact Date: 10/23/2018 Aquatic Use Authorization (WDNR) Private Aids to Navigation (non-bridge projects) Coastal Zone Management Certification (CZM) Section 4(f) County: De minimis approval Whatcom Temporary Occupancy approval Forest Practice Approval Section 4(f) Evaluation See attached. Issuing Agency: Section 6(f) Compliance (RCO/NPS) NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit See attached General Individual Wild and Scenic Rivers Review Coordination with Temporary Erosion Sediment Control Plan (TESC) administrator required. MOA attached Authorization for Use of Federal Land GEO 05-05 See attached Issuing Agency: Tribal Farmland Conversion Name of tribe: see attached NCRS documentation List of permits and approvals: See Notes Section Below Local: Check all that apply Other Plans/Approvals: Check all that apply Critical Areas Ordinance Compliance (CAO) Ecology Migratory Bird Treaty Act -- See attached. Issuing Agency: Bald Eagle Protection Act -- See attached. List CAO Permits: Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) -- See attached. See Notes Section Below Marine Mammal Protection Act -- See attached. Jurisdictional Stormwater Manual Other -- See Notes. Issuing Municipality: Noise Variance (e.g. nighttime construction or maintenance) Issuing Agency: Flood Plain Development Permit Issuing Agency: Shoreline Management Program Issuing Agency: Permit Type: Notes A HazMat special provision has been recommended for use on this project due to its location next to a BNSF railway. EFH consultation was covered under the 2015 Programmatic Biological Assessment that WSDOT has in place with National Marine Fisheries Service. No bald eagle nests or roosts are documented within 1 mile of the project location; therefore, no impacts will occur to this species and no further documentation is required beyond this ECS. The project is exempt from local permits.

4 ECS Standard Report WIN: A00596K I-5/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage Project Title: SR 548/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage PART 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT -- CHECK ALL THAT APPLY. The information provided is based on review of GIS data in the WSDOT Environmental Workbench and field reviews by qualified WSDOT staff. Air Quality 1. Is the project exempt from Air Quality conformity requirements per WAC 173-420-110? Yes No If ‘yes’ list exemption: 110.1(g) and skip questions 2 & 3. Project construction will comply with federal, state and local requirements. If ‘no’ continue. 2. Will an air quality study be required? Yes No If ‘yes’, see attached. Check all that apply: The project is located in a Maintenance Area for: CO PM10 PM2.5 The project is located a Non-attainment Area for: CO PM10 PM2.5

3. Is the project listed in the MTP TIP? Yes No If ‘yes’, give MTP Adoption date:

Wetlands/Critical Areas/Resource Lands 1. Will wetlands be impacted by the project? Yes No If ‘no’ skip to question 2. Is a site review is required by a wetland specialist? Yes No If ‘yes’ provide completion date: 2/3/2017 Will a wetland delineation and discipline report be required? Yes No If ‘yes’ provide completion date: 1/2/2019

Estimated temporary wetland impacts (acres) 0 Estimated permanent wetland impacts (acres): 0 Estimated permanent wetland buffer impacts (acres) 0

Will mitigation be required? Yes No If ‘yes,’ see attached

2. Will the project affect fish, wildlife or habitat? Yes No If ‘yes’ list or attach documentation:

3. Is the project located in a Sole Source Aquifer? Yes No If ‘no’ skip to question 4. The project is exempt from EPA approval. The project received EPA approval on

4. Is the project located in a critical aquifer recharge area? Yes No If ‘no’ skip to question 5. Check only those that apply. The project is exempt requires approval from the county:

5. Will the project impact a geologically hazardous area? Yes No If ‘yes’, see attached.

6. Will the project require work in water or below the estimated OHWM? Yes No If ‘no’ skip to question 7 If work in water will be required, list waterbodies: Tributary to California Creek Will the project require work in Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs)? Yes No If ‘yes’, attach map showing RPW connectivity.

7. Is the project located in a 100-year floodway? Yes No Is the project located in a 100-year floodplain? Yes No

8. Will agricultural land be converted to transportation use? Yes No If ‘no’ skip to question 9. If ‘yes’ attach NRCS report and provide agricultural land classification: NRCS report attached. 9. Will other resource lands (i.e. Forest lands, mineral resource lands) be impacted? Yes No If ‘yes’, see attached.

Hazardous Materials 1. Does the project require excavation below the existing ground surface? Yes No If ‘no’ skip to question 2. If ‘yes’ answer questions 1a & 1b, then go to question 2. a. Is the project located within ½ mile radius of any Ecology listed sites that have the potential of impacting the project during construction? Yes No b. Will groundwater be encountered in an area of known contamination? Yes No

2. Will any properties be acquired as part of this project? 5 If ‘no’ skip to question 3. If “yes” answer 2a and 2b, then go to question 3: a. Are any of the properties listed on Ecology’s databases? b. Are any of the properties not listed on Ecology’s databases a high risk due to historic land use (i.e. gasoline station, auto-body shop, or dry cleaner)?

3. Based on the information above and the project specific activities, is there a potential for the project to acquire any known or potentially contaminated properties, or encounter contaminated soils, groundwater or surface water? If ‘no’ check box A. If ‘yes’ check box B and complete a Hazardous Materials Analysis Report.

A. Based on the proposed project description and construction activities, WSDOT is unlikely to assume liability for cleanup of contaminated soil or groundwater as part of this project, and it is concluded that no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated for are expected for the following reasons: 1) No known or suspected contaminated properties are being acquired; 2) Soil disturbance is anticipated to be less than 1 foot below ground surface with no known or suspected contamination; 3) Contaminated groundwater will not be encountered as part of this project. No further investigation is warranted at this time. B. A “right sized” Hazardous Materials Analysis Report is required. Attach a copy to this form. (If you have questions or concerns, please contact a Hazardous Materials Specialist).

Noise

1. Is this project a Type 1 noise project?

If ‘yes’, are sensitive receptors located adjacent to or within the project? If ‘yes’ See attached. 2. Do previous noise mitigation commitments exist within or adjacent to the project limits? If ‘yes’ See attached.

3. Is a noise study required? If ‘yes’ See attached.

Scenic Byways and State Scenic and Recreational Highways

1. Is the project located on a Scenic Byway? If ‘no’, skip to question 2. If ‘yes’ provide name:

2. Is the project located on a State Scenic and Recreational Highway? If ‘yes’ provide name: and scenic classification of (per Utilities Accommodation Policy Manual M 22-86) See attached. Title VI / Environmental Justice (EJ) 1. Will the project require detailed EJ analysis? If ‘no’, provide exemption number and description.

Water Quality/Stormwater 1. Will the project increase runoff? 2. Will the project affect water quality? If ‘yes’, treatment for new or existing impervious surfaces will be consistent with the guidance and requirements in the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual, unless the project stormwater runoff is treated by a local jurisdiction with a more stringent Stormwater Management Manual.

3. Does a TMDL waterbody have the potential to receive a dishcharge? If ‘yes’ list the waterbodies and pollutants of concern:

4. Does A 303d waterbody have the potential to receive a discharge? If ‘yes’ list the waterbodies and the pollutants of concern:

Visual Quality/Roadside Policy Manual/Aesthetics 1. Will the project disturb the roadside? (e.g. Cuts, fills, new lighting, clearing & grading, realignment, structures) If ‘yes’, review by a Landscape Architect is required. See attached.

2. Will the project disturb Resource Conservation Areas? (see Roadside Policy Manual M3110) If ‘yes’, review by a Landscape Architect is required. See attached.

List of Attachments PART 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT -- CHECK ALL THAT APPLY. The information provided is based on review of GIS data in the WSDOT Environmental Workbench and field reviews by qualified WSDOT staff. Air Quality 1. Is the project exempt from Air Quality conformity requirements per WAC 173-420-110? If ‘yes’ list exemption: and skip questions 2 & 3. Project construction will comply with federal, state and local requirements. If ‘no’ continue. 2. Will an air quality study be required? If ‘yes’, see attached. Check all that apply: The project is located in a Maintenance Area for: CO PM10 PM2.5 The project is located a Non-attainment Area for: CO PM10 PM2.5

3. Is the project listed in the MTP TIP? If ‘yes’, give MTP Adoption date:

Wetlands/Critical Areas/Resource Lands 1. Will wetlands be impacted by the project? If ‘no’ skip to question 2. Is a site review is required by a wetland specialist? If ‘yes’ provide completion date: Will a wetland delineation and discipline report be required? If ‘yes’ provide completion date:

Estimated temporary wetland impacts (acres) Estimated permanent wetland impacts (acres): Estimated permanent wetland buffer impacts (acres)

Will mitigation be required? If ‘yes,’ see attached

2. Will the project affect fish, wildlife or habitat? If ‘yes’ list or attach documentation:

3. Is the project located in a Sole Source Aquifer? If ‘no’ skip to question 4. The project is exempt from EPA approval. The project received EPA approval on

4. Is the project located in a critical aquifer recharge area? If ‘no’ skip to question 5. Check only those that apply. The project is exempt requires approval from the county:

5. Will the project impact a geologically hazardous area? If ‘yes’, see attached.

6. Will the project require work in water or below the estimated OHWM? If ‘no’ skip to question 7 If work in water will be required, list waterbodies: Will the project require work in Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs)? If ‘yes’, attach map showing RPW connectivity.

7. Is the project located in a 100-year floodway? Is the project located in a 100-year floodplain?

8. Will agricultural land be converted to transportation use? If ‘no’ skip to question 9. If ‘yes’ attach NRCS report and provide agricultural land classification: NRCS report attached. 9. Will other resource lands (i.e. Forest lands, mineral resource lands) be impacted? If ‘yes’, see attached.

Hazardous Materials 1. Does the project require excavation below the existing ground surface? If ‘no’ skip to question 2. If ‘yes’ answer questions 1a & 1b, then go to question 2. a. Is the project located within ½ mile radius of any Ecology listed sites that have the potential of impactingECS the project Standard during construction? Report

WIN: A00596Kb. Will groundwater I-5/Tributary be encountered to California in an areaCreek of known- Fish contamination? Passage Project Title: SR 548/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage

2. Will any properties be acquired as part of this project? Yes No If ‘no’ skip to question 3. If “yes” answer 2a and 2b, then go to question 3: a. Are any of the properties listed on Ecology’s databases? Yes No b. Are any of the properties not listed on Ecology’s databases a high risk due to historic land use (i.e. gasoline station, auto-body shop, or dry cleaner)? Yes No

3. Based on the information above and the project specific activities, is there a potential for the project to acquire any known or potentially contaminated properties, or encounter contaminated soils, groundwater or surface water? Yes No If ‘no’ check box A. If ‘yes’ check box B and complete a Hazardous Materials Analysis Report.

Noise

1. Is this project a Type 1 noise project? Yes No If ‘yes’, are sensitive receptors located adjacent to or within the project? Yes No If ‘yes’ See attached. 2. Do previous noise mitigation commitments exist within or adjacent to the project limits? Yes No If ‘yes’ See attached.

3. Is a noise study required? Yes No If ‘yes’ See attached.

Scenic Byways and State Scenic and Recreational Highways

1. Is the project located on a Scenic Byway? Yes No If ‘no’, skip to question 2. If ‘yes’ provide name:

2. Is the project located on a State Scenic and Recreational Highway? Yes No If ‘yes’ provide name: and scenic classification of (per Utilities Accommodation Policy Manual M 22-86) See attached. Title VI / Environmental Justice (EJ) 1. Will the project require detailed EJ analysis? Yes No If ‘no’, provide exemption number and description.

Water Quality/Stormwater 1. Will the project increase runoff? Yes No 2. Will the project affect water quality? Yes No If ‘yes’, treatment for new or existing impervious surfaces will be consistent with the guidance and requirements in the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual, unless the project stormwater runoff is treated by a local jurisdiction with a more stringent Stormwater Management Manual.

3. Does a TMDL waterbody have the potential to receive a dishcharge? Yes No If ‘yes’ list the waterbodies and pollutants of concern:

6 4. Does A 303d waterbody have the potential to receive a discharge? If ‘yes’ list the waterbodies and the pollutants of concern:

2. Will the project disturb Resource Conservation Areas? (see Roadside Policy Manual M3110) If ‘yes’, review by a Landscape Architect is required. See attached.

3. Is the project listed in the MTP TIP? If ‘yes’, give MTP Adoption date:

Estimated temporary wetland impacts (acres) Estimated permanent wetland impacts (acres): Estimated permanent wetland buffer impacts (acres)

Will mitigation be required? If ‘yes,’ see attached

2. Will the project affect fish, wildlife or habitat? If ‘yes’ list or attach documentation:

3. Is the project located in a Sole Source Aquifer? If ‘no’ skip to question 4. The project is exempt from EPA approval. The project received EPA approval on

4. Is the project located in a critical aquifer recharge area? If ‘no’ skip to question 5. Check only those that apply. The project is exempt requires approval from the county:

5. Will the project impact a geologically hazardous area? If ‘yes’, see attached.

7. Is the project located in a 100-year floodway? Is the project located in a 100-year floodplain?

b. Will groundwater be encountered in an area of known contamination?

2. Will any properties be acquired as part of this project? If ‘no’ skip to question 3. If “yes” answer 2a and 2b, then go to question 3: a. Are any of the properties listed on Ecology’s databases? b. Are any of the properties not listed on Ecology’s databases a high risk due to historic land use (i.e. gasoline station, auto-body shop, or dry cleaner)?

Noise

1. Is this project a Type 1 noise project?

3. Is a noise study required? If ‘yes’ See attached.

Scenic Byways and State Scenic and Recreational Highways

1. Is the project located on a Scenic Byway? If ‘no’, skip to question 2. If ‘yes’ provide name:

3. Does a TMDL waterbody have the potential to receive a dishcharge? If ‘yes’ list the waterbodies and pollutants of concern: ECS Standard Report WIN: A00596K I-5/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage Project Title: SR 548/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage

4. Does A 303d waterbody have the potential to receive a discharge? Yes No If ‘yes’ list the waterbodies and the pollutants of concern:

Visual Quality/Roadside Policy Manual/Aesthetics 1. Will the project disturb the roadside? (e.g. Cuts, fills, new lighting, clearing & grading, realignment, structures) Yes No If ‘yes’, review by a Landscape Architect is required. See attached.

2. Will the project disturb Resource Conservation Areas? (see Roadside Policy Manual M3110) Yes No If ‘yes’, review by a Landscape Architect is required. See attached.

Long-Term Environmental Commitments 1. Were previous long-term environmental commitments (environmental commitments that extend beyond the end of the construction phase such as wetland monitoring, preservation of landscape buffers, etc.) made within the project limits? Yes No If ‘yes’, see attached. 2. Will the project create long-term environmental commitments (environmental commitments that extend beyond the end of the construction phase such as wetland monitoring, preservation of landscape buffers, etc.)? Yes No If ‘yes’, see attached. Summary 1. Briefly describe environmental issues likely to affect design and mitigation measures for this project. No attachment per Long-term Environmental Commitments in item 2. Stream buffers will be restored post-construction. Plant establishment will likely continue for 3 years to establish riparian areas per the permitted performance measures as required by the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology.

List of Attachments 2017-03-02103_020419_ NO Historic Properties.pdf A54800D SR 548 Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage - Visual Quality.pdf Final SR548 California EJ_Letter w Attach.pdf WSDOT Cultural Short Report_CRP19-03_20190201_with attachments.pdf

7 PART 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT -- CHECK ALL THAT APPLY. The information provided is based on review of GIS data in the WSDOT Environmental Workbench and field reviews by qualified WSDOT staff. Air Quality 1. Is the project exempt from Air Quality conformity requirements per WAC 173-420-110? If ‘yes’ list exemption: and skip questions 2 & 3. Project construction will comply with federal, state and local requirements. If ‘no’ continue. 2. Will an air quality study be required? If ‘yes’, see attached. Check all that apply: The project is located in a Maintenance Area for: CO PM10 PM2.5 The project is located a Non-attainment Area for: CO PM10 PM2.5

3. Is the project listed in the MTP TIP? If ‘yes’, give MTP Adoption date:

Estimated temporary wetland impacts (acres) Estimated permanent wetland impacts (acres): Estimated permanent wetland buffer impacts (acres)

Will mitigation be required? If ‘yes,’ see attached

2. Will the project affect fish, wildlife or habitat? If ‘yes’ list or attach documentation:

3. Is the project located in a Sole Source Aquifer? If ‘no’ skip to question 4. The project is exempt from EPA approval. The project received EPA approval on

4. Is the project located in a critical aquifer recharge area? If ‘no’ skip to question 5. Check only those that apply. The project is exempt requires approval from the county:

5. Will the project impact a geologically hazardous area? If ‘yes’, see attached.

7. Is the project located in a 100-year floodway? Is the project located in a 100-year floodplain?

b. Will groundwater be encountered in an area of known contamination?

Noise

1. Is this project a Type 1 noise project?

3. Is a noise study required? If ‘yes’ See attached.

Scenic Byways and State Scenic and Recreational Highways

1. Is the project located on a Scenic Byway? If ‘no’, skip to question 2. If ‘yes’ provide name:

3. Does a TMDL waterbody have the potential to receive a dishcharge? If ‘yes’ list the waterbodies and pollutants of concern:

4. Does A 303d waterbody have the potential to receive a discharge? If ‘yes’ list the waterbodies and the pollutants of concern:

2. Will the project disturb Resource Conservation Areas? (see Roadside Policy Manual M3110) If ‘yes’, review by a Landscape Architect is required. See attached.

List of Attachments

ECS Standard Report WIN: A00596K I-5/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage Project Title: SR 548/Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage

CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET

Author: Cooper, Jason B.

Title of Report: Cultural Resources Survey for SR 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington

Date of Report: February 1, 2019

County: Whatcom Sections: 6 and 7 Township: 39 North Range: 2 East

Quad: Bertrand Creek, WA Acres: 1.2

PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes

Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No

Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No

TCP(s) found? Yes No

Replace a draft? Yes No

Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No

Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No

DAHP Archaeological Site #: • Submission of PDFs is required.

• Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures,

graphics, appendices, attachments,

correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file.

• Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened.

Cultural Resources Program Short Report No. 19-03 DAHP Log No. 2017-03-02103

Cultural Resources Survey for State Route 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington

Management Summary The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has conducted a cultural resources survey for a fish passage improvement project at State Route (SR) 548 Milepost (MP) 0.29 in Whatcom County (Figure 1). The proposed project is located within the City of Ferndale at the intersection of SR 548 (Grandview Road) and Portal Way immediately west of the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor (Table 1). The project will replace the existing 3-foot diameter concrete pipe with a 12-foot wide box culvert to provide unrestricted fish passage at this crossing (Photograph 1). Because this project will receive federal funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, applies. This report assists FHWA in fulfilling obligations under Section 106 and its implementing regulations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. A WSDOT cultural resources specialist conducted fieldwork for this project originally in 2017 and revisited the area in March 2018 and January 2019. Based on the results of the fieldwork, background research/literature review, and project consultation with affected Native American tribes and other interested parties, WSDOT has determined No Historic Properties Affected by the project (36 CFR Part 800.4(d)(1)).

Photograph 1. State Route 548 (Grandview Road) intersection with Portal Way in background; 3-foot diameter concrete pipe culvert and an unnamed tributary to California Creek in foreground. This culvert (Site ID 996003) was identified as a fish barrier and will be replaced with a 12-foot wide box culvert.

1 This document contains sensitive information regarding the location of archaeological sites which should not be disclosed to the general public or other unauthorized persons.

State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Administrative Data Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey for SR 548 - Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington Author: Jason B. Cooper, M.A., RPA Report Date: February 1, 2019

Location City: Ferndale County: Whatcom State Route: 548 Table 1. Project Location Information

¼ Section Section Township Range SW ¼ of SE ¼ 6 39 North 2 East NW ¼ of NE ¼ 7 39 North 2 East

USGS 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle: Bertrand Creek, Washington (1952; revised 1994)

Project Description WSDOT proposes to remove and replace the existing 3-foot diameter concrete pipe culvert underneath SR 548 at MP 0.29 with a 12-foot wide box culvert to provide fish passage at this crossing of an unnamed tributary to California Creek. The concrete pipe culvert is listed in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife database as ID 996003. The project is taking place west of I-5’s Exit 266 along SR 548 between Portal Way and the BNSF Rail corridor. Work will include excavation of roadway fill material, streambed grading, restoration of temporary impacts, utility relocations, re-paving and roadway striping. The maximum depth of construction excavation is approximately 15 feet below roadway elevation. A copy of the project’s plan and profile sheets are attached at the end of this report.

Regulatory Environment Section 106 Federal Agencies: FHWA Governor’s Executive Order 05-05 Other: To comply with United States, et al. vs. Washington et al. No. C70-9213 Subproceeding No.01-1 dated March 29, 2013 (a federal permit injunction requiring the State of Washington to correct fish barriers in Water Resource Inventory Areas [WRIAs] 1-23), WSDOT proposed this project in order to provide fish passage at the SR 548 crossing of an unnamed tributary to California Creek. The SR 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project (Project), which is located in WRIA 1, requires federal permits, mandating compliance with conditions set forth under Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations found in 36 CFR Part 800. The cultural resources survey and this technical report are consistent with WSDOT guidelines (Environmental Manual 31-11, Chapter 456) and State of Washington

3 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) survey, inventory, and reporting guidelines.

The NHPA provides for the establishment of the NRHP and the State Historic Preservation Officer/Office (SHPO). The NHPA also directs federal agencies to consider the effect of their activities on historic properties. Cultural resources studies for the project are subject to FHWA procedures and review in consultation with the DAHP and any federally recognized Native American tribe that may have ancestral connections to the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE).

The APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause, either directly or indirectly, a change of character or us of archaeological and/or historic resources. The definition of the APE is influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking. The APE for this undertaking is described in more detail in the next section.

Section 106 of the NHPA requires that a federal agency take into account the effects of any undertaking on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on these actions:

The term “historic property” is defined in the NHPA as: “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register”; such terms includes artifacts, records, and remains which are related to such district, site, building, structure, or object (Title III, Section 301,16 USC 470w [5]).

For federal projects, the significance of a cultural resource is evaluated in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and regulated through the CFR (36 CFR Part 800; 36 CFR Part 60). NRHP eligibility criteria are defined in 36 CFR 60.4 as follows:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that:

A. Are associated with events that have made a contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Are associated with the lives of people significant in our past; C. Embody the distinct characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

4 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Area of Potential Effects (APE) Total Project Area (Acres): Approximately 1.2 acres APE Description and Justification: The Project’s APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected (Figure 2). Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility relocations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The proposed project location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel. There are no previously documented historic buildings/structures located within and/or next to the Project's APE.

Consultation with DAHP, Tribes, and Other Interested Parties APE consultation with DAHP, Tribes and other interested parties was originally initiated in March 2017. DAHP concurred with the proposed APE in a letter dated March 24, 2017. WSDOT sent project Section 106 consultation letters to the Nooksack Indian Tribe, Lummi Nation, Samish Indian Nation, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe. WSDOT also contacted the Whatcom County Historical Society requesting any information on the project’s APE that they might have in their collection.

The Project’s APE was then revised in January 2018. An updated APE letter was sent at that time to DAHP, Tribes and other interested parties for comments. The project was subsequently delayed and then restarted at the end of 2018. Associated project correspondence is attached at the end of this report.

Background Research Sources Consulted: DAHP GIS Database Whatcom County Historical Society; Whatcom General Land Office Maps County Tax Assessor; Ferndale Library - Metsker’s Maps Whatcom County Library System; Washington NRCS Soil Survey State Digital Archives; Washington State Other: HistoricMapWorks.com; Archives-Northwest Regional Branch; and WSDOT’s Plans and Documents Archive HistoricAerials.com; Historical Scanned Aerials for Whatcom County, Washington;

5 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Statement of Limitation The cultural resources information described herein is the professional opinion of WSDOT staff based on the circumstances and site conditions at the time of this study. These professional opinions have been developed in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the archaeological profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. These findings are considered preliminary until state and federal jurisdictions concur with our findings.

This report may be exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and the Washington Privacy Act. In addition, archaeological site information, which includes records, maps, or other information identifying the location of archaeological sites in order to avoid the looting or depredation of such sites are exempt from disclosure under Revised Code of Washington 42.56.300.

