PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AND HISTORIC … · PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ... Company Historic ... purpose of this field trip was to review the proposal

BAK SA 201 Annual Report 2013.Docx Baker River Hydroelectric Project PUGET SOUND ENERGY 30 January 2015

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ARTICLE 201

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN

2013 ANNUAL REPORT REPORTING PERIOD JANUARY 1 – DECEMBER 31, 2013

BAKER RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. 2150

January 2015

Programmatic Agreement and HPMP – 2013 Annual Report CONTENTS

BAK SA 201 Annual Report 2013.Docx 30 January 2015 PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page ii

CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Activity Report .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Principal Management Activities ...................................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Monitoring Results and Maintenance Plan ....................................................................................................................... 7

4.0 Accounting .............................................................................................................................................................................. 14

4.1 Funding and Expenditures Prescribed by SA 201 .......................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Additional PSE Expenditures for SA 201 ....................................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Adjustments .................................................................................................................................................................... 14

5.0 Supporting Documents .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 6.0 References ............................................................................................................................................................................... 15

7.0 Agency Review Comments .................................................................................................................................................... 16 7.1 Distribution List ............................................................................................................................................................... 16

7.2 Cover Message .............................................................................................................................................................. 17

7.3 Summary of Reviewer Replies ....................................................................................................................................... 18

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of site activities by year for all monitored sites. .................................................................................................. 9 Table 2. Draft Programmatic Agreement and HPMP 2013 Annual Report reviewers. .................................................................. 16

List of Figures Figure 1. E-mail from PSE accompanying the draft Programmatic Agreement and HPMP 2013 Annual Report. ........................ 17

BAK SA 201 Annual Report 2013.Docx 30 January 2015 PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page 1

1.0 Executive Summary This annual report reviews PSE activity undertaken in 2011 to implement settlement agreement article 201 (SA 201), “Programmatic Agreement,” and license article 404 (LA 404), “Programmatic Agreement and Historic Properties Management Plan,” of the Baker River Hydroelectric Project license.

SA 201 implementation measures completed during the reporting period included:

• Consultation with the Consulting Parties (members of the Cultural Resources Advisory Group and parties to the Programmatic Agreement) regarding implementation of the Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the Baker River Hydroelectric Project.

• Providing the consulting parties with the FERC order approving the Baker River Hydroelectric Development Historic District Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and incorporating the MOA into the license.

• Providing the Consulting Parties with background information on the proposal to develop the Lower Baker compound project. This included discussions of the area of potential effects (APE), identification of historic properties, the adequacy of cultural surveys, and finding of effect on historic properties within the APE.

• Providing the Consulting Parties with background information on the changes to the Lower Baker Dam crest and floodwall project. This included discussions of the area of potential effects (APE), identification of historic properties, the adequacy of cultural surveys, and finding of effect on historic properties within the APE.

• Providing the Consulting Parties with background information on the Swift Creek erosion control project. This included discussions on the area of potential effects (APE), identification of historic properties, the adequacy of cultural surveys, and finding of effect on historic properties within the APE.

• Providing the Consulting Parties with background information on changes to the spawning beach complex project. This included project description, area of potential effects (APE), status of cultural resources investigations, and recommendations.

• Providing the Consulting Parties with background information on the proposal to modify the Baker Lake maximum daily pool level change constraint through an amendment to the license. This included project description, area of potential effects (APE), status of cultural resources investigations, and recommendations.

• Providing the Consulting Parties with background information on the Sulphur Springs headworks project. This included project description, area of potential effects (APE), status of cultural resources investigations, and recommendations.

• Providing Cultural Resources training for the law enforcement personnel per the HPMP.

• Providing the Consulting Parties with the 2012 annual monitoring report for archaeological resources in accordance with the HPMP Treatment Plan (Appendix G).

• Providing the Consulting Parties with the draft Programmatic Agreement and HPMP 2013 Annual report.

Programmatic Agreement and HPMP – 2013 Annual Report Introduction


2.0 Introduction On October 17, 2008, PSE received a 50-year license for the Baker River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2150) ordering implementation of the Programmatic Agreement (PA) and Historic Properties Management Plan for the project under license article 404 (LA 404) and incorporating a comprehensive settlement agreement’s proposed measures.

