MAY 2012

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SAMISH INDIAN NATION

FEE-TO-TRUST / GAS STATION PROJECT

LEAD AGENCY:

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Northwest Regional Office

911 N.E. 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232

Phone: (503) 231-6702

Fax: (503) 231-2201

www.doi.gov/bia
LEAD AGENCY:

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Northwest Regional Office

911 N.E. 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232

Phone: (503) 231-6702

Fax: (503) 231-2201

www.doi.gov/bia

PREPARED BY:

Analytical Environmental Services

1801 7th Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95811

(916) 447-3479

www.analyticalcorp.com

MAY 2012

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SAMISH INDIAN NATION

FEE-TO-TRUST / GAS STATION PROJECT
Analytical Environmental Services i Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SAMISH INDIAN NATION FEE-TO-TRUST/ GAS STATION 

PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Location and Setting ........................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ..................................................................... 1-5 

1.4 Overview of the Environmental Process .......................................................................... 1-6 

1.5 Environmental Issues Addressed ..................................................................................... 1-6 

1.6 Regulatory Requirements and Approvals ........................................................................ 1-7 

2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Alternative A .................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................................... 2-5 

2.3 Comparision of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ................................................... 2-5 

2.4 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration .......................................................... 2-6 

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 Land Resources ................................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.2 Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 3-8 

3.3 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 3-13 

3.4 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 3-19 

3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-26 

3.6 Socioeconomic Conditions / Environmental Justice ...................................................... 3-32 

3.7 Transportation and Circulation ...................................................................................... 3-35 

3.8 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 3-37 

3.9 Public Services ............................................................................................................... 3-40 

3.10 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 3-44 

3.11 Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................... 3-47 

3.12 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-49 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 Alternative A .................................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................................. 4-21 

4.3 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................ 4-23 

4.4 Indirect And Growth-Inducing Effects .......................................................................... 4-27 

5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 

5.1 Land Resources ................................................................................................................ 5-1 

5.2 Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 5-1 

5.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 5-3 

5.4 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 5-3 

5.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 5-4 
Table of Contents 

Analytical Environmental Services ii Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

5.6 Socioeconomic Conditions / Environmental Justice ........................................................ 5-5 

5.7 Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................................ 5-5 

5.8 Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.9 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 5-5 

5.10 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 5-6 

5.11 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................ 5-6 

5.12 Visual Resources .............................................................................................................. 5-7 

6.0 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND LIST OF PREPARERS 

6.1 Federal Agencies Consulted ............................................................................................ 6-1 

6.2 State Agencies Consulted ................................................................................................ 6-1 

6.3 Tribes Consulted .............................................................................................................. 6-1 

6.4 Local Agencies Consulted ............................................................................................... 6-2 

6.5 Preparers of Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 6-2 

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 7-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

1-1 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and Acreage for Project Site Parcels ................................... 1-5 

2-1 Project Components ........................................................................................................ 2-3 

2-2 Estimated Water/ Wastewater Demands .......................................................................... 2-4 

3-1 Faults in the Vicinity of the Project Site .......................................................................... 3-3 

3-2 Project Site Soils .............................................................................................................. 3-5 

3-3 Water Quality Objectives of Inland Surface Waters ...................................................... 3-11 

3-4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Associated Violation Criteria ................ 3-14 

3-5 Skagit County NAAQS Attainment Status .................................................................... 3-15 

3-6 Samish Indian Nation Population Estimates .................................................................. 3-32 

3-7 Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections ............................................................ 3-36 

3-8 Peak-Hour Intersection LOS – 2011 Without Project Traffic Conditions ..................... 3-37 

3-9 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................................... 3-45 

3-10 Federal Noise Abatement Criteria Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level Decibels ............ 3-46 

4-1 Construction Emissions ................................................................................................... 4-5 

4-2 Operation Emissions ........................................................................................................ 4-6 

4-3 Greenhouse Gas CO2 Equivalent ..................................................................................... 4-8 

4-4 Proposed Project- Related GHG Emissions ..................................................................... 4-8 

4-5 Property Taxes (2011) for Proposed Trust Parcels ........................................................ 4-12 

4-6 Typical Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................ 4-18 

LIST OF FIGURES 

1-1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................ 1-2 

1-2 Site and Vicinity .............................................................................................................. 1-3 

1-3 Aerial Photograph and Parcel Map .................................................................................. 1-4 

2-1 Site Plan — Alternative A ............................................................................................... 2-2 

3-1 Regional Fault Map ......................................................................................................... 3-4 

3-2 Soils Map ......................................................................................................................... 3-6 
Table of Contents 

Analytical Environmental Services iii Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

3-3 Habitat Types and Wetland Features ............................................................................. 3-23 

3-4 Representative Project Site Photographs ....................................................................... 3-24 

3-5 Skagit County Land Use and Zoning ............................................................................. 3-39 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A Biological Resources and Wetlands Delineation Report 

Appendix B Cultural Resources Study (Confidential Document Bound under Separate Cover) 

Appendix C FEMA FIRM 

Appendix D Air Quality Data 

 

 
SECTION 1.0 

INTRODUCTION
Analytical Environmental Services 1-1 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

 SECTION 1.0 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to 

support an application from the Samish Indian Nation (Samish Tribe) for land to be placed into federal 

trust (Proposed Action). The BIA is the federal agency charged with reviewing and approving tribal 

applications to take land into federal trust status. The project site, known as the “March’s Point 

Property,” consists of approximately 3.3 acres in the City of Anacortes, Skagit County, Washington. The 

fee-to-trust acquisition and subsequent development is intended to be used for a gas station and 

convenience store (Proposed Project). The BIA will use this EA to determine if the Proposed Action 

would result in an adverse effect to the environment. 

This document has been completed in accordance with the requirements set out in the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) Guidelines for Implementing NEPA; and the BIA NEPA handbook (59 IAM 3-H). This 

document provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action and analyses of the potential 

environmental consequences associated with development of this project. This document also includes a 

discussion of alternatives, impact avoidance, and mitigation measures. Consistent with the requirements 

of NEPA, the BIA will review and analyze the environmental consequences associated with the Proposed 

Action, and either determine that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate, request 

additional analyses, or request that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. 

1.2 LOCATION AND SETTING 

The proposed trust parcels addressed in this EA are located approximately four miles east of the 

downtown area of the City of Anacortes (City), Washington, adjacent to State Route 20 (SR-20), and east 

of Thompson Road. The Proposed Project is located in Section 4 of the “Anacortes, Washington” U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (quad) within Township 34 North and 

Range 2 East, Anacortes Baseline and Meridian. Figure 1-1 shows the regional location and Figure 1-2

shows the project site and vicinity. Figure 1-3 presents an aerial photograph of the entire project site, 

which consists of three separate legal parcels totaling approximately 3.3 acres, all currently owned in fee 

by the Samish Tribe. 
PROJECT

SITE

Figure 1-1

Regional Location

SOURCE: ESRI Server Data, 2011; AES, 2011

SCALE

0 1 2

Miles

!¢NO

ÐR TH

Samish Indian Nation Gas Station EA / 209532

^_ Project Site Skagit County
PROJECT

SITE

Figure 1-2

Site and Vicinity

SOURCE: "Anacortes North, WA" USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle,

T34N, R2E, Section 4, Williamette Baseline & Meridian; AES, 2011

SCALE

0 1,000 2,000

Feet

!¢N O R T H

Ð

Samish Indian Nation Gas Station EA / 209532
PROJECT

PARCELS

Thompson Road

SR-20

Stevenson Road

APN: P120595

(2.07ac)

APN: P19916

(0.97ac)

APN: P19915

(0.25ac)

Figure 1-3

Aerial Parcel Map

SOURCE: AEX Aerial Photograph, 5/15/2009; AES, 2011

Samish Indian Nation Gas Station EA / 209532

SCALE

0 70 140

Feet

!¢NO

ÐR TH
1.0 Introduction 

Analytical Environmental Services 1-5 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

The Skagit County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) and acreage for each parcel within the project site is 

shown in Table 1-1 and Figure 1-3.

TABLE 1-1 

Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and Acreage for Project Site Parcels 

APN Size (acres)

P19915 0.25

P19916 0.97

P120595 2.07

Total 3.29

Regional access is provided by SR-20, which runs in a general east-west direction and located 

immediately north of the site. Local access to the project from SR-20 is provided by Thompson Road, 

which is a two-lane City road that extends in a general north-south direction to the immediate west of the 

site1

. Other roadways in the immediate vicinity include Stevenson Road, which is an east-west two lane 

residential road to the south of the project site (Figure 1-3). Stevenson Road intersects with Reservation 

Road, a north-south minor arterial, to the east of the site. 

Land uses near the project site include an oil refinery, auto-oriented retail and commercial, light industry, 

agricultural uses, and undeveloped parcels. Flowers and bulbs grown in the nearby Skagit Valley are an 

important agricultural crop, as well as a regionally significant tourist attraction. The Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT) ferry docks in Anacortes are also an important tourist attraction 

and provide a regional access to the San Juan Islands. The Summit Park Bible Church is located 

immediately west of the site across Thompson Road. A Puget Sound Energy (PSE) electrical sub-station 

is located immediately west of the Thompson Road/Stevenson Road interchange. There are three singlefamily residences situated southeast of the Thompson Road/Stevenson Road intersection. The Swinomish 

Northern Lights Casino is located approximately two miles east of the site on SR-20. In addition to the 

casino, the Northern Lights facility also includes a gas station and newly constructed hotel. 

The majority of the project site contains grasses and some scrub brush. The topography of the site is 

relatively level, with an elevation of approximately 80 feet above mean sea level. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The Samish Tribe proposes to take the 3.3 acres of land into trust to ensure the continued social and 

economic independence and well-being of its members. The proposed trust acquisition would allow the 

Samish Tribe to meet the following goals: 

 

1

 Thompson Road is a County road south of the Stevenson Road intersection. 
1.0 Introduction 

Analytical Environmental Services 1-6 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

 Engage in diverse and self-sustaining economic development activities compatible with the 

existing setting along SR-20 in Skagit County; and 

 Allow the Tribal Government to exercise sovereign authority over land that it owns, and protect 

and enhance the wellbeing of Tribal members and natural resources on those lands. 

The Samish Tribe currently consists of 1,544 tribal members. Taking the project site into federal trust 

would help the Samish Tribe meet its long-term goals of increased tribal revenues, employment and 

managerial experience for Tribal members, and continued/enhanced economic self-sufficiency. 

1.4 OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS 

This EA has been prepared to analyze and document the environmental consequences associated with: 1) 

the proposed transfer of 3.3 acres of land into federal trust status for the Samish Tribe, and 2) the 

anticipated development of a portion of the project site into a gas station and convenience store. The BIA 

will use this EA to determine if the Proposed Action results in significant impacts to the environment, and 

whether a FONSI can be issued or an EIS should be prepared. 

This EA is intended to satisfy the environmental review process of 59 IAM 3-H, 40 CFR § 1501.3, and 40 

CFR § 1508.9. 

The EA is first released for a 30-day comment period. Comments will be considered by the BIA, and 

either a FONSI will be prepared, or additional environmental analysis will be conducted. After the NEPA 

process is complete, the BIA may issue a determination on the Samish Tribe’s fee-to-trust application. 

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED 

In accordance with NEPA, and based on a review of the 3.3-acre project site, the following environmental 

issue areas are evaluated in this EA: 

 Land Resources; 

 Water Resources; 

 Air Quality; 

 Biological Resources; 

 Cultural Resources; 

 Socioeconomic Conditions/Environmental Justice; 

 Transportation and Circulation; 

 Land Use; 

 Public Services; 

 Noise; 
1.0 Introduction 

Analytical Environmental Services 1-7 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

 Hazardous Materials; and 

 Visual Resources. 

1.6 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS 

The Proposed Action may require the following direct and indirect federal approvals and actions: 

 Transfer of the 3.3-acre site into Federal trust status for the Samish Tribe by the Secretary 

of the Interior. 

 Compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General 

Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity 

(#WAR12000I). 

 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the 

Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), if endangered species may be affected by the 

Proposed Action. 

 Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), if historic properties may be impacted by the 

project. 

 Issuance of an encroachment permit for off-site utilities, if needed. 
SECTION 2.0 

PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
Analytical Environmental Services 2-1 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

SECTION 2.0 

PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES 

This section describes the alternatives analyzed within this Environmental Assessment (EA). The project 

alternatives evaluated in the EA include: 

 Alternative A – Placement of 3.3 acres into federal trust (Proposed Action) and the subsequent 

development of a 10,000 square foot (sf) gas station and convenience store retail development 

(Proposed Project); 

 Alternative B - No-Action Alternative. 

2.1 ALTERNATIVE A - PROPOSED ACTION 

Alternative A consists of two main components: (1) placing three parcels that total approximately 3.3-

acres (Skagit County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) P19915, P19916, and P120595) into Federal 

trust, and (2) construction and operation of a gas station and convenience store. The development 

components of Alternative A are described in more detail below. 

2.1.1 LAND TRUST ACTION

Alternative A consists of the fee simple conveyance of the 3.3-acre project site into Federal trust status for 

the benefit of the Samish Indian Nation (Samish Tribe). The land transfer would be in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 25 CFR § 151.3. This trust action would shift civil regulatory jurisdiction over the 

three parcels from the State of Washington (State), Skagit County (County), and the City of Anacortes 

(City) to the Samish Tribe and the federal government. 

2.1.2 GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE 

As shown in Figure 2-1, Alternative A includes development and operation of a combination gas station 

and convenience store. This development component would be located in the western portion of the 

project site primarily within APNs P19916 and P120595. Development would include approximately 

10,000 sf of retail uses within a single-story structure, a protective canopy, eight fueling pumps, and 

underground fuel tanks (Table 2-1). Separate underground fuel tanks would store different grades of 

fuel. Each of the eight underground fuel tanks would store up to 10,000 gallons of fuel. 
PROJECT

BOUNDARY

Thompson Road

SR-20

Stevenson Road

Figure 2-1

Proposed Site Plan

SOURCE: Samish Tribe, 2011; AEX Aerial Photograph, 5/15/2009; AES, 2012

LEGEND

0 70 140

Feet

!¢NO

ÐR TH

Samish Indian Nation Gas Station EA / 209532

Project Boundary

Convenience Store

Gas Pumps

Landscape/Vegetated Swale

Pavement
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-3 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

TABLE 2-1 

PROJECT COMPONENTS 

Component Approximate Square Footage

Convenience Store 10,000

Gas Station Canopy 2,000

Total 12,000

SOURCE: AES, 2012

Access to the gas station/convenience store would be provided via one full access driveway along 

Thompson Road, the existing roadway to the immediate west of the project site. The access point would 

be located as far south on the site as feasible in order to improve traffic flow into and out of the site. No 

access to the gas station or convenience store would be available along State Route 20 (SR-20). Access 

from westbound SR-20 to the project site would be via the existing left turn lane and signalized 

intersection. Access from eastbound SR-20 would be by a signalized right-hand turn. Access across SR20 on Thompson Road is currently available and controlled at a signalized intersection. 

During operation, the gas station and convenience store would employ between 20 and 22 full-time 

equivalent employees (FTEs). The gas station/convenience store would operate 24-hours per day, seven 

days per week. 

2.1.3 WATER SUPPLY

Estimated water demands for the Proposed Project would be approximately 5,250 gallons per day (gpd) 

for uses at the convenience store and gas station (Table 2-2). Domestic water supply for Alternative A 

would be provided through connection to the City water supply system. This City system currently serves 

the existing uses in the project site vicinity through a 24-inch pipeline along SR-20 and a 14-inch pipeline 

along Stevenson Road to the south. If warranted, upgraded internal connections to the city system would 

be developed within the project site. The existing water supply facilities are discussed in more detail in 

Section 3.9.1. 

2.1.4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

It is estimated that patrons and employees of the Proposed Project would generate approximately 5,000 

gpd of wastewater (Table 2-2). Wastewater would be accommodated through connection to the existing 

City wastewater system. Connection to the system would be provided via existing sewer lines. The 

nearest sewer line is at the intersection of Thompson Road and Summit Park Road immediately south of 

the site. 

 
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-4 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

TABLE 2-2 

ESTIMATED WATER / WASTEWATER DEMANDS 

Water Demands Proposed Project

Base Flow15,250 gpd

Wastewater Flows Proposed Project

Base Flow25,000 gpd

NOTES: 1 Water demands = wastewater flows/0.95.

 

2

 10,000 sf development X 0.5 (gpd/sf)

SOURCE: AES, 2011

2.1.5 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Improvements to Thompson Road would be constructed at the site to allow development of the access 

driveway to the proposed facilities. Encroachment permits (if warranted) would be submitted to the City 

to construct suitable access to the project site. 

2.1.6 DRAINAGE

Vegetated swales would be constructed along the northern and eastern portions of the project site to allow 

for stormwater retention and water quality improvements prior to discharge off-site. A stormwater 

retention basin would be constructed on the eastern portion of the project site to ensure that postdevelopment runoff peaks from the project site would be equal to the existing conditions. On-site 

stormwater retention would also reduce potential downstream erosion and adverse effects to water 

quality. The stormwater facilities would be designed to comply with the City Municipal Code 

§13.36.110-5 regarding large parcel detention requirements. 

2.1.7 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

Construction of the gas station/convenience store and associated infrastructure improvements would 

begin after the 3.3-acre project site has been placed into federal trust. Construction would involve 

earthwork, placement of concrete foundations, steel and wood structural framing, masonry, electrical and 

mechanical work, and building finishing, among other construction trades. Construction of the Proposed 

Project would adhere to the standards equivalent to the International Building Code (IBC), 2009 Edition. 

Underground storage tanks (USTs), piping, and fuel dispensers will be designed, built, installed, tested, 

and certified to prevent fuel leaks, as required by 40 CFR Part 280. Leak prevention measures required 

under 40 CFR Part 280 include corrosion resistant and double walled tanks and piping, inclusion of spill 

and overflow prevention equipment, and use of leak detection equipment. 
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-5 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Development is anticipated to begin in early 2013, with an anticipated six month construction schedule. 

A worksite safety plan would be prepared for construction. 

2.1.8 PUBLIC SERVICES 

Public services would be provided to the Proposed Project in the same manner as those services are 

currently provided to other facilities in the area. Police and security services would be supplied primarily 

by local and federal law enforcement. The City of Anacortes Fire District (AFD) Station 1, located at 

1016 13th Street in Anacortes, would provide primary fire protection and emergency medical services to 

the Proposed Project through development of a service agreement between the Samish Tribe and AFD. 

The County maintains a fire station approximately one mile east of the project site, as well as the Summit 

Park Volunteer Fire Station along Stevenson Road. The Samish Tribe also intends to negotiate a direct 

service agreement with the Summit Park Fire Station to supplement fire coverage provided by the City. 

Electric, telephone, and cable services would be extended to the site by local utility companies. 

2.1.9 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Construction and operation of Alternative A would incorporate a variety of industry standard Best 

Management Practices (BMPs). In many cases, such as storm water pollution and prevention plans 

(SWPPP) prepared for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction 

permits, certain BMPs are requisite conditions of permit approval. Chapter 5.0 presents select BMPs 

that have been specifically incorporated into the project design to avoid or minimize potential adverse 

effects resulting from the development of Alternative A. 

2.2 ALTERNATIVE B - NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 3.3-acre site would not be placed into trust for the benefit of the 

Samish Tribe and not be developed with the gas station and convenience store as identified under the 

Proposed Project. Jurisdiction of the project site would remain with the City. Ultimately, the 3.3-acre 

site could be developed by the Samish Tribe with the property owned in fee, or by a private purchaser, 

consistent with local zoning. However, for the purposes of the environmental analysis in this EA, it is 

assumed that the property would remain in its current undeveloped state and not developed. 

2.3 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND 

ALTERNATIVES 

Developing the Project Site for the proposed gas station/convenience store would convert 3.3 acres of 

vacant land to a commercial enterprise. Compared with the No-Action Alternative (Alternative B), 

impacts from developing the Proposed Project (Alternative A) would include temporary construction 

activities, increased impervious surface, loss of natural habitat, and increased human activities on the site. 

Selection of the Proposed Project would increase economic activity, and provide employment and income 
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-6 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

opportunities for area residents. The Proposed Project would be consistent with the current and expected 

land uses in the area and would provide a service for the travelling public. 

The Proposed Project meets the Samish Tribe’s objectives of an enlarged land base and diversified 

economic development opportunities compatible with the existing setting of Skagit County along SR-20. 

While the No-Action alternative would not result in any of the environmental effects identified for the 

Proposed Project, this alternative would not meet the Samish Tribe’s objectives of providing economic 

opportunities for Tribal members. Despite the proportionately greater overall effects on the environment 

of Alternative A, none of the identified impacts would be significant and unavoidable, following 

implementation of protective measures and mitigation recommended in this document. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION

The intent of the analysis of alternatives in the EA is to present to decision-makers and the public a 

reasonable range of alternatives that are both feasible and sufficiently different from each other in critical 

aspects. Section 1502.14(a) of the CEQ’s Regulations for implementing NEPA requires a discussion of 

alternatives that were eliminated from further study, and the reasons for their having been eliminated. 

The alternatives discussed herein were considered and rejected from further consideration because these 

alternatives were deemed infeasible or would not fulfill the stated purpose and need of the Proposed 

Action. 

REDUCED INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT OF MARCH’S POINT 

The Tribe considered development of a smaller gas station/convenience store facility at the March’s Point 

site, but rejected this from further consideration because a less intensive development would not fulfill the 

stated purpose and need of the Proposed Action which is to provide long-term economic development 

opportunities for the Tribe. Implementing a less intense development of the March’s Point site would not 

substantially reduce any of the potential adverse environmental effects associated with developing the 

site. 

OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT OF CAMPBELL LAKE PROPERTY 

In an effort to present an additional off–site alternative to decision-makers and the public, other properties 

currently owned by the Samish Tribe were examined to determine their feasibility. The Campbell Lake 

Alternative consists of an alternative site for the development of a gas station/convenience store. The site 

comprises 80-acres located along SR-20 near Lunz Road, approximately 4.5 miles south of the March’s 

Point site. The Samish Tribe considered the site because it is already in federal trust; however, the site 

was rejected from further consideration because of the rural/residential nature of the area, potential traffic 

safety considerations from vehicles entering and leaving the site, and low traffic volumes. The site 
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-7 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

currently contains tribal housing units and undeveloped forest/open space that provides habitat for 

numerous biologically sensitive resources. 
SECTION 3.0 

DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Analytical Environmental Services 3-1 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

SECTION 3.0 

DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This section presents relevant information about existing resources and other values that may be affected 

by the Proposed Project and alternatives. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) implementing guidelines (59 IAM 3-H), the existing 

conditions described herein provide the base line for determining the environmental effects identified in 

Section 4.0. Descriptions include the following resource and issue areas: 

 Land Resources 

 Water Resources 

 Air Quality 

 Biological Resources 

 Cultural Resources 

 Socioeconomic Conditions / Environmental Justice 

 Transportation and Circulation 

 Land Use 

 Public Services 

 Noise 

 Hazardous Materials 

 Visual Resources 

3.1 LAND RESOURCES 

3.1.1 GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The project site lies within the northern section of the Puget Trough physiographic province. This region 

is situated between the Cascade Range to the east and the Olympic mountains to the west. Oceanic 

crustal plates collide with the North American continent in this zone, with the oldest rocks occurring in 

the North Cascade Mountains to the east and the San Juan Islands in the west. The compression of these 

rocks along the Juan de Fuca Plate with the North American Plate approximately 37 million years ago 

resulted in a chain of volcanoes which has been erupting for the last 36 million years. More recently, the 

Cascade Range has emerged over the past 5 to 7 million years, including several mountains which are still 

volcanically active today (Lasmanis, 1991). 

The State of Washington has a long history of volcanic activity and five volcanoes are situated within its 

borders. Mount Baker is the closest volcano to the project site; located approximately 40 miles to the 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-2 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

northeast. Mount Baker is the most glaciated of the Cascade Range volcanoes and contains more than 

0.43 cubic miles of snow and ice. Crests of hydrothermally altered rock and cooled lava are visible above 

the glaciers and upper sides of the volcano. Although Mount Baker is considered volcanically active, it 

has not experienced frequent or explosive eruptions like some of the neighboring volcanoes. Mount 

Baker’s most recent eruption was around 1870, although increased fumarolic activity and several smallvolume debris avalanches were observed during the 1950’s and 70’s (WADNR, 2011). 

Other major influences to the geology of Washington were the ice age eras beginning in more recent 

geologic history. The Puget Sound has repeatedly experienced advancing and retreating continental ice 

sheets, with the Fraser Glaciation being the most recent glacial period. Approximately 15,000 years ago 

the Cordilleran Ice Sheet covered the Puget Sound region with ice over 3,000 feet thick. This event 

occurred during the Vashon Glaciation, which was third phase of the Fraser Glaciation and is believed to 

have left the clearest imprint on the region (Baum, 2008). Ice from this glaciation began to retreat 

approximately 14,000 years ago and retreated north of the present-day U.S. - Canadian border within 

3,000 years. Land within the Puget Sound region was left scoured upon retreat of the Cordilleran Ice 

Sheet. The newly exposed ground revealed numerous land formations created by the advancing and 

retreating glacier, including the Puget Sound basin, Hood Canal, recessional lakes, and hundreds of 

drumlin hills. Beach erosion and deposition, volcanic mudflow deposits, sea-level rise, and tectonic 

deformation are other geologic activities resulted from the Vashon Glaciation. 

3.1.2 TOPOGRAPHY

The project site, situated along the western terminus of the Skagit River Drainage Basin, is located along 

an inlet to Fidalgo Island with elevations ranging from 70 to 80 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Slopes 

on the project site generally range from 0 to 8 percent. The western Skagit Basin area is underlain 

primarily by glacially deposited Mesozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Gently sloping topography is 

found within the surrounding City of Anacortes (City) with elevation ranging from sea level to 1,270 feet 

amsl at the summit of Mt. Erie to the west of the project site. 

3.1.3 SEISMIC CONDITIONS

The State of Washington is situated at a convergent continental margin, which is the collisional boundary 

between two tectonic plates. Within Washington, the Cascade Range is the foundation of an active 

volcanic arc associated with the under-thrusting of oceanic lithosphere beneath North America along the 

Cascadia subduction zone (Personius and Nelson, 2005). The Cascadia subduction zone, which is the 

convergent boundary between the North American continental plate and the Juan de Fuca oceanic plate, 

lies offshore of the coast of Washington. In addition to the eastward motion of the Juan de Fuca plate (at 

a rate greater than five millimeters per year), the northward-moving Pacific plate is pushing the Juan de 

Fuca plate north, causing complex seismic strain to accumulate and abruptly release in the form of 

earthquakes (Personius and Nelson, 2005). 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-3 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

The project site is located on the northern edge of the Puget Sound Fault Region. Faults within this 

region form a complex of approximately eleven interrelated seismogenic faults. These faults consist of 

zones of compound faulting at the boundaries of crustal uplifts and sedimentary basins. Seismic hazards 

associated with this region include subduction, intraslab, and shallow crustal earthquakes; all of which are 

capable of generating a magnitude of six or above (USGS, 2010).

MOMENT MAGNITUDE

The Puget Sound Fault Region contains both active and potentially active faults and is considered a 

region of moderate to high seismic activity. A potentially active fault is defined as a fault that has shown 

evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary period (last 1.6 million years). Small to 

moderately large earthquakes can also occur on previously unrecognized faults. Earthquake risk is 

moderate in the areas surrounding the project site because of the close proximity to active faults with 

relatively low slip rates. 

Moment magnitude is a relatively new scale to describe the size of an earthquake and replaces the Richter 

scale. Moment magnitude is based on a physical quantity, called moment, which can be determined 

either from the geometry of the fault plane or from the total energy recorded on a seismogram. It is 

dependent on the area of the fault, the amount of slip across the fault, and the rigidity of the rock. 

Moment magnitude provides a physically meaningful measure of the size of a faulting event (USGS, 

2002). The maximum moment magnitude is an estimate of the size of a characteristic earthquake capable 

of occurring on a particular fault. Principal faults capable of producing significant ground shaking in the 

region, historical slip rates, maximum moment magnitudes, and distances from the site are listed in Table 

3-1 and Figure 3-1. 

TABLE 3-1 

FAULTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE

Fault Zone

Approximate 

Distance from 

Project Site

Slip Rate 

(mm/year)

Maximum Moment 

Magnitude Activity

Devils Mountain 6.5 miles south 0.2 7.5 Active

Strawberry point 9.3 miles south 0.6 6.7 Active

Utsalady Point 11.2 miles south 0.2 6.7 Active

Southern Whidbey Island 21 miles south 1.0 7.0 Active

Unnamed Fault 43.5 miles southwest 0.2 NR Potentially Active

Seattle 48.5 miles south 1.0 6.5 Active

Little River 51.5 miles southwest 0.2 NR Potentially Active

NOTES: Slip Rate = Long-term average total of fault movement including earthquake movement, slip, expressed in millimeters 

NR = Not reported on USGS databases. 

SOURCE: USGS, 2009 
[\

[\ [\ [\ [\ [\ [\

[\

[\

[\

[\ [\ 

[\ 

[\

[\

[\

[\

[\

[\

"

"

"

"

"

^_

§ ̈¦5

UV11

UV20

UV237

UV530

UV536

UV532

UV9

UV20

Project Site

11.1 Miles

6.06 Miles

Strawberry Point fault

Devils Mountain fault zone

Devils Mountain fault zone

Strawberry Point fault

Devils Mountain fault zone

Strawberry Point fault

Devils Mountain fault zone

Utsalady Point fault

Southern Whidbey Island fault zone

Utsalady Point fault

Utsalady Point fault

Figure 3-1

Regional Fault Map

SOURCE:USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, 2011; StreetMap World, 2010; AES, 2011

LEGEND

0 2 4

Miles

!¢NO

ÐR TH

Samish Indian Nation Gas Station EA / 209532

Active Faults, Known or Suspected

Holocene (<15,000 years)

Late Quaternary (<130,000 years)

Insufficient data to determine age (class B)
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-5 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Devils Mountain Fault Zone

The Devils Mountain fault zone is the closest fault zone to the project site. The fault zone originates at the 

western base of the Cascade Range foothills and extends westward 76.4 miles to Vancouver Island. This 

north-dipping fault intersects with Darrington fault zone at its east end, and possibly merges with the 

Leech River and/or San Juan faults on Vancouver Island to the west. The central section of the Devils 

Mountain fault zone is located approximately 6.5 miles to the south of the project site. In the vicinity of 

the project site the fault is a left-lateral, oblique-slip fault with a transpressional structure. Although this 

fault is still considered active, seismic movement has not been recorded for this fault in recent history. 

The maximum moment magnitude expected on the Devils Mountain fault is 7.5 (Table 3-1) (USGS,

2009). 

Southern Whidbey Island Fault Zone

The Southern Whidbey Island (SWBI) Fault Zone possesses the greatest potential to cause strong seismic 

shaking at the project site. Located approximately 21 miles to the southwest is a region where the 

Cascade block to the northeast is floored by a diverse collection of pre-tertiary rock; and the Coast Range 

block to the southwest is floored by lower Eocene marine basaltic rocks from the Crescent Formation. 

The SWBI fault is a dextral strike-slip fault with inferred driving forces resulting from oblique 

convergence and clockwise rotation along the continental margin. The maximum moment magnitude 

from faults associated with the SWBI is expected to exceed 7.0 (Table 3-1) (USGS, 2009). 

3.1.4 SOIL TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS

The project site contains three soils formed in glacial drift from mixed rock sources (NRCS, 2011b). 

Table 3-2 summarizes the characteristics for each soil type, while Figure 3-2 shows the location of each 

soil type on the project site. 

TABLE 3-2 

PROJECT SITE SOILS 

Map 

Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit 

Name Slope Range Erosion Hazard

Percent of 

Project 

Site

18

Bow gravelly 

loam 0-3%

Slight to 

Moderate 0.6%

19

Bow gravelly

loam 3-8% Slight to Moderate 0.3%

35 Coveland

gravelly loam 0-3% Moderate 99.1%

SOURCE: NRCS Soil Survey, 2011b

Descriptions of the soil types are included below: 

Bow gravelly loams are deep and relatively poorly drained soils derived from lacustrine material and 

volcanic ash. These soils are formed by gravelly glacial drift, where materials are tilled and deposited 
PROJECT

BOUNDARY THOMPSON ROAD

UV20

STEVENSON ROAD

18

35

19

18

18

35

35

Figure 3-2

Soils Map

SOURCE: USDA/NRCS Soil Surveys, 1998-2009; AEX Aerial Photograph, 5/15/2009; AES, 2011

Samish Indian Nation Gas Station EA / 209532

LEGEND

0 250 500

Feet

!¢NO

ÐR TH

Proposed Project Site

Soil Type Boundaries

SOILS TYPES IN PROJECT SITE

18 - Bow gravelly loam, low precipitation, 0 to 3 percent slopes

35 - Coveland gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-7 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

along the path of advancing glaciers. Lacustrine is a material that is moved by water and deposited into 

fresh water lakes. Bow gravelly loams typically have low bulk density and levels of organic matter. 

