The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1. Jefferson County Early Learning NEPA. SEPA 1 of 3 HUD Region X Environmental Office – 05/2023 Historic Preservation for Washington State 24 CFR Part 58 General requirements Legislation Regulation Protect sites, buildings, and objects with national, state or local historic, cultural and/or archeological significance. Identify effects of project on properties National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470(f), section 106 36 CFR Part 800 24 CFR Part 58.5(a) 1. Does the project include repair, rehabilitation or conversion of existing properties; new construction; the acquisition of undeveloped land; or any activity that requires ground disturbance (defined as one cubic foot of disturbed soil)? No: STOP here. The Section 106 Historic Preservation review is complete. Record your determination on the Statutory Worksheet or Environmental Assessment. Yes: PROCEED to #2 2. Does the project involve a structure that is less than 45 years old; is not in a historic district; or has no ground disturbing activities? Yes: STOP here. The Section 106 Historic Preservation review is complete. Record your determination that there is no potential to cause effect, including the age of the existing building and information from the National Register to show that the activity is not in a historic district, on the Statutory Worksheet or Environmental Assessment. No: PROCEED to #3 3. Consult with SHPO or THPO and any tribes or groups that may have an interest in the project to determine if the project is eligible for the National Historic Register.  You must define and consider the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE is the geographic area within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking. (36 CFR Part 800.16).  Determine if there are tribes or groups that have an interest in the historic aspects of the project and invite them to participate in the consultation. For ground disturbing activities, you must make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify Indian tribes that may have an interest. HUD’s website lists interested tribes by county: https://egis.hud.gov/tdat/ We suggest you go to the Tribal website or visit the State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO) Tribal directory to make sure contact information is current.  Consult the SHPO, or if the project is on certain tribal lands, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), with details of the project and project site and your determination if it is eligible for the National Historic Register. SHPO or THPO has 30 days from receipt of a well-documented request of review of your determination. We recommend sending the letter by USMail with return receipt or email with read receipt to document the Tribal contact. If they do not respond within the timeframe, or provide a description of additional information needed, you may proceed with the next step of the process based on your finding or consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). State Historic Preservation Office: www.dahp.wa.gov email: mailto:106@dahp.wa.gov WA Tribal Historic Preservation Officer lookup: https://grantsdev.cr.nps.gov/THPO_Review/index.cfm Proceed as appropriate based on the Finding: No Historic Properties Affected: STOP here. The Section 106 Historic Preservation review is complete. Attach SHPO/THPO concurrence, copies of letters to and from other interested parties and the tribes, and your response to the ERR. If SHPO/THPO did not respond within 30 days, your dated letter documents compliance. Record your determination of no historic properties affected on the Statutory Worksheet or Environmental Assessment. 2 of 3 HUD Region X Environmental Office – 05/2023 No Adverse Effect on Historic Property: STOP here. The Section 106 Historic Preservation review is complete. Categorically Excluded projects (24 CFR Part 58.35(a)) CANNOT convert to exempt with this determination. Attach SHPO/THPO concurrence, copies of letters to and from other interested parties and the tribes, and your response to the ERR. Record your determination of no adverse affect on historic properties on the Statutory Worksheet or Environmental Assessment. Adverse Effect on Historic Property Resolve Adverse Effects per 800.6 in consultation with SHPO/THPO, the ACHP if participating, and any consulting parties. The loan or grant may not be approved until adverse effects are resolved according to 800.6 or you have complied with 36 CFR Part 800. Categorically Excluded projects (24 CFR Part 58.35(a)) CANNOT convert to exempt with this determination. Make sure that the resolution is fully documented in your ERR with all SHPO/THPO correspondence, copies of letters to and from other interested parties and the tribes, surveys, MOAs etc. 3 of 3 HUD Region X Environmental Office – 05/2023 Historic Preservation for Washington State 24 CFR Part 58 General requirements Legislation Regulation Protect sites, buildings, and objects with national, state or local historic, cultural and/or archeological significance. Identify effects of project on properties. National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470(f), section 106 36 CFR Part 800 24 CFR Part 58.5(a) Per 36 CFR 800.4 and 36 CFR 800.5, the lead federal agency must consult with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) for each step of the Section 106 process. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has legally delegated their authority to you, and therefore, you must consult with DAHP. Consultation with DAHP consists of letterhead- to-letterhead exchange of each step, which are as follows: ☐ Step 1: Initiate consultation by defining the undertaking. Please provide documentation of your legal delegation from HUD to consult with SHPO and DAHP at this time. ☐ Step 2: Definition of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) ☐ Step 3: Survey and Methodology ☐ Step 4: Determination of Eligibility ☐ Step 5: Assessment of Adverse Effects ☐ Step 6: Resolution of Adverse Effects Steps may be consolidated into fewer consultations, but SHPO and DAHP must be afforded an opportunity to consult on each step. DAHP has consolidated Section 106 consultation into two forms.* 1. EZ-1 - Section 106 EZ Project Review Form: a fillable PDF. Download, complete, and send to 106@dahp.wa.gov. May be used to initiate consultation and describe the Undertaking (Step 1), and to define the APE (Step 2). 2. EZ-2 - for built environment resources (buildings, structures, sites, objects, districts). Entered directly into WISAARD https://dahp.wa.gov/project-review/wisaard-system. May be used to offer a determination of eligibility (Step 4). Depending on the scope of the undertaking, or if cultural resource professionals are already being retained for the undertaking, Historic Property Inventory forms may be requested, in order to ensure the level of identification efforts is commensurate with the undertaking. Please visit their website for more information:  Section 106: https://dahp.wa.gov/project-review/section-106 .  EZ forms: https://dahp.wa.gov/ez-project-review-form Tribal consultation is a separate responsibility from consultation with DAHP. You must determine if there are tribes or groups that have an interest in the historic aspects of the project and invite them to participate in the consultation. HUD’s website lists interested tribes by county: https://egis.hud.gov/tdat/. It is suggested that you go to the Tribal website, or you may review DAHP resources, to inquire about up to date contact information, but DAHP cannot consult with Tribes on your behalf. State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wa.gov March 7, 2024 Amanda Christofferson Jefferson County Public Health 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Jefferson County - YMCA Early Learning/ Family Support Center Project Log No: 2024-03-01609-HUD-CDBG Dear Amanda Christofferson: Thank you for contacting our department. We have reviewed the materials you provided for the proposed Jefferson County - YMCA Early Learning/ Family Support Center Project, Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington. We concur with your Determination of No Historic Properties Affected with the stipulation for an unanticipated find plan. In the event that archaeological or historic materials are encountered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and the concerned tribes and this office notified. We also would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on the behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents. Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360) 890-2615 email: rob.whitlam@dahp.wa.gov protect the past, shape the future DEPT OF ARCHAEOLOGY +HISTORIC PRESERVATION Section 106EZ-1 FORM Request to initiate consultation for Undertakings subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800. For non-cultural resource professionals only. revised April 2021 New Consultation?YES NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED PER REQUEST Questions? Submitter Name: Submitter Address: Submitter Phone:Submitter e-mail: City / State / Zip: Submitter Organization: SECTION 4: CONTACT INFORMATION There are NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES AFFECTED by the Undertaking. The Undertaking will have NO ADVERSE EFFECT on historic resources. The Undertaking will have an ADVERSE EFFECT on historic resources. FEDERAL AGENCY DETERMINATION DAHP USE ONLY Date Received: DAHP Log #: Reviewer(s): ARCHY BEU SECTION 5: ATTACHMENTS Please email completed form and all attachments to: 106@dahp.wa.gov SITE PLAN / DRAWINGS - Indicate location and dates of resources, proposed improvements and ground disturbance, etc. MAP / APE - Be sure to show the project boundary and location of property(ies). See Section 7 on Page 3 for optional template. May also submit online through WISAARD using eAPE. DESCRIPTION / SCOPE OF WORK - Describe the Undertaking, including any ground disturbance. See Section 6 on Page 2 for optional template. PHOTOGRAPHS - Attach digital photographs showing the project site, including images of all resources. Photos submitted through WISAARD may sufﬁ ce. Undertaking Title: Property Name: Project Address: Township / Range / Section:City / State / Zip:County: SECTION 1: DESCRIBE THE UNDERTAKING leave blank if unsure if applicable YES NO Check here if Undertaking involves multiple resources. If so, attach a table including all information in Sections 1 and 2 for each resource.YES YES YES YES YES NEW CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION GROUND DISTURBANCE REHABILITATION / RENOVATION ACQUISITION NO NO NO NO NO NOT SURENOT SURE Undertaking includes (check all that apply): Has a project already been started in WISAARD?:eAPE?If so, DAHP log #: Does the Undertaking involve any buildings, objects, sites, structures or districts that are over 45 years old? Does the Undertaking involve any properties determined eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places? Is the building, structure or site already recorded in WISAARD?[!] If the resource is not recorded in WISAARD, please contact DAHP Staff. Go to www.dahp.wa.gov/wisaard for more information. Check the box when complete. If Yes, what is the Property ID # or Site #? *Contact DAHP[!] See Note SECTION 2: IDENTIFY HISTORIC PROPERTIES Federal Agency: Contact Person:Phone:e-mail: Grant / Loan Name: SECTION 3: FEDERAL AGENCY INFORMATION Contact DAHP at 106@dahp.wa.gov or (360) 586-3065. You may also ﬁ nd answers to your questions online at www.dahp.wa.gov/section106. If different from Federal Agency contact person. The Undertaking will have NO EFFECT on historic resources. Do you have authority from the Federal Agency to consult on their behalf? DAHP REVIEWER DATE DAHP requires ADDITIONAL INFORMATION in order to complete review (see attached). SHPO CONCURRENCE (DAHP USE ONLY) CONCUR DO NOT CONCUR AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) See attached for additional information. CONCUR DO NOT CONCUR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY See attached for additional information. CONCUR DO NOT CONCUR DETERMINATION OF EFFECT See attached for additional information. protect the past, shape the future DEPT OF ARCHAEOLOGY +HISTORIC PRESERVATION revised April 2021 SECTION 106 EZ-1 FORM 2 NOTE: To save this ﬁ llable form you must ﬁ ll it out in Adobe Acrobat or use the PRINT to PDF function in Acrobat Reader. In Reader choose File > Print and choose Adobe PDF as the printer. The ﬁ ll will save to your computer. Please be aware that this form may only initiate consultation. For some projects, DAHP may require additional information to complete our review such as plans, speciﬁ cations, and photographs. An historic property inventory form may need to completed by a qualiﬁ ed cultural resource professional. Instructions: Please describe the type of work to be completed. Be as detailed as possible to avoid a request for additional information. Be sure to describe all ground disturbing activities in the appropriate box below, and provide photos of areas of work. Provide a detailed description of the proposed project: Describe the existing project site conditions (include building age, if applicable): If there are ground disturbing activities proposed, describe them including the approximate depth of ground disturbance: SECTION 6: ADD’L PROJECT INFORMATION protect the past, shape the future DEPT OF ARCHAEOLOGY +HISTORIC PRESERVATION revised April 2021 SECTION 106 EZ-1 FORM 3 SECTION 7: MAP / Area of Potential Effect CLICK IN THIS BOX TO ADD A MAP MAP MUST BE IN JPEG FORMAT SEE LINK ABOVE TO INSTRUCTIONS FOR CREATING A JPEG MAP WITH THE SNIPPING TOOL FOR WINDOWS Instructions: Please attach a MAP of the Project Area. (Use WISAARD with USA Topo Basemap background. Click HERE for Snipping Tool Tutorial. Draw an outline of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) that clearly delineates the project boundary. JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER OWNER: PORT TOWNSEND SCHOOL DISTRICT ARCHITECTURE 1147 WEST OHIO STREET, #504 CHICAGO, IL 60642 T: (312) 961-1292 PRE-PLANNING & FEASIBILITY MAY 25, 2023 SCOPE OF WORK DESCRIPTION: 1-STORY EARLY LEARNING CENTER WITH PARKING LOT AND FENCED IN PLAY AREA DESIGNER DRAWING INDEX # SHEET NAME PR E - P L A N N I N G & F E A S I B I L I T Y GENERAL G001 ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS & MATERIAL LEGEND • G002 CODE ANALYSIS ARCHITECTURE A100 SITE PLAN • A101 FIRST FLOOR & ROOF PLANS • A200 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS • A201 EXTERIOR WALL TYPES & SCHEDULES • A300 BUILDING SECTIONS • A301 WALL SECTIONS & PARTITION TYPES • STUDIO STL 1044 LAWRENCE STREET, PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 T: (360) 640-8814 DRAWING INDEX # SHEET NAME PR E - P L A N N I N G & F E A S I B I L I T Y DRAWING INDEX # SHEET NAME PR E - P L A N N I N G & F E A S I B I L I T Y GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS ELEVATION FLOOR DRAIN HOLLOW METAL GYPSUM BOARD HARDWARE GALVANIZED GLASSGL CLEAN OUTC.O. DR DTL C.W. CT CPT DOOR DETAIL COLD WATER CERAMIC TILE CARPET HOURHR HT.HEIGHT HDWR. HM CONT. CONC. A.R.F. C.I. L C CABT. CLG. A.F.F. ALUM EQUALE.Q. ABOVE ROUGH FLOOR CONCRETE CONTINUOUS CAST IRON CENTER LINE CABINET CEILING FLOORFLR GALV. GWB EXP. EXIST. F.D. EXPOSED EXISTING ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR ALUMINUM DWG ELEV. DRAWING SEALS. ON CENTERO.C. PL OPN'G PR. PT PLASTIC LAMINATE OPENING PAIR PAINT TRANSPARENT TREADT. TYP.TYPICAL THK. TRANS. TEMP'D THICK TEMPERED LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETEL.C. MULL. M.W.K. N.I.C. LAM. LAV. NOT IN CONTRACT MULLION MILLWORK LAMINATED LAVATORY H.W. JT. HOT WATER JOINT WD RISERR. ROUGH OPENING SHEET METALS.M. SHT. SIM. SHEET SIMILAR R.O. REQ'D S.B. REQUIRED SANDBLAST W.R. WP QUARRY TILEQ.T. RAD.RADIUS U.O.N. LVT WOOD WATER RESISTANT WATER PROOF UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED VINYL TILE INSUL INSULATION SOLID SURFACESS MTL METAL EPOXYEP EF EIFS AC ACOUSTIC CEILING ID INTERIOR DESIGN SYMBOLS LEGEND A101 1 1 1 1 View Name101/8" = 1'-0" DETAIL SECTION ROOM TAG ELEVATION TAG WALL TYPE BUILDING SECTION/ WALL SECTION ELEVATION VIEWS DRAWING TAG DIRECTION TAG 8X88 DIRECTION OF NORTH WALL TYPE OBJECT HEIGHT ROOF 0'-0" ROOM NUMBER CUT LINE SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER CUT LINE SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER VIEW DIRECTION SHEET NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DRAWING NAME DRAWING SCALE DRAWING NUMBER Room name 101 1 A101 SIM 1 A4.01 - LOCATION MAP SITE LOCATION PORT TOWNSEND HIGH SCHOOL 1.THE AIA DOCUMENT A201-2007, GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION, SHALL PROVIDE THE GUIDING TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, MODIFIED OR EXPOUNDED UPON IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT. CAPITALIZED WORDS (OTHER THAN STATED CODES) ARE DEFINED OR SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO IN THE A201-2007 AND RELATED FAMILY OF DOCUMENTS. II.CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND SHALL BE INFORMED OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS THEREOF PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF A BID. ANY ERRORS OR AMBIGUITIES NOTED DURING SAID EXAMINATION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT, PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID. THE ARCHITECT WILL ISSUE ADDENDA OF INTERPRETATION OF THE CITED ERROR OR AMBIGUITY. NO SUBSEQUENT CLAIM FOR EXTRA WORK WILL BE ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIMED MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING OR INTENT OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OF ANY PORTION THEREOF IF THE ITEM OCCASIONING THE CLAIM APPEARED IN, OR WAS INFERABLE FROM, SAID CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AS FURNISHED FOR BIDDING. 2.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE WORK IS PERFORMED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL APPLICABLE CODES (MUNICIPAL, STATE & FEDERAL REGULATIONS) HAVING JURISDICTION INCLUDING THE ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES AND AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE APPLICABLE CODES SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS A MINIMUM STANDARD IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT AND WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE ONLY OVER THE LACK OF ANY BETTER INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE WORK CONFORMS TO ALL INDUSTRY AND MANUFACTURER'S PUBLISHED STANDARDS AND THE OWNER'S AND ARCHITECT'S REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FAMILIARIZING HIM/HERSELF WITH, AND COMPLYING WITH, THE OWNER'S AND ARCHITECT'S QUALITY REQUIREMENTS. 4.CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL APPLICABLE JOB SITE WORK SAFETY CODES AND REGULATIONS INCLUDING SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY. ANY JOB SITE VISIT BY THE OWNER / ARCHITECT IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES. 5.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING SITE MAINTENANCE, SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO AVOID DISTURBANCE OF ADJACENT FUNCTIONS/BUILDINGS. ALL ASPECTS OF THE WORK INCLUDING DELIVERIES AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES SHALL ADHERE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE TO ALL GOVERNING ORDINANCES AND RESTRICTIONS. CONTRACTOR IS TO HAVE A COPY OF SAID REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR REVIEW. 6.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF ALL EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DIMENSIONS, SOIL TOPOGRAPHY, ADVERSE DRAINAGE, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR ANY FORESEEABLE INTERFERENCE. 7.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTING SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE START OF DEMOLITION / CONSTRUCTION. ANY CONDITIONS FOUND THAT ALTER OR OTHERWISE CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WORK SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. 8.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF LAYOUT INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS IN RELATION TO EXISTING BENCHMARKS AND IMPROVEMENTS. ARCHITECT TO BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 9.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION OF ALL ELEMENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CHECK WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS BEFORE THE INSTALLATION OF STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND OTHER COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS. SHOULD THERE BE ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS AND ENGINEERING DRAWINGS THAT WOULD CAUSE AN AWKWARD OR IMPROPER INSTALLATION, IT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ARCHITECT'S ATTENTION FOR CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SAID WORK. ANY PORTION OF THE WORK INSTALLED IN CONFLICT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS/HER EXPENSE AND AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 10.CONTRACTOR SHALL WARRANT THAT ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. ANY AND ALL SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE EVALUATED AND APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING THE ARCHITECT WITH ALL SAMPLES AND PRODUCT DATA REQUIRED TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS, IN A TIMELY MANNER SO AS NOT TO PRECLUDE PROCUREMENT OF THE PRODUCT ORIGINALLY SPECIFIED OR ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE. 11.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THOROUGH COORDINATION OF THE WORK INCLUDING THE WORK OF ALL SUBCONTRACTORS. NO CLAIMS FOR ADDITIONAL WORK WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR WORK RELATED TO SUCH COORDINATION. THE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED CAREFULLY AND SKILLFULLY BY WORKERS ADEPT IN THEIR TRADES. 12.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING ALL REQUIRED PERMITS,BONDS AND ASSOCIATED FEES. ALL NECESSARY PERMITS, LICENSES, TESTS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTOR. 13.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING EXISTING CONDITIONS OR PORTIONS OF THE WORK COMPLETED BY OTHER SUBCONTRACTORS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING CONDITIONS OR WORK BY OTHERS INCURRED WHILE FULFILLING THE OBLIGATIONS OF THIS CONTRACT. 14.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT AND SECURE THE PROJECT SITE AS REQUIRED, IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL CODES AND REGULATIONS. 15.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAULING AWAY ALL GARBAGE AND DEBRIS RESULTING FROM THE WORK AT THE SITE. ALL GARBAGE AND DEBRIS MUST BE SWEPT UP AT THE END OF EACH DAY, DUMPED IN A CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER AND HAULED AWAY AT APPROPRIATE INTERVALS. ABSOLUTELY NO GARBAGE OR DEBRIS SHALL BE LEFT FOR THE CITY GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICES. ANY GARBAGE OR DEBRIS LEFT BY THE CONTRACTOR OR ANY OF HIS/HER SUBCONTRACTORS AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT WITH THE OWNER WILL BE HAULED AWAY AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 16.CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE THE WORK PERFORMED AND MATERIALS UTILIZED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) AFTER THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION AGAINST DEFECTS IN WORKMANSHIP AND/OR MATERIALS. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMEDY ANY SUCH DEFECTS, DISCOVERED WITHIN THE STATED LIMITS, AT THE OWNER'S REQUEST IN A TIMELY MANNER AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 17.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING TEMPORARY HEATING FOR AREA OF WORK, TEMPORARY TOILET FACILITIES, TEMPORARY FENCING, AND TEMPRORARY PARTITIONS AND DOORS AS REQUIRED TO PREVENT ACCESS TO WORK AREA BY BUILDING OCCUPANTS AND MAINTAIN ALL EXISTING RATED SEPERATIONS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. III.GENERAL NOTES 1.REFER TO COMPLETE SET OF ISSUED CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR APPLICABLE NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS. 2.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONAL INFORMATION NOT SHOWN. CONSULT WITH THE ARCHITECT. 3.ALL HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS TO BE TAKEN FROM FINAL FINISHED FACE OF WALL AND ARE INTENDED AS CLEAR OR TOTAL OUT TO OUT, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 4.ALL VERTICAL DIMENSIONS TO BE TAKEN RELATIVE TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR, 0'-0”UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 5.FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINAL FINISH, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6.FIELD MEASURE AND CONFIRM EXISTING DIMENSIONS TO THOSE PROVIDED ON PLANS. FIELD MEASURE AND CONFIRM DIMENSIONS FOR OWNER PROVIDED EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES AND WAIT FOR DIRECTION BEFORE CONTINUING WORK ASSOCIATED WITH DISCREPANCY. 7.ISOLATE DISSIMILAR METALS TO PREVENT GALVANIC CORROSION. 8.PARTITION TYPES AND FIRE RESISTIVE RATINGS INDICATED ON A PARTITION ARE TO BE CONTINUOUS FOR THE LENGTH AND HEIGHT OF A PARTITION. 9.OPENINGS IN RATED WALL, FLOOR, CEILING AND ROOF ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE SEALED WITH UL RATED PENETRATION SEALANT SYSTEMS MEETING OR EXCEEDING THE REQUIRED FIRE RESISTIVE RATINGS. 