6 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 LEGEND

APE BOUNDARY T.39N. R.2E. WM. WSDOT LIMITED ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY SECTION 6 WHATCOM COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY

RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY

STREAM THALWEG

EXISTING PAVED EDGE 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET EXISTING CULVERT

EXISTING TRAIN TRACKS

PROPOSED CULVERT

8 4 5

R S

WHATCOM COUNTY R/W WHATCOM COUNTY R/W

PORTAL WAY NEW CULVERT PORTAL WAY

WHATCOM COUNTY R/W BNSF R/W

BNSF RAILWAY

BNSF R/W

Y D A A W O

F R O W T E H I V IG D R N A T R O G D S W

Y A W

F O

T H IG R

T O D S W

FILE NAME c:\users\mcreynm\pw_wsdot\dms09831\APE Exhibit.dgn Plot 2

REGION STATE TIME 12:51:01 PM FED.AID PROJ.NO. PLAN REF NO NO. SR 548 DATE 1/18/2018 10 WASH UNNAMED TRIB TO CALIFORNIA CREEK APE1 PLOTTED BY mcreynm FISH PASSAGE DESIGNED BY M. MCREYNOLDS JOB NUMBER Washington State SHEET ENTERED BY M. MCREYNOLDS CHECKED BY M. LAMAY CONTRACT NO. LOCATION NO. Department of Transportation OF

PROJ. ENGR. S. SPAHR, PE

DATE DATE APE EXHIBIT SHEETS REGIONAL ADM. L. ENG REVISION DATE BY P.E. STAMP BOX P.E. STAMP BOX State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Previous Cultural Resources Surveys in or near the APE: None Listed Below

There have been three previously conducted cultural resources surveys within a 1/4 –mile of the Project’s APE (Table 2).

Table 2. Previous Cultural Resources Surveys in or near APE

Distance from Current Project Findings Relevant to the Author Date NADB Title APE Current Project Baldwin, G. 2015 1688208 Cultural Resources Review of the BNSF Within Historic land use practices Custer to Ferndale Double Track Project, (e.g., railroad) have Whatcom County, Washington greatly altered landscape Baldwin, G. 2014 1684814 Cultural Resources Review of the 300 feet 45WH958 – precontact Northgate Industrial Park, Ferndale, lithic material Washington Juell, K.E. et 2000 1340278 Cultural Resources Inventory of the 2,000 None al. Proposed Washington Light Lanes Project, feet Route 2 Backbone Downtown Seattle to I- 5 (MP 164), I-5 Seattle to Blaine (MP 164 to MP 276), and Blaine to Canadian Border

In 2015, Drayton Archaeology surveyed the BNSF Custer to Ferndale railroad corridor that passes through the SR 548 fish passage Project’s APE (Baldwin 2015). BNSF had designed an upgrade to the existing section of mainline track and wanted to construct an adjacent second mainline track east of the existing ones. Baldwin (2015:1), based on their background research and fieldwork, determined that no cultural materials or historic properties were observed within their project area. The report concluded that no soils or geologic conditions along the railroad corridor suggest the existence of significant subsurface archaeological deposits.

In 2014, Drayton Archaeology conducted a cultural resources review for an approximate 18-acre property south of SR 548 and west of the Project’s APE. During their work, Drayton’s archaeologists discovered precontact lithic material in the northwestern portion of the survey area (Baldwin 2014). The lithic material was assigned site number 45WH958 by DAHP (Solmo 2014). Site 45WH958 is located approximately 300 feet southwest of the Project’s APE.

DAHP’s archaeological predictive model, accessed in Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD), maps the Project’s APE high risk to very high risk for archaeological resources and indicates that an archaeological survey is highly advised.

8 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Recorded Archaeological Sites in or near the APE: None Listed Below

There is one previously documented archaeological site less than 1/4-mile southwest of the Project’s APE (Table 3).

Table 3. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites in or near the APE

Distance from Site Number Description Current Project APE NRHP Eligibility 45WH958 Precontact lithic material located west of 600 feet Unevaluated Northgate Way

As described on the previous page, site 45WH958 was documented during a cultural resources review by Drayton Archaeology for the Northgate Industrial Park (Baldwin 2014). Site 45WH958 consists of two isolated precontact lithic artifacts recovered from two adjacent shovel test probes (Solmo 2014). The report indicated that the lithic material was recovered from an archaeological context that was likely compromised as a result of agricultural grading/tilling of the field. In WISAARD, site 45WH958 is mapped on the east side of Northgate Way. According to the archaeological site inventory form for site 45WH958 (Solmo 2014), the two positive shovel test probes that contained precontact lithic material were located west of Northgate Way. Regardless, site 45WH958 will not be impacted as a result of constructing the proposed fish passage along an unnamed tributary of California Creek under SR 548.

Recorded Historic Buildings or Structures in the APE: None Listed Below

There are no previously documented historic buildings or structures located within or directly next to the APE. The nearest documented historic building/structure is a dairy barn located at the Robertson Dairy Farm (2358 Brown Road, Ferndale, Washington), approximately 3,000 feet southwest of the Project’s APE (Exhibit 1). The barn, which was built in 1925, was included within the Washington State Heritage Barn Register (Houser 2013). In 2015, the Robertson Dairy Farm was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP. The Robertson Dairy Farm will not be impacted as a result of the fish passage project. Exhibit 1. Robertson Dairy Farm, Ferndale (Source: Houser 2013).

9 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Soils: The Soil Survey of Whatcom County Area mapped Hale silt loam as the predominate soil within the Project's APE (Goldin 1992). The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) website also maps the APE as consisting of Hale silt loam. Hale silt loam is a very deep, poorly drained soil that sits atop glacial outwash terraces. The soil formed as a result of loess and volcanic ash combining over the glacial outwash. As a result of the soil being poorly drained, this soil is usually artificially drained with irrigation ditches. The project is located within Whatcom County's Drainage Improvement District #7 (DID #7).

WSDOT conducted a Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) within the Project’s APE (Jackson 2018). The GBR classified the subsurface materials within the APE into two distinctive stratigraphic units. The first stratigraphic unit is a medium dense to dense poorly graded sand. It was observed from ground surface to a depth of 20-25 feet below ground surface. The second unit is described as a dense to very dense well-graded gravel with silt and poorly graded sand with silt. This unit was found underlying the first stratigraphic unit to a depth of 60 feet below ground surface of the APE (Jackson 2018:2).

Environmental and Cultural Context Summary: California Creek is located in the northwestern portion of Whatcom County in WRIA 1. California Creek and its tributaries are watercourses constructed and/or maintained by DID #7. California Creek flows into Drayton Harbor south of the City of Blaine. The creek and its tributaries have seasonal flows and are used by salmonids. California Creek within DID #7 has been straightened but largely follows a historic stream channel and still retains some meanders and other natural features outside of the Project’s APE. The creek’s tributaries are primarily human constructed ditches to drain large wetlands. Approximately half of the land within DID #7 is productive farmland, while the other half is comprised of rural residences and large wetland areas. Commercial agricultural in the form of dairy and hay crops and rural residences/small farms are also common land uses in DID #7 (Whatcom Conservation District n.d.).

The fish passage barrier being removed for this Project is categorized within DID #7 as a constructed watercourse. Recent vegetation management and ditch scouring along this unnamed tributary of California Creek south of SR 548 exposed the east-facing bank (Photograph 2). The Whatcom Conservation District describes this unnamed tributary of California Creek as modified and simplified via historic maintenance dredging activities and is generally a straight watercourse with little complexity. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is the dominant vegetation along this stretch of the tributary (Whatcom Conservation District n.d).

Native vegetation of the Project’s APE once consisted of forests of the Tsuga heterophylla (Western Hemlock) Zone, which are characterized by climax western hemlock and western red cedar and sub-climax Douglas fir, with dense shrub and herbaceous understory (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Dominant understory taxa vary along moisture gradients and include snowberry, ocean spray, salal, Oregon grape, sword fern, and salmonberry. Along stream courses and on floodplains, red alder, black cottonwood, bigleaf and vine maples, salmon berries, and other riparian taxa predominate. Please refer to Baldwin (2014, 2015) for additional details on the environmental and geomorphologic contexts for this portion of Whatcom County.

10 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Photograph 2. View looking west-northwest toward an unnamed tributary of California Creek, south of State Route 548 and Portal Way intersection.

Precontact: The first human occupation of western Washington may date back about 12,000 years Before Present (BP) as evidenced at the Manis Mastodon site in Sequim, where a bone point and the spirally fractured bones of a mastodon indicate possible human hunting and butchering (Gustafson et al. 1979; Waters et al. 2011). Artifacts of the Clovis period, which began between 13,000 and 13,500 years BP elsewhere in North America, have been found in isolated locales in southern and central Puget Sound, but no occupation sites of this period have yet been found in Washington. The Richey Roberts site, a cache of Clovis blades near Wenatchee, is the sole in situ discovery of Clovis archaeology in Washington (Gramly 1991; Mehringer 1985). Several similar early sites that are coeval and possibly predating Clovis in the region are presented in recent literature (Huckeberry et al. 2003; Lenz 2006). This early culture is generally believed to have relied heavily on big game for subsistence, although there is evidence they also relied on plants and smaller animals (Cannon and Meltzer 2004).

As early as 9,000 years BP, as the climate stabilized cultural complexes with distinct lithic traditions emerged in the region (Carlson 1990; Fladmark 1979). These traditions demonstrate a “foraging” economy based on generalized resource procurement for immediate consumption and high residential group mobility (Ames 1981; Binford 1978). One of these distinct technologies is named the Old Cordilleran Tradition (Butler 1961). In western Washington, manifestations of the Old Cordilleran Tradition are recognized by unifacial pebble and cobble tools and chopper-like cores (Butler 1961). Other contemporaneous technologies include the Northwest Coast Microblade Tradition, which is identified by a rather diverse assemblage that includes microblade and microblade cores, leaf-shaped bifaces, and bifacial cores (Borden 1975;

11 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Fladmark 1979). The variety of technologies found in the archaeological record suggests the establishment of multiple well-defined cultural groups populating the Northwest Coast vicinity early on in the precontact-era.

The post-Clovis precontact-era of western Washington is commonly divided into four cultural periods — Archaic, Early, Middle, and Late — defined by a series of technological characteristics found at archaeological sites. The Archaic Period, which lasted for approximately 5,000 years, is classified archaeologically by the Old Cordilleran Tradition (Matson and Coupland 1995), with regional manifestations defined as the Olcott Complex in the Puget Sound region and the Cascade Phase east of the Cascade Range. Sites of this period typically occur on high marine and river terraces, sometimes at significant distances from modern water courses; they consist of concentrations of cobble cores; flakes; large, ovate knives; and broad-stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile points (Wessen 1990). These indigenous peoples are thought to have relied more on inland hunting than on fishing and shellfish procurement for subsistence, although finds along the British Columbia coast indicate aquatic resources were sometimes important (Blukis Onat 1987).

The end of the Archaic Period and the beginning of the Early Period, around 5,000 years BP, incorporates a continuation of the Old Cordilleran Tradition and the emergence of a distinct Northwest Coastal culture, but few sites in Washington can be attributed to this time interval (Morgan 1999; Blukis Onat et al. 2001; Chatters et al. 2011). Toward the end of this period as sea levels stabilized, the focus of subsistence activity seems to have changed from a reliance on terrestrial resources to marine resources; most sites appear along the coasts or major river systems. It is thought that this adaptation may have occurred earlier in the Gulf of Georgia and Fraser Valley regions of Canada (Stein 2000).

Early shell midden sites found in British Columbia have been attributed to the Charles Cultural Period with three contemporary regional phases identified. The Mayne Phase is found at sites in the Gulf of Georgia, the St. Mungo Phase is found within the Fraser Delta, and the Eayem Phase occurs in the Fraser Canyon (Carlson 1960). Charles Culture occupations indicate a general range of subsistence activities was still taking place; however, a marked increase of salmon, shellfish, and sea mammal remains are present at sites. Burials from this time period indicate that there was little or no status differentiation. Although the Olcott complex continues in the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula regions, it is currently only represented at inland sites. Coastal sites from that time interval in Puget Sound, San Juan Islands, and Olympic Peninsula share traits more similar to the Gulf of Georgia region. For this reason, archaeologists have adapted the Gulf of Georgia cultural chronology as a framework for classifying archaeological sites in the San Juan Islands (Stein 2000) and southern Salish Sea (Cooper 2015).

Archaeological sites associated with the Gulf of Georgia culture area are found to be technologically more complex and more diverse. They often include tools and ornaments of bone and antler, along with flaked stone. In Puget Sound and the Olympic Peninsula region, the Early Period is a transitional time represented archaeologically by a shift toward marine resource

12 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project utilization (Morgan 1999). The Cherry Point Site (45WH1), a well-studied site of the late Locarno Beach Phase and Marpole Phase, located along the shores of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve south of Birch Bay, is a large shell midden that was built up over the millennial from use of the area by the Puget Salish as a seasonal camp (Grabert 1988; Cooper 2015).

Human lifeways changed radically in the Early, Middle, and Late Periods (4,500 to 250 years ago), as people focused even more strongly on marine resources; the number and diversity of sites representing this time period increased markedly (Matson and Coupland 1995). People maintained permanent villages on the coast and along the lower reaches of inland rivers. They used these as home bases and storage warehouses for fish, shellfish, game, and plant foods systematically amassed during the warm seasons (Matson and Coupland 1995). Shell middens built up in saltwater settings. Cemeteries and petroglyph sites are often associated with villages, midden sites, and fishing camps; petroglyphs also occur occasionally in higher montane settings. Blazed cedars, stripped of bark for basketry or with planks removed from their living trunks, can still be found throughout the lowlands. Small open camps—left by hunters, fishers, plant gatherers, and traders—have been found from the lowlands well into the subalpine zone of the mountains, but they usually remain close to larger, permanent sources of water. These camps typically are concentrated along trade routes that linked communities living east and west of the Cascades.

Three distinct cultural phases have been defined for this period in the Gulf of Georgia culture area. These phases which include Locarno Beach, Marpole, and San Juan, have been documented at sites throughout the Gulf of Georgia, San Juan Islands, and Puget Sound.

The Locarno Beach Phase sites (4,000 – 2,500 years BP) indicate the presence of specialized resource-procurement strategies focused primarily on seasonal harvesting and a diversification of site activities. Subsistence during this phase shows a dependence on sea mammals, terrestrial mammals, shellfish, and fish (Matson and Coupland 1995). Evidence for the exploitation of floral taxa is also present. The archaeological assemblage shows greater technological diversity: ground slate tools such as points, knives, and celts; microblades/cores; pebble tools and expedient flakes; contracting stem flaked stone projectile points; composite harpoon tools; handstones and grinding slabs; antler wedges; and grooved or notched net sinkers (Mitchell 1990). The preservation of textiles from this phase shows the use of cordage and twine, netting, and basketry typically made using a crisscrossed thatched pattern. Unique to this phase is the appearance of clay-lined depressions and slab-lined pits for roasting and cooking (Matson and Coupland 1995). Currently, no evidence for storage has been identified. Beautifully carved anthropomorphic items made from antler and wood have been recovered along with T-shaped and oval labrets (Burley 1979). Sites are typically located at the mouths of major drainages and along low-lying marine terraces. Faunal elements present at Locarno Beach sites indicate that at least semi-seasonal residential movement was still practiced.

Marpole Phase sites (2,500 – 1,500 years BP) show a striking similarity to early ethnographic descriptions of Northwest Coast Indian villages. It has been suggested that Marpole represents

13 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

the establishment of the “Developed Northwest Coast Pattern” with large permanent or semi- permanent villages, intensive targeting and harvesting of seasonal resources, elaborate food storage, exquisitely manufactured art, and prominent social ranking (Burley 1979; Mitchell 1971). Material remains uncovered at Marpole Phase sites include thin-ground slate knives and points; leaf-shaped, stemmed, and unstemmed flaked stone projectile points; many varieties of hand mauls, some with elaborate anthropomorphic carvings on the top; microblades/cores; large ground stone celts; decorated pipes, bowls, and abraders; figurines carved from stone, bone, and antler; non-toggling unilaterally barbed antler harpoon points; antler wedges; and grinding stones and slabs (Mitchell 1971). Disk beads of shale or clamshell, native copper ornaments, and T- shaped labret status items are plentiful, along with rock cairn burials associated with dentalia. Post molds indicating large rectangular wooden structures were present. Marpole Phase faunal assemblages indicate heavy exploitation of spawning salmon near and up the Fraser River, while use of terrestrial and sea mammal, shellfish, and waterfowl are still notable. Wealth accumulation is pronounced not only by the funerary material remains, but also by cranial deformation seen in males and females signifying ascribed status was a cultural trait. Selection of prime fishing locations may have also been reserved for elite status families. Food storage in anticipation of future shortages is well-represented in the Marpole Phase.

The San Juan Phase (1,500 years BP – European contact) is hallmarked by the absence of certain Marpole traits. For instance, villages seem to decrease in size and in many cases show evidence of fortification; lithic assemblages show a decrease in tool types; and toggling harpoons return to use. It is also a period associated with the accumulation of large shell middens (Stein 1992). Ground slate continues to be heavily used along with a wide array of fishing equipment, such as herring rakes, fish gorges, leisters, composite fishhooks, nets, and line weights (Mitchell 1990). Preserved twining and basketry artifacts suggest the production of mats, cordage, and hats. Art during this period seems to be less expressional and generally subdued compared to Marpole times. This period may mark a time of resource depletion and stress (Burley 1979).

Ethnohistory: The ethnohistoric discussion presented here derives from Juell et al. (2000), which was developed during their investigation of a fiber optic telecommunications network along WSDOT’s interstate highway system in western Washington. The Project’s APE, during the ethnohistoric period, was occupied by a number of Puget Salish-speaking peoples. Between the Canadian border and Bellingham Bay-Lake Whatcom were speakers of Straits Salish, including the Semiahmoo and Lummi, and Nooksack (Suttles 1990). Native American peoples of Puget Sound generally were separated from their neighbors by boundaries of the watershed in which they lived. Their territories typically included both inland/riverine and coastal areas. Villages were politically autonomous, although bound to others within the same watershed by kinship, language, and social/economic interactions of various kinds (Suttles 1951). The economies of the Puget Salish were diverse, based on fishing, hunting and gathering resources on the Sound, in rivers and lakes, prairies, foothills, and mountains during their seasons of availability. The subsistence focus of those groups with saltwater access was on marine resources however, including salmon and other saltwater fish, marine mammals, and shellfish.

14 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Puget Salish-speaking groups spent winters in permanent villages of cedar plank houses located on lower river courses and sheltered bays. They relied mostly on stored foods and spent the time making and repairing tools, clothing, and other items, and engaging in ceremonial and religious activities. At the end of winter, they split up into smaller groups and traveled to seasonal camps throughout their territory to fish, hunt, and gather. Larger concentrations of people gathered for more intensive subsistence activities, primarily fishing and processing of salmon. Salmon, bulbs, berries, and other resources collected in quantity were dried and stored for winter consumption as well as eaten fresh. In the late fall, the Puget Salish returned to their winter villages.

The Point Elliot Treaty of 1855 established the Tulalip, Lummi, Swinomish, and Port Madison reservations to which all Puget Sound area groups were to be relocated, and ceded all other western Washington lands north of Seattle to the U.S. government. Many tribal people did not move to these reservations however, and remained in or near their traditional territories. Some groups were originally distinct but were conglomerated onto those reservations, and others who never moved to the reservations, have since applied for or received federal recognition. The Nooksack, Samish, and Stillaguamish are federally recognized, along with the Tulalip, Lummi, and Swinomish.

The Nooksack occupied the Nooksack River watershed and had three main villages about 10 miles upriver of Ferndale. They also had access to Chuckanut Bay west of Lake Whatcom (Russo 1981). Their subsistence was based on interior riverine and terrestrial resources as they had little direct access to saltwater until the mid-19th century. They were known as excellent hunters, and may have been the first north Puget Sound group to cultivate potatoes (Suttles 1951). In original Nooksack language, their place name for California Creek is Tl’eqx, which translates to “soggy all around” (Richardson and Galloway 2011).

The Lummi occupied portions of the San Juan Islands and the mainland between Point Whitehorn or Cherry Point and Chuckanut Bay, and east to Lake Terrell and perhaps the outlet of Lake Whatcom (Russo 1981; Suttles 1951). They are said to have lived full-time in the San Juan Islands until they moved their permanent villages to the mainland in the 19th century. Their subsistence was focused on marine resources, particularly salmon, and they developed a complex fishing technology that included use of gill nets, reef nets, and drag seines. The nearest documented Lummi village is located on the Nooksack River on high land near the mouth of stream just below Tennant Lake. Refered to as wh’s-WHEHK-ee-yum, this spot was probably occupied only after 1850 when the Nooksack River changed course forcing the relocation of a downstream village site known as, wh’sh-eech-EH-wuhlh, which translates into “portage” (Suttles 1974).

History: The Project’s APE is located in Whatcom County, which was established in 1854 by the Washington Territorial Government (Kirk and Alexander 2009). The county was established after the emergence of coal mining and sawmills, and the construction of a military fort on Bellingham Bay. By the end of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th century, Whatcom County became known for its strong lumber and agricultural lands.

15 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Government surveyors first mapped the township containing the project area in 1871 during the General Land Office (GLO) surveys of this part of the state. The resulting plat map of Township 39 North, Range 2 East, Willamette Meridian, does not illustrate any physical improvements in Sections 6 and 7 (GLO 1872) (Exhibit 2). This portion of the GLO map also depicts the south flowing Nooksack River, which empties into Bellingham Bay, and its confluence with the west flowing Wiser Lake Creek in Section 3.

Project’s APE

Exhibit 2. Portion of General Land Office map (1872) for Township 39 North, Range 2 East, Willamette Meridian showing the location of the Project’s APE and Nooksack River.

The APE is located within the modern northern city limits of Ferndale. The center of Ferndale is located approximately 3 miles south. Ferndale, incorporated in 1907, owes its beginnings to impassable logjams along the Nooksack River (Dougherty 2009). During the 1860s and 1870s when EuroAmericans began to settle the interior of Whatcom County, the Nooksack River was the primary route for travel. Several logjams impeded progress and prompted settlers to set up the community known as Ferndale at the portage around them. By the time the logjams were cleared by the late 1870s, Ferndale had become a small but thriving community.

By the late 19th century, Ferndale boasted a hotel, a store, and multiple houses. By 1890, the Fairhaven & Southern Railroad (F&S) Company built a rail line through town, ensuring its survival. Ferndale has slowly grown from a population of 256 in 1880 to 11,415 inhabitants according to the 2010 census. Today the economy of Ferndale is based on agriculture, businesses providing supplies and services to employees of refineries located near Puget Sound, and businesses catering to travelers along the I-5 corridor.

16 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

As mentioned previously, the Project’s APE incorporates Section 6 and 7 of Township 39 North, Range 2 East, Willamette Meridian. Original land patents for these sections were awarded during the 1880s. The southeast quarter of Section 6 was purchased by Jacob Garris in 1889. It is unclear if Garris ever improved upon this portion of his 160 acres. He died in 1907 at the age of 67 (Washington State Archives, Digital Archives 2017). James Bush, under the Homestead Act, acquired 160 acres in the northeast quarter of Section 7 in 1879. It is unclear if Bush ever improved upon this portion of his 160 acres.

The F&S was built in 1889/1890 by the Fairhaven Land Company. The Fairhaven Land Company was established by E.M. Wilson, E.L. Cowgill, Nelson Bennett, C.X. Larrabee, and Samuel E. Larrabee. Their railroad serviced the Fairhaven Coal Mines just outside of Sedro Wooley in Skagit County and transported the coal through Ferndale onto New Westminster in Canada. F&S merged with Seattle & Montana Railway Company in 1893, and sold off all their rights to the Seattle & Montana Railroad Company 1898, which was an operating subsidiary of the Great Northern Railway Company (Roberston 1995).

Immediately east and parallel of the Great Northern Railway corridor, the Washington State Highway Department constructed State Road No. 1 - Pacific Highway in the early 20th century. In this part of Whatcom County today, it is referred to as Portal Way. State Road No. 1 was the main north-south highway in Washington State and signed at different times as US 99 (1926) and Primary State Highway 1 (1937). Exhibit 3 presents a portion of the plan and profile sheet from 1926 for US 99 within the Project’s APE. The centerline for the highway is the solid line running from the southeast portion of the image to the northwest side of the image.