Under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and related regulations, federal agencies must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (defined as historic properties) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. This generally requires the FERC to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic properties, and to seek ways to avoid or minimize any adverse effects.

To satisfy these responsibilities, the FERC executed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) on September 21, 2006, and invited PSE, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community to concur with the stipulations of the PA. The PA is consistent with article 201 of the settlement agreement (SA 201) because it requires PSE to prepare and implement a final Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the term of any new license issued for this project. Execution and implementation of the PA demonstrates the FERC’s compliance with section 106 of the NHPA. License article 404 requires PSE to implement the PA, and to file a final HPMP for FERC approval within one year of license issuance.

Settlement agreement article 601 (SA 601) established the Baker River Coordinating Committee (BRCC) to implement the terms of the settlement agreement. The BRCC established technical resource groups, including the Cultural Resources Advisory Group (Consulting Parties) to address ongoing historic property issues as PSE carries out the terms and conditions of the license. The “Reporting and Auditing” paragraph within SA 601 directs PSE to provide an annual report to the BRCC and the FERC, generally summarizing the activities of the Consulting Parties during the preceding year as required by SA 201. For purposes of implementing SA 201 and LA 404, the Consulting Parties consist of members of the Consulting Parties and parties to the Programmatic Agreement for the project (hereinafter called the Consulting Parties).

Programmatic Agreement and HPMP – 2013 Annual Report Activity Report


3.0 Activity Report 3.1 Principal Management Activities

Monthly Consultation with the Consulting Parties Consultation topics included:

• Reviewing major PSE projects and schedules. • Developing strategies for treatment of historic properties. • Conducting cultural surveys and inventories. • Reviewing and commenting on cultural resource findings and recommendations. • Reviewing and finalizing meeting notes.

Meetings with Consulting Parties A summary of these consultations is as follows.

January 16, 2013, Skagit Service Center, Burlington, WA. Reviewed BRCC activities, reviewed major project activities, reviewed list of annual projects for 2013, and gave a presentation on the proposed Lower Baker compound redevelopment project. The Lower Baker compound presentation included an overview on a proposal to redevelop the operations areas in the compound where the Washington Portland Cement Company Historic District (WPCC) is located. A site history, potential cultural resources impacts, and possible mitigation were all discussed with the CRAG. A field trip requested by the Consulting Parties was scheduled for January 30, 2013.

January 30, 2014, Baker River Hydroelectric Project, Concrete, WA. The main purpose of this field trip was to review the proposal to redevelop the Lower Baker compound area and its possible effect on the WPCC historic district. Design options were discussed and two possible construction options were presented to the Consulting Parties. These options included new construction, demolition of historic resources, removal of non-historic resources, landscape design, and interpretation and educational elements. A tour of the Baker Club House was also completed to determine the possibility of incorporating it into the mitigation for the adverse effects to the WPCC historic district.

May 22, 2013, Skagit Service Center, Burlington, WA. Reviewed BRCC activities, reviewed major project activities, and gave updates. The BRCC update included the proposal to modify the schedule for delivering annual reports to the Consulting Parties. An update on the proposed Lower Baker compound redevelopment project was also given to the Consulting Parties. An updated memo for review was sent to the Consulting Parties on April 29th and included an updated area of potential effect (APE). The Consulting Parties asked questions or provided comments on the memo. They were reminded that they could provide further comments or questions via email or phone. A status update on the Lower Baker Dam crest improvement project was also provided to the Consulting Parties. The cultural resources coordinator reported that comments on the Swift Creek erosion control project had been received, and the Forest Service issued a notice to proceed. The cultural resources coordinator reminded the



Consulting Parties that the comment review period for the spawning beach decommissioning project would end on May 23, 2014. An update on the Baker Club House was given to the Consulting Parties. It was reported that construction trailers that had been inadvertently parked next to the building would be removed in the next few weeks. An update on the Upper Baker hatchery headworks project was given to the Consulting Parties. The Forest Service would be issuing a notice to proceed later in the week.