Available water capacity tends be high while permeability is generally low. Fertility of these soils is 

usually limited by a high water table that is close to the surface for most of the year (NRCS, 2011a). 

Coveland gravelly loams are deep and poorly drained soils that are found throughout a majority of the 

project site. These soils are formed in glacial drift areas underlain by dense glaciomarine deposits. These 

deposits were formed on the prehistoric sea floor by glacial meltwater and debris flows from the surface 

of a glacier. Coveland gravelly loams are typically found in valley depressions and outwash plains where 

they have aquic conditions to the soil surface. High water tables during the winter months are common 

with these soils and usually result in frequent ponding from December to March (NRCS, 2011a). 

SOIL HAZARDS

Soil Erosion 

Soil erosion is the wearing and removal of soil materials from the ground surface and the transportation of 

these soil materials resulting in deposition elsewhere. Mechanisms of soil erosion include stormwater 

runoff and wind, as well as human activities, such as changes in drainage patterns and removal of 

vegetation. Factors that influence erosion include physical properties of the soil, topography (slope), and 

annual rainfall and peak intensity. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) rates the 

erosion potential of a map unit by taking all of the above into consideration. The ratings range from 

“slight” to “very severe” (NRCS, 2011b). The erosion ratings of the three soils within the project site are 

provided above in Table 3-2. 

Liquefaction 

Liquefaction involves soils that become highly saturated and lose their cohesive strength and 

subsequently act as a liquid, rather than as a solid mass. Soils comprised of sands and inland fill in areas 

with high groundwater tables or heavy rainfall are subject to liquefaction during intense seismic shaking 

events. The soils on the project site have a moderate percentage of silt and volcanic ash, making the area 

susceptible to liquefaction. 

Landslides 

Areas susceptible to landslides are comprised of weak soils on sloping terrain. Heavy rains or strong 

seismic shaking events can induce landslides. The project site is located within an area designated as 

having a low incidence of landslides, although old landslide and unstable areas are located in the vicinity 

of the project site (Ecology, 1979). 

3.1.5 MINERAL RESOURCES

A search of the USGS Mineral Resources Data System found no known mineral resources within the 

project site. There are several on-going mining activities and operations in the vicinity of the project site. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-8 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Mining activities are currently focused on sand and gravel surface mines for construction. Copper, gold, 

silver, and manganese have also been mined in lesser amounts west of project site. 

3.2 WATER RESOURCES 

3.2.1 SURFACE WATER, DRAINAGE, AND FLOODING

Watersheds and Hydrology 

The project site is located within the Puget Sound hydrologic subregion as well as the Strait of Georgia 

cataloging unit (no. 17110002). The Puget Sound is classified as a fjord system of flooded glacial valleys 

with one major and one minor connection with the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The major connection is 

through Admiralty Inlet where approximately 98 percent of the total tidal exchange flows though; 

Deception Pass provides the other two percent of the tidal exchange. Deception Pass is situated 

approximately 5.5 miles southwest of the project site. A system of saltwater estuaries within Puget Sound 

is contained within three major basins supplied with water from the many tributaries of the Olympic and 

Cascade Mountain watersheds. These watersheds are highly seasonal with a peak monthly discharge rate 

of approximately 367,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), and a mean annual discharge rate of 41,000 cfs 

(Lincoln, 2000). The Puget Sound encompasses a water area of roughly 1,020 square miles. 

The Strait of Georgia is located immediately northwest of the project site, adjoins to the Puget Sound, and 

separates Vancouver Island from Washington and the British Columbia mainland. It is approximately 

150 miles in length and has a maximum width of 34 miles. Haro and Rosario Straits mark the southern 

terminus of the Strait of Georgia approximately 32 miles and 11.5 miles west of the site, respectively. 

The mainland coast is marked by many inlets for the Strait, including the Fraser River, which supplies 

roughly 80 percent of the freshwater flow. Mean depth within the Strait is approximately 510 feet with a 

maximum depth of 1,380 feet. 

Annual rainfall in Skagit County ranges from 26 inches (Anacortes area) to more than 60 inches near the 

City of Concrete to the east (Skagit County, 2011). Most of the precipitation falls during the winter, and 

substantial snowfall is limited to higher elevations. Although very close to sea level, the City receives 

approximately 4.5 inches of snowfall annually. 

Mount Baker, approximately 40 miles northeast of the project site, experiences much higher levels of 

precipitation due to its increased elevation. Most of this precipitation falls as snow during the winter 

months, with annual lows of 30 inches of snow/rain in the lowlands and as much as 140 inches annually 

at the summit. 

Drainage 

Runoff from the eastern portion of the project site flows in a northeastern direction into a manmade 

drainage ditch located on the adjacent Tribal-owned property. Runoff from the eastern portion eventually 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-9 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

flows into Padilla Bay. The central portion of the project site drains to the north where it enters a second 

manmade drainage ditch along State Route 20 (SR-20). This second ditch runs east-west and ties into the 

north-south ditch located on the adjacent site. Runoff from the western portion of the site drains into a 

manmade drainage ditch situated alongside Thompson Road. This ditch ties into the east-west ditch 

located along SR-20. Site runoff flows drain into an 18-inch off-site Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) culvert that traverses north into an underground drainage structure located 

under the intersection of Thompson Road and SR-20. Stormwater from these drainages ultimately flows 

into Fidalgo Bay. 

Flooding 

Executive Order 11988 pertaining to floodplain management states that each federal agency shall 

“provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss.” In order for the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) to carry out its responsibility, the order requires determination whether a project is 

located within a floodplain and consideration of alternative project locations within a floodplain. If the 

project must reside on a floodplain, the agency must minimize any potential impacts. The Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for predicting the potential for flooding in most 

areas. FEMA routinely performs this function through the update and issuance of Flood Insurance Rate 

Maps (FIRMs), which depict various levels of predicted inundation. 

FIRM map number 5301510225C shows that the project site contains a Zone C classification (Appendix 

C - FEMA, 1985). Zone C is designated for those lands which are located above 500 year floodplain and 

have a 0.2 percent chance of an annual flood. 

3.2.2 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater provides water supply for agricultural, municipal, and individual domestic water systems 

throughout Skagit County. Alluvial and recessional outwash aquifers are present throughout various 

regions of the Skagit River Valley. Aquifer thicknesses range from 200 to 450 feet in the Skagit River 

Valley and water is predominantly unconfined with exception to areas where the aquifer is exposed at 

land surface or not fully saturated by the surrounding aggregate. Precipitation is the main process of 

recharging the aquifers within the vicinity of the project site (USGS, 2009b). 

Groundwater levels in the Lower Skagit River Basin have remained relatively stable over the past 30 

years, with typical seasonal fluctuations, but no significant long-term trends (USGS, 2009b). Abundant 

rainfall (26 to over 60 inches per year) and snowmelt during the spring and summer generally recharge 

the basin to capacity each spring. During drought conditions, increased drawdown occurs during summer 

months with less recovery in winter months. Post-drought levels have historically rebounded to 

approximately the same as pre-drought conditions. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-10 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

3.2.3 WATER QUALITY

Surface Water Quality 

The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. Section 1301(a)(2), sets forth national goals that waters 

shall be “fishable, swimmable” (Section 101 (a)(2)). The CWA addresses point and non-point sources of 

pollution (Sections 402 and 319, respectively), both of which are controlled through the National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). A NPDES general construction permit must be 

obtained in order to discharge pollutants into “Waters of the U.S.” In some states, the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated permitting authority to a regional water quality 

agency, in this case the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). However, the EPA retains 

authority to regulate discharges to waters on tribal lands, including the project site. The CWA also directs 

states to establish water quality standards for waterways in their jurisdiction and to review and update 

these standards every three years (Section 303(c)). 

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to periodically prepare a list of all surface waters in their 

respective jurisdictions for which beneficial uses of the water – such as for drinking, recreation, aquatic 

habitat, and industrial use – are impaired by pollutants. These include water bodies that do not meet state 

surface water quality standards and are not expected to improve within the next two years. States 

establish a priority ranking of these impaired waters for purposes of developing water quality control 

plans that include Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum 

amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, and includes an

allocation for each of the pollutant’s sources. These water quality control plans describe how an impaired 

water body will meet water quality standards through the use of TMDLs. 

The surface water quality standards for Washington include both narrative and numerical water quality 

objectives. The project site is positioned near the Fidalgo Bay portion of an area delineated by Ecology 

as the Lower Skagit-Samish Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 03). The water quality objectives 

for Fidalgo Bay and its surrounding areas are to protect the use designations, including aquatic life 

spawning and rearing habitat, primary contact recreational use, and a variety of water supply and 

miscellaneous uses (Ecology, 2011a). The water quality objectives are summarized below in Table 3-3. 

The primary surface water bodies within the vicinity of the project site are the Lower Skagit River, 

Padilla Bay, and Fidalgo Bay. The Lower Skagit River is listed on the Washington 303(d) list as Class A, 

excellent waters. The south fork of the Skagit River was previously added to the 1996/1998 CWA 

Section 303(d) list of impaired water for elevated levels of fecal coliform, but has since been removed. 

Implementation of a nutrient management program, reduction of failing septic systems, and an updated 

wastewater treatment plant have reduced fecal coliform to levels within water quality standards (EPA, 

2009). 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-11 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

TABLE 3-3 

WASHINGTON STATE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR WRIA 03

Constituent Water Quality Objective

Fecal Coliform

Fecal coliform organism levels must not exceed a geometric mean value of 100 colonies /100 mL, 

with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample 

points exist) obtained for calculating the geometric mean value exceeding 200 colonies /100 mL.

Dissolved 

Oxygen (DO)

For waters designated as aquatic life spawning and rearing habitat, the 1-Day minimum level for 

dissolved oxygen is 8.0 mg/L When the D.O. is lower than 8.0 mg/L due to natural conditions, then 

human actions considered cumulatively may not cause the D.O. of that water body to decrease 

more than 0.2 mg/L.

Total Dissolved 

Gas

Total dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% of saturation at any point of sample collection. 

Temperature

The 7-day average of the daily maximum (7-DADMax) temperatures shall not exceed 17.5°C 

(63.5°F). When the water body's temperature is warmer than 17.5°C (63.5°F) due to natural 

conditions, then human actions considered cumulatively may not cause the 7-DADMax temperature 

of that water body to increase more than 0.3°C (0.54°F).

pH

pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 with a human-caused variation within the above range of 

less than 0.5 units.

Turbidity

Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU over background turbidity when the background turbidity is 50 NTU 

or less, or have more than a 10% increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 

NTU. 

Toxicity

Toxic substances shall not be introduced above natural background levels in waters of the state 

which have the potential either singularly or cumulatively to adversely affect characteristic water 

uses, cause acute or chronic toxicity to the most sensitive biota dependent upon those waters, or 

adversely affect public health, as determined by the department.

Radioactive 

Substances

Deleterious concentrations of radioactive materials for all classes shall be as determined by the 

lowest practicable concentration attainable and in no case shall exceed: 1/12.5 of the values listed in 

WAC 246-221-290 or EPA Drinking Water Regulations for radionuclides.

Aesthetics

Aesthetic values shall not be impaired by the presence of materials or their effects, excluding those 

of natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch, or taste.

NOTES: mL = milliliters; mg/L = milligrams per liter; NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units

SOURCE: Ecology, 2011b

Padilla Bay stretches eight miles from north to south and is located approximately 1.2 miles northeast of 

the project site. The bay is designated for research and education through the National Estuarine 

Research Reserve System and is a primarily saltwater estuary at the terminus the Skagit River (NERRS, 

2011). The Padilla Bay Reserve is jointly managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (NERRS, 2011). The Skagit 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-12 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

River deposits large amounts of sediment into Padilla Bay, making it relatively shallow with several miles 

of mud flats during low tide events. Water quality within Padilla Bay is generally well within State 

standards. However, elevated turbidity and fecal coliform levels have been observed during heavy rain 

events. These elevated levels are characteristic of estuaries which receive drainages from nearby and 

livestock and agricultural properties (SST, 2009). 

Approximately one mile northwest of the project site is the shallow embayment of Fidalgo Bay. This bay 

encompasses 1,575 acres of salt marshes, tide flats, mudflats, and sand and gravel beaches. The City 

marks the western boundary of Fidalgo Bay while March’s Point extending north of the project site 

indicates the eastern extent of the bay. In April of 2008, 650 acres of the bay were signed in Aquatic 

Reserve status by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. This designation entails a 90-

year term and the implementation of restoration and research activities guided by its published 

management plans (Samish DNR, 2010). 

In a 2005-2010 study conducted by the Samish Indian Nation’s Department of Natural Resources (Samish 

DNR), various water quality indicators and pollutants were monitored over a five-year period in order to 

assess the water quality and possible sources of contaminants in Fidalgo Bay. Nearly all of the outfalls 

into the Bay experienced fecal coliform levels in violation of Washington State Water Quality Standards. 

The Samish DNR has been working alongside the Skagit County Health Department and Skagit 

Conservation District to assist landowners in developing mitigation strategies to reduce the concentrations 

of fecal coliform found in water on their properties which eventually flow in Fidalgo Bay. Other 

indicators, such as dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and nutrient levels were generally within the water 

quality standards of Washington State (Samish DNR, 2010). 

Groundwater Quality 

Groundwater is a secondary source of public drinking water for the City. Under the mandate of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, the EPA sets legally enforceable National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

(primary standards) that apply to public water systems within the State of Washington. These standards 

are established to protect human health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking water. The 

EPA also defines National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (secondary standards) for 

contaminants that cause cosmetic and aesthetic effects, but not health effects. The EPA recommends that 

these secondary standards be met but does not require systems to comply with them. Both primary and 

secondary drinking water standards are expressed as either Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), 

which define the highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water, or Maximum Contaminant 

Level Goals (MCLGs), which define the level of a contaminant below which there is no known or 

expected risk to health. During 2009 monitoring at the City’s water treatment plant indicated that all 

MCLGs have been met (City of Anacortes, 2010a). 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-13 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

3.3 AIR QUALITY 

3.3.1 PROJECT AREA AND VICINITY

The project site lies under the jurisdictional area of the Northwest Clean Air Agency (NWCAA). The 

NWCAA regulates air quality through regulation of air pollutant emissions from stationary sources within 

Skagit County. However, the once the project site is taken into trust, air quality would be under the 

jurisdiction of the EPA. 

The City enjoys a mild, marine climate due to its location on the inland waters of Puget Sound. The 

prevailing southwesterly flow of weather is interrupted by the Olympic Mountain Range creating a “rain 

shadow”. The City’s annual rainfall is approximately 26 inches and daytime temperatures averaging in 

the 40s during the winter and highs in the 70s in the summer. 

3.3.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT

FEDERAL 

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and last amended in 1990 (42 USC §7401 et seq.) 

for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to benefit public 

health, welfare, and productivity. The CAA establishes a framework for national, state, and local air 

pollution control efforts. Basic components of the CAA and its amendments include national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants, requirements for state implementation plans (SIPs) 

to meet the NAAQS, motor vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and 

permits, and enforcement provisions. The EPA is the federal agency responsible for establishing the 

NAAQS, overseeing state air programs as they relate to the CAA, approving SIPs, and setting emissions 

standards for mobile sources under federal jurisdiction. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The EPA, under authority of the CAA, developed primary and secondary NAAQS in 1971. The primary 

NAAQS protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety and the secondary standards protect 

the public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects to aesthetics, crops, or architecture (42 USC 

§7409[b]). The EPA designated six pollutants of primary concern as criteria air pollutants (CAPs): 

carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, lead (Pb), and particulate 

matter (PM). The NAAQS are time-averaged maximum ambient air concentrations. For various CAPs, 

more than one time-averaged maximum concentration has been established by the EPA in order to 

address the typical exposures to the population from natural and anthropogenic sources in the 

environment. Concentrations above these time-averaged maximum concentrations are anticipated to 

cause adverse health effects to sensitive receptors (defined below). The violation criteria established by 

the EPA are based upon these time-averaged maximum concentrations specific to each CAP. For 

example, the NAAQS for ozone must be exceeded on more than three days in three consecutive years in 

order to constitute a violation. On the other hand, if the NAAQS for CO are exceeded on more than one 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-14 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

day in any given year, a violation has occurred. Table 3-4 presents the violation criteria for the various 

averaging times of the NAAQS for each CAP. The EPA allows states the option to develop independent 

standards only if the standards are more stringent than the NAAQS. The State of Washington has 

selected to designate independent ambient air quality standards. These standards are not applicable to 

trust land or the Proposed Project itself.

TABLE 3-4 

NAAQS AND ASSOCIATED VIOLATION CRITERIA 

Pollutants Times Primary Violation Criteria

ppm μg/m3

Ozone 8 hours 0.75 157

The 3-year average of the annual 4th

highest daily 8-hour maximum is not to 

be above 0.075 μg/m3

Carbon Monoxide

8 hours 9 10,000 If exceeded on more than 1 day per 

year

1 hour 35 40,000 If exceeded on more than 1 day per 

year

Nitrogen Dioxide

Annual average 0.053 -

Not to be above 0.053 ppm in a 

calendar year. 

1 hour 0.100 -

The 3-year average of the 98th

percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour 

average at each monitor is not above 

0.100 ppm.

Sulfur Dioxide

Annual average 0.03 -

Not to be above 0.03 ppm in a calendar 

year.

24 hours 0.14 -

If exceeded on more than 1 day per 

year

PM10 24 hours - 150

Not to be above 150 μg/m3 on more 

than three days over three years with 

daily sampling

PM2.5

Annual 

arithmetic mean N- 15 The 3-year average from a communityoriented monitor is not above 15 μg/m3.

24 hours - 35

The 3-year average of the 98th

percentile for each population-oriented 

monitor within an area is not above 35 

μg/m3.

Lead

SOURCE: EPA, 

2011.

Rolling –Month 

Average - 0.15 Not to be above 0.15 μg/m3

.

Quarterly 

Average - 1.5 -

Attainment Status 

To determine conformance with the NAAQS, states are responsible for providing ambient air monitoring 

data to the EPA. The EPA then determines, using the violation criteria, if the results of the monitoring 

data indicate compliance with the NAAQS. The EPA classifies areas in compliance with the NAAQS as 

being in "attainment". Areas that do not meet the NAAQS are classified as being in "nonattainment" by 

the EPA. The NWCAA (including Skagit County) has been determined to be in attainment or 

unclassifiable for all federal air quality standards and in attainment or unclassified for all air quality 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-15 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

standards. As shown in Table 3-5, Skagit County meets the federal standards or is unclassifiable for all 

pollutants. 

TABLE 3-5 

SKAGIT COUNTY NAAQS ATTAINMENT STATUS 

SOURCE: Ecology, 2011. 

Federal Conformity 

The federal General Conformity Rule implements Section 176(c) of the CAA, and establishes minimum 

thresholds for reactive organic compounds (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) (ozone precursors), 

particulate matter (PM), and other regulated constituents for non-attainment and maintenance areas. 

Under the General Conformity Rule, the lead agency with respect to a federal action is required to 

demonstrate that the proposed federal action conforms to the applicable SIP before the action is taken. 

There are two phases to a demonstration of general conformity: 

1) The Conformity Review process, which entails an initial review of the federal action to 

assess whether a full conformity determination is necessary, and 

2) The Conformity Determination process, which requires that a proposed federal action be 

demonstrated to conform to the applicable SIP. 

The Conformity Review requires the lead agency to compare estimated emissions to the applicable 

general conformity de minimis threshold(s). If the emission estimates from step one is below the 

applicable threshold(s), then a general conformity determination is not necessary and the full Conformity 

Determination is not required. If emission estimates are greater than de minimis levels, the lead agency 

must conduct a formal Conformity Determination. The NWCAA is in attainment or unclassifiable for all 

national ambient air quality standards. 

The SIP for Washington is officially entitled A Plan for the Implementation, Maintenance and 

Enforcement of National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the State of Washington and is a number of 

documents that set forth the State’s strategies for achieving federal air quality standards. The Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR Title 40, Part 52, Subpart WW Section 52.2479) lists all of the items that are 

POLLUTANT NAAQS

Ozone (8-hour) Attainment

PM10 (24-hour, annual) Attainment

PM2.5 (annual) Attainment

Carbon Monoxide (8-hour, 1-hour) Unclassifiable/Attainment

Nitrogen Dioxide (annual, 1-hour) Unclassifiable/Attainment

Sulfur Dioxide (24-hour,1-hour) Unclassified

Lead (30-day average) Unclassifiable/Attainment
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-16 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

included in the Washington SIP. Ecology is the air quality management agency for a geographic region 

of the state. In the case of northwest Washington, the NWCAA is responsible for enforcing federal, state, 

and local air pollution standards, as well as governing air pollutant emissions from new and existing 

sources. Ecology’s role is to establish statewide standards and rules that the NWCAA must meet. Local 

agencies may adopt more stringent standards and rules if the local air quality requires such action. The 

NWCAA has the responsibility for regulating all outdoor air pollution sources within its jurisdiction, with 

the exception of automobiles, chemical paper and pulp mills, and aluminum reduction plants. Local air 

authorities prepare the SIP and submit them to Ecology for approval and forwarding to the EPA. As 

discussed above, the SIP for the State of Washington is not a single document, but a compilation of plans, 

programs, local air quality rules, and state and federal rules. 

NWCAA and Ecology operate an air quality monitoring network that determines whether northeast 

Washington complies with the NAAQS. Additionally, the State of Washington has codified several of 

the NAAQS in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Title 173, Chapters 470, 474, and 475. 

SKAGIT COUNTY 

Air quality is not identified as a critical area under the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan. Skagit County 

seeks to maintain a high level of air quality by working with the NWCAA to minimize individual and 

industrial impacts on air quality. Skagit County contains transportation policies that reduce air pollution; 

encourage alternatives to outdoor burning; promote environmentally sound heating methods; and assure 

that industrial growth utilizes environmentally sound business processes. 

3.3.3 CLIMATE CHANGE

FEDERAL 

Clean Air Act 

In 2007, the US Supreme Court ruled that the CAA authorizes the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions from 

new motor vehicles (Massachusetts et al. vs. Environmental Protection Agency et al.). The Court did not 

mandate that EPA enact regulations to reduce GHG emissions, but found that the only instances where 

EPA could avoid taking action were if it found that GHGs do not contribute to climate change or if it 

offered a “reasonable explanation” for not determining that GHGs contribute to climate change. On 

December 15, 2009, EPA issued a final endangerment and cause finding (74 FR 66496), stating that high 

atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases “are the unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very 

likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes.” The EPA 

further found that “atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare 

within the meaning of Section 202 of the Clean Air Act.” The finding itself does not impose any 

requirements on industry or other entities. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-17 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

National Environmental Policy Act 

Climate change is a global phenomenon attributable to the sum of all human activities and natural 

processes. In 1997, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) circulated an internal draft 

memorandum (CEQ, 1997a) on how global climate change should be treated for the purposes of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CEQ draft memorandum advised federal lead agencies 

to consider how proposed actions subject to NEPA would affect sources and sinks of green house gases 

(GHGs). During the same year, CEQ released guidance on the assessment of cumulative effects in NEPA 

documents (CEQ, 1997b). Consistent with the CEQ draft memorandum, climate change impacts were 

offered as one example of a cumulative effect. 

The following are the most recent regulatory actions taken by the EPA: 

 In response to the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110–161), 

EPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. Signed by the 

Administrator on September 22, 2009, the rule requires that suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial 

GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines outside of the light duty sector, and facilities that 

emit 25,000 metric tons or more of GHGs per year to submit annual reports to EPA. The rule is 

intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to guide future policy decisions on climate 

change. 

 On September 30, 2009, EPA proposed new thresholds for GHG that define when CAA permits 

under the New Source Review and title V operating permits programs would be required. 

 In February, 2010 the CEQ Chair released a memorandum, Draft NEPA Guidance on 

Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The 

memorandum provides guidance on how project-related GHG emission should be analyzed in 

NEPA documents. The Draft Guidance provides that a NEPA climate change analysis shall 

provide quantification and mitigation to reduce GHG emissions. The guidance also provides that 

25,000 metric tons of GHG emissions per year may be a helpful guideline to assist lead agencies 

in making informed decisions on climate change impacts resulting from a project subject to 

NEPA. The guidance notes that the 25,000 metric tons is not a threshold for evaluating climate 

change on the project level. 

STATE 

Executive Order (EO) 07-02 

The Washington Climate Change Challenge, signed by the State Governor in February 2007, established 

goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, creating jobs and reducing fuels spending. It was the basis 

for creating the Climate Advisory Team to recommend ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EO 07-

02 also directed the state to assess steps required to prepare for the impacts of climate change on water 

supply, public health, agriculture, forestry and coastal areas. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-18 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

House Bill 2815 

House Bill 2815 (HB 2815) was passed in 2008 as part of the Governor’s Climate Change Framework. 

HB 2815 is codified in Revised Code of Washington 70.235 (RCW 70.235). RCW 70.235 requires the 

following: 

The state shall limit emissions of greenhouse gases to achieve the following emission reductions for 

Washington State: 

 By 2020, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to 1990 levels; 

 By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to twenty-five percent below 

1990 levels; 

 By 2050, the state will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing overall 

emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels, or seventy percent below the state's expected 

emissions that year. 

EO 09-05

Governor Christine O. Gregoire signed Executive Order 09-05 (EO 09-05) Washington’s Leadership on 

Climate Change on May 21, 2009. EO 09-05 directs Ecology to: 

 Continue to work with six other Western states and four Canadian provinces in the Western 

Climate Initiative to develop a regional emissions reduction program design. 

 Advise the federal government and Washington's congressional delegation on designing a 

national program that reflects state priorities. 

 Work with companies that emit 25,000 metric tons or more each year to develop emission 

reduction strategies. 

 Work with businesses and interested stakeholders to develop recommendations on emission 

benchmarks by industry to make sure 2020 reduction targets are met. 

 Work with TransAlta to reduce emissions from the company’s coal-fired power plant near 

Centralia by more than half. 

 Work with Department of Natural Resources to develop forestry offset program and other 

financial incentives for the forestry and the forest products industry. 

 Evaluate low-carbon fuel standard or alternative requirements to reduce carbon emissions from 

the transportation sector. 

 Join with WSDOT, other West Coast states and the private sector to make alternative fuels, 

including electricity for plug-in vehicles, available along the West Coast highway and adjoining 

metropolitan centers. 

 Working with the larger regional transportation councils, develop regional transportation plans 

that will increase transit options, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

 Address the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels and the risks to water supplies. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-19 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

3.3.4 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

Sensitive receptors are generally defined as land uses that house or attract people who are susceptible to 

adverse effects from air pollution emissions and, as such, should be given special consideration when 

evaluating air quality impacts from projects. Sensitive receptors include facilities that house or attract 

children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air 

pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent homes, parks and recreational facilities, and residential areas 

are examples of sensitive receptors. 

Sensitive receptors in the area of potential construction are as follows: three off-site single-family 

residences located approximately 450 to 500 feet south of the proposed gas station/convenience store site 

across Stevenson Road. Additionally, there is a church located approximately 150 feet to the west of the 

site. 

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This section describes the regulatory setting, the methodology, and the existing biological resources that 

occur within the project site. The assessment of the existing biological resources is based upon the results 

of biological surveys, which were conducted to document the existing habitat types on-site and to assess 

the potential for occurrence and/or presence of federally listed species and/or their habitats. The 

following discussion of existing biological resources provides the basis from which potential 

environmental consequences were identified and measured. 

3.4.1 REGULATORY SETTING

Federal Endangered Species Act 

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) implement the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 USC Section 1531 et seq.). 

Under FESA, threatened and endangered species on the federal list and their habitats (50 CFR Subsection 

17.11, 17.12) are protected from “take” (i.e., activities that harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect), as well as any attempt to engage in any such conduct, unless a Section 10 Permit 

is granted to an individual or a Section 7 consultation is conducted and the lead federal agency renders a 

Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions. Pursuant to the requirements of FESA, an agency 

reviewing a Proposed Project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed species 

may be present within the project site and vicinity and determine whether the Proposed Project would 

have a potentially significant impact upon such species. Under FESA, habitat loss is considered to be an 

impact to the species. In addition, the BIA is required to determine whether the project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC 

Section 1536[3], [4]). Therefore, project-related impacts to these species, or their habitats, would be 

considered significant and require mitigation. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-20 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Under the FESA, critical habitat may be designated by the Secretary of the Interior for any listed species. 

The term "critical habitat" for a threatened or endangered species refers to the following: specific areas 

within the geographical range of the species at the time it is listed that contain suitable habitat for the 

species, which may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside 

the geographical range of the species at the time it is listed that contain suitable habitat for the species and 

is determined to be essential for the conservation of the species. Under Section 7 of FESA, all federal 

agencies (including USFWS and NMFS) are required to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or modify their critical 

habitat. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) conserves and manages the 

fishery resources found off the coasts of the U.S., the anadromous species, and the Continental Shelf 

fishery resources of the U.S. The MSA includes conservation and management of highly migratory 

species through the implementation and enforcement of international fishery agreements. The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s NMFS enforces the MSA and regulates commercial and 

recreational fishing and the management of fisheries resources. The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 

amended the MSA to include new fisheries conservation provisions by emphasizing the importance of 

fish habitat in regards to the overall productivity and sustainability of U.S. marine fisheries (Public Law 

104-267). The revised MSA mandates identification and protection of essential fish habitat (EFH) for 

managed species during the review of projects conducted under federal permits that have the potential to 

affect such habitat. Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS on all actions, proposed actions, 

authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, which may adversely affect EFH (MSA 305.b.2). 

The project site occurs within the designated range of the following EFHs for Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha), Upper Columbia Spring-Run EFH, Snake River Fall-Run EFH, 

Snake River EFH, and Puget Sound EFH. The project site occurs within the designated range of the 

following EFH for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)-Coastal Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

Most bird species (especially those that are breeding, migrating, or of limited distribution) are protected 

under federal and/or state regulations. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 

Subsection 703-712), migratory bird species, their nests, and their eggs are protected from injury or death, 

and any project-related disturbances during the nesting cycle. As such, project-related disturbances must 

be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-21 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

In 1940 the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250) was enacted (and 

later amended) which prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from 

"taking" bald and golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties 

for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or 

import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, 

or egg thereof." The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, 

poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." 

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has primary federal responsibility for administering 

regulations that concern Waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), under Section 404 of the CWA. Section 

404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. The USACE 

requires that a permit be obtained if a project proposes the placement of structures within, over, or under 

navigable waters and/or discharging dredged or fill material into waters below the ordinary high-water 

mark (OHWM). The USACE has established a series of nationwide permits (NWP) that authorize certain 

activities in waters of the U.S. 

3.4.2 METHODOLOGY

Preliminary Research and Data Gathering 

The USFWS determined, via phone conversation on October 19, 2009, that the federal USFWS list for 

Skagit County, Washington was sufficient for analyzing species within the project site. Background 

information on special status species and their habitat types was obtained from the following sources: 

 USGS 7.5 minute Anacortes North, WA topographic quadrangle; 

 Color aerial photography of the project site and vicinity (AES, 2007); 

 Map of priority habitats and species documented in the vicinity of the project site (WDFW, 

2011); 

 Washington National Heritage Program (WNHP) list of rare plants in Skagit County (WNHP, 

2010); 

 USFWS critical habitat mapper (USFWS, 2011b); 

 List of endangered and threatened species in Skagit County (USFWS, 2011a); and 

 Delineation report of the project site and surrounding vicinity (AES, 2010). 

An AES biologist conducted the biological surveys of the project site and vicinity on October 21 and 22, 

2009, May 25 and 26, 2010, and September 22 and 23, 2010. The biological surveys consisted of 

walking transects in a north to south direction to evaluate biological communities and to document 

potential habitat for federally listed special status species with the potential to occur within the project 

site. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-22 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

A complete list of all of the regionally occurring federally listed species reported in the scientific database 

queries was compiled for the project site (Appendix A). An analysis was conducted to determine which 

of these special status species have the potential to occur within the project site. The habitat requirements 

for each regionally occurring federally listed species were assessed and compared to the type and quality 

of habitats observed on-site during the biological surveys. Several regionally occurring federally listed 

species were eliminated due to the project site lacking suitable habitat or occurring outside of the known 

elevation and geographical ranges for the species. 