The plan sheet identifies several features of note including a rectangular building west of the railroad corridor and labeled it Enterprise. There are also three culverts depicted near the center of Exhibit 3 going underneath the various road corridors. These culverts were installed to drain and channel water associated with California Creek and associated wetland areas. Of note, the culvert shown going underneath Grandview Road (now SR 548) at the very center of the plan sheet is an earlier version of the culvert/fish barrier that is being removed for this project. The plan sheet describes this as an existing culvert located at Station 146+40, 30-inch diameter concrete pipe, and 47 feet in length. This culvert was eventually replaced with the 3-foot diameter concrete pipe culvert (approximately 145 feet in length) in the 1960s.

SR 548, also known as Grandview Road, was added to the state highway system in April 1992. This highway starts at I-5’s Exit 266 and heads west before turning north towards Blaine. The SR 548 corridor joins Portal Way on the north side of Dakota Creek in route to the border, where it is known as Peace Portal Way.

17 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

An early culvert underneath SR 548 / Grandview Road

Exhibit 3. Portion of the plan and profile sheet (1926) for State Road No. 1 – Pacific Highway at the future intersection of SR 548/Grandview Road and Portal Way. Directional north is toward the top of the page (Source: Washington State Department of Transportation - Plans and Documents Archive).

18 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Historic maps and historic aerial photographs provide a good record of property ownership and changes to the built environment during the 20th century. These maps and aerial photographs document the changes that occurred within the Project’s APE between 1925 and 1972 (Exhibits 4 and 5). Individuals that were identified as owning portions of Section 6 include John Sparnon, T.A. Rogers, William Cleary, B.H. Bartholomew, Tuenis Bode, and the Morse Hardware Company. The Morse Hardware Company is one of the oldest mercantile businesses in the Northwest located in the City of Bellingham and is also one of the oldest, continually operating family owned business in the region. A parcel northeast of the APE was the former residence of Cecil A. Morse, the eldest son of the founder of the company, Robert I. Morse. The Morse farmstead was demolished during the construction of I-5 Exit 266. Land owners identified in Section 7 included W.C. Klander and Loman Hansen.

Early 20th century maps refer to this area as Enterprise. Enterprise likely started as a mail stop along the Great Northern Railway north of Ferndale, but this is unconfirmed. Loman Hansen owned the property immediately west of the rectangular building depicted at Enterprise (Exhibit 3). The rectangular building associated with Enterprise is not present on the 1943 aerial image of the Project’s APE (Exhibit 4).

Today, on the east side of I-5, a Whatcom County road, running north/south is signed as North Enterprise Road. By 1942, the intersection of North Enterprise Road and Grandview Road was identified as the community of Enterprise. It is unclear when this place name was removed from the SR 548 intersection with the modern-day BNSF corridor and appointed to represent an intersection over a half mile away.

Exhibit 6 is a photograph from the Percival R. Jeffcoat papers and photographs collection housed at the Center for Pacific Northwest Studies, Western Libraries Heritage Resources, Western Washington University. This photograph shows a women standing along Grandview Road (SR 548) looking in the direction of both Portal Way and the railroad corridor in the 1960s.

19 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Bartholomew Farm

Morse Hardware Company Family Farm

Project’s APE

Grandview Road

Hansen Farm

State Road No. 1 Pacific Highway

Great Northern Railway

Exhibit 4. Historic aerial photograph from 1943 showing Project’s APE (not to scale) and other built environment features mentioned in the report (Source: Historical Scanned Aerials of Whatcom County).

20 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Project’s APE

Interstate 5 - Exit 266

Portal Way

Exhibit 5. Historic aerial photograph from 1966 showing Project’s APE (not to scale) and other built environment features mentioned in the report (Source: Historical Scanned Aerials of Whatcom County).

21 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Exhibit 6. Historic photograph looking west toward the Grandview Road (State Route 548) intersection with State Road No. 1 – Pacific Highway (modern-day Portal Way). (Source: Percival R. Jeffcoat papers and photographs #34, Center for Pacific Northwest Studies, Western Libraries Heritage Resources, Western Washington University).

22 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Fieldwork Dates of Survey: April 3, 2017; March 12, 2018; January 15, 2019 Field Personnel: Jason B. Cooper, M.A., RPA and Pat Svoboda, WSDOT Technician Weather and Surface Visibility: (2017) - Sunny, partly cloudy, 50-55 degrees Fahrenheit. 50 to 100% ground visibility; (2018) - .Sunny, warm, 60-65 degrees Fahrenheit. Same ground visibility as before; and (2019) - Sunny, cold 40-45 degrees Fahrenheit. Methods: The pedestrian archaeological survey of the APE was completed utilizing transects spaced at less than 10-meter intervals. Subsurface exploration was accomplished by digging shovel test probes (STPs) by hand and shovel at variable intervals within the proposed limits of ground disturbance. Table 4 lists the three excavated STPs and provides sediment description and results. Excavated STPs measured 30 to 40 centimeters wide at the surface and were dug down on average approximately 68 centimeters below ground surface (cmbgs). All excavated sediment was screened through 1/4-inch stainless steel mesh onto a tarp. All STPs were backfilled upon completion. Notes and photographs of the survey are on file at the WSDOT Northwest Region’s office in Seattle.

Subsurface Tests: None Described Below

Table 4. Shovel Test Probe Location Information, Sediment Description and Results

Test Type Number Sediments Findings Interpretation Shovel Test 1 0-20 cmbgs: mottled silty clay (7.5 YR 3/3) Negative Hale silt loam soil series Probe with loam and sand, loosely compacted, interbedded with sandy and rootlets deposits 20-45 cmbgs: silty clay (7.5YR 3/3) with sand and some gravel, loosely compacted 45-60 cmbgs: silt sand (7.5YR 6/3), loosely compacted 60-75 cmbgs: coarse sand with silt (10YR 3/1), loose, moist Shovel Test 2 0-20 cmbgs: silt (7.5YR 6/1), dry, compact Negative Hale silt loam soil series Probe 20-45 cmbgs: mottled silt with sand (7.5YR 5/6), gravel, loosely compacted 45-70 cmbgs: coarse grain sand (7.5YR 6/4) with gravel, loosely compacted, moist

23 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Test Type Number Sediments Findings Interpretation Shovel Test 3 0-15 cmbgs: silt with sand (7.5YR 6/3), Negative Modern glass fragments and Probe dry, compact metal screw were recovered 15-25 cmbgs: mottled silt with sand in top 15 cms. (7.5YR 6/4), compact to loosely compacted, moist 25-60 cmbgs: medium to coarse grain sand (7.5YR 3/1) with gravel, loosely compacted, wet

WSDOT archaeologist Jason B. Cooper surveyed the Project’s APE during several visits beginning in April 2017 and concluding in January 2019. The Project was originally delayed in 2017 and then the APE needed revision in early 2018. After the APE was revised, the Project was again placed on hold for most of the year before restarting again in the fall 2018. The STPs were excavated during the visit in April 2017 and revised APE was first surveyed in March 2018 and again inspected in early 2019.

Three STPs were excavated within the APE (Figure 3). STP No. 1 was excavated south of SR 548 on the west side of the irrigation ditch that contains the unnamed tributary of California Creek. Mottled silty clay, loam and sand was exposed throughout probe, matching the Hale silt loam soil series described in the county’s soil survey (Goldin 1992). STP No. 2 was excavated immediately south and west of the existing concrete pipe culvert underneath SR 548. This probe uncovered silt sand deposits down to a coarse sand layer approximately 70 cmbgs (28 inches). Modern glass was recovered in the second excavated layer of STP No. 2 indicating a fair of amount of soil disturbance in the area. The third STP was placed north of SR 548 and west of the culvert/ditch line that contains the unnamed tributary of California Creek. STP No. 3, like STP No. 2, had modern refuse within the top 15 centimeters (6 inches). Below that level, mottled sand with silt loam transitioned into medium grain sand and gravel deposits (Photograph 3). No precontact and/or historic period archaeological material was uncovered in these three excavated and screened probes.

The area along the southern margin of SR 548, within WSDOT right-of-way, was inspected for cultural resources between the railroad crossing and Northgate Way. This portion of the APE is proposed for drainage improvements along the edge of the state route. This 350-foot stretch along SR 548 consists entirely of road prism imported when the state route was expanded to its current dimensions.

On the east side of the intersection of SR 548 and Portal Way, these areas were all built upon imported road prism when the I-5 Exit 266 ramps were built in the 1960s (Photograph 4). These areas along the margins of SR 548 and east of Portal Way are all within the WSDOT right-of- way and/or have been turned into stormwater management features.

24 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 LEGEND

APE BOUNDARY T.39N. R.2E. WM. WSDOT LIMITED ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY SECTION 6 WHATCOM COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY

RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY

STREAM THALWEG

EXISTING PAVED EDGE 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET EXISTING CULVERT

EXISTING TRAIN TRACKS

PROPOSED CULVERT

48 5

R S

WHATCOM COUNTY R/W WHATCOM COUNTY R/W

PORTAL WAY NEW CULVERT PORTAL WAY

WHATCOM COUNTY R/W 3 2 1 BNSF R/W SHOVEL TEST PROBES

BNSF RAILWAY

BNSF R/W

D AY A W O

F R O W T IE V IGH D R N A T R G DO S W

AY W

F O

T H IG R

T DO S W

FILE NAME c:\users\mcreynm\pw_wsdot\dms09831\APE Exhibit.dgn Plot 2

REGION STATE TIME 12:51:01 PM FED.AID PROJ.NO. PLAN REF NO NO. SR 548 DATE 1/18/2018 Figure 3 10 WASH UNNAMED TRIB TO CALIFORNIA CREEK APE1 PLOTTED BY mcreynm FISH PASSAGE DESIGNED BY M. MCREYNOLDS JOB NUMBER Washington State SHEET ENTERED BY M. MCREYNOLDS CHECKED BY M. LAMAY CONTRACT NO. LOCATION NO. Department of Transportation OF

PROJ. ENGR. S. SPAHR, PE

DATE DATE APE EXHIBIT SHEETS REGIONAL ADM. L. ENG REVISION DATE BY P.E. STAMP BOX P.E. STAMP BOX SURVEY RESULTS MAP State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Photograph 3. STP No. 3 reaching the bottom of Level 2.

Photograph 4. View looking northwest toward the intersection of State Route 548 and Portal Way, City of Ferndale, Whatcom County.

26 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Cultural Resources Identified Archaeological Resources: No precontact and/or historic period archaeological resources were identified during the pedestrian survey and subsurface evaluation of the Project’s APE. Buildings or Structures: No historic buildings/structures were identified during the pedestrian survey of the Project’s APE.

Conclusions No Historic Properties Affected No Adverse Effects to Historic Properties Adverse Effects to Historic Properties

Other Conclusions and Recommendations: A WSDOT Cultural Resources Specialist conducted a cultural resources survey for the SR 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project. No archaeological material and/or historic buildings/structures were identified during the survey. As a result of our background research, project consultation and coordination, and cultural resources fieldwork, WSDOT recommends that there are No Historic Properties Affected within the Project’s APE.

An Unanticipated Discovery Plan (UDP) is attached to the report for use during construction excavation/installation of the new culvert. The UDP is designed for quick action when archaeological material is uncovered during construction excavation. The UDP identifies the people that need to be contacted and the actions that need to be taken in the field to secure any sensitive archaeological material (e.g., human remains).

27 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03 State Route 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project

Attachments Location Map (Figure 1) EZ-1 or EZ-2 Form(s) APE Map (Figure 2) Photographs (within report) Shovel Test/Transect Map (Figure 3) Other: Plan and Profile Sheets; Project Historic Property Inventory Form(s) Correspondence; and Unanticipated Archaeological Inventory Form(s) Discovery Plan

Certification I certify that:

• I am a WSDOT Cultural Resources Specialist meeting all applicable state and federal professional qualification standards; • I have reviewed, evaluated, and documented the methods and observations prepared here; and • This report is accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Name: Jason B. Cooper, M.A., RPA Signature:

Date: February 1, 2019

28 WSDOT CR Short Report 19-03

References

Ames, K.M. 1981 The Evolution of Social Ranking on the Northwest Coast of North America. American Antiquity 46(4):789-805.

Baldwin, G. 2014 Cultural Resources Review of the Northgate Industrial Park, Ferndale, Washington. Drayton Technical Report No. 0114H. Prepared for Land Development Engineering & Surveying, Inc., Ferndale, Washington. On file, State of Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.

2015 Cultural Resources Review of the BNSF Custer to Ferndale Double Track Project, Whatcom County, Washington. Drayton Technical Report No. 0415B. Prepared for J.L. Patterson & Associates, Inc. on behalf of BNSF, Sandpoint, Idaho. On file, State of Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.

Binford, L.R. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Blukis-Onat, A.R. 1987 Resource Protection Planning Process: Identification of Prehistoric Archaeological Resources in the Northern Puget Sound Study Unit. Ms on file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington.

Blukis-Onat, A.R., M.E. Morgenstein, P.D. LeTourneau, R.P. Stone, J. Kosta, and P. Johnson 2001 Archaeological Investigations at stuwe’yuqw – Site 45KI464, Tolt River, King County, Washington. BOAS, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to Seattle Public Utilities, Contract No. DC 98097.

Borden, C. 1975 Origins and Development of Early Northwest Coast Cultures to About 3,000 B.C. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series 45, Ottawa.

Burley, D. 1979 “Specialization and the evolution of complex society in the Gulf of Georgia region.” Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3:131-143.

Butler, B.R. 1961 “The Old Cordilleran Culture in the Pacific Northwest.” Occasional Papers No. 5. Idaho State College Museum, Pocatlello.

Cannon, M.D. and D.J. Melzer 2004 “Early Paleoindian foraging: examining the faunal evidence for large mammal specialization and regional variability in prey choice.” Quaternary Science Reviews 23.

Carlson, R. 1960 “Chronolgy and Culture Change in the San Juan Islands, Washington.” American Antiquity 25(4):562-586.

1990 Cultural Antecedents. In Handbook of North American Indians: Northwest Coast, Volume 7, pp. 60-69, edited by W. Suttles. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Chatters, J.C., J.B. Cooper, P. LeTourneau, and L. Rooke 2011 Understanding Olcott: Data Recovery at 45SN28 and 45SN303, Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared for Snohomish County. Prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental, Bothell, Washington.

Cooper, J.B. 2015 Draft – Cultural Resources Assessment Gateway Pacific Terminal, Whatcom County, Washington. Prepared for Pacific International Terminals, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., Bothell, Washington. Report on file at the State of Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.

Dougherty, P. 2009 Ferndale incorporates on March 19, 1907. HistoryLink.org Essay 9067. Web site, http:www.historylink.org, accessed on December 13, 2017.

Fladmark, K. 1979 Routes: Alternative Migration Corridors of Early Man in North America. American Antiquity 44(1):55-69.

Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness 1988 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, Oregon, Oregon State University Press.

General Land Office 1872 Cadastral Survey Plat, T39N, R2E. On file, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Spokane, Washington.

Goldin, A. 1992 Soil Survey of Whatcom County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Washington State University, Agricultural Research Center.

Grabert, G.F. 1988 Prehistoric and Historic Land Uses of Cherry Point, Ferndale, Washington. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Western Washington University, Bellingham.

Gramly, R.M. 1991 The Richey Clovis Cache. Persimmon Press, Buffalo, New York.

Gustafson, C.E., R.D. Daugherty, and D.W. Gilbow 1979 The Manis Mastodon Site: Early Man on the Olympic Peninsula. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3:157-164.

Houser, M. 2013 Washington State Heritage Barn Register, Round Fifteen - The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Electronic resource at https://dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Round15_BarnPresentation_2.pdf, accessed January 31, 2018.

Huckeberry, G., B. Lenz, S. Gough, and J. Galm 2003 Recent geoarchaeological discoveries in Central Washington: GSA Field Guide 4: Western Cordillera and Adjacent Areas, pp. 237-249.

Jackson, B.N. 2018 Geotechnical Baseline Report – SR 5 & SR 548 Tributary to California Creek – Fish Passage. On file Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle.

Juell, K.E., M.E. Parvey, J.A. Liddle, M.A. Nelson, and L.K. Norman 2000 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Washington Light Lanes Project, Route 2 Backbone Downtown Seattle to Interstate-5 (MP 164), I-5 Seattle to Blaine (MP 164 to MP 276), and Blaine to Canadian Border. NWAA Report WA00-3. On file State of Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.

Kirk, R. and C. Alexander 1990 Exploring Washington’s Past: A Road Guide to History. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Lenz, B.R. 2006 Geoarchaeology of the Richey Clovis Cache, East Wenatchee, Washington. Paper presented at the 2006 American Quaternary Meetings, Bozeman, Montana.

Matson, R.G. and G. Coupland 1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, New York.

Mehringer Jr., J.P. 1985 Age of the Clovis cache at East Wenatchee, Washington. Report on file, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Mitchell, D. 1971 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia Area, a Natural Region and its Culture Types. Syesis 4, Supplement 1.

1990 “Prehistory of the Coasts of Southern British Columbia and North Washington.” In Northwest Coast edited by W. Suttles, pp. 340-358. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Morgan, V.E. 1999 The SR-101 Sequim Bypass Archaeological Project: Mid- to Late-Holocene Occupation on the Olympic Peninsula, Clallam County, Washington. Reports in Archaeology and History, No. 100-108, Cheney, Washington, Eastern Washington University.

Richardson, A. and B.D. Galloway 2011 Nooksack Place Names: Geography, Culture and Language. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Robertson, D.B 1995 Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History, Volume III – Oregon and Washington. The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho.

Russo, K. 1981 Lummi and Nooksack. In The Inventory of Native American Religious Use, Practices, Localities, and Resources, Study Area on the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington State, Institute of Cooperative Research, Seattle.

Solmo, K.F. 2014 Site 45WH958 – State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form. On file State of Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia.

Stein, J. (editor) 1992 Deciphering a Shell Midden. Academic Press, San Diego.

2000 Exploring Coast Salish Prehistory: The archaeology of San Juan Island. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Suttles, W.P. 1951 The Economic Life of the Coast Salish of Haro and Rosario Straits. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.

1974 “Economic Life of the Coast Salish of Haro and Rosario Straits” in Coast Salish and Western Washington Indians, Volume 1. Garland Publishing, New York.

1990 “Central Coast Salish.” In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 453-475, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Whatcom Conservation District n.d. Whatcom County Drainage Improvement District #7, Drainage Management Plan. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology with support from the Centennial Clean Water Fund.

Washington State Archives, Digital Archives 2017 Jacob Garris Death Certificate, Department of Health, Death Index, 1907-1960; 1965- 2014, Washington State Archives, Digital Archives, http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov.

Waters, M., T. Stafford, H. McDonald, C. Gustafson, M. Rasmussen, E. Cappellini, J. Olsen, D. Szklarczyk, L. Jensen, M. Gilbert, and E. Willerslev 2011 “Pre-Clovis Mastodon Hunting 13,800 Years Ago at the Manis Site, Washington.” Science 334:351-353.

Wessen, G. 1990 Prehistory of the Ocean Coast of Washington. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 412-421, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Smithsonian Institution, Washington. D.C.

ATTACHMENTS

• Plan and Profile Sheet • Project Correspondence • Unanticipated Discovery Plan (UDP)

T. 39N. R. 2E. 0 25 50 ...... - SCALE IN FEET ... --::;:=-=,:.:- SECTION 6 7 '""' ' ' '' I / END PROJECT / SR 548 MP 0.25 A 34+44.0 P.O.C. I I I I I \ /� \ I \ I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '- - -- - ,;------' ''

------� WHATC C T R/W ------OM 9'UN Y '

,------12 ------15----�---r------r----�c--1'�------,-..._---� 19

_I ------) ' .... I ----- ; I , ,-- -" I - ---' ') I !_---/ I I I ( ______, \' �------

/ / / / / / l / / / r-..... I / I / // / (0 I ------___ / I ( , __ ) 1 ..._------:::." -- ___ , ,,, : �--- .... / ..... --- / _.,...... / ' ,__ ..... / ...... -- ...... ___ / , -- ... LEGEND - - - ·------'----� -�F - ...... - -.. RlW...__, _____ - ... �------... ------�,.,,...... --- ROADWAY CENTERLINE EXISTING STREAM THALWEG BEGIN PROJECT EXISTING RETAINING WALL SR 548 MP 0.31 EXISTING DITCH BOTTOM A 31+04.3 P.O.T. �------ ------EXISTING CULVERT EXISTING BANK EXISTING EDGE OF CONCRETE ,,, EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT .,. I ,,.,. I EXISTING RAILROAD CENTERLINE ,, I I INDEX CONTOUR I I INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR I I , Plot4 SR 548 PLAN REF NO TRIBUTARY TO CALIFORNIA CREEK CE2 D=-:E::::S::..:IG=-N=E=-D_:B::..:Y'------'R " MCEWAN JOB NUMBER i-: c"-='cc=��---+------t-----i------i Washington State FISH PASSAGE SHEET ENTERED BY R. MCEWAN xL 5232 CHECKED BY S. BEIER CONTRACT NO. LOCATION NO. Department of Transportation OF PROJ. ENGR. M. LAMAY DATE DATE EXISTING STREAM SHEETS REGIONAL ADM. M. COTTEN REVISION DATE BY P.E. STAMP BOX P.E. STAMP BOX T. 39N. R. 2E. 0 25 50 SCALE IN FEET SECTION 6

END PROJECT SR 548 MP 0.25 A 34+44.0 P.O.C.