August 21, 2013, Skagit Service Center, Burlington, WA. Reviewed BRCC activities, reviewed major project activities, and gave updates. An update on the Lower Baker compound redevelopment project was given to the Consulting Parties. The cultural resources coordinator reported that the DAHP Level II documentation for the WPCC historic district was almost completed. Future plans included completing studies to determine whether the project could move forward as planned. An update on the Lower Baker dam crest improvement project was given to the Consulting Parties. Discussions included the current MOA in place for impacts to the Baker River Hydroelectric Development historic district (BRHD), and how the new plans for the dam crest alterations were not part of the project plans outlined in the MOA. The Consulting Parties discussed whether or not the current MOA should be amended to include additional impacts that would affect the dam should a complete redesign of the crest be undertaken. In addition, the Consulting Parties suggested that the current MOA could remain in effect, and that the effects of Lower Baker crest improvement could instead be added to the separate MOA that would be needed for the Lower Baker compound redevelopment project. An update on the demolition of the spawning beach complex was given to the Consulting Parties. Excavation to restore the natural stream and ponds would be done in the fall, and an archaeologist would be onsite to monitor. In addition, the Consulting Parties received an update on the proposal to modify the Baker Lake maximum daily pool level change constraint through an amendment to the license. A packet with all the details of the change and a request for comments was emailed to the Consulting Parties on August 6, 2014. While most members stated they did not have a problem with the changes, the cultural resources coordinator requested that comments be sent no later than September 4, 2014. The cultural resources coordinator reported that the contractors had vacated the Baker Club House area and removed all the staging equipment from the WPCC historic district. The cultural resources coordinator also shared that PSE had completed a project with the Concrete Heritage Museum. PSE had weekly issues of the historical newspaper The Concrete Herald scanned and made available to the museum.

November 20, 2013, Skagit Service Center, Burlington, WA. Reviewed BRCC activities, reviewed major project activities, and gave updates. An update on the proposed change to the reporting schedule was given to the Consulting Parties. Alternatives were discussed and comments were requested. An update on the proposal for the Lower Baker compound redevelopment project was given to the Consulting Parties. Initial funding was approved, and studies and analysis would move forward in 2014. An MOA draft incorporating Consulting Party comments on mitigation was completed and going through PSE legal review. PSE reported that a week-long meeting with the FERC was completed to discuss long-term plans for the Lower Baker Dam. A schedule and design plans would be shared with Consulting Parties when further



developed. The cultural resources coordinator reported that the spawning beach project was complete, and that an archaeological monitoring report would be sent to the Consulting Parties for review. An update on the short videos being produced under Stipulation A2 of the BRHD historic district MOA was given to the Consulting Parties.

HPMP Activities Article 404 of the license directed PSE to file a completed HPMP within one year of license issuance (October 17, 2009). During 2010, PSE and the Consulting Parties refined the draft HPMP. PSE submitted the final HPMP for FERC approval on September, 25, 2010. The final HPMP was approved by the FERC on March 1, 2011 (see attachment 1).

Programmatic Agreement Activities As plans for implementing the license continue to develop, PSE consulted with the Consulting Parties concerning the effect of potential project activities on the project’s historic properties. Consultation, review, and implementation for 2013 projects included the following.

• Baker River MOA (LA 404, SA 201) • Lower Baker compound proposal (LA 404, SA 201) • Lower Baker Dam crest and floodwall (LA 404, SA 201) • Swift Creek erosion control project (SA 110) • Spawning beach complex project (LA 404 , SA 201) • Maximum daily pool level change (license amendment) • Law enforcement personnel training (LA 404, SA 201) • Weston survey and treatment plan (LA 404, SA 201; appendix G of HPMP) • Cultural resources assessment and treatment of SK-45-252 (LA 404, SA 201;

appendix G of HPMP) • Annual monitoring (LA 404, SA 201; see section 3.2) • Sulphur Springs headworks project (LA 404, SA 201; see section 3.2) • Maintenance plan (LA 404, SA 201; appendix F of HPMP; see section 3.2) • Routine actions (LA 404, SA 201; appendix C of HPMP; see section 3.2))

Due to proposed changes to the contributing resources of the Baker River Hydroelectric Development Historic District, the PSE cultural resources coordinator made the determination “finding of adverse effect on Historic Properties” (condition D, “Identification of Historic Properties,” section 5.3.1 of the Baker River HPMP) following consultation with the Consulting Parties under the Historic Properties Management Plan. The draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) detailing mitigation of the adverse effects was sent to the Consulting Parties for review on June 11, 2012 via the group’s FTP site. The comments received (from the DAHP, the Mount-Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, and the Corps of Engineers) were incorporated into the final MOA which was forwarded to the FERC on August 20, 2012. No other comments were received (see attachment 2). On April 10, 2013, FERC issued the order approving the MOA (see attachment 1).