3.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

City (#450176) monthly record climate data obtained in the vicinity of the project site documents an 

average maximum temperature of 58.6° Fahrenheit (F) and an average minimum temperature of 43.2°F. 

The climate data recorded an average total annual precipitation of 26.64 inches from 1892 through 2009 

(WRCC, 2011). Topography within the project site consists of a relatively gradual slope with elevations 

ranging from approximately 70 to 80 feet above mean sea level. 

3.4.4 RESULTS

This section summarizes the results of the field surveys that were conducted within the project site and 

provides further analysis of the data collected in the field. 

Habitat Types 

The project site is comprised of nonnative annual grassland and ruderal/disturbed areas. These habitat 

types are illustrated on Figure 3-3 and are discussed in detail below. Representative photographs of the 

project site are illustrated on Figure 3-4. A comprehensive list of plants occurring within the project site 

is included in Appendix A. 

Nonnative Annual Grassland 

Nonnative annual grassland occurs throughout the majority of the project site (Figure 3-4: Photograph 

1). The majority of the project site had been mowed prior to conducting the October 2009 and May 2010 

biological surveys. Dominant vegetation observed in the nonnative annual grassland includes: orchard 

grass (Dactylis glomerata), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), Johnsongrass (Sorghum halipense), red fescue 

(Festuca rubra), Robert geranium (Geranium robertianum) and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Ornamental 

landscape trees occur within the nonnative annual grassland in the southwestern corner of the project site 

(Figure 3-4: Photograph 2).

Ruderal/Disturbed 

Ruderal/disturbed areas occur within the project site. These areas include dirt roads, graded driveways, 

remnant housing pads, and piles of metal and wood. Dominant vegetation observed within the 

ruderal/disturbed areas includes the same species noted in the nonnative annual grassland. 
SR-20

STEVENSON ROAD

THOMPSON ROAD

Figure 3-3

Habitat Types and Wetland Features

SOURCE: AEX Aerial Photograph, 9/15/2007; AES, 2011

Samish Indian Nation Gas Station EA / 209532

LEGEND

¢

!

HT R O N

Ð

0 50 100

Feet

Project Site

Nonnative Annual Grassland 3.03 ac

Ruderal/Disturbed 0.18 ac
Samish Indian Nation Gas Station EA / 209532

Figure 3-4

Representative Site Photographs

SOURCE: AES, 2011

PHOTO 1: View northeast of nonnative annual grassland from central portion of the project site.

PHOTO 2: View southward of ruderal/disturbed areas from the western portion of the study area.
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-25 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Wildlife 

Wildlife species were noted by direct observation or sign such as tracks, scat, nests, or remains in the 

vicinity of the project site. Wildlife species observed foraging within the project site includes: song 

sparrow (Melospiza melodia) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Birds observed flying over the 

project site include: common loon (Gavia immer), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), 

great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). No bird nests were observed 

within the project site.

Waters of the U.S. 

A delineation report was prepared for a study area that includes the project site (AES, 2010). There are 

no wetlands or waterways mapped within the project site. 

Federally Listed Special Status Species 

A separate biological letter report was prepared that evaluates for whether rare species documented within 

Skagit County occur within a study area that includes the project site (Appendix A; AES, 2011). For the 

purposes of this assessment, special status has been defined to include those species that are listed as 

endangered or threatened under the FESA (or formally proposed and/or candidates for listing). While 

other state listed species may have potential to occur within the project site and its vicinity (and have been 

included in the baseline research that was conducted for the project site), these species generally receive 

no specific protection on Tribal trust land and are not necessarily afforded protection by the FESA. 

Appendix A provides a summary of regionally occurring federally listed special status species based on 

the USFWS (2011a) file data, the WNHP (2010) list, and the proximity of the project site to documented 

occurrences based on the priority habitat map (WDFW, 2011) and provides a rationale as to whether the 

species has the potential to occur within the project site based on the presence of each species or its 

habitat during the biological surveys. Federally listed species without the potential to occur within the 

project site are not discussed further. There are no federally listed special status species with the potential 

to occur within the project site. Birds protected under the MBTA are discussed further below. 

Migratory Birds 

Migratory birds and other birds of prey, protected under 50 CFR 10 of the MBTA, have the potential to 

nest in the ornamental landscape trees and forage within the nonnative annual grassland within the project 

site. The nesting season for raptors and other migratory birds occurs between March 1 and September 15. 

Several birds were observed foraging during the biological surveys of the project site. No birds were 

observed nesting during the biological surveys of the project site. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-26 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Critical Habitat 

The USFWS (2011a) list identifies critical habitat as occurring within Skagit County for marbled murrelet 

and northern spotted owl. The project site does not occur within designated critical habitat for these 

species (USFWS, 2011b). The project site does not occur within designated critical habitat and EFH for 

Chinook salmon and for bull trout as there is no hydrological connection to any of the tributaries 

identified within the EFHs because there are no waterways within the project site. 

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

An archaeological survey of the entire project site was conducted by AES in October 2009. The cultural 

resources study is bound under separate cover as Confidential Appendix B to this EA. The cultural 

resources study included a literature search, field survey, and Native American consultation to identify 

and evaluate any prehistoric and historic-period resources within or adjacent to the project site that may 

be impacted by the proposed undertaking. Following is a summary of applicable sections of the cultural 

resources study. 

3.5.1 REGULATORY SETTING

National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended, and its implementing 

regulations found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800, require federal agencies to identify 

cultural resources that may be affected by actions involving federal lands, funds, or permitting. The 

significance of the resources must be evaluated using established criteria outlined 36 CFR 60.4, as 

described below. 

If a resource is determined to be a historic property, Section 106 of the NHPA requires that effects of the 

undertaking on the resource be determined. A historic property is defined as: 

“...any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, 

records, and material remains related to such a property.” (NHPA Sec. 301[5]). 

The criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), defined in 36 CFR 60.4, are as 

follows: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is 

present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess 

integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-27 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Sites younger than 50 years, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NEPA requires that federal agencies take all practical measures to “preserve important historic, cultural, 

and natural aspects of our national heritage” (NHPA, Section 800.8(a)). NEPA’s mandate for considering 

the impacts of a federal project on important historic and cultural resources is similar to that of Section 

106 of the NHPA, and the two processes are generally coordinated when applicable. Section 800.8(a) of 

NHPA’s implementing regulations provides guidance on coordination with NEPA. 

Antiquities Act 

Passed in 1906, the Antiquities Act prohibits the collection, destruction, injury, or excavation of “any 

historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity” that is situated on federal land 

without permission of the appropriate land management agency. The Antiquities Act also provides for 

the criminal prosecution, including fines and imprisonment, for individuals who commit one or more of 

the acts described above. 

3.5.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES SETTING

The following discussion of the cultural setting of the project area is condensed from the information 

presented in the cultural resources study, Confidential Appendix B of this document. 

Prehistoric Overview 

The Northwest Coast was first occupied by humans at the end of the Pleistocene when the glaciers 

receded between the period of 12,000 to 10,000 years before present (BP). Evidence for the earliest 

occupation of the region is found at archaeological sites on inland river terraces. Between the period of 

ca. 6,000 and 2,500 BP, people in the Northwest Coast expanded the types of resources procured. 

Additionally, technology advanced in tandem to account for processing and storing these types of 

resources. Evidence for procurement of marine resources appears and shell middens become common 

after 4,000 BP. The period of 2,500 BP and European contact (AD 1790) on the Northwest Coast 

represents fully developed cultures that appear much like those documented in the ethnographic record. 

These cultures were reliant on marine resources located closer to the coast, while further inland groups 

were dependent upon hunting, gathering, and freshwater fishing. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-28 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Ethnography 

The project area is located within the traditional territory of the Samish Indian Nation (Nelson, 2006, 

Suttles, 1990). The Samish traditionally followed a semi-mobile life spending the winter in villages and 

separating into smaller groups during the summer months. Early accounts of the Samish indicate winter 

villages were present on the Fidalgo, Samish, and Guemes islands (Ruby and Brown, 1992, Samish 

Indian Nation, 2002). Summers were spent gathering resources, primarily fish and shellfish, at seasonal 

camps located on, but not limited to, Lopez, Cypress, Blakely and San Juan Islands. 

Ethnographic accounts of the Samish provide data regarding their political and social organization. 

Several accounts indicate that villages were headed by informal chiefs. These leaders were wealthy men 

whose influence usually did not reach beyond the boundaries of their village. Regional organization 

among distinct groups provided support during times of conflict, but the evidence suggests this remained 

informal and intervillage organization did not exist on a formal level (Suttles 1990:464-465). Social 

stratification among the Samish was more formal than the political organization. 

History 

The fur trader Charles Barkley first discovered the Strait of Juan de Fuca in 1787. Within the next decade 

many Spanish explorers moved through the area; however, the Fraser River was not discovered until 1808 

by fur trader Simon Fraser of the North West Company. At the time, it seemed the indigenous people had 

not yet encountered Europeans, although they had some metal objects likely obtained through diffusion of 

European material culture. In 1811, fur traders seeking beaver pelts established a fort on the mouth of the 

Columbia River, likely interacting with and influencing the nearby Samish groups. 

In 1827 the Hudson’s Bay Company established Fort Langley on the Fraser River, which instigated trade 

of materials, labor, and wives between the native and European people. Fort Victoria was established in 

1843 and quickly became a center for Indian trade. Native people travelled from as far as Alaska to trade 

at Ft. Victoria (Suttles 1990:470-471). 

The Treaty of Washington, signed in 1846, imposed new political boundaries upon the traditional groups 

of the Northwest Coast. The traditional territory of the larger Coast Salish, to which the Samish belong, 

was divided into Canada and the United States. The Samish ended up on the American side of the border. 

In 1858 gold was discovered on the Fraser River bringing an influx of Euro-American miners into the 

area. The same year the Oblate order of Christians established their base on Vancouver Island. They 

established two Oblate schools in the area and in the following years converted many native peoples into 

Christianity (Suttles, 1990: 471). 

By the 1870s, local canneries employed men as fishermen, and women and children worked in the 

canning process. Agriculture was adopted and by 1880 successful farmers were present on many of the 

reserves (Suttles 1990:471). 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-29 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

In 1860, the first Euro-American homesteads were established at March’s Point, just north of the project 

area. The area was first known by the name of Ship Harbor (Meany 1923:7). The first Euro-Americans 

made a life by farming fruit, hops, cauliflower seeds, and cabbage, as well as raising cattle. Enoch 

Compton, James Kavanaugh, William Munks, Charles and Robert Beale, William Bonner, Hiram March, 

Henry Barkhousen, and John and Almina Griffen were among the first white settlers to arrive in the area. 

Some settlers joined with native women, such as Henry Barkhousen, who married Julia, a daughter of 

Samish Chief Sehome and resided on March’s Point, and James Kavanaugh, who married Tol Stola, the 

daughter of a Swinomish chief (City of Anacortes, 2004). 

In the 1870s, Amos Bowman, a railroad engineer, moved into the area that today is the City of Anacortes. 

He established a post office, a wharf and a store, which were beginning of Anacortes. As a train engineer, 

it was his aspiration that Anacortes be the final west coast stop on the transcontinental railroad. 

Anacortes experienced a population boom in anticipation of the railroad. In 1889, the Seattle and 

Northern railway established several connector lines that brought train service between Seattle and the 

Canadian border. Railroad tracks were laid on the western shore of Fidalgo Bay, through the Weaverling 

Spit and onto a trestle that crossed to March’s Point. In August 1890, trains began arriving at Anacortes, 

but the city was not chosen as the railroad terminus. Consequently, many people and businesses left and 

the area experienced an economic depression. In 1891, Anacortes was incorporated into a city, which 

Bowman named after his wife (City of Anacortes, 2004). 

The industry in the area shifted to fishing and lumber after disappointment of the transcontinental 

railroad. During the early 1900s, fish-processing plants employed hundreds of area people, most of which 

closed by the 1960s. Only Trident Seafoods, Sugiyo and Seabear remain in business today. During the 

same time, Anacortes was the site of five sawmills and six shingle mills. Eventually, the logging industry 

in Anacortes would include wood mills, pulp mills and box mills. Today, the regional economy is 

dominated by tourism, technology firms and refineries owned by Shell and Texaco (City of Anacortes, 

2004). 

3.5.3 RESULTS OF CULTURAL STUDIES

Documentation of cultural resources within the project site was achieved through review of pertinent 

anthropological literature, historic documents and maps, a records search at the Northwest Information 

Center (NWIC), Native American consultation, and a field examination of the project site by professional 

archaeologists. 

Records and Literature Search 

As part of this study, a records search was conducted at the Washington State Department of Archaeology 

and Historic Preservation (DAHP), on October 20, 2009. The DAHP is the official state repository of 

archaeological and historic records and reports for all of Washington State, and is located in Olympia. 

Additional research was conducted using the files and literature maintained at AES. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-30 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

The NWIC records search verified that archaeologists recorded no prehistoric cultural resources or 

historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). However, archaeologists have recorded two 

cultural resources within the 0.25-mi (0.40 km) records search of the APE. 

Native American Consultation 

A request was made to the Washington State Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs (OIA) on September 6, 

2011 to search its Sacred Lands Inventory File and to submit a list of local Native American contacts that 

might have information regarding the APE. BIA has begun consultation with area tribal representatives. 

Field Surveys 

AES conducted a reconnaissance survey of the property in April 2009. The reconnaissance survey 

consisted of the archaeologist walking 10 m (33 ft) linear transect intervals in a west to east direction 

starting at the southwestern most point of the APE. A GPS unit and a compass were used to record 

location data. Data were also recorded in notebooks and with photography. 

3.5.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING

Paleontological resources are defined as the traces or remains of prehistoric plants and animals. Such 

remains often appear as fossilized or petrified skeletal matter, imprints or endocasts, and reside in 

sedimentary rock layers. Fossils are important resources, due to their scientific and educational value. 

This section presents documentation on reported paleontological deposits on the project site and 

surrounding region, as well as an analysis on the potential for unreported paleontological resources to be 

present on the project site. 

Regulatory Background 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 59-209; 16 United States Code 431 et seq.; 34 Stat. 225) calls for 

protection of historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or 

scientific interest on federal land. While neither the Antiquities Act nor its implementing regulations 

(found at 43 CFR 3) explicitly mention fossils or paleontology, the inclusion of “object[s] of antiquity” in 

the Antiquities Act has been interpreted by many federal agencies to extend to paleontological resources. 

As such, projects involving federal lands require permits for paleontological resource evaluation and 

mitigation efforts that involve excavation, collection, etc. Additional provisions appear in the 

Archaeological and Historic Data Preservation Act of 1974, as amended, for the survey, recovery, and 

preservation of significant scientific, prehistoric, historic, archaeological, or paleontological data, in such 

cases wherein this type of data might be otherwise destroyed or irrecoverably lost as a result of federal 

projects. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-31 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Typologies and Formation Processes 

The processes involved in the preservation of paleontological resources result in several types of remains. 

It is noted that only a small percentage of ancient life forms and their traces have been exposed to 

conditions favorable to preservation. Factors affecting the persistence of paleontological resources vary 

between species, and broadly include geological formation processes, climate, soil and rock chemistry, 

and organism morphology. Paleontological resources are discussed here as fossil remains, although other 

types of remains occur elsewhere. 

Fossils are the remains of plants and animals embedded in layers of rock, which have retained some 

degree of their original characteristics over a long period of time. Remains are buried under layers of 

sediment, which under building pressure become sedimentary rock. Paleontological remains can be those 

of organism structure, such as skeletal parts, shells, tree trunks, pollen, endocasts or imprints, or they can 

be remnants of activity, such as footprints or tunnels of burrowing organisms. Soft tissues are less 

frequently fossilized, because they usually decay before fossilization processes take place. Since fossil 

remains occur in sedimentary rock formations, they tend to persist unless the rock has undergone 

significant changes. Fossils, therefore, do not occur in metamorphic rock formations. 

Fossils of considerable age may be subject to varying degrees of mineralization, at times resulting in the 

total replacement of original, organic matter by minerals. The agents of mineralization are most 

commonly comprised of calcium carbonates, such as calcite and aragonite, and silicates, such as quartz, 

opal and chalcedony. Less common materials are iron disulfides such as pyrite and marcasite; limonite; 

sulphates such as gypsum; phosphates such as calcium phosphate and vivianite; and glauconite. These 

minerals are typically transported in minute quantities by seeping water, with aggregation over time. 

Plant fossils, shell fossils, pollen and microfossils are generally less rare than fossils of vertebrates. Thus, 

vertebrate fossils are considered significant. Invertebrate fossils are considered significant if they are 

scarce or diagnostic of date range, or if they constitute a segment of a unique paleoenvironmental 

framework. Paleontologists may additionally determine significance on a case-by case basis. 

Potential for Fossil Discovery 

The depositional environments of the sediments underlying the subject property are from glacial drift 

associated with the Skagit River drainage basin. Fossil occurrences are not usually common in these 

deposits because of the high probability of reworking and damage of any skeletal and plant material as it 

is transported and deposited. 

In addition, indices of significant paleontological resources within the project site and immediate vicinity 

are absent in the sources consulted, and no such resources were observed in the course of surface 

reconnaissance surveys by AES in April, 2009. The geologic formation upon which the project site is 

located has not produced significant paleontological specimens of scientific consequence and is unlikely 

to do so in the future. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-32 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

3.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

3.6.1 SKAGIT COUNTY

Demographics 

The project site lies within the far eastern City limits. In 2010, the City and the surrounding Skagit 

County had populations of 20,332 and 116,901 people respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). 

Between 2000 and 2010, the City saw a population increase of roughly 8.4 percent; Skagit County 

experienced a 13.5 percent rise in the same period. 

City of Anacortes 

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in 2010 there were an estimated 10,577 housing units in the City, 

of which approximately 9,047 units were occupied and 14.5 percent remained vacant (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2010a). Skagit County had an estimated 51,473 housing units in 2010, with a vacancy rate of 

11.5 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). 

3.6.2 SAMISH INDIAN NATION

There are currently 1,544 members enrolled in the Samish Indian Nation; detailed statistical information 

for the Samish Indian Nation was obtained from the 2005 Bureau of Indian Affairs Population and Labor 

Force Report (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2011). At the time of this writing, demographic information for 

the Tribe had not been updated to reflect the 2010 U.S. Census and detailed data from 2005 are the most 

current available for the Tribe. As shown in Table 3-6, there were a total of 1,112 members of the 

Samish Indian Nation in 2005. Of this total, 270 members were eligible for services on or near the Tribal 

services area. Of the eligible Tribal members, 76 were under the age of 16, 168 were between ages 16 

and 64, and 26 were over age 64. 

TABLE 3-6 

SAMISH INDIAN NATION POPULATION ESTIMATES 

Tribe Population Factor Members

Total Enrollment 1112

Service Population on or near Reservation 

Enrollment 270

Under age 16 76

Age 16-64 168

Age 65 and over 26

SOURCE: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2005
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-33 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

3.6.3 ECONOMY

Skagit County had an estimated median household income of $62,814 in 2009, which was approximately 

11 percent higher than the state average of $56,548 the same year (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). Between 

2005 and 2009, the average median household income for the City was $57,288, also slightly above the 

state average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009). 

3.6.4 EXISTING LOCAL COMPETITION

Three existing gas stations are located in the vicinity of the project site along the SR-20 corridor. Two 

gas station / convenience store facilities, the County Corner Mini Mart at 7601 SR-20 (approximately 

1.19 miles west) and the Christianson Road Shell Station (approximately 0.58 mile west), are located to 

the west along SR-20. A third gas station, the Swinomish Chevron, is located within the Swinomish 

Indian Reservation, at 12939 Casino Drive, approximately 2.2 miles to the east. 

3.6.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOR MINORITY AND LOW INCOME 

POPULATIONS

Land uses surrounding the project site consist of industrial/commercial developments, single-family 

residential properties, riparian habitat, and agricultural lands. 

All projects involving a federal action (funding, permit, or land) must comply with Executive Order (EO) 

12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, as amended, which directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to 

identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or 

environment of minority, low-income, and Native American populations to the greatest extent practicable 

and permitted by law. “Low income” and “minority” are defined based on U.S. Census Bureau data and 

established poverty thresholds and are discussed further below. 

The following six principles are provided as guidance for the analysis of environmental justice impacts 

under NEPA (CEQ, 1997c):

 Agencies should consider the composition of the affected area, to determine whether minority 

populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes are present in the area affected by the 

proposed action. 

 Agencies should consider relevant public health data and industry data concerning the potential 

for multiple or cumulative exposure to human health or environmental hazards in the affected 

population and historical patterns of exposure to environmental hazards. 

 Agencies should recognize the interrelated cultural, social, occupational, historical, or economic 

factors that may amplify the natural and physical environmental effects of the proposed agency 

action. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-34 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

 Agencies should, as appropriate, acknowledge and seek to overcome linguistic, cultural, 

institutional, geographic, and other barriers to meaningful participation, and should incorporate 

active outreach to affected groups. 

 Agencies should assure meaningful community representation in the process. 

 Agencies should seek tribal representation in the process. 

According to the CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, 

communities may be considered “minority” under the executive order if one of the following 

characteristics apply: 

 The cumulative percentage of minorities within the affected environment is greater than 50 

percent (primary method of analysis) or 

 The cumulative percentage of minorities within the affected environment is meaningfully greater 

than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 

geographic analysis (secondary method of analysis). 

In 2010, the population of the City was 20,332 persons. Racial/ethnic breakdown of minority populations 

during the same period is presented below (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a):

 White: 18,715 people; 92.0 percent 

 Native American or Alaska Native: 196 people; 1.0 percent 

 Asian: 375 people; 1.8 percent 

 African American: 124 people; 0.6 percent 

 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 25 people; 0.1 percent 

 Two or more races: 619 people; 3.0 percent 

 Other: 278 people; 1.4 percent 

 Hispanic (any race): 902 people; 4.4 percent 

In 2010, the total population for Skagit County was 116,909 people, with the following racial/ ethnic 

breakdown (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a): 

 White: 97,448 people; 83.4 percent 

 Black or African American: 774 people; 0.7 percent 

 American Indian or Alaska Native: 2,516 people; 2.2 percent 

 Asian: 2,080 people; 1.8 percent 

 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 226 people; 0.1 percent 

 Two or more races: 3,739 people; 3.2 percent 

 Other: 10,118 people; 8.7 percent 

 Hispanic (any race): 19,709 people; 16.9 percent 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-35 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Based on these characteristics, neither the City nor Skagit County qualifies as having significant minority 

populations (greater than 50 percent of the total population). However, the minority participation in the 

Samish Tribal service population would likely be substantially different than the surrounding community 

and would, therefore, qualify as a minority population under the CEQ’s secondary method of analysis. 

Communities may be considered “low-income” under the executive order if one of the following 

characteristics applies: 

 The median household income for a census tract is below the poverty line (primary method of 

analysis) or 

 Other indications are present that indicate a low-income community is present within the census 

tract (secondary method of analysis). 

U.S. Census data for the year 2009 estimated the average household size in Skagit County as 2.62 

persons, which results in a federal poverty threshold of $17,089 when conservatively rounded up to three 

persons (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). As identified above, the 2009 median household income in Skagit 

County was $62,814 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). Since the median household income level is $45,725 

above the poverty threshold, Skagit County is not defined as a low-income population according to the 

CEQ methods of analysis. 

3.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 

3.7.1 TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS

This section describes the existing roadways and intersections in the vicinity of the project site. 

INTERSECTIONS

Intersections surrounding the project site were analyzed within a 2011 Transportation Impact Study (TIA) 

produced for the proposed development of the Samish Casino on the property adjacent to the project site 

(Transportation Engineering Northwest, 2011). The transportation study evaluated the following four 

stop-controlled intersections in the vicinity of the project site: 

 SR-20 at Thompson Road (Signalized) 

 Summit Park Road/ Site Access Intersection at Thompson Road (Unsignalized) 

 Stevenson Road at Thompson Road (Unsignalized) 

 SR-20 and Reservation Road (Signalized) 

All intersections were analyzed for the PM commute peak hour (5:00-6:00 PM). 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-36 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

METHODOLOGY

Level of Service 

Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure reflecting the traffic operation of the intersection, with 

LOS A representing best performance, and LOS F the worst. LOS describes the traffic conditions in 

terms of such factors as speed, travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, 

convenience, and safety. Table 3-7 shows the corresponding average total delay per vehicle and a 

description of vehicular conditions at unsignalized intersections for each LOS category from A to F. 

TABLE 3-7 

LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 

Level of Service Average Total Delay 

(seconds/vehicle) Traffic Condition

A <10 No Delay

B >10 – 15 Short Delay

C >15 – 25 Moderate Delay

D >25 – 35 Long Delay

E >35 – 50 Very Long Delay

F >50 Volume > Capacity

SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2000

Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service 

Table 3-8 summarizes the 2011 p.m. peak-hour LOS at each study intersection. The City designated 

LOS C as the minimum acceptable level of service on local roads (rural and residential) and LOS D as the 

minimum on all county connectors and collectors (Principal Arterials and streets within the Central 

Business District (City of Anacortes, 2007). SR-20 is a four lane divided state highway with limited 

access points. It has the highest capacity of 4,400 vehicles per hour and a speed limit of 55 miles per hour 

(MPH). The segment of SR-20 north of the project site currently functions at a Level of Service “C” or 

better. The City Transportation Plan 2017 and 2030 analyses indicated that this roadway segments would 

continues to function at a Level of Service “C” (City of Anacortes, 2007). All four study intersections 

operated at acceptable LOS during both the afternoon peak hours. 

Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian System 

SR-20, Thompson Road, Summit Park Road, Stevenson Road and Reservation Road currently have no 

sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian activity. Further, no bike lanes are provided along these roads, 

which have relatively low traffic volumes. Due to the nature of the surrounding land uses, bicycle and 

pedestrian activity along both of these roadways are low. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-37 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

TABLE 3-8 

PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LOS - 2011 WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 

Intersection Traffic Control

PM Peak Hour

Average 

Delay1

Level of 

Service

1. SR-20 at Thompson Road Stop Light 12 B

2. Summit Park Road/Thompson Road Stop Sign 9 A

3.

Stevenson Road at Thompson Road 

(westbound)

Stevenson Road at Thompson Road 

(southbound)

Stop Sign

None

9

7

A

A

4. SR-20 and Reservation Road Stop Light 14 B

 

NOTES: 1Average total delay in seconds/vehicle. Bold text denotes unacceptable LOS. 

SOURCE: Transportation Engineers Northwest, 2011 

Transit Service 

The City participates in the Skagit Transit system (SKAT) and the area is presently served by Route 410. 

SKAT Route 410 extends from the March’s Point park-and-ride one-half mile to the northeast of the 

project site, through downtown to both Washington State Ferry terminals. Transit service is available 

from 6:40 am to 7:25 pm Monday – Friday and from 8:00 am to 5:30 pm on Saturday. The March’s Point 

park-and-ride provides the closest transit service access point. 

3.8 LAND USE 

The project site is located within the city limits of the City, and is currently undeveloped. NEPA requires 

an assessment of a project’s effect on adopted land use plans as well as plans that have been formally 

proposed and are being actively pursued by officials of the jurisdiction. Accordingly, adopted and 

proposed land use regulations are discussed below. 

3.8.1 CITY OF ANACORTES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 

The City of Anacortes Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) includes goals and policies to guide 

the growth and economic development of the City. The Comprehensive Plan has been updated annually 

since 1995 and a thorough review was conducted in 2007. The Comprehensive Plan 2010 (City of 

Anacortes, 2010) is the most recently compiled version; however, several amendments have been made in 

2011 which are also considered within this EA. As shown in Figure 3-5, the project site is zoned and 

designated as “Light Manufacturing (1)” (LM1), which is intended primarily to accommodate industrial 

type uses that do not need water access or proximity to the central business district or Commercial 

Avenue corridor. Under this designation permitted uses include auto, truck, motorcycle, and RV sales 

and service; parks and playgrounds, both public and private; retail sales when the goods are related to 

items being serviced on-site. Additional uses that are permitted upon approval by the planning 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-38 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

commission and city council include single family homes, grocery stores, marinas and associated uses, 

office buildings, and public and private recreational facilities (City of Anacortes Municipal Code Section 

17.19). 

3.8.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES

Land uses on the approximately 3.3-acre project site include nonnative annual grassland open space and 

ruderal/disturbed areas including dirt roads, graded driveways, remnant housing pads, and piles of metal 

and wood. Land uses surrounding the project site include car sales and service and an oil refinery to the 

north; a church, personal mini-storage facility, and electrical utility facilities to the west; a volunteer fire 

station and residences to the south; and open space and a mini-storage facility to the east. As shown in 

Figure 3-5, the properties immediately surrounding the project site are within the city limits and are 

zoned and designated as LM1. The lands to the south and southeast of the project are within the 

unincorporated portion of the County and are zoned and designated as “Industrial Forest – Natural 

Resource Lands” (IF-NRL), which is intended to ensure that forest lands of long-term commercial 

significance are conserved and managed to provide sustainability. Land uses along Stevenson Road east 

of the March’s Point Site include other retail trades, utilities, government services, mobile home storage, 

and low-density, rural residential. 

3.8.3 AGRICULTURE 

Farmland Protection Policy Act 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to minimize the impact federal programs have on 

the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. It assures that federal 

programs are administered in a matter that is compatible with state and local units of government, and 

private programs and policies to protect farmland (7 U.S.C. § 4201). 

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for the implementation of the FPPA 

and categorizes farmland in a number of ways. These categories include: prime farmland, farmland of 

statewide importance, and unique farmland. Prime farmland is considered to have the best possible 

features to sustain long-term productivity. Farmland of statewide importance includes farmland similar to 

prime farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. 

Unique farmland is characterized by inferior soils and, depending on climate, generally needs irrigation. 

The NRCS fulfills the directives of the Soil and Water Conservation Act (16 USC § 2001-2009) by 

identifying significant areas of concern for the protection of national resources. NRCS uses a land 

evaluation and site assessment (LESA) system to establish a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (FCIR) 

score. The FCIR is completed on form AD-1006 (NRCS, 2011b). The FCIR form has two components: 

land evaluation, which rates soil quality up to 100 points, and the site assessment, which measures other 

factors that affect the property’s viability up to 160 points. 
PROJECT

BOUNDARY

Thompson Road

Stevenson Road

Padilla Bay Padilla Bay

Fidalgo Bay Fidalgo Bay

Simlik Bay Simlik Bay

UV20

Reservation Reservation Road

Figure 3-5

Land Use and Zoning Designations

SOURCE: Skagit County Comprehensive Plan, 2000; Aerial Express Aerial Photograph, 5/2009; AES, 2011 Samish Indian Nation Gas Station EA / 209532

LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT

Anacortes City Limits

Project Boundary

CITY OF ANACORTES ZONING DESIGNATIONS

HM - Heavy Manufacturing

LM1 - Light Manufacturing 1

SKAGIT COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATIONS

A-UD - Anacortes UGA Urban Development District

Ag-NRL - Agricultural

C - Commerical

IF-NRL - Industrial Forest

RB - Commercial/Industrial

RMI - Commercial/Industrial

RRc-NRL - Rural Resource

RRv - Rural Reserve

SF-NRL - Secondary Forest

UGA - Urban Growth Areas

SKAGIT COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

A - Agricultural

ANACORTES UGA - Anacortes Urban Growth Area

IF - Industrial Forest

RB - Rural Business

RI - Rural Intermediate

RMI - Rural Marine Industrial

RR - Rural Residential

RRV - Rural Reserve

SF - Secondary Forest

0 1,000 2,000 Swinomish Urban Growth Area

Feet

!¢N O R T H

Ð
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-40 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

The total FCIR score is used as an indicator for the project’s sponsor to consider alternative sites if the 

potential adverse impacts on the farmland exceed the allowable level; however, the FPPA does not 

require federal agencies to alter projects to avoid or minimize farmland conversion. Sites receiving a 

combined score of less than 160 (out of 260 possible points) do not require further evaluation. For sites 

with a combined score greater than 160 points, at least two other alternatives are required to be considered 

and the alternative with the lowest number of points selected unless there are other overriding 

considerations. 

Project Site Conditions 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) performs a state-by-state census of agriculture every five 

years. The National Agriculture Statistical Service (NASS) collects census data from a list of all known 

potential agriculture operators. The census reports on various statistics relating to crop yields, farm 

acreage, and farm economics. According to the 2007 Census of Agricultural Crop Report, a total of 

108,541 acres in Skagit County were used for farming purposes. The average per-farm market value of 

agricultural products sold by the 1,215 farms in Skagit County in 2007 was approximately $256,248 

(NASS, 2007). 

The NRCS characterizes the project site as being “Prime Farmland if drained” (NRCS, 2011b); however, 

there are currently no farming operations on the site or infrastructure that would support land cultivation. 