10.PROVIDE CONTINUOUS PERIMETER FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM BETWEEN FLOORS AND COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION WITH THE EXTERIOR WALL. FIRE RATING OF FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SHALL MATCH FIRE RATING OF FLOOR CONSTRUCTION. 11.MAINTAIN THE FIRE RATING OF CONSTRUCTION AROUND CABINETS, PANELS, AND BOXES RECESSED IN FIRE RATED WALL, FLOOR, AND CEILING ASSEMBLIES. 12.PROVIDE STIFFENERS, BRACING, BACKING PLATES AND BLOCKING REQUIRED FOR, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: SECURE INSTALLATION OF DOOR HARDWARE INCLUDING WALL-MOUNTED DOOR STOPS, WALL- MOUNTED SHELVES AND OTHER MILLWORK, TOILET ROOM ACCESSORIES, MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT, AND SUSPENDED MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. 14.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL ALL REQUIRED WALL / CEILING / FLOOR ACCESS PANELS FOR ALL MEP SYSTEMS WITHIN BID. ACCESS PANELS TO MATCH WALL FINISH OR BE METALLIC, PENDING OWNER'S APPROVAL. NO CHANGE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR REQUIRED ACCESS PANELS AND THEIR INSTALLATION. 15.COORDINATE INSTALLATION OF DIFFUSERS, SPEAKERS, SPRINKLER HEADS, AND ACCESS PANELS WITH LIGHTING LAYOUT. REPORT ANY CONFLICTS TO THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 16.EXIT SIGNS AND SMOKE DETECTORS LOCATED IN HARD CEILINGS SHALL BE POSITIONED AS REQUIRED BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION AND SHALL BE CENTERED IN CORRIDORS AND LOCATED A DISTANCE OF 1'-0" MINIMUM FROM THE WALL TO THE CENTER OF THE FIXTURE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 17.FULLY LAY OUT GRID, WALL, AND OPENING PLACEMENT IN AN AREA PRIOR TO START OF PARTITION CONSTRUCTION. VERIFY THAT DIMENSIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH REQUIREMENTS INDICATED IN THE DOCUMENTS. REFER ANY DIMENSIONAL INCONSISTENCIES TO THE ARCHITECT FOR RESOLUTION PRIOR TO THE START OF PARTITION CONSTRUCTION. 18.LEVEL FLOORS THAT EXCEED 1/4" VARIANCE IN A 10'-0" RADIUS. 19.GANG MULTIPLE SWITCHES TOGETHER INTO ONE BOX WITH A SINGLE COVER PLATE WHENEVER POSSIBLE. MULTIPLE SWITCHES, WHICH CANNOT BE GANGED TOGETHER IN THE SAME BOX, SHALL BE LOCATED AS CLOSE TOGETHER AS POSSIBLE AND MOUNTED AT THE SAME HEIGHT. 20.WALL OUTLETS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 20" AFF TO CENTER OF BOX UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. INSTALL SWITCH PLATES AT 42" AFF UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFER TO OTHER TYPICAL MOUNTING HEIGHTS PROVIDED ON A-702. 21.DO NOT INSTALL OUTLET OR J-BOXES BACK-TO-BACK ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE WALL. A STUD MUST SEPARATE BOXES. 22.CAULK FLOOR AND WALL OUTLETS WITH AN ACOUSTIC SEALANT. 23.PROVIDE 3/4" MOVEMENT AT THE TOP OF PARTITIONS THAT GO TO THE UNDERSIDE OF DECK OR STRUCTURE. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INDICATIONS OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION AND ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD SURVEY THE SITE OF PROPOSED WORK TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE DEMOLITION WORK. 2. CONTRACT DRAWINGS SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD AS A COMPLETE SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT INFORM THE WORK TO BE DONE. IN NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHALL THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR BID OR PERFORM WORK WITHOUT REFERENCING ALL RELATED INSTRUCTION FOUND THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: INFORMATION FOUND IN BOTH DEMOLITION AND NEW WORK DRAWING SHEETS, GENERAL NOTES, NOTES / DIRECTION FOUND ON SHEETS OF ALL DISCIPLINES AND SPECIFICATIONS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCY ON THE DRAWINGS OR THE UNCOVERING OF ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS WHICH AFFECT THE INSTALLATION OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OR THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION THAT IS TO REMAIN. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT CAUSE OR IMPOSE ANY IMPACT LOADS OR EXCESSIVE VIBRATIONS DURING DEMOLITION. MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE PILED, STACKED, OR ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE IN A MANNER THAT WOULD EXCEED THE SAFE LOAD LIMITS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE REMOVAL OF ALL MATERIALS W/ OWNER'S ABATEMENT CONTRACTOR. 6. WHEN UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS ARE DISCOVERED, GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A CHANGE ORDER WITH A CLEAR BREAKDOWN FOR MATERIALS AND LABOR WITH HOURLY RATE(S) LISTED. ALL CHANGE ORDERS SHALL BE PRESENTED AS "NOT TO EXCEED" AMOUNTS. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A TIME TRACKING SYSTEM FOR CHANGE ORDER WORK AND PRESENT A REPORT TO OWNER AT COMPLETION OF THE TASK. OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SOLICIT AN OUTSIDE BID FOR CHANGE ORDER WORK AT OWN DISCRETION. IF OWNER HIRES AN OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM SAID WORK, GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE THE SITE AVAILABLE FOR WORK TO BE PERFORMED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. GENERAL DEMOLITION NOTES COMPACTED SOIL UNDISTURBED SOIL COURSE POROUS FILL SAND CONCRETE PERVIOUS CONCRETE CUT STONE STEEL ALUMINUM ORNAMENTAL METAL CONTINUOUS WOOD FRAMING WOOD BLOCKING FINISH WOODWORK PLYWOOD GYPSUM WALLBOARD RIGID INSULATION BATT INSULATION WATERPROOFING ACOUSTICAL CEILING BOARD GLAZING PLASTIC LAMINATE RESILIENT FLOORING SPRAY-APPLIED FIREPROOFING SEALANT & BACKER ROD PARTICLE BOARD MATERIALS LEGEND CARPET SPRAY INSULATION CUT STONE CODE COMPLIANCE • 2021 EDITIONS OF THE IRC, IMC, IFC, AND UPC ALL AS ADOPTED BY WAC • 2018 WASHINGTON STATE ENERFY CODE (AS ADOPTED UNDER CHAPTER 51-11C WAC) PROJECT DATA SITE ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: 001023006 (SOUTHEAST CORNER) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 T30 R1W TAX 81, 85, 108, 109 ZONING: P-I -PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTRE (CITY), CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS ARE AN ALLOWED USE WITHIN THE P-I ZONING. LOT AREA: OWNER PRESENT FUTURE ARCHITECTS 1147 W OHIO STREET, #504 CHICAGO, IL 60642 ARCHITECT (312) 961-1292 ISS. # copyright 2023 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO. : DESCRIPTION DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION G001 STUDIO STL 1044 LAWRENCE STREET, PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 DESIGNER ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS & MATERIAL LEGEND ST R E E T , PO R T T O W N S E N D , W A 9 8 3 6 8 2217 CIVIL STRUCTURAL MEP (360) 640-8814 JE F F E R S O N C O U N T Y E A R L Y LE A R N I N G C E N T E R 1 Pre-Planning & Feasibility 05/25/2023 JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER PROPOSED TYPE V CONSTRUCTION 1-STORY / 7,214 SF STREET ADDRESS (TBD) EX I S T I N G D R I V E W A Y DR O P -OF F L A N E P-I EXIST. 1 STORY MASONRY BUILDING (N.I.C.) P-I PORT TOWNSEND HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM EXIST. 1 STORY MASONRY BUILDING (N.I.C.) 6" CONC. BOLLARD (TYP OF 6) BIKE RACK (TYP OF 2) MA I N EN T R Y LINE OF ROOF ABOVE LINE OF ROOF ABOVE LINE OF ROOF ABOVE P-01 P-05 (HC) P-06 (HC)P-02 P-03 P-04 P-07 P-08 P-09 P-10 P-11 P-12 P-13 P-14 P-17P-18P-19P-20P-21P-22P-23P-24P-25P-26P-27P-28P-29P-30P-31 P L : X'-X " PL: X'-X" 48' - 7 1/4" 4 0 ' - 3 3 / 4 " B L A I N E S T 19 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 19 ' - 0 " 5' - 4 " 16' - 3" 5' - 9 " 2' - 4 " 8' - 1 1 " 4' - 8" 9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 0"4' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"18' - 0"12' - 0"27' - 3 3/4" 9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0" OUTDOOR EQUIP. STORAGE CAR SEAT STOR. 4FT ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE AND GATES OUTDOOR PLAY AREA T-1 T-1 T-1 T-1 T-1 T-1 T-1 T-1 T-1 T-1 T-1 P-I EX I S T I N G P O R T T O W N S E N D HI G H S C H O O L T E N N I S & PI C K L E B A L L C O U R T S R-II (SF) ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH EXIST. 1 STORY MASONRY BUILDING (N.I.C.) R-II (SF) ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH EXIST. 2 STORY MASONRY BUILDING (N.I.C.)1901 8 5 1 8 0 1 7 5 1 7 0 1 9 5 PROPOSED BIOSWALE T-1 T-1 T-1 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW WWWW W W W W W W W W REROUTED WATER MAIN S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S HARRISON ST OH E OH E O HE O HE O H E O H E O H E OHE OHE OHE O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E O H E OHEOHEOHEOHE E E E E E E E P-16 P-15 TRASH ENCLOSURE WALK-IN COOLER FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION: 191'-0" AR E A Z O N E D R -II ( S F ) AREA ZONED R-II (SF) AR E A Z O N E D R -II ( S F ) SITE PLAN LEGEND ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE GRAVEL GRASS 1. SEE CIVIL DWGS FOR ADD'L INFO 2. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM BUILDING AT ALL EXTERIOR FACADE LOCAITONS 3. VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS IN FIELD SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES BIOSWALE W W W EXISTING WATER LINE W W W PROPOSED WATER LINE S S S S S S OHP OHP OHP E E E EXISTING SEWER LINE PROPOSED SEWER LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND POWER LINE EXISTING ELEC. POLE EXISTING FIRE HYD. OWNER PRESENT FUTURE ARCHITECTS 1147 W OHIO STREET, #504 CHICAGO, IL 60642 ARCHITECT (312) 961-1292 ISS. # copyright 2023 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO. : DESCRIPTION DATE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A100 STUDIO STL 1044 LAWRENCE STREET, PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 DESIGNER SITE PLAN ST R E E T , PO R T T O W N S E N D , W A 9 8 3 6 8 2217 CIVIL STRUCTURAL MEP (360) 640-8814 JE F F E R S O N C O U N T Y E A R L Y LE A R N I N G C E N T E R 1/16" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN1 LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE TAG BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT NO. COMMENTS DECIDUOUS & ORNAMENTAL TREES - SINGLE & MULTI SYSTEM T-1 ULMUS ACCOLADE ACCOLADE ELM 2 1/2" CAL. B&B 1 0'8'16'32' 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 Pre-Planning & Feasibility 05/25/2023 PROPOSED TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD: 126 PERSONS OCCUPANCY LOAD SCHEDULE ROOM OCCUPANCY TYPE OCC. FACTOR OCC. LOAD LAUNDRY ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL 300 1 JC ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL 300 1 MECH. ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL 300 1 LAUNDRY ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL 300 1 STOR. ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL 300 1 SERVER ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL 300 1 STOR. ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL 300 1 STOR. ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL 300 1 PANTRY ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL 300 1 MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM ASSEMBLY (UNCONCENTRATED) 15 38 OFFICE BUSINESS AREAS 150 1 CHILD ACTIVITY BUSINESS AREAS 150 1 OFFICE BUSINESS AREAS 150 1 STAFF BREAK ROOM BUSINESS AREAS 150 1 FLEX ROOM BUSINESS AREAS 150 1 MOTHER'S ROOM BUSINESS AREAS 150 1 LOBBY BUSINESS AREAS 150 3 OFFICE BUSINESS AREAS 150 1 ADMIN OFFICE BUSINESS AREAS 150 1 WELLNESS ROOM BUSINESS AREAS 150 1 KITCHEN COMMERCIAL KITCHEN 200 2 TODDLER ROOM A DAY CARE 35 12 PRE-SCHOOL A DAY CARE 35 12 INFANT ROOM B DAY CARE 35 8 TODDLER ROOM B DAY CARE 35 12 PRE-SCHOOL B DAY CARE 35 13 INFANT ROOM A DAY CARE 35 8 INADVERTENT DISCOVERY PLAN PLAN AND PROCEDURES FOR THE DISCOVERY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS To request ADA accommodation, including materials in a format for the visually impaired, call Ecology at 360-407-6000 or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/accessibility. People with impaired hearing may call Washington Relay Service at 711. People with a speech disability may call TTY at 877-833-6341. ECY 070-560 (rev. 06/21) 1 IDP Form Site Name(s): : Location County:Project Lead/Organization: •An accumulation of shell, burned rocks, or other food related materials. •Bones, intact or in small pieces. •An area of charcoal or very dark stained soil with artifacts. •Stone tools or waste flakes (for example, an arrowhead or stone chips). •Modified or stripped trees, often cedar or aspen, or other modified naturalfeatures, such as rock drawings. •Agricultural or logging materials that appear older than 50 years. These couldinclude equipment, fencing, canals, spillways, chutes, derelict sawmills, tools,and many other items. •Clusters of tin cans or bottles, or other debris that appear older than 50 years. •Old munitions casings. Always assume these are live and never touch ormove. •Buried railroad tracks, decking, foundations, or other industrial materials. •Remnants of homesteading. These could include bricks, nails, household items, toys, food containers, and other items associated with homes or farming sites. If this Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) is for multiple (batched) projects, ensure the location information covers all project areas. 1.INTRODUCTION The IDP outlines procedures to perform in the event of a discovery of archaeological materials or human remains, in accordance with applicable state and federal laws. An IDP is required, as part of Agency Terms and Conditions for all grants and loans, for any project that creates disturbance above or below the ground. An IDP is not a substitute for a formal cultural resource review (Executive 21-02 or Section 106). Once completed, the IDP should always be kept at the project site during all project activities. All staff, contractors, and volunteers should be familiar with its contents and know where to find it. 2.CULTURAL RESOURCE DISCOVERIES A cultural resource discovery could be prehistoric or historic. Examples include (see images for further examples): The above list does not cover every possible cultural resource. When in doubt, assume the material is a cultural resource. 3. ON-SITE RESPONSIBILITIES If any employee, contractor, or subcontractor believes that they have uncovered cultural resources or human remains at any point in the project, take the following steps to Stop-Protect-Notify. If you suspect that the discovery includes human remains, also follow Sections 5 and 6. STEP A: Stop Work. All work must stop immediately in the vicinity of the discovery. STEP B: Protect the Discovery. Leave the discovery and the surrounding area untouched and create a clear, identifiable, and wide boundary (30 feet or larger) with temporary fencing, flagging, stakes, or other clear markings. Provide protection and ensure integrity of the discovery until cleared by the Department of Archaeological and Historical Preservation (DAHP) or a licensed, professional archaeologist. Do not permit vehicles, equipment, or unauthorized personnel to traverse the discovery site. Do not allow work to resume within the boundary until the requirements of this IDP are met. STEP C: Notify Project Archaeologist (if applicable). If the project has an archaeologist, notify that person. If there is a monitoring plan in place, the archaeologist will follow the outlined procedure. STEP D: Notify Project and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) contacts. Project Lead Contacts Primary Contact Alternate Contact Name: Name: Organization: Organization: Phone: Phone: Email: Email: Ecology Contacts (completed by Ecology Project Manager) Ecology Project Manager Alternate or Cultural Resource Contact Name: Name: Program: Program: Phone: Phone: Email: Email: ECY 070-560 (rev. 06/21) 2 IDP Form STEP E: Ecology will notify DAHP. Once notified, the Ecology Cultural Resource Contact or the Ecology Project Manager will contact DAHP to report and confirm the discovery. To avoid delay, the Project Lead/Organization will contact DAHP if they are not able to reach Ecology. DAHP will provide the steps to assist with identification. DAHP, Ecology, and Tribal representatives may coordinate a site visit following any necessary safety protocols. DAHP may also inform the Project Lead/Organization and Ecology of additional steps to further protect the site. Do not continue work until DAHP has issued an approval for work to proceed in the area of, or near, the discovery. DAHP Contacts: Name: Rob Whitlam, PhD Title: State Archaeologist Cell: 360-890-2615 Email: Rob.Whitlam@dahp.wa.gov Main Office: 360-586-3065 4. TRIBAL CONTACTS Human Remains/Bones: Name: Guy Tasa, PhD Title: State Anthropologist Cell: 360-790-1633 (24/7) Email: Guy.Tasa@dahp.wa.gov In the event cultural resources are discovered, the following tribes will be contacted. See Section 10 for Additional Resources. Tribe: Name: Title: Phone: Email: Tribe: Name: Title: Phone: E mEmai:ail:l Tribe: Name: Title: Phone: Email: Tribe: Name: Title: Phone: Email: Please provide contact information for additional tribes within your project area, if needed, in Section 11. 5. FURTHER CONTACTS (if applicable) If the discovery is confirmed by DAHP as a cultural or archaeological resource, or as human remains, and there is a partnering federal or state agency, Ecology or the Project Lead/Organization will ensure the partnering agency is immediately notified. ECY 070-560 (rev. 06/21) 3 IDP Form Federal Agency: State Agency: Agency: Agency: Name: Name: Title: Title: Phone: Phone: Email: Email: 6. 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. Follow the steps under Stop-Protect-Notify. For specific instructions on how to handle a human remains discovery, see: RCW 68.50.645: Skeletal human remains—Duty to notify—Ground disturbing activities—Coroner determination— Definitions. Suggestion: If you are unsure whether the discovery is human bone or not, contact Guy Tasa with DAHP, for identification and next steps. Do not pick up the discovery. Guy Tasa, PhD State Physical Anthropologist Guy.Tasa@dahp.wa.gov (360) 790-1633 (Cell/Office) For discoveries that are confirmed or suspected human remains, follow these steps: 1. Notify law enforcement and the Medical Examiner/Coroner using the contacts below. Do not call 911 unless it is the only number available to you. Enter contact information below (required): • Local Medical Examiner or Coroner name and phone: • Local Law Enforcement main name and phone: • Local Non-Emergency phone number (911 if without a non-emergency number): 2. The Medical Examiner/Coroner (with assistance of law enforcement personnel) will determine if the remains are human or if the discovery site constitutes a crime scene and will notify DAHP. 3. DO NOT speak with the media, allow photography or disturbance of the remains, or release any information about the discovery on social media. 4. If the remains are determined to be non-forensic, Cover the remains with a tarp or other materials (not soil or rocks) for temporary protection and to shield them from being photographed by others or disturbed. ECY 070-560 (rev. 06/21) 4 IDP Form ECY 070-560 (rev. 06/21) 5 IDP Form Further activities: •Per RCW 27.44.055, RCW 68.50, and RCW 68.60, DAHP will have jurisdiction over non-forensic human remains. Ecology staff will participate in consultation. Organizations may also participate in consultation. •Documentation of human skeletal remains and funerary objects will be agreedupon through the consultation process described in RCW 27.44.055,RCW 68.50, and RCW 68.60. •When consultation and documentation activities are complete, work in the discovery area may resume as described in Section 8. If the project occurs on federal lands (such as a national forest or park or a military reservation) the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) 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, the Project Lead/Organization will comply with applicable state and federal laws, and the above protocol. 7.DOCUMENTATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS Archaeological resources discovered during construction are protected by state law RCW 27.53 and assumed eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D until a formal Determination of Eligibility is made. The Project Lead/Organization must ensure that proper documentation and field assessment are made of all discovered cultural resources in cooperation with all parties: the federal agencies (if any), DAHP, Ecology, affected tribes, and the archaeologist. The archaeologist will record all prehistoric and historic cultural material discovered during project construction on a standard DAHP archaeological site or isolate inventory form. They will photograph site overviews, features, and artifacts and prepare stratigraphic profiles and soil/sediment descriptions for minimal subsurface exposures. They will document discovery locations on scaled site plans and site location maps. Cultural features, horizons, and artifacts detected in buried sediments may require the archaeologist to conduct further evaluation using hand-dug test units. They will excavate units in a controlled fashion to expose features, collect samples from undisturbed contexts, or to interpret complex stratigraphy. They may also use a test unit or trench excavation to determine if an intact occupation surface is present. They will only use test units when necessary to gather information on the nature, extent, and integrity of subsurface cultural deposits to evaluate the site’s significance. They will conduct excavations using standard archaeological techniques to precisely document the location of cultural deposits, artifacts, and features. The archaeologist will record spatial information, depth of excavation levels, natural and cultural stratigraphy, presence or absence of cultural material, and depth to sterile soil, regolith, or bedrock for each unit on a standard form. They will complete test excavation unit level forms, which will include plan maps for each excavation level and artifact counts and material types, number, and vertical provenience (depth below ECY 070-560 (rev. 06/21) 6 IDP Form surface and stratum association where applicable) for all recovered artifacts. They will draw a stratigraphic profile for at least one wall of each test excavation unit. The archaeologist will screen sediments excavated for purposes of cultural resources investigation through 1/8-inch mesh, unless soil conditions warrant 1/4-inch mesh. The archaeologist will analyze, catalogue, and temporarily curate all prehistoric and historic artifacts collected from the surface and from probes and excavation units. The ultimate disposition of cultural materials will be determined in consultation with the federal agencies (if any), DAHP, Ecology, and the affected tribe(s). Within 90 days of concluding fieldwork, the archaeologist will provide a technical report describing any and all monitoring and resultant archaeological excavations to the Project Lead/Organization, who will forward the report to Ecology, the federal agencies (if any), DAHP, and the affected tribe(s) for review and comment. If assessment activities expose human remains (burials, isolated teeth, or bones), the archaeologist and Project Lead/Organization will follow the process described in Section 6. 8.PROCEEDING WITH WORK The Project Lead/Organization shall work with the archaeologist, DAHP, and affected tribe(s) to determine the appropriate discovery boundary and where work can continue. Work may continue at the discovery location only after the process outlined in this plan is followed and the Project Lead/Organization, DAHP, any affected tribe(s), Ecology, and the federal agencies (if any) determine that compliance with state and federal laws is complete. 9.ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY The Project Lead/Organization is responsible for ensuring: •This IDP has complete and accurate information. •This IDP is immediately available to all field staff at the sites and available by request to any party. •This IDP is implemented to address any discovery at the site. •That all field staff, contractors, and volunteers are instructed on how to implementthis IDP. 10.ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Informative Video Ecology recommends that all project staff, contractors, and volunteers view this informative video explaining the value of IDP protocol and what to do in the event of a discovery. The target audience is anyone working on the project who could unexpectedly find cultural resources or human remains while excavating or digging. The video is also posted on DAHP’s inadvertent discovery language website. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioX-4cXfbDY)Ecology's IDP Video Informational Resources DAHP (https://dahp.wa.gov) Washington State Archeology (DAHP 2003) (https://dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Field%20Guide%20to%20WA%20Arch_0.pdf) Association of Washington Archaeologists (https://www.archaeologyinwashington.com) Potentially Interested Tribes Interactive Map of Tribes by Area (https://dahp.wa.gov/archaeology/tribal-consultation-information) WSDOT Tribal Contact Website (https://wsdot.wa.gov/tribal/TribalContacts.htm) 11.