,, LEGEND ' ' / ...... _____ / PROPOSED STREAM CENTERLINE -�)(;----�)�<'--)�(--)(�-� -x- - - • - • - • - • - • - • - EXISTING STREAM THALWEG PROPOSED STREAM BANK BEGIN PROJECT ------PROPOSED STRUCTURAL SHORING SR 548 MP 0.31 ------EXISTING RETAINING WALL CURVE DATA EXISTING DITCH BOTTOM A 31+04.3 P.O.T. CURVE # P.C. STATION P.I. STATION P.T. STATION RADIUS ------EXISTING EDGE OF CONCRETE ------CURVE #1 C 50+20.68 P.C. C 50+22.14 P.I. C 50+23.57 P.T. 8.00' EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT /" -- EXISTING RAILROAD CENTERLINE / I /" I CURVE #2 C 50+28.01 P.C. C 50+29.39 P.I. C 50+30.74 P.T. 8.00' ------INDEX CONTOUR / I I CURVE #3 C 51+96.48 P.C. C 51+98.37 P.I. C 52+00.19 P.T. 8.00' ------INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR I I � COARSE BAND I CURVE #4 C 52+04.71 P.C. C 52+05.50 P.I. C 52+06.29 P.T. 8.00' I , Plot 1 SR 548 PLAN REF NO TRIBUTARY TO CALIFORNIA CREEK CR2 D=-:E::::S::..:IG=-N=E:=.D_:B::..:Y'------'R MCEWAN JOB NUMBER i-: ="'-=c=��---+------t-----i------i Washington State FISH PASSAGE SHEET ENTERED BY R. MCEWAN xL 5232 CHECKED BY $_ BEIER CONTRACT NO. LOCATION NO. Department of Transportation OF PROJ. ENGR. M. LAMAY DATE DATE STREAM PLAN SHEETS REGIONAL ADM. M. COTTEN REVISION DATE BY P.E. STAMP BOX P.E. STAMP BOX ------1------

PORTAL WAY P LINE 15 16

WALL C PRECAST REINF. CONC. SPL TI WALL D SEE WPS1 BOX CULVERT NO. 1 SEE WPS1

C Cl "! ------, ------' :,w OHW ------1�--� ::i ------,------�------:::> _:.J � � � � ------,,,,r" - - - - - � t°::';��;;;:��==��==� ------LL--1------'� u ��==��''7, �� ==��;;::;;;;�;:;;� ;:;;:;��;;::;;;;;;;;;::;;;;:;;��;:;;;;;:::; ==-==-==�=-=:==--:==:--=:-= ' 11:. C , WALL B ' ,, 11:. ,, SEE WPS1 /(} �:... BEGIN CONSTRUCTION END CONSTRUCTION i'N = In .J C 50+00.0 P.O.B. C 52+53.1 P.O.E. = � 20 C 0 10 P 14+ 30.6 (26.8' RT) = P 16+83.0 (27.5' RT) = Ill SEE LEGEND ON SHEET ??. SCALE IN FEET � A 30+79.7 (89.8' LT) ,' ,' A 32+61.6 (85.0' RT) I! 'E 0 A LINE l � C 50 + 32 . 3 = E)ISTING C ROUND l RECAST REINF. CONC SP IT BOX CULVERtl N0 1 C 51 +9 37 = c".:z. v..s::. :.,..,,·s.: . : ,;.::,, .::,, :.. :,, .,,;:,,,,o. ,,, ,,,:,,:p,:i / C 51 +9'·i. 37 - o,ro ·eIll � �I

i \ ""EL . t>8.50

0.5' GRA"""==VEL= = !ACK=FIL=L ,___�� z ---+-'�� """" I FOR Pl P o NE BEDD�IN1e: CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE zf 1---t----lDO---r-=��F---'E ��t====t----l-clI- --+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-I\"'-= -=-�� CC"C�'--c='=�- -= -:c 7. �"" =-=��-+----+---IG,O---I o R O L ST e LI T N .; / F S l ,. 1 ZA 0I 1 Cl l A E I Ill == = = =' = ' e � � � -,---+-��- �· ��-±�\� �:��_ ��,�\�� -=-"� .. ELO W L l F N :. en.no C4 onU----+-----+---+-----+-----+-----+---+-----+------+---"C'> �,:ucn,.,_n _---+-----J---+----+------+-----!f---1 .c .!! 6 _,:i:: C 1 . EE C O A O AL A E E.. PERMEABLE BALLAST = ? TON' S P1 F R DDITI N QU N ITI S. ::, u .... SEE UTILITY I LAN AND SPECIAL PROVISIO f.lS � GRIIVEL BACKFILL FOR PIPE ZOl�E BEDDII G = ? C rt. .... FOR AD_OIILO�l.&.1 1•1cru:"'IATION . R � � GIR J EL BAC F FOIR ALL = 3. PREfAST REnlNING W �LL FOOT NGS AND � 1-----+----+---f---+----+---+----'� -'+"V�=�� :..,.::-I �IL=L��l--'-'W�==-- ?.,_ __ +-__ +-__ -+__ --+ ___ +-__ +-----l� 4 GRAVEL BACHILL FOR WALL IN ACCORDJIN CE i µ (J wm MANUFJI CTURES I ECOMMEI DATIONS. u STRUCTURE EXCAVAT ON CLASS A INCL. HAUL = 'l pwi" vu g :,a. ELEI ATIONS J RE IN FEET. � C 9 LINE �IL i FILE NAME T:1412358\XLS232 1-S & SR 548 Tributaries to Callfomla Creek • Fish Passa es\ CADISR 548\Sheets\ContractPlans AL nBrld e Structures\Culvert P IL Re;:,�N STATE IL TIME 6:10:36 AM FED.AID PROJ.NO. SR 548 PLAN REF. NO. � DATE 9/11/2018 10 WAS BCP1 :I! PLOTTED BY mcewanr TRIBUTARY TO CALIFORNIA CREEK � DESIGNED BY R.MCEWAN JOB NUMBER XL 5232 Washington State FISH PASSAGE SHEET a ENTERED BY R.MCEWAN � CHECKED BY S. BEIER CONTRA.CT NO. LOCATION NO. Department of Transportation t------i OF � PROJ. ENGR. M.LAMAY DATE DATE CULVERT PROFILE DETAILS SHEETS REGIONAL ADM. M.COTTEN REVISION DATE BY P.E. STAMP BOX P.E. STAMP BOX

March 24, 2017

Mr. Jason Cooper WA State Dept. of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA. 98133-9710

In future correspondence please refer to: Project Tracking Code: 2017-03-02103 Property: SR 548- Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project Re: APE Concur

Dear Mr. Cooper:

Thank you for contacting the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation regarding the above referenced project. In response, we have reviewed your description and map of the area of potential effect (APE).

We concur with your definition of the APE. Please provide us with your survey methodology before proceeding with any inventories. Along with the results of the inventory we will need to review your consultation with the concerned tribes, and other interested/affected parties. Please provide any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes and/or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36 CFR 800.4(a)(4).

These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the SHPO in conformance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36 CFR 800. Should additional information about the project become available, our assessment may be revised.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wardlaw Transportation Archaeologist (360) 586-3085 [email protected]

State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wa.gov

January 22, 2018

Mr. Jason Cooper WA State Dept. of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA. 98133-9710

In future correspondence please refer to: Project Tracking Code: 2017-03-02103 Property: SR 548- Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project Re: Revised APE Concur

Dear Mr. Cooper:

We concur with your definition of the revised APE. Please provide us with your survey methodology before proceeding with any inventories. Along with the results of the inventory we will need to review your consultation with the concerned tribes, and other interested/affected parties. Please provide any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes and/or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36 CFR 800.4(a)(4).

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wardlaw Transportation Archaeologist (360) 586-3085 [email protected]

State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wa.gov

Washington State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov

January 22, 2018

Dr. Allyson Brooks, SHPO Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) P.O. Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343

Re: State Route (SR) 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington, Request for Comment, Revised Area of Potential Effects (APE) – DAHP Log No. 2017-03-02103

Dear Dr. Brooks:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(c)(3), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with your office in regards to the SR 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites your comment on the revised Area of Potential Effects (APE) as defined below.

This undertaking will also require a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Pursuant to a Memorandum of Record from USACE dated November 6, 2008, USACE has designated FHWA to act on behalf of USACE to complete Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This Section 106 consultation will meet the obligations for both FHWA and USACE. It should be noted that the APE for USACE may be different from that of FHWA since the USACE APE only includes areas of USACE jurisdiction.

Please provide any comments by February 22, 2018.

Project Description In compliance with the culvert case court injunction, WSDOT will remove the fish passage barrier that was identified at the crossing of a tributary to California Creek along SR 548. The SR 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project will replace the existing 3-foot diameter pipe with a 12-foot wide box culvert to provide for unimpeded fish passage at this crossing. The revised APE includes areas both east and west of the proposed fish passage along the SR 548 corridor. Work will include excavation of roadway fill material, streambed grading, restoration of temporary impacts, utility relocations, re-paving and roadway striping. No new impervious surface is proposed. The maximum depth of construction excavation is approximately 15 feet below roadway elevation. The revised project’s APE covers 1.15 acres.

The project is located in unincorporated Whatcom County at Milepost (MP) 0.29 of SR 548 within Sections 6 and 7 of Township 39 North, Range 2 East (Willamette Meridian). This location is depicted on the attached vicinity map.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly SR 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project January 22, 2018 Page 2 of 3 affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re- locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Based upon a review of the DAHP WISAARD database, the APE has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. One archaeological resource, 45WH958, exists west of the APE according to DAHP WISAARD. Based on the technical report and site record, 45WH958 was discovered west of Northgate Way, while the mapping software of DAHP WISAARD plots site 45WH958 on the east side of Northgate Way. Regardless, site 45WH958 will not be directly or indirectly impacted as a result of implementing the proposed fish passage project. No other known historic properties exist within one half mile of the revised APE.

Identification of Consulting Parties and Public Outreach Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f), WSDOT has identified Whatcom County and the Whatcom County Historical Society as groups having a demonstrated interest in the project. Invitations will be sent to these groups to inquire as to whether they would like to be considered a consulting party for this undertaking. These invitations will also include copies of the revised APE for the project and information contained in this letter to seek their comment on the revised APE definition.

In addition to identifying consulting parties, WSDOT intends to engage in public outreach on this project to give the public a chance to comment consistent with 36 CFR 800.3(e). WSDOT will maintain a project specific webpage on the public WSDOT website.

Tribal Consultation WSDOT will also reinitiate consultation with the Lummi Nation, Nooksack Indian Tribe, the Samish Indian Nation and the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. Pursuant to the USACE Memorandum of Record dated November 6, 2008, WSDOT will inform the tribes that they may send their comments directly to USACE and consult directly with USACE if so desired.

We look forward to responding to any concerns those parties may identify and will notify you of any such concerns. Should you require additional information or have any questions please contact me at 206.440.4525, or by email at [email protected]. Thank you for your consultation on this project. SR 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project January 22, 2018 Page 3 of 3

Sincerely,

Jason B. Cooper, M.A., RPA Cultural Resources Specialist, WSDOT Northwest Region

Cc: Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP Sandra Manning, USACE Steve Shipe, WSDOT Project File

Atts: SR 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project Vicinity Map SR 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project Revised APE Map

LEGEND

APE BOUNDARY T.39N. R.2E. WM. WSDOT LIMITED ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY SECTION 6 WHATCOM COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY

RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY

STREAM THALWEG

EXISTING PAVED EDGE 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET EXISTING CULVERT

EXISTING TRAIN TRACKS

PROPOSED CULVERT

8 4 5

R S

WHATCOM COUNTY R/W WHATCOM COUNTY R/W

PORTAL WAY NEW CULVERT PORTAL WAY

WHATCOM COUNTY R/W BNSF R/W

BNSF RAILWAY

BNSF R/W

Y D A A W O

F R O W T E H I V IG D R N A T R O G D S W

Y A W

F O

T H IG R

T O D S W

FILE NAME c:\users\mcreynm\pw_wsdot\dms09831\APE Exhibit.dgn Plot 2

PROJ. ENGR. S. SPAHR, PE

DATE DATE APE EXHIBIT SHEETS REGIONAL ADM. L. ENG REVISION DATE BY P.E. STAMP BOX P.E. STAMP BOX

Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov The Honorable Jeremiah “Jay” Julius, Chair Lummi Nation 2616 Kwina Road Bellingham, WA 98226-9298

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Chairman Julius:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Lummi Nation in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Based upon a review of the DAHP WISAARD database, the APE has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. One archaeological resource, 45WH958, exists approximately 600 feet west of the APE according to DAHP WISAARD. Based on the technical report and site record, 45WH958 was discovered west of Northgate Way, while the mapping software of DAHP WISAARD plots site 45WH958 on the east side of Northgate Way. Site 45WH958 will not be directly or indirectly impacted as a result of implementing the proposed fish passage project. No other known historic properties exist within one half mile of the APE.

Recognizing the government-to-government relationship that FHWA has with the Lummi Nation, they will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency.

Your response to this letter, acknowledging your interest in participating in this undertaking as a consulting party, in identifying any historic properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) that may exist within the project’s Revised Area of Potential Effects (APE), and providing any key tribal contacts, is greatly appreciated. We are also inviting comments regarding any other tribal concerns the proposed project may raise. Please provide a response by February 23rd so that we may discuss this undertaking and any of those identified areas of interest. Should you have any questions about this project, you may contact Kevin Stuber by phone at (360) 767-5995 or by E-mail at [email protected].

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: Lena Tso, Lummi Nation THPO, w/attachments Merle Jefferson, Lummi Nation Natural Resources Director, w/ attachments Leroy Deardorff, Lummi Nation Environmental Director, w/ attachments Gregg Dunphy, Lummi Nation TFW/FFR Program Director, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Lena Tso, THPO Lummi Nation 2616 Kwina Road Bellingham, WA 98226-9298

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Ms. Tso:

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Recognizing the government-to-government relationship that FHWA has with the Lummi Nation, they will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Jeremiah “Jay” Julius, Chair, Lummi Nation, w/o attachments Tamela Smart, Lummi Nation Deputy THPO, W/ attachments Merle Jefferson, Lummi Nation Natural Resources Director, w/ attachments Leroy Deardorff, Lummi Nation Environmental Director, w/ attachments Gregg Dunphy, Lummi Nation TFW/FFR Program Director, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Tamela Smart, Deputy THPO Lummi Nation 2616 Kwina Road Bellingham, WA 98226-9298

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Ms. Smart:

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Recognizing the government-to-government relationship that FHWA has with the Lummi Nation, they will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Jeremiah “Jay” Julius, Chair, Lummi Nation, w/o attachments Lena Tso, Lummi Nation THPO, w/ attachments Merle Jefferson, Lummi Nation Natural Resources Director, w/ attachments Leroy Deardorff, Lummi Nation Environmental Director, w/ attachments Gregg Dunphy, Lummi Nation TFW/FFR Program Director, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Merle Jefferson, Natural Resources Director Lummi Nation 2616 Kwina Road Bellingham, WA 98226-9298

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Mr. Jefferson:

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Recognizing the government-to-government relationship that FHWA has with the Lummi Nation, they will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Jeremiah “Jay” Julius, Chair, Lummi Nation, w/o attachments Lena Tso, Lummi Nation THPO, w/attachments Leroy Deardorff, Lummi Nation Environmental Director, w/ attachments Gregg Dunphy, Lummi Nation TFW/FFR Program Director, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov

Leroy Deardorff, Environmental Director Lummi Nation 2616 Kwina Road Bellingham, WA 98226-9298

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Mr. Deardorff:

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Recognizing the government-to-government relationship that FHWA has with the Lummi Nation, they will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Jeremiah “Jay” Julius, Chair, Lummi Nation, w/o attachments Lena Tso, Lummi Nation THPO, w/attachments Merle Jefferson, Lummi Nation Natural Resources Director, w/ attachments Gregg Dunphy, Lummi Nation TFW/FFR Program Director, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Gregg Dunphy, TFW/FFR Program Director Lummi Nation 2616 Kwina Road Bellingham, WA 98226-9298

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Mr. Dunphy:

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Recognizing the government-to-government relationship that FHWA has with the Lummi Nation, they will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Jeremiah “Jay” Julius, Chair, Lummi Nation, w/o attachments Lena Tso, Lummi Nation THPO, w/attachments Merle Jefferson, Lummi Nation Natural Resources Director, w/ attachments Leroy Deardorff, Lummi Nation Environmental Director, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov The Honorable Bob Kelly, Jr., Chair Nooksack Tribe P.O. Box 157 Deming, WA 98244

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Chairman Kelly:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Nooksack Tribe in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Recognizing the government-to-government relationship that the Federal Highway Administration has with the Nooksack Tribe, FHWA will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: George Swanaset, Jr., Nooksack Tribe THPO, w/ attachments Trevor Delgado, Nooksack Tribe Cultural Resource Specialist, w/ attachments Ned Currence, Nooksack Tribe Fisheries Biologist, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov George Swanaset, Jr., THPO Nooksack Tribe P.O. Box 157 Deming, WA 98244

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Mr. Swanaset:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Nooksack Tribe in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Bob Kelly, Jr., Chair, Nooksack Tribe, w/o attachments Trevor Delgado, Nooksack Tribe Cultural Resource Specialist, w/ attachments Ned Currence, Nooksack Tribe Fisheries Biologist, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Trevor Delgado, Cultural Resource Specialist Nooksack Tribe P.O. Box 157 Deming, WA 98244

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Mr. Delgado:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Nooksack Tribe in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Bob Kelly, Jr., Chair, Nooksack Tribe, w/o attachments George Swanaset, Jr., Nooksack Tribe THPO, w/ attachments Ned Currence, Nooksack Tribe Fisheries Biologist, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Ned Currence, Fisheries Biologist Nooksack Tribe P.O. Box 157 Deming, WA 98244

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Mr. Currence:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Nooksack Tribe in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Bob Kelly, Jr., Chair, Nooksack Tribe, w/o attachments George Swanaset, Jr., Nooksack Tribe THPO, w/ attachments Trevor Delgado, Nooksack Tribe Cultural Resource Specialist, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov The Honorable Thomas Wooten, Chair Samish Nation P.O. Box 217 Anacortes, WA 98221

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Chairman Wooten:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Samish Nation in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Recognizing the government-to-government relationship that the Federal Highway Administration has with the Samish Nation, FHWA will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: Jacquelyn Ferry, Samish Nation THPO, w/attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Jacquelyn Ferry, THPO Samish Nation P.O. Box 217 Anacortes, WA 98221

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Ms. Ferry:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Samish Nation in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Thomas Wooten, Chair, Samish Nation, w/o attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Ms. J.E. Ryan, CBO Director, Whatcom County Planning and Development Services 5280 Northwest Drive Bellingham, Washington 98226

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Ms. Ryan:

In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with Whatcom County in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to be a consulting party for this undertaking and provide comment on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Your response to this letter, acknowledging your interest in participating in this undertaking as a consulting party, is greatly appreciated. Please provide a response by February 23rd so that we may discuss this undertaking and any of those identified areas of interest. Should you have any questions about this project, you may contact Kevin Stuber by phone at (360) 767-5995 or by E-mail at [email protected].

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: Project File Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments

Ms. Carole Teshima Whatcom County Historical Society P.O. Box 2116 Bellingham, Washington 98227

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Ms. Teshima:

In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Whatcom County Historical Society in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to be a consulting party for this undertaking and provide comment on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures

cc: Project File Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments

Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov The Honorable Jennifer Washington, Chair Upper Skagit Tribe 25944 Community Plaza Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Chairwoman Washington:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Upper Skagit Tribe in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Recognizing the government-to-government relationship that the Federal Highway Administration has with the Upper Skagit Tribe, FHWA will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: Scott Schuyler, Upper Skagit Tribe Policy Representative, w/attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Scott Schuyler, Policy Representative Upper Skagit Tribe 25944 Community Plaza Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Mr. Schuyler:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Upper Skagit Tribe in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Jennifer Washington, Chair, Upper Skagit Tribe, w/o attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov The Honorable Norma Joseph, Chair Sauk-Suiattle Tribe 5318 Chief Brown Lane Darrington, WA 98241

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Chairwoman Joseph:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Sauk- Suiattle Tribe in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

Recognizing the government-to-government relationship that the Federal Highway Administration has with the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, FHWA will continue to play a key role in this project as the responsible federal agency.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager CJK:ss Enclosures cc: Kevin Lenon, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Vice Chair, w/ attachments Natalie Misanes, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Planning & Program Development Coord., w/ attach. Ben Joseph, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe THPO, w/ attachments Kevin Joseph, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe TCP Coordinator, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Ben Joseph, THPO Sauk-Suiattle Tribe 5318 Chief Brown Lane Darrington, WA 98241

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Mr. Joseph:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Sauk- Suiattle Tribe in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Norma Joseph, Chair, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, w/o attachments Kevin Lenon, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Vice Chair, w/ attachments Natalie Misanes, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Planning & Program Development Coord., w/ attach. Kevin Joseph, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe TCP Coordinator, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments

Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Kevin Joseph, TCP Coordinator Sauk-Suiattle Tribe 5318 Chief Brown Lane Darrington, WA 98241

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Mr. Joseph:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Sauk- Suiattle Tribe in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Norma Joseph, Chair, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, w/o attachments Kevin Lenon, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Vice Chair, w/ attachments Natalie Misanes, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Planning & Program Development Coord., w/ attach. Ben Joseph, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe THPO, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments

Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Kevin Lenon, Vice-Chair Sauk-Suiattle Tribe 5318 Chief Brown Lane Darrington, WA 98241

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Mr. Lenon:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Sauk- Suiattle Tribe in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Norma Joseph, Chair, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, w/o attachments Natalie Misanes, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Planning & Program Development Coord., w/ attach. Ben Joseph, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe THPO, w/ attachments Kevin Joseph, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe TCP Coordinator, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Roger Millar Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206) 440-4000 January 23, 2018 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Natalie Misanes, Planning & Program Development Coordinator Sauk-Suiattle Tribe 5318 Chief Brown Lane Darrington, WA 98241

SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington REVISED Area of Potential Effects

Dear Ms. Misanes:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is reinitiating consultation with the Sauk- Suiattle Tribe in regards to the SR548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a). Since WSDOT has been delegated the authority from FHWA to initiate consultation, we will directly manage the cultural resources studies as part of carrying out this undertaking; however, you may contact FHWA at any time for assistance with the process and/or the undertaking. On behalf of FHWA, WSDOT invites you to provide comments on the Revised APE as defined below.

Definition of the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE) The project APE includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed and areas where historic structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are primarily anticipated where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. Anticipated ground disturbing activities associated with this project include excavation and placement of fill for the removal and replacement of the culvert at this location, the adjustment of the creek alignment, and utility re-locations.

Historic structures may be directly affected by the above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. The location is semi-rural with a mix of light industry and single-family residential farmsteads dotting the landscape. However, a few structures are within visual proximity to the proposed project. For this reason, the APE includes the horizontal and vertical limits of the proposed construction excavation described above and one adjacent Whatcom County tax parcel.

If you have any general questions about the Section 106 process, you may contact Steve Shipe by phone at (206) 440-4531 or by E-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cameron J. Kukes Environmental Programs Manager

CJK:ss Enclosures cc: The Honorable Norma Joseph, Chair, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, w/o attachments Kevin Lenon, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe Vice Chair, w/ attachments Ben Joseph, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe THPO, w/ attachments Kevin Joseph, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe TCP Coordinator, w/ attachments Jeff Horton, Federal Highway Administration, w/ attachments Dennis Wardlaw, DAHP, w/o attachments Susan Buis, USACOE, w/o attachments Kevin Stuber, WSDOT NWR Environmental Permitting Specialist, w/o attachments PLAN AND PROCEDURES FOR THE UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS

STATE ROUTE (SR) 548 TRIBUTARY TO CALIFORNIA CREEK FISH PASSAGE, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON

1. INTRODUCTION

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) plans to construct the SR 548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage project. The purpose of this project is to replace the existing 3-foot diameter concrete pipe culvert with a 12-foot wide box culvert to improve fish passage upstream. The following Unanticipated Discovery Plan (UDP) outlines procedures to follow, in accordance with state and federal laws, if archaeological materials or human remains are discovered.

2. RECOGNIZING CULTURAL RESOURCES

A cultural resource discovery could be prehistoric or historic. Examples include:

• An accumulation of shell, burned rocks, or other food related materials

• Bones or small pieces of bone,

• An area of charcoal or very dark stained soil with artifacts,

• Stone tools or waste flakes (i.e. an arrowhead, or stone chips),

• Clusters of tin cans or bottles, logging or agricultural equipment that appears to be older than 50 years,

• Buried railroad tracks, decking, or other industrial materials.

When in doubt, assume the material is a cultural resource.

3. ON-SITE RESPONSIBILITIES

STEP 1: STOP WORK. If any WSDOT employee, contractor or subcontractor believes that he or she has uncovered a cultural resource at any point in the project, all work adjacent to the discovery must stop. The discovery location should be secured at all times.

STEP 2: NOTIFY MONITOR. If there is an archaeological monitor for the project, notify that person. If there is a monitoring plan in place, the monitor will follow its provisions.

STEP 3: NOTIFY WSDOT PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM. Contact the WSDOT Project Manager and the Assigned Cultural Resources (CR) Specialist:

WSDOT Project Manager: Assigned CR Specialist: Name: Chris Damitio Name: Jason Cooper Number: 360-788-7403 Number: 206-440-4525 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

If you can’t reach the Assigned CR Specialist, contact the Project Tribal Coordinator or the Alternate CR Specialist below:

Project Tribal Coordinator Alternate CR Specialist: Name: Steve Shipe Name: Scott Williams Number: 206-440-4531 Number: 360-570-6551 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

The Project Manager or the Assigned CR Specialist will make all other calls and notifications.

If human remains are encountered, treat them with dignity and respect at all times. Cover the remains with a tarp or other materials (not soil or rocks) for temporary protection in place and to shield them from being photographed. Do not call 911 or speak with the media.

2 4. FURTHER CONTACTS AND CONSULTATION

A. Project Manager’s Responsibilities:

• Protect Find: The WSDOT Project Manager is responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery site. All work will stop in an area adequate to provide for the total security, protection, and integrity of the resource. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. Work in the immediate area will not resume until treatment of the discovery has been completed following provisions for treating archaeological/cultural material as set forth in this document.

• Direct Construction Elsewhere On-site: The WSDOT Project Manager may direct construction away from cultural resources to work in other areas prior to contacting the concerned parties.

• Contact Assigned CR Specialist: If the Assigned CR Specialist has not yet been contacted, the Project Manager will do so.

B. Assigned CR Specialist’s Responsibilities:

• Identify Find: The Assigned CR Specialist will ensure that a qualified professional archaeologist examines the find to determine if it is archaeological.

o If it is determined not archaeological, work may proceed with no further delay.

o If it is determined to be archaeological, the Assigned CR Specialist will continue with notification.

o If the find may be human remains or funerary objects, the Assigned CR Specialist will ensure that a qualified physical anthropologist examines the find. If it is determined to be human remains, the procedure described in Section 5 will be followed.