3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES 

3.9.1 WATER SUPPLY

Surface water is the main source of water supply for both local municipal and individual domestic water 

systems and contributes significantly to area irrigation practices (City of Anacortes, 2011). Treated water 

from the Skagit River supports a variety of uses including community water system conveyances for 

domestic, commercial, industrial, and agricultural water needs. Water demand from surrounding 

properties within the vicinity of the project site is met through conveyance of treated surface water from 

the City of Anacortes and Skagit Public Utilities District (SPUD) water systems. The project site is 

located on the border between the service areas of these two water systems. 

City of Anacortes 

The City is a major regional water supplier which serves approximately 56,000 customers, including the 

Samish Tribe, the Swinomish Tribe, Shell Oil Refinery, Tesoro Oil Refinery, and neighboring 

communities. Water is sourced from the Skagit River and transferred to a filter station where it passes 

through several types of media before it receives a final injection of chlorine. High speed vertical pumps 

transport the finished treated water to various customers throughout Skagit County. The treatment plant 

has an estimated output of approximately 17 million gallons of potable water per day (MGD) (City of 

Anacortes, 2011a). The water treatment plant is currently undergoing an expansion project which will 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-41 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

increase the capacity of the plant to 42 MGD in order to meet the anticipated demand for the year 2030 

(City of Anacortes, 2011). At present, there is an on-site connection to the City water service. City water 

mains in the area include a 24-inch water supply line located north of the project site across SR-20 and a 

14-inch supply line to the south of the project site along Stevenson Road. 

Skagit Public Utilities District 

The Skagit Public Utilities District (SPUD) contains 150 public water systems within Skagit County. The 

SPUD controls nearly 600 miles of pipeline and 31 million gallons of storage volume. This water is 

provided by streams in the Cultus Mountain watershed that flow into the Skagit River where a diversion 

pump station transports water to the Judy Reservoir impoundment. The SPUD also purchases water from 

the City to maintain levels within the Judy Reservoir during peak system demands and drought conditions 

(SPUD, 2009). At present, there are no on-site connections to the SPUD water service.

3.9.2 WASTEWATER SERVICE

Municipal wastewater service in the area of the project site is provided by either connection to the City 

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) or through individual private septic systems. The City owns and 

operates the WWTP which became operational in 1992 with both primary and secondary treatment 

capabilities. Wastewater is transported via 23 pump stations located across the City of Anacortes to the 

WWTP located on T Avenue. The nearest pump station to the Project Site is located approximately 0.2 

miles to the north on Bartholomew Road. A NPDES permit (no. WA-002025-7) allows the WWTP to 

release treated water into the Guemes Channel via pipes located west of the Port of Anacortes Pier 2 

(WWTP, 2009). Estimated peak capacity for the WWTP is 4.5 MGD, with average daily flows of around 

1.92 MGD. The City has no plans for expanding the WWTP as excess treatment capacity is estimated to 

be sufficient for the foreseeable future (WWTP, 2009). The nearest sewer line is at the intersection of 

Thompson Road and Summit Park Road immediately south of the site. 

3.9.3 SOLID WASTE

The State Solid Waste Management, Reduction, and Recycling Act (SWMRRA; Chapter 70.95 of the 

Revised Code of Washington [RCW]) provides the purpose and authority for solid waste planning in the 

State of Washington and defines the role of counties and cities in solid waste management. The 

Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP) was developed by Skagit County in response 

to Chapter 70.95 of the RCW. The CSWMP addresses solid waste management throughout Skagit 

County and is the guiding document for the cities within the County in relation to their solid waste 

management practices (Skagit County, 2005). 

The City Solid Waste Division operates a solid waste collection system consisting of a fleet of four front 

loading service trucks and one rear loading truck. The waste crew is staffed by four full-time employees 

who haul approximately 654 tons of refuse and perform 1,600 dumpster pickups per month (City of 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-42 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Anacortes, 2011b). Residentially services also include pick-ups of 25,000 garbage cans and 950 pre-paid 

garbage bags each month. 

Solid waste collected within the City is transported to the Skagit County Recycling and Transfer station 

where recyclables are processed and waste is transferred via rail to the Roosevelt Landfill in Klickitat 

County. Roosevelt Landfill is located off State Route 14 north of the town of Roosevelt, approximately 

200 miles southeast of the Skagit County Transfer Station. The landfill currently has a current permitted 

capacity of 120 million tons and a 40 year expected trash receiving life. 

3.9.4 ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Puget Sound Energy (PSE) provides electricity to properties in the vicinity of the project site. PSE is the 

largest energy utility in the State of Washington and serves over one million electric customer and 750 

thousand natural gas customers. Natural gas is provided to the area by Cascade Natural Gas (CNG), 

which operates and maintains facilities in the City, communities of Mt. Vernon and La Conner, and other 

communities within Skagit County. BP Gas also supplies natural gas near the project site via the 

Olympic Pipe Line Company with 16-inch gas lines located on the south side of Stevenson Road, 

approximately 360 feet south of the project site. Many private companies provide telephone, internet, and 

cable services to properties within the vicinity of the project site. Prominent companies offer a host of 

telecommunication services including Comcast, Clear, Wave Broadband, and AT&T. 

3.9.5 LAW ENFORCEMENT

Pursuant to RCW chapter 10.92, either federal or state law enforcement officers may exercise jurisdiction 

over tribal lands in the State of Washington. In order for the state to have jurisdiction on tribal lands, the 

sovereign tribal government and all local government law enforcement agencies that are to have 

jurisdiction on tribal lands must enter into an interlocal agreement pursuant to RCW chapter 39.34 

(Washington, 2008). The Anacortes Police Department (APD) and the Skagit County Sheriff’s Office 

currently exercise jurisdiction to the project site. In addition to patrol and coroner services, the Sheriff’s 

Office maintains K-9 units, a SWAT Team, and a Crisis Response Team. The main sheriff station is 

located in Mt. Vernon. 

The APD serves approximately 16,000 citizens in an area spanning roughly 15 square miles. Patrol and 

emergency response services are provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There are currently 25 

commissioned police officers and six non-commissioned support staff employed by the department (APD, 

2011). 

3.9.6 FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL

The Anacortes Fire Department (AFD) provides fire suppression services to an area of 14 square miles 

including the project site. The AFD also provides advanced life support emergency medical services to 

84 square miles, including the City and Fidalgo and Guemes Islands. Other services provided by the 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-43 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

AFD include public education, fire prevention, limited rescue delivery, and operations level hazardous 

material response (AFD, 2010). 

The AFD has three stations with Station 3 being closest to the project site, located approximately 0.5 mile 

to the east. Station 3 is staffed 12-hrs a day by two firefighter/paramedics. Station 1, located 4.5 miles to 

the northwest, is the largest and houses the administrative staff along with two ambulances, a rescue 

vehicle, two pumper engines, a ladder engine, and a command vehicle. In 2010, the AFD staff consisted 

of three chief officers, 20 career firefighters, seven volunteer firefighters, and one administrative support 

person. 

The Mt. Erie Volunteer Fire Department, also called the Skagit County Fire Protection District 11, is a 

class eight rural fire department covering an area of 15 square miles along the southern end of Fidalgo 

Island. The department is overseen by three commissioners and is staffed by 25 volunteer firefighters. 

Two fire stations are operated by the department, with Station 2 being the closest to the project site, 

located approximately three miles to the southwest. Station 2 houses two Class A fire engines, a brush 

engine, and also houses one engine owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to 

allow for immediate response readiness to unexpected fires. 

The Summit Park Volunteer Fire Department also has equipment stored at a station approximately 1,500 

feet east of the site at 8652 Stevenson Road. Additionally, the Summit Park Fire Department operates a 

fire station at 9575 Padilla Road approximately 1 mile east of the site. Both of these stations are in Skagit 

County and would provide support to the AFD, if necessary, through mutual aid agreements. 

3.9.7 PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The project site is located within the Anacortes School District (ASD). ASD currently provides 

educational services to the project site and surrounding area through three elementary schools, one middle 

school, two high schools, as well as a pre-school and home education partnership. Schools in close 

proximity to the project site that are part of the ASD include the Fidalgo Elementary School, Anacortes 

Middle School, and Anacortes High School. During the 2010-2011 school-year, ASD had approximately 

2,590 students, with an average pupil to teacher ratio of 24:1 (ASD, 2011). 

3.9.8 PARKS AND RECREATION

There are approximately 25 County operated parks, open space lands, sports fields, day use areas, and 

other recreational properties located throughout Skagit County. The Skagit County Parks and Recreation 

Department manages over 1,700 acres of park land (Skagit County, 2004). There were 21 full-time and 

two part-time works employed by the department in 2004. Services off by the County’s Parks and 

Recreation Department also include soccer, baseball, and volleyball leagues. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-44 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

The City has approximately 20 parks, community forest lands, and playgrounds. The City’s Parks and 

Recreation Staff employs 14 individuals, with several administration and maintenance facilities located 

throughout Anacortes. Parks within the vicinity of the Project Site include the Tommy Thompson 

Parkway and the Alice Parchman Newman Park, both located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the 

project site. 

3.10 NOISE 

3.10.1 NOISE EXPOSURE AND COMMUNITY NOISE

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, 

exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB 

corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the 

threshold of pain. 

Environmental noise is typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). A dBA is a dB corrected for 

the variation in frequency response of the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. In 

general, A-weighting of environmental sound consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound, 

taking into account the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extremely high 

frequencies than in the frequency mid-range. 

An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of 

noise at a given instant in time. However, community noise varies continuously over a period of time 

with respect to the contributing sound sources in the community noise environment. What makes 

community noise constantly variable throughout a day is the addition of short duration single event noise 

sources such as aircraft flyovers, vehicle pass-bys, sirens, etc., which are readily identifiable to the 

individual. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment changes the 

community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period 

of time to appropriately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise 

impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise 

descriptors such as equivalent noise level (Leq), day/night noise level (Ldn), and Community Noise 

Equivalent Level (CNEL), which averages noise over a specified number of hours, generally 24-hours. 

Construction noise is a common component of community noise. Construction noise is dominated by 

heavy equipment. In general, construction noise is intermittent and short-term in nature and generally 

occurs during the daytime hours. 

Vibration 

The effects of groundborne vibrations typically cause only a nuisance to people, but buildings or 

structures may be damaged at extreme vibration levels. Although groundborne vibration can be felt 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-45 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

outdoors, it is typically an annoyance only indoors, where the associated effects of the building shaking 

can be notable. Groundborne noise is an effect of groundborne vibration and only occurs indoors, since it 

is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may consist of the 

rattling of windows or dishes on shelves. 

Peak particle velocity (PPV) is often used to measure vibration. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak 

(inches per second) of the vibration signal. Scientific studies have shown that human responses to 

vibration vary by the source of vibration, which is either continuous or transient. Continuous sources of 

vibration include construction, while transient sources include truck movements. Generally, the 

thresholds of perception and annoyance are higher for transient sources than for continuous sources. 

Structural damage can occur when PPV values are 0.5 inches per second or greater. Annoyance can 

occur at levels as low as 0.1 inches per second and become strongly perceptible at approximately 0.9 

inches per second (Caltrans, 2004). 

Table 3-9 shows PPV vibration levels caused by representative construction equipment, as published by 

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 

TABLE 3-9 

VIBRATION LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

Equipment PPV at 25 feet 

(inches/second)

Large bulldozer 0.089

Excavator 0.089

Compactor 0.170

Scaper 0.089

Loaded trucks 0.076

Small bulldozer 0.003

 

 SOURCE: FTA, 2006. 

3.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) establishes noise abatement criteria (NAC) for various 

land uses that have been categorized based upon activity. Land uses are categorized on the basis of their 

sensitivity to noise as indicated in Table 3-10. The FHWA NAC is based on peak traffic hour noise 

levels. 

Sensitive receptors with the potential to be impacted by the project alternatives include residential land 

uses; thus, Category B 67 dBA Leq noise standard would apply for the Proposed Project. Since the 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-46 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

FHWA and the City do not have noise standards for construction, for this analysis the activity criteria 

provided in Table 3-10 will be used to evaluate impacts to the noise environment from construction 

activities. 

3.10.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others due to the amount of noise exposure (in 

terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. 

TABLE 3-10 

FEDERAL NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL DECIBELS \1\1

Activity 

Category

Activity 

Criteria2 Evaluation 

Location

Activity Category Description

Leq (h), dBA3

A 57 Exterior

Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary 

significance and serve an important public need and 

where the preservation of those qualities is essential if 

the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.

B

4

67 Exterior Residential

C

4

67 Exterior

Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, 

campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, 

hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic 

areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting 

rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio 

studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 

4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails and trail 

crossings.

D 52 Interior

Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, 

medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting 

rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio 

studios, recording studios, schools, and television 

studios. 

E

4

72 Exterior

Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other 

developed lands, properties or activities not included 

in A-D or F.

F -- --

Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, 

industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, shipyards, 

utilities (water resources, water treatment, electricity), 

and warehousing. 

G -- -- Undeveloped lands that are not permitted

1 Either Leq(h) may be used on a project.

2 Hourly A-weighted sound level, decibels (dBA).

3

The leq() and l10(h) Activity Criteria values are for impacts determination only, and are not design standards 

for noise abatement measures.

4 Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category. 

SOURCE: FHWA, 2010.
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-47 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, and 

parks and other outdoor recreation areas generally are more sensitive to noise than commercial or 

industrial land uses. A sensitive receptor is defined as any living entity or aggregate of entities whose 

comfort, health, or well-being could be impaired or endangered by the existence of the criteria pollutant, 

whether it is emissions or noise, in the atmosphere. 

Sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the project site include the three single-family residences 

located 450 to 500 feet south of the project site and the church located approximately 150 feet west of the 

Project Site. 

3.10.4 EXISTING NOISE SOURCES

The project site is adjacent to several existing noise sources. Traffic noise from SR-20 dominates the 

noise environment in the vicinity of the project site. Commercial activities such as diesel trucks, 

contribute to the existing ambient noise level in the area. There are no existing sources of vibration in the 

vicinity of the Proposed Project. 

3.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

EXISTING CONDITIONS

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was conducted for a study area that included the 

3.3-acre project site to determine if any Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) exist (PBS&J, 

2008). RECs refer to the presence or likely presence of conditions on a property that indicate an existing 

release, a past release, or a material threat of release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products 

on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. This includes 

hazardous substances and petroleum products. The Phase I ESA was prepared in accordance with the 

BIA Guidelines (602 DM Chapter 2) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

Standard Practice E 1527-05. The Phase I ESA included site reconnaissance, review of federal and state 

regulatory agency records and databases, interviews with local officials and property owners and review 

of historical aerial photographs of the 3.3-acre project site. No RECs were recorded on the property. 

The Texaco, Inc. site, approximately one-half mile from the subject property, was found during a review 

of regulatory agency database search (PBS&J, 2008). Based on the proximity to the subject property this 

site does not constitute a potential REC associated with the subject property. 

The Venoil, LLC Anacortes site, located approximately one-third mile from the subject property, was 

found during a review of regulatory agency database search (PBS&J, 2008). Based on the proximity to 

the subject property this site does not constitute a potential REC associated with the subject property. 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-48 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

The Frontier Ford Anacortes facility is situated northwest of the subject property to the northwest. This 

facility has not stored hazardous waste since 2003 and there are no outstanding violations at the facility 

(EDR, 2008a). Soil at the site has been impacted by a release in 1992 related to underground storage 

tanks (USTs) (EDR 2008a). Groundwater has not been reported as impacted (Section 5.2). The status of 

this facility is reported as “Reported Cleaned Up” which indicates that the facility has reported that the 

release has been resolved but Ecology has not yet released the facility from further action (EDR 2008a). 

Based on the status of this facility and the lack of groundwater impacts, the Frontier Ford Anacortes 

facility does not constitute a potential REC associated with the subject property. 

Based on the site reconnaissance of the project site, review of federal and state regulatory agency records 

and databases, interviews with property owners and review of historical aerial photographs, the Phase I 

ESA did not identify any RECs on the project site. 

REGULATORY SETTINGS

FEDERAL

At the federal level, the principal agency regulating the generation, transport and disposal of hazardous 

substances is the EPA, under the authority of RCRA. The EPA regulates hazardous substance sites under 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Applicable 

federal regulations are contained primarily in Titles 29, 40, and 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

The following represent federal laws and guidelines governing hazardous substances. 

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

 CAA

 Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

 Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

 Guidelines for Carcinogens and Biohazards 

 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III (SARA) 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

 Safe Drinking Water Act 

 Toxic Substances Control Act 

The Samish Tribe would be required to conform to federal regulations under 40 CFR 280, Technical 

Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks 

(USTs). Systems subject to these requirements are exempt from other federal regulation, including 40 

CFR 112 Oil Pollution Prevention, to eliminate redundancy and streamline paperwork. 

40 CFR 280 includes requirements for tank installation, monitoring and reporting, corrective action, 

remediation and site cleanup, and tank closure and removal. The regulation cites industry standards for 
3.0 Affected Environment 

Analytical Environmental Services 3-49 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

tank design, integrity testing, repair, corrosion protection, release detection, and interstitial monitoring. 

The regulation is implemented at the federal level by the EPA. The implementing agency for the project 

site would be EPA Region 10. 

3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES 

The project site is currently undeveloped and contains grass and shrubs (Figure 3-4). The visual 

characteristics of the project site and surrounding areas are typical of semi-rural development along SR20 within the City and Skagit County. Commercial/industrial development, rural residential units, and 

scattered retail uses are located along SR-20 and surrounding roads. The Summit Park Bible Church is 

located west of the site and PSE electric transmission substation is located to the southwest of the site. 

Visual resources surrounding the project site include views of the Cascade Mountains to the east, 

including Mount Baker. Fidalgo Bay is also visible from the project site vicinity. Traffic volumes are 

low within the vicinity with the exception of the SR-20 corridor.

The City Comprehensive Plan designation for the project site is Light Manufacturing (LM1), which 

allows industrial type uses, as well as multi-family residential housing and parks. The property site is not 

located in the vicinity of a state or county designated scenic highway. 

Following the transfer of the project site into federal trust, local General Plan designations and zoning 

regulations would no longer apply to the parcels. Although the Samish Tribe’s plans for the land would 

not be consistent with a Light Manufacturing designation, the development would generally be in keeping 

with the surrounding land uses. 
SECTION 4.0 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Analytical Environmental Services 4-1 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

SECTION 4.0 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

In this section, environmental consequences are described for Alternative A (Proposed Action) and 

Alternative B (No-Action). Areas that are analyzed include direct and indirect impacts to land resources, 

water resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, socioeconomic conditions and 

environmental justice, transportation and circulation, land use, public services, noise, hazardous materials, 

and visual resources. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations state that direct impacts 

are those caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, while indirect impacts are caused by 

the action and occur later in time or further in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (CEQ 1508.8). 

Cumulative and growth-inducing effects of the Proposed Action are also assessed for each of these issue 

areas. 

4.1 ALTERNATIVE A - PROPOSED PROJECT 

4.1.1 LAND RESOURCES

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Impacts to land resources would be significant if the project changes topography so that it is noticeable to 

the casual observer, or adversely and unavoidably affects drainage in the area. Seismic conditions would 

be significantly affected if the proposed project substantially increases the occurrence of seismic events or 

increases the risks from seismic events. Impacts to soils would be significant if the project significantly 

and unavoidably increases soil erosion. Mineral resources would be significantly affected if the project 

reduces the regional availability of commercial mineral resources or increases the cost of extracting 

mineral resources. 

TOPOGRAPHY

No major changes to topography would result from construction of the proposed development or related 

infrastructure. Construction of the Proposed Project would require grading of a total of approximately 

1.78 acres. Drainage patterns would be maintained as discussed in Section 4.1.2. Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures related to land resources are included in Section 5.1. As the 

grading activities proposed during the construction stage would not create changes from the existing site 

topography, the implementation of the measures in Section 5.1 would result in less than significant 

impacts to topography. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-2 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

SEISMIC CONDITIONS

The projected earthquake magnitudes for the region indicate that the project site could potentially be 

exposed to future seismic shaking (USGS, 2009). Construction of the Proposed Project would adhere to 

the standards equivalent to the International Building Code (IBC), 2009 Edition, regarding seismic 

protection. Use of these IBC standards would allow ground shaking-related hazards to be managed from 

a geologic, geotechnical, and structural standpoint such that risks to the health or safety of workers or 

members of the public would be reduced. Therefore, impacts from potential seismic conditions would be 

less than significant. 

SOIL TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS

The soil types located within development areas on the project site are characterized by minimal slopes 

and slight erosion hazards. During construction of the development components, the exposure of soil 

increases the risk of erosion. With compliance with the BMPs required within the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

General Construction Permit as described in Section 2.1.9 and the implementation of mitigation measures 

within Section 5.0, the potential for erosion would be less than significant.

MINERAL RESOURCES

As stated in Section 3.1.5, there are no known mineral resources within the project area, and the project 

site is located outside regions where significant mineral resources are likely to occur. Construction of the 

Proposed Project would not result in the loss of mineral resources. No mitigation is warranted. 

With implementation of the mitigation measures listed in Section 5.1, all potential impacts to land 

resources would be less than significant. 

4.1.2 WATER RESOURCES

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Impacts on water resources would be significant if runoff from the site causes local flooding or introduces 

additional contaminants to stormwater runoff that leaves the site. Groundwater impacts would be 

significant if the project adversely affects local water supply either by reducing the availability of potable 

water or increasing the demand for domestic water to the point where the existing water supply system 

would need to be expanded. Water quality would be significantly affected if wastewater or runoff 

generated by the project does not meet national water quality standards, including the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-3 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

SURFACE WATER, DRAINAGE, AND FLOODING

The Proposed Project (Figure 2-1) would increase impervious surfaces on the project site by 

approximately 1.78-acres through construction of the gas station and convenience store. Increased 

impervious surfaces would result in increased peak flows and increased total discharge from the project 

site during wet weather events. If not properly managed, this could increase stormwater flows to area 

drainage systems and cause localized flooding. To reduce this impact, drainage would be directed 

through on-site vegetated swales to an on-site retention pond. Water from the retention pond would be 

directed off-site through an existing drainage ditch prior to entering the existing 18-inch Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT) stormwater culvert that conveys stormwater to the existing 

drainage structure under SR-20 (western/central portion). An additional discharge point would dissipate 

stormwater overland to the existing drainage ditch on the adjacent, tribal-owned property (eastern 

portion). No significant impacts related to drainage would occur. 

All parcels on which buildings and associated infrastructure would be constructed are located outside the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated 100-year flood zone (Appendix C). No 

significant impacts related to flooding would occur. 

WATER SUPPLY AND GROUNDWATER

Water would be provided by connection to either an existing City water supply line that runs along 

Stevenson Road to the south of the site or by existing lines to the north of SR-20. Due to the modest size 

of development components under Alternative A and the planned tie-in to the City water distribution 

system, groundwater impacts from Alternative A would be less than significant. Mitigation measures in 

Section 5.2 would further protect groundwater supply and reduce water demand. 

WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Wastewater would be treated and disposed of at the existing City wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), 

which is subject to an existing NPDES permit (NPDES Permit # WA-002025-7). Wastewater from the 

Proposed Project would be similar to that produced at other commercial enterprises in the City. No 

significant impacts to water quality would occur through the connection to WWTP due to approved 

treatment and discharge standards currently in place at the City WWTP. 

WATER QUALITY

The Samish Tribe is required to adhere to the provisions of the federal CWA on trust property. To 

comply with these regulations and further reduce the effects of stormwater-associated pollutants, the 

Samish Tribe shall comply with the terms of the USEPA General Construction NPDES permit. This 

permit would include preparation and implementation of a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention 

Plan (SWPPP) and proper implementation of stormwater BMPs. With implementation of these NPDES 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-4 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

permit BMPs, development of on-site stormwater retention swales, and recommended mitigation 

measures described in Section 5.2, potential impacts to water quality would be less than significant. 

Section 5.2 also describes measures to prevent fuel spills, overfills, and tank corrosion. These measures 

include appropriate site design, fuel transfer measures, overfill protection, corrosion performance 

standards, leak detention systems, and maintenance measures. 

4.1.3 AIR QUALITY

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

A significant impact to regional air quality would occur if the Proposed Project emits criteria air 

pollutants (CAPs) which exceed de minimis levels in a nonattainment or maintenance area. 

A significant impact to climate change would occur if emissions from the Proposed Project exceed the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) reporting threshold. 

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Construction would entail earthwork, fine grading, and construction using a mix of trucks, scrapers, and 

excavators. Effects on air quality during construction were evaluated by estimating the quantity of 

pollutants emitted over the duration of the construction period. Particulate matter is the primary pollutant 

of concern resulting from earth-moving activities. 

Volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide 

(CO) emissions from the construction would be produced primarily by diesel-fueled equipment use. The 

majority of these emissions would be generated by construction equipment and haul trips to the project 

site. Emissions from diesel-fueled trucks and construction equipment were calculated using EPA 

approved emission factors from 2007 Off-Road air quality model. 

CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS

Construction of the Proposed Project would emit PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, VOC, GHGs, and 

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) primarily in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the use of 

construction equipment and grading activities. Emissions from construction equipment have the potential 

to increase the concentration of DPM in the close vicinity (within approximately 500 feet) of the 

construction site, if control measures are not implemented. 

Construction is anticipated to begin in 2013 and last approximately 6 months. Construction is assumed to 

occur for 8-hours a day, 5 days a week. It is assumed that construction would consist of a 10,000 square 

foot convenience store with eight fuel pumps. The construction emission totals for the Proposed Project 

are shown in Table 4-1. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-5 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

TABLE 4-1 

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Construction Activity

Criteria Pollutants

VOC NO2 CO SO2 PM10 PM 2.5

Tons per Year

Proposed Project

Site Grading 0.06 0.78 0.29 0.11 0.05 0.05

Building 0.63 2.87 3.4 0.28 0.31 0.3

Total 

Emissions 0.69 3.65 2.69 0.39 0.36 0.35

Conformity De Minimus Levels N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Exceedance of Levels N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

SOURCE: Mobile6.2, 2003, AES, 2012.

The project site is in a region of attainment for all criteria pollutants. Under the federal Clean Air Act 

(CAA) 40 CFR Part 93, if a region is in attainment for all criteria pollutants, then the region meets the 

NAAQS and there are no de minimis levels or “thresholds” for project emissions. Mitigation measures 

provided in Section 5.3 would minimize construction related emissions of criteria pollutants and also 

reduce DPM emissions from construction equipment, avoiding potentially adverse effects to nearby 

sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not result in significant 

adverse effects associated with the regional air quality environment. 

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

Emission factors in grams per vehicle miles traveled (g/vmt) were estimated for patron vehicles during 

January and July (winter and summer) and evaluated using EPA’s model MOBILE6.2 (EPA, 2003). 

MOBILE6.2 calculates emission factors for gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled light-duty vehicles, trucks, 

heavy-duty vehicles, and motorcycles. The model accounts for progressively more stringent tailpipe 

emission standards over the vehicle model years evaluated. MOBILE6.2 model input data are site 

specific and the output data are provided in Appendix D. 

Mobile Source Emissions 

Emissions of PM10, NOx, SO2, CO, VOC, and CO2 from vehicles traveling to, from, and within the project 

site were calculated. Calculations were based on emission factors derived from the EPA’s MOBILE6.2 

air quality model (EPA, 2003), trip estimations developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, and 

estimated number of patrons. Emissions factors for SO2 were derived from the EPA’s AP 42 and used to 

estimate project related SO2 emissions (EPA, 1995). 

Stationary Source Emissions 

Natural gas would be used as fuel for hot water boilers, and water heaters. Based on facilities of similar 

size, annual gas usage for the Proposed Project is estimated at 2 million standard cubic feet (MMscf) of 

natural gas use. Emissions from fugitive gas vapor were calculated assuming 650,000 gallons of gas sold 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-6 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

per month. Emissions from natural gas combustion and fugitive gas vapor were calculated using 

emission factors from AP-42 (EPA, 1995). 

Operations Analysis 

The Proposed Project would generate mobile emissions from patron, employee, and delivery vehicles, as 

well as stationary emissions from combustion of natural gas from equipment on the project site. 

Estimated mobile and stationary emissions from operation of the Proposed Project are provided in Table 

4-2. Detailed calculations of vehicle and area emissions are included as Appendix D. 

TABLE 4-2 

OPERATION EMISSIONS 

Construction 

Activity Criteria Pollutants (Tons per Year)

VOC NO2 CO SO2 PM10 PM 2.5

Stationary 3.61 0 0.01 0 0.01 0

Mobile 1.9 2.7 33.8 0 0.1 0.1

Fugitive Gas 

Vapor 19.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 

Emissions 25.01 2.7 33.81 0 0.11 0.1

Conformity De 

Minimus 

Levels

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N

/

A

Exceedance 

of Levels N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A = not applicable; de minimus level are not applicable due to attainment status (refer to Section 3.4).

SOURCE: Mobile6.2, 2003.

The project site is in a region of attainment for all criteria pollutants. Under the federal CAA 40 CFR Part 

93, if a region is in attainment for all criteria pollutants, then the region meets the NAAQS and there are 

no de minimis levels or “thresholds” for project emissions. Mitigation provided in Section 5.3 would 

further reduce criteria air pollution emissions from operation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, 

operation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with the 

regional air quality environment. 

FEDERAL GENERAL CONFORMITY 

The Proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Northwest Clean Air Agency (Skagit 

County included); an area of attainment for all federal CAPs (refer to Table 3-4). Because the site is 

within a federal air quality attainment area, a general conformity determination is not warranted. 

Climate Change 

The Proposed Project would emit greenhouse gases during construction and operation similar to other 

developments of similar size. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most prevalent greenhouse gases (GHG) and is 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-7 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

used as a measurement standard (CO2 equivalent) for other GHG such as methane. The CEQ has issued 

draft guidance for evaluating project-level climate change impacts under NEPA and is currently in the 

process of finalizing their evaluation guidance. The CEQ NEPA Guidance requires that a project’s GHG 

emissions be quantified and an analysis conducted, particularly if the project is projected to directly emit 

greater than 25,000 metric tons (MT) per year of CO2. The guidance suggests that 25,000 metric tons of 

Carbon Dioxide-equivalent provides a “useful indicator” for identifying when climate change analysis 

may prove “meaningful’; therefore, for this analysis a 25,000 MT threshold will be used. 

Development of the Proposed Project would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions related to 

mobile sources (trips generated), area sources (components of the Proposed Project that directly emit 

GHGs), and indirect sources related to electricity, wastewater processing, and water transport. 

Methodology 

Two recent federal court decisions (Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S., 1275 S.Ct. 

1438, 1462 [2007] and Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Safety Administration, 508 

F.3d 508 [9th Cir. 2007]), CEQ draft Guidance, and slowly increasing scientific consensus have resulted 

in general guidance regarding appropriate GHG analysis (Section 3.4).

The approach used herein involves a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis focusing on the 

project’s impact on federal and state efforts to reduce cumulative GHG emissions. The following analysis 

is consistent with the CEQ’s Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change 

and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, released on February 18, 2010, which requires that a NEPA analysis of 

climate change quantify project-related GHG emissions and mitigate those emissions. 

Global warming is a global issue that is not being caused by any single development project, but by 

global increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations. Thus, global warming is most effectively addressed 

on a global or regional level. Washington’s global warming policies and legislation (most notably 

Executive Order 07-02 and SB 6001) are intended to be regional approaches to ensure that statewide 

emissions are reduced substantially in the future (to levels much lower than existing levels). 

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 

Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a method by which GHGs other than CO2 are converted to a CO2-

like emission value based on a heat-capturing ratio. As shown in Table 4-3, CO2 is used as the base and 

is given a value of one. CH4 has the ability to capture 21 times more heat than CO2; therefore, CH4 is 

given a CO2e value of 21. Emissions are multiplied by the CO2e value to achieve one GHG emission 

value. By providing a common measurement, CO2e provides a means for presenting the relative overall 

effectiveness of emission reduction measures for various GHGs in reducing project contributions to 

global climate change. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-8 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

TABLE 4-3 

GREENHOUSE GAS CO2 EQUIVALENT 

Gas CO2e Value

CO2 1

CH4 21

N2O 310

HFCs/PFCs16,500

SF6

1

23,900

NOTES: CO2e =Carbon dioxide equivalent

1 High-global warming potential pollutants

CH4 = methane, N2O = nitrous oxide

HFCs/PFCs = hydroflourocarbons/perflourocarbons

SF6 = sulfur hexaflouride

SOURCE: IPCC, 2007, AES, 2012

GHG Emission Estimates and Reduction Measures 

EPA Mobile6.2 and OFFROAD 2007 emissions modeling software were used to estimate area, 

construction, and mobile emissions. CH4 and N2O emissions from mobile sources were estimated using 

emission factors from the Local Government Operations Protocols (LGOP, 2008) and converted to CO2e. 