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Please add any additional contact information or other information needed within this IDP. ECY 070-560 (rev. 06/21) 7 IDP Form ECY 070-560 (rev. 06/21) 8 IDP Form Implement the IDP if you see… Chipped stone artifacts. Examples are: •Glass-like material. •Angular material. •“Unusual” material or shape for the area. •Regularity of flaking. •Variability of size.Stone artifacts from Oregon. Stone artifacts from Washington. Biface-knife, scraper, or pre-form found in NE Washington. Thought to be a well knapped object of great antiquity. Courtesy of Methow Salmon Rec. Foundation. Always working for a safer and healthier community 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities 360-385-9444 360-385-9400 (f) 360-379-4487 360-385-9401 (f) February 1, 2024 Ms. Stephanie Trudel, THPO The Honorable Leonard Forsman, Chair Suquamish Tribe PO Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392-0498 RE: Section 106 Consultation for Jefferson County Early Learning /Family Support Center Dear Ms. Trudel: Jefferson County would like to invite the Suquamish Tribe to comment on a proposed project at 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend in Jefferson County, WA constructing a 7,214 s.f. building to be occupied by the YMCA Early Learning and Family Support Center. The proposed project would use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds awarded through the state of Washington and is an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y). The state CDBG Program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, federally designates the local government grant recipient to assume the status of federal official responsible for complying with environmental laws specified in HUD regulations, including NEPA and NHPA. Section 104(g) is implemented by HUD regulations in 24 CFR Part 58 that specifies the environmental laws and authorities with which a local government grant recipient must comply. Therefore, we provide you with the attached information regarding our proposed project and would appreciate hearing from you if the tribe knows of archeological, historic or cultural resources that might affect the project site. Please be as specific as you can with comments or information. Since this review is time sensitive and must adhere to the provision in 36 CFR Part 800, we request that you submit comments within 30 days from receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for any information you may be able to offer. If you have any questions please contact Amanda Christofferson. Respectfully, Amanda Enclosures: DAHP EZ 1 Section 106, Design Drawings, Inadvertent Discovery Plan CC: The Honorable Leonard Forsman, Chair 1 Amanda M. Christofferson From:Stephanie Trudel <strudel@Suquamish.nsn.us> Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2024 12:30 PM To:Amanda M. Christofferson Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Cultural resource consultation - Jefferson County Early Learning/Family Support Center Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Dear Amanda, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Jefferson County Early Learning /Family Support Center Project, in Port Townsend. The Suquamish Tribe’s Archaeology and Historic Preservation Program has no ethnographic or historic information specifically referencing the project area, and has no comments or concerns regarding cultural resources or the project at this time. Sincerely, Stephanie Stephanie Trudel Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Suquamish Tribe PO Box 498 Suquamish, WA 98392‐0498 360‐394‐8533 strudel@suquamish.nsn.us From: Amanda M. Christofferson <AMChristofferson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 2:03 PM To: Stephanie Trudel <strudel@Suquamish.nsn.us> Cc: Amanda M. Christofferson <AMChristofferson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Cultural resource consultation ‐ Jefferson County Early Learning/Family Support Center Hello Ms. Trudel, Please find attached our request for cultural resource consultation along with the EZ1 package including the design drawings, and Inadvertent Discovery Plan for your review. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in review. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any needs you may have. Sincerely, Amanda 2 Amanda Christofferson Grants Administrator She/her Jefferson County Auditor’s Office Jefferson County | 1820 Jefferson St. | Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360-385-9232 | Email: amchristofferson@co.jefferson.wa.us All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws. Always working for a safer and healthier community 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities 360-385-9444 360-385-9400 (f) 360-379-4487 360-385-9401 (f) February 1, 2024 Bill White, THPO Frances Charles, Tribal Chairwoman 2851 Lower Elwha Road Port Angeles, WA 98363 RE: Section 106 Consultation for Jefferson Early Learning /Family Support Center Dear Bill White: Jefferson County would like to invite the Lower Elwha Tribal Community to comment on a proposed project at 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend in Jefferson County, WA constructing a 7,214 s.f. building to be occupied by the YMCA Early Learning and Family Support Center. The proposed project would use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds awarded through the state of Washington and is an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y). The state CDBG Program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, federally designates the local government grant recipient to assume the status of federal official responsible for complying with environmental laws specified in HUD regulations, including NEPA and NHPA. Section 104(g) is implemented by HUD regulations in 24 CFR Part 58 that specifies the environmental laws and authorities with which a local government grant recipient must comply. Therefore, we provide you with the attached information regarding our proposed project and would appreciate hearing from you if the tribe knows of archeological, historic or cultural resources that might affect the project site. Please be as specific as you can with comments or information. Since this review is time sensitive and must adhere to the provision in 36 CFR Part 800, we request that you submit comments within 30 days from receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for any information you may be able to offer. If you have any questions please contact Amanda Christofferson. Respectfully, Amanda Enclosures: DAHP EZ 1 Section 106, Design Drawings, Inadvertent Discovery Plan LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE ʔəʔɬx̣ʷə nəxʷsƛay̕əm “Strong People” 2851 Lower Elwha Road Phone: 360.452.8471 Port Angeles, WA 98363 Fax: 360.452.3428 February 1, 2024 Amanda Christofferson Environmental Health Specialist II Water Quality Jefferson County Public Health 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: YMCA Early Learning & Family Support Center Port Townsend, Jefferson County, WA Jefferson County Department of Public Health Section 106 Tribal Consultation request Dear Ms. Christofferson: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed YMCA Early Learning and Family Support Center in Port Townsend, WA. This proposed project is located within the Traditional Lands of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe as identified in the Treaty of Point No Point between the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the U. S. Government. In the Treaty of Point No Point the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe allowed non-Klallam settlement within its ancestral lands, but retained important rights. Among the retained rights are those relating to the cultural and spiritual practices of the Klallam people. Several tribal resolutions allow the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe to actively manage significant cultural resources on project lands and to those areas that may be subject to a project’s potential effect. Tribal requirements for cultural resource management include identification, evaluation, preservation, protection, and program review. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe strongly supports Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and commends your department in initiating Tribal notification of the proposed YMCA Early Learning & Family Support Center in Port Townsend, Jefferson County and its area of potential Effect (APE) as described. Our goal is to preserve and protect in perpetuity the cultural practices and history of the Klallam people for future generations. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe is in receipt of your email requesting tribal consultation for the YMCA Early Learning & Family Support Center of February 1, 2024. We therefore encourage your agency to review the projects IDP Inadvertent Discovery Plan when ground-disturbing activities occur. Should archaeological or human remains be inadvertently discovered during the project the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe will exercise its subsequent legal rights under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to participate as a consulting party and provide direction and comment on this project. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comment regarding the YMCA Early Learning & Family Support Center in Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington. Sincerely, William S. White William S. White Tribal Archaeologist, MA, RPA Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe cc: Frances Charles, Lower Elwha Klallam Chairwoman Business Committee Tonya Green, Chief Executive Officer File Always working for a safer and healthier community 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities 360-385-9444 360-385-9400 (f) 360-379-4487 360-385-9401 (f) February 1, 2024 Kelly Rosales and Julie Ann Koehlinger, THPO The Honorable Chair Lisa Martinez Hoh Indian Tribe PO Box 2196 Forks, WA 98331 RE: Section 106 Consultation for Jefferson County Early Learning /Family Support Center Dear Kelly Rosales and Julie Ann Koehlinger: Jefferson County would like to invite the Hoh Indian Tribe to comment on a proposed project at 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend in Jefferson County, WA constructing a 7,214 s.f. building to be occupied by the YMCA Early Learning and Family Support Center. The proposed project would use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds awarded through the state of Washington and is an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y). The state CDBG Program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, federally designates the local government grant recipient to assume the status of federal official responsible for complying with environmental laws specified in HUD regulations, including NEPA and NHPA. Section 104(g) is implemented by HUD regulations in 24 CFR Part 58 that specifies the environmental laws and authorities with which a local government grant recipient must comply. Therefore, we provide you with the attached information regarding our proposed project and would appreciate hearing from you if the tribe knows of archeological, historic or cultural resources that might affect the project site. Please be as specific as you can with comments or information. Since this review is time sensitive and must adhere to the provision in 36 CFR Part 800, we request that you submit comments within 30 days from receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for any information you may be able to offer. If you have any questions please contact Amanda Christofferson. Respectfully, Amanda Christofferson Enclosures: DAHP EZ 1 Section 106, Design Drawings, Inadvertent Discovery Plan CC: The Honorable Lisa Martinez, Chair Always working for a safer and healthier community 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities 360-385-9444 360-385-9400 (f) 360-379-4487 360-385-9401 (f) February 1, 2024 Ms. Allie Taylor, THPO The Honorable Ron Allen, Chair Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 1033 Old Blynn Highway Sequim, WA 98382 RE: Section 106 Consultation for Jefferson County Early Learning /Family Support Center Dear Ms. Taylor: Jefferson County would like to invite the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe to comment on a proposed project at 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend in Jefferson County, WA constructing a 7,214 s.f. building to be occupied by the YMCA Early Learning and Family Support Center. The proposed project would use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds awarded through the state of Washington and is an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y). The state CDBG Program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, federally designates the local government grant recipient to assume the status of federal official responsible for complying with environmental laws specified in HUD regulations, including NEPA and NHPA. Section 104(g) is implemented by HUD regulations in 24 CFR Part 58 that specifies the environmental laws and authorities with which a local government grant recipient must comply. Therefore, we provide you with the attached information regarding our proposed project and would appreciate hearing from you if the tribe knows of archeological, historic or cultural resources that might affect the project site. Please be as specific as you can with comments or information. Since this review is time sensitive and must adhere to the provision in 36 CFR Part 800, we request that you submit comments within 30 days from receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for any information you may be able to offer. If you have any questions please contact Amanda Christofferson. Respectfully, Amanda Christofferson Enclosures: DAHP EZ 1 Section 106, Septic Design Drawing CC: The Honorable Ron Allen, Chair Always working for a safer and healthier community 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities 360-385-9444 360-385-9400 (f) 360-379-4487 360-385-9401 (f) February 1, 2024 Ms. Misty Ives, THPO The Honorable Jeromy Sullivan, Chair Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe 31912 Little Boston Rd., N.E. Kingston, WA 98346 RE: Section 106 Consultation for Jefferson County Early Learning /Family Support Center Dear Ms. Ives: Jefferson County would like to invite the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to comment on a proposed project at 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend in Jefferson County, WA constructing a 7,214 s.f. building to be occupied by the YMCA Early Learning and Family Support Center. The proposed project would use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds awarded through the state of Washington and is an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y). The state CDBG Program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, federally designates the local government grant recipient to assume the status of federal official responsible for complying with environmental laws specified in HUD regulations, including NEPA and NHPA. Section 104(g) is implemented by HUD regulations in 24 CFR Part 58 that specifies the environmental laws and authorities with which a local government grant recipient must comply. Therefore, we provide you with the attached information regarding our proposed project and would appreciate hearing from you if the tribe knows of archeological, historic or cultural resources that might affect the project site. Please be as specific as you can with comments or information. Since this review is time sensitive and must adhere to the provision in 36 CFR Part 800, we request that you submit comments within 30 days from receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for any information you may be able to offer. If you have any questions please contact Amanda Christofferson. Respectfully, Amanda Enclosures: DAHP EZ 1 Section 106, Design Drawing, Inadvertent Discovery Plan CC: The Honorable Jeromy Sullivan, Chair Always working for a safer and healthier community 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities 360-385-9444 360-385-9400 (f) 360-379-4487 360-385-9401 (f) February 1, 2024 Mr. Douglas Woodruff, The Honorable Chairman Quileute Nation PO Box 279 La Push, WA 98350 RE: Section 106 Consultation for Jefferson County Early Learning /Family Support Center Dear Mr. Woodruff: Jefferson County would like to invite the Quileute Nation to comment on a proposed project at 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend in Jefferson County, WA constructing a 7,214 s.f. building to be occupied by the YMCA Early Learning and Family Support Center. The proposed project would use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds awarded through the state of Washington and is an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y). The state CDBG Program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, federally designates the local government grant recipient to assume the status of federal official responsible for complying with environmental laws specified in HUD regulations, including NEPA and NHPA. Section 104(g) is implemented by HUD regulations in 24 CFR Part 58 that specifies the environmental laws and authorities with which a local government grant recipient must comply. Therefore, we provide you with the attached information regarding our proposed project and would appreciate hearing from you if the tribe knows of archeological, historic or cultural resources that might affect the project site. Please be as specific as you can with comments or information. Since this review is time sensitive and must adhere to the provision in 36 CFR Part 800, we request that you submit comments within 30 days from receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for any information you may be able to offer. If you have any questions please contact Amanda Christofferson. Respectfully, Amanda Christofferson Enclosures: DAHP EZ 1 Section 106, Design Drawings, Inadvertent Discovery Plan Always working for a safer and healthier community 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities 360-385-9444 360-385-9400 (f) 360-379-4487 360-385-9401 (f) February 1, 2024 Quinault Indian Nation THPO President Fawn Sharp Quinault Indian Nation PO Box 189 Taholah, WA 98587 RE: Section 106 Consultation for Jefferson County Early Learning /Family Support Center Dear Quinault Indian Nation THPO: Jefferson County would like to invite the Quinault Indian Nation to comment on a proposed project at 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend in Jefferson County, WA constructing a 7,214 s.f. building to be occupied by the YMCA Early Learning and Family Support Center. The proposed project would use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds awarded through the state of Washington and is an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y). The state CDBG Program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, federally designates the local government grant recipient to assume the status of federal official responsible for complying with environmental laws specified in HUD regulations, including NEPA and NHPA. Section 104(g) is implemented by HUD regulations in 24 CFR Part 58 that specifies the environmental laws and authorities with which a local government grant recipient must comply. Therefore, we provide you with the attached information regarding our proposed project and would appreciate hearing from you if the tribe knows of archeological, historic or cultural resources that might affect the project site. Please be as specific as you can with comments or information. Since this review is time sensitive and must adhere to the provision in 36 CFR Part 800, we request that you submit comments within 30 days from receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for any information you may be able to offer. If you have any questions please contact Amanda Christofferson. Respectfully, Amanda Christofferson Enclosures: DAHP EZ 1 Section 106, Design Drawings, Inadvertent Discovery Plan Always working for a safer and healthier community 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities 360-385-9444 360-385-9400 (f) 360-379-4487 360-385-9401 (f) February 1, 2024 Kris Miller, THPO The Honorable Charles “Guy” Miller, Chair Skokomish Indian Tribe 80 North Tribal Center Rd. Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Section 106 Consultation for Jefferson County Early Learning /Family Support Center Dear Kris Miller: Jefferson County would like to invite the Skokomish Indian Tribe to comment on a proposed project at 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend in Jefferson County, WA constructing a 7,214 s.f. building to be occupied by the YMCA Early Learning and Family Support Center. The proposed project would use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds awarded through the state of Washington and is an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y). The state CDBG Program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, federally designates the local government grant recipient to assume the status of federal official responsible for complying with environmental laws specified in HUD regulations, including NEPA and NHPA. Section 104(g) is implemented by HUD regulations in 24 CFR Part 58 that specifies the environmental laws and authorities with which a local government grant recipient must comply. Therefore, we provide you with the attached information regarding our proposed project and would appreciate hearing from you if the tribe knows of archeological, historic or cultural resources that might affect the project site. Please be as specific as you can with comments or information. Since this review is time sensitive and must adhere to the provision in 36 CFR Part 800, we request that you submit comments within 30 days from receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for any information you may be able to offer. If you have any questions please contact Amanda Christofferson. Respectfully, Amanda Enclosures: DAHP EZ 1 Section 106, Design Drawings, Inadvertent Discovery Plan CC: The Honorable Charles “Guy” Miller, Chair Always working for a safer and healthier community 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org Community Health Environmental Public Health Developmental Disabilities 360-385-9444 360-385-9400 (f) 360-379-4487 360-385-9401 (f) February 1, 2024 Mr. Robert Brunoe, THPO The Honorable Chair Raymond Tsumpti Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon PO Box C Warm Springs, OR 97761 RE: Section 106 Consultation for Jefferson County Early Learning /Family Support Center Dear Mr. Brunoe: Jefferson County would like to invite the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to comment on a proposed project at 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend in Jefferson County, WA constructing a 7,214 s.f. building to be occupied by the YMCA Early Learning and Family Support Center. The proposed project would use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds awarded through the state of Washington and is an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y). The state CDBG Program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, federally designates the local government grant recipient to assume the status of federal official responsible for complying with environmental laws specified in HUD regulations, including NEPA and NHPA. Section 104(g) is implemented by HUD regulations in 24 CFR Part 58 that specifies the environmental laws and authorities with which a local government grant recipient must comply. Therefore, we provide you with the attached information regarding our proposed project and would appreciate hearing from you if the tribe knows of archeological, historic or cultural resources that might affect the project site. Please be as specific as you can with comments or information. Since this review is time sensitive and must adhere to the provision in 36 CFR Part 800, we request that you submit comments within 30 days from receipt of this letter. Thank you in advance for any information you may be able to offer. If you have any questions please contact Amanda Christofferson. Respectfully, Amanda Christofferson Enclosures: DAHP EZ 1 Section 106, Design Drawings, Inadvertent Discovery Plan CC: The Honorable Raymond Tsumpti, Chair Oct 2020 Endangered Species Act: Consultation Guidance for Washington State Prepared in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For use in Washington State only. 24 CFR Part 58, 24 CFR Part 50 Purpose The purpose of this checklist is to assist HUD and HUD’s responsible entities (REs) in meeting their Endangered Species Act obligations. The checklist is designed to help you determine whether a proposed HUD assisted project has potential to affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat, and the process to follow based on those effect determinations. The guidance contained herein is specifically for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) trust resources. In September 2020, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued its Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Programmatic Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing Programs in Washington, otherwise known as a “programmatic” biological opinion.1 HUD and REs must consider both this Fish & Wildlife Consultation Guidance document AND the NMFS Washington State Programmatic when considering the effects of a HUD assisted project on listed species and/or habitat. HUD must ensure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species in the wild or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. HUD staff and REs, as a part of an environmental review, must consider potential impacts of the HUD-assisted project to endangered and threatened species and critical habitats. The review must evaluate potential impacts not only to any listed species but also to any proposed endangered or threatened species and critical habitats. This responsibility is cited in environmental procedures at 24 CFR 58.5(e) and 24 CFR 50.4(e). ESA Section 7 Consultation Background The ESA directs all Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to conserve species listed as threatened or endangered (ESA Section 2(c)(1)), and to consult with “the Services” - NMFS and FWS - to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize listed species, or adversely modify habitat designated as critical for listed species. The Services share responsibility for assisting federal agencies in implementing the ESA. FWS trust resources under the ESA include birds, amphibians, plants, insects, terrestrial reptiles, terrestrial mammals, most freshwater fish, and a few marine mammals. In Washington, FWS 1 The programmatic is a separate document from this consultation guidance which you are reading. The programmatic can be found at the Region X Environmental website https://www.hud.gov/states/shared/working/r10/environment Oct 2020 trust resources include bull trout and designated bull trout critical habitat located in three recovery units (the Coastal, Mid-Columbia, and Columbia Headwaters recovery units). NMFS manages the remainder of listed marine mammals, as well as anadromous fish such as salmon and steelhead. For NMFS information and guidance on how to consider NMFS listed species and habitat, consult the Washington State Programmatic found here https://www.hud.gov/states/shared/working/r10/environment. Before HUD or the RE consults with NMFS and FWS, they must make a preliminary analysis of the project activity and/or whether listed species and/or habitat are present. HUD or the RE can then make one of three determinations of effect for each relevant2 listed species: • “No effect” is the appropriate conclusion if the proposed action will not affect listed species/critical habitat at all. If a “no effect” determination is made, the Federal agency (or the RE) should not contact FWS and/or NMFS for concurrence. • When effects to listed species are expected to be insignificant or discountable, or wholly beneficial, the action agency should make a “not likely to adversely affect” determination and contact FWS, for written concurrence with that determination. The thresholds for reaching a finding of Not Likely to Adversely Affect are important:  Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm can arise if habitat is altered in a manner that diminishes important species behavior, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to the degree that it injures the species. Harass includes those activities that alter a species behavior in a manner that increases the likelihood of it being injured. Based on best judgment, a person would not be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects.  