• Notify DAHP: The Assigned CR Specialist will contact the involved federal agencies (if any) and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP).

• Notify Tribes: If the discovery may relate to Native American interests, the Assigned CR Specialist will also contact the project’s Tribal Liaison, or, if the project is not assigned a Liaison, the Executive Tribal Liaison.

3 Federal Agencies: Agency: FHWA Name: Jeff Horton Title: Area Engineer Number: 360 753-9411 Email: [email protected]

Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Dr. Allyson Brooks Dennis Wardlaw State Historic Preservation Officer Transportation Archaeologist 360-586-3066 360-586-3085

Tribal Liaisons: Project Tribal Coordinator Executive Tribal Liaison Name: Steve Shipe Name: Megan Cotton Number: 206-440-4531 Number: 360-705-7025 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

The Tribal Liaison, or Assigned CR Specialist, will contact the interested and affected Tribes.

Tribes consulted on this project are:

Tribe: Lummi Tribe: Nooksack Name: Lena Tso Name: George Swanaset, Jr. Title: THPO Title: THPO Number: 360 312-2257 Number: 360 592-5176 Email: [email protected] Email: gswanasetjr@nooksack- tribe.org

Tribe: Sauk-Suiattle Tribe: Samish Name: Ben Joseph Name: Jackie Ferry Title: THPO Title: Cultural Resources Number: 360 436-0131 Number: 360 293-6404 ext.126 Email: Email: [email protected]

Tribe: Upper Skagit Name: Scott Schuyler Title: Cultural Resources Number: 360-854-7009 Email: [email protected]

4 C. Further Activities

• Archaeological discoveries will be documented as described in Section 6.

• Construction in the discovery area may resume as described in Section 7.

5. SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN SKELETAL MATERIAL

Any human skeletal remains, regardless of antiquity or ethnic origin, will at all times be treated with dignity and respect.

If the project occurs on federal lands (e.g., national forest or park, military reservation) the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 apply, and the responsible federal agency will follow its provisions. Note that state highways that cross federal lands are on an easement and are not owned by the state.

If the project occurs on non-federal lands, WSDOT will comply with applicable state and federal laws, and the following procedure:

A. Notify Law Enforcement Agency or Coroner’s Office:

In addition to the actions described in Sections 3 and 4, the Project Manager will immediately notify the local law enforcement agency or coroner’s office.

The coroner (with assistance of law enforcement personnel) will determine if the remains are human, whether the discovery site constitutes a crime scene, and will notify DAHP.

Whatcom County Sheriff (NOT 911) Business phone: (360) 676-6650

B. Participate in Consultation:

Per RCW 27.44.055, RCW 68.50, and RCW 68.60, DAHP will have jurisdiction over non-forensic human remains. WSDOT personnel will participate in consultation.

C. Further Activities:

• Documentation of human skeletal remains and funerary objects will be agreed upon through the consultation process described in RCW 27.44.055, RCW 68.50, and RCW 68.60.

• When consultation and documentation activities are complete, construction in the discovery area may resume as described in Section 7.

6. DOCUMENTATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS

Archaeological deposits discovered during construction will be assumed eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D until a formal Determination of Eligibility is made.

A WSDOT CR Specialist will ensure the proper documentation and assessment of any discovered cultural resources in cooperation with the federal agencies (if any), DAHP, affected tribes, and a contracted consultant (if any).

All prehistoric and historic cultural material discovered during project construction will be recorded by a professional archaeologist on State of Washington cultural resource site or isolate form using standard techniques. Site overviews, features, and artifacts will be photographed; stratigraphic profiles and soil/sediment descriptions will be prepared for subsurface exposures. Discovery locations will be documented on scaled site plans and site location maps.

Cultural features, horizons and artifacts detected in buried sediments may require further evaluation using hand-dug test units. Units may be dug in controlled fashion to expose features, collect samples from undisturbed contexts, or interpret complex stratigraphy. A test excavation unit or small trench might also be used to determine if an intact occupation surface is present. Test units will be used only when necessary to gather information on the nature, extent, and integrity of subsurface cultural deposits to evaluate the site’s significance. Excavations will be conducted using state-of-the-art techniques for controlling provenience.

Spatial information, depth of excavation levels, natural and cultural stratigraphy, presence or absence of cultural material, and depth to sterile soil, regolith, or bedrock will be recorded for each probe on a standard form. Test excavation units will be recorded on unit-level forms, which include plan maps for each excavated level, and material type, number, and vertical provenience (depth below surface and stratum association where applicable) for all artifacts recovered from the level. A stratigraphic profile will be drawn for at least one wall of each test excavation unit.

Sediments excavated for purposes of cultural resources investigation will be screened through 1/8-inch mesh, unless soil conditions warrant ¼-inch mesh.

All prehistoric and historic artifacts collected from the surface and from probes and excavation units will be analyzed, catalogued, and temporarily curated. Ultimate disposition of cultural materials will be determined in consultation with the federal agencies (if any), DAHP, and the affected tribes.

Within 90 days of concluding fieldwork, a technical report describing any and all monitoring and resultant archaeological excavations will be provided to the Project Manager, who will forward the report to the Assigned WSDOT CR Specialist for review and delivery to the federal agencies (if any), SHPO, and the affected tribe(s).

6 If assessment activity exposes human remains (burials, isolated teeth, or bones), the process described in Section 5 above will be followed.

7. PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION

Project construction outside the discovery location may continue while documentation and assessment of the cultural resources proceed. A WSDOT CR Specialist must determine the boundaries of the discovery location. In consultation with DAHP and affected tribes, Project Manager and the Assigned CR Specialist will determine the appropriate level of documentation and treatment of the resource. If federal agencies are involved, the agencies will make the final determinations about treatment and documentation.

Construction may continue at the discovery location only after the process outlined in this plan is followed and WSDOT (and the federal agencies, if any) determine that compliance with state and federal laws is complete.

7 Washington State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710

(206) 440-4000 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov

February 1, 2019

Dennis Wardlaw, Transportation Archaeologist Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) P.O. Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343

Log: 2017-03-02103 Property: State Route (SR) 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington Re: Request for Concurrence, No Historic Properties Affected

Dear Mr. Wardlaw:

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(c)(3), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is continuing consultation with your office in regards to the SR 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, which FHWA has determined to be an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a).

WSDOT, on behalf of FHWA, initiated consultation with your office in regards to the Area of Potential Effects (APE) by letter in March 2017. Your office provided a concurrence with the APE on March 24, 2017. WSDOT also initiated consultation with Whatcom County and Whatcom County Historical Society as consulting parties and with the Lummi Nation, NookSack Indian Tribe, Samish Indian Nation, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe as Indian tribes who may attach religious or cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking. The APE was subsequently revised in January 2018 and updated project letters were sent to DAHP, Native American tribes, and other interested consulting parties. DAHP concurred with the revised APE on January 22, 2018.

A WSDOT cultural resources specialist conducted a cultural resources survey of the project’s APE. The report of that survey has been uploaded to WISAARD and is associated with DAHP Log No. 2017-03-02103. The fieldwork included an archaeological pedestrian survey of the entire APE (1.2 acres) and subsurface exploration of areas that maintained a high probability for unknown and significant cultural resources. No archaeological material was identified during WSDOT’s fieldwork effort. No historic properties were identified within the Project’s APE.

WSDOT, on behalf of FHWA, is submitting the technical report for this project through WISAARD for your review with the recommendation that the Project as designed will result in No Historic Properties Affected (36CFR800.4(d)(1)). WSDOT is sending this recommendation and the attached report to Whatcom County and Whatcom County Historical Society, as well as to the Lummi Nation, NookSack Indian Tribe, Samish Indian Nation, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe. WSDOT will provide you with any comments that the agency receives from the consulting parties and the tribes. SR 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project February 1, 2019 Page 2 of 2

WSDOT, on behalf of FHWA, respectfully requests your concurrence with our determination that the project will result in No Historic Properties Affected.

Please provide your response to this request by March 4, 2019.

Should you require additional information or have any questions please contact me at 206.440.4525, or by email at [email protected]. Thank you for your continued consultation on this project.

Sincerely,

Jason B. Cooper, M.A., RPA Cultural Resources Specialist, WSDOT Northwest Region

Cc: Allyson Brooks, SHPO Jeff Horton, FHWA Susan Buis, USACE Steve Shipe, WSDOT Beth Toberer, WSDOT Project File

Att: via WISAARD – Cultural Resources Survey for SR 548 – Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project, Whatcom County, Washington

February 4, 2019

Mr. Jason Cooper Cultural Resource Specialist WA State Dept. of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA. 98133-9710

In future correspondence please refer to: Project Tracking Code: 2017-03-02103 Property: SR 548- Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage Project Re: No Historic Properties Affected

Dear Mr. Cooper:

Thank you for contacting the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and providing a copy of the cultural resources survey report for the above referenced project. As a result of our review, we concur with recommendations made in the report and your finding of No Historic Properties Affected. As a result of our concurrence, further contact with DAHP on this matter is not necessary.

However, if information becomes available and/or the scope of work changes, please resume consultation with DAHP and all consulting parties. In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and contact made with concerned tribes and DAHP for further consultation.

We appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36 CFR 800.4(a)(4).

These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in conformance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36 CFR 800.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wardlaw Transportation Archaeologist (360) 586-3085 [email protected]

State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wa.gov

Date: December 4, 2018

TO: Project File

FROM: Steve Shipe Phone 206-440-4531

SUBJECT: SR548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage project – Environmental Justice Determination

In compliance with the Presidential Executive Order 12898, DOT Order 5610.2 and FHWA Order 6640.23, an Environmental Justice Analysis was conducted for the SR548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage project. The results of the EJ Decision Matrix show that the project will not have any adverse effects on minority or low income populations. The analysis complies with approved WSDOT guidance and procedures.

Project Description The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to replace a 148-foot long concrete culvert at SR 548 (Grandview Road) and Portal Way. The existing 3-foot diameter concrete pipe shall be replaced with a 12-foot wide culvert to improve fish passage in the Unnamed Tributary to California Creek as it flows under State Route (SR) 548. This project is located on SR 548 from Milepost (MP) 0.25 to MP 0.31 in Whatcom County, Washington.

Demographics Data Table 1 summarizes 2010 census data for the area within ½ mile each side of centerline of the project.

Table 1: Population by Race Minority Number of Percentage Persons White Alone 136 80% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 26 15% American Indian and Alaskan Native Alone 2 1% Black or African American Alone 1 1% Asian Alone or in Combination 1 1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0% Alone Some Other Race Alone or in Combination 4 2% of Races TOTAL POPULATION 12 100% To SR 548 Unnamed Tributary to California Creek Project File December 4, 2018 Page 2

Source: EJView web site Census 2010 Summary Report attached. Percentages were adjusted to account for rounding.

There are three elementary schools all approximately the same distance from the project site. They are also the closest elementary schools to the proposed detours. Because of these factors, demographics for all three schools were evaluated for this project. The three schools are: Cascadia, Custer, and Skyline. All three are in the Ferndale School District. The school demographic data are summarized in Tables 2, 3, & 4. Cascadia and Custer verify the census data, while Skyline has a substantial Native American presence. In a call with the Ferndale School District, this higher number was confirmed because it is the closest school to and draws a substantial portion of its student population from the Lummi Nation reservation.

Table 2: Cascadia Elementary School Demographic Data Enrollment Percentage White 283 61.3% Hispanic or Latino 111 24.1% American Indian and Alaskan Native 7 1.6% Black or African American 3 0.7% Asian 27 5.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0% Two or More Races 30 6.5%

Free or Reduced – Price Meal Participation 239 51.8% Transitional Bilingual Education 75 16.3% Source: Washington State Office of Public Instruction Washington State Report Card website. Report attached. Percentages were adjusted to account for rounding.

Table 3: Custer Elementary School Demographic Data Enrollment Percentage White 261 73.8% Hispanic or Latino 68 19.4% American Indian and Alaskan Native 6 1.7% Black or African American 0 0.0% Asian 5 1.4% Asian / Pacific Islander 1 0.3% Two or More Races 12 3.4%

Free or Reduced – Price Meal Participation 185 52.4% Transitional Bilingual Education 40 11.3% To SR 548 Unnamed Tributary to California Creek Project File December 4, 2018 Page 3

Source: Washington State Office of Public Instruction Washington State Report Card website. Report attached. Percentages were adjusted to account for rounding.

Table 4: Skyline Elementary School Demographic Data Enrollment Percentage White 259 57.0% Hispanic or Latino 58 12.7% American Indian and Alaskan Native 88 19.4% Black or African American 5 1.2% Asian 11 2.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0% Two or More Races 33 7.2%

Free or Reduced – Price Meal Participation 211 46.4% Transitional Bilingual Education 23 5.1% Source: Washington State Office of Public Instruction Washington State Report Card website. Report attached. Percentages were adjusted to account for rounding.

Project Effects The project will replace a 148-foot long concrete culvert at SR 548 (Grandview Road) and Portal Way. The existing 3-foot diameter concrete pipe will be replaced with a 12- foot wide culvert to improve fish passage in the Unnamed Tributary to California Creek as it flows under State Route (SR) 548. There will be no acquisitions or relocations, no operational increase in noise, and no change to public transportation, or parking.

The project is located in a rural area of Whatcom County with a minimal connecting road network. Pedestrian and vehicle access will be maintained during construction. Several traffic control strategies were evaluated, and a detour was identified as the most workable option for impacts to the community and traveling public. Two detours have been designed: one utilizing Portal Way, N. Enterprise Road, and Birch Bay Lynden Road on the east side of I-5 (just under 10 miles in length), and Brown Road, Vista Drive, SR548, and Birch Bay Lynden Road on the west side of I-5 (approximately 15 miles)(See attached map of detour routes). A review of the demographic data for the detour routes shows the same minority and low-income populations as the project area (see attached reports). As noted above, the detour routes occur within the Cascadia, Custer, and Skyline Elementary School boundaries. The project office will work with local officials to ensure that the route does not disproportionately affect EJ populations.

The project may include night work to minimize traffic disruption and project durations. This will cause a short-term increase in nighttime noise levels. If night work is planned, a noise variance will be obtained from the appropriate local agency. Measures to To SR 548 Unnamed Tributary to California Creek Project File December 4, 2018 Page 4 minimize impacts to adjacent residents will be adopted in compliance with the local noise ordinance. Adjacent residents will be notified in writing before the work begins.

Short-term increases in dust will impact adjacent residences during construction, but these impacts are not highly adverse and will be mitigated through best management practices.

Determination This determination is based on information provided by to Design-Builder at 30% design in the project development process. If any answers in the EJ Decision Matrix (Attachment 1) change as a result of final design, including right of way acquisition or detour routes, to where this analysis is rendered unacceptable, an updated Environmental Justice review will be undertaken.

No minority or low-income populations have been identified that would be disproportionately adversely affected by this project as determined above. Therefore, this project has met the provisions of Executive Order 12898, as it is supported by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

SJS: sjs Attachments: Completed EJ Decision Matrix for SR548 Tributary to California Creek 2010 Census Summary Report 2006-2010 ACS Summary Report Cascadia Elementary School OSPI Washington State Report Card Summary Report Custer Elementary School OSPI Washington State Report Card Summary Report Skyline Elementary School OSPI Washington State Report Card Summary Report SR548 Tributary to California Creek Detour Map SR548 Tributary to California Creek East Side Detour 2010 Census Report SR548 Tributary to California Creek East Side Detour 2006-2010 ACS Report SR548 Tributary to California Creek West Side Detour 2010 Census Report SR548 Tributary to California Creek West Side Detour 2006-2010 ACS Report

Decision Matrix for SR548 Tributary to California Creek Fish Passage project

EAs and EISs will require analysis – See the Decision Matrix for Complex Projects.

The following step-by-step matrix uses a series of yes/no questions to determine if analysis is warranted for small projects that are unlikely to have environmental impacts (CEs/DCEs). Answer the questions using the best available existing environmental data and project description or design.

1. Are any protected populations present within the proposed limits of the project’s impacts? _X__ Yes: Proceed to Question 2 ____ No: document findings in ECS. Include demographic data (TSK 458-b). Findings must be confirmed by 2 data sources.

2. Does the proposed project: a. Require any right of way acquisition or relocations? ____ Yes __X__ No b. Require any traffic detours during construction? __X__ Yes ____ No c. Result in any noise impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors, specific to affected populations present? ____ Yes __X__ No d. Result in any air quality impacts? ____ Yes __X__ No e. Result in changes in the existing access to the roadway, adjacent residences or businesses? ____ Yes __X__ No f. Divide the community, restrict access to services, or affect the overall cohesion of the community? ____ Yes __X__ No g. Result in, or increase exposure to, hazardous materials or other health effects? ____ Yes __X__ No

If you answered “YES” to any of the previous questions, documentation is required. If you answered “No” to all of the previous questions, proceed to Question 3.

3. Will the proposed project result in any other impacts to any known protected populations? ____ Yes: Describe and analyze the proposed project’s potential to result in impacts to the protected population as described in Chapter 458 and supporting web page. __X__ No: Document findings in ECS. No further analysis is required

1 WSDOT NWR Environmental Completed: 12/4/18 by S. Shipe EJ^ZECensus 2010 Summary Report

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

Summary Census 2010 Population 171 Population Density (per sq͘ mile) 180 Minority Population 35 % Minority 20% Households 67 Housing Units 71 Land Area (ƐƋ͘mŝůĞƐ) 0.95 % Land Area 98% Water Area (ƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞƐ) 0.02 % Water Area 2%

Population by Race Number Percent Total 171 ------Population Reporting One Race 166 97% White 148 87% Black 1 0% American Indian 2 1% Asian 1 1% Pacific Islander 0 0% Some Other Race 13 8% Population Reporting Two or More Races 5 3% Total Hispanic Population 26 15% Total Non-Hispanic Population 145 85% White Alone 136 80% Black Alone 1 0% American Indian Alone 2 1% Non-Hispanic Asian Alone 1 1% Pacific Islander Alone 0 0% Other Race Alone 0 0% Two or More Races Alone 4 2%

Population by Sex Number Percent

Male 88 51% Female 83 49%

Population by Age Number Percent Age 0-4 11 6% Age 0-17 49 28% Age 18+ 122 72% Age 65+ 20 12%

Households by Tenure Number Percent Total 67 Owner Occupied 50 74% Renter Occupied 17 26%

Data Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Hispanic population can be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

ϭͬϭ :^ZE^^ƵŵŵĂƌǇZĞƉŽƌƚ

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

^ƵŵŵĂƌǇŽĨ^ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ 2012 - 2016 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 155 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĞŶƐŝƚǇ;ƉĞƌƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞͿ 163 DŝŶŽƌŝƚǇWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 51 йDŝŶŽƌŝƚǇ 33% ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐ 63 ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐ 67 ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐƵŝůƚĞĨŽƌĞϭϵϱϬ 10 WĞƌĂƉŝƚĂ/ŶĐŽŵĞ 20,588 >ĂŶĚƌĞĂ;ƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞƐͿ;^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗^&ϭͿ 0.95 й>ĂŶĚƌĞĂ 98% tĂƚĞƌƌĞĂ;ƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞƐͿ;^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗^&ϭͿ 0.02 йtĂƚĞƌƌĞĂ 2% 2012 - 2016 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ DK;цͿ ^ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇZĂĐĞ dŽƚĂů 155 100% 627 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐKŶĞZĂĐĞ 152 99% 1,126 tŚŝƚĞ 115 74% 611 ůĂĐŬ 5 3% 93 ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶ 4 2% 63 ŝƐŝĂŶ 0 0% 45 WĂĐŝĨŝĐ/ƐůĂŶĚĞƌ 0 0% 12 ^ŽŵĞKƚŚĞƌZĂĐĞ 29 19% 302 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐdǁŽŽƌDŽƌĞZĂĐĞƐ 2 1% 106 dŽƚĂů,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 44 28% 289 dŽƚĂůEŽŶͲ,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 111 tŚŝƚĞůŽŶĞ 103 67% 601 ůĂĐŬůŽŶĞ 3 2% 70 ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶůŽŶĞ 4 2% 63 EŽŶͲ,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐƐŝĂŶůŽŶĞ 0 0% 45 WĂĐŝĨŝĐ/ƐůĂŶĚĞƌůŽŶĞ 0 0% 12 KƚŚĞƌZĂĐĞůŽŶĞ 0 0% 12 dǁŽŽƌDŽƌĞZĂĐĞƐůŽŶĞ 1 0% 46 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇ^Ğǆ DĂůĞ 75 48% 307 &ĞŵĂůĞ 80 52% 384 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇŐĞ ŐĞϬͲϰ 7 5% 174 ŐĞϬͲϭϳ 29 19% 236 ŐĞϭϴн 125 81% 385 ŐĞϲϱн 28 18% 148

ĂƚĂEŽƚĞ͗ĞƚĂŝůŵĂǇŶŽƚƐƵŵƚŽƚŽƚĂůƐĚƵĞƚŽƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ͘,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĐĂŶďĞŽĨĂŶǇƌĂĐĞ͘ EͬŵĞĂŶƐŶŽƚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ͘^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗h͘^͘ĞŶƐƵƐƵƌĞĂƵ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ƵƌǀĞǇ;^Ϳ2012 - 2016 ͘

November 29, 2018 ϭͬϯ :^ZE^^ƵŵŵĂƌǇZĞƉŽƌƚ

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

2012 - 2016 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ DK;цͿ ^ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϮϱнďǇĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůƚƚĂŝŶŵĞŶƚ dŽƚĂů 108 100% 409 >ĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϵƚŚ'ƌĂĚĞ 18 17% 203 ϵƚŚͲϭϮƚŚ'ƌĂĚĞ͕EŽŝƉůŽŵĂ 7 6% 90 ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů'ƌĂĚƵĂƚĞ 29 27% 295 ^ŽŵĞŽůůĞŐĞ͕EŽĞŐƌĞĞ 39 36% 190 ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĞŐƌĞĞ 9 8% 78 ĂĐŚĞůŽƌΖƐĞŐƌĞĞŽƌŵŽƌĞ 15 14% 120 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŐĞϱнzĞĂƌƐďǇďŝůŝƚǇƚŽ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚ dŽƚĂů 147 100% 547 ^ƉĞĂŬŽŶůǇŶŐůŝƐŚ 109 74% 478 1+2+3+4 EŽŶͲŶŐůŝƐŚĂƚ,ŽŵĞ 38 26% 250 1 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗǀĞƌǇǁĞůůΗ 16 11% 152 2 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗǁĞůůΗ 12 8% 106 3 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗŶŽƚǁĞůůΗ 6 4% 106 4 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗŶŽƚĂƚĂůůΗ 43%74 3+4 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶǁĞůůΗ 10 7% 129 2+3+4 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶǀĞƌǇǁĞůůΗ 23 15% 167 >ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐĂůůǇ/ƐŽůĂƚĞĚ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐΎ dŽƚĂů 4 100% 72 ^ƉĞĂŬ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ 2 59% 64 ^ƉĞĂŬKƚŚĞƌ/ŶĚŽͲƵƌŽƉĞĂŶ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐ 2 41% 30 ^ƉĞĂŬƐŝĂŶͲWĂĐŝĨŝĐ/ƐůĂŶĚ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐ 00%12 ^ƉĞĂŬKƚŚĞƌ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐ 00%12 ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐďǇ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ/ŶĐŽŵĞ ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ/ŶĐŽŵĞĂƐĞ 63 100% 157 фΨϭϱ͕ϬϬϬ 10 16% 109 Ψϭϱ͕ϬϬϬͲΨϮϱ͕ϬϬϬ 5 8% 102 ΨϮϱ͕ϬϬϬͲΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ 18 29% 113 ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬͲΨϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ 15 24% 133 Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬн 15 23% 120 KĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐďǇdĞŶƵƌĞ dŽƚĂů 63 100% 157 KǁŶĞƌKĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ 44 70% 165 ZĞŶƚĞƌKĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ 19 30% 126 ŵƉůŽǇĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŐĞϭϲнzĞĂƌƐ dŽƚĂů 130 100% 417 /Ŷ>ĂďŽƌ&ŽƌĐĞ 72 55% 357 ŝǀŝůŝĂŶhŶĞŵƉůŽǇĞĚŝŶ>ĂďŽƌ&ŽƌĐĞ 8 6% 102 EŽƚ/Ŷ>ĂďŽƌ&ŽƌĐĞ 58 45% 230