Indirect emissions, which include electricity use, water conveyance, and wastewater treatment, were 

estimated using LGOP emission factors. Construction emissions totaled an estimated 339 metric tons 

(MT) of CO2e. As shown in Table 4-4, Proposed Project would result in direct GHG emissions at 447 

MT of CO2e per year in the first year and 108 MT thereafter, and indirect emissions of 1,894 MT of CO2e 

per year. 

TABLE 4-4 

PROPOSED PROJECT-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS 

Proposed Project GHGs CO2e Emissions 

(ST)

Conversion 

Factor (ST/MT)

GHG Emissions in CO2e 

(MT per year)

Direct

Construction CO2 225 0.91 339

Area CO2 108

Subtotal 313

Indirect

Mobile CO2 1,693 0.91 1,541

Electricity Usage CO2 346

Water Conveyance CO2e 2

Solid Waste CO2e 2

Wastewater Treatment CO2e 3

Subtotal 1,894

Total Project-Related GHG Emissions 2,341

NOTES: ST = short tons; MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

SOURCE: OFFROAD, 2007, Mobile 6.2, 2003; LGOP, 2008.
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-9 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Based on a review of the analysis of the Proposed Project, direct (construction and area source emissions) 

and indirect (mobile source emissions) GHG emissions would be well below the CEQ reporting standard 

of 25,000 MT per year. A less than significant climate change impact would result. Although impacts 

would be less than significant, Section 5.3 prescribes mitigation measures to further reduce adverse 

effects to air quality. 

4.1.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

A project would be considered to have a significant impact on biological resources if it: 

 Has a substantial adverse effect on species with special status under the federal Endangered 

Species Act (FESA); 

 Has a substantial adverse effect on habitat necessary for the future survival of such species, 

including areas designated as critical habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 

areas designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS); 

 Results in a take of migratory bird species as defined by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

(16 USC §703-712) ; or 

 Has a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other 

means. 

METHODOLOGY

The analysis of potential impacts is based on the existing biological setting, which is discussed in Section 

3.4. The evaluation of adverse effects to biological resources is based on a comprehensive examination of 

the existing project site and the anticipated extent of habitats, wetland features, and the presence/absence 

or potential occurrence of federally listed species that would be impacted by the proposed project. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Habitats 

The Proposed Project would remove approximately 1.7 acres of nonnative annual grassland and 

approximately 0.089 acres of ruderal/disturbed areas. Neither of these habitat types are considered 

sensitive as the ruderal/disturbed areas have previously been modified and the nonnative annual grassland 

is actively managed through mowing. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not adversely affect 

sensitive habitats. No mitigation is required. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-10 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Wetland Features 

A preliminary wetland delineation indicates that there are no wetlands or waters of the U.S. that occur 

within the project site (Appendix A). Therefore, no wetlands or waters of the U.S. would be adversely 

affected by the Proposed Project and no mitigation is required. 

Federally Listed Special Status Species 

As previously discussed in Section 3.4, the project site does not provide habitat for any federally listed 

plants or wildlife. A species list and informal USFWS consultation records are provided in Appendix A. 

The Proposed Project would not result in an adverse affect to federally listed plants or wildlife. No 

mitigation is required. 

Migratory Birds and Other Birds of Prey 

The project site provides potential nesting habitat for migratory birds and other birds of prey. If active 

nests are present in these areas, tree removal and other construction activities (including ground 

disturbance to nonnative annual grassland habitat) associated with development of the Proposed Project 

could adversely affect these species. During construction of the Proposed Project, actions that cause 

direct injury or death of a migratory bird, removal of an active nest with eggs or nestling during the 

breeding season, or any disturbance that results in nest abandonment or forced fledging of nestlings is 

considered take under the MBTA. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 

5.4, potential adverse affects to nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level. 

Critical Habitat 

The project site occurs within the designated range of the following essential fish habitats (EFHs) for 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha), Upper Columbia Spring-Run EFH, Snake River 

Fall-Run EFH, Snake River EFH, and Puget Sound EFH. The project site occurs within the designated 

range of the following EFH for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Coastal Puget Sound Distinct 

Population Segment. The project site occurs within designated critical habitat and EFH for these species; 

however, there is no hydrological connection to any of the tributaries identified within the EFHs because 

there are no waterways within the project site. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, federal agencies are required to consult with the NMFS on all actions, proposed 

actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, which may adversely affect EFH (MSA 

305.b.2). However, because critical habitat includes the Pacific Ocean and tributaries that provide habitat 

and that no waterways occur within the project site, then the Proposed Project would not adversely affect 

critical habitat. No mitigation is required. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-11 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

4.1.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

For historic properties, a significant adverse impact would result if implementation of the undertaking 

resulted in one of the following effects to cultural resources that are listed, or eligible for listing, on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): 

 Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the resource. 

 Alteration of a resource. 

 Removal of the resource from its historic location. 

 Change of the character of the resource’s use or of physical features within the resource’s 

setting that contribute to its historic significance. 

 Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

resource’s significant historic features; 

 Neglect of a resource that causes its deterioration. 

 Transfer, lease, or sale of the property. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

A literature review, records search, Native American consultation, and pedestrian surveys for the presence 

of cultural resources were conducted within the project site as part of the cultural resources study. No 

potentially significant cultural resources were identified as a result of those efforts. Therefore, no impacts 

to known historic properties would occur as a result of the undertaking and associated development. 

There is always a possibility, however remote, that significant subsurface cultural resources may exist on 

the project site, as archaeological sites may be buried with no surface manifestation. In addition, there is 

a remote possibility that an unanticipated discovery of human remains could occur. Development 

proposed as a part of this undertaking may adversely affect previously unknown subsurface prehistoric or 

historic archaeological resources, including human remains. If archaeological features are discovered, 

this could be a potentially significant impact. 

Mitigation measures for the protection and treatment of unanticipated discoveries of archaeological 

resources and/or human remains are presented in Section 5.5. Implementation of these mitigation 

measures would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

With respect to paleontological resources, an impact would be considered significant if it directly or 

indirectly destroys such resources. As described in Section 3.5.4, indicators of paleontological resources 

within the project site are absent, and no such resources were observed by AES staff in the course of site 

reconnaissance visits in 2009. Geologic formations that underlie the project site have a low probability of 

containing paleontological resources. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-12 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

There is always the possibility, however slight, that previously unknown paleontological resources could 

be encountered during construction activities. Mitigation measures are presented in Section 5.5 for the 

protection and preservation of unanticipated discoveries of paleontological resources. Implementation of 

these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant 

level. 

4.1.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

For the purposes of this EA, project effects are defined as significant if local tax revenues are reduced by 

one percent or more. The project would also generate significant economic impacts if local 

unemployment is increased by one percent or more. Additionally, the project is defined to have a 

significant effect if enrollment at local schools by more than one percent. Environmental justice impacts 

would be considered significant if the project divides a low-income or minority community, results in the 

loss of employment or housing opportunities, or increases pollution levels (air, water, and noise) to which 

they are subjected. 

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Alternative A would remove three project parcels totaling approximately 3.3 acres from the County’s 

property tax rolls, which would result in a loss of tax revenues. For the 2011 tax year, the property taxes 

for the three proposed trust parcels totaled $6,788.47. Property taxes for individual parcels for the 2011 

tax year are listed in Table 4-5 below: 

TABLE 4-5 

Property Taxes (2011) for Proposed Trust Parcels 

APN Acreage Property Tax 

Collected

P19915 0.25 $4.40

P19916 0.97 $2,184.46

P120595 2.07 $4,599.61

SOURCE: Skagit County Assessor’s Office, 2011 

In determining impacts to the County’s tax base, the $6,788.47 loss in property taxes is approximately 

0.15% of the 2009 City tax revenues of $4,582,811. This removal of tax revenues would not lead to any 

adverse physical effects, and therefore would not be significant under NEPA. No mitigation measures are 

warranted. 

Because local residents are expected to work at the gas station/convenience store, there would be no 

significant net increase in new City or County residents and subsequent increased enrollment in local 

schools. Therefore, no adverse impacts to local school districts would occur, and no mitigation measures 

are warranted. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-13 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

This environmental justice analysis was prepared using guidance from the CEQ for compliance with 

Executive Order (EO) 12898. The intent of this evaluation is to determine whether the Proposed Project 

would impose disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects s on minority 

populations and low-income populations. 

The project site is located in a semi-rural area with no low-income populations identified in the vicinity of 

the project site. Members of the Samish Tribe are a minority population; however, the Proposed Project 

would provide beneficial effects to members of the Samish Tribe. No minority populations would be 

subjected to disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental impacts. The Proposed 

Project is not anticipated to create any adverse impacts with regard to environmental justice, and no 

mitigation measures are warranted. 

SUBSTITUTION EFFECT

Potential substitution effects (the loss of customers at existing businesses to the new business) of a tribal 

gas station on existing gas station facilities is considered when attempting to determine the magnitude of 

the development impact on the economy. The magnitude of the substitution effect can generally be 

expected to vary greatly by specific location and according to a number of variables. That is, how much 

of the gas station’s revenue comes at the expense of other business establishments in the area depends on 

how many and what type of other establishments are within the same market area, as well as other 

economic and psychological factors affecting the consumption decisions of local residents. 

As noted in Section 3.6.4, three existing gas stations are located along the SR-20 corridor within a two 

mile radius of the project site. These stations provide service to local residences and travelers along the 

SR-20 roadway. Potential substitution effects would be counteracted by the local economic activity 

generated by these local residents and SR-20 travelers. Specifically, the large number of non-residents 

traveling SR-20 to and from the ferries located within the City of Anacortes would make up for some area 

residents choosing to visit the proposed gas station rather than other local establishments. Thus, it is not 

anticipated that significant quantifiable substitution effect would occur. 

4.1.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Impacts to the transportation system would be significant if the project increases traffic volumes to the 

point where traffic exceeds the design capacity of the roadway after implementation of all feasible 

mitigation measures. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-14 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS

Current conditions at nearby roadways indicate excess capacity (Table 3-8). Based on Institute of Traffic 

Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code 945 for Gas/Service Station with Convenience market, the proposed gas 

station development would generate approximately 1,300 new vehicle trips per day (ITE, 2008). It is 

estimated that 107 vehicles would enter or exit the project site during the afternoon peak hour. Of these 

trips, 53 would be entering the project site and 54 would be leaving. 

The gas station/convenience store is expected to capture business from vehicles already traveling through 

the area and is not expected to attract any new vehicles to the local roadways. Most of the vehicles 

accessing the gas station/convenience store are expected to come from SR-20; 40 percent eastbound and 

40 percent westbound. The remaining 20 percent are anticipated to come from local roads via Thompson 

Road. After fueling, automobiles are expected to use Thompson Road to return to SR-20. Approximately 

86 vehicles would use Thompson Road northbound to access SR-20 during the peak hour and an 

additional six would use Thompson to access Bartholomew Road to the north of SR-20. The total volume 

of traffic travelling northbound on Thompson Road at the intersection with SR-20 would, therefore, be 

approximately 91 vehicles during the afternoon peak. Although this is not expected to exceed the design 

capacity of the intersection, it would be a substantial increase in traffic over current, low-volume 

conditions. Future improvements at the SR-20 – Thompson Road intersection may be necessary to ensure 

adequate traffic flow. In order to avoid any potential conflicts with future development at the SR-20-

Thompson Road intersection, the Samish Tribe may allocate a right-of-way along the entire length of the 

western boundary of the project site for this purpose (refer to Section 5.7). With implementation of this 

mitigation measure, impacts to area intersections and roadways would be less than significant. 

BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT NETWORKS

The Proposed Project would not generate a large number of new pedestrian trips, bicycling activity, or 

transit riders along SR-20 or the other public roads in the area. The Proposed Project does include 

provision of a pedestrian sidewalk along site frontage of Thompson Road. This improvement is outlined 

in Mitigation Measures Section 5.7. Thus, no significant impacts are projected to these networks as a 

result of the Proposed Project. 

4.1.8 LAND USE

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Land use impacts would be significant if the Proposed Project is substantially different from the existing 

land uses in the area or is inconsistent with the surrounding land uses. Significant land use impacts would 

also occur if the Proposed Project converts farmland to other uses, as defined by the Farmland Protection 

Policy Act (FPPA). 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-15 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

LAND USE

The Proposed Project would result in construction and operation of a gas station and convenience store 

that would be consistent with the uses permitted or conditionally permitted within the City’s zoning 

designation. In addition the Proposed Project would be compatible and consistent with the existing 

retail/commercial developments along the SR-20 corridor. Once the 3.3-acre site is brought into federal 

trust, the City land use goals and policies would no longer apply to the project site. Due to the compatible 

land uses proposed on the project site and the existing land uses surrounding the project site, the impact to 

land use would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 

COASTAL ZONE

The project site is located approximately 3,400 feet (0.644 miles) away from the southern end of Fidalgo 

Bay, the coastal waterbody closest to the site, and is outside of the Coastal Zone. There are no activities 

that would directly affect coastal resources. Mitigation measures included within Section 5.2 for 

management of stormwater runoff would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant 

level. 

AGRICULTURE

In accordance with the FPPA, a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (FCIR) form was completed during 

the environmental analysis of the project and submitted to the National Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS). The project site received a total score of 75 points (NRCS, 2011c). As discussed in Section 

3.8.3, sites receiving a combined score of less than 160 (out of 260 possible points) do not require further 

evaluation. Therefore, the impact to agriculture would be less than significant. 

4.1.9 PUBLIC SERVICES

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Impacts to public services would be potentially significant if the additional demand from the Proposed 

Project requires public service providers to incur costs to expand their delivery systems. Impacts could, 

however, be reduced to less than significant levels through service agreements. 

WATER SUPPLY

The Proposed Project would require an estimated water demand of approximately 5,250 gallons per day 

(gpd) (see Table 2-2). The Proposed Project would obtain water through an existing, unused, connection 

on the project site. The City water treatment plant is currently undergoing an expansion project, 

increasing the capacity of the plant from 17 million gallons per day (MGD) to 42 MGD in order to meet 

the anticipated demand for the year 2030 (City of Anacortes, 2011). City-wide water use in 2009 was 

6,431 million gallons (City of Anacortes, 2010a). The minimal projected water use by the Proposed 

Project would not impact the City water system capacity. However, infrastructure improvements may be 

required as existing water service infrastructure is not sized to meet estimated project demands. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-16 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Development of this system upgrade would be subject to regulatory approval by the City. Therefore, a 

potentially significant impact would occur. Mitigation is included within Section 5.9 to reduce this 

impact to a less than significant level. 

WASTEWATER SERVICE

It is estimated that approximately 5,000 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater would be generated by the 

Proposed Project (see Table 2-2). Estimated wastewater generation rates were derived from the projected 

number of daily trips and average wastewater generation rates for similar projects (Canyon Hills, 2003). 

Wastewater would be sent to the City WWTP through connection to an existing sewer line located to the 

south of the project site in Thompson Road. Upon connection to the City sewer system, the Samish Tribe 

would pay current capital connection charges and monthly service fees. The City currently treats and 

disposes an average of 1.76 MGD at the existing WWTP. An existing NPDES discharge permit allows 

the City WWTP to treat and dispose 4.5 MGD. The minimal projected wastewater flows by the Proposed 

Project would not impact the City wastewater treatment system as capacity exists at the City WWTP. 

However a sewer connection would be required, as no connections are currently located on the project 

site. The development of this connection would require approval from the City. Therefore, a potentially 

significant impact would occur, and mitigation is included within Section 5.9 to reduce this impact to a 

less than significant level. 

SOLID WASTE

Solid waste from construction may include paper, wood, glass, aluminum and plastics from packing 

materials; waste lumber; insulation; empty non-hazardous chemical containers; concrete; metal, including 

steel from welding/cutting operations; and electrical wiring. This solid waste would be typical in nature 

and would be collected by City Solid Waste Division service trucks. 

As described in Section 2.1.3, the gas/station convenience store would have the equivalent of between 20 

and 22 full-time employees (many of the sales associates would be part-time employees). Retail trade – 

food store facilities typically dispose of 2.9 tons of solid waste per employee per year (Calrecycle, 2009); 

therefore, the gas station/convenience store would generate approximately 63.8 tons of waste per year. 

Solid waste would be sent to the Roosevelt Landfill in Klickitat County. Waste generated from Proposed 

Project would be less than 0.1 percent of the daily waste stream and would represent a negligible addition 

to the landfill. Therefore, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not result in a 

significant effect to the solid waste stream. 

ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Electrical and telephone infrastructure facilities are currently located on and near the project site. The 

Tribe would coordinate with Puget Sound Energy (PSE) regarding the extension of services to the project 

site. No adverse utility service impacts would occur. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-17 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Under Alternative A, the City of Anacortes Police Department (APD) would continue to provide services 

to the project site. The planned facilities would result in a negligible increase in demands on the APD due 

to the limited size and scope of the project. Calls for service would not be disproportionate to other 

small-scale developments in the City or County, and the Samish Tribe would continue to provide funding 

for services rendered by the APD on the Tribes trust properties. However, the Tribe does not currently 

have an agreement for law enforcement services to be provided at the project site. Thus, this impact 

would be significant and mitigation is provided in Section 5.9. Implementation of mitigation measures 

would reduce impacts to less than significant. 

FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

Construction-related impacts include the potential fire threat associated with equipment and vehicles 

coming into contact with vegetated areas. Construction vehicles and equipment such as welders, torches, 

and grinders may accidentally spark and ignite vegetation or building materials. The increased risks of 

fire during the construction of the proposed facilities would be similar to that found at other construction 

sites and construction related impacts are considered potentially significant. With the implementation of 

the BMPs and mitigation measures described in Section 5.9, impacts would be less than significant 

during the construction phase of the Proposed Project. 

Use of the site for commercial activities would create additional demand for fire protection, and could 

require more frequent responses from local fire-fighting agencies. The City of Anacortes Fire 

Department (AFD) would continue to provide services to the project site. However, the Tribe does not 

currently have an agreement to provide fire protection services to the project site. The Tribe has also 

expressed intent to negotiate a service agreement with the Summit Park Volunteer Fire Department. 

Thus, this impact would be significant and mitigation is provided in Section 5.9. Implementation of 

mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. 

Increased emergency calls to 911 as a result of the Proposed Project may occasionally result in slight 

delays in response times or result in the need for ambulances to be dispatched from more distant 

locations. Because new demands would be minimal, the increased demand for emergency medical 

services would not create a significant impact.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Impacts to Anacortes School District as a result of the Proposed Project would be negligible because 

employees at the gas station/convenience store are expected to already live in the City or in nearby 

County areas. A less than significant impact to local public schools would result from development of the 

Proposed Project. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-18 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

PARKS AND RECREATION

Effects to area parks would occur if the employees or patrons of the Proposed Project significantly 

increase the demand on local parks. As noted in Section 3.9.8, the nearest parks are 2.5 miles to the 

northwest of the project site. Due to the nature of the Proposed Project, it is not expected that patrons or 

employees of the Proposed Project would increase patronage of local parks. Therefore, a less than 

significant impact would occur. 

4.1.10 NOISE

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

An ambient noise level of 75 dBA, Leq is generally considered to be acceptable during construction 

(FHWA, 2006). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) 

provides an operational noise threshold of 67 dBA, Leq for projects locating near residential land uses. 

CONSTRUCTION NOISE

Grading and construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be intermittent and 

temporary in nature. The closest sensitive receptors that would be exposed to noise during project 

construction are the three residences located approximately 450 to 500 feet south of the site. The Summit 

Park Bible Church is located approximately 150 feet west of the project site, but is unlikely to be 

significantly affected by construction noise because construction is unlikely to occur on Sundays when 

church services occur. 

Construction noise levels at and near the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, 

number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material 

haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made 

and types of vehicles used. Table 4-6 shows typical noise levels 50 feet from the sources during different 

construction stages. 

TABLE 4-6 

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS 

Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA, Leq)

*

Ground Clearing 84

Excavation 89

Foundations 78

Erection 85

Finishing 89

NOTES: * Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest 

piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 

feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase.

Leq: the equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified 

period of time, typically one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The 

Leq is the constant sound level which would contain the same acoustic energy 

as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average 

noise exposure level for the given time period).

SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment, 

May 2006.
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-19 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Stationary point sources of construction noise attenuate (lessen) at a rate of 6 to 6.0-9.0 dBA per doubling 

of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e., atmospheric conditions, 

topography and type of ground surfaces, noise barriers, etc.). Given the topography of the land in the 

vicinity of the project site and the abundance of trees in the vicinity of the project site an 8.0 dBA 

attenuation factor is appropriate. The maximum construction noise would be 89 dBA at 50 feet and 71 

dBA at 250 feet. Construction noise impacts would be temporary, intermittent, and would occur between 

the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Construction of the Proposed Project would not exceed the FHWA 

significance threshold of 75 dBA, Leq; therefore, noise from construction activities would be less than 

significant. 

OPERATION NOISE

The level of traffic noise depends on three things: l) the volume of the traffic, 2) the speed of the traffic, 

and 3) the number of trucks in the flow of the traffic. It is not anticipated that speed of traffic in the 

vicinity of the Project Site or the mix of trucks in the traffic would change during operation; however, 

with the implementation of the project the traffic volumes along local roadways would increase. A 

doubling of traffic would increase the ambient noise level by 3 dBA, which is barely audible (FHA 2010). 

The primary source of noise in the area is generated by traffic along SR-20. Given the low-density nature 

of the project area and the proximity of the project to SR-20, it is assumed for this analysis that the 

existing ambient noise level in the vicinity of the Proposed Project is 60 dBA. The Proposed Project 

would result in an increase of a maximum of 107 new vehicles per peak hour on Thompson Road (refer to 

Section 4.1.7). Project traffic would not double the existing traffic in the area (including traffic along SR20) and ambient noise levels would increase to approximately 63dBA. The Proposed Project would not 

increase the ambient noise level above the FHWA NAC threshold of 67 dBA. There would be a less than 

significant noise impact during operation of the Proposed Project. 

4.1.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The Proposed Project would result in significant impacts to hazardous materials if construction or 

operation introduces substantial quantities of new hazardous materials to the site or site vicinity, results in 

an accidental release of significant quantities of hazardous materials, or allows on-site hazardous 

materials to migrate off-site. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

No existing hazardous materials have been identified on site or within a distance that would affect the 

Proposed Project (PBS&J, 2008). 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-20 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

During the construction period, it is possible that hazardous materials, such as solvents, paint, and 

adhesives would be brought, stored, and used on site. As with any liquid and solid, during handling and 

transfer from one container to another, the potential for an accidental release exists. Depending on the 

relative hazard of the material, if a spill were to occur of significant quantity, the accidental release could 

pose both a hazard to construction employees as well as to the environment. Construction BMPs required 

within the NPDES General Construction Permit limit and often eliminate the impact of such accidental 

releases. Since contact with stormwater during construction is the primary means of transporting these 

contaminants offsite, appropriate BMPs for this impact are included in the construction stormwater BMPs 

in Section 5.2. With the implementation of these BMPs and compliance with federal laws relating to the 

handling of hazardous materials, no adverse affects associated with the accidental release would occur 

during construction. 

Although certain petroleum products are potentially hazardous under the ignitibility standard (flashpoint 

below 140 °F according to 40 CFR 261), they are exempt under many hazardous materials laws and are 

regulated under separate laws. The proposed gas station would be equipped with underground storage 

tanks filled with petroleum products including gasoline and possibly diesel fuel. There is a potential for 

releases from storage and dispensing equipment at the proposed gas station. Spills and overfills result 

mainly from bad filling practices. Also unprotected steel tanks and piping can corrode and release 

product thorough holes caused by corrosion of the metal tank or piping. Material released through spills, 

overfills and leaks has the potential to contaminate stormwater runoff, or enter the surrounding 

groundwater through direct spilling or leaking into the surrounding soil. 

As stated in Section 2.1.6, the fuel storage tanks would comply with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 280, 

including Part 280.20 Performance Standards for new underground storage tank (UST) systems, which 

includes requirements for tank design, the installation and maintenance of leak detection and prevention 

systems, and spill and overfill controls to minimize the risk of release of petroleum into the environment. 

The standards are therefore protective of both public health and the environment (including soil and 

groundwater) through the prevention of accidental release which could lead to soil and groundwater 

contamination. 

Mitigation measures to ensure proper operation of the gas station in compliance with 40 CFR 280 are 

listed in Section 5.11. Compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 280 would ensure that the impacts 

to public safety and environmental quality from accidental release of petroleum products, fire, explosion, 

and vapor intrusion hazards are minimized. Therefore, no significant adverse effects associated with the 

operation of the gas station would occur. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-21 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

4.1.12 VISUAL RESOURCES

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Impacts related to visual resources would be considered significant if the Proposed Project were to 

substantially alter or interrupt locally important scenic vistas, introduce visual elements that would 

conflict with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals regarding scenic resources, or create sources of 

inappropriate or excessive glare or nighttime illumination. 

VISUAL RESOURCES

Development of the project site would complement existing rural development and retail developments 

along the SR-20 corridor, although it would not comply with existing City zoning designations for the 

project site. 

The Proposed Project would not interrupt or substantially alter local views, or create any sources of glare 

or excessive nighttime illumination. Development would generally conform to the visual resources goals 

outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, although once the property is taken into federal trust, City 

regulations and zoning would no longer apply. Visual impacts would be less than significant and no 

mitigation measures would be warranted. 

4.2 ALTERNATIVE B - NO-ACTION 

4.2.1 LAND RESOURCES

Under the No-Action Alternative, the land would not be taken into trust and the proposed Tribal 

commercial development would not be built. The site would remain undeveloped, and land resources 

would not be adversely impacted. Any future fee development of the project site would be required to 

meet City zoning and Comprehensive Plan guidelines. 

4.2.2 WATER RESOURCES

Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed commercial uses would not be developed; therefore, no 

improvements to domestic water supply facilities on the project site would be necessary. No additional 

impervious surfaces would be created on the project site. No adverse impacts to water resources would 

occur under the No-Action Alternative. 

4.2.3 AIR QUALITY

Under the No-Action Alternative the site would remain undeveloped and none of the construction or 

operational air quality impacts identified for Alternative A would occur. The property could ultimately be 

developed, which would introduce a source of both direct (stationary source) and indirect (mobile source) 

emissions of CAPs; however, because any development would be required to comply with the City’s 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-22 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Comprehensive Plan and would incorporate protective measures and BMPs for air quality, these impacts 

would likely be less than significant. 

4.2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Under the No-Action Alternative, no development would occur within the project site. As such, there 

would be no significant direct or indirect impacts to the biological resources within or in the vicinity of 

the project site. 

4.2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Under the No-Action Alternative the project site would not be placed in trust for the benefit of the Samish 

Tribe and no structures would be constructed. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to any 

unknown archaeological or paleontological resources on the site. 

4.2.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS/ ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Samish Tribe would not receive any of the benefits associated with 

development on the project site. The three parcels comprising the project site would not be brought into 

trust and would remain on the County’s property tax rolls. 

4.2.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no tribal commercial development constructed on the 

project site, and consequently no increase in vehicular traffic on project area roadways. There would be 

no change in pedestrian, bicycle, or transit circumstances. 

4.2.8 LAND USE

Under the No-Action Alternative, the project site would remain under City jurisdiction. No land use 

consistency or compatibility impacts would occur under this alternative. 

4.2.9 PUBLIC SERVICES

The No-Action Alternative would not increase demands on public services. No new utility extensions 

would be required. 

4.2.10 NOISE

Under the No-Action Alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped. Any future development of 

the project site would be required to meet City zoning and Comprehensive Plan guidelines. With regard 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-23 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

to noise, the project site would not be a source of construction or operational noise. No noise impacts 

would occur under the No-Action Alternative. 

4.2.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

No development would occur under this alternative, and the project site would remain in its undeveloped 

state. No hazardous material impacts would occur under the No-Action Alternative. 

4.2.12 VISUAL RESOURCES

Under the No-Action Alternative, the project site would remain in its current undeveloped state. Any 

future development of the project site would be required to meet County design standards. 

4.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Potential cumulative impacts for each environmental issue area are discussed below. Cumulative impacts 

are defined in 40 CFR §1508.7 as the impacts: 

... on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless what agency (federal or 

non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

In addition to the Proposed Project, the Samish Tribe is currently planning to transfer three parcels 

adjacent to the project site into federal trust and develop these parcels for a tribal casino. The proposed 

development would include up to 50,000 sq ft of space for gaming, dining, and support activities on the 

adjacent 11.4 acre site. As of the date of this EA, the Samish Tribe is preparing a NEPA Environmental 

Impact Statement to assess the potential environmental impacts of developing gaming. The Samish 

Casino is, therefore, a foreseeable development. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is currently 

constructing a lodge, restaurant, and meeting/convention facility addition to their existing Northern Lights 

Casino situated approximately two miles east of the Proposed Project. The Swinomish Northern Lights 

Casino facility currently includes a gas station included as one of the three existing gas stations in the 

vicinity of the March’s Point Site, as discussed as a direct effect above in Section 4.1.6. Expansion of the 

Northern Lights Casino is included in the cumulative effects analysis. The City and County do not have 

any other proposed developments in the vicinity of the project site. 

4.3.1 LAND RESOURCES

Impacts to land resources from developing the Samish Casino on the adjacent parcels would be similar to 

those described above for the Gas Station project. The Proposed Project would incorporate measures to 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-24 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

ensure proper design for site conditions to eliminate impacts to land resources (topography, soils, 

seismicity, and mineral resources). No potential cumulative impacts would be relevant to this issue area. 

4.3.2 WATER RESOURCES

Similar to the Proposed Project, the Samish Casino Project would be required to comply with the CWA as 

it relates to stormwater runoff on trust property. Compliance with USEPA stormwater pollution 

prevention requirements will prevent the proposed casino project, in combination with other 

developments, from causing cumulatively significant surface water quality related impacts. 

Impacts to the groundwater basin would not be cumulatively significant, as the Proposed Project, in 

combination with other developments in the area, would have only a minor impact to the groundwater. 

Therefore, no cumulatively significant impact would occur. 

4.3.3 AIR QUALITY

Construction of the Samish Casino is expected to occur after the development of the Proposed Project. 

Construction impacts would, therefore, be spaced over time and not result in any cumulative adverse 

effect. 

Cumulative impacts to the air basin are addressed within the requirements of the CAA and the General 

Conformity Rule. Because Skagit County (NWCAA) is in attainment for all CAPs, the Proposed Project 

did not warrant a General Conformity determination. The Proposed Project is considered to conform to 

the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) due to emissions that are below the federal de minimis

levels. Mitigation for potential cumulative impacts to air quality has been specified in Section 5.0 and 

similar measures would be implemented for other development projects. 

4.3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Potential impacts to biological resources on the project site and the site of the proposed Samish Casino, 

including migratory birds, will be reduced to a less than significant level through measures incorporated 

into project construction and design and mitigation (Section 5.4). Cumulative impacts to biological 

resources would be less than significant. 

4.3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cumulative effects to cultural resources typically occur when sites that contain cultural features or 

artifacts are disturbed by development. As these resources are destroyed or displaced, important 

information is lost and connections to past events, people and culture is diminished. No significant 

cultural resources were identified within or adjacent to the project site. However, the records search and 

archival research indicate that the study area is in a region sensitive for both prehistoric/pre-contact 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-25 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

resources and historic-period resources. Based on this sensitivity, the Proposed Project or the Samish 

Casino Project may impact previously unknown archaeological resources, as these sites may be buried 

with no surface manifestation. Significant cumulative impacts to unknown cultural resources could occur 

if sites continued to be lost, damaged, or destroyed without appropriate recordation or data recovery. 

Mitigation for potential cumulative impacts to unknown cultural resources has been specified in Section 

5.5 and similar measures have been implemented for all local Tribal development. Continued 

implementation of these measures would ensure that cumulative impacts remain less than significant. 

4.3.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The Proposed Project, when considered in combination with the Samish Casino Project, would provide a 

beneficial impact to the socioeconomic condition of the Samish Tribe. These developments would 

provide jobs and income for tribal members, as well as the financial resources to fund various tribal social 

service programs. The cumulative effect of these projects would have a positive beneficial effect on 

environmental justice for the tribe and its members. Each of the Samish Tribe’s development projects 

would result in a beneficial effect for the recognized minority population of the Samish Tribe. 

Construction and operation of the Samish Casino and gas station/convenience store would generate 

employment and increase income in the local community. Operation of the casino would increase 

entertainment opportunities in the area and the gas station/convenience store would increase fueling 

options for the travelling public. 