Discountable effects are those that are extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not expect discountable effects to occur. • Unless all effects that are likely to occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action, or its interrelated or interdependent actions, are insignificant, discountable, or beneficial, then the action agency should make a determination of “likely to adversely affect.” The Federal agency/HUD must initiate formal consultation with FWS. The effects of the action (direct and indirect) are not limited to the immediate area involved in the action (“footprint” or project area). Instead, the effects of the action more typically extend to a larger action area, which encompasses all of the action’s direct and indirect effects to the physical, chemical, and biological environment. Direct effects include sources of sound and visual 2 By “relevant” we mean, identified on the County-wide list as occurring or potentially occurring in the County of interest. Oct 2020 disturbance during construction. Indirect effects occur later in time (i.e., post-construction) and may include air emissions, storm or process water discharges, sources of sound and visual disturbance (e.g., lighting), etc. The effects of interrelated and interdependent actions must also be considered (e.g., site access and staging, sourcing of materials, disposal of wastes). Some actions may have indirect effects to the pattern or rate of land use conversion or development, and those potential effects must also be considered. Procedure for a No Effect Determination A determination of “no effect” to federally listed species and critical habitat fulfills HUD’s and the RE’s obligation to ensure actions it authorizes, funds, or carries out do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. “No effect” determinations do not require coordination with or approval from the FWS and/or NMFS. Use the guidance below to help you determine whether the project qualifies for a “no effect” determination; if, for any species or critical habitat under FWS jurisdiction, there is the potential for a significant exposure or measurable effect, the project does not qualify. The guidance provided herein is for FWS only and may not be used to document a determination of “no effect” for species or habitats managed by NMFS. Step 1: Obtain Species List & Determine Critical Habitat You must obtain a species list for the entire action area of your project. The action area encompasses all of the effects of the project, not just those that occur within the construction footprint. Project effects may include those that extend beyond the project site itself, such as noise, air pollution, water quality, stormwater discharge, visual disturbance. Effects to habitat must also be considered, including the project’s effects on roosting, feeding, nesting, spawning and rearing habitat, overwintering sites, and migratory corridors. Go to http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ for a list of species; the area of interest/action area can be identified using the ‘tools’. Please note that this list includes listed, proposed and candidate species. Consideration of project effects on candidate species is optional, unless effects are very large; however, candidate species may become listed as endangered or threatened species during the period of construction. If you have questions, contact the appropriate FWS field office to discuss the species list for your area. Step 2: Determine Effect Question 1: Does suitable habitat for any listed or proposed species under FWS jurisdiction, or designated critical habitat, occur in the action area; is it possible that any listed or proposed species would be exposed or affected? Consider all effects of the project within the action area. The action area encompasses all the effects of the project, including those that occur beyond the boundaries of the property (such as noise, air pollution, water quality, stormwater discharge, visual disturbance). Oct 2020 NO, the project action area and all effects are outside the range of listed or proposed species and designated critical habitat. Therefore, the project will have No Effect on ESA-listed or proposed species and designated critical habitat.  Record your determination of No Effect for each relevant species and critical habitat, and maintain this documentation in your Environmental Review Record.  Attach a statement explaining how you determined that your project’s effects do not extend to, and therefore will have no effect on, listed or proposed species or designated critical habitat. X YES, the project action area does include habitats that may support ESA- listed or proposed species, or designated critical habitat, under FWS jurisdiction.  Continue to Question 2. Question 2: Is the project activity listed in Table A and does it meet all of the required parameters? X YES, the activity is listed in Table A and meets all of the required parameters. Therefore, you can determine the project will have No Effect on ESA-listed or proposed species and/or designated critical habitat.  Record your determination of No Effect and maintain this documentation, including the official species list and map of your project location, in your Environmental Review Record.  Attach a statement to your determination explaining how your project met the required parameters in Table A. NO, the project description does not match a project description in Table A and all of the specified parameters.  Continue to Question 3. Question 3: Do you have some other basis for a No Effect determination, for example a biological assessment or other documentation from a qualified professional that you concur with? YES, the project has professional documentation for No Effect determination.  Record your determination of No Effect and maintain this documentation, including the official species list and map of your project location, in your Environmental Review Record.  Attach the biological assessment or other professional documentation. Oct 2020 NO, the project does not have professional documentation for a No Effect determination and may affect a listed species.  The project may affect listed or proposed species, or designated or proposed critical habitat. Consultation with the FWS may be required. CONTACT THE FWS TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE EFFECTS DETERMINATION AND LEVEL OF CONSULTATION REQUIRED. Contact information is provided below. Oct 2020 Table A. Potential “No Effect” Activity Required Parameters and/or Conditions Interior rehabilitation  For existing structures only.  Access and staging, source sites, and disposal sites have been assessed as part of the proposed action.  Waste materials are recycled or otherwise disposed of in a properly permitted sanitary or hazardous waste disposal site. Landscape repair*1*, including adding sprinkler systems *1* Species under FWS jurisdiction include some that occur in the previously disturbed and built environment; HUD and its responsible entities must evaluate potential effects to all of the FWS species that occur, or potentially occur, in the action area; contact the nearest FWS Field Office with any related questions.  Access and staging, source sites, and disposal sites have been assessed as part of the proposed action.  Waste materials are recycled or otherwise disposed of in a properly permitted sanitary or hazardous waste disposal site.  The project or activity involves a previously disturbed, developed or partially developed, site or property/properties.  Does not remove streamside/riparian vegetation or trees.  Does not increase the amount of impervious/hard surface; or, will fully infiltrate any resulting runoff.  Does not result in wetland fill. Exterior rehabilitation, including:  Replacing exterior paint or siding,  Replace/repair roof*1*,  For existing structures only.  Access and staging, source sites, and disposal sites have been assessed as part of the proposed action. Oct 2020  Reconstruct/repair existing curbs, sidewalks, or other concrete structures*2*,  Repair existing parking lots (pot holes, repainting lines, etc.)*2*. *1* Does not include galvanized material unless it has been sealed or otherwise contained so that it will not leach into storm water. *2* Species under FWS jurisdiction include some that occur in the previously disturbed and built environment; HUD and its responsible entities must evaluate potential effects to all of the FWS species that occur, or potentially occur, in the action area; contact the nearest FWS Field Office with any related questions. *3* Points of discharge must be a minimum of ¼ mile from waterbodies that support ESA-listed species or proposed/designated critical habitat.  3) Waste materials are recycled or otherwise disposed of in a properly permitted sanitary or hazardous waste disposal site.  5) Does not remove streamside/riparian vegetation or trees.  6) Does not increase the amount of impervious/hard surface; or, will fully infiltrate any resulting runoff.  7) Does not result in wetland fill.  8) Does not/will not discharge new or additional sources of storm or waste water to wetlands or waterbodies that support ESA-listed species*3*.  9) If located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, does not reduce the amount of flood storage capacity or remove native riparian vegetation. Oct 2020 Table A Continued: Potential “No Effect” Activity Required Parameters and/or Conditions New construction*1,2* *1* Does not include galvanized material unless it has been sealed or otherwise contained so that it will not leach into storm water. *2* Species under FWS jurisdiction include some that occur in the previously disturbed and built environment; HUD and its responsible entities must evaluate potential effects to all of the FWS species that occur, or potentially occur, in the action area; contact the nearest FWS Field Office with any related questions. *3* Points of discharge must be a minimum of ¼ mile from waterbodies that support ESA-listed species or proposed/designated critical habitat.  Access and staging, source sites, and disposal sites have been assessed as part of the proposed action.  Waste materials are recycled or otherwise disposed of in a properly permitted sanitary or hazardous waste disposal site.  The project or activity involves a previously disturbed, developed or partially developed, site or property/properties.  Does not remove streamside/riparian vegetation or trees.  Does not result in wetland fill.  Does not/will not discharge new or additional sources of storm or waste water to wetlands or waterbodies that support ESA-listed species*3*.  If located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, does not reduce the amount of flood storage capacity or remove native riparian vegetation.  Complies with all state and local building codes, including storm water regulations.  Project design will fully infiltrate any resulting runoff; or, runoff is treated, detained (as necessary according to state and local requirements), and discharged to wetlands and/or waterbodies that do NOT support ESA-listed species*3*. Oct 2020 Initiating Section 7 Consultation HUD and or a RE should NOT contact FWS if a No Effect Determination has been reached. If all of the direct and indirect effects of the action are insignificant, discountable, or entirely beneficial, it is not likely to adversely affect listed species, and the section 7 consultation for the project will remain informal and relatively simple. Concurrence from FWS on a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination is the most common outcome of consultation for HUD-funded projects. If the effects of the action on listed species and/or critical habitat are not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial, (i.e., likely to adversely affect), formal consultation must be initiated. In such cases, a formal consultation must be completed prior to committing resources to the project, by which the FWS assesses the action’s potential to jeopardize the listed species, result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, or cause an incidental take of a listed species. At any stage in making your determination, you may wish to contact the appropriate HUD Environmental Staff or FWS field offices for technical assistance. Contact information is available at: For Technical Assistance contact the environmental staff at HUD: Brian Sturdivant Regional Environmental Officer Region X Brian.Sturdivant@hud.gov Technical Assistance from FWS: Ryan McReynolds U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey WA Consultation & Conservation Planning Division ryan_mcreynolds@fws.gov 360.753.6047 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service To initiate informal or formal consultation: HUD's requests for consultation should be addressed to: WA State Supervisor (Brad Thompson) ATTN: Federal Activities Branch, and submitted electronically to email address: WashingtonFWO@fws.gov Evaluation of required parameters and conditions of a ‘new construction’ project for No Effect Determination in accordance with ESA.  Access and staging, source sites, and disposal sites have been assessed as part of the proposed action. o Yes. The proposed new construction is following LEED protocols and as such will comply with appropriate access and staging, source sites, and disposal sites.  Waste materials are recycled or otherwise disposed of in a properly permitted sanitary or hazardous waste disposal site. o Yes. The proposed new construction is following LEED protocols and as such will comply with appropriate disposal of materials.  The project or activity involves a previously disturbed, developed or partially developed, site or property/properties. o Yes, the project area is a sports field on a school district property that has been used as such for over 50 years. Evaluated by an ASTM Phase I ESA.  Does not remove streamside/riparian vegetation or trees. o The project does not remove any streamside vegetagion.  Does not result in wetland fill. o The project does not result in wetland fill.  Does not/will not discharge new or additional sources of storm or waste water to wetlands or waterbodies that support ESA-listed species*3*. o No. The project includes a stormwater catchment raingarden for recharging all stormwater produced on the site.  If located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, does not reduce the amount of flood storage capacity or remove native riparian vegetation. o The project site is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area.  Complies with all state and local building codes, including storm water regulations. o Yes, project will be permitted in accordance with state and local building codes by the City of Port Townsend Building Department.  Project design will fully infiltrate any resulting runoff; or, runoff is treated, detained (as necessary according to state and local requirements), and discharged to wetlands and/or waterbodies that do NOT support ESA-listed species*3*. o The project includes a stormwater catchment raingarden for recharging all stormwater produced on the site. October 25, 2023 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 753-9405 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2024-0008894 Project Name: Port Townsend Early Learning Facility Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological 10/25/2023 2 evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultation- handbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/what- we-do. The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservation- migratory-birds. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. 10/25/2023 3 ▪ Attachment(s): Official Species List OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 (360) 753-9440 10/25/2023 4 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2024-0008894 Project Name:Port Townsend Early Learning Facility Project Type:New Constr - Above Ground Project Description:The primary project is to develop and construct a child care facility prepared for full licensing to accommodate 42 new child care slots including 8 infant spots. Child care capacity would increase by 25% and licensed infant care would almost double in Jefferson County. Additionally, the project will support meal preparation and delivery for more than 100 families, and facilitate family resource navigation for more than 250 families. The project will consist of five classrooms, a commercially-rated kitchen, office space, mother’s room, “flex” room, multi-purpose room, and an outdoor playground. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@48.11965515,-122.76455374712506,14z Counties:Jefferson County, Washington 10/25/2023 5 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. BIRDS NAME STATUS Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Population: U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA) There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467 Threatened Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Population: Western U.S. DPS There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Threatened FISHES NAME STATUS Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212 Threatened 1 10/25/2023 6 INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate Taylor's (=whulge) Checkerspot Euphydryas editha taylori There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5907 Endangered CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. 10/25/2023 7 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:County of Jefferson Name:Amanda Christofferson Address:1820 Jefferson St. City:Port Townsend State:WA Zip:98368 Email amchristofferson@co.jefferson.wa.us Phone:3603859232 ACTION NOTIFICATION FORM HUD PROGRAMMATIC OPINION Submit this form with all supplemental information to NMFS prior to the anticipated completion of the project’s environmental review. Submit by email to: HUD-wa.wcr@noaa.gov This form is to be submitted to NMFS by qualified Responsible Entities Only, and only for projects that qualify for inclusion under NMFS’ HUD Programmatic Biological Opinion for Projects in Washington # WCR-2020-00512. Estimated review time on complete submittal is ~ 30 days. PROJECT APPLICANT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY Jefferson County PROJECT NAME: JC EARLY LEARNING AND FAMILY SUPPORT CENTER NAME Amanda Christofferson PHONE 360-385-9232 COUNTY Jefferson County TITLE GRANTS ADMIN. EMAIL amchristofferson@co.jefferson.wa.us STREET ADDRESS* 1100 Van Ness St. HUD FUNDED? Yes CITY Port Townsend ZIP 98368 ADDITIONAL RE CONTACT NAME PHONE NEAREST WATER BODY Salish Sea TITLE EMAIL WITHIN 150 FEET OF WATER BODY? YES NO X PROPONENT OR CONSULTANT NA WITHIN 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN? YES NO X NAME PHONE 5 + ACRES OF MATURE TREES AFFECTED? YES NO X TITLE EMAIL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION START DATE 6/30/2024 NMFS SPECIES & CRITICAL HABITAT PRESENT IN THE ACTION AREA PUGET SOUND REGION X EASTERN WASHINGTON LOWER COLUMBIA BASIN - PS CHINOOK,, STEELHEAD SNAKE RIVER SALMONIDS LOWER COLUMBIA SALMONIDS PS BOCACCIO, YELLOWEYE ROCKFISH UPPER COLUMBIA SALMONIDS GREEN STURGEON SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALES MID COLUMBIA STEELHEAD EULACHON SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALES EFH SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE ACTION AREA PACIFIC SALMON (CHINOOK, COHO) COASTAL PELAGICS GROUNDFISH PROJECT DESCRIPTION (i.e., pre-project site condition; soil drainage rates – please attach; post-project number of dwelling units; roofing materials and HVAC; associated parking or vehicle access; planting plans – please attach.) The project is located in Port Townsend, Washington. It includes a 1.16acre area that is currently an athletic field on the high school campus of the Port Townsend School District Property identified by Jefferson County Parcel as # 001023006 within the 30N/1W/2. The area is bounded by Blaine and Harrison Streets. The land has been officially leased to the Olympic Peninsula YMCA in order to achieve the mutual goal of increasing opportunities for early learning in the community. The site is underlain by continental glacial till (Qgt) deposits. The Hydrologic soil group is C. Stormwater runoff is anticipated. Stormwater will be routed on site to a stormwater detention pond and then to existing stormwater infrastructure onsite that ultimately discharges to city infrastructure to the southwest. Stormwater detention pond, stormwater catch basins and routing on-site, planted surfacing. STORMWATER INFORMATION Pre-Project Impervious Surface (roads, driveways, parking, roofs, sidewalks, hardscape), in acres 5254 sf Pre-Project Pollution Generating Impervious Surface (PGIS), in acres 5254 sf New Proposed Impervious Surface, in acres 51,810 sf New Proposed PGIS, in acres Total Post-Project Impervious Surface, in acres 57,064 sf Total Post-Project PGIS, in acres STORMWATER TREATMENT Are Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater methods incorporated into the project? YES X NO (If yes, please describe method)) Methods (infiltration measures e.g. pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers; roof runoff filtration; bioswales, rain gardens, bioretention) Bioswale and rain gardens will be used to treat stormwater All stormwater (up to the 10-year design storm*) infiltrated or treated with LID? Project should submit design showing design storm YES X NO (If no, please indicate percent using LID) Non-LID* Stormwater treatment methods used on-site? *Projects not using LID, must submit a Stormwater Design. Consult Appendix C for more information. YES NO X (If yes, please describe methods) Non-LID Stormwater treatment methods off-site? DISCHARGE TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM? X OTHER OFFSITE DETENTION/DISCHARGE? NAME OF RECEIVING WATER BODY: *See Ecology 2019 Stormwater Manual to determine the design storm for your location. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION PLAN Have you included a stormwater maintenance plan with a description of the on-site stormwater system, inspection schedule and process, maintenance activities, name and contact information of party/parties with legal and financial responsibility, and inspection and maintenance logs? YES X Page in stormwater plan where plan can be found Please see maintenance tables in page 56-59 of attached Storm Drainage Report. NO NMFS cannot complete review without a maintenance and inspection plan. Contact information for the party/parties that will be legally responsible for performing the inspections and maintenance or the stormwater facilities*: Name YMCA of the Olympic Peninsula Name Responsibility Leasee and operator of facility Responsibility Phone (P) 360 504 0526 Phone Email wendy@olympicpeninsulaymc a.org Email Alternate Name Wendy Bart Alternate Name *If no individual party is known, please identify a responsible role, such as President of Homeowners’ Association, or City or County Maintenance Department. If none a deed restriction to ensure stormwater facilities are maintained. OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION Action Completion Report Submit this form within 60 days of completing all work to NMFS at HUD-wa.wcr@noaa.gov DATE OF NOTIFICATION NMFS TRACKING # WCR- (NUMBER PROVIDED BY NMFS) Project Name HUD Office/Responsible Entity / Responsible Entity Contact Name: Phone: Email: Construction Completion Date Please include the following: An explanation of the stormwater system as built or installed by the construction contractor, including any on- 1 site changes from the original plans. Add more rows, as necessary 2 Photographs of the constructed stormwater facility, including photos of the outfall structure, vegetation, facility location relative to other site features, etc. 3 A map showing the stormwater facility’s location(s) 4 As built design drawings for the stormwater facility and site stormwater collection system (PDF versions only please. No CAD files)i Impervious surface includes hardscape, sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, and roofing. JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER STORM DRAINAGE REPORT 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Job No. BL23-157 Prepared for: Olympic Peninsula YMCA 675 N 5th Ave, Suite 3A Sequim, WA 98382 (360) 504-0526 Prepared by: Matt Roberts, EIT Reviewed by: Kimberly McNabb, PE Atwell, LLC 25 CENTRAL WAY, SUITE 400 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 February 29, 2024 02/29/2024 www.atwell-group.com JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER STORM DRAINAGE REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 3 1.1 STORMWATER PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE .................................................. 3 1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 4 2.0 Minimum Requirements .................................................................................................. 7 3.0 Site and Basin Assessment ............................................................................................ 8 3.1 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS REPORT .......................................................................... 9 3.2 SOILS/INFILTRATION RATES ........................................................................... 9 3.3 CRITICAL AREAS AND FLOODPLAIN ............................................................... 9 3.4 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY............................................................................... 10 4.0 ON-SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 11 4.1 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 11 4.2 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 13 4.3 FLOW CONTROL ANALYSIS & DESIGN ......................................................... 14 4.4 DETENTION POND DESIGN ............................................................................ 14 4.5 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 14 4.6 WATER QUALITY CONTROL ........................................................................... 16 4.7 CONVEYANCE DESIGN .................................................................................. 16 5.0 Constrctuon Stormwater Pollution prevention Plan ....................................................... 19 6.0 Special Reports & Studies ............................................................................................ 21 APPENDICES A. WWHM Report B. Operations and Maintenance C. Contech Storm Filter Detail ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 3 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Project Name: Jefferson County Early Learning Center Project Address: 1500 Van Ness St. Port Townsend, WA 98383 Parcel #: 001023006 Project Engineer: Atwell, LLC 25 Central Way, Suite 400 (425) 216-4051 Project Applicant: Olympic Peninsula YMCA 675 N 5th Ave Suite 3A Sequim, WA 98382 1.1 STORMWATER PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE Component Value Notes Project Site Area 57,064 sf Existing Impervious Area 5,254 sf Existing Impervious Coverage 9% New Impervious Area 51,810 sf Replaced Impervious Area 5,254 sf New driveway New Plus Replaced Impervious Area 57,064 sf Proposed Impervious Area 57,064 sf Proposed Frontage Improvements 6,670 sf Converted pervious: Native vegetation converted to lawn or landscape 0 sf N/A Converted pervious: Native vegetation converted to pasture 0 sf N/A Total Area of Land Disturbing Activity 57,064 sf ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 4 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW This storm drainage report accompanies the building permit application for an early learning center located at 1500 Van Ness St., Port Angeles, Washington. More generally, the site is in Section 2, Township 30N, Range 1W, W.M. See Vicinity Map below. The project site is situated within the southeastern portion of a developed assessor parcel (#001023006), currently developed with school buildings, storage buildings, tennis courts, paved parking and landscaped areas. The site lies on a vacant field and appears to have been previously graded. The site is bordered by Blaine St to the south, Harrison St to the east, and a high school to the north and west. The site is generally flat with the southern portion of the site draining north. According to the Geotechnical report prepared by Krazan & Associates., dated October 5th, 2023, soils were classified as dense glacial tills. The project proposes to clear and grade the existing field, and driveway to construct a new learning center building and driveway with supporting infrastructure and utility services, including additional frontage improvements. Based on the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005 DOE Manual), the project is considered a new development as the existing site has less than 35% impervious surfaces. Please see the Existing Conditions Exhibit, proposed site plan, and the New Development flow chart at the end of this section. Drainage elements were designed according to Section 4 of the City of Port Townsend Engineering Design Standards and the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005 DOE Manual) as adopted by the City of Port Townsend. The project must address all Minimum Requirements #1 through #10 per Figure 1.4 – Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements for New development Projects per the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005 DOE Manual) Please refer to Section 2 for a summary of additional requirements. Refer to the flow chart included on the following pages. 3 1 2 4 5 5 25 CENTRAL WAY, SUITE 400 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 P: 425.216.4051 WWW.ATWELL-GROUP.COM KEY NOTES GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER CITY DETAIL EC-6 FILTER FABRIC FENCE PER CITY DETAIL EC-7 FILTER FABRIC INLET FENCE PER CITY DETAIL EC-3 ON STEEP SLOPES FOR UTILITY TRENCHING, PLACE JUTE MAT OVER ROUGHENED SURFACE AND SEED AND MULCH WITH STRAW COVER. PROTECT OR REFERENCE AND REPLACE PER STATE AND LOCAL REQUJRIEMENTS 1 2 3 4 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY (1.31 AC) TO BE UPDATED 6 3 4 16 5 1 2 7 4 11 9 9 15 14 13 10 18 18 12 8 18 19 19 19 25 CENTRAL WAY, SUITE 400 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 P: 425.216.4051 WWW.ATWELL-GROUP.COM KEY NOTES ASPHALT PAVING SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET GRAVEL PAVING SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET ACCESSIBLE STRIPING AND SIGNING SEE DETAIL SHEET 11 CURB RAMP SEE DETAILS 11 DRIVEWAY APRON, SEE DETAILS 11 "ONE WAY DO NOT ENTER" SIGN 11 "ONE WAY" SIGN 11 EXISTING STOP SIGN TO REMAIN POWER POLES AND GUY LINES TO REMAIN TRASH ENCLOSURE AND FREEZER, SEE ARCHITECTURAL YELLOW LOADING ZONE STRIPING 4" WHITE PARKING TRAFFIC RATED PAINT OUTDOOR PLAY AREA, SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS STORMWATER POND, SEE GRADING AND LANDSCAPE PLANS DESIGN BUILD KEYSTONE (OR EQUAL) MSE RETAINING WALL EXISTING SIGN AND BENCH TO REMAIN BLAIN STREET IMPROVMENTS SEE SHEET 9 BIKE PARKING SEE ARCHITECTURAL CURB ENDING SEE DETAILS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ASPHALT PAVING SECTION DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S. NOTE: PAVEMENT SECTIONS DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION FROM KRAZEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED JANUARY 31, 2024 9" BASE COURSE (WSDOT ITEM 9-03.9(3), 1"-0 BASE COURSE OR TOP COURSE) SUBGRADE (PROOF COMPACTED WITH AT LEAST 4 PASSES OF A 10-TON VIBRATORY ROLLER OR APPROVED EQUAL) 6" BASE COURSE (WSDOT ITEM 9-03.9(3),58"-0 BASE COURSE OR TOP COURSE) 3" ASPHALT WEARING SURFACE (WSDOT 12" HMA) SUBGRADE (PROOF COMPACTED WITH AT LEAST 4 PASSES OF A 10-TON VIBRATORY ROLLER OR APPROVED EQUAL) GRAVEL PAVING SECTION DETAIL SCALE: N.T.S. TO BE UPDATEDDEVELOPED CONDITIONS EXHIBIT DEVELOPED BASIN BOUNDARY (1.31 AC) FRONTAGE BASIN BOUNDARY (0.16 AC) ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 5 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 6 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 7 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 2.0 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Per Figure 2.2 of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005 DOE Manual), the New Development project triggers minimum requirements #1-#10, as depicted in the preceding flow chart. Compliance with the minimum requirements are listed below. Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans: Construction Plans (under separate cover) and the Storm Drainage Report herein have been prepared for the subject property to satisfy minimum requirement #1. Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention: Refer to site plan for proposed erosion control measures per the 2005 Department of Ecology Manual standards under separate cover. Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution: The project will implement TESC measures such as silt fence and inlet protection to minimize sediment laden stormwater that may discharge from the site during construction. The proposed trash collection area will have a solid walled enclosure built around the waste bins, and stormwater runoff will be directed to the proposed on-site drainage network. The project proposes a Contech Concrete Catch Basin Storm Filter insert for each catch basin to treat stormwater runoff in accordance with the enhanced water quality treatment requirements prior to discharging to the proposed detention pond. To ensure proper functionality of the proposed storm drainage improvements, proper maintenance is required. Please reference Appendix C: Maintenance Plan for details on the operations and maintenance of the proposed improvements. Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls: The developed drainage will be designed to match existing site discharge locations. Runoff generated on the lot will be routed to an existing catch basin located within the driveway of the site which will be connected to the existing storm drainage system along Pierce St. Minimum Requirement #5: On-Site Stormwater Management: BMP T5.13 Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth (Section 5.3.1 in Volume V, 2005 DOE Manual) will be applied to all disturbed pervious areas. Runoff generated on the lot will enter catch basins or yard drains and be routed to a detention pond located in the southeastern portion of the site. Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment: The project proposes more than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced Pollution-Generating Hard Surface (PGHS), thus runoff treatment is required. According to Figure 4.1 in Volume I of the 2005 DOE Manual, Basic ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 8 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Runoff Treatment BMPs will be required for this project. Runoff from the drive aisle will be collected and flow through a Contech catch basin storm filter in each catch basin before being conveyed to the proposed detention pond. See Section 5 of this report for more information regarding how the project meets the runoff treatment requirements. Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control: Please reference Section 5 for detailed flow control facility design data. The project proposes a detention pond to manage runoff from the project site. Stormwater discharges that match the developed discharge duration to pre-developed durations for the range of pre-developed discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow will be controlled. The pre-developed conditions are matched to the fully forested condition which the Western Washington Hydrology Model 2012 (WWHM) is calibrated. Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection: There are no known existing wetlands located on or near the parcel. Minimum Requirement #9: Basin/Watershed Planning: This project addresses the minimum requirements for erosion control, source control, treatment, operations and maintenance. Minimum Requirement #10: Operations & Maintenance: The Operation and Maintenance Manual for the subject project is included in the Appendix. 3.0 SITE AND BASIN ASSESSMENT ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 9 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 3.1 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS REPORT Existing On-site Description The project site is currently developed with school buildings, shed/storage buildings, tennis courts, sidewalks, and paved parking and landscaped areas. The site is currently a vacant field within the parcel and appears to have been previously graded. Due to most of the project site being flat, stormwater infiltrates and sheet flows towards the right of way. The northeastern portion of the site contains a steep east-descending slope, where runoff flows down onto Harrison St, where it eventually reaches a catch basin 200 feet downstream. An existing catch basin on-site discharges stormwaters west past the tennis courts and into publicly own drainage ditches. Existing Downstream Description The site is ultimately tributary to Kah Tai Lagoon. The northeastern portion of the site flows down a steep slope onto Harrison St. Also, on-site runoff enters an existing catch basin that conveys the runoff west through the private system, before entering the stormwater network located along Blaine St. Runoff is conveyed southeast until reaching Lawrence St. before being redirected southwest before out falling into Kah Tai Lagoon. Proposed Downstream Description The proposed downstream drainage path will reflect the existing downstream drainage path. Runoff from the proposed development will be collected via a proposed drainage system that discharges to a detention pond. Any runoff that does not infiltrate will be released via an overflow system at a controlled flow rate to the existing conveyance system located in the proposed drive aisle. 3.2 SOILS/INFILTRATION RATES The stormwater detention pond design was based on the Geotechnical Report by Krazan & Associates, dated October 5th, 2023. The infiltration rate was 0.0779 in/hr. after applying the total correction factor. Please see the Geotechnical Engineering Study (provided by others) for more information. 3.3 CRITICAL AREAS AND FLOODPLAIN As part of the Geotechnical Engineering Study, Krazan & Associates reviewed critical area mapping and National Resources Conservation Services (NCRS) map for Jefferson County. Based on the Geotechnical Engineer's review the subject property contains the following geologic hazards: • The existing slopes in the northeastern portion of the site are considered an erosion hazard due to the steepness. (NCRS Mapping) • Per the geotechnical report, there is no landslide hazard area. The proposed onsite and offsite development will not adversely impact the site slopes and ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 10 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 associated buffers. • Per the geotechnical report, the site has a low liquefaction hazard. 3.4 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Please see the Site Assessment and Summary Exhibit located in Section 8 for description of the existing on-site basins and land use coverages. Please see the Site Development Exhibit located in Section 8 for a description of developed on-site basin and land-use coverages. Below is a list of methods that the project utilized to mitigate for pollutants and excessive flowrates that leave the site: • Slope paved areas to facilitate drainage to stormwater management areas: The site has been graded to facilitate stormwater draining to the proposed detention pond. • Amending disturbed soils according to BMP T5.13 in the Stormwater Manual: On-site soils shall be amended in accordance with City of Port Townsend. • Install water quality facility to treat runoff: The project proposes to install Contech concrete catch basin storm filters to treat runoff from the disturbed area to the enhanced water quality treatment standard. ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 11 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 4.0 ON-SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT An Existing Conditions Exhibit and a Developed Conditions Exhibit showing the existing and proposed lot coverage are provided at the end of this section. 4.1 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS The existing and developed drainage basins were modeled using WWHM, which is recognized as an approved model in the SWMMWW. The project was modeled using a 15-minute timestep. Per the Geotechnical Engineering Study by Krazan & Associates dated October 5th, 2023, on-site soils consist of dense glacial tills. Due to glacial till subsurface classification provided by the Geotechnical Engineer, the model has been developed utilizing Hydrologic Soils Group (HSG) C for the flow control analysis of drainage basin. Stormwater elements proposed as part of the development have been designed in accordance with the SWMMWW and the Design Manual. EXISTING CONDITION Impervious On-site Driveway 0.12 AC Total Impervious 0.12 AC Pervious On-site Lawn 1.19 AC Total Forest (Soil Group C - Till) 1.19 AC TOTAL EXISTING CONDITIONS 1.31 AC ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 13 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 4.2 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS The project proposes to clear and grade the existing field, and driveway to construct a new learning center building and driveway with supporting infrastructure and utility services. Based on the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005 DOE Manual), the project is considered new developed as the existing site has less than 35% impervious surfaces. DEVELOPED CONDITION Impervious Roads & Walkway 0.41 AC Roof (PGHS) 0.49 AC Total Effective Impervious 0.90 AC Pervious On-site Lawn & Landscaping 0.41 AC Total Lawn (Soil Group C - Till) 0.41 AC TOTAL DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 0.41 AC ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 14 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 4.3 FLOW CONTROL ANALYSIS & DESIGN A detention pond with an overflow structure has been designed using WWHM. The overflow structure has been designed to meet the 100-year 24-hour release requirement as per the 2005 DOE SWMMWW. The detention pond also meets the flow control requirements triggered by the project site. The project proposes to capture and convey stormwater runoff from the site to the proposed detention pond to satisfy the flow control requirements. The detention pond and overflow structure are proposed to maintain flow durations below the durations produced by the pre-developed forested conditions for 50% of the 2-year flow through the full 50-year flow. Stormwater that enters the detention pond will discharge through an outlet to a flow control catch basin. The flow control catch basin will discharge to a pump structure. The stormwater shall then be pumped up to a receiving catch basin that will gravity flow to the existing catch basin on site that discharges flows off-site towards the tennis courts. The receiving catch basin will also act as an emergency overflow and will gravity flow the overflows to the existing catch basin. 4.4 DETENTION POND DESIGN WWHM (Western Washington Hydrology Model) used the stormwater detention pond for the project site. The pond has a total depth of 5.5 ft, with an overflow riser at 5 ft. As well, three orifices were used in the model for the riser structure. 4.5 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS The project proposes greater than 5,000 square feet of Pollution Generating Impervious Surface (PGIS) tributary to Analysis Point 2. Therefore, per Figure 4.1 of Volume I of the DOE SWMMWW, basic water quality treatment is required. The project proposes a Contech concrete catch basin storm filter that is approved by the Washington Department of Ecology. The water quality storm filters will be installed in each catch basin and are therefore required to treat the full 2-year peak flow rate prior to conveyance into the on-site detention system. See the table below that shows the corresponding flow rate tributary to each catch basin, as well as the corresponding screenshot from WWHM that was used to determine the tributary flows. To adequately determine how many cartridges are required for each storm filter, the off-line BMP flow rate given by WWHM was used. Additionally, please see the Contech Sizing PDF located in the Appendix for more information regarding the Contech concrete catch basin storm filters. ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 15 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Contech Storm Insert Flows (Max capacity of 1 cartidge = 12.53 gpm) Catch Basin Flow Rate (cfs) Flow rate (gpm) CB 2 0.0087 3.91 CB 5 0.0186 8.30 CB 6 0.0097 4.61 ATWELL, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY EARLY LEARNING CENTER | STORM DRAINAGE REPORT PAGE 16 1500 Van Ness St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 4.6 WATER QUALITY CONTROL In the developed condition, runoff from pollution generating impervious surfaces on-site will pass through a storm filter located in each catch basin before entering the proposed detention pond. Maintenance activities for stormwater facilities are provided in the Operations and Maintenance Manual developed for this project. See the Appendix for more information. 