ĂƚĂEŽƚĞ͗ĂƚĂŝůŵĂǇŶŽƚƐƵŵƚŽƚŽƚĂůƐĚƵĞƚŽƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ͘,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĐĂŶďĞŽĨĂŶǇƌĂĐĞ͘ EͬŵĞĂŶƐŶŽƚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ͘^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗h͘^͘ĞŶƐƵƐƵƌĞĂƵ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ƵƌǀĞǇ;^Ϳ Ύ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐŝŶǁŚŝĐŚŶŽŽŶĞϭϰĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƉĞĂŬƐŶŐůŝƐŚΗǀĞƌǇǁĞůůΗŽƌƐƉĞĂŬƐŶŐůŝƐŚŽŶůǇ͘

November 29, 2018 Ϯͬϯ :^ZE^^ƵŵŵĂƌǇZĞƉŽƌƚ

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

2012 - 2016 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ DK;цͿ ^ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ^ƉŽŬĞŶĂƚ,ŽŵĞΎ dŽƚĂů;ƉĞƌƐŽŶƐĂŐĞϱĂŶĚĂďŽǀĞͿ N/A N/A N/A ŶŐůŝƐŚ N/A N/A N/A ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ N/A N/A N/A &ƌĞŶĐŚ N/A N/A N/A &ƌĞŶĐŚƌĞŽůĞ N/A N/A N/A /ƚĂůŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A WŽƌƚƵŐƵĞƐĞ N/A N/A N/A 'ĞƌŵĂŶ N/A N/A N/A zŝĚĚŝƐŚ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌtĞƐƚ'ĞƌŵĂŶŝĐ N/A N/A N/A ^ĐĂŶĚŝŶĂǀŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A 'ƌĞĞŬ N/A N/A N/A ZƵƐƐŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A WŽůŝƐŚ N/A N/A N/A ^ĞƌďŽͲƌŽĂƚŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌ^ůĂǀŝĐ N/A N/A N/A ƌŵĞŶŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A WĞƌƐŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A 'ƵũĂƌĂƚŚŝ N/A N/A N/A ,ŝŶĚŝ N/A N/A N/A hƌĚƵ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌ/ŶĚŝĐ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌ/ŶĚŽͲƵƌŽƉĞĂŶ N/A N/A N/A ŚŝŶĞƐĞ N/A N/A N/A :ĂƉĂŶĞƐĞ N/A N/A N/A <ŽƌĞĂŶ N/A N/A N/A DŽŶͲ<ŚŵĞƌ͕ĂŵďŽĚŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A ,ŵŽŶŐ N/A N/A N/A dŚĂŝ N/A N/A N/A >ĂŽƚŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A sŝĞƚŶĂŵĞƐĞ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌƐŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A dĂŐĂůŽŐ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌWĂĐŝĨŝĐ/ƐůĂŶĚ N/A N/A N/A EĂǀĂũŽ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌEĂƚŝǀĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ N/A N/A N/A ,ƵŶŐĂƌŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A ƌĂďŝĐ N/A N/A N/A ,ĞďƌĞǁ N/A N/A N/A ĨƌŝĐĂŶ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌĂŶĚŶŽŶͲƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚ N/A N/A N/A dŽƚĂůEŽŶͲŶŐůŝƐŚ N/A N/A N/A

ĂƚĂEŽƚĞ͗ĞƚĂŝůŵĂǇŶŽƚƐƵŵƚŽƚŽƚĂůƐĚƵĞƚŽƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ͘,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐƉŽƉƵůƚŝŽŶĐĂŶďĞŽĨĂŶǇƌĂĐĞ͘ EͬŵĞĂŶƐŶŽƚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ͘^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗h͘^͘ĞŶƐƵƐƵƌĞĂƵ͕ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ^ƵƌǀĞǇ;^Ϳ2012 - 2016͘ ΎWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ^ƉŽŬĞŶĂƚ,ŽŵĞŝƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂƚƚŚĞĐĞŶƐƵƐƚƌĂĐƚƐƵŵŵĂƌǇůĞǀĞůĂŶĚƵƉ͘

November 29, 2018 ϯͬϯ Click here for additional information on the status of our Report Card redesign, and what is coming next

Select Organization Type Select Organization

School Ferndale School District_Cascadia Elementary

Student Enrollment Information Students Meeting standard on the general state assessment in 2018 Enrollment

October 448

May 461 English Language Arts Math Science Gender (Percent of October Enrollment)

48.4% 3rd 49.2% 55.4% Female Male 51.6%

Race/Ethnicity (Percent of October Enrollment) 4th 62.2% 60.7%

American Indian / Alaskan Native 1.6%

5th 61.8% 44.0% 52.3% Asian 5.8%

Black / African American 0.7%

Students meeting standard on the general assessment in 2016, 2017 Hispanic / Latino of any race(s) 24.1% and 2018 Native Hawaiian / Other Paciﬁc Islander 0.0%

White 61.4% h h d r t t 3 4 5 Two or More Races 6.5%

100.0% d

r Special Programs (Percent of May) a 75.0% d n a t S English Learners 16.3% English t e 50.0%

Language Arts M

t n

e Low Income 51.8% c r

e 25.0% P

0.0% Students with Disabilities (Special Education) 17.8% 100.0% d r

a Migrant 2.6%

d 75.0% n a t S

t Section 504 2.0% Math e 50.0% M

t n e c r

e 25.0%

P Other Measures

0.0% 100.0% Class of 2017, 4-Year Graduation Rate (%)

d Class of 2016, 5-Year Graduation Rate (%) r a 75.0% d Unexcused Absence Rate 0.5600% n a t S

Science e 50.0% M

t n e c r

e 25.0% P Educator and FInance Data will be released at a later date 0.0% Click here for additional information on the status of our Report Card redesign, and what is coming next

Select Organization Type Select Organization

School Ferndale School District_Custer Elem

Student Enrollment Information Students Meeting standard on the general state assessment in 2018 Enrollment

October 351

May 353 English Language Arts Math Science Gender (Percent of October Enrollment)

49.6% 3rd 46.7% 48.3% Female Male 50.4%

Race/Ethnicity (Percent of October Enrollment) 4th 46.7% 42.8%

American Indian / Alaskan Native 1.7%

5th Cross Organization Cross Organization Cross Organization Asian 1.4%

Black / African American 0.0%

Students meeting standard on the general assessment in 2016, 2017 Hispanic / Latino of any race(s) 19.4% and 2018 Native Hawaiian / Other Paciﬁc Islander 0.3%

White 73.8% h h d r t t 3 4 5 Two or More Races 3.4%

100.0% d

r Special Programs (Percent of May) a 75.0% d n a t S English Learners 11.3% English t e 50.0%

Language Arts M

t n

e Low Income 52.4% c r

e 25.0% P

0.0% Students with Disabilities (Special Education) 17.0% 100.0% d r

a Migrant 0.6%

d 75.0% n a t S

t Section 504 2.0% Math e 50.0% M

t n e c r

e 25.0%

P Other Measures

0.0% 100.0% Class of 2017, 4-Year Graduation Rate (%)

d Class of 2016, 5-Year Graduation Rate (%) r a 75.0% d Unexcused Absence Rate 0.6742% n a t S

Science e 50.0% M

t n e c r

e 25.0% P Educator and FInance Data will be released at a later date 0.0% Click here for additional information on the status of our Report Card redesign, and what is coming next

Select Organization Type Select Organization

School Ferndale School District_Skyline Elementary School

Student Enrollment Information Students Meeting standard on the general state assessment in 2018 Enrollment

October 433

May 455 English Language Arts Math Science Gender (Percent of October Enrollment)

51.3% 3rd 47.9% 49.3% Female Male 48.7%

Race/Ethnicity (Percent of October Enrollment) 4th 47.9% 47.9%

American Indian / Alaskan Native 19.4%

5th 56.3% 30.9% 52.0% Asian 2.5%

Black / African American 1.2%

Students meeting standard on the general assessment in 2016, 2017 Hispanic / Latino of any race(s) 12.7% and 2018 Native Hawaiian / Other Paciﬁc Islander 0.0%

White 57.0% h h d r t t 3 4 5 Two or More Races 7.2%

100.0% d

r Special Programs (Percent of May) a 75.0% d n a t S English Learners 5.1% English t e 50.0%

Language Arts M

t n

e Low Income 46.4% c r

e 25.0% P

0.0% Students with Disabilities (Special Education) 18.7% 100.0% d r

a Migrant 0.4%

d 75.0% n a t S

t Section 504 2.4% Math e 50.0% M

t n e c r

e 25.0%

P Other Measures

0.0% 100.0% Class of 2017, 4-Year Graduation Rate (%)

d Class of 2016, 5-Year Graduation Rate (%) r a 75.0% d Unexcused Absence Rate 0.7717% n a t S

Science e 50.0% M

t n e c r

e 25.0% P Educator and FInance Data will be released at a later date 0.0%

EJ^ZECensus 2010 Summary Report

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

Summary Census 2010 Population 4,048 Population Density (per sq͘ mile) 454 Minority Population 816 % Minority 20% Households 1,430 Housing Units 1,507 Land Area (ƐƋ͘mŝůĞƐ) 8.91 % Land Area 98% Water Area (ƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞƐ) 0.14 % Water Area 2%

Population by Race Number Percent Total 4,048 ------Population Reporting One Race 3,929 97% White 3,484 86% Black 22 1% American Indian 73 2% Asian 57 1% Pacific Islander 11 0% Some Other Race 282 7% Population Reporting Two or More Races 119 3% Total Hispanic Population 574 14% Total Non-Hispanic Population 3,474 86% White Alone 3,232 80% Black Alone 20 1% American Indian Alone 64 2% Non-Hispanic Asian Alone 53 1% Pacific Islander Alone 11 0% Other Race Alone 9 0% Two or More Races Alone 84 2%

Population by Sex Number Percent

Male 2,067 51% Female 1,981 49%

Population by Age Number Percent Age 0-4 265 7% Age 0-17 1,097 27% Age 18+ 2,951 73% Age 65+ 469 12%

Households by Tenure Number Percent Total 1,430 Owner Occupied 1,040 73% Renter Occupied 390 27%

Data Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Hispanic population can be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

ϭͬϭ :^ZE^^ƵŵŵĂƌǇZĞƉŽƌƚ

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

^ƵŵŵĂƌǇŽĨ^ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ 2012 - 2016 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 4,161 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĞŶƐŝƚǇ;ƉĞƌƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞͿ 467 DŝŶŽƌŝƚǇWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 996 йDŝŶŽƌŝƚǇ 24% ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐ 1,481 ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐ 1,537 ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐƵŝůƚĞĨŽƌĞϭϵϱϬ 214 WĞƌĂƉŝƚĂ/ŶĐŽŵĞ 25,141 >ĂŶĚƌĞĂ;ƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞƐͿ;^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗^&ϭͿ 8.91 й>ĂŶĚƌĞĂ 98% tĂƚĞƌƌĞĂ;ƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞƐͿ;^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗^&ϭͿ 0.14 йtĂƚĞƌƌĞĂ 2% 2012 - 2016 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ DK;цͿ ^ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇZĂĐĞ dŽƚĂů 4,161 100% 627 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐKŶĞZĂĐĞ 4,052 97% 1,438 tŚŝƚĞ 3,469 83% 611 ůĂĐŬ 66 2% 114 ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶ 100 2% 131 ŝƐŝĂŶ 20 0% 190 WĂĐŝĨŝĐ/ƐůĂŶĚĞƌ 2 0% 13 ^ŽŵĞKƚŚĞƌZĂĐĞ 395 9% 379 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐdǁŽŽƌDŽƌĞZĂĐĞƐ 109 3% 224 dŽƚĂů,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 781 19% 379 dŽƚĂůEŽŶͲ,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 3,380 tŚŝƚĞůŽŶĞ 3,165 76% 601 ůĂĐŬůŽŶĞ 47 1% 114 ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶůŽŶĞ 100 2% 131 EŽŶͲ,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐƐŝĂŶůŽŶĞ 20 0% 190 WĂĐŝĨŝĐ/ƐůĂŶĚĞƌůŽŶĞ 2 0% 13 KƚŚĞƌZĂĐĞůŽŶĞ 0 0% 12 dǁŽŽƌDŽƌĞZĂĐĞƐůŽŶĞ 47 1% 224 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇ^Ğǆ DĂůĞ 2,076 50% 321 &ĞŵĂůĞ 2,085 50% 384 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇŐĞ ŐĞϬͲϰ 219 5% 174 ŐĞϬͲϭϳ 910 22% 250 ŐĞϭϴн 3,251 78% 385 ŐĞϲϱн 630 15% 162

November 30, 2018 ϭͬϯ :^ZE^^ƵŵŵĂƌǇZĞƉŽƌƚ

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

2012 - 2016 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ DK;цͿ ^ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϮϱнďǇĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůƚƚĂŝŶŵĞŶƚ dŽƚĂů 2,856 100% 409 >ĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϵƚŚ'ƌĂĚĞ 303 11% 203 ϵƚŚͲϭϮƚŚ'ƌĂĚĞ͕EŽŝƉůŽŵĂ 196 7% 122 ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů'ƌĂĚƵĂƚĞ 925 32% 295 ^ŽŵĞŽůůĞŐĞ͕EŽĞŐƌĞĞ 935 33% 204 ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĞŐƌĞĞ 212 7% 142 ĂĐŚĞůŽƌΖƐĞŐƌĞĞŽƌŵŽƌĞ 497 17% 212 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŐĞϱнzĞĂƌƐďǇďŝůŝƚǇƚŽ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚ dŽƚĂů 3,942 100% 547 ^ƉĞĂŬŽŶůǇŶŐůŝƐŚ 3,233 82% 478 1+2+3+4 EŽŶͲŶŐůŝƐŚĂƚ,ŽŵĞ 709 18% 255 1 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗǀĞƌǇǁĞůůΗ 368 9% 238 2 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗǁĞůůΗ 184 5% 108 3 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗŶŽƚǁĞůůΗ 93 2% 145 4 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗŶŽƚĂƚĂůůΗ 64 2% 74 3+4 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶǁĞůůΗ 157 4% 145 2+3+4 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶǀĞƌǇǁĞůůΗ 341 9% 167 >ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐĂůůǇ/ƐŽůĂƚĞĚ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐΎ dŽƚĂů 45 100% 72 ^ƉĞĂŬ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ 27 59% 69 ^ƉĞĂŬKƚŚĞƌ/ŶĚŽͲƵƌŽƉĞĂŶ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐ 18 41% 55 ^ƉĞĂŬƐŝĂŶͲWĂĐŝĨŝĐ/ƐůĂŶĚ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐ 00%22 ^ƉĞĂŬKƚŚĞƌ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐ 00%12 ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐďǇ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ/ŶĐŽŵĞ ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ/ŶĐŽŵĞĂƐĞ 1,481 100% 175 фΨϭϱ͕ϬϬϬ 208 14% 131 Ψϭϱ͕ϬϬϬͲΨϮϱ͕ϬϬϬ 97 7% 102 ΨϮϱ͕ϬϬϬͲΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ 346 23% 123 ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬͲΨϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ 372 25% 133 Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬн 458 31% 201 KĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐďǇdĞŶƵƌĞ dŽƚĂů 1,481 100% 175 KǁŶĞƌKĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ 1,028 69% 166 ZĞŶƚĞƌKĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ 453 31% 138 ŵƉůŽǇĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŐĞϭϲнzĞĂƌƐ dŽƚĂů 3,377 100% 417 /Ŷ>ĂďŽƌ&ŽƌĐĞ 1,996 59% 357 ŝǀŝůŝĂŶhŶĞŵƉůŽǇĞĚŝŶ>ĂďŽƌ&ŽƌĐĞ 178 5% 122 EŽƚ/Ŷ>ĂďŽƌ&ŽƌĐĞ 1,381 41% 250

November 30, 2018 Ϯͬϯ :^ZE^^ƵŵŵĂƌǇZĞƉŽƌƚ

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

2012 - 2016 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ DK;цͿ ^ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ^ƉŽŬĞŶĂƚ,ŽŵĞΎ dŽƚĂů;ƉĞƌƐŽŶƐĂŐĞϱĂŶĚĂďŽǀĞͿ 1,314 100% 548 ŶŐůŝƐŚ 1,082 82% 572 ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ 142 11% 279 &ƌĞŶĐŚ 3 0% 138 &ƌĞŶĐŚƌĞŽůĞ N/A N/A N/A /ƚĂůŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A WŽƌƚƵŐƵĞƐĞ N/A N/A N/A 'ĞƌŵĂŶ 0 0% 17 zŝĚĚŝƐŚ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌtĞƐƚ'ĞƌŵĂŶŝĐ N/A N/A N/A ^ĐĂŶĚŝŶĂǀŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A 'ƌĞĞŬ N/A N/A N/A ZƵƐƐŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A WŽůŝƐŚ N/A N/A N/A ^ĞƌďŽͲƌŽĂƚŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌ^ůĂǀŝĐ N/A N/A N/A ƌŵĞŶŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A WĞƌƐŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A 'ƵũĂƌĂƚŚŝ N/A N/A N/A ,ŝŶĚŝ N/A N/A N/A hƌĚƵ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌ/ŶĚŝĐ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌ/ŶĚŽͲƵƌŽƉĞĂŶ 30 2% 149 ŚŝŶĞƐĞ 0 0% 17 :ĂƉĂŶĞƐĞ N/A N/A N/A <ŽƌĞĂŶ 0 0% 17 DŽŶͲ<ŚŵĞƌ͕ĂŵďŽĚŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A ,ŵŽŶŐ N/A N/A N/A dŚĂŝ N/A N/A N/A >ĂŽƚŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A sŝĞƚŶĂŵĞƐĞ 0 0% 17 KƚŚĞƌƐŝĂŶ 22 2% 130 dĂŐĂůŽŐ 0 0% 17 KƚŚĞƌWĂĐŝĨŝĐ/ƐůĂŶĚ N/A N/A N/A EĂǀĂũŽ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌEĂƚŝǀĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ N/A N/A N/A ,ƵŶŐĂƌŝĂŶ N/A N/A N/A ƌĂďŝĐ 0 0% 17 ,ĞďƌĞǁ N/A N/A N/A ĨƌŝĐĂŶ N/A N/A N/A KƚŚĞƌĂŶĚŶŽŶͲƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚ 6 0% 28 dŽƚĂůEŽŶͲŶŐůŝƐŚ 232 18% 792

November 30, 2018 ϯͬϯ EJ^ZECensus 2010 Summary Report

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

Summary Census 2010 Population 5,151 Population Density (per sq͘ mile) 616 Minority Population 973 % Minority 19% Households 1,826 Housing Units 2,249 Land Area (ƐƋ͘mŝůĞƐ) 8.36 % Land Area 61% Water Area (ƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞƐ) 5.34 % Water Area 39%

Population by Race Number Percent Total 5,151 ------Population Reporting One Race 4,953 96% White 4,443 86% Black 43 1% American Indian 91 2% Asian 121 2% Pacific Islander 7 0% Some Other Race 248 5% Population Reporting Two or More Races 198 4% Total Hispanic Population 573 11% Total Non-Hispanic Population 4,578 89% White Alone 4,178 81% Black Alone 40 1% American Indian Alone 79 2% Non-Hispanic Asian Alone 117 2% Pacific Islander Alone 7 0% Other Race Alone 9 0% Two or More Races Alone 148 3%

Population by Sex Number Percent

Male 2,578 50% Female 2,573 50%

Population by Age Number Percent Age 0-4 355 7% Age 0-17 1,386 27% Age 18+ 3,765 73% Age 65+ 634 12%

Households by Tenure Number Percent Total 1,826 Owner Occupied 1,335 73% Renter Occupied 491 27%

Data Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Hispanic population can be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

ϭͬϭ EJ^ZECensus 2010 Summary Report

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

Population by Sex Number Percent

Male 2,578 50% Female 2,573 50%

Population by Age Number Percent Age 0-4 355 7% Age 0-17 1,386 27% Age 18+ 3,765 73% Age 65+ 634 12%

Households by Tenure Number Percent Total 1,826 Owner Occupied 1,335 73% Renter Occupied 491 27%

Data Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Hispanic population can be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.

ϭͬϭ :^ZE^^ƵŵŵĂƌǇZĞƉŽƌƚ

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

^ƵŵŵĂƌǇŽĨ^ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ 2012 - 2016 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 4,984 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĞŶƐŝƚǇ;ƉĞƌƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞͿ 596 DŝŶŽƌŝƚǇWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 1,038 йDŝŶŽƌŝƚǇ 21% ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐ 1,793 ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐ 2,148 ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐƵŝůƚĞĨŽƌĞϭϵϱϬ 258 WĞƌĂƉŝƚĂ/ŶĐŽŵĞ 27,506 >ĂŶĚƌĞĂ;ƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞƐͿ;^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗^&ϭͿ 8.36 й>ĂŶĚƌĞĂ 61% tĂƚĞƌƌĞĂ;ƐƋ͘ŵŝůĞƐͿ;^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗^&ϭͿ 5.33 йtĂƚĞƌƌĞĂ 39% 2012 - 2016 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ DK;цͿ ^ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇZĂĐĞ dŽƚĂů 4,984 100% 627 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐKŶĞZĂĐĞ 4,827 97% 1,391 tŚŝƚĞ 4,122 83% 611 ůĂĐŬ 103 2% 114 ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶ 108 2% 142 ŝƐŝĂŶ 85 2% 190 WĂĐŝĨŝĐ/ƐůĂŶĚĞƌ 4 0% 32 ^ŽŵĞKƚŚĞƌZĂĐĞ 404 8% 302 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐdǁŽŽƌDŽƌĞZĂĐĞƐ 157 3% 224 dŽƚĂů,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 654 13% 289 dŽƚĂůEŽŶͲ,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ 4,330 tŚŝƚĞůŽŶĞ 3,946 79% 601 ůĂĐŬůŽŶĞ 82 2% 114 ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ/ŶĚŝĂŶůŽŶĞ 90 2% 131 EŽŶͲ,ŝƐƉĂŶŝĐƐŝĂŶůŽŶĞ 85 2% 190 WĂĐŝĨŝĐ/ƐůĂŶĚĞƌůŽŶĞ 4 0% 32 KƚŚĞƌZĂĐĞůŽŶĞ 0 0% 12 dǁŽŽƌDŽƌĞZĂĐĞƐůŽŶĞ 123 2% 224 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇ^Ğǆ DĂůĞ 2,448 49% 307 &ĞŵĂůĞ 2,536 51% 384 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶďǇŐĞ ŐĞϬͲϰ 203 4% 174 ŐĞϬͲϭϳ 1,006 20% 250 ŐĞϭϴн 3,978 80% 405 ŐĞϲϱн 787 16% 162

November 30, 2018 ϭͬϯ :^ZE^^ƵŵŵĂƌǇZĞƉŽƌƚ

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

2012 - 2016 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ DK;цͿ ^ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϮϱнďǇĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůƚƚĂŝŶŵĞŶƚ dŽƚĂů 3,531 100% 409 >ĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϵƚŚ'ƌĂĚĞ 262 7% 203 ϵƚŚͲϭϮƚŚ'ƌĂĚĞ͕EŽŝƉůŽŵĂ 267 8% 122 ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů'ƌĂĚƵĂƚĞ 929 26% 295 ^ŽŵĞŽůůĞŐĞ͕EŽĞŐƌĞĞ 1,323 37% 258 ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĞŐƌĞĞ 408 12% 142 ĂĐŚĞůŽƌΖƐĞŐƌĞĞŽƌŵŽƌĞ 750 21% 212 WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŐĞϱнzĞĂƌƐďǇďŝůŝƚǇƚŽ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚ dŽƚĂů 4,781 100% 554 ^ƉĞĂŬŽŶůǇŶŐůŝƐŚ 4,020 84% 493 1+2+3+4 EŽŶͲŶŐůŝƐŚĂƚ,ŽŵĞ 761 16% 255 1 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗǀĞƌǇǁĞůůΗ 377 8% 238 2 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗǁĞůůΗ 215 4% 108 3 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗŶŽƚǁĞůůΗ 114 2% 106 4 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗŶŽƚĂƚĂůůΗ 54 1% 74 3+4 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶǁĞůůΗ 169 4% 129 2+3+4 ^ƉĞĂŬŶŐůŝƐŚΗůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶǀĞƌǇǁĞůůΗ 384 8% 167 >ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐĂůůǇ/ƐŽůĂƚĞĚ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐΎ dŽƚĂů 67 100% 72 ^ƉĞĂŬ^ƉĂŶŝƐŚ 28 42% 64 ^ƉĞĂŬKƚŚĞƌ/ŶĚŽͲƵƌŽƉĞĂŶ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐ 36 53% 55 ^ƉĞĂŬƐŝĂŶͲWĂĐŝĨŝĐ/ƐůĂŶĚ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐ 35%22 ^ƉĞĂŬKƚŚĞƌ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐ 00%12 ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐďǇ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ/ŶĐŽŵĞ ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ/ŶĐŽŵĞĂƐĞ 1,793 100% 175 фΨϭϱ͕ϬϬϬ 288 16% 131 Ψϭϱ͕ϬϬϬͲΨϮϱ͕ϬϬϬ 131 7% 102 ΨϮϱ͕ϬϬϬͲΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ 410 23% 123 ΨϱϬ͕ϬϬϬͲΨϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ 449 25% 133 Ψϳϱ͕ϬϬϬн 515 29% 201 KĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐhŶŝƚƐďǇdĞŶƵƌĞ dŽƚĂů 1,793 100% 175 KǁŶĞƌKĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ 1,263 70% 166 ZĞŶƚĞƌKĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ 530 30% 138 ŵƉůŽǇĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŐĞϭϲнzĞĂƌƐ dŽƚĂů 4,121 100% 509 /Ŷ>ĂďŽƌ&ŽƌĐĞ 2,420 59% 441 ŝǀŝůŝĂŶhŶĞŵƉůŽǇĞĚŝŶ>ĂďŽƌ&ŽƌĐĞ 261 6% 164 EŽƚ/Ŷ>ĂďŽƌ&ŽƌĐĞ 1,701 41% 257

November 30, 2018 Ϯͬϯ :^ZE^^ƵŵŵĂƌǇZĞƉŽƌƚ

>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗ User-specified linear location ZŝŶŐ;ďƵĨĨĞƌͿ͗ 0.5-mile radius ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ͗

November 30, 2018 ϯͬϯ Toberer, Beth

From: Ensminger, Trent M. Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 11:48 AM To: Toberer, Beth; McEwan, Ray D. Cc: Beier, Spencer T.; Winter, Elizabeth; Wilkinson, Ben Subject: RE: Max Depth of Excavation-I-5/SR 548 Attachments: Unanticipated Discovery GSP Example.docx

Good morning Beth, Based on the desktop review of the Tributary to California Creek - Fish Passage Projects (I-5 and SR548), the project description, and the minimal proposed ground disturbance within the project limits, the HazMat Program recommends no further investigation at this time for either project. Although the BNSF railroad is within close proximity, there are no known spills or releases documented. The costs to conduct any additional investigations in order to better define the level or extent of any suspected contamination within the proposed project footprints, would likely be far greater than those associated with change orders or potential delays associated with encountering contamination during construction. The HazMat Program recommends that the construction contract include specifications advising contractors of the appropriate handling and disposal of any inadvertent discovery that may be encountered during excavations or soil disturbances. WSDOT routinely uses General Special Provisions or Special Provisions to account for uncertainties of hazardous materials, such as the removal and disposal of unanticipated hazardous materials.