The Proposed Project is not expected to have any cumulative adverse effect on the nearby Swinomish 

Casino; however, developing a casino on the March’s Point site would increase competition for the 

Swinomish Casino, including the lodge, restaurant, and meeting/convention facilities. The cumulative 

socioeconomic of the gas station project would be negligible, but the future Samish Casino project could 

affect the revenue that the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is able to realize from its casino, 

including the recent expansion. Tribal gaming is a competitive market and participants are not guaranteed 

markets or market share. The Proposed Project, when considered in combination with other projects, 

would not lead to a significant adverse cumulative impact to socioeconomic conditions or environmental 

justice. 

4.3.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS

Combined with the traffic generated at the proposed Samish Casino, the gas station/convenience store 

would generate a potentially significant volume of traffic at and around the intersection of Thompson 

Road and SR-20. In addition to the mitigation measures proposed for the gas station/convenience store 

project, additional roadway and intersection improvements may be necessary to reduce casino-related 

traffic to a less than significant level. The improvements would be identified, funded, and implemented

to avoid or minimize significant impacts to transportation resources. With implementation of mitigation 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-26 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

measures identified in this EA and any additional mitigation measures identified in the Samish Casino 

EIS, cumulative impacts to vehicle transportation networks would be less than significant. 

BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT NETWORKS

Due to the nature of development, the Samish Casino and other cumulative projects would not result in a 

significant increase in bicycling or transit rider activity. Additionally, these projects would not adversely 

affect pedestrian or bicycle networks in the project vicinity. No significant cumulative impacts would 

occur. 

4.3.8 LAND USE

If taken into federal trust, the Proposed Project and the Samish Casino sites would not be subject to City 

jurisdiction regarding land uses. The proposed site and the Samish Casino site are currently zoned for 

industrial activities and developing the casino as proposed would be inconsistent with the zoning. 

However, this would not result in a significant cumulative effect on land resources because the use would 

be consistent with the other existing land uses along the SR-20 corridor that include gas stations, auto 

dealerships, storage facilities, light industrial uses, and a casino. 

AGRICULTURE

The retention or development of agricultural land is largely a policy consideration for governmental 

entities. Prime and unique agricultural lands are considered a limited and valuable resource. The Samish 

projects and other cumulative developments in the vicinity would not remove lands from current 

agricultural production or have any direct effect to agriculture; therefore, cumulatively significant impacts 

to agricultural land would not occur. 

4.3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES

Public services for the Proposed Project, as well as the Samish Casino, would be accommodated by 

existing and planned public services. As development of other areas of the City and County continues, 

the combined need for public services may create a cumulative impact. However, all future projects on 

fee land in the region would be subject to approval by local governments, and would include provisions 

for public services. Although the analyses of the City’s water and sewer systems have not been 

completed for the Samish Casino project, these systems appear to have sufficient capacity for the Samish 

Casino project. Additional analyses are necessary to affirm that the nearby water and sewer pipelines are 

adequate to accommodate the proposed Samish Casino project; if not, the Casino project would need to 

mitigate for the necessary upgrades. The Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative 

impacts to public services. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-27 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

4.3.10 NOISE

Traffic noise would dominate the noise environment in the area surrounding the project site during 

cumulative conditions, due primarily to traffic on the adjacent SR-20. The Proposed Project, in 

combination with the proposed Samish Casino, would cause a less than significant impact with regard to 

noise. 

4.3.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

There is the potential for impacts related to hazardous materials during construction of the Proposed 

Project as well as the Samish Casino Project on the adjacent parcels. Developments of similar scope 

would typically require implementation of mitigation measures similar to those listed in Section 5.11

regarding hazardous materials storage and use. New developments on non-federal lands would be 

required to adhere to State and municipal regulations regarding the delivery, handling, and storage of 

hazardous materials, thereby reducing the risk to the public’s health and welfare due to accidental 

exposure. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative hazardous materials impacts associated with the 

Proposed Project. 

4.3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES

Development of the Proposed Project and the Samish Casino Project would be generally consistent with 

other development along SR-20, with no significant impacts to scenic views or features. Structures would 

be designed to complement the scenic resources of the City and County. Any future non-tribal 

development in the vicinity would be subject to City or County review and approval. Therefore, the 

Proposed Project, when considered in combination with other past and unknown future actions, would not 

lead to a significant cumulative impact to visual resources. 

4.4 INDIRECT AND GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS 

Under NEPA, indirect and growth-inducing effects of a Proposed Project must be analyzed (40 CFR 

§1508.8[b]). The CEQ Regulations define indirect effects as effects that are caused by the action and are 

later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Growth-inducing effects are defined as effects that foster economic or population growth, either directly 

or indirectly. Direct growth inducement could result, for example, if a project included the construction 

of a new residential development. Indirect growth inducement could result if a project established 

substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., new commercial, industrial, or governmental 

enterprises) or if it removed obstacles to population growth (e.g., expansion of a wastewater treatment 

plant to increase the service availability). Section 4.4.1 assesses the potential for direct and indirect 

growth-inducing effects caused by the alternatives. Other indirect effects are analyzed in previous 

sections by issue area. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-28 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

4.4.1 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS

Growth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the increased growth is not consistent with or 

accommodated by the land use and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local 

land use plans provide for development patterns and growth policies that allow for orderly development 

supported by adequate public services and utilities such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer 

services, and solid waste disposal services. A project that would induce “disorderly” growth (i.e., would 

conflict with local land use plans) could indirectly cause adverse environmental or public service impacts. 

A limited number of employment opportunities would be created through the operation of the on-site gas 

station/convenience store, and it is anticipated that the net direct local population growth resulting from 

the project would be negligible. Development of the gas station/convenience store is independent of and 

separate from development of the Samish Casino project. Neither project relies on the other, nor does the 

fate of one depend upon the other. 

Analyses of the adequacy of local infrastructure and services are included in the discussion of 

environmental consequences for each proposed Alternative. No significant, unmitigatible impacts have 

been identified that would result from the Proposed Project. Utility infrastructure would not be 

significantly improved or expanded to increase service availability to any areas surrounding the project 

site. The domestic water supply would only serve Tribal development on the proposed trust property. 

Growth-inducing impacts would be less than significant for the proposed development alternatives. 
SECTION 5.0 

MITIGATION MEASURES
Analytical Environmental Services 5-1 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/ 

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

SECTION 5.0 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

5.1 LAND RESOURCES 

Implementation of the mitigation measures below would minimize potential impacts related to land 

resources. These measures are recommended for the Proposed Project (Alternative A). 

 All site preparation and earthwork construction in the field shall be performed by licensed 

contractors. 

 Suitability of earth and construction materials shall be determined by a licensed professional 

employing geotechnical/soils laboratory testing standards according to standard engineering 

practice. 

 All grading plans, subsurface investigations, and slope stability and seismic design calculations as 

well as all foundation and building design parameters shall be produced under the supervision of 

appropriate licensed professionals. 

 Prior to finalization of the grading and development plans for the property, design-level 

geotechnical specifications addressing the specific grading and development plans shall be 

developed. The specifications should include, but not be limited to, the following: 

Site, building, and facility-specific grading recommendations regarding site preparation, 

clearing, and grubbing. 

Select grading procedures, remedial grading procedures, material suitability, and compaction 

criteria. 

Building-specific foundation design parameters. 

Site-specific seismic design parameters. 

5.2 WATER RESOURCES 

Implementation of the protective measures described in Section 2.1.9, along with the recommended 

mitigation measures below, would minimize potential impacts to water resources related to the 

construction of Alternative A. 

 A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional prior to site 

development. The grading and drainage plan shall include an accurate calculation of pre- and 

post-development runoff conditions. 

 Areas outside of buildings and roads would be kept as permeable surfaces to the extent 

practicable; either as vegetation or high infiltration cover, such as mulch, gravel, or turf. 
5.0 Mitigation Measures 

Analytical Environmental Services 5-2 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

 Existing vegetation would be retained where possible. 

 High water-demand plants would be minimized in landscaping plans. Native and droughttolerant plant species (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) would be emphasized. 

 Fertilizer and pesticide use would be minimized. 

 The Tribe shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES 

General Permit-WAR12000I) from the USEPA for construction site runoff during the 

construction phase in compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). A Storm Water Pollution 

and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared, implemented, and maintained throughout the 

construction phase of the development, consistent with General Permit requirements. The 

SWPPP would detail the BMPs to be implemented during construction and post-construction 

operation of the Proposed Project. The BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Straw wattle placement on cut and fill slopes. 

Straw wattle check dam installation within drainage swales. 

Covering disturbed areas with plastic, hydro-seed applications, or straw. 

Construction entrance installation to reduce off-site sediment transport. 

Revegetation following construction activities. 

 Storm drains shall be equipped with silt and grease traps to remove oils, debris, and other 

pollutants. Storm drain inlets shall also be labeled “No Dumping-Drains to Rivers and Streams.” 

 The parking lot shall be designed to allow stormwater runoff to be directed toward vegetative 

filter strips and detention swales to help control sediment. 

 Vegetated detention swales and the stormwater retention pond shall be constructed according to 

the engineer’s recommendations and engineering specifications to mitigate for increased peak 

flows from impervious surfaces. The following recommendations from EPA Publication 832-F99-006 (EPA, 1999) would be followed to the maximum extent feasible. 

Swales would be constructed with the suggested ratio of 500 square feet of swale per acre of 

impervious surface. 

Location of swales would include areas adjacent to parking areas, adjacent to roadways, and 

along property boundaries along a natural grade. 

Swales would utilize a parabolic or trapezoidal cross-section with side slopes no steeper than 

1:3. 

Check dams would be used every 50 feet if slopes exceed 4 percent. 

Maintenance activities would include periodic mowing (with grass kept above design flow 

depth), weed control, watering during drought, reseeding of bare areas, clearing of debris and 

blockages. 

Accumulated sediment would be removed manually to avoid the transport of re-suspended 

sediments in periods of low flow and prevent damming effects from sand bars. 

 Gasoline and diesel refueling/ dispensing sites will be contoured to drain into oil/water catchment 

basins. 
5.0 Mitigation Measures 

Analytical Environmental Services 5-3 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

 The gas station shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all federal regulations 

governing gasoline operations. Specific design, construction and operation practices shall include 

the following to prevent spills, overfills, and corrosion: 

The gas station shall be equipped with catchment basins of sufficient size to contain small 

spills. As a minimum, the basin shall be large enough to contain what may spill when the 

delivery hose is uncoupled form the fill pipe. Any spilled fuel shall be removed and disposed 

of immediately. 

Gas station attendants and delivery personnel shall follow industry standard filling practices 

such as American Institute recommended Practice 1007, “Loading and Unloading of 

MC306/DOT 406 Cargo Motor vehicles.” Filling practices shall include provisions that 

ensure that the volume available in the tank is greater than the volume of product to be 

transferred to the tank before the transfer is made; and that the transfer operation is monitored 

constantly to prevent overfilling and spilling. 

Gasoline storage tanks shall be equipped with overfill protection such as automatic shutoff 

devices, overfill alarms or ball and float valves. 

Gasoline storage tanks shall be constructed to meet federal corrosion performance standards. 

Gasoline storage tanks shall be periodically inspected to ensure that the tank is structurally 

sound and free of corrosion or holes. Frequency of inspections shall be consistent with 

federal requirements. 

The tanks shall be equipped with leak detection systems to provide early detection of leaks 

from the tanks and dispensing equipment. 

Require low flow toilets, faucets, and other water-using appliances. 

5.3 AIR QUALITY 

The Tribe shall implement the following mitigation measures for Alternative A. 

 Set a five-minute idling time limit for construction and commercial delivery vehicles. 

 Require energy efficient designed building. 

 Incorporate “Green Building” methodologies. 

 Require the use of energy-efficient appliances. 

 To the extent possible, require energy efficient lighting. 

 Wet exposed surfaces to reduce and control dust. 

 Limit exposed soils during construction to active areas only. 

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Implementation of the mitigation measures below would ensure that impacts to biological resources 

associated with Alternative A are less than significant. 
5.0 Mitigation Measures 

Analytical Environmental Services 5-4 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

 If construction begins during the nesting season for raptors and other migratory birds (between 

March 1 and September 15), a biologist whose qualifications are acceptable to the USFWS will 

conduct a preconstruction survey for active nests within 250 feet of the construction footprint no 

more than 14 days prior to commencement of construction activities. If no active nests are found, 

then no further mitigation is necessary. 

 If any active nests are located in the vicinity of the construction footprint, a minimum 100-foot 

diameter buffer zone will be established around the nest. Appropriately-sized avoidance setbacks 

will be established by a qualified biologist. The size and scale of nesting bird avoidance setbacks 

is dependent upon the species of nesting bird observed and the habitat in which that the nest 

occurs. A biologist will also monitor nests weekly during construction to evaluate potential 

nesting disturbance caused by construction activities. The buffer zone will be maintained until 

the end of the breeding season or until the young have fledged. No construction activities will 

occur within 100 feet of a nest while young are still present in the nest. The biological monitor 

will have the authority to stop construction if construction results in evidence of disturbance to 

nesting birds or potential nest abandonment. The buffer zone markers may be removed when the 

biologist confirms that the nest(s) is no longer occupied and all young have fledged. 

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce the potential for significant 

construction-related impacts to previously unknown cultural resources, including archaeological sites, 

human remains, and/or paleontological resources: 

 In the event that any prehistoric or historic cultural resources are discovered during grounddisturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and a Samish tribal 

representative and BIA archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the significance of the find. If 

any find is determined to be significant by the qualified professionals, then appropriate agency 

and tribal representatives shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. 

 If human remains are encountered, work shall halt in the vicinity of the find and the Skagit 

County Coroner shall be notified immediately. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.13 of NHPA: PostReview Discoveries, and 43 C.F.R. § 10.4 (2006) of the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA): Inadvertent Discoveries, the Samish Indian Nation representative 

and BIA archaeologist will also be contacted immediately. No further ground disturbance shall 

occur in the vicinity of the find until the County Coroner, Tribal Official, and BIA archaeologist 

have examined the find and agreed on an appropriate course of action. If the remains are 

determined to be of Native American origin, the BIA representative shall notify the Washington 

State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, as well as a Most Likely Descendant 

(MLD). The MLD is responsible for recommending the appropriate disposition of the remains 

and any grave goods. 
5.0 Mitigation Measures 

Analytical Environmental Services 5-5 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

5.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS/ ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

No mitigation is warranted for Alternative A. 

5.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 

Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the potential for significant impacts to 

the transportation system and ensure adequate circulation. 

 The Samish Tribe would allocate a 14 foot right-of-way along the entire length of the western 

boundary of the project site to accommodate future development of a right turn lane on 

Thompson Road. 

 The Samish Tribe shall develop a 4 foot wide sidewalk along the entire length of the western 

boundary of the project site along Thompson Road. 

5.8 LAND USE 

No additional mitigation would be necessary for Alternative A. Measures to mitigate potential adverse 

effects to the coastal zone are described above in Section 5.2. 

5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES 

Implementation of the mitigation measures below would ensure that the construction and operation of 

Alternative A would have a less than significant impact on fire and emergency services. 

 To minimize the risk of fire and the need for fire protection services during construction, any 

construction equipment that normally includes a spark arrester shall be equipped with a spark 

arrester in good working order. This includes, but is not limited to vehicles and heavy equipment. 

 During construction, staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for development using sparkproducing equipment would be cleared of dried vegetation or other materials that could serve as 

fire fuel. To the extent feasible, the contractor would keep these areas clear of combustible 

materials in order to maintain a firebreak. 

 Require construction to reuse and recycle construction waste. 

 Fire extinguishers shall be maintained onsite and inspected on a regular basis. 

 An evacuation plan shall be developed for the proposed development in the event of a fire 

emergency. 

 Structural fire protection would be provided through compliance with International Fire Code 

requirements for commercial structures. The Samish Tribe would ensure that appropriate water 

supply and pressure is available for emergency fire flows. 

 The access driveway would be maintained to standards adequate for emergency vehicle access. 
5.0 Mitigation Measures 

Analytical Environmental Services 5-6 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

 For the gas station, the Samish Tribe would create and maintain a facility equipped with the latest 

early fire detection systems that ensure an initial response to any fire alarm (automatic, local, or 

report). This would rely on automatic sprinkler systems in the areas of the facility that are 

normally unoccupied, such as storerooms and mechanical areas. 

 The Tribe shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anacortes to pay its fair share cost of 

system improvements and upgrades necessary to connect to the City of Anacortes water and 

wastewater conveyance systems. 

 The Tribe shall enter into an agreement to reimburse the City of Anacortes Police 

Department and Fire Department for reasonable direct and indirect costs incurred in 

conjunction with providing law enforcement and fire protection services to the project 

site. 

5.10 NOISE 

No mitigation is warranted for Alternative A. 

5.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

The mitigation measures listed below are recommended to reduce potential impacts associated with 

construction and operation of Alternative A. Additional measures to mitigate potential adverse effects to 

water resources from spills or other releases of hazardous materials are described above. 

 Potentially hazardous materials, including fuels, shall be stored away from drainages and 

secondary containment shall be provided for all hazardous materials during construction. 

 Vehicles and equipment used during construction shall be provided proper and timely 

maintenance to reduce potential for mechanical breakdowns leading to a spill of materials into 

water bodies. Maintenance and fueling shall be conducted in an area that meets the criteria set 

forth in the spill prevention plan. 

 The Samish Tribe shall conform to federal regulations under 40 CFR 280, Technical Standards 

and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks 

(USTs). These leak prevention measures include methods such as corrosion resistant and double 

walled tanks and piping, inclusion of spill and overflow prevention equipment, and use of leak 

detection equipment. 

 During excavation of the underground fuel storage tanks, surface water, debris, and chemicals 

(such as fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, or solvents) would be prevented from entering the cavity by 

implementing BMPs, such as placing straw wattle on the edge of the cavity and completing tank 

installation in a timely manner. 

 Because of the high ground water elevation at the site (approximately four feet below ground 

level), the underground fuel storage tanks should be anchored to mitigate the potential impact of 

buoyant forces causing damage that could allow fuel to leak. 
5.0 Mitigation Measures 

Analytical Environmental Services 5-7 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

5.12 VISUAL RESOURCES 

 Signage would comply with applicable local and highway standards. 
SECTION 6.0 

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND LIST OF PREPARERS
Analytical Environmental Services 6-1 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

SECTION 6.0 

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND LIST OF 

PREPARERS 

6.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES CONSULTED 

United States Department of Interior – Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Mr. Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Northwest Regional Office 

Dr. B.J. Howerton, MBA. Environmental Services Manager, Northwest 

Regional Office 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Informal consultation, Seattle Office of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

6.2 STATE AGENCIES CONSULTED

Washington State Department of Transportation, Mount Baker Area 

Roland Storme, WSDOT Mount Baker Area, Development Services Manager 

Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 

Allyson Brooks, Ph.D., State Historic Preservation Officer

6.3 TRIBES CONSULTED 

Samish Indian Tribe 

Tom Wooten, Tribal Chairman 

Tim King, Vice Chairman 

Dana Matthews, Secretary 

Tamara Rogers, Treasurer 

Shawn MacAvoy, Tribal Council 

Gary D. Hatch, Tribal Council 

Dave Blackinton, Tribal Council 

Leslie Eastwood, General Manager 
6.0 Consultation and Coordination

Analytical Environmental Services 6-2 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Sebnem Pura, Chief Operations Officer 

Ted Gage, Planning Director 

6.4 LOCAL AGENCIES CONSULTED

Skagit County Public Works 

Skagit County Planning Department 

Skagit County Assessor’s Office 

Skagit County Sheriff’s Office 

Skagit County Fire District 

City of Anacortes Public Works 

Fred Buckenmeyer, Public Works Director 

Terry Nemeth, Water Maintenance Supervisor 

Paul A. Randall-Gutter, Engineering Division Manager 

City of Anacortes Planning Department 

Ryan Larson, Director 

City of Anacortes Police Department 

John Small, Patrol Captain 

City of Anacortes Fire Department 

Jack Kennedy, Fire Marshal 

6.5 PREPARERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Analytical Environmental Services (AES) 

Project Director, David Zweig 

Project Manager, John Meerscheidt 

Deputy Project Manager, David Sawyer 

AES Technical Staff: 

Kelly Bayne 

Bibiana Alvarez 

Erin Quinn 

Chad Steinwand 
6.0 Consultation and Coordination

Analytical Environmental Services 6-3 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

May 2012 Gas Station Project Environmental Assessment

Eben Margolis 

Tobin Rodman 

Dana Hirschberg 

Glenn Mayfield 
SECTION 7.0 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Analytical Environmental Services 7-1 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

SECTION 7.0 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Anacortes Fire Department (AFD), 2010. Fire Suppression and Emergency Medical Services 

Annual Report, 2010. Available online at: 

http://www.cityofanacortes.org/Fire/Documents/2010_AFD_Annual_Report.pdf. 

Accessed July, 2011. 

Anacortes School District (ASD), 2011. Anacortes School District 2010/2011 Annual Report. 

Available online at: http://www.asd103.org/images/stories/pdf/ASD.pdf. Accessed July, 

2011. 

Analytical Environmental Services (AES), 2011. Delineation of Waters of the U.S. for the 

Samish Indian Nation-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust. Prepared by AES. 

Bailey, D.K., 1975. Pinus albicaulis. Curtis's Botanical Magazine 180(111): 140-147. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2011. 2005 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report. 

Available online at: http://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/Knowledge/Reports/index.htm. 

Accessed August, 2011. 

Calflora, 2011. Pinus albicaulis. Information on California Plants for Education, Research, and 

Conservation. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database. Available at: 

http://www.calflora.org/. Accessed on August 26, 2011. 

CaliforniaHerps.com, 2011. Information About California Frogs, Snakes, Lizards, Turtles and 

Salamanders. Available at: www.californiaherps.com. Accessed on August 26, 2011. 

CDC, 2011a. Seismic Shaking Hazards Assessment. Available online at: 

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/Pages/index.aspx. Accessed May 16, 2011. 

Calrecycle, 2009. Residential Waste Disposal Rates. Available online at: 

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/ResDisp.htm. Accessed: April 2011. 

Canyon Hills, 2003. Canyon Hills Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available online at: 

http://cityplanning.lacity.org/EIR/CanyonHillsProject/CanyonHillDEIR/IV.L.2%20Utiliti

es-Sewer.pdf. Accessed August, 2011. 
Analytical Environmental Services 7-2 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

Cascadia Archaeology 

2010 Archaeological Testing at Weaverling Spit, Site 45SK43, Skagit County, Washington, 

Final Technical Report. Edited by Margaret A. Nelson and Randall F. Schalk. Prepared 

for the Samish Indian Nation. August 31, 2010. 

City of Anacortes, 2006. City of Anacortes Wetlands Classification Map. Available online at: 

http://www.cityofanacortes.org/Planning/CompPlans/. Accessed August 2011. 

City of Anacortes, 2010. City of Anacortes 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Available online at: 

http://www.cityofanacortes.org/Planning/CompPlans/CompPlan2010/. Accessed August 

2011. 

City of Anacortes, 2010a. 2009 Annual Water Quality Report. Available online at: 

http://www.cityofanacortes.org/WTP/Documents/CCR2009.pdf. Accessed August 2011. 

City of Anacortes, 2011a. Supplying Water to a Thirsty Region. Available online at: 

http://www.cityofanacortes.org/wtp/Documents/SupplyingWater.pdf. Accessed July, 

2011. 

City of Anacortes, 2011b. Public Services – Solid Waste Division. Available online at: 

http://www.cityofanacortes.org/PublicWorks/Operations/solidwaste.htm. Accessed July, 

2011. 

City of Anacortes Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), 2009. Home Page and Combined 

Sewer Overflow Reports. Available online at: http://www.cityofanacortes.org/wwtp.htm. 

Accessed July, 2011 

Climate Action Team (CAT), 2007. Climate Action Team Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate 

Climate Change in California, 2007. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997a. Draft memorandum, Guidance Regarding 

Considering of Global Climatic Changes in Environmental Documents Prepared 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 1997. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997b. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Documents Prepared by the Council on 

Environmental Quality, 1997. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 1997c. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 
Analytical Environmental Services 7-3 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

December 10, 1997. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf.

Accessed August, 2011. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 

Map Number 0601830694B. Effective Date 6/1/1983. Available at: 

http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/MapSearchResult?storeId=10001&catalo

gId=10001&langId=-1. Accessed: April 2011. 

Federal Highway Administration, 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. Available online at: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00.c

fm. Viewed on May 11, 2011. 

Federal Highway Administration, 2010. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement 

Guidance. Available online at: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_aba

tement_guidance/revguidance.pdf. Viewed on May 11, 2011. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 

Available online at: 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. Accessed on 

May 14, 2011.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2008. Trip Generation. Institute of Traffic Engineers 

(ITE), 2008. 

Knoke, D., 2004. Vascular Plant List, Skagit County. Washington Native Plant Society. Skagit 

County. Skagit County, Washington. 

Lasmanis, Raymond, 1991. The Geology of Washington: Rocks and Minerals. Vol. 66, no.4, 

p262-277. 

Lincoln, John H., 2000. The Puget Sound Model Summary. Available online at: 

http://exhibits.pacsci.org/puget_sound/PSSummary.html. Accessed July, 2011. 

Moyle, P.B., 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Revised and expanded edition. University of 

California Press, Berkley, California. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2007. 2007 Census of Agriculture – County 

Data. Available online at: 
Analytical Environmental Services 7-4 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp. Accessed in 

August 2011. 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), 2011. Padilla Bay Reserve, WA. 

Available online at: http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/Reserve.aspx?ResID=PDB. Accessed 

September, 2011. 

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011a. National Soil Survey Handbook. 

Official Soil Series Descriptions. National Resource Conservation Society. Available at: 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html. Accessed June, 2011. 

NRCS. 2011b. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed June, 2011. 

NRCS. 2011c. Completed FCIR Form AD-1006 and Letter from Charles Natsuhara, Area Soil 

Scientist with the Mount Vernon NRCS Service Center, Dated September 16, 2011. 

NatureServe, 2011. Version 7.1. NatureServe Explorer. An Online Encyclopedia of Life. 

Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Canis+lupus. 

Accessed on August 20, 2011. 

PBS&J, 2008. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report – Thompson Road Property. 

Prepared by PBS&J, October 2nd, 2008. 

Samish Indian Nation’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 2011. Fidalgo Bay Water 

Quality Summary Report: Fall 2005 - Spring 2010. Available online at: 

http://samishtribe.nsn.us/data/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/5yearreport.pdf. Accessed 

August, 2011. 

Skagit County, 2004. Skagit County Parks and Recreation Department Comprehensive Plan – 

2004 Update. Available online at: 

http://www.skagitcounty.net/Common/asp/default.asp?d=ParksAndRecreation&c=Gener

al&p=misc/2003CompPlan.htm. Accessed July, 2011. 

Skagit County, 2005. Skagit County Comprhensive Solid Waste Management Plan – December 

2005. Available online at: 

http://www.skagitcounty.net/PublicWorksSolidWaste/Documents/CSWMPFinal.pdf. 

Accessed July, 2011. 
Analytical Environmental Services 7-5 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

Skagit County, 2011. Access Skagit County: About Skagit County. Available online at: 

http://www.skagitcounty.net/common/asp/default.asp?d=Home&c=General&p=about.ht

m. Accessed July, 2011. 

Skagit Public Utility District (PUD), 2009. Resources: Water system and Watershed. Available 

online at: http://skagitpud.org/. Accessed July, 2011. 

Skagit Stream Team (SST), 2009. Citizen Monitoring Summary for the Samish Bay, Padilla Bay, 

Brickyard Creek, Gages Slough, Trumpeter Basin, Kulshan Creek, and Fisher Creek, 

Watersheds. Available online at: http://www.padillabay.gov/pdfs/stream_team09.pdf. 

Accessed September, 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009. American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Available 

online at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=ACS_2009_

5YR_G00_&_lang=en&_ts=331472495641. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2009a. State of Washington Population Estimates by County. Available 

online at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?-ds_name=PEP_2009_EST&-

mt_name=PEP_2009_EST_GCTT1R_ST2S&-geo_id=04000US53&-format=ST-2&-

tree_id=809&-context=gct. Accessed August, 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2009b. State of Washington Population Estimates by City. Available online 

at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?-ds_name=PEP_2009_EST&-

mt_name=PEP_2009_EST_GCTT1R_ST9S&-geo_id=04000US53&-format=ST-9&-

tree_id=809&-context=gct. Accessed August, 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2009c. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Available online at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPGeoSearchByListServlet?_lang=en&_ts=331472

081542. Accessed August, 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a. 2010 Census Interactive Population Search, Skagit County and the 

City of Anacortes. Available online at: 

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=53. Accessed February 

2012. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b. Poverty Thresholds for 2009 by Size of Family and Number of 

Related Children Under 18 Years. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh09.html. Accessed 

August, 2011. 
Analytical Environmental Services 7-6 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2005. American Indian Population and Labor Force Report. 

Available online at: http://www.doi.gov/bia/docs/laborforce/2005Labor 

ForceReportFinal.pdf. Accessed: April 2011. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2009. Nonpoint Source Program 

Success Story: Washington. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/Success/state/pdf/wa_skagit.pdf. Accessed July, 2011. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011. Listed and Proposed Endangered and 

Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in 

Skagit County. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and 

Wildlife Office. Revised August 1, 2011. 

United State Geological Survey (USGS), 2002. USGS Earthquake Magnitude Policy. Available 

online at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/docs/020204mag_policy.php. Accessed 

July, 2011. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2009a. Quaternary fault and fold database for the 

United States. Available online at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/. Accessed 

July, 2011. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2009b. Hydrogeologic framework, groundwater 

movement, and water budget in tributary subbasins and vicinity: Lower Skagit River 

Basin, Skagit and Snohomish Counties, Washington. Available online at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5270/pdf/sir20095270.pdf. Accessed July, 2011. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2010. Preliminary atlas of active shallow tectonic 

deformation in the Puget Lowland, Washington. USGS Open-File Report 2010-1149. 

Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1149/. Accessed July, 2011. 

Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP), 2010. Rare Plant Information. Washington 

National Heritage Information System. List of Known Occurrences of Rare Plants in 

Washington. Skagit County (November 2010). Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/naturalheritage/pages/amp_nh.aspx. 

Accessed August 23, 2011. 

Washington Natural Heritage Program. Rare Animal Information. Washington National 

Heritage Information System. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 

Available at: 
Analytical Environmental Services 7-7 Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust/

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/naturalheritage/pages/amp_nh.aspx. 

Accessed August 23, 2011. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2011. Priority Habitats and Species 

Report. PHS on the Web. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 

August 2008. 177 pp. Available at: 

http://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/gispublic/prodphsontheweb/viewer.aspx?auth=EMvLlWNfcux

aR3lEBDrhKAkmlOGA0m1Mi89DIPRNFeLmrHNluezLXQ==. Accessed August 23, 

2011. 

Washington State (Washington), 2008. Washington State Legislature – Tribal Police Officers; 

Chapter 10.92 RCW. Available online at: 

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.92&full=true. Accessed July, 2011. 

Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), 1979. Slope Stability Maps – Coastal Zone Atlas: 

Skagit County. Available online at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/femaweb/skagit.htm. Accessed June, 2011 

Ecology, 2011a. WRIA 03 – Lower Skagit-Samish Water Resource Inventory Area. Available 

online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/wriapages/03.html. Accessed August, 

2011. 

Ecology, 2011b. Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the 

State of Washington. Available online at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/wac173201a.html. Accessed August, 2011. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR), 2011. Geologic Hazards and 

Mapping: Volcanoes. Available online at: 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/GeologicHazardsMapping/Pages/volcan

oes.aspx. Accessed July, 2011. 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2011. Historical Climate Information. Available at: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca1948. Accessed: May 2011. 
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WETLAND 

DELINEATION REPORT
1801 7th Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95811

http://www.analyticalcorp.com

(916) 447-3479  Fax (916) 447-1665

TELEPHONE NOTES 

Project: Samish Indian Nation Fee-to-Trust 

Subject: Threatened and Endangered Species 

Date: October 19, 2009 

By: Kelly Bayne 

Contact: USFWS Washington Office 

Agencies: USFWS

Phone #: 360-753-9440

Ms. Bayne inquired as to what federal list is sufficient to evaluate for federal listed species. The USFWS 

stated that the federal USFWS list for Skagit County, Washington was sufficient for analyzing species 

within the project site 
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND 

CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN 

IN SKAGIT COUNTY 

AS PREPARED BY 

THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE 

(Revised August 1, 2011) 

LISTED

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) – Coastal­Puget Sound DPS 

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) 

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis) 

Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project 

impacts to listed species include: 

1.  Level of use of the project area by listed species. 

2.  Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, 

and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 

3.  Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise 

levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of 

habitat) that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their 

avoidance of the project area.