4.7 CONVEYANCE DESIGN Overflow from the proposed detention pond will outfall via an 8-inch diameter storm line which shall connect to an existing 6-inch diameter storm pipe located near the western side of the drive aisle in the project site. To ensure adequate capacity was provided for the proposed 8- inch diameter outfall line, the 100-year mitigated flow rate discharging through the outfall pipe, which was calculated via WWHM to be 0.045 CFS, was analyzed. An 8-inch pipe installed at a minimum 0.34% slope has capacity to convey 0.76 CFS. Therefore, an 8-inch diameter pipe running at 0.34% slope has adequate capacity to convey the 100-year storm event. Also, to assure adequate capacity when discharging into the existing 6-inch system another conveyance capacity is shown below. A 2% slope for the existing 6-inch pipe is assumed until the official slope of the pipe is verified. Appendix V-A: BMP Maintenance Tables Ecology intends the facility-specific maintenance standards contained in this section to be conditions for determining if maintenance actions are required as identified through inspection. Recognizing that Permittees have limited main- tenance funds and time, Ecology does not require that a Permittee perform all these maintenance activities on all their stormwater BMPs. We leave the determination of importance of each maintenance activity and its priority within the stormwater program to the Permittee. We do expect, however, that sufficient maintenance will occur to ensure that the BMPs continue to operate as designed to protect ground and surface waters. Ecology doesn’t intend that these measures identify the facility's required condition at all times between inspections. In other words, exceedance of these conditions at any time between inspections and/or maintenance does not auto- matically constitute a violation of these standards. However, based upon inspection observations, the Permittee shall adjust inspection and maintenance schedules to minimize the length of time that a facility is in a condition that requires a maintenance action. Maintenance Com- ponent Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed General Trash & Debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic feet per 1,000 square feet. In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. If less than threshold all trash and debris will be removed as part of next scheduled main- tenance. Trash and debris cleared from site Poisonous Veget- ation and noxious weeds Any poisonous or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to maintenance per- sonnel or the public. Any evidence of noxious weeds as defined by State or local regulations. (Apply requirements of adopted IPM policies for the use of herbicides). No danger of poisonous vegetation where maintenance personnel or the public might normally be. (Coordin- ate with local health department) Complete eradication of noxious weeds may not be possible. Compliance with State or local eradication policies required Contaminants and Pollution Any evidence of oil, gasoline, contaminants or other pollutants (Coordinate removal/cleanup with local water quality response agency). No contaminants or pollutants present. Rodent Holes Any evidence of rodent holes if facility is acting as a dam or berm, or any evidence of water piping through dam or berm via rodent holes. Rodents destroyed and dam or berm repaired. (Coordinate with local health department; coordinate with Ecology Dam Safety Office if pond exceeds 10 acre-feet.) Beaver Dams Dam results in change or function of the facility. Facility is returned to design function. (Coordinate trapping of beavers and removal of dams with appropriate permitting agencies) Insects When insects such as wasps and hornets interfere with maintenance activities. Insects destroyed or removed from site. Apply insecticides in compliance with adopted IPM policies Tree Growth and Hazard Trees Tree growth does not allow maintenance and inspection access or interferes with main- tenance activity (i.e., slope mowing, silt removal, vactoring, or equipment movements). If trees are not interfering with access or maintenance, do not remove If dead, diseased, or dying trees are identified (Use a certified Arborist to determine health of tree or removal requirements) Trees do not hinder maintenance activities. Harvested trees should be recycled into mulch or other bene- ficial uses (e.g., alders for firewood). Remove hazard Trees Side Slopes of Pond Erosion Eroded damage over 2 inches deep where cause of damage is still present or where there is potential for continued erosion. Any erosion observed on a compacted berm embankment. Slopes should be stabilized using appropriate erosion control measure(s); e.g.,rock reinforcement, planting of grass, compaction. If erosion is occurring on compacted berms a licensed engineer in the state of Washington should be con- sulted to resolve source of erosion. Storage Area Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 10% of the designed pond depth unless otherwise spe- cified or affects inletting or outletting condition of the facility. Sediment cleaned out to designed pond shape and depth; pond reseeded if necessary to control erosion. Table V-A.1: Maintenance Standards - Detention Ponds 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V -Appendix A -Page 1005 Maintenance Com- ponent Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Liner (if Applic- able) Liner is visible and has more than three 1/4-inch holes in it. Liner repaired or replaced. Liner is fully covered. Ponds Berms (Dikes) Settlements Any part of berm which has settled 4 inches lower than the design elevation If settlement is apparent, measure berm to determine amount of settlement Settling can be an indication of more severe problems with the berm or outlet works. A licensed engineer in the state of Washington should be consulted to determine the source of the settlement. Dike is built back to the design elevation. Piping Discernable water flow through pond berm. Ongoing erosion with potential for erosion to con- tinue. (Recommend a Goethechnical engineer be called in to inspect and evaluate condition and recommend repair of condition. Piping eliminated. Erosion potential resolved. Emergency Overflow/ Spillway and Berms over 4 feet in height Tree Growth Tree growth on emergency spillways creates blockage problems and may cause failure of the berm due to uncontrolled overtopping. Tree growth on berms over 4 feet in height may lead to piping through the berm which could lead to failure of the berm. Trees should be removed. If root system is small (base less than 4 inches) the root system may be left in place. Otherwise the roots should be removed and the berm restored. A licensed engineer in the state of Washington should be consulted for proper berm/spillway restoration. Piping Discernable water flow through pond berm. Ongoing erosion with potential for erosion to con- tinue. (Recommend a Geotechnical engineer be called in to inspect and evaluate condition and recommend repair of condition. Piping eliminated. Erosion potential resolved. Emergency Over- flow/Spillway Emergency Over- flow/Spillway Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in area five square feet or larger, or any expos- ure of native soil at the top of out flow path of spillway. (Rip-rap on inside slopes need not be replaced.) Rocks and pad depth are restored to design standards. Erosion See "Side Slopes of Pond" Table V-A.1: Maintenance Standards - Detention Ponds (continued) Maintenance Component Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance Is Per- formed General Trash & Debris See Table V-A.1: Maintenance Standards - Detention Ponds See Table V-A.1: Maintenance Standards - Deten- tion Ponds Poisonous/Noxious Vegetation See Table V-A.1: Maintenance Standards - Detention Ponds See Table V-A.1: Maintenance Standards - Deten- tion Ponds Contaminants and Pol- lution See Table V-A.1: Maintenance Standards - Detention Ponds See Table V-A.1: Maintenance Standards - Deten- tion Ponds Rodent Holes See Table V-A.1: Maintenance Standards - Detention Ponds See Table V-A.1: Maintenance Standards - Deten- tion Ponds Storage Area Sediment Water ponding in infiltration pond after rainfall ceases and appropriate time allowed for infiltration. Treatment basins should infiltrate Water Quality Design Storm Volume within 48 hours, and empty within 24 hours after cessation of most rain events. Sediment is removed and/or facility is cleaned so that infiltration system works according to design. Table V-A.2: Maintenance Standards - Infiltration 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V -Appendix A -Page 1006 Maintenance Component Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Per- formed Manhole Cover Not in Place Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any open manhole requires maintenance.Manhole is closed. Locking Mechanism Not Working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread (may not apply to self-locking lids). Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover Difficult to Remove One maintenance person cannot remove lid after applying normal lifting pressure. Intent is to keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance. Cover can be removed and reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder Rungs Unsafe Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, misalignment, not securely attached to structure wall, rust, or cracks.Ladder meets design standards. Allows main- tenance person safe access. Catch Basins See Table V-A.5: Maintenance Standards - Catch Basins See Table V-A.5: Maintenance Standards - Catch Basins See Table V-A.5: Maintenance Standards - Catch Basins Table V-A.3: Maintenance Standards - Closed Detention Systems (Tanks/Vaults) (continued) Maintenance Com- ponent Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed General Trash and Debris (Includes Sediment)Material exceeds 25% of sump depth or 1 foot below orifice plate.Control structure orifice is not blocked. All trash and debris removed. Structural Damage Structure is not securely attached to manhole wall. Structure is not in upright position (allow up to 10% from plumb). Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight and show signs of rust. Any holes - other than designed holes - in the structure. Structure securely attached to wall and outlet pipe. Structure in correct position. Connections to outlet pipe are water tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Structure has no holes other than designed holes. Cleanout Gate Damaged or Missing Cleanout gate is not watertight or is missing. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one maintenance person. Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or damaged. Gate is rusted over 50% of its surface area. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate moves up and down easily and is watertight. Chain is in place and works as designed. Gate is repaired or replaced to meet design standards. Orifice Plate Damaged or Missing Control device is not working properly due to missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate.Plate is in place and works as designed. Obstructions Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation blocking the plate.Plate is free of all obstructions and works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking (or having the potential of blocking) the overflow pipe.Pipe is free of all obstructions and works as designed. Manhole See Table V-A.3: Maintenance Standards - Closed Detention Systems (Tanks/Vaults) See Table V-A.3: Maintenance Standards - Closed Detention Systems (Tanks/Vaults) See Table V-A.3: Maintenance Standards - Closed Detention Systems (Tank- s/Vaults) Catch Basin See Table V-A.5: Maintenance Standards - Catch Basins See Table V-A.5: Maintenance Standards - Catch Basins See Table V-A.5: Maintenance Standards - Catch Basins Table V-A.4: Maintenance Standards - Control Structure/Flow Restrictor 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V -Appendix A -Page 1008 Maintenance Component Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is per- formed General Trash & Debris Trash or debris which is located immediately in front of the catch basin opening or is blocking inletting capacity of the basin by more than 10%. Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60 percent of the sump depth as measured from the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of six inches clearance from the debris surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocking more than 1/3 of its height. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). No Trash or debris located immediately in front of catch basin or on grate opening. No trash or debris in the catch basin. Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or debris. No dead animals or vegetation present within the catch basin. Sediment Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60 percent of the sump depth as measured from the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance from the sediment surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. No sediment in the catch basin Structure Damage to Frame and/or Top Slab Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch. (Intent is to make sure no material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame from the top slab. Frame not securely attached Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame is sitting flush on the riser rings or top slab and firmly attached. Fractures or Cracks in Basin Walls/ Bottom Maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Pipe is regrouted and secure at basin wall. Settlement/ Mis- alignment If failure of basin has created a safety, function, or design problem. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more than 10% of the basin opening. Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints that is more than six inches tall and less than six inches apart. No vegetation blocking opening to basin. No vegetation or root growth present. Contamination and Pol- lution See Table V-A.1: Maintenance Standards - Detention Ponds No pollution present. Catch Basin Cover Cover Not in Place Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any open catch basin requires maintenance.Cover/grate is in place, meets design standards, and is secured Locking Mechanism Not Working Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread.Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover Difficult to Remove One maintenance person cannot remove lid after applying normal lifting pressure. (Intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance.) Cover can be removed by one maintenance per- son. Ladder Ladder Rungs Unsafe Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not securely attached to basin wall, misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges.Ladder meets design standards and allows main- tenance person safe access. Metal Grates (If Applicable) Grate opening Unsafe Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch.Grate opening meets design standards. Trash and Debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface inletting capacity.Grate free of trash and debris. Damaged or Missing.Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate.Grate is in place, meets the design standards, and is installed and aligned with the flow path. Table V-A.5: Maintenance Standards - Catch Basins 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V -Appendix A -Page 1009 APPENDIX C Contech Storm Filter Detail StormFilter Inspection and Maintenance Procedures ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS In addition to these two activities, it is important to check the condition of the StormFilter unit after major storms for potential damage caused by high flows and for high sediment accumulation that may be caused by localized erosion in the drainage area. It may be necessary to adjust the inspection/ maintenance schedule depending on the actual operating conditions encountered by the system. In general, inspection activities can be conducted at any time, and maintenance should occur, if warranted, during dryer months in late summer to early fall. Maintenance Frequency The primary factor for determining frequency of maintenance for the StormFilter is sediment loading. A properly functioning system will remove solids from water by trapping particulates in the porous structure of the filter media inside the cartridges. The flow through the system will naturally decrease as more and more particulates are trapped. Eventually the flow through the cartridges will be low enough to require replacement. It may be possible to extend the usable span of the cartridges by removing sediment from upstream trapping devices on a routine as-needed basis, in order to prevent material from being re-suspended and discharged to the StormFilter treatment system. The average maintenance lifecycle is approximately 1-5 years. Site conditions greatly influence maintenance requirements. StormFilter units located in areas with erosion or active construction may need to be inspected and maintained more often than those with fully stabilized surface conditions. Regulatory requirements or a chemical spill can shift maintenance timing as well. The maintenance frequency may be adjusted as additional monitoring information becomes available during the inspection program. Areas that develop known problems should be inspected more frequently than areas that demonstrate no problems, particularly after major storms. Ultimately, inspection and maintenance activities should be scheduled based on the historic records and characteristics of an individual StormFilter system or site. It is recommended that the site owner develop a database to properly manage StormFilter inspection and maintenance programs.. 2 3 Maintenance Guidelines The primary purpose of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® is to filter and prevent pollutants from entering our waterways. Like any effective filtration system, periodically these pollutants must be removed to restore the StormFilter to its full efficiency and effectiveness. Maintenance requirements and frequency are dependent on the pollutant load characteristics of each site. Maintenance activities may be required in the event of a chemical spill or due to excessive sediment loading from site erosion or extreme storms. It is a good practice to inspect the system after major storm events. Maintenance Procedures Although there are many effective maintenance options, we believe the following procedure to be efficient, using common equipment and existing maintenance protocols. The following two-step procedure is recommended:: 1. Inspection • Inspection of the vault interior to determine the need for maintenance. 2. Maintenance • Cartridge replacement • Sediment removal Inspection and Maintenance Timing At least one scheduled inspection should take place per year with maintenance following as warranted. First, an inspection should be done before the winter season. During the inspection the need for maintenance should be determined and, if disposal during maintenance will be required, samples of the accumulated sediments and media should be obtained. Second, if warranted, a maintenance (replacement of the filter cartridges and removal of accumulated sediments) should be performed during periods of dry weather. 2 3 Inspection Procedures The primary goal of an inspection is to assess the condition of the cartridges relative to the level of visual sediment loading as it relates to decreased treatment capacity. It may be desirable to conduct this inspection during a storm to observe the relative flow through the filter cartridges. If the submerged cartridges are severely plugged, then typically large amounts of sediments will be present and very little flow will be discharged from the drainage pipes. If this is the case, then maintenance is warranted and the cartridges need to be replaced. Warning: In the case of a spill, the worker should abort inspection activities until the proper guidance is obtained. Notify the local hazard control agency and Contech Engineered Solutions immediately. To conduct an inspection: Important: Inspection should be performed by a person who is familiar with the operation and configuration of the StormFilter treatment unit and the unit’s role, relative to detention or retention facilities onsite. 1. If applicable, set up safety equipment to protect and notify surrounding vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 2. Visually inspect the external condition of the unit and take notes concerning defects/problems. 3. Open the access portals to the vault and allow the system vent. 4. Without entering the vault, visually inspect the inside of the unit, and note accumulations of liquids and solids. 5. Be sure to record the level of sediment build-up on the floor of the vault, in the forebay, and on top of the cartridges. If flow is occurring, note the flow of water per drainage pipe. Record all observations. Digital pictures are valuable for historical documentation. 6. Close and fasten the access portals. 7. Remove safety equipment. 8. If appropriate, make notes about the local drainage area relative to ongoing construction, erosion problems, or high loading of other materials to the system. 9. Discuss conditions that suggest maintenance and make decision as to whether or not maintenance is needed. Maintenance Decision Tree The need for maintenance is typically based on results of the inspection. The following Maintenance Decision Tree should be used as a general guide. (Other factors, such as Regulatory Requirements, may need to be considered). Please note Stormwater Management StormFilter devices installed downstream of, or integrated within, a stormwater storage facility typically have different operational parameters (i.e. draindown time). In these cases, the inspector must understand the relationship between the retention/detention facility and the treatment system by evaluating site specific civil engineering plans, or contacting the engineer of record, and make adjustments to the below guidance as necessary. Sediment deposition depths and patterns within the StormFilter are likely to be quite different compared to systems without upstream storage and therefore shouldn’t be used exclusively to evaluate a need for maintenance. 1. Sediment loading on the vault floor. a. If >4” of accumulated sediment, maintenance is required. 2. Sediment loading on top of the cartridge. a. If >1/4” of accumulation, maintenance is required. 3. Submerged cartridges. a. If >4” of static water above cartridge bottom for more than 24 hours after end of rain event, maintenance is required. (Catch basins have standing water in the cartridge bay.) 4. Plugged media. a. While not required in all cases, inspection of the media within the cartridge may provide valuable additional information. b. If pore space between media granules is absent, maintenance is required. 5. Bypass condition. a. If inspection is conducted during an average rain fall event and StormFilter remains in bypass condition (water over the internal outlet baffle wall or submerged cartridges), maintenance is required. 6. Hazardous material release. a. If hazardous material release (automotive fluids or other) is reported, maintenance is required. 7. Pronounced scum line. a. If pronounced scum line (say ≥ 1/4” thick) is present above top cap, maintenance is required. 1 Amanda M. Christofferson From:Bonnie Shorin - NOAA Federal <bonnie.shorin@noaa.gov> Sent:Monday, April 29, 2024 12:50 PM To:Amanda M. Christofferson Cc:Maria Pazandak - NOAA Affiliate; Sturdivant, Brian; Consultationupdates WCR - NOAA Service Account Subject:Verification WCRO-2020-00512-7045_HUD_CDBG_ELFSC Attachments:WCRO-2020-00512-7045_PERM_PR_Final_20240321_signed.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Amanda, Please find attached NMFS' verification that the proposed HUD‐assisted development complies with the HUD programmatic consultation. We draw your attention to the single conservation recommendation regarding additional tree planting. There is an obligation for you to reply within 30 days to that EFH Conservation Recommendation, indicating if the recommendation will be adopted, or if not, what makes the recommendation infeasible. Please send your EFH reply to the ConsultationUpdates inbox, cc'd here, and include the WCRO tracking number in the regarding line. If you have any additional questions please reach out to Maria Pazandak, also included on this distribution. Thanks very much, Bonnie Shorin, JD Branch Chief, Central Puget Sound Branch, NOAA Fisheries | U.S. Department of Commerce Mobile: (360) 995-2750 www.fisheries.noaa.gov To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. From:Amanda M. Christofferson To:Bonnie Shorin - NOAA Federal Cc:Maria Pazandak - NOAA Affiliate; Sturdivant, Brian; Consultationupdates WCR - NOAA Service Account Subject:Verification WCRO-2020-00512-7045_HUD_CDBG_ELFSC Date:Monday, April 29, 2024 4:04:00 PM Attachments:image001.png2. i. JCELC planting schedule.pdf Hello Everyone, Thank you so much for your time and expertise evaluating our plan for managing stormwater. We do plan to take the conservation recommendation to further reduce stormwater inputs from this project in to action. Attached is the planting schedule from the design documentation. It shows many trees planted in the side yard as well as other areas. Sincerely, Amanda Amanda Christofferson (she/her)Grants Administrator | Jefferson County Auditor’s OfficeJefferson County | 1820 Jefferson St. | Port Townsend, WA 98368Phone: 360-385-9232 | Email: amchristofferson@co.jefferson.wa.us All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to thePublic Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail andits contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt fromproduction to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws. From: Bonnie Shorin - NOAA Federal <bonnie.shorin@noaa.gov> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 12:50 PM To: Amanda M. Christofferson <AMChristofferson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Maria Pazandak - NOAA Affiliate <maria.pazandak@noaa.gov>; Sturdivant, Brian <Brian.Sturdivant@hud.gov>; Consultationupdates WCR - NOAA Service Account <consultationupdates.wcr@noaa.gov> Subject: Verification WCRO-2020-00512-7045_HUD_CDBG_ELFSC ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not openattachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Amanda, Please find attached NMFS' verification that the proposed HUD-assisted development complies with the HUD programmatic consultation. We draw your attention to the single conservation recommendation regarding additional tree planting. There is an obligation for you to reply within 30 days to that EFH Conservation Recommendation, indicating if the recommendation will be adopted, or if not, what makes the recommendation infeasible. Please send your EFH reply to the ConsultationUpdates inbox, cc'd here, and include the WCRO tracking number in the regarding line. If you have any additional questions please reach out to Maria Pazandak, also included on this distribution. Thanks very much, Bonnie Shorin, JD Branch Chief, Central Puget Sound Branch, NOAA Fisheries | U.S. Department of Commerce Mobile: (360) 995-2750 www.fisheries.noaa.gov WEST COAST REGION PROGRAMMATIC TRACKING & RESPONSE FORM Project Name: ________________________________________________________________________ PROGRAMMATIC #: ___________________________ RCV’D DATE: ___________________________________ 6th Field HUC: ___________________________________ Acres of Habitat Protected: __________________________ Lead Action Agency: ________________________________ Action Agency Contact: ______________________________ Project Biologist: _________________________________ NMFS TRACKING #:____________________________________ RESPONSE DATE:______________________________________ CATEGORY OF ACTIVITY:______________________________ Statutory Authority: ESA only EFH only ESA & EFH Applicant______________________________________________ Agency Reference No.: ____________________________________ BC for ARA Kim Kratz: __________________________________ NMFS Species/Critical Habitat Present in Action Area: Identify the species found in the action area: ESA Species Upper Willamette River spring-run Chinook MCR steelhead Green sturgeon Upper Willamette River steelhead UCR spring-run Chinook Eulachon Lower Columbia River Chinook UCR steelhead PS Chinook Lower Columbia River steelhead SR spring/summer run Chinook PS Steelhead Lower Columbia River coho SR fall-run Chinook Whale (Killer) Columbia River chum SR steelhead Whale (Humpback) HC Summer-Run Chum SR sockeye EFH Species Rockfish Bocaccio Canary Yelloweye Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Pink Coastal Pelagics Groundfish NMFS RESPONSE NMFS CONFIRMS # EFH Conservation Recommendations: ______________ WEST COAST REGION PROGRAMMATIC TRACKING & RESPONSE FORM NMFS TRACKING #:____________________ (CONT.) OMB No. 2506-0177 (exp.2/28/2025) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Airport Hazards (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/airport-hazards 1. To ensure compatible land use development, you must determine your site’s proximity to civil and military airports. Is your project within 15,000 feet of a military airport or 2,500 feet of a civilian airport? ☒No  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within the applicable distances to a military or civilian airport. ☐Yes  Continue to Question 2. 