I have attached an example of a Special Provision that your Project can utilize as is, or revise to meet both project and site specific requirements.

Please feel free to contact myself or Ben with any questions or concerns.

Thank you,

Trent Ensminger Transportation Planning Specialist 4 WSDOT HQ Environmental Services Office Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Program Office – 360.570.2587 - Cell – 360.763.6969 [email protected] WSDOT Environmental Services Office - http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/HazMat/default.htm

From: Toberer, Beth Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 11:29 AM To: McEwan, Ray D. Cc: Beier, Spencer T. ; Ensminger, Trent M. ; Winter, Elizabeth Subject: Max Depth of Excavation-I-5/SR 548

1 Good morning Ray,

What is the maximum depth of excavation for both project locations? I am asking on behalf of the HazMat specialist (Trent) who is completing his portion of the NEPA reviews for the project.

Thanks,

Beth Toberer Transportation Planning Specialist 3- Environmental Project Delivery Specialist (360)-757-5996 [email protected]

WSDOT Northwest Region Environmental Services Mount Baker Area Headquarters Office

2 WSDOT NOAA Short Project Notification Form

Note: The proper version of this form must be submitted to either the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (or both)for informal or formal projects. No effect projects are not submitted to the Services. See http://wwwi.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/FishWildlife/ for submittal procedures.

Project Name: 548/Tributary To California Creek - Fish Passage

Submittal Date: February 1, 2019

Work Order: XL5232

WIN: A00596K

Project Location:

State Route 548, Mile Post 0.25 to 0.31 Geographical Coordinates: 48.89202200 / -122.60164600 to 48.89205500 / -122.60293900

Indicate Township / Range / Section 39 North/Range 2 East/ Section 6

Indicate the federal nexus for the project FHWA

County: Whatcom

Region: Northwest

Project Biologist:

Toberer, Beth, [email protected], 360-757-5996 ESA consultation is currently based on 30% design, which will be contracted out for design build. If the design footprint changes, WSDOT will re-initiate ESA consultation. Project goal is to reduce the overall footprint and to provide passage for fish at all flows to upstream suitable habitats. LWM is not suitable for this site due to roadway fill material and railroad fill material up to and including riparian zones.

Reviewing Biologist:

Bakeman, Mark E, [email protected], 360-705-7494 Signed December 28, 2018 @ 4:39 PM

Form Completed Date:

Page 1 of 26 WRIA: 1: Nooksack

6th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Name Dakota Creek-Frontal Drayton Harbor

6th Field HUC number 171100020202

Site Visit Date: November 7, 2017

Date of Early Coordination: January 18, 2018

Explain and summarize Early Coordination activities with the Services: A pre-BA meeting was held with FHWA, WSDOT, USFWS, and NMFS on January 18, 2018 to review project information, proposed footprint, and ESA listed species determinations.

Does the project meet the conditions of the NMFS programmatic biological assessment? þ Yes ¨ No

Does the project meet the conditions of the USFWS programmatic biological assessment? þ Yes ¨ No

Is this a reference biological assessment for NMFS? ¨ Yes þ No

Is this an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) only submittal for NMFS? ¨ Yes þ No

Is this an after the fact consultation for NMFS? ¨ Yes þ No

Will this project be submitted Fast Track for the NMFS? ¨ Yes þ No

Will this project be submitted Fast Track for the USFWS? ¨ Yes þ No

NMFS summary of species and critical habitats in the project action area: Puget Sound Steelhead

Page 2 of 26 Check all project activities that apply (for both NMFS and USFWS projects)

Upland vegetation removal & management Riparian and Wetland Vegetation Removal and Management Work Area Exclusion and Dewatering Geotechnical Sampling Heavy equipment operation Cut and fill operations Use of Artificial Lighting Fish Handling

Project action area: The project action area includes terrestrial and aquatic zones of impact. The terrestrial zone of impact includes the area of noise from construction until it reaches ambient levels about 2795 feet (0.52 mile) from the project location. The extent of noise was calculated using the Terrestrial Noise Calculator (v7) with the following inputs: a baseline noise level of 40 dBA for Whatcom County based on demographics of 103 people per square mile; a referenced background noise level of 55 dBA for the adjacent railroad tracks; a posted speed of 35 mph, and 500 vehicles per hour traffic volume. Land is mixed rural, railroad, residential, and farmland use; therefore, it was considered a hard site due to adjacent County roads, and compacted earth due to farming. The three loudest pieces of equipment are a jackhammer (89 dBA), grading machine (89 dBA), and a plate compactor (83 dBA). The noise calculator indicates construction noise levels will attenuate within about 2795 feet (0.52 mile) before reaching ambient noise levels; therefore, this buffer radius has been established around the project limits to account for the terrestrial zone of impact (Action Area-Map 1). The action area in terrestrial habitats includes also a proposed detour route, when the road closes for construction. The detour route will include a signed route of existing roadways so that travelers northbound and southbound can exit before or after reaching the exit for SR 548. The detour route is a series of existing roads currently used by trucks and cars to access local destinations such as Birch Bay and alternate routes to the I-5 international border. These local roads are also used by residential community members. Traffic may increase slighting above existing traffic levels during detour use; however, due to existing roadway use that is similar to SR 548, no noise increases are expected from construction traffic (Action Area Map 1A).

The aquatic zone of impact includes 3.3 miles of stream channel upstream of SR 548 and up to 235 feet downstream of SR 548 (Action Area Map 2). The upstream mileage accounts for 50 feet of upstream grading to match existing gradients, accommodate stream diversion inlet and fish exclusion net, and it includes the linear distance of habitat gain (3.3 miles) upstream of the project site post construction to which fish will have improved access. The downstream distance of aquatic impacts includes up to 235 feet downstream below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Tributary to California Creek, which includes about 25 feet of streambed grading, 10 feet downstream for temporary stream diversion and fish exclusion net, and 200 feet downstream of the construction zone to account for elevated sediment and turbidity levels during construction, which is the downstream point of water quality compliance. The aquatic zone of impact includes 694 sq feet of riparian impact both upstream and downstream of the culvert, which will be mostly temporarily affected due to clearing and construction. Permanent riparian impacts are minor (<100 sq ft) and mostly due to wing wall construction and stream widening through the new culvert. Temporary riparian impacts will be revegetated with native shrubs and grasses to match what native vegetation is currently growing and to comply with roadway sight distance requirements and railroad grade planting allowances for lower vegetation heights.

Attach map and photographs: Page 3 of 26 Page 4 of 26 Page 5 of 26 Page 6 of 26 Project Description: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to replace a fish barrier to improve fish passability in a Tributary to California Creek as it flows under State Route (SR) 548 within the city of Ferndale. This project is located on SR 548 from Milepost (MP) 0.25 to MP 0.31 in Whatcom County, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) identifies the fish barrier as site 996003. The project proposes to replace existing 3-foot diameter, 148 foot long fish barrier culvert with a 12-foot wide box culvert of similar length to provide a fish passable crossing under SR 548. Proposed construction will include traffic control, highway excavation, existing culvert removal, box structure installation, and streambed grading. WSDOT will design and construct the project in accordance with WDFW Water Crossing Design Guidelines and Integrated Protection Guidelines. The project includes work below the existing Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM); therefore, construction will include installation of a stream bypass to isolate the work area and protect aquatic life. All work below the OHWM will take place during the in-water work window prescribed by WDFW in accordance with the Hydraulic Project Approval. Landward of the OHWM, temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be installed prior to ground disturbance to protect water quality resources during construction.

The project will not add new pollutant generating surface to SR 548 and the project will not include roadway improvements. The new culvert will be installed during daytime and night time hours under an accelerated timeline to minimize the duration of roadway closures. WSDOT plans to hire a design builder to commence construction in summer 2020, and complete the project by December 2020. Plant establishment will continue for three years following construction until 2023.

Following culvert replacement, fish will have improved access to 3.3 miles of upstream spawning and rearing habitat in the California Creek watershed.

Project Equipment List Construction includes the use of excavators, semi-trailers, dump trucks, pick-up trucks, jackhammer, grading machine, plate compactor, rollers, crane, guardrail installer, paver, compaction roller, finish roller, pavement marking truck, grinder, cement mixer, and diesel pumps. dump trucks, hauling trucks, excavator, stream diversion pumps.

Indicate equipment that will be working below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in a wetted channel. A stream bypass will be installed prior to equipment working below the OHWM. Therefore, the only equipment working in a wetted channel includes that necessary to exclude fish, along with screened pumps to draw the water down for fish removal and stream diversion installation.

Is this an emergency project? ¨ Yes þ No

Does the project have sensitive habitats (within 200 feet of wetlands or surface waters) where staging, refueling, or other activities should be restricted? þ Yes ¨ No

Page 7 of 26 Indicate mileposts within project area where restrictions apply. The project is located adjacent to a surface water body; therefore, refueling should be restricted next to the stream according to the spill control and countermeasures plan during construction. There is a gas station parking lot across Portal Way next to the project limits that will likely be used for staging and refueling with protective measures to prevent a spill from occurring.

Will the project have construction equipment operating within the wetted channel of any waterbody? þ Yes ¨ No

Will detours be used? þ Yes ¨ No

Please describe: SR 548 will likely be closed for a one-week duration to install the new box culvert; however, a local detour will be provided around the work area.

Will the project include work at night? þ Yes ¨ No

Will artificial lights be used over or adjacent to an aquatic area? þ Yes ¨ No

Will blasting occur? ¨ Yes þ No

Will impact pile driving occur? ¨ Yes þ No

Will piles be removed on the project? ¨ Yes þ No

Is the project for slide abatement and repair? ¨ Yes þ No

Will cutting or filling occur? þ Yes ¨ No

Indicate cut area (excavated area) above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Area: 872 square feet (.02 acres)

Indicate cut area (excavated area) below the ordinary high water mark. Area: 694 square feet (.016 acres)

Indicate fill area above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) Area: 872 square feet (.02 acres)

Indicate fill area below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) Area: 694 square feet (.016 acres)

Page 8 of 26 Will cutting or filling occur within 300 ft of a water body that has listed aquatic species or their habitat?

þ Yes ¨ No

Will any soils be exposed? þ Yes ¨ No

What is the erosion potential? Medium

Will bare soils be revegetated or hydroseeded after construction? þ Yes ¨ No

Describe the proposed methods. All soils will be stablized with mulch and/or seeding post construction to control erosion and prepare for native plant installation.

Project Timing

Construction Start Date March 2, 2020

Construction End Date December 31, 2020

Total Working Days 60

Will the project need a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) or have an aquatic zone of impact requiring in-water work? þ Yes ¨ No

Will the project use a WDFW published in-water work window? ¨ Yes þ No

If the project cannot use the published window, indicate why and provide approval from WDFW The project was approved by WDFW to use the work window of July 15-September 30 for in-water construction. This will allow the design builder flexibility to replace the culvert during low flows and low traffic phases.

Project Aquatic Habitat Impacts

Elevated pollutant delivery (non-sediment)? ¨ Yes þ No

Will there be elevated sediment/turbidity? þ Yes ¨ No

Estimate the lineal extent of stream or shoreline that will be exposed to elevated turbidity (ft). 433

Page 9 of 26 Explain The project action area (in aquatic habitats) may be exposed to turbidity during project construction. This includes 50 feet upstream of the existing culvert, 148 linear feet of existing culvert, and 35 feet downstream of the existing culvert to account for streambed grading and stream diversion inlet/outlet. It also includes 200 feet downstream of the grading area to encompass the downstream area that will be monitored for water quality compliance.

Will riparian habitat functions be altered? þ Yes ¨ No

Explain Riparian functions will be improved slightly due to temporary construction and installation of a wider box culvert to improve stream hydraulics. Slight improvements to riparian habitats are expected due to existing conditions of filled streambanks and narrow riparian zones that lie between roadway fill prism of Portal Way/SR 548/BNSF railroad.

Will there be elevated surface water temperature? ¨ Yes þ No

Will there be substrate disturbance? þ Yes ¨ No

Indicate disturbed area if known Area: 694 square feet (.016 acres)

Explain. The area of substrate disturbance is equal to the area of streambed grading proposed below the OHWM of Tributary to California Creek.

Will substrate disturbance mobilize contaminants? ¨ Yes þ No

Will there be loss of benthic invertebrate habitat and potential food web effects? þ Yes ¨ No

Indicate area of benthic invertebrate habitat disturbance Area: 694 square feet (.016 acres)

Explain. This is equal to the temporary area of streambed disturbance. This impact to benthic habitat is considered temporary. Benthic habitat will be improved post-construction due to the addition of streambed gravels.

Will there be elevated in-water noise from pile driving? ¨ Yes þ No

Fish harm or harassment from in-water work or handling? þ Yes ¨ No

Page 10 of 26 Explain. Project biologists will assist the contractor to remove aquatic life from the project area during construction. This may include seining, netting, and electroshocking according to WSDOT fish exclusion protocols.

Will there be effects on fish migration? þ Yes ¨ No

Will project actions reduce the channel width, or block a shoreline migration use area, and if so, how much of channel/shoreline area (%) is available for fish movement? The project will temporarily block fish migration to upstream/downstream areas during construction when the stream diversion is installed. This will take place during a very low flow period to minimize impacts to fish migrations. The project will not reduce channel with or block a shoreline migration area.

Explain. Channel blockage will be temporary to install the new box culvert under SR 548. After installation, the stream diversion will be removed and fish will have improved access to 3.3 miles of upstream habitat.

Will there be impacts to wetlands that have fish habitat? ¨ Yes þ No

Will there be permanent or temporary fish habitat displacement? þ Yes ¨ No

Explain. Fish will be temporarily displaced during stream diversion/culvert construction.

Will there be altered water quality delivery, such as a change to a stormwater conveyance structure? ¨ Yes þ No

Will there be streambank/shoreline habitat loss/modification or reduced habitat connectivity? ¨ Yes þ No

Will natural stream processes and/or floodplains be altered? þ Yes ¨ No

Explain. Stream hydraulics will be improved by accommodating more flow through the new structure and allow passage of LWM.

Will the project have beneficial effects? þ Yes ¨ No

Explain. The project will improve fish passage upstream by replacing this fish barrier.

If project removes a fish barrier, indicate length of fish habitat gain on the stream (feet) 17,318

Page 11 of 26 If project removes a fish barrier, indicate the area of new spawning area gained above the culvert (square feet or acres) Area: 6,792 square feet (.156 acres)

If project removes a fish barrier, indicate the area of new rearing area gained above the culvert (square feet or acres) Area: .605 acres (26,360 square feet)

Fish Habitat Improvement

As part of the project, check all that apply:

Fish barriers will be eliminated. Revegetation of streambanks or riparian areas will occur.

Please describe: The project will replace a fish barrier to comply with the federal court injunction. All temporary impacts to riparian vegetation will be replanted following construction. The existing stream is relatively small and confined by development with no LWM in the proposed footprint; therefore, the project limits have been minimized to address the barrier and improve access to upstream habitats with better habitat.

Will large woody material (LWM) be removed from the site? ¨ Yes þ No

Environmental Setting

Baseline Conditions. Document general baseline conditions in the action area as they relate to the proposed action and effects. Discuss surrounding land use if appropriate. The environmental baseline conditions of terrestrial habitat include urbanized land with paved areas, farmed soil, and scattered trees and shrubs. The railroad line is located about 30 feet east of the stream and the stream flows parallel to it. Aquatic habitats include the tributary to California Creek, which has been straighten through this section of channel to accommodate roads in the city of Ferndale.

Describe the vegetation in the project action area: Vegetation includes pasture grasses, reed canarygrass, noxious weeds, and scattered trees and shrubs. No stands of trees (deciduous/coniferous) larger than one acre are located within 0.25 mile.

Habitat in the project action area 10% Riparian, 5% Coniferous Forest, 25% Wetlands, 45% Developed, and 15% Other

Do streams, rivers, or other waterbodies occur in the project action area? þ Yes ¨ No

Page 12 of 26 Provide names of major streams/creeks in action area and describe spawning gravels, embeddedness, riparian cover, refuge area riffles, etc. Focus on areas where impacts may occur. If the stream is a tributary of a larger stream or river, indicate distance to nearest confluence. Tributary to California Creek-The ditched channel is approximately 3-4 feet wide and flat with a uniform depth of 3-4 feet during winter flows. Silts and fines dominate channel substrate. No suitable spawning habitat was observed in the project action area. WDFW (2009) reports salmon spawning approximately 1,600 feet upstream in steeper gradient reaches (1-3% gradient). Habitat in the project area is primarily for adult and juvenile migration.

Project Impacts to Streambank, Streambed, and Shoreline

Will there be riprap placement in the project area along streambanks or shorelines ? ¨ Yes þ No

Will work on streambanks or shorelines improve fish habitat? þ Yes ¨ No

Describe the proposed work: The stream channel will be wider with a tapered bank to improve cover for juvenile fish after native vegetation has been established.

Will the stream bed, lake bed or marine bed be disturbed? þ Yes ¨ No

What is the area of disturbance? Area: 872 square feet (.02 acres)

Will all materials, such as riprap or gravel, placed within the water be free of rock fines, silt, soil, or other extraneous material? An exception to the presence of fines is permitted if they are required as part of channel bed reconstruction. þ Yes ¨ No

Project Impacts to Marine Mammals

The NMFS programmatic only covers informal effects to marine mammals Will the project affect marine mammal migration? ¨ Yes þ No

Will there be effects to marine mammal prey species or food webs? ¨ Yes þ No

Will the project alter shorelines or other natural processes? ¨ Yes þ No

Pollution Generating Impervious Surface

Will the project create new PGIS? ¨ Yes þ No

Page 13 of 26 Fish Handling

Will the project have fish handling? þ Yes ¨ No

Indicate all that apply

Seining Herding Electrofishing

Will an HPA be needed? þ Yes ¨ No

Number of days with in-water work 20

Project Terrestrial Impacts

Total permanent vegetation impact area (all vegetation types including riparian) Area: 100 square feet (.002 acres)

Total temporary vegetation impact area (all vegetation types) Area: 8,100 square feet (.186 acres)

Total vegetation impact area (all vegetation types) Area: 8,200 square feet (.188 acres)

Will the project have riparian vegetation impacts? þ Yes ¨ No

Temporary riparian impact area Area: 694 square feet (.016 acres)

Permanent riparian impact area Area: 100 square feet (.002 acres)

Total riparian impact area. Area: 794 square feet (.018 acres)

If you are removing mature trees in the riparian zone, describe the species and approximate tree size and number removed No tree removal will be required.

Page 14 of 26 NMFS and USFWS Pre-Approved Enhancement Projects (Fast Track )

These are projects that benefit listed species and habitat.

All Fast Track projects must be submitted for final review to WSDOT Headquarters. Check the box if your project meets the stated conditions and fill in the required information. There are 6 project types.

Page 15 of 26 Essential Fish Habitat

The analysis of Essential Fish Habitat is usually conducted for all projects submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service in conjunction with the Endangered Species Act analysis. However, an EFH analysis can be done as a stand-alone submittal.