A memo outlining the proposed project to redevelop the Lower Baker compound was sent to the CRAG on January 14, 2013. The memo outlined options for the proposed development and their effect on the WPCC Historic District. The memo also included a proposed APE for the project. On January 30, 2013, an onsite field visit was made to the WPCC Historic District to better understand the Lower Baker compound project proposal. Following the meeting, drawings and two options discussed by the CRAG were distributed for review via email to the CRAG. Following the comment review period, the original memo was revised. The revised version included the agreed-upon APE and mitigation stipulations for the determination of an adverse effect to the WPCC Historic District (see Attachment 2). The April memo was discussed in the May CRAG meeting. After follow-up meetings with the CRAG in August and November, it was decided that a memorandum of agreement would be drafted for review.

The CRAG was given an update on the proposal to redevelop the Lower Baker Dam crest and floodwall. A MOA to address the abutment redesign was approved by the FERC on April 10, 2013. New information affecting the overall crest and gate structure were presented to the CRAG in a May meeting. Information regarding the schedule and impacts to the dam were presented to the CRAG in both the August and November meetings. The CRAG agreed that the new impacts would result in an adverse effect to the National Register individually-eligible dam as well as the Baker River Historic District. The CRAG discussed the possibility of amending the approved April 10, 2013 MOA to include the new dam crest impacts proposed, or else adding the dam crest impacts to the not-yet-drafted Lower Baker compound MOA.

The PSE cultural resources coordinator forwarded the cultural resources assessment report for the Swift Creek erosion control project to the CRAG for a 30-day review period on February 25, 2013. Under section 5.3.1 of the HPMP (“Identification of Historic Properties”), PSE recommended a finding of A. No historic properties “listed or eligible” are present within the APE. Comments were due by March 29, 2013. Comments were received by the Corps of Engineers, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. All concurred with the finding of A. No historic properties “listed or eligible” are present within the APE. No further activities associated with this project occurred in 2013 (see attachment 3).

The PSE cultural resources coordinator forwarded a memo to the CRAG on April 24, 2013 for a 30-day review in accordance with the guidelines laid out in the HPMP. In response to the U.S. Forest Service’s draft “Scope of Work for Baker Project FERC 2150, SA 101(d) Decommission Spawning Beaches” (originally dated September 22, 2010, and revised March 2011), PSE’s cultural resources coordinator called a special meeting of the Cultural Resources Advisory Group (CRAG; February 16, 2011) and a joint meeting of the CRAG and Aquatic Resources Group (ARG; March 8, 2011). Based on the results of these meetings, PSE determined that this project would result in an adverse effect to historic properties (45WH898) (Condition D, Identification of Historic Properties, Section 5.3.1, Baker River Historic Properties Management Plan [HPMP], September 17, 2010). A Memorandum of Agreement between the FERC and the DAHP was executed on February 15, 2013 to address these effects. The CRAG was asked to provide comments on the proposed APE for the project and findings of Condition D. Comments were due to PSE by May 23, 2013. A concurrence comment



was received from the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation on May 20, 2013. A notice to proceed was received from the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest on May 28, 2013. No further activities with this project occurred in 2013 (see attachment 4).

The PSE cultural resources coordinator forwarded a memo to the CRAG on August 6, 2013, regarding the proposal to modify the Baker Lake maximum daily pool level change constraint through an amendment to the license for a 30 day review and comment period. Further discussion was on the project and its impacts were discussed at the August CRAG meeting. Comments were due by September 4, 2013. No comments on the proposal were received and no further activities with this project occurred in 2013 (see attachment 5).

In accordance with Section 5.3.7 (Training and Education) of the HPMP and in order to increase awareness of cultural resources protection laws and strengthen cooperation among agencies, PSE sponsored a one-day workshop for representatives of local law enforcement agencies, including Whatcom and Skagit County Sheriff Offices, US Forest Services LEOs, and USFW law enforcement officials. The workshop was conducted with the assistance of qualified professionals including archaeologists and historians from local consulting firms, the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. The CRAG and other members of the Settlement Agreement were invited to participate. The workshop was completed on June 27, 2013 at the Skagit Service Center in Burlington, WA (see attachment 6).