2. Is your project located within a Runway Potential Zone/Clear Zone (RPZ/CZ) or Accident Potential Zone (APZ)? ☐Yes, project is in an APZ  Continue to Question 3. ☐Yes, project is an RPZ/CZ  Project cannot proceed at this location. ☐No, project is not within an APZ or RPZ/CZ  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide a map showing that the site is not within either zone. 3. Is the project in conformance with DOD guidelines for APZ? ☐Yes, project is consistent with DOD guidelines without further action.  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documentation supporting this determination. ☐No, the project cannot be brought into conformance with DOD guidelines and has not been approved.  Project cannot proceed at this location. If mitigation measures have been or will be taken, explain in detail the proposed measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. Click here to enter text.  Work with the RE/HUD to develop mitigation measures. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documentation supporting this determination. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: • Map panel numbers and dates • Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates • Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers • Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. Jefferson County Public Land Records mapping utilized with images provided below indicate that the proposed site is greater than 15,000 ft. from a civil and military airport and greater than 2,500 ft. from a civilian airport. OMB No. 2506-0177 (exp.2/28/2025) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Air Quality (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/air-quality 1. Does your project include new construction or conversion of land use facilitating the development of public, commercial, or industrial facilities OR five or more dwelling units? ☒ Yes  Continue to Question 2. ☐ No  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Provide any documents used to make your determination. 2. Is your project’s air quality management district or county in non-attainment or maintenance status for any criteria pollutants? Follow the link below to determine compliance status of project county or air quality management district: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ ☒ No, project’s county or air quality management district is in attainment status for all criteria pollutants  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide any documents used to make your determination. ☐ Yes, project’s management district or county is in non-attainment or maintenance status for one or more criteria pollutants.  Continue to Question 3. 3. Determine the estimated emissions levels of your project for each of those criteria pollutants that are in non-attainment or maintenance status on your project area. Will your project exceed any of the de minimis or threshold emissions levels of non-attainment and maintenance level pollutants or exceed the screening levels established by the state or air quality management district? ☐ No, the project will not exceed de minimis or threshold emissions levels or screening levels  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Explain how you determined that the project would not exceed de minimis or threshold emissions. ☐ Yes, the project exceeds de minimis emissions levels or screening levels.  Continue to Question 4. Explain how you determined that the project would not exceed de minimis or threshold emissions in the Worksheet Summary. 4. For the project to be brought into compliance with this section, all adverse impacts must be mitigated. Explain in detail the exact measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. Click here to enter text. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: • Map panel numbers and dates • Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates • Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers • Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. Green Book downloaded from https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 9/22/2023 In review of the “Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants” produced by the US EPA and published as part of the Green Book, Jefferson County was not listed. 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 1/18 You are here: EPA Home > Green Book > Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants Data is current as of August 31, 2023 The 8-hour Ozone (1997) standard was revoked on April 6, 2015 and the 1-hour Ozone (1979) standard was revoked on June 15, 2005. The asterisk (*) indicates only a portion of the county is included in the designated nonattainment area (NA). Download National Dataset of all designated areas (currently nonattainment, maintenance, revoked): dbf | xls | Data dictionary (PDF) Listed by State, County, NAAQS * Part County NA NA Area Name (Classification, if applicable) ALASKA Fairbanks North Star Borough PM-2.5 (2006)*Fairbanks, AK - (Serious) ARIZONA Cochise County PM-10 (1987)*Cochise County; Paul Spur/Douglas planning area, AZ - (Moderate) Gila County Lead (2008)*Hayden, AZ PM-10 (1987)*Hayden, AZ - (Moderate) PM-10 (1987)*Miami, AZ - (Moderate) Sulfur Dioxide (2010)*Hayden, AZ Sulfur Dioxide (2010)*Miami, AZ 8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Phoenix-Mesa, AZ - (Moderate) Maricopa County PM-10 (1987)*Maricopa and Pinal Counties; Phoenix planning area, AZ - (Serious) 8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Phoenix-Mesa, AZ - (Moderate) 8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Phoenix-Mesa, AZ - (Moderate) Pima County PM-10 (1987)*Pima County; Rillito planning area, AZ - (Moderate) Pinal County Lead (2008)*Hayden, AZ PM-10 (1987)*Hayden, AZ - (Moderate) PM-10 (1987)*Maricopa and Pinal Counties; Phoenix planning area, AZ - (Serious) PM-10 (1987)*Miami, AZ - (Moderate) logo 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 2/18 PM-10 (1987)*Pinal County (part); West Pinal, AZ - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2006)*West Central Pinal, AZ - (Moderate)Sulfur Dioxide (1971)*Hayden (Pinal County), AZSulfur Dioxide (2010)*Hayden, AZ8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Phoenix-Mesa, AZ - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Phoenix-Mesa, AZ - (Moderate)Santa Cruz CountyPM-10 (1987)*Santa Cruz County; Nogales planning area, AZ - (Moderate)Yuma CountyPM-10 (1987)*Yuma, AZ - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Yuma, AZ - (Marginal)CALIFORNIAAlameda CountyPM-2.5 (2006)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)Amador County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Amador County, CA - (Marginal)Butte County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Chico (Butte County), CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Butte County, CA - (Marginal)Calaveras County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Calaveras County, CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Calaveras County, CA - (Marginal)Contra Costa CountyPM-2.5 (2006)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)El Dorado CountyPM-2.5 (2006)*Sacramento, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Sacramento Metro, CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Sacramento Metro, CA - (Serious)Fresno CountyPM-2.5 (1997)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2006)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)Imperial CountyPM-2.5 (2006)*Imperial County, CA - (Moderate)PM-2.5 (2012)*Imperial County, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)Imperial County, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Imperial County, CA - (Marginal)Inyo CountyPM-10 (1987)*Inyo County; Owens Valley planning area, CA - (Serious)Kern County 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 3/18 PM-10 (1987)*East Kern County, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (1997)*San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2006)*San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)*San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Kern County (Eastern Kern), CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)Kings CountyPM-2.5 (1997)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2006)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)Los Angeles CountyLead (2008)*Los Angeles County-South Coast Air Basin, CAPM-2.5 (1997)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Moderate)PM-2.5 (2006)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Extreme)Madera CountyPM-2.5 (1997)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2006)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)Marin CountyPM-2.5 (2006)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)Mariposa County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Mariposa County, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Mariposa County, CA - (Moderate)Merced CountyPM-2.5 (1997)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2006)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)Mono CountyPM-10 (1987)*Mono Basin, CA - (Moderate)Napa CountyPM-2.5 (2006)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Moderate) 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 4/18 8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)Nevada County8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Nevada County (Western part), CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Nevada County (Western part), CA - (Serious)Orange CountyPM-2.5 (1997)Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Moderate)PM-2.5 (2006)Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Extreme)Placer CountyPM-2.5 (2006)*Sacramento, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Sacramento Metro, CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Sacramento Metro, CA - (Serious)Plumas CountyPM-2.5 (2012)*Plumas County, CA - (Serious)Riverside CountyPM-10 (1987)*Riverside County; Coachella Valley planning area, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (1997)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Moderate)PM-2.5 (2006)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Morongo Band of Mission Indians, CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Riverside County (Coachella Valley), CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Morongo Band of Mission Indians, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Riverside County (Coachella Valley), CA - (Severe 15)Sacramento CountyPM-2.5 (2006)Sacramento, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)Sacramento Metro, CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Sacramento Metro, CA - (Serious)San Bernardino CountyPM-10 (1987)*San Bernardino County, CA - (Moderate)PM-10 (1987)*Trona, CA - (Moderate)PM-2.5 (1997)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Moderate)PM-2.5 (2006)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert), CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA - (Extreme)San Diego County8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, CA - (Moderate) 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 5/18 8-Hour Ozone (2008)*San Diego County, CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*San Diego County, CA - (Severe 15)San Francisco CountyPM-2.5 (2006)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)San Joaquin CountyPM-2.5 (1997)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2006)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)San Luis Obispo County8-Hour Ozone (2008)*San Luis Obispo (Eastern San Luis Obispo), CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*San Luis Obispo (Eastern part), CA - (Marginal)San Mateo CountyPM-2.5 (2006)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)Santa Clara CountyPM-2.5 (2006)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)Solano CountyPM-2.5 (2006)*Sacramento, CA - (Moderate)PM-2.5 (2006)*San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Sacramento Metro, CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Sacramento Metro, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)Sonoma CountyPM-2.5 (2006)*San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)*San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*San Francisco Bay Area, CA - (Marginal)Stanislaus CountyPM-2.5 (1997)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2006)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)Sutter County8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Sacramento Metro, CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Sacramento Metro, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Sutter Buttes, CA - (Marginal)Tehama County 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 6/18 8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Tuscan Buttes, CA - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Tuscan Buttes, CA - (Marginal (Rural Transport))Tulare CountyPM-2.5 (1997)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2006)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)PM-2.5 (2012)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2008)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Joaquin Valley, CA - (Extreme)Tuolumne County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Tuolumne County, CA - (Marginal)Ventura County8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Ventura County, CA - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Ventura County, CA - (Serious)Yolo CountyPM-2.5 (2006)*Sacramento, CA - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)Sacramento Metro, CA - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Sacramento Metro, CA - (Serious)COLORADOAdams County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO - (Moderate)Arapahoe County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO - (Moderate)Boulder County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO - (Moderate)Broomfield County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO - (Moderate)Denver County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO - (Moderate)Douglas County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO - (Moderate)Jefferson County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO - (Moderate)Larimer County8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO - (Moderate)Weld County8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO - (Moderate)CONNECTICUT 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 7/18 Fairfield County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Hartford County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Greater Connecticut, CT - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Greater Connecticut, CT - (Moderate)Litchfield County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Greater Connecticut, CT - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Greater Connecticut, CT - (Moderate)Middlesex County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)New Haven County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)New London County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Greater Connecticut, CT - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Greater Connecticut, CT - (Moderate)Tolland County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Greater Connecticut, CT - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Greater Connecticut, CT - (Moderate)Windham County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Greater Connecticut, CT - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Greater Connecticut, CT - (Moderate)DELAWARENew Castle County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Sussex County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Seaford, DE - (Marginal)DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADistrict of Columbia8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)GUAMGuamSulfur Dioxide (1971)*Piti, GUSulfur Dioxide (1971)*Tanguisson, GUSulfur Dioxide (2010)*Piti-Cabras, GUIDAHOBannock CountyPM-10 (1987)*Power-Bannock Counties; Fort Hall Indian Reservation, ID - (Moderate)Power CountyPM-10 (1987)*Power-Bannock Counties; Fort Hall Indian Reservation, ID - (Moderate)ILLINOISCook County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Chicago, IL-IN-WI - (Moderate) 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 8/18 DuPage County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Chicago, IL-IN-WI - (Moderate)Grundy County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Chicago, IL-IN-WI - (Moderate)Kane County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Chicago, IL-IN-WI - (Moderate)Kendall County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Chicago, IL-IN-WI - (Moderate)Lake County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Chicago, IL-IN-WI - (Moderate)Madison CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Alton Township, IL8-Hour Ozone (2015)St. Louis, MO-IL - (Moderate)McHenry County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Chicago, IL-IN-WI - (Moderate)Monroe County8-Hour Ozone (2015)St. Louis, MO-IL - (Moderate)St. Clair County8-Hour Ozone (2015)St. Louis, MO-IL - (Moderate)Will County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Chicago, IL-IN-WI - (Moderate)INDIANAHuntington CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Huntington, INLake County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Chicago, IL-IN-WI - (Moderate)Porter County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Chicago, IL-IN-WI - (Moderate)IOWAMuscatine CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Muscatine, IAKANSASSaline CountyLead (2008)*Saline County, KSKENTUCKYBoone County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Cincinnati, OH-KY - (Moderate)Bullitt County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Louisville, KY-IN - (Moderate)Campbell County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Cincinnati, OH-KY - (Moderate)Henderson CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Henderson-Webster Counties, KYJefferson County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Louisville, KY-IN - (Moderate)Kenton County 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 9/18 8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Cincinnati, OH-KY - (Moderate)Oldham County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Louisville, KY-IN - (Moderate)Webster CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Henderson-Webster Counties, KYLOUISIANAEvangeline ParishSulfur Dioxide (2010)*Evangeline Parish (Partial), LASt. Bernard ParishSulfur Dioxide (2010)St. Bernard Parish, LAMARYLANDAnne Arundel CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County, MD8-Hour Ozone (2008)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)Baltimore CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County, MD8-Hour Ozone (2008)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)Baltimore city8-Hour Ozone (2008)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)Calvert County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Carroll County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)Cecil County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Charles County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Frederick County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Harford County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)Howard County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Baltimore, MD - (Moderate)Montgomery County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Prince George's County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)MASSACHUSETTSDukes County 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 10/18 8-Hour Ozone (2008)Dukes County, MA - (Marginal)MICHIGANAllegan County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Allegan County, MI - (Moderate)Berrien County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Berrien County, MI - (Moderate)Muskegon County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Muskegon County, MI - (Moderate)St. Clair CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*St. Clair, MIWayne CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Detroit, MIMINNESOTADakota CountyLead (2008)*Eagan, MNMISSOURIDent CountyLead (2008)*Iron, Dent, and Reynolds Counties, MOFranklin County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*St. Louis, MO-IL - (Moderate)Iron CountyLead (2008)*Iron, Dent, and Reynolds Counties, MOJefferson CountyLead (1978)*Jefferson County (part); Herculaneum, MOLead (2008)*Jefferson County, MO8-Hour Ozone (2015)St. Louis, MO-IL - (Moderate)New Madrid CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*New Madrid County, MOReynolds CountyLead (2008)*Iron, Dent, and Reynolds Counties, MOSt. Charles County8-Hour Ozone (2015)St. Louis, MO-IL - (Moderate)St. Louis County8-Hour Ozone (2015)St. Louis, MO-IL - (Moderate)St. Louis city8-Hour Ozone (2015)St. Louis, MO-IL - (Moderate)MONTANALake CountyPM-10 (1987)*Lake County; Polson, MT - (Moderate)PM-10 (1987)*Lake County; Ronan, MT - (Moderate)Rosebud CountyPM-10 (1987)*Rosebud County; Lame Deer, MT - (Moderate)Yellowstone CountySulfur Dioxide (1971)*Laurel Area (Yellowstone County), MTNEVADAClark County 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 11/18 8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Las Vegas, NV - (Moderate)NEW JERSEYAtlantic County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Bergen County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Burlington County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Camden County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Cape May County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Cumberland County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Essex County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Gloucester County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Hudson County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Hunterdon County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Mercer County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Middlesex County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Monmouth County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Morris County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Ocean County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal) 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 12/18 8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Passaic County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Salem County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Somerset County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Sussex County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Union County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Warren CountySulfur Dioxide (1971)*Warren County, NJ8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)NEW MEXICODona Ana CountyPM-10 (1987)*Dona Ana County; Anthony, NM - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*El Paso-Las Cruces, TX-NM - (Marginal)NEW YORKBronx County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Chautauqua County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Jamestown, NY - (Marginal)Kings County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Nassau County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)New York CountyPM-10 (1987)New York County, NY - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Queens County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Richmond County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate) 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 13/18 Rockland County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)St. Lawrence CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*St. Lawrence County, NYSuffolk County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)Westchester County8-Hour Ozone (2008)New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT - (Moderate)OHIOCuyahoga County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Cleveland, OH - (Moderate)Geauga County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Cleveland, OH - (Moderate)Lake County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Cleveland, OH - (Moderate)Lorain County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Cleveland, OH - (Moderate)Medina County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Cleveland, OH - (Moderate)Morgan CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Muskingum River, OHPortage