Pacific salmon EFH is based on habitat for Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. Is there Coastal Pelagic Essential Fish Habitat present in the project action area? ¨ Yes þ No

Is there Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat present in the project action area? ¨ Yes þ No

Is there Pacific Salmon Essential Fish Habitat present in the project action area? þ Yes ¨ No

If yes, would the habitat present be affected by one or more of these impacts (check all that are applicable)

Removal of riparian vegetation Elevated suspended sediment

If you selected one or more of the above impacts, you will adversely affect EFH. Indicate the correct determination below The project will adversely affect Pacific Salmon EFH

Page 16 of 26 Project Minimization Measures

Stormwater Quality and Quantity Minimization Measures

MM-2. WSDOT will ensure that projects within 200 feet of surface water will install and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) as stated in the Contract to ensure that no foreign material, such as pavement slurry from asphalt grinding equipment, is sidecast, and to control and prevent sediments from entering aquatic systems. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-3. The Contractor shall comply with Washington Department of Ecology’s State Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201) or permit modifications. Permit modifications are limited to an extended temporary area of mixing granted by Ecology in a 401 Water Quality Certification. þ Yes ¨ No

Aquatic Area Buffers Minimization Measures

MM-7. No contractor staging areas will be allowed within 200 feet of potentially suitable wetland, stream, estuarine, river or marine drainage as identified by the project biologist, unless site specific review completed by the project biologist indicates that no impacts to the sensitive resource areas will occur due to topography or other factors. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-8. Temporary material storage piles consisting of erosive materials will be placed outside the 100-year floodplain during the rainy season (October 1 through June 1) except for emergency projects, or unless site specific review completed by the project biologist indicates that topography or other factors preclude runoff from entering waterbodies containing listed fish species or their prey. Such temporary storage piles will be stabilized with plastic sheeting, straw bales, or other BMPs, to prevent sediment delivery to these waterbodies. Material to be used within 12 hours of deposition will not be considered a temporary material storage pile. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-9. All excavated materials will be removed to an upland location where they cannot enter the water body. þ Yes ¨ No

Vegetation Removal Minimization Measures

MM-11. WSDOT Designers will minimize removal of riparian vegetation and contractors shall replant riparian vegetation. Replanting may not be possible in permanent impact areas, the roadway clear zone, or adjacent to or under bridges. However, potential replanting of riparian vegetation near the site should be evaluated. The PBA Determination Form will provide the justification for the removal of riparian vegetation and will include the proposed planting plans, if applicable. þ Yes ¨ No

Page 17 of 26 MM-12. Vegetation will only be grubbed from areas undergoing permanent alteration. No grubbing will occur in areas slated for temporary impacts. Exceptions to grubbing temporary impact areas can be made if the temporary area is currently covered by non-native or invasive species and will be replanted with native species. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-13. Disturbance to riparian vegetation from the operation of heavy equipment will be minimized as practicable by straddling it with heavy equipment or by pruning it without damaging the roots. Existing riparian vegetation outside of the work area will not be removed or disturbed. þ Yes ¨ No

In-Water Work Minimization Measures

MM-14. Seasonal restrictions applied to work conducted within or below the OHWM or MHHW, will follow requirements within the HPA issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington (Chapter 173-201A WAC). In-water work duration will be minimized as practicable. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-16. Construction equipment will not enter any water body without authorization from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, USFWS, and the NMFS. Equipment will be operated as far from the water’s edge as possible. þ Yes ¨ No

Revegetation and Slope Stability Minimization Measures

MM-18. Erodible earth not being worked, whether at final grade or not, shall be covered within the specified time periods below, using an approved soil covering practice: Western Washington (west of the Cascade Mountain Crest) 1) from October 1 through April 30 erodible earth may be exposed without cover for a 2 day maximum, 2) from May 1 to September 30 for 7 days maximum. Eastern Washington (east of the Cascade Mountain Crest) 1) from October 1 through June 30 erodible earth may be exposed without cover for a 5 day maximum, 2) from July 1 to September 30 for 10 days maximum. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-19. Temporarily disturbed areas will be restored to pre-work conditions to the extent possible, including protecting existing root systems and allowing re-sprouting of herbaceous and woody plants. Native trees and shrubs will be used that are endemic to the project vicinity or region of the State where the activity is occurring. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-20. All exposed areas will be mulched and seeded with an approved native or noninvasive herbaceous seed mix following construction and/or planted with native woody vegetation and trees (if appropriate) during the first available planting season. þ Yes ¨ No

Page 18 of 26 General Construction Minimization Measures

MM-21. Construction impacts will be confined to the minimum area necessary to complete the project. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-22. WSDOT Construction will clearly flag the boundaries of clearing limits to prevent disturbance outside of the limits. The contractor shall install high visibility fencing in accordance with WSDOT Standard Specifications. þ Yes ¨ No

Pollutant Protection Minimization Measures

MM-23. The contractor will use BMPs, as stated in their Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan, to ensure that no foreign material such as oil or fuel from construction equipment will enter any wetlands, flowing or standing water. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-24. All equipment will be fueled and maintained more than 200 feet from the nearest wetland, ditches, flowing or standing water, unless site specific review completed by the project biologist indicates that no impacts to the resource areas will result due to topography or other factors. Exceptions to this requirement are allowed for large cranes, pile drivers, and drill rigs if they cannot be easily moved. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-25. Equipment will be checked daily for leaks and will be well maintained to prevent lubricants and any other deleterious materials from entering waters of the State. Prior to entering the water or below the OHWM, all equipment will be free of any external petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, coolants, and other deleterious materials. Wash water will not be discharged to any water body without pre-treatment. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-26. All equipment entering waters that may be used by listed fish species and/or if the waters are critical habitat, will use vegetable oil or other biodegradable acceptable hydraulic fluid substitute, unless the project is an emergency action. þ Yes ¨ No

Concrete Work Minimization Measures

MM-27. For projects involving concrete, concrete truck chute cleanout areas will be established to properly contain wet concrete and wash water and prevent it from entering wetlands and other waterbodies. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-28. The contractor will protect all inlets and catchments from stormwater runoff from fresh concrete, tackifier, paving, or paint striping if inclement weather unexpectedly occurs. þ Yes ¨ No

Page 19 of 26 MM-29. All concrete will be poured in the dry, or within confined waters not being dewatered to surface waters, and will be allowed to cure a minimum of 7 days before contact with surface water. þ Yes ¨ No

Access Roads and Bridges Minimization Measures

MM-30. The establishment and use of temporary access roads will meet the following conditions: 1) Existing roadways or travel paths will be used whenever they provide the needed access. 2) Where stream crossings are essential, the crossing design will accommodate reasonably foreseeable risks (such as flooding and associated bedload and debris) to prevent diversion of stream flow out of the channel and down the road in the event of a crossing failure. 3) Vehicles and machinery must cross riparian areas and streams perpendicular to the main channel unless site specific conditions require an alternate approach. 4) Vehicles and machinery will not cross within a wetted stream, unless necessary as part of an emergency action. The PBA Determination Form must state why avoidance of crossing a wetted stream is not possible if proposed as part of an emergency action. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-30 cont'd. 5) Temporary roads within 300 feet of streams will avoid, minimize, and mitigate soil disturbance and compaction by clearing vegetation to ground level, and placing clean gravel over geotextile fabric. 6) Vehicles and machinery operating below the OHWM (except if operating in the dry or during emergency actions) will use biodegradable hydraulic fluids and lubricants to reduce the potential impacts associated a potential oil spill or leak. 7) The number of stream crossings will be minimized. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-31. New stream crossing structures, including channel-spanning bridges, will not reduce the existing stream width. þ Yes ¨ No

Restrictions in Rainy Weather Minimization Measures

MM-32. No paving, chip sealing, or stripe painting will be initiated in rainy weather. þ Yes ¨ No

Sub-surface Sampling Minimization Measures

MM-43. During subsurface sampling within 200 feet of waters containing listed fish, all materials removed from the test hole will be removed from the site until sub-sampling is completed. Uncontaminated material may be returned to the test hole. All subsurface sampling sites within waterbodies will be refilled with clean, silt-free material if the holes create a potential stranding hazard. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-44. Oil absorbent pads will be placed under the drill rig to catch and control spills during subsurface sampling when within 200 feet of waters containing listed fish species. þ Yes ¨ No

Page 20 of 26 MM-45. For subsurface sampling within 200 feet of waters containing listed species, the team lead will have a minimum of 4 hours erosion control, spill control and containment training. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-46. For subsurface sampling all existing large woody debris will be left on or adjacent to the site if feasible. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-47. For subsurface sampling, no geared mechanisms (e.g., tires, tracks) will enter the wetted perimeter of a waterbody. Truck mounted and tracked drilling equipment will work from a location outside of the wetted perimeter unless working off of a temporary floating work platform or barge. The temporary floating work platforms will not ground on the bed of State waters. þ Yes ¨ No

Bank Protection Minimization Measures

MM-49. If site-specific conditions allow, improve fish habitat by incorporating LWD into bank protection projects. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-50. Installation of riprap and other materials will occur from the banks or outside the wetted perimeter as much as possible. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-51. Project areas with existing riprap will be allowed to increase the lineal distance of the riprapped area below the OHWM by an additional 5 percent. If the project footprint needs to be increased beyond this, riprap placement will demonstrate consistency with the Integrated Streambank Protection techniques that are defined for WSDOT projects (see Working Document) þ Yes ¨ No

MM-52. All materials, such as riprap or gravel, placed within the water will be free of rock fines, silt, soil, or other extraneous material. An exception to the presence of fines is permitted if they are required as part of channel bed reconstruction. þ Yes ¨ No

Work Area Isolation and Fish Handling Minimization Measures

MM-53. Listed fish species, including their forage fish, will be removed from the work area prior to any in-water work activities, unless removal would affect the individuals more than leaving them on-site. Fish exclusion activities will follow the most recent WSDOT protocol that has been approved by the NMFS and USFWS. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-54. Water pumped out of the isolated project area will be discharged to a temporary storage and treatment site or to upland areas and filtered through vegetation prior to reentering the stream channel. þ Yes ¨ No

Page 21 of 26 MM-55. All intake pumps within fish bearing streams will have a fish screen installed, operated and maintained. Screening techniques must utilize the specifications in the HPA and be in compliance with RCW 77.55.010, RCW 77.57.040 and RCW 77.57.070 or the specifications in the NMFS Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design manual (2008) and NMFS Fish Screening Criteria for Anadromous Salmonids (1997), whichever is more restrictive. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-56. Temporary diversion structures will be non-erosive (e.g., sand bags filled with clean gravel and covered with plastic sheeting, portable bladder dam). þ Yes ¨ No

MM-57. Temporary bypass systems will utilize non-erosive techniques, such as pipe or a plastic-lined channel that will accommodate the predicted peak flow rate during construction. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-58. Temporary bypass structures will have energy dissipaters at the outflow to prevent erosion. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-59. WSDOT Biologists will follow the WSDOT Fish Exclusion Protocols and Standards to conduct work area isolation, fish capture and removal, and dewatering/rewatering. Implementing these factors depends to some degree on local conditions and the professional judgment of the biologist. If block nets are in use, they will be checked 3 times daily. Flows shall be gradually reintroduced to the isolated work area, to prevent channel bed or bank instability, excessive scour, or turbidity and sedimentation. The directing biologist shall inspect the work area downstream reach to ensure no fish are stranded or in distress during reintroduction of flows. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-60. Upon completion of all in-water work, all stream diversion devices, equipment, pipe, and conduits will be removed and disturbed soil will be restored after diversions are removed. Streambank plantings may occur at a later date during the planting season. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-61. Projects will not inhibit passage of any listed fish species life stage following completion. When feasible, a bypass system will be installed during construction to permit both upstream and downstream passage of listed fish and their prey. þ Yes ¨ No

Culvert Work Minimization Measures

MM-62. Culvert cleaning, repair, and maintenance will occur during the dry or when listed fish are least likely to be present. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-63. For waters that may be used by listed fish species and include critical habitat, culvert cleaning will occur either by hand or from the top of the bank when flow is in the channel or when the stream is either dry or a flow bypass is installed. þ Yes ¨ No

Page 22 of 26 MM-64. All culverts conveying fish bearing streams will be designed and constructed in accordance with WDFW’s Water Crossing Design Guidelines (Barnard et al. 2013) or most current document and related Washington Administrative Code criteria. Culverts must be designed to either meet the “no slope” or the “stream simulation” model design, whichever is most appropriate. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-65. Repair or extension of culverts that are partial or complete fish passage barriers will incorporate measures to improve fish passage for all life stages. The retrofit of an existing culvert to provide fish passage will require approval of the project design from the WDFW’s Area Habitat Biologist and WDFW’s Area Engineer. þ Yes ¨ No

Cutting and Filling Minimization Measures

MM-66. Fill material will only be placed in specified and permitted locations. Fill placement may be permanent or temporary and will be located in a way that minimizes impacts to sensitive areas. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-67. Temporary fills must be entirely removed and the site restored to pre-existing contours. þ Yes ¨ No

Lighting Minimization Measures

MM-76. Temporary lights for night work will be directed away from waters with listed fish species to the greatest extent possible, with the intent to prevent light from shining on surface waters. þ Yes ¨ No

MM-77. When permanent lighting is needed on a bridge or road segment adjacent to surface waters with listed fish species, individual “cobra head” or similar lamps will be used when possible, rather than area lights that illuminate larger areas. Lights will be directed away from waters with listed fish species to the extent possible. þ Yes ¨ No

Geotechnical Investigations Minimization Measures

MM-47. For Geotechnical Drilling: No geared mechanisms (e.g., tires, tracks) will enter the wetted perimeter of a waterbody. Truck mounted and tracked drilling equipment will work from a location outside of the wetted perimeter unless working off a temporary floating work platform or barge. The temporary work platform will not ground on the bed of State waters. þ Yes ¨ No

Minimization Measures Documentation

Will the project use all applicable minimization measures? þ Yes ¨ No

Page 23 of 26 Indicate which minimization measures will not be used and why. 75-the project may use WSDOT approved herbicides to improve the success of native woody vegetation survival along the stream. The project site has reed canarygrass and other invasive plants so no herbicide use will likely deem plantings to have a low success for survival.

Vicinity Map & Photos

Page 24 of 26 Page 25 of 26 Page 26 of 26 WSDOT USFW No Effect Project Notification Form

Project Name: 548/Tributary To California Creek - Fish Passage

Submittal Date: February 1, 2019

Work Order: XL5232

WIN: A00596K

Project Location:

State Route 548, Mile Post 0.25 to 0.31 Geographical Coordinates: 48.89202200 / -122.60164600 to 48.89205500 / -122.60293900

Indicate Township / Range / Section 39 North/Range 2 East/ Section 6

Indicate the federal nexus for the project FHWA

County: Whatcom

Region: Northwest

Project Biologist:

Reviewing Biologist:

Bakeman, Mark E, [email protected], 360-705-7494 Signed December 28, 2018 @ 4:39 PM

Form Completed Date:

Page 1 of 29 WRIA: 1: Nooksack

6th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Name Dakota Creek-Frontal Drayton Harbor

6th Field HUC number 171100020202

Site Visit Date: November 7, 2017

Date of Early Coordination: January 18, 2018

For USFWS jurisdiction species and critical habitats, this is a: No Effect

Does the project meet the conditions of the NMFS programmatic biological assessment? þ Yes ¨ No

Does the project meet the conditions of the USFWS programmatic biological assessment? þ Yes ¨ No

Is this a reference biological assessment for USFWS? ¨ Yes þ No

Is this an after the fact consultation for the USFWS? ¨ Yes þ No

Will this project be submitted Fast Track for the NMFS? ¨ Yes þ No

Will this project be submitted Fast Track for the USFWS? ¨ Yes þ No

Effect determinations for USFWS species and critical habitats that can occur in the project action area:

No Effect: Marbled Murrelet Bull Trout Streaked Horned Lark Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Page 2 of 29 Check all project activities that apply (for both NMFS and USFWS projects)

Check all project activities that apply (USFWS projects only)

Culvert cleaning and replacement Fish Passage Environmental Retrofit and Enhancement

Page 3 of 29 Project action area: The project action area includes terrestrial and aquatic zones of impact. The terrestrial zone of impact includes the area of noise from construction until it reaches ambient levels about 2795 feet (0.52 mile) from the project location. The extent of noise was calculated using the Terrestrial Noise Calculator (v7) with the following inputs: a baseline noise level of 40 dBA for Whatcom County based on demographics of 103 people per square mile; a referenced background noise level of 55 dBA for the adjacent railroad tracks; a posted speed of 35 mph, and 500 vehicles per hour traffic volume. Land is mixed rural, railroad, residential, and farmland use; therefore, it was considered a hard site due to adjacent County roads, and compacted earth due to farming. The three loudest pieces of equipment are a jackhammer (89 dBA), grading machine (89 dBA), and a plate compactor (83 dBA). The noise calculator indicates construction noise levels will attenuate within about 2795 feet (0.52 mile) before reaching ambient noise levels; therefore, this buffer radius has been established around the project limits to account for the terrestrial zone of impact (Action Area-Map 1). The action area in terrestrial habitats includes also a proposed detour route, when the road closes for construction. The detour route will include a signed route of existing roadways so that travelers northbound and southbound can exit before or after reaching the exit for SR 548. The detour route is a series of existing roads currently used by trucks and cars to access local destinations such as Birch Bay and alternate routes to the I-5 international border. These local roads are also used by residential community members. Traffic may increase slighting above existing traffic levels during detour use; however, due to existing roadway use that is similar to SR 548, no noise increases are expected from construction traffic (Action Area Map 1A).

Attach map and photographs:

Page 4 of 29 Page 5 of 29 Page 6 of 29 Page 7 of 29 Project Description: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to replace a fish barrier to improve fish passability in a Tributary to California Creek as it flows under State Route (SR) 548 within the city of Ferndale. This project is located on SR 548 from Milepost (MP) 0.25 to MP 0.31 in Whatcom County, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) identifies the fish barrier as site 996003. The project proposes to replace existing 3-foot diameter, 148 foot long fish barrier culvert with a 12-foot wide box culvert of similar length to provide a fish passable crossing under SR 548. Proposed construction will include traffic control, highway excavation, existing culvert removal, box structure installation, and streambed grading. WSDOT will design and construct the project in accordance with WDFW Water Crossing Design Guidelines and Integrated Protection Guidelines. The project includes work below the existing Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM); therefore, construction will include installation of a stream bypass to isolate the work area and protect aquatic life. All work below the OHWM will take place during the in-water work window prescribed by WDFW in accordance with the Hydraulic Project Approval. Landward of the OHWM, temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be installed prior to ground disturbance to protect water quality resources during construction.

Following culvert replacement, fish will have improved access to 3.3 miles of upstream spawning and rearing habitat in the California Creek watershed.

Is this an emergency project? ¨ Yes þ No

Does the project have any USFWS listed species or critical habitats on the county list? If no, then no effect for USFWS. þ Yes ¨ No

Page 8 of 29 Does the project have any USFWS listed species or critical habitats in the mapped project area on IPaC (you can use an unofficial list if you think you have a no effect project)? If no, then no effect. Fill in the remaining required fields and the minimization measures and print the USFWS no effect form. If yes, continue with the rest of the form. þ Yes ¨ No

Does the project have sensitive habitats (within 200 feet of wetlands or surface waters) where staging, refueling, or other activities should be restricted? þ Yes ¨ No

Indicate mileposts within project area where restrictions apply. The project is located adjacent to a surface water body; therefore, refueling should be restricted next to the stream according to the spill control and countermeasures plan during construction. There is a gas station parking lot across Portal Way next to the project limits that will likely be used for staging and refueling with protective measures to prevent a spill from occurring.

Will the project have construction equipment operating within the wetted channel of any waterbody? þ Yes ¨ No

Will detours be used? þ Yes ¨ No

Please describe: SR 548 will likely be closed for a one-week duration to install the new box culvert; however, a local detour will be provided around the work area.

Will the project include work at night? þ Yes ¨ No

Will artificial lights be used over or adjacent to an aquatic area? þ Yes ¨ No

Will blasting occur? ¨ Yes þ No

Will impact pile driving occur? ¨ Yes þ No

Will piles be removed on the project? ¨ Yes þ No

Is the project for slide abatement and repair? ¨ Yes þ No

Will cutting or filling occur? þ Yes ¨ No

Indicate cut area (excavated area) above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Area: 872 square feet (.02 acres)

Page 9 of 29 Indicate cut area (excavated area) below the ordinary high water mark. Area: 694 square feet (.016 acres)

Indicate fill area above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) Area: 872 square feet (.02 acres)

Indicate fill area below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) Area: 694 square feet (.016 acres)

Will cutting or filling occur within 300 ft of a water body that has listed aquatic species or their habitat?

þ Yes ¨ No

Will any soils be exposed? þ Yes ¨ No

What is the erosion potential? Medium

Will bare soils be revegetated or hydroseeded after construction? þ Yes ¨ No

Describe the proposed methods. All soils will be stablized with mulch and/or seeding post construction to control erosion and prepare for native plant installation.

Project Timing

Construction Start Date March 2, 2020

Construction End Date December 31, 2020

Total Working Days 60

Will the project need a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) or have an aquatic zone of impact requiring in-water work? þ Yes ¨ No

Will the project use a WDFW published in-water work window? ¨ Yes þ No

Page 10 of 29 Project Aquatic Habitat Impacts

Elevated pollutant delivery (non-sediment)? ¨ Yes þ No

Will there be elevated sediment/turbidity? þ Yes ¨ No

Estimate the lineal extent of stream or shoreline that will be exposed to elevated turbidity (ft). 433

Explain The project action area (in aquatic habitats) may be exposed to turbidity during project construction. This includes 50 feet upstream of the existing culvert, 148 linear feet of existing culvert, and 35 feet downstream of the existing culvert to account for streambed grading and stream diversion inlet/outlet. It also includes 200 feet downstream of the grading area to encompass the downstream area that will be monitored for water quality compliance.

Will riparian habitat functions be altered? þ Yes ¨ No

Will there be elevated surface water temperature? ¨ Yes þ No

Will there be substrate disturbance? þ Yes ¨ No

Indicate disturbed area if known Area: 694 square feet (.016 acres)

Explain. The area of substrate disturbance is equal to the area of streambed grading proposed below the OHWM of Tributary to California Creek.

Will substrate disturbance mobilize contaminants? ¨ Yes þ No

Will there be loss of benthic invertebrate habitat and potential food web effects? þ Yes ¨ No

Indicate area of benthic invertebrate habitat disturbance Area: 694 square feet (.016 acres)

Page 11 of 29 Explain. This is equal to the temporary area of streambed disturbance. This impact to benthic habitat is considered temporary. Benthic habitat will be improved post-construction due to the addition of streambed gravels.

Will there be elevated in-water noise from pile driving? ¨ Yes þ No

Fish harm or harassment from in-water work or handling? þ Yes ¨ No

Explain. Project biologists will assist the contractor to remove aquatic life from the project area during construction. This may include seining, netting, and electroshocking according to WSDOT fish exclusion protocols.

Will there be effects on fish migration? þ Yes ¨ No

Will there be impacts to wetlands that have fish habitat? ¨ Yes þ No

Will there be permanent or temporary fish habitat displacement? þ Yes ¨ No

Explain. Fish will be temporarily displaced during stream diversion/culvert construction.

Will there be altered water quality delivery, such as a change to a stormwater conveyance structure? ¨ Yes þ No

Will there be streambank/shoreline habitat loss/modification or reduced habitat connectivity? ¨ Yes þ No

Will natural stream processes and/or floodplains be altered? þ Yes ¨ No

Explain. Stream hydraulics will be improved by accommodating more flow through the new structure and allow passage of LWM.

Page 12 of 29 Will the project have beneficial effects? þ Yes ¨ No

Explain. The project will improve fish passage upstream by replacing this fish barrier.

If project removes a fish barrier, indicate length of fish habitat gain on the stream (feet) 17,318

If project removes a fish barrier, indicate the area of new spawning area gained above the culvert (square feet or acres) Area: 6,792 square feet (.156 acres)

If project removes a fish barrier, indicate the area of new rearing area gained above the culvert (square feet or acres) Area: .605 acres (26,360 square feet)

Fish Habitat Improvement

As part of the project, check all that apply:

Fish barriers will be eliminated. Revegetation of streambanks or riparian areas will occur.

Will large woody material (LWM) be removed from the site? ¨ Yes þ No

Environmental Setting

Page 13 of 29 Habitat in the project action area 10% Riparian, 5% Coniferous Forest, 25% Wetlands, 45% Developed, and 15% Other

Do streams, rivers, or other waterbodies occur in the project action area? þ Yes ¨ No

Provide names of major streams/creeks in action area and describe spawning gravels, embeddedness, riparian cover, refuge area riffles, etc. Focus on areas where impacts may occur. If the stream is a tributary of a larger stream or river, indicate distance to nearest confluence. Tributary to California Creek-The ditched channel is approximately 3-4 feet wide and flat with a uniform depth of 3-4 feet during winter flows. Silts and fines dominate channel substrate. No suitable spawning habitat was observed in the project action area. WDFW (2009) reports salmon spawning approximately 1,600 feet upstream in steeper gradient reaches (1-3% gradient). Habitat in the project area is primarily for adult and juvenile migration.

Project Impacts to Streambank, Streambed, and Shoreline

Will there be riprap placement in the project area along streambanks or shorelines ? ¨ Yes þ No

Will work on streambanks or shorelines improve fish habitat? þ Yes ¨ No

Describe the proposed work: The stream channel will be wider with a tapered bank to improve cover for juvenile fish after native vegetation has been established.

Will the stream bed, lake bed or marine bed be disturbed? þ Yes ¨ No

What is the area of disturbance? Area: 872 square feet (.02 acres)

For fish passage projects with USFWS listed species, does the stream have an incised channel profile (longitudinal profile downstream from culvert is offset below upstream profile by 1 foot or more)

¨ Yes þ No

For fish passage projects with USFWS listed species, are there incision issues other than a localized scour hole at the outlet of an existing undersized culvert? ¨ Yes þ No

Page 14 of 29 Pollution Generating Impervious Surface

Will the project create new PGIS? ¨ Yes þ No

Fish Handling