No other project modifications required implementation of preservation measures.

3.2 Monitoring Results and Maintenance Plan

Monitoring Results In accordance with the annual monitoring protocol established in the HPMP, resource conditions at several archaeological sites within the Baker River Hydroelectric Project were monitored in 2013. As outlined in the Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan (HPMP appendix G), site visits were attempted to all pre-contact sites that are contributing elements to the Baker River Archaeological District (DT189), as well as the National-Register-eligible Weston and Edgar Homesteads on Lake Shannon.

In accordance with the annual monitoring protocol established in the HPMP, resource conditions at several archaeological sites within the Baker River Hydroelectric Project were monitored in 2013. As outlined in the Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan (HPMP appendix G), site visits were attempted to all pre-contact sites that are contributing elements to the Baker River Archaeological District (DT189), as well as the National-Register-eligible Weston and Edgar Homesteads on Lake Shannon.

Proposed treatment for pre-contact sites included the systematic collection of all surface artifacts as well as completion of a Baker River Hydroelectric Project Archaeological District archaeological resources condition report (ARCR) for each site. Systematic surface collection included closely-spaced pedestrian surveys within and around the site to locate all visible artifacts. Each artifact was flagged and assigned a field inventory number, its location was recorded with a hand-held Trimble GPS unit, and the object



was placed in an artifact bag with its corresponding field number. Photos were taken at each site, and conditions were documented on standard daily work records. An ARCR was completed for each site including a collected artifact catalog or field artifact inventory where appropriate. A Washington State archaeological site update form was prepared for sites with notable change in conditions or contents. A summary table of site activities and artifacts collected by year is shown below in table A-1.

Treatment measures for the dual-component Weston Homestead (45SK252) included collection of all surface pre-contact artifacts and surface stripping at each of the three FMR features prior to potential stabilization of the unstable terrace edge. This task was completed in 2013, and the completed report was mailed to the CRAG for review and comment on July 14, 2014 (see attachment 7). Data recovery was also conducted at the Edgar Homestead (45SK253) in 2013, and the results of this investigation will be reported in a separate report in 2014 (a draft is in progress). In addition, lithic analysis for the pre-contact assemblages has been ongoing throughout 2013 and a separate technical report will be submitted in 2014.

The report “Summary of 2013 Archaeological Monitoring and Conditions Assessment for Selected Sites on Lake Shannon and Baker Lake” and all associated ARCRs were sent to the Consulting Parties for review on July 15, 2014. No comments have been received to date (see attachment 8).



Table 1. Summary of site activities by year for all monitored sites.









Programmatic Agreement and HPMP – 2013 Annual Report Accounting


Maintenance Plan In accordance with section 5.3.1 (“Actions Excluded from Case by Case Review,” appendix F of the HPMP), the cultural resources coordinator reviewed a proposal to remove landslide materials from the intake and headworks area. Since no previously undisturbed ground or historic structures will be affected, the Sulphur Springs headworks project was considered a “routine action” based on appendix C, #9 of the HPMP. Under the HPMP, routine actions are excluded from further review because they are not the kinds of actions that are likely to affect historic properties. A memo was sent to the CRAG to inform them of the decision, and the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest issued a notice to proceed on May 28, 2013 (see attachment 9).

4.0 Accounting Puget Sound Energy, pursuant to settlement agreement articles 102, 201, 301, 501, and 602, is required to provide an annual summary of expenditures made during the preceding year, as well as an accounting of funding expenditures, any interest earned, disbursements made as required by any article, and adjustments for inflation. This section provides an accounting of all expenditures made during the reporting period.

All disbursement adjustments and relevant calculations were determined using the guidelines provided in settlement agreement article 602.

4.1 Funding and Expenditures Prescribed by SA 201 No funding was prescribed for SA 201 implementation during the reporting period.

4.2 Additional PSE Expenditures for SA 201 During the reporting period, PSE spent approximately $189,945 for operations and maintenance (O&M) and $14,430 in capital expenditures for SA 201 implementation, for a total of $204,537.