County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Cleveland, OH - (Moderate)Stark CountyLead (2008)*Canton-Stark County, OHSummit County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Cleveland, OH - (Moderate)Washington CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Muskingum River, OHOREGONKlamath CountyPM-2.5 (2006)*Klamath Falls, OR - (Moderate)PENNSYLVANIAAllegheny CountyPM-2.5 (1997)*Liberty-Clairton, PA - (Moderate)PM-2.5 (2006)*Liberty-Clairton, PA - (Moderate)PM-2.5 (2012)Allegheny County, PA - (Moderate)Sulfur Dioxide (2010)*Allegheny, PA8-Hour Ozone (2008)Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA - (Marginal)Armstrong CountySulfur Dioxide (1971)*Armstrong County: Madison, Mahoning, Boggs, Washington, Pine, PASulfur Dioxide (2010)*Indiana, PA8-Hour Ozone (2008)Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA - (Marginal) 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 14/18 Beaver CountyLead (2008)*Lower Beaver Valley, PASulfur Dioxide (2010)*Beaver, PA8-Hour Ozone (2008)Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA - (Marginal)Berks CountyLead (2008)*Lyons, PALead (2008)*North Reading, PA8-Hour Ozone (2008)Reading, PA - (Marginal)Bucks County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Butler County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA - (Marginal)Carbon County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA - (Marginal)Chester County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Delaware County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Fayette County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA - (Marginal)Indiana CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)Indiana, PALancaster County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Lancaster, PA - (Marginal)Lehigh County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA - (Marginal)Montgomery County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Northampton County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA - (Marginal)Philadelphia County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Marginal)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE - (Moderate)Warren CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Warren, PAWashington County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA - (Marginal)Westmoreland County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA - (Marginal)PUERTO RICOArecibo MunicipioLead (2008)*Arecibo, PR 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 15/18 Bayamon MunicipioSulfur Dioxide (2010)*San Juan, PRCatano MunicipioSulfur Dioxide (2010)San Juan, PRGuaynabo MunicipioSulfur Dioxide (2010)*San Juan, PRSalinas MunicipioSulfur Dioxide (2010)*Guayama-Salinas, PRSan Juan MunicipioSulfur Dioxide (2010)*San Juan, PRToa Baja MunicipioSulfur Dioxide (2010)*San Juan, PRTENNESSEESullivan CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Sullivan County, TNTEXASAnderson CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Freestone and Anderson Counties, TXBexar County8-Hour Ozone (2015)San Antonio, TX - (Moderate)Brazoria County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Moderate)Chambers County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Moderate)Collin County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Moderate)Dallas County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Moderate)Denton County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Moderate)El Paso CountyPM-10 (1987)*El Paso County, TX - (Moderate)8-Hour Ozone (2015)El Paso-Las Cruces, TX-NM - (Marginal)Ellis County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Moderate)Fort Bend County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Moderate)Freestone CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Freestone and Anderson Counties, TX 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 16/18 Galveston County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Moderate)Harris County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Moderate)Howard CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Howard County, TXHutchinson CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Hutchinson County, TXJohnson County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Moderate)Kaufman County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Moderate)Liberty County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Severe 15)Montgomery County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Moderate)Navarro CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Navarro County, TXPanola CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Rusk and Panola Counties, TXParker County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Moderate)Rockwall County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Severe 15)Rusk CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Rusk and Panola Counties, TXTarrant County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Moderate)Titus CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Titus County, TXWaller County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX - (Severe 15)Wise County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Severe 15)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - (Moderate)UTAHBox Elder CountyPM-2.5 (2006)*Salt Lake City, UT - (Serious)Davis County 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 17/18 PM-2.5 (2006)Salt Lake City, UT - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)Northern Wasatch Front, UT - (Moderate)Duchesne County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Uinta Basin, UT - (Marginal)Salt Lake CountyPM-2.5 (2006)Salt Lake City, UT - (Serious)Sulfur Dioxide (1971)Salt Lake County, UT8-Hour Ozone (2015)Northern Wasatch Front, UT - (Moderate)Tooele CountyPM-2.5 (2006)*Salt Lake City, UT - (Serious)Sulfur Dioxide (1971)*Tooele County, UT8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Northern Wasatch Front, UT - (Moderate)Uintah County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Uinta Basin, UT - (Marginal)Utah CountyPM-2.5 (2006)*Provo, UT - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Southern Wasatch Front, UT - (Marginal)Weber CountyPM-2.5 (2006)*Salt Lake City, UT - (Serious)8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Northern Wasatch Front, UT - (Moderate)VIRGINIAAlexandria city8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Arlington County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Fairfax County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Fairfax city8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Falls Church city8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Giles CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Giles County, VALoudoun County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Manassas Park city8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Manassas city8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)Prince William County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Washington, DC-MD-VA - (Moderate)WASHINGTONWhatcom CountySulfur Dioxide (2010)*Whatcom County, WAWISCONSINKenosha County 9/22/23, 12:10 PM Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html 18/18 Discover.Connect.Ask. Follow. 2023-08-31 8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Chicago, IL-IN-WI - (Moderate)Milwaukee County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Milwaukee, WI - (Moderate)Ozaukee County8-Hour Ozone (2015)Milwaukee, WI - (Moderate)Racine County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Milwaukee, WI - (Moderate)Sheboygan County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Sheboygan County, WI - (Moderate)Washington County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Milwaukee, WI - (Moderate)Waukesha County8-Hour Ozone (2015)*Milwaukee, WI - (Moderate)WYOMINGLincoln County8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Upper Green River Basin Area, WY - (Marginal)Sublette County8-Hour Ozone (2008)Upper Green River Basin Area, WY - (Marginal)Sweetwater County8-Hour Ozone (2008)*Upper Green River Basin Area, WY - (Marginal) OMB No. 2506-0177 (exp.2/28/2025) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Contamination and Toxic Substances (Multifamily and Non-Residential Properties) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/site-contamination 1. How was site contamination evaluated? 1 Select all that apply. ☒ ASTM Phase I ESA ☐ ASTM Phase II ESA ☐ Remediation or clean-up plan ☐ ASTM Vapor Encroachment Screening ☐ None of the above  Provide documentation and reports and include an explanation of how site contamination was evaluated in the Worksheet Summary. Continue to Question 2. 2. Were any on-site or nearby toxic, hazardous, or radioactive substances found that could affect the health and safety of project occupants or conflict with the intended use of the property? (Were any recognized environmental conditions or RECs identified in a Phase I ESA and confirmed in a Phase II ESA?) ☒ No  Explain below. Based on Phase I ESA site visit, historical research and evaluation of potential off-site risks no contamination concerns were identified.  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. ☐ Yes  Describe the findings, including any recognized environmental conditions (RECs), in Worksheet Summary below. Continue to Question 3. 3. Can adverse environmental impacts be mitigated? 1 HUD regulations at 24 CFR § 58.5(i)(2)(ii) require that the environmental review for multifamily housing with five or more dwelling units or non-residential property include the evaluation of previous uses of the site or other evidence of contamination on or near the site. For acquisition and new construction of multifamily and nonresidential properties HUD strongly advises the review include an ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to meet real estate transaction standards of due diligence and to help ensure compliance with HUD’s toxic policy at 24 CFR §58.5(i) and 24 CFR §50.3(i). Also note that some HUD programs require an ASTM Phase I ESA. ☐ Adverse environmental impacts cannot feasibly be mitigated  HUD assistance may not be used for the project at this site. Project cannot proceed at this location. ☐ Yes, adverse environmental impacts can be eliminated through mitigation.  Provide all mitigation requirements2 and documents. Continue to Question 4. 4. Describe how compliance was achieved. Include any of the following that apply: State Voluntary Clean-up Program, a No Further Action letter, use of engineering controls3, or use of institutional controls4. Click here to enter text. If a remediation plan or clean-up program was necessary, which standard does it follow? ☐ Complete removal ☐ Risk-based corrective action (RBCA)  Continue to the Worksheet Summary. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: • Map panel numbers and dates • Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates • Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers • Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. Stratum Group, Licensed Engineering Geologists performed an Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I in conformance with the Federal Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312) and in general conformance with the methodology of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21. 2 Mitigation requirements include all clean-up actions required by applicable federal, state, tribal, or local law. Additionally, provide, as applicable, the long-term operations and maintenance plan, Remedial Action Work Plan, and other equivalent documents. 3 Engineering controls are any physical mechanism used to contain or stabilize contamination or ensure the effectiveness of a remedial action. Engineering controls may include, without limitation, caps, covers, dikes, trenches, leachate collection systems, signs, fences, physical access controls, ground water monitoring systems and ground water containment systems including, without limitation, slurry walls and ground water pumping systems. 4 Institutional controls are mechanisms used to limit human activities at or near a contaminated site, or to ensure the effectiveness of the remedial action over time, when contaminants remain at a site at levels above the applicable remediation standard which would allow for unrestricted use of the property. Institutional controls may include structure, land, and natural resource use restrictions, well restriction areas, classification exception areas, deed notices, and declarations of environmental restrictions. PO Box 2546, Bellingham, WA 98227 Phone: (360) 714-9409 October 13, 2023 Simon Little simon@studio-stl.com Re: Report Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Eastern Portion of Jefferson County Parcel 001023006 Stratum Group is pleased to present the results of our Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the above referenced property in Port Townsend, Washington. This Phase I Assessment was conducted in conformance with the Federal Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312) and in general conformance with the methodology of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-21. The subject property is consists of a grass covered ball field that is and has been part of the Port Townsend High School property. No contamination is suspected in connection with the current site uses. Based on our site visit, historical research and evaluation of potential off-site risks, it is reasonable and prudent to believe that the risk of contamination at the site is so minimal that no further investigation is warranted. Should you have any questions concerning this Environmental Site Assessment, please do not hesitate to contact us at (360) 714-9409. Sincerely, Stratum Group Dan McShane, M.Sc., L.E.G. Licensed Engineering Geologist Eastern Portion Jefferson County Parcel 001023006 Port Townsend, Washington ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT: PHASE I Prepared For: By: Studio STL PO Box 2546 Bellingham, WA 98227 (360) 714-9409 October 13, 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Methodology & Purpose....................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Professional Statement.......................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Limitations............................................................................................................................ 3 2.4 Data Gaps.............................................................................................................................. 4 SECTION 3. SITE LOCATION & PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS................................ 4 3.1 Location................................................................................................................................ 4 3.2 Site Physical Setting ............................................................................................................. 4 3.3 Geologic Setting.................................................................................................................... 4 3.4 Hydrologic Setting................................................................................................................ 4 SECTION 4. SITE OBSERVATIONS........................................................................................ 5 4.1 Adjoining Properties............................................................................................................. 6 SECTION 5. HISTORICAL USE OF SITE & ADJOINING PROPERTIES........................ 6 5.1 Summary of Past Subject Property Use................................................................................ 6 5.2 Summary of Past Use of Adjoining Properties..................................................................... 6 SECTION 6. SUBJECT PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION................................................... 6 6.1 Health Department................................................................................................................ 6 6.2 Department of Ecology Records........................................................................................... 7 SECTION 7. ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE REVIEW..................................................... 7 7.1 Standard ASTM Environmental Record Sources................................................................. 7 7.2 Evaluation of Potential Off-Site Contamination Records..................................................... 7 7.3 Evaluation of Potential On-Site Contamination ................................................................... 8 SECTION 8. FINDINGS.............................................................................................................. 8 SECTION 9. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 8 APPENDICES APPENDIX I Figure 1 – Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity Figures 3 through 7 – Site Photographs APPENDIX II Topographic Maps Aerial Photographs APPENDIX III Historical Use and Public Records Search References Stratum Group Indemnity APPENDIX IV Resumes APPENDIX V ERIS Database Report October 13, 2023 Eastern Portion of Jefferson County Parcel 001023006, Port Townsend, WA Environmental Site Assessment: Phase 1 1 Project: 9.29.23 SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Stratum Group conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the eastern portion of Jefferson County Parcel 001023006 in Port Townsend, Washington. The environmental assessment process included a site visit, a historical investigation, review of environmental databases, and interviews to determine the risk of contamination to the soil, groundwater and/or vapor intrusion at the site. The subject property consists of a grass covered ball field that is and has been part of the Port Townsend High School property. Our historical research indicates the site has been part of the school property since the high school was built in 1892 and has been used as a ball field since at least the early 1900s. No potential off-site contamination sources identified in our research poses a risk of contamination to the subject property. Based upon our site visit, historical review, and evaluation of potential off-site contamination sources, it is our opinion that it is reasonable and prudent to believe that the environmental risk at the site is minimal and therefore no further investigation is warranted. SECTION 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Methodology & Purpose This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is being completed prior to a potential commercial loan or property transfer. The purpose of this assessment is to identify, to the extent feasible pursuant to the processes prescribed within the Federal Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312) and ASTM Standard Practice E1527-21, recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. A recognized environmental condition (REC) is defined as (1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions. A de minimis condition is defined as a condition that generally does not pose a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate government agencies. This report will also address controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) and historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), if identified in association with the site. A CREC is defined as a REC that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authorities with contamination allowed to remain in place subject to implementation of required controls. An HREC is defined as previous release of hazardous substances or OMB No. 2506-0177 (exp.2/28/2025) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Environmental Justice (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/environmental-justice HUD strongly encourages starting the Environmental Justice analysis only after all other laws and authorities, including Environmental Assessment factors if necessary, have been completed. 1. Were any adverse environmental impacts identified in any other compliance review portion of this project’s total environmental review? ☐Yes  Continue to Question 2. ☒No  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. 2. Were these adverse environmental impacts disproportionately high for low-income and/or minority communities? ☐Yes Explain: Click here to enter text.  The RE/HUD must work with the affected low-income or minority community to decide what mitigation actions, if any, will be taken. Provide any supporting documentation. ☐No Explain: Click here to enter text.  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: • Map panel numbers and dates • Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates • Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers • Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. In preparation of the 6-F Environmental Assessment no adverse environmental impacts were identified in any section. The project is in compliance with Executive Order 12898. OMB No. 2506-0177 (exp.2/28/2025) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20410-1000 This Worksheet was designed to be used by those “Partners” (including Public Housing Authorities, consultants, contractors, and nonprofits) who assist Responsible Entities and HUD in preparing environmental reviews, but legally cannot take full responsibilities for these reviews themselves. Responsible Entities and HUD should use the RE/HUD version of the Worksheet. Explosive and Flammable Hazards (CEST and EA) – PARTNER https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/explosive-and-flammable-facilities 1. Does the proposed HUD-assisted project include a hazardous facility (a facility that mainly stores, handles or processes flammable or combustible chemicals such as bulk fuel storage facilities and refineries)? ☒ No  Continue to Question 2. ☐ Yes Explain: Click here to enter text.  Continue to Question 5. 2. Does this project include any of the following activities: development, construction, rehabilitation that will increase residential densities, or conversion? ☒ No  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. ☐ Yes  Continue to Question 3. 3. Within 1 mile of the project site, are there any current or planned stationary aboveground storage containers: • Of more than 100-gallon capacity, containing common liquid industrial fuels OR • Of any capacity, containing hazardous liquids or gases that are not common liquid industrial fuels? ☐ No  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide all documents used to make your determination. ☐ Yes  Continue to Question 4. 4. Is the Separation Distance from the project acceptable based on standards in the Regulation? Please visit HUD’s website for information on calculating Acceptable Separation Distance. ☐ Yes  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide map(s) showing the location of the project site relative to any tanks and your separation distance calculations. If the map identifies more than one tank, please identify the tank you have chosen as the “assessed tank.” ☐ No  Continue to Question 6. Provide map(s) showing the location of the project site relative to any tanks and your separation distance calculations. If the map identifies more than one tank, please identify the tank you have chosen as the “assessed tank.” 5. Is the hazardous facility located at an acceptable separation distance from residences and any other facility or area where people may congregate or be present? Please visit HUD’s website for information on calculating Acceptable Separation Distance. ☐ Yes  If the RE/HUD agrees with this recommendation, the review is in compliance with this section. Continue to the Worksheet Summary below. Provide map(s) showing the location of the project site relative to residences and any other facility or area where people congregate or are present and your separation distance calculations. ☐ No  Continue to Question 6. Provide map(s) showing the location of the project site relative to residences and any other facility or area where people congregate or are present and your separation distance calculations. 6. For the project to be brought into compliance with this section, all adverse impacts must be mitigated. Explain in detail the exact measures that must be implemented to make the Separation Distance acceptable, including the timeline for implementation. If negative effects cannot be mitigated, cancel the project at this location. Note that only licensed professional engineers should design and implement blast barriers. If a barrier will be used or the project will be modified to compensate for an unacceptable separation distance, provide approval from a licensed professional engineer. Click here to enter text. Worksheet Summary Provide a full description of your determination and a synopsis of the information that it was based on, such as: • Map panel numbers and dates • Names of all consulted parties and relevant consultation dates • Names of plans or reports and relevant page numbers • Any additional requirements specific to your program or region Include all documentation supporting your findings in your submission to HUD. The project does not involve construction of a hazardous facility (a facility that mainly stores, handles or processes flammable or combustible chemicals such as bulk fuel storage facilities and refineries) nor does it involve construction of a multifamily residential structure. This is a project to construct an Early Child Learning Facility.