4.3 Adjustments There were no adjustments to the funding for SA 201 during the reporting period.

5.0 Supporting Documents The following documents are attached to this report as separate files.

• Baker River HDHD Memorandum of Agreement • WPCC Redevelopment memo January 16, 2013 • WPCC Option 1 • WPCC Option 2 • Drawing-LB Compound • WPCC Redevelopment memo April 29, 2013 • Swift Creek Letter revised (privileged) • Swift Creek Cover letter February 25, 2013 • Swift Creek concurrence response from DAHP

Programmatic Agreement and HPMP – 2013 Annual Report References


• Swift Creek concurrence response from Swinomish Indian Tribal Community • Swift Creek concurrence response from Corp of Engineers • Baker River Spawning Beaches email to CRAG with Figure 1-5 and cover letter

attached • Baker River Spawning Beaches USFS Notice to Proceed, May 28, 2013 • Baker River Spawning Beaches concurrence response from DAHP • Daily Max Pool Cover letter August 6, 2013 • Daily Max Pool proposed new pool level figures (privileged) • Law Enforcement Personnel Training agenda • Email to CRAG Re Archaeological Conditions Assessment and Treatment at

Archaeological Site 45-SK-252, report included (privileged) • Email to CRAG Re 2013 Annual Archaeological Monitoring report, report included

(privileged) • Sulphur Springs Headworks CRA report May 23, 2013 • Email from PSE Cultural Resources archaeologist to USFS archaeologist Re Sulphur

Springs Headworks CRA report • Sulphur Springs Headworks concurrence letter from USFS archaeologist, May 28,

2013 • Sulphur Springs Headworks USFS Notice To Proceed letter, May 28, 2013

6.0 References Parvey, Michele. 2014. Summary of 2013 Archaeological Monitoring and Conditions

Assessment for Selected Sites on Lake Shannon and Baker Lake, Skagit and Whatcom Counties, WA. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy by Southwest Environmental Consultants Inc., Council, Idaho.

Puget Sound Energy. 2010. Historic Properties Management Plan (FERC No. 2150). Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA.

Programmatic Agreement and HPMP – 2013 Annual Report Agency Review Comments


7.0 Agency Review Comments 7.1 Distribution List

Table 2. Draft Programmatic Agreement and HPMP 2013 Annual Report reviewers.

Name Organization Address Larry Campbell Swinomish Indian Tribal Community [email protected]

Greg Griffith Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation [email protected]

Jan Hollenbeck Forest Service [email protected]

Russ Holter Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation [email protected]

Thomas DeCoteau Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe [email protected] Kara Kanaby U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [email protected] Kim Kwarski National Park Service [email protected] Scott Schuyler Upper Skagit Indian [email protected]

Nicholas Vann Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation [email protected]

Rob Whitlam Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]








7.2 Cover Message

From: Dubreuil, Elizabeth Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:36 PM To: Greg Griffith; Jan Hollenbeck; Kara Kanaby; Kim Kwarsick; Larry Campbell; Mary McCormick; Rob Whitlam; Russ Holter; Scott Schuyler; Thomas DeCoteau; Vann, Nicholas (DAHP) Subject: Baker River Project_Draft Annual Report for SA 201 Attachments: BAK SA 201 Annual Report 2013 - RevDraft.pdf Dear CRAG, PSE is forwarding the review draft of annual report for Settlement Article 201, Programmatic Agreement and Implementation of the Historic Properties Management Plan, to members of the Cultural Resources Advisory Group representatives for a "30 day" review period and seeks comments and suggestions. We are asking that comments be sent to me via mail or email by August 25, 2014. The review draft of the annual report is attached; however, due to their privileged content, supporting documents are located on our PSE ftp site. To access these, please use the following link, password, and login: Site Address: eeeeEEEEEEeeeEEEEEEeeeEEEEEEeeeEEEEEEeeeEEEEEEEE Login: eEEEEEEEE Password: eEEEeeeEEEEEEEEEEE Please let me know if you have any difficulty with the ftp site and we will fix the problem. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your continued support. Elizabeth Elizabeth Dubreuil Consulting Cultural Resource Scientist, PSE P.O. Box 97034 PSE-09S Bellevue, WA98009-9734 Work: 425-462-3609 Cell: 425-691-7095 Email: [email protected] NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

Figure 1. E-mail from PSE accompanying the draft Programmatic Agreement and HPMP 2013 Annual Report.



7.3 Summary of Reviewer Replies No reviewers replied with comments.