DESIGNATED

Critical habitat for bull trout 

Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet 

Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl

PROPOSED

Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) due to similarity of appearance
CANDIDATE

Fisher (Martes pennanti) – West Coast DPS 

North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) – contiguous U.S. DPS 

Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) [historic] 

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis)

SPECIES OF CONCERN

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) 

Long­eared myotis (Myotis evotis) 

Long­legged myotis (Myotis volans) 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

Olive­sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) 

Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) 

Pacific Townsend’s big­eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 

River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) 

Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) 

Western toad (Bufo boreas)

Meconella oregana (white meconella)
REGIONALLY OCCURRING FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

FEDERAL

STATUS

DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PERIOD OF 

IDENTIFICATI

ON

POTENTIAL TO 

OCCUR ON-SITE

Fish

Salvelinus malma

Dolly varden

Proposed Known in the U.S. from Washington and 

Arkansas (NatureServe, 2011).

Typically anadromous, but many populations are 

landlocked (Lee et al. 1980). These species 

migrate to spawning areas between May and 

December (Page and Burr, 1991). Anadromous 

individuals occur in coastal seas for 2 to 3 years 

and in deep runs and pools of creeks and small to 

large rivers. Some landlocked populations inhabit 

lakes and tributary streams (NatureServe, 2011).

Contact Agency No. The project site 

does not provide 

habitat for this 

species.

Salvelinus confluentus

Bull trout-Coastal Puget 

Sound Distinct Population 

Segment

Threatened/ 

Critical Habitat

Known from Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 

Oregon, and Washington (NatureServe, 

2011).

Found in streams with riffles and deep pools, 

undercut banks and lots of large logs and rely on 

river, lake and ocean habitats that connect to 

headwater streams for annual spawning and 

feeding migrations (NatureServe, 2011).

Contact Agency No. The project site 

does not provide 

habitat for this 

species. See text for 

discussion of Critical 

Habitat.

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) 

tshawytscha

Chinook salmon 

Upper Columbia SpringRun EFH, 

Snake River Fall-Run 

EFH,

Snake River EFH, 

and Puget Sound EFH

Endangered or

Threatened/ 

Critical Habitat

From Upper Columbia spring-run ESU, 

found in all river reaches accessible to 

Chinook salmon in Columbia River 

tributaries upstream of the Rock Island 

Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph 

Dam in Washington (excluding the 

Okanogan River), the Columbia River 

from a straight line connecting the west 

end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, 

Oregon side) and the west end of the 

Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington 

side) upstream to Chief Joseph Dam in 

Washington. From fallrun Chinook 

salmon in the mainstem Snake River

ESU, found below Hells Canyon Dam, 

and in the Tucannon River, Grande 

Ronde River, Imnaha River, Salmon 

River, and Clearwater River. From 

Snake River spring/summer-run ESU, 

found in mainstem Snake River and the 

Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, 

Imnaha River, and Salmon River 

subbasins. From Puget Sound ESU, 

Spawning: streams with pool and riffle complexes. 

For successful breeding, require cold water 

(Moyle, 2002).

Contact Agency No. The project site 

does not provide 

habitat for this 

species. The project 

site does not occur 

within designated

Critical Habitat for 

this species.
SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

FEDERAL

STATUS

DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PERIOD OF 

IDENTIFICATI

ON

POTENTIAL TO 

OCCUR ON-SITE

found in rivers and streams flowing into 

Puget Sound.

Amphibians

Rana pretiosa

Oregon spotted frog

Candidate From southwest British Columbia south 

through Washington and Oregon 

(Californiaherps, 2011).

Found in aquatic environments mostly in mixed 

coniferous forests. Found near cool, quiet, permanent 

water sources; slow streams that meander through 

meadows, sluggish streams and rivers, marshes, springs, 

pools, edges of small lakes, and ponds from near sea 

level to 5,000 feet (Californiaherps, 2011).

February-October No. The project site 

does not provide 

habitat for this 

species. 

Birds

Strix occidentalis caurina

Northern spotted owl

Threatened/

Critical Habitat

Geographic range extends from British 

Colombia to northwestern California 

south to San Francisco. The breeding 

range includes the Cascade Range, North 

Coast Ranges, and the Sierra Nevada. 

Some breeding populations also occur in 

the Transverse Ranges and Peninsular 

Ranges NatureServe, 2011).

Resides in mixed conifer, redwood, and Douglasfir habitats, from sea level up to approximately 

2,300 meters. Prefers old-growth forests, but use 

of managed (previously logged) lands is not 

uncommon. Owls do not appear to use logged 

habitat until approximately 60 years after logging 

unless some larger trees or snags remain after 

logging. Nesting habitat is a tree or snag cavity, 

or the broken top of a large tree. Requires a 

nearby, permanent source of water. Foraging 

habitat consists of any forest habitat with 

sufficient prey (e.g. flying squirrels, mice, and 

voles) (NatureServe, 2011).

Year round No. The project site 

does not provide 

habitat for this 

species. The project 

site does not occur 

within designated 

Critical Habitat for 

this species.

Brachyramphus 

marmoratus

Marbled murrelet

Threatened/

Critical Habitat

Found from the western Aleutian Islands 

through coastal southern and southeastern 

Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, 

Oregon, and northern central California 

NatureServe, 2011).

Nests from May through early August in 

Washington. Outside of the breeding season, 

found in coastal areas, mainly in salt water within 

2 km of shore, including bays and sounds. Nests

in trees in terrestrial habitat including alpine, 

conifer forest, and Tundra (NatureServe, 2011).

Year round No. The project site 

does not provide 

habitat for this 

species. The project 

site does not occur 

within designated 

Critical Habitat for 

this species.

Mammals

Canus lupus

Gray wolf

Endangered Known from Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, 

North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South 

Dakota, Utah, and Washington

(NatureServe, 2011).

Found in temperate forests, mountains, tundra, 

taiga, and grasslands. Territory ranges from less 

100 to 10,000s of square kilometers. Breeds from

February to March. Gestates for two months. 

Pups remain in the den until they are 8 to 10 

weeks old (NatureServe, 2011). Young and 

parents vacate the den when young are about 3 

months old (Hoffmeister, 1986). 

Year round No. The project site 

does not provide 

habitat for this 

species. 
SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

FEDERAL

STATUS

DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PERIOD OF 

IDENTIFICATI

ON

POTENTIAL TO 

OCCUR ON-SITE

Gulo gulo luteus 

continuous U.S. Distinct 

Population Segment

North American Wolverine

Candidate Known from montane regions of Idaho, 

Montana, Washington and Wyoming 

(NatureServe, 2011).

Inhabit alpine and arctic tundra, boreal and 

mountain forests, which are primarily coniferous. 

Limited to mountains in the south, especially large 

wilderness areas from 400 to 4,300 meters 

(NatureServe, 2011).

Year round No. The project site 

does not provide 

habitat for this 

species. 

Lynx canadensis

Canada lynx

Threatened Known in the U.S. from Arkansas, 

Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, 

Montana, Minnesota, North Dakota, New 

Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, 

Washington, and Wyoming 

(NatureServe, 2011).

Found in boreal and montane regions dominated 

by coniferous or mixed forest with thick 

undergrowth. When inactive or birthing, occupies 

den typically in hollow tree, under stump, or in 

thick brush. Den sites tend to be in mature or old 

growth stands with a high density of logs 

(Koehler, 1990, Koehler and Brittell, 1990). 

Primary habitat components in the Pacific 

Northwest is foraging habitat (15 to 35-year-old 

lodgepole pine) to support snowshoe hare and 

provide hunting cover, denning sites (patches of 

greater than 200-year-old spruce and fir, generally 

less than 5 acres, and dispersal/travel cover 

(variable in vegetation composition and structure) 

(USFWS, 1993). Breeds in late winter-early 

spring in North America (NatureServe, 2011).

Year round No. The project site 

does not provide 

habitat for this 

species.

Martes pennanti West 

Coast Distinct Population 

Segment

Pacific fisher

Candidate Distributed along the Sierra Nevada, 

Cascades and Klammath Mountains and 

in a few areas in the north Coast Ranges.

Found in intermediate to dense mature stands of 

trees (coniferous forests) and deciduous riparian 

habitats with a high percent canopy closure. 

Utilizes cavities in large trees, snags, logs, rock 

areas, or shelters provided by slash or brush piles.

Year Round No. The project site 

does not provide 

habitat for this 

species.

Ursus arctos (Ursus arctos 

horriblilis)

Grizzly bear

Threatened Known in the U.S. from Arkansas, 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Kansas, Montana, Minnesota, North 

Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, 

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming 

(NatureServe, 2011).

Found mostly in arctic tundra, alpine tundra, and 

subalpine mountain forests. Breeds in late spring 

and early summer. Young are born in winter. 

Adults are solitary except when breeding or caring 

for young (NatureServe, 2011).

Year round No. The project site 

does not provide 

habitat for this 

species. 

Plants

Castilleja levisecta

Golden paintbrush

Threatened In Washington, occurs in the Puget 

Trough physiographic province (WNHP, 

2010).

Perennial herb that occurs in open grasslands in 

the Puget Trough. The substrate is generally 

composed of glacial outwash or depositional 

material from 10 to 300 feet (WNHP, 2010).

April-July No. The project site is 

outside the 

geographical range for 

this species.

Meconella oregano

White meconella

Species of 

Concern

In Washington, occurs in the Eastern 

Cascades, Western Cascades, and Puget 

Annual herb that occurs primarily in open 

grassland, sometimes within a mosaic of 

March-April No. The project site is 

outside the 
SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

FEDERAL

STATUS

DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PERIOD OF 

IDENTIFICATI

ON

POTENTIAL TO 

OCCUR ON-SITE

Trough physiographic Provinces 

(WNHP, 2010).

forest/grassland on gradual to almost 100 percent 

slopes. 100 to 450 feet (WNHP, 2010).

geographical range for 

this species.

Pinus albicaulis

Whitebark pine

Candidate Found in two distinct sections; one 

following the British Columbia Coast 

Ranges, the Cascade Range, and the 

Sierra Nevada, and the other covering the 

Rocky Mountains from Wyoming to 

Alberta. In Washington, found in the 

northeastern Rocky Mountains (Bailey, 

1975).

Gymnosperm that occurs in subalpine forest from 

7,000 and 12,000 feet (Calflora, 2011).

Year round No. The project site is 

outside the elevational 

range for this species.
Analytical Environmental Services 1 Samish-Thompson Site Property 

September 2011 Botanical Survey Technical Memorandum

1801 7th Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95811

http://www.analyticalcorp.com

(916) 447-3479 Fax (916) 447-1665

MEMORANDUM

To: Samish Indian Nation, City of Anacortes, Washington 

From: Kelly Bayne 

Date: 9/8/2011 

Re: Botanical Survey Results for the Samish Indian Nation-Thompson Site Property in the City of Anacortes, 

Washington 

INTRODUCTION

Analytical Environmental Services (AES) prepared this technical memorandum (memo) to document the 

field verification results conducted to determine whether rare plants of Skagit County occur within the 

Samish Indian Nation (Tribe)-Thompson Site Property (property) located in the City of Anacortes, 

Washington. The City of Anacortes (City) adopted Biological Ordinance “17.70.320-Designation, Rating, 

and Mapping Wetlands” that designates wetlands in accordance with the Washington State Department of 

Ecology, Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, Pub. No. 96-94. One criteria used 

to rate the wetlands designation is whether rare plants identified within Skagit County are present (WNHP, 

2010). The City’s trail system map identifies a Category III wetland on the property (City of Anacortes, 

2006). Focused botanical surveys were conducted to ensure that no rare plants occur within the subject 

property. 

PROJECT LOCATION

The approximately 14.84-acre property is located at the intersection of Thompson Road and SR-20 in the 

City of Anacortes, Skagit County, Washington. The property is situated in Township 34 North, Range 2 

East, Section 4 of the Anacortes South, Washington, Willamette Meridian U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (quad). The centroid of the property is 48.459275° latitude, -

122.556575° longitude. 

METHODOLOGY

Preliminary Research 

Prior to conducting the biological and focused botanical surveys, AES obtained biological information for 

the property from the following sources: Anacortes South quad; color aerial photography of the property 

(AES, 2007); map of priority habitats and species documented in the vicinity of the property (WDFW, 

2011); Washington National Heritage Program (WNHP) list of rare plants in Skagit County (WNHP, 2010); 

list of endangered and threatened species in Skagit County (USFWS, 2011a); and delineation report of the 

property and surrounding vicinity (AES, 2010). The WNHP (2010) list is provided in Attachment 1. 
Analytical Environmental Services 2 Samish-Thompson Site Property 

September 2011 Botanical Survey Technical Memorandum

Field Surveys and Analysis 

AES senior biologist Kelly Bayne, M.S. conducted general biological and focused botanical surveys and 

delineations on October 21 and 22, 2009 and May 25 and 26, 2010. Ms. Bayne and botanist Laura Burris 

conducted general biological and focused botanical surveys on September 22 and 23, 2010. The results of 

the delineation are documented in a separate report (AES, 2011). The botanical surveys consisted of 

walking transects in a north to south direction to evaluate biological communities, conducting floristic 

inventories, and documenting potential habitat for special status plants with the potential to occur on the 

property. Plants observed within the property are identified in Attachment 2. 

RESULTS

Habitat Types 

Habitat types in the property include: nonnative annual grassland, riparian, snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) 

patch, ruderal/disturbed areas, manmade ditch, and roadside ditch. 

Special Status Plant Species 

For the purposes of this assessment, special status plants have been defined to include those species that are: 

 Listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (or formally 

proposed for, or candidates for, listing); 

 Listed as endangered or threatened under the Washington State ESA (or proposed for listing); 

 Designated as sensitive under the state ESA; or 

 Designated as review groups of potential concern under the state ESA. 

Table 1 provides a summary of habitat requirements and geographic distributions of rare plants 

documented in Skagit County (WNHP, 2010) and a rationale as the whether the plants have the potential to 

occur within the property. The project site geography and elevation were used to eliminate from further 

consideration plants that occur outside these ranges. Other listed plants were eliminated from further 

consideration during the field surveys based on the absence of suitable habitat required by the plants. Plants 

without the potential to occur within the property are not discussed further. In conclusion, the property does 

not provide habitat for any federally listed special status plants. The property does, however, provide 

habitat and occurs within the known geographic and elevation ranges for the following four state listed 

plants: pink fawn lily (Erythronium revolutum), branching montia (Montia diffusa), California buttercup 

(Ranunculus californicus), and soft-leaved willow (Salix sessilifolia). These plants are discussed in further 

detail below. 

Pink Fawn Lily (Erythronium revolutum) 

State Status: Sensitive 

Other: Historic Record 

Pink fawn lily prefers moist mineral soil in open or moderately shaded areas. This species blooms from April to 

May (WNHP, 2010). Although this species is known from Skagit, Clallam, Jefferson, Wahkiakum, Pacific, and 

Grays Harbor counties in Washington, the WNHP (2010) identifies this species as a historic record with the most 

recent sighting in Skagit County occurring prior to 1977. 
Analytical Environmental Services 3 Samish-Thompson Site Property 

September 2011 Botanical Survey Technical Memorandum

Table 1 

Regionally Occurring Federally Listed Special Status Plants 

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

FEDERAL/STATE

STATUS/HISTORIC 

RECORD

DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PERIOD OF 

IDENTIFICATION

POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ONSITE

Anthoxanthum hirtum

common northern sweet 

grass

--/R1,H In Washington, currently known 

from Chelan, Okanogan, and 

Skamania counties (WNHP, 

2010).

Found on moist slopes, meadows, and 

stream banks from the foothills to subalpines from 325 to 4,420 feet (WNHP, 

2010).

April through July No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species, is outside the 

known geographic and elevation ranges 

for this species, and was not observed 

during the May 25 and 26, 2010 focused 

botanical surveys conducted within the 

evident and identifiable blooming period 

for this species. 

Carex comosa

bristly sedge

--/S In Washington, occurrences are 

scattered throughout the state 

(WNHP, 2010).

Found in marshes, lake shores, and wet 

meadows. Associated species may 

include Carex utriculata, Potentilla 

palustris, Typha latifolia, Spiraea 

douglasii, Dulichium arundinaceum, and 

Phalaris arundinacea from 50 to 2,000 

feet (WNHP, 2010).

May through July. No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species, is outside the 

known elevation range for this species, 

and was not observed during the May 25 

and 26, 2010 focused botanical surveys 

conducted within the evident and 

identifiable blooming period for this 

species.

Carex magellanica ssp. 

irrigua

poor sedge

--/S In Washington, known from Pend 

Oreille, Okanogan, Whatcom, 

Skagit, Chelan, and Stevens 

counties (WNHP, 2010).

Found in fens, bogs, shady wet meadows, 

shrub wetlands, and marshes, often 

growing in peat soil, at 1,640 to 7,000 feet 

(WNHP, 2010).

June to September No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species, is outside the 

known elevation range for this species 

,and was not observed during the 

September 22 and 23, 2010 focused 

botanical surveys conducted within the 

evident and identifiable blooming period 

for this species.

Carex pauciflora

few-flowered sedge

--/S In Washington, known from 

Whatcom, Snohomish, San Juan, 

King, Jefferson, Clallam, Mason, 

and Kittitas counties (WNHP, 

2010).

Found in sphagnum bogs and acidic peat, 

usually on open mats, but also in partial 

conifer shade. In Washington, this 

species grows from 320 to 4,550 feet 

(WNHP, 2010).

Late May to early 

September

No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species, is outside the 

known geographic and elevation ranges 

for this species, and was not observed 

during the May 25 and 26, 2010 focused 

botanical surveys conducted within the 

evident and identifiable blooming period 

for this species.

Carex praeceptorum

teacher's sedge

--/R1 In Washington, known from 

Skagit, Pend Oreille, and Chelan 

counties (WNHP, 2010).

Found in sphagnum bogs and very wet 

shores around a lake, from 650 to 6,320 

feet (WNHP, 2010).

June and August. No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species and is outside the 

known elevation range for this species.

Carex stylosa

long styled sedge

--/S In Washington, known from 

Clallam, Jefferson, Snohomish, 

Whatcom, and Skagit counties 

Found in coastal regions, shallow 

marshes, gravelly loam, streambanks, and 

moist meadows. Occasionally found

June through September. No. The property was not observed 

during the September 22 and 23, 2010 

focused botanical surveys conducted 
Analytical Environmental Services 4 Samish-Thompson Site Property 

September 2011 Botanical Survey Technical Memorandum

(WNHP, 2010). growing over hardened lava flow 

(WNHP, 2010).

within the evident and identifiable 

blooming period for this species.

Castilleja levisecta

golden paintbrush

LT/SE, H In Washington, known from the 

Puget Trough physiographic 

province (WNHP, 2010).

Perennial herb found in open grasslands 

with substrate composed of glacial 

outwash or depositional material, from 10 

to 300 feet (WNHP, 2010).

April through July No. The property provides habitat within 

the nonnative grassland, however, the 

property is outside the known geographic 

range for this species and was not 

observed during the May 25 and 26, 2010 

focused botanical surveys conducted 

within the evident and identifiable 

blooming period for this species.

Erythronium revolutum

pink fawn lily

--/S, H In Washington, known from 

Skagit, Clallam, Jefferson, 

Wahkiakum, Pacific, and Grays 

Harbor counties (WNHP, 2010).

Prefers moist mineral soil in open or 

moderately shaded areas (WNHP, 2010).

April to May. Yes. See text.

Hypericum majus

Canadian St. John’s wart

--/S Known from Benton, Franklin, 

Skagit, and Spokane counties 

(WNHP, 2010).

Found along ponds, lakesides or other 

low, wet places. In Washington, usually 

associated with riparian habitats from 100 

to 2,300 feet (WNHP, 2010).

July through September No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species, is outside of the 

known elevation range for this species, 

and was not observed during the 

September 22 and 23, 2010 focused 

botanical surveys conducted within the 

evident and identifiable blooming period 

for this species.

Lobelia dortmanna

water lobelia

--/T In Washington, scattered 

occurrences known from King 

County, north to Whatcom 

County, and west to Clallam 

County (WNHP, 2010).

Found in shallow water at the margins of 

lakes and ponds (WNHP, 2010).

June and lasting through

August

No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species. 

Loiseleuria procumbens

alpine azalea

--/T In Washington, known from

Skagit County (WNHP, 2010).

In Washington, found in alpine slopes 

from 6,100 to 6,550 feet (WNHP, 2010).

August. No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species and is outside of 

the known elevation range for this 

species.

Luzula arcuata ssp. 

unalaschkensis

curved woodrush

--/S In Washington, scattered, disjunct 

populations known from Pierce, 

Yakima, Okanogan, and Skagit 

counties (WNHP, 2010).

In Washington, found on a rocky exposed 

ridge at 7,080 feet and below a highly 

vegetated ridge crest between two 

snowfields on a volcanic boulder slope 

with flat pockets of sandy soil at 7,200 

feet (WNHP, 2010).

August. No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species and is outside of 

the known elevation range for this 

species.

Meconella oregano

white meconella

Species of Concern In Washington, known from the 

Eastern Cascades, Western 

Cascades, and Puget Trough 

physiographic provinces (WNHP, 

2010).

Annual herb found primarily in open 

grassland, sometimes within a mosaic of 

forest/grassland on gradual to almost 100 

percent slopes from 100 to 450 feet 

(WNHP, 2010).

March to April No. The property provides habitat within 

the nonnative grassland, however, the 

property is outside of the known elevation 

and geographic ranges for this species.
Analytical Environmental Services 5 Samish-Thompson Site Property 

September 2011 Botanical Survey Technical Memorandum

Source: Washington National Heritage Program List of Rare Plants in Skagit County (November 2010) 

Codes 

H = Historic Record. Most recent sighting in the County is before 1977. 

State Status Codes= State status of plant species is determined by the Washington Natural Heritage Program. Federal Status Codes = Federal Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

E = Endangered. In danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Washington. LE = Listed Endangered. In danger of extinction. 

T = Threatened. Likely to become Endangered in Washington. LT = Listed Threatened. Likely to become endangered. 

S = Sensitive. Vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in the state. PE = Proposed Endangered. 

X = Possibly extinct or Extirpated from Washington. PT = Proposed Threatened. 

R1 = Review group 1. Of potential concern but needs more field work to assign another rank. C = Candidate species. Sufficient information exists to support listing as Endangered or 

R2 = Review group 2. Of potential concern but with unresolved taxonomic questions. SC = Species of Concern. 

Montia diffusa

branching montia 

--/S In Washington, known from 

Skamania, Snohomish, Clark, 

Kittitas, Skagit, and Clallam 

counties (WNHP, 2010).

Found in moist forests in the lowland and 

lower montane zones, and occasionally 

located in xeric soils or disturbed sites 

(WNHP, 2010).

April through July Yes. See text.

Pinus albicaulis

whitebark pine

Candidate Found in two distinct sections; 

one following the British 

Columbia Coast Ranges, the 

Cascade Range, and the Sierra 

Nevada, and the other covering 

the Rocky Mountains from 

Wyoming to Alberta. In 

Washington, found in the 

northeastern Rocky Mountains 

(Bailey, 1975).

Gymnosperm found in subalpine forest 

from 7,000 and 12,000 feet (Calflora, 

2011).

Year round No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species, is outside the 

elevation range for this species, and the 

species was not observed during any of 

the botanical surveys conducted within 

the evident and identifiable blooming 

period for this species.

Potamogeton obtusifolius

blunt leaved pondweed

--/S, H In Washington, known from 

Mason, Skagit, San Juan, and 

Jefferson counties (WNHP, 

2010).

Found submerged on banks and in 3 to 9 

feet (1-3.75 meters) of shallow water, 

from 100 to 513 feet (WNHP, 2010).

August. No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species and is outside the 

elevation range for this species.

Ranunculus californicus

California buttercup

--/T, H Known from southern Vancouver 

Island to southern California. 

Historically, known from San 

Juan and Skagit counties, 

Washington, however, two recent 

occurrences known from San 

Juan County (WNHP, 2010).

In Washington, found in open grassy 

areas, rocky slopes along the shore, and in 

rocky wooded areas from 15 to 50 feet 

(WNHP, 2010).

May to June. Yes. See text.

Salix sessilifolia

soft-leaved willow

--/S In Washington, known from 

Cowlitz, Klickitat, Wahkiakum, 

Skagit, and Whatcom counties 

(WNHP, 2010).

In Washington, found lowland habitats 

including riparian forest, in dredge spoils, 

and on a silty bank at the upper edge of an 

intertidal zone (WNHP, 2010).

May through December Yes. See text.

Saxifraga rivularis

pygmy saxifrage

--/S Known from British Columbia 

south to the Cascades and 

Olympics of Washington, and the 

Blue and Wallowa mountains 

(WNHP, 2010).

Found on damp cliffs, rock crevices, talus 

near snowbanks, alpine slopes, cracks, 

and shaded cliffs from 6,000 to 7,000 feet 

(WNHP, 2010).

July and August. No. The property does not provide 

habitat for this species and is outside the 

elevation range for this species
Analytical Environmental Services 6 Samish-Thompson Site Property 

September 2011 Botanical Survey Technical Memorandum

The nonnative annual grassland within the property provides habitat for this species. This species was not 

observed during the May 25 and 26, 2010 focused botanical surveys conducted within the evident and 

identifiable blooming period for this species. This species does not occur within the property. 

Branching Montia (Montia diffusa) 

State Status: Sensitive 

Other: None 

Branching montia is found in moist forests in the lowland and lower montane zones, and occasionally 

located in xeric soils or disturbed sites. The blooming period for this species in from April through July. 

This species is known from Skamania, Snohomish, Clark, Kittitas, Skagit, and Clallam counties (WNHP, 

2010). 

The ruderal/disturbed areas within the property provide habitat for this species. This species was not 

observed during the May 25 and 26, 2010 focused botanical surveys conducted within the evident and 

identifiable blooming period for this species. This species does not occur within the property. 

California Buttercup (Ranunculus californicus )

State Status: Threatened 

Other: Historic Record 

California buttercup is found in open grassy areas, rocky slopes along the shore, and in rocky wooded 

areas from 15 to 50 feet in Washington (WNHP, 2010). The blooming period for this species is from 

May to June. Although this species is known from southern Vancouver Island to southern California, the 

WNHP (2010) identifies this species as a historic record with the most recent sighting in Skagit County 

occurring prior to 1977. 

The nonnative annual grassland within the property provides habitat for this species. This species was not 

observed during the May 25 and 26, 2010 focused botanical surveys conducted within the evident and 

identifiable blooming period for this species. This species does not occur within the property. 

Soft-Leaved Willow (Salis sessifolia) 

State Status: Sensitive 

Other: None 

Soft-leaved willow is found on lowland habitats including riparian forest, in dredge spoils, and on a silty 

bank at the upper edge of an intertidal zone. The blooming period for this species is from May through 

December. This species is known from Cowlitz, Klickitat, Wahkiakum, Skagit, and Whatcom counties 

(WNHP, 2010). 
Analytical Environmental Services 7 Samish-Thompson Site Property 

September 2011 Botanical Survey Technical Memorandum

The riparian habitat within the property provides habitat for this species. This species was not observed 

during the October 21 and 22, 2009, May 25 and 26, 2010, and September 22 and 23, 2010 focused 

botanical surveys conducted within the evident and identifiable blooming period. This species does not 

occur within the property. 

CONCLUSION

None of the potentially occurring special status species identified within the WNHP (2010) list occur 

within the property. 

REFERENCES

Analytical Environmental Services (AES), 2011. Delineation of Waters of the U.S. for the Samish Indian 

Nation-Thomas Site Fee-To-Trust. Prepared by AES. 

City of Anacortes, 2006. City of Anacortes Wetlands Classification Map. Available online at: 

http://www.cityofanacortes.org/Planning/CompPlans/. Accessed August 2011. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened 

Species and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in Skagit County. 

Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. Revised 

August 1, 2011. 

Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP), 2010. Rare Plant Information. Washington National 

Heritage Information System. List of Known Occurrences of Rare Plants in Washington. Skagit 

County (November 2010). Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Available at: 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/naturalheritage/pages/amp_nh.aspx. Accessed 

August 23, 2011. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2011. Priority Habitats and Species Report. 

PHS on the Web. Available at: 

http://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/gispublic/prodphsontheweb/viewer.aspx?auth=EMvLlWNfcuxaR3lEB

DrhKAkmlOGA0m1Mi89DIPRNFeLmrHNluezLXQ==. Accessed August 23, 2011. 
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1

WASHINGTON NATIONAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, PRIORITY HABITAT,

AND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE LISTS
A key to status fields appears below. If a scientific name is underlined you may click on it to go to a field guide page 

(pdf format, average size 300 kb) for that taxon. 

Description of Codes 

Historic Record: 

H indicates most recent sighting in the county is before 1977. 

State Status 

State Status of plant species is determined by the Washington Natural Heritage Program. Factors considered include abundance, occurrence 

patterns, vulnerability, threats, existing protection, and taxonomic distinctness. 

Values include: 

E = Endangered. In danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Washington. 

T = Threatened. Likely to become Endangered in Washington. 

S = Sensitive. Vulnerable or declining and could become Endangered or Threatened in the state. 

X = Possibly extinct or Extirpated from Washington. 

R1 = Review group 1. Of potential concern but needs more field work to assign another rank.

Washington Natural Heritage Information System

List of Known Occurrences of Rare Plants in Washington

November 2010 

Skagit County 

Scientific Name Common Name 

State 

Status 

Federal 

Status 

Historic 

Record 

Anthoxanthum hirtum common northern sweet grass R1 H 

Carex comosa bristly sedge S 

Carex magellanica ssp. irrigua poor sedge S 

Carex pauciflora few-flowered sedge S 

Carex praeceptorum Teacher's sedge R1 

Carex stylosa long-styled sedge S 

Castilleja levisecta golden paintbrush E LT H 

Erythronium revolutum pink fawn-lily S H 

Hypericum majus Canadian St. John's-wort S 

Lobelia dortmanna water lobelia T 

Loiseleuria procumbens alpine azalea T 

Luzula arcuata ssp. unalaschkensis curved woodrush S 

Meconella oregana white meconella T SC H 

Montia diffusa branching montia S 

Nuttallanthus texanus Texas toadflax S 

Potamogeton obtusifolius blunt-leaved pondweed S H 

Ranunculus californicus California buttercup T H 

Salix sessilifolia soft-leaved willow S 

Saxifraga rivularis pygmy saxifrage S 

County List of Rare Plants from the Washington Natural Heritage Program Page 1 of 2

file://N:\Projects\2009 AES Projects\209532 - Samish Casino\Bio\Focused Botanical Surv... 9/13/2011
R2 = Review group 2. Of potential concern but with unresolved taxonomic questions. 

Federal Status 

Federal Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act(USESA) as published in the Federal Register: 

LE = Listed Endangered. In danger of extinction. 

LT = Listed Threatened. Likely to become endangered. 

PE = Proposed Endangered. 

PT = Proposed Threatened. 

C = Candidate species. Sufficient information exists to support listing as Endangered or Threatened. 

SC = Species of Concern. An unofficial status, the species appears to be in jeopardy, but insufficient information to support listing. 

Washington Natural Heritage Program - www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/NaturalHeritage/Pages/amp_nh.aspx/ back to top

Washington Dept. of Natural Resources, PO Box 47016, Olympia, WA 98504-7016

County List of Rare Plants from the Washington Natural Heritage Program Page 2 of 2

file://N:\Projects\2009 AES Projects\209532 - Samish Casino\Bio\Focused Botanical Surv... 9/13/2011
ATTACHMENT 2

PLANTS OBSERVED WITHIN THE PROPERTY
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN THE PROPERTY

October 21 and 22, 2009, May 25 and 26, 2010, and September 22 and 23, 2010 

Family Scientific Name Common Name

Aceraceae Acer macrophyllum Big-leaf maple

Apiaceae Daucus carota Queen Anne’s lace

Conium maculatum Poison hemlock

Asteraceae Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle

Achillea millefolium Yarrow

Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat's ear

Leucanthemum vulgare White daisy

Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce

Aster subspicatus Douglas aster

Tanacetum bipinnatum Common tansy

Betulaceae Alnus rubra Red alder

Boraginaceae Myosotis laxa Small-flowered forget-me-not

Brassicaceae Brassica rapa (=B. campestris) Field mustard

Cardamine breweri Bitter cress

Erysimum sp.

Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum Water cress

Caprifoliaceae Lonicera involucrata var. involucrata Honeysuckle

Symphoricarpos alba Common snowberry

Caryophyllaceae Cerastium arvense Field chickweed

Chenopodaceae Atriplex patula Spear orache

Convulvaceae Calystegia sepium Hedge bindweed

Cyperaceae Carex praegracilis Clustered field sedge

Carex stipata Sawbeak sedge

Carex ssp. Sedge

Dipsacaceae Dipsacus sulvestris Teasel

Dryopteridaceae Polystichum munitum Sword fern

Equisetaceae Equisetum arvense Common horsetail

Ericaceae Gaultheria shallon Salal

Vaccinium parvifolium Red huckleberry

Arbutus menziesii Pacific madrone

Fabaceae Trifolium dubium Little hop clover

Trifolium pretense Red clover

Trifolium repens White clover

Trifolium hirtum Rose clover

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom

Lathyrus latifolius Perennial pea

Medicago lupulina Black medic

Gentianaceae Centaurium erythraea Common centaury

Centaurium umbellatum Centaury

Geraniaceae Geranium dissectum Cranesbill

Geranium robertianum Robert’s Geranium

Geranium molle Cranesbill

Hippocastanaceae Aesculus californica California buckeye

Hypericaceae Hypericum perforatum Klamathweed

Juncaceae Juncus balticus Baltic rush

Juncus bufonius Toad rush

Juncus effusus ssp. effuses Common rush

Juncus effuses ssp. pacificus Pacific rush
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN THE PROPERTY

October 21 and 22, 2009, May 25 and 26, 2010, and September 22 and 23, 2010 

Liliaceae Stenanthium occidentale Western featherbells

Onagraceae Ludwigia palustris False loosestrife

Epilobium paniculatum Tall annual willow-herb

Epilobium ciliatum Common willow-herb

Papaveraceae Papaver nudicale Cultivated Iceland poppy

Pinaceae Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce

Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata English plantain

Poaceae Holcus lanatus Common velvet grass

Festuca rubra Red fescue

Festuca idahoensis Blue bunchgrass

Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernalgrass

Dactylis glomerata Orchard grass

Distichlis spicata Saltgrass

Echinochloa crus-galli Barnyard grass

Aira caryophyllea Silver European hairgrass

Agrostis capilaris Colonial bentgrass

Taeniatherum caput-medusae Medusa head

Bromus tectorum Cheat grass

Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome

Agrostis oregonensis Oregon bentgrass

Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bentgrass

Phalaris arundinaceae Reed canary grass

Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Curly dock

Rumex acetosella Sheep sorrel

Rumex occidentalis western dock

Polypodiaceae Pteridium aquilinum Braken fern

Portulacaceae Claytonia perfoliata Miner’s lettuce

Ranunculaceae Ranunculus sp.

Ranunculus occidentalis Buttercup

Ranunculus uncinatus Hook seeded buttercup

Rosaceae Crataegus sp.

Potentilla sp.

Rosa nutkana Nootka rose

Rubus ursinus California blackberry

Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry

Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry

Prunus emarginata

Rubus spectabilis Salmon berry

Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry

Prunus ilicifolia ssp. ilicifolia Holly-leafed cherry

Rosa sp.

Rubiaceae Galium aparine Goose grass

Scrophulariaceae Veronica catenata Chain speedwell

Mimulus alsinoides Wingstem monkeyflower

Mimulus guttatus Yellow monkeyflower

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein

Veronica americana American brooklime

Solanaceae Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet nightshade
DELINEATION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

SAMISH INDIAN NATION - THOMPSON SITE

PREPARED FOR:

Samish Indian Nation

P.O. Box 217

2918 Commercial Avenue

Anacortes, WA 98221

PREPARED BY:

Analytical Environmental Services

1801 7th Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95811

AUGUST 2011
DELINEATION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

SAMISH INDIAN NATION - THOMPSON SITE

PREPARED FOR:

Samish Indian Nation

P.O. Box 217

2918 Commercial Avenue

Anacortes, WA 98221

PREPARED BY:

Analytical Environmental Services

1801 7th Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95811

AUGUST 2011
Analytical Environmental Services i Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DELINEATION OF WATERS OF THE U.S. FOR THE 

SAMISH INDIAN NATION-THOMPSON SITE FEE-TO-TRUST 

1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Applicant and Agent ......................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.4 Study Area Description and Location ........................................................................................... 1

2.0 Regulatory Background ................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Wetland Determination Methods .................................................................................................. 6

3.2 Waters of the U.S. Determination Methods .................................................................................. 8

3.3 Data Review .................................................................................................................................. 8

3.4 Delineation Surveys ...................................................................................................................... 8

3.5 Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington ....................................................................... 9

4.0 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Climate ........................................................................................................................................ 10

4.2 Soil Types ................................................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Habitat Types .............................................................................................................................. 12

4.4 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... 16

5.0 Delineation Results ........................................................................................................................ 16

6.0 Wetland Rating system Results ..................................................................................................... 18

7.0 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 18

8.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Analytical Environmental Services ii Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Mapped Soil Types ................................................................................................................. 10 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Regional Location .................................................................................................................... 2 

Figure 2 Site and Vicinity ....................................................................................................................... 3 

Figure 3 Aerial Photograph ..................................................................................................................... 4 

Figure 4 Soils Map ................................................................................................................................. 11 

Figure 5 Habitat Map and Delineation of Waters of the U.S. ................................................................ 13 

Figure 6 Site Photographs ...................................................................................................................... 14 

Figure 7 Site Photographs ...................................................................................................................... 15 

Figure 8 USFWS Wetlands Online Mapper .......................................................................................... 17 

Figure 9 City of Anacortes Wetlands Classification Map ..................................................................... 19 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment 1 Wetland Delineation Data Sheets 
Analytical Environmental Services 1 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of the delineation of waters of the U.S, as defined by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), for the Samish Indian Nation 

(Tribe)-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust Project (proposed project) located in Skagit County, Washington. 

The purpose of the delineation was to identify whether wetlands and other waters of the U.S. occur within 

the proposed project study area (study area) and to rate the wetlands, if present. The jurisdictional 

delineation is considered preliminary until the USACE verifies the findings. 

Applicant Agent

Ted Gage Analytical Environmental Services

Samish Indian Nation 1801 7th Street, Suite 100 

2918 Commercial Avenue Sacramento, California 95811

Anacortes, Washington 98221 Phone: (916) 447-3479

Fax: (916) 447-1665

The Tribe proposes to transfer the study area into federal trust land and is anticipating possible 

development of the study area. 

The approximately 14.84-acre study area is located at the intersection of Thompson Road and SR-20 in 

the City of Anacortes, Skagit County, Washington (Figure 1). The study area is situated in Township 34 

North, Range 2 East, Section 4 of the Anacortes South, Washington, Willamette Meridian U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (quad). The centroid of the study area is 

48.459275° latitude, -122.556575° longitude. A topographic map and an aerial photograph of the study 

area are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. 

The study area is hydrologic unit code (HUC) Strait of Georgia number: 17110002. Topography within 

the study area consists of a relatively gradual slope with elevations ranging from approximately 70 to 84 

feet above mean sea level. 

To access to the study area from Seattle, take Interstate 5 North for approximately 65 miles. Take the SR20 exit toward Burlington/Anacortes and drive 0.4 miles. Turn left onto SR-20 West and drive 10.7 

miles. Turn left onto Thompson Road. The northwestern boundary of the study area is located at the 

intersection of Thompson Road and SR-20. 
^_

STUDY AREA

Figure 1

Regional Location - Proposed & Alternative Project Sites

SOURCE: ESRI Server Data, 2009; AES, 2011

SCALE

0 1 2

Miles

!¢N O R T H

Ð

Samish Indian Nation - Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust Delineation of Waters of the U.S. / 209532

^_

^_ Project Sites Skagit County
STUDY AREA

SR-20

Figure 2

Site and Vicinity - Proposed & Alternative Project Sites

SOURCE: "Anacortes North, WA" T34N R2E, Section 4; 

AES, 2011

SCALE

0 1,000 2,000

Feet

!¢N O R T H

Ð

Samish Indian Nation - Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust Delineation of Waters of the U.S. / 209532
STUDY AREA

SR-20

Figure 3

Aerial Photograph - Proposed & Alternative Project Sites

SOURCE: Aerial Express Aerial Photograph, 8/2009; AES, 2011

SCALE

0 500 1,000

Feet

!¢N O R T H

Ð

Samish Indian Nation - Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust Delineation of Waters of the U.S. / 209532
Analytical Environmental Services 5 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 

Any person, firm, or agency planning to alter or work in navigable waters of the U.S., including the 

discharge of dredged or fill material, must first obtain authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE). Permits, licenses, variances, or similar authorization may also be required by other 

federal, state, and local statutes. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 prohibits the 

obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the U.S. without a permit from the USACE (33 U.S.C. 

403). Section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Amendments of 1972 (“Clean Water 

Act” (CWA)) prohibit the discharge of pollutants, including dredged or fill material, into waters of the 

U.S. without a Section 404 permit from USACE (33 U.S.C. 1344).

Waters of the U.S. are defined as: 

...all waters used in interstate or foreign commerce; all interstate waters including 

interstate wetlands; all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including 

intermittent and ephemeral streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie 

potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds, where the use, degradation, or 

destruction of which could affect interstate commerce; impoundments of these waters; 

tributaries of these waters; or wetlands adjacent to these waters (Section 404 of the CWA; 

33 CFR Part 328). 

The USACE considers defined beds and banks and presence of an ordinary high water mark occurring in 

part or all of the drainage is required for drainages to be considered potentially USACE jurisdictional 

waters of the U.S. when they lack one or more wetland field indicators (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric 

soil, or wetland hydrologic conditions). 

The USACE (Federal Register, 1982), the Environmental Protection Agency (Federal Register 1985), the 

Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act define wetlands as: Those areas that are 

inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and 

that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in 

saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. In 

addition, the Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act definitions include: Wetlands 

do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not 

limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater 

treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, 

that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. 

The 1995 Washington State Legislature enacted a bill (SSB 5776) requiring the Department of Ecology to 

adopt a wetland delineation manual that implements and is consistent with the 1987 manual in use on 

January 1, 1995 by the USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This manual is intended 

to be used in implementing the Shoreline Management Act and other applicable state statutes. The 

manual is also to be used by local governments in implementing local regulations under the Growth 

Management Act. 
Analytical Environmental Services 6 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency issued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook on May 30, 2007, to provide guidance based 

on the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States 

(USACE, 2007). The decision provides new standards that distinguishes between traditional navigable 

waters (TNWs), relatively permanent waters (RPWs), and non-relatively permanent waters (non-TNWs). 

Wetlands adjacent to non-TNWs are subject to CWA jurisdiction if: the water body is relatively 

permanent, or if a water body abuts a RPW, or if a water body, in combination with all wetlands adjacent 

to that water body, has a significant nexus with TNWs. The significant nexus standard will be based on 

evidence applicable to ecology, hydrology, and the influence of the water on the “chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters” (USACE, 2007). Isolated wetlands are 

not subject to CWA jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Solid Waste Agency of 

Northern Cook County (SWAANC) (Guzy, 2001). 

Roadside ditches are not considered waters of the U.S. when: 

Roadside ditches excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a 

relatively permanent flow of water are not considered waters of the U.S. because they are 

not tributaries or they do not have a significant nexus to downstream traditional navigable 

waters (Federal Register, 1983).

The City of Anacortes (City) biological ordinances have requirements for designating, rating, and 

mapping wetlands (17.70.320). The City designates wetlands as “those areas, designated in accordance 

with the Washington State Department of Ecology, Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 

(1997; Pub. No. 96-94), that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation 

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. All areas within the City meeting the wetland designation 

criteria, regardless of any formal identification, not otherwise excluded under Sections 17.70.300, 

17.70.340, and 17.70.520 of the general plan, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the 

applicable provisions. The City rates wetlands according to the wetland rating system found in the 

Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Rating System) (Hruby, 2004; or as 

revised by Ecology). 

3.0 METHODOLOGY 

Wetlands were determined in accordance with the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental 

Laboratory, 1987), the Washington State Department of Ecology, Wetlands Identification and Delineation 

Manual (1997), and the Rating System. Wetland data sheets were completed at representative locations 

to determine whether suspect features qualify as jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The data sheets are 

included in Attachment 1. Wetlands were determined based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, 

hydric soils, and wetland hydrology indicators. 
Analytical Environmental Services 7 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

VEGETATION 

Hydrophytic vegetation, due to morphological, physiological, and/or reproductive adaptation(s), have the 

ability to grow, effectively compete, reproduce, and/or persist in anaerobic soil conditions. Hydrophytic 

vegetation indicators include: prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation (majority of dominant plant species 

are obligate or facultative wetland plants) as listed in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in 

Wetlands: Northwest Region 9 (Reed, 1988); and morphological or physiological adaptations to saturated 

soil conditions. Plant species wetland indicator status is a rating that indicates the probability that a 

particular plant species will occur in a wetland. Indicator status categories are defined as follows (Reed, 

1988): 

Obligate (OBL) – almost always occurs in wetlands (greater than 99 percent probability 

of occurring in wetlands); 

Facultative Wetland (FACW) – usually occurs in wetlands (67 to 99 percent probability 

of occurrence in wetlands); 

Facultative (FAC) – equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (34 to 66 

percent of occurrence in wetlands); 

Facultative Upland (FACU) – usually occurs in non-wetlands, but occasionally occurs in 

wetlands (one to 33 percent of occurrence in wetlands); 

Obligate Upland (UPL) – almost never occurs in wetlands (one percent probability of 

occurrence in wetlands). Plant species not listed are considered upland species. 

HYDRIC SOILS 

Hydric soils include: 

All Histosols, except Folists; or soils in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls 

suborder, Aquisalids, Pachic subgroups; 

Cumulic subgroups that are: (1) Somewhat poorly drained with a water table equal to 0 feet from 

the surface during the growing season, or (2) poorly drained or very poorly drained and have 

either: (a) a water table equal to 0 feet during the growing season if textures are coarse sand, 

sand, or fine sand in all layers within 20 inches, or for other soils, (b) a water table at less than or 

equal to 0.5 feet from the surface during the growing season if permeability is equal to or greater 

than 6 inches/hour in all layers within 20 inches, or (c) the water table is at less than or equal to 

one foot from the surface during the growing season if permeability is less than 6 inches/hour in 

any layer within 20 inches; 

Soils that are frequently ponded for a long or very long duration during the growing season; or 

Soils that are frequently flooded for a long or very long duration during the growing season. 

Hydric soil indicators identified on the routine wetland determination data form include: hystosols, histic 

epipedon, sulfidic odor, aquic moisture regime, reducing conditions, gleyed or low-chroma matrix, matrix 

chroma less than 2 with mottles, magnesium or iron concentrations, high organic content in surface layer 

of soils, organic streaking in sandy soils, or listed on national/local hydric soils list. 

WETLAND HYDROLOGY 

Hydrology indicators identified on the routine wetland determination data form include: presence of 

water marks, sediment deposits, drainage patterns, drift lines, oxidized root channels less than 12 inches 

from the surface, and water-stained leaves. 
Analytical Environmental Services 8 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

For identification of water bodies other than wetlands that are subject to federal jurisdiction, 2 principle 

field characteristics were evaluated: 1) the presence of a channel; and 2) the presence of an ordinary high 

water mark. The ordinary high water mark is defined in 33 CFR Part 329.11, as the line on the shore 

established by the fluctuations of water, and indicated by a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, 

shelving, changes in soil character, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and 

debris. Other characteristics that were noted, where possible, include: dominant plant species within the 

bed and banks; hydrological connection (direct, or indirect via another tributary) to a navigable waterway; 

waterbody with interstate commerce use(s), or other potential USACE-jurisdictional feature; designation 

as ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial drainage feature; and presence of adjacent jurisdictional wetlands 

or other sensitive resources, such as riparian habitat. USACE regulations (33 CFR Part 328) were 

consulted to make a determination of whether these water bodies constitute waters of the U.S. 

Prior to the initiation of the delineation, AES reviewed the following sources of information: 

Anacortes North, WA quad; 

Color aerial photography of the study area and vicinity (AEX, 2007); 

Soil survey maps and unit descriptions (NRCS, 2010a); 

Hydric soil information (NRCS, 2010b); and 

USFWS Wetlands Online Mapper (USFWS, 2010). 

AES biologist Kelly Bayne (nee Buja), M.S. conducted the delineations within the study area on October 

21 and 22, 2009 and on May 25 and 26, 2010. Field surveys consisted of walking transects in a north to 

south direction to map habitat types, wetlands, and waterways within the study area. Data collection 

points were chosen at representative locations and detailed information on vegetation, soils, and 

hydrology were taken for each data point (Attachment 1). Data points were obtained by excavating soil 

pits to a depth of 18 inches or until an impermeable layer was reached. The National List of Vascular 

Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Region 9 (Reed, 1988), was used to determine the status of 

observed plants as wetland indicator species. Soil pits were excavated to 18 inches unless hardpan or 

bedrock was reached and were examined for presence of hydric soil indicators. A standard Munsell® soil 

color chart was used to determine soil matrix and mottle colors. 

3.4.1 MAPPING

Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, a Trimble Geo XT receiver, was used to locate and map 

preliminary boundaries of waters of the U.S. during the 2009 fieldwork. The geographic coordinate 

system used to reference the data was Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM–Zone 10), North American 

Datum (NAD83) in meters. 

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) shape files were generated. Each feature or complex 

was assessed by setting up transects perpendicular to the suspect wetland/upland edges and by observing 

the mandatory wetland indicators at selected points along each transect as defined by the USACE 
Analytical Environmental Services 9 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the Washington State Department of 

Ecology, Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (1997). Potential wetland boundaries were 

mapped at a level of accuracy of less than one meter. Soil pit locations were documented using a GPS to 

identify where the soil data were obtained. Wetland polygons were overlaid on a topographic base map 

and aerial photograph. The ESRI data and GIS software were used to calculate the acreages and linear 

feet of habitat types and wetland features. 

Wetlands delineated in the study area were rated using the revised Rating System. The Rating System is 

designed to differentiate between wetlands based on specific attributes such as rarity, sensitivity to 

disturbance, the functions they provide, and whether the wetland can be replaced. The Rating System is 

based on the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification system (as opposed to the Cowardin classification 

system). Characteristics of the classification system consider the site’s water quality, hydrological, and 

habitat functions. The Rating System uses a standardized form (Version 2 – Updated July 2006) to rate 

and score an individual wetland site. Each wetland site is then assigned a category (I through IV) based 

on its rating form score. 

Category I Wetlands are those that: 

Represent a unique or rare wetland type; 

Are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; 

are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a 

human lifetime; or 

Provide a high level of functions. These include relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger 

than one acre; natural heritage wetlands (wetlands identified by scientists of the Washington 

Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program as high quality, relatively 

undisturbed wetlands, or wetlands that support State listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

plants; bogs; mature and old-growth forested wetlands over one acres in size; wetlands in coastal 

lagoons; and wetlands that perform many functions very well (wetlands scoring 70 points or more 

on the questions related to functions). 

Category II Wetlands are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some 

functions. These include any estuarine wetland smaller than one acre, or those that are disturbed and 

larger than one acre; interdunal wetlands greater than one acre; and wetlands that perform functions well 

(score between 51 and 69 points on the questions related to functions). 

Category III Wetlands are: 

Wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scores between 30-50 points) and 

Interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and one acre in size. 

Category IV Wetlands have the lowest level of functions (scores less than 30 points) and are often 

heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that should be able to be replaced, and in some cases, be able to be 

improved. 
Analytical Environmental Services 10 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

The Anacortes, Washington (#450176) monthly record climate data obtained in the vicinity of the study 

area documents an average maximum temperature of 58.6° Fahrenheit (F) and an average minimum 

temperature of 43.2°F from 1892 to 2009. The climate data recorded an average total annual precipitation 

of 26.64 inches from 1892 through 2009 (WRCC, 2010). The KWAANACO2 weather station located 

approximately 3 miles from the study area recorded a total annual precipitation of 26 inches between 

January and December 2009 (Weather Underground, Inc., 2010). Therefore, the average precipitation 

obtained for the 2009 water year is approximately 102 percent of the average total annual precipitation 

documented over 117 years. 

Mapped soil types in the study area were determined using the Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2010a). Three 

soil types occur in the study area. The soil map is provided in Figure 4 and descriptions are discussed 

below. Table 1 identifies the soil types by series, map symbols, hydric characteristics, and estimated 

percentages occurring within the study area. 

TABLE 1 

MAPPED SOIL TYPES 

Soil Series Map Symbol Hydric % of Study Area

Bow gravelly loam, low precipitation, 0 to 3 percent slopes 18 Yes 2.2

Bow gravelly loam, low precipitation, 3 to 8 percent slopes 19 Yes 2.4

Coveland gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 35 Yes 95.4

Total 100

Source: NRCS, 2010a, b 

Bow gravelly loam, low precipitation, 0 to 3 percent slopes (18)

This soil type is found on hillslopes and terraces derived from volcanic ash, glaciolacustrine deposits, and 

glacial drift parent material. Depth to water table is between 6 and 18 inches. Depth to restrictive layer is 

more than 80 inches. The soil type is somewhat poorly drained with a high available water capacity. The 

soil profile is typically gravelly loam from 0 to 8 inches, clay loam from 8 to 22 inches, and silty clay 

from 22 to 60 inches (NRCS, 2010a). This soil is classified as hydric (soil criteria 2A). Soil criteria 2A 

includes soils in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Historthels great group, 

Histoturbels great group, or Andic, Cumulic, Pachic, or Vitrandic subgroups that are somewhat poorly 

drained with a water table equal to 0 feet from the surface during the growing season (NRCS, 2010b). 

Bow gravelly loam, low precipitation, 3 to 8 percent slopes (19) 

This soil type is found on hillslopes and terraces derived from volcanic ash, glaciolacustrine deposits, and 

glacial drift parent material. Depth to water table is between 6 and 18 inches. Depth to restrictive layer is 

more than 80 inches. The soil type is somewhat poorly drained with a high available water capacity. The 

soil profile is typically gravelly loam from 0 to 8 inches, clay loam from 8 to 22 inches, and silty clay 

from 22 to 60 inches (NRCS, 2010a). This soil is classified as hydric (soil criteria 2A) (NRCS, 2010b). 
STUDY AREA THOMPSON ROAD

UV20

STEVENSON ROAD

18

35

19

Figure 4

Soils Map

SOURCE: USDA/NRCS Soil Surveys, 1998-2009; 

AEX Aerial Photograph, 5/2009; AES, 2011

Samish Indian Nation - Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust Delineation of Waters of the U.S. / 209532

LEGEND

0 250 500

Feet

!¢N O R T H

Ð

Study Area

Soil Type Boundaries

SOILS TYPES IN STUDY AREA

18 - Bow gravelly loam, low precipitation, 0 to 3 percent slopes

19 - Bow gravelly loam, low precipitation, 3 to 8 percent slopes

35 - Coveland gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Analytical Environmental Services 12 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

Coveland gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (35) 

This soil type is found on swales derived from glaciolacustrine deposits parent material. Depth to water 

table is between 0 and 18 inches. Depth to restrictive layer is 10 to 20 inches to abrupt textural change. 

The soil type is somewhat poorly drained with a very low available water capacity. The soil profile is 

typically gravelly loam from 0 to 9 inches, very gravelly sandy loam from 9 to 14 inches, and silty clay 

from 14 to 60 inches (NRCS, 2010a). This soil is classified as hydric (soil criteria 2A) (NRCS, 2010b). 

Habitat types in the study area include: nonnative annual grassland, riparian, snowberry (Symphoricarpos 

albus) patch, ruderal/disturbed, manmade ditch, and roadside ditch. Dominant vegetation within each 

habitat type is discussed below. A habitat map is illustrated in Figure 5. Photographs of the habitat types 

are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. 

4.3.1 NONNATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND

Nonnative annual grassland occurs throughout the majority of the study area (Figure 6: Photograph 1). 

The majority of the study area had been mowed prior to conducting the survey in November 2009 and 

May 2010. Dominant vegetation observed in the nonnative annual grassland includes: orchard grass 

(Dactylis glomerata), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), Johnsongrass (Sorghum halipense), red fescue 

(Festuca rubra), and Robert geranium (Geranium robertianum). Ornatmental landscape trees occur

within the nonnative annual grassland on the western portion of the study area (Figure 6: Photograph 

2). 

4.3.2 RIPARIAN 

Riparian habitat occurs within the study area (Figure 6: Photograph 4; Figure 7: Photographs 6 and 

7). Dominant vegetation observed in the riparian habitat includes: willow (Salix sp.), Oregon grape

(Berberis aquifolium), American speedwell (Veronica Americana), chain speedwell (Veronica catenata), 

rose (Rosa sp.), and trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus).

4.3.3 SNOWBERRY PATCH

A snowberry patch occurs within the southeastern portion of the study area (Figure 7: Photograph 8). 

Dominant vegetation observed in the vicinity of the snowberry patch includes: snowberry, trailing 

blackberry, and red huckleberry (Vaccinium parviflorum).

4.3.4 MANMADE DRAINAGE DITCH

One manmade drainage ditch (DCH 1) occurs within the study area (Figure 7: Photographs 9 and 10). 

Dominant vegetation observed in the vicinity of the manmade drainage ditch includes: chain speedwell, 

buttercup (Ranunculus occidentalis), miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), common sheep sorrel (Rumex 

acetocella), and monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus). 
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

SR-20

STEVENSON ROAD

DCH 2

DCH 3

DCH 4

DCH 1

DCH 3

DCH 1

DCH 3

DP 8

DP 6

DP 5

DP 4 DP 3

DP 2

DP 1

DP 9

DP 7

Figure 5

Habitat Types and Delineation of Potential Waters of the U.S.

SOURCE: AEX Aerial Photograph, 9/15/2007; AES, 2011 Samish Indian Nation - Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust Delineation of Waters of the U.S. / 209532

Study Area

±

Culvert

Data Point

Nonnative Annual Grassland 14.19 ac

Riparian 0.28 ac

Ruderal/Disturbed 0.47 ac

Snowberry Patch 0.04 ac

Manmade Ditch 1101.25 lin ft./0.05 ac

Roadside Ditch 510.26 lin ft./0.02 ac

LEGEND

!¢N O R T H

Ð

0 50 100

Feet
Samish Indian Nation - Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust Delineation of Waters of the U.S. / 209532

Figure 6

Site Photographs

SOURCE: AES, 2011

PHOTO 1: View eastward of the nonnative annual grassland from 

the southwestern portion of the study area.

PHOTO 3: View southward of ruderal/disturbed areas from the 

western portion of the study area.

PHOTO 4: View northwestward of the riparian vegetation from the 

western portion of the study area.

PHOTO 2: View northwestward of the ruderal/disturbed areas and 

the ornamental landscape trees within the native annual grasssland of the western portion of the study area.

PHOTO 5: View of a roadside drainage ditch (DCH 3) from the 

western portion of the study area.
Samish Indian Nation - Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust Delineation of Waters of the U.S. / 209532

Figure 7

Site Photographs

SOURCE: AES, 2011

PHOTO 6: View southward of a roadside ditch (DCH 3) and riparian 

vegetation from the northwestern portion of the study area.

PHOTO 7: View eastward of riparian vegetation surrounding a 

roadside ditch (DCH 2) from the southern boundary of the study 

area.

PHOTO 8: View northward of snowberry patch from the southeastern portion of the study area.

PHOTO 10: View southward of manmade drainage ditch (DCH 1) 

that flows south to north through the eastern portion of the study 

area.

PHOTO 9: View westward of manmade drainage ditch (DCH 1) 

from northeast side of study area.
Analytical Environmental Services 16 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

4.3.5 ROADSIDE DITCH

Three roadside ditches (DCHs 2, 3, and 4) occur within the study area (Figure 6: Photograph 5; Figure 

7: Photographs 6 and 7). Dominant vegetation observed in the vicinity of the roadside ditches includes: 

trailing blackberry, common sheep sorrel, velvet grass, Johnsongrass, and teasle (Dipsacus sp.).

4.3.6 RUDERAL/DISTURBED

Ruderal/disturbed areas occur throughout the study area (Figure 6: Photographs 2and 3). These areas 

include dirt roads, graded driveways, remnant housing pads, and piles of metal and wood. 

4.4.1 REGIONAL AND LOCAL WATERSHED

The study area receives water from runoff from SR-20 through a roadside ditch (DCH 4) that flows south 

into the study area, and drains to the manmade drainage ditch (DCH 1). DCH 1 receives runoff from a 

roadside ditch (DCH 2) and from Stevenson Road through sheet flow. DCH 1 flows northward through 

the study area, then eastward until it exits the northeastern boundary of the study area. DCH 1 continues 

northward outside the eastern boundary of the study area, continues northeastward, drains northward 

through a culvert beneath SR-20 continues, and eventually drains to Fidalgo Bay. DCH 3 receives runoff 

from Thompson Road, drains northward, and exits the northwestern boundary of the study area. DCH 3 

terminates where it loses its defined bed and banks just north of the northwestern boundary of the study 

area. 

4.4.2 USFWS WETLANDS ONLINE MAPPER 

The USFWS Wetlands Online Mapper (2007) does not identify any wetland features within the study 

area. The USFWS Wetlands Online Mapper is shown in Figure 8. 

5.0 DELINEATION RESULTS 

Potential wetlands and other waters of the U.S. in the study area include one manmade drainage ditch and 

3 roadside ditches. Figure 5 illustrates the waterways mapped during the delineation of the study area. 

A manmade drainage ditch (DCH 1) flows south to north through the eastern portion of the study area 

(Figure 7: Photographs 9 and 10). DCH 1 was constructed to transport runoff from Stevenson Road 

just outside the south side of the study area. DCH 1 exits the northeast side of the study area, continues 

northward, is culverted beneath SR-20, continues northward until eventually draining to Fidalgo Bay. 

Channel features observed along the bed and banks of the manmade drainage ditch include: defined bed 

and banks and distinct drainage patterns. Vegetation consists of 80 percent obligate, facultative wet, 

and/or facultative species and visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged 

inundation/saturation. Wetland hydrology consists of oxidized roots, drainage patterns, and inundation. 

Hydric soil consists of iron concentrations and is listed on the NRCS hydric soils list (2010b). 
STUDY AREA THOMPSON ROAD

UV20

STEVENSON ROAD

Figure 8

National Wetlands Inventory - Study Area

SOURCE: USFWS, 1981; AEX Aerial Photograph, 5/2009; 

AES, 2011

Samish Indian Nation - Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust Delineation of Waters of the U.S. / 209532

Study Area

NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY DATA

PEM/SSC - Palustrine, Emergent, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Flooded

PEMA - Palustrine, Emergent, Temporarily Flooded

PEMC - Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonally Flooded

PFOC - Palustrine, Forested, Seasonally Flooded

PSSC - Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Flooded

LEGEND

0 250 500

Feet

!¢N O R T H

Ð
Analytical Environmental Services 18 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

Three roadside ditches occur within the study area (Figure 6: Photograph 5; Figure 7: Photographs 6 

and 7). Channel features observed along the bed and banks of the roadside ditches include: defined bed 

and banks and distinct drainage patterns. Vegetation consists of 96 percent obligate, facultative wet, 

and/or facultative species. Wetland hydrology consists of presence of water in the soil pits, saturated soil, 

and distinct drainage patterns. Hydric soil consists of iron concentrations and is listed on the NRCS 

hydric soils list (2010b). 

6.0 WETLAND RATING SYSTEM RESULTS 

There are no wetlands within the project site. Therefore, the Rating System is not applicable to the study 

area. The City has mapped a wetland feature within the study area (City of Anacortes, 2006) (Figure 9). 

The City likely mapped the feature based on review of an aerial photograph. However, upon groundtruthing of the study area during the October 21 and 22, 2009 delineations, the AES biologist determined 

that the feature mapped by the City is actually a snowberry patch (Figure 5) (Figure 7: Photograph 9). 

The snowberry patch is a terrestrial habitat type that does not contain hydric indicators. 

7.0 CONCLUSION 

In accordance with the Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act definitions, 

Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, 

but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, 

wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after 

July 1, 1990. The roadside ditches and the manmade drainage ditch were dug in uplands. Although there 

is a hydrologic connection to Fildago Bay, a waters of the U.S., the nexus is not significant because these 

features are not of substantial biological, economic, water quality, or hydrologic importance to Fildago 

Bay. Therefore, these features are not likely considered jurisdictional waters of the U.S., and are not 

likely subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The results of this delineation are considered 

preliminary until the USACE and/or the Department of Ecology verify the findings. 
PROJECT SITE

Figure 9

Trail System

SOURCE: City of Anacortes, 2006; AES, 2011

SCALE

0 2,000 4,000

Feet

!¢N O R T H

Ð

Samish Indian Nation - Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust Delineation of Waters of the U.S. / 209532
Analytical Environmental Services 20 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

8.0 REFERENCES 

AEX, 2007. Aerial Photograph in the Vicinity of the Project Site. September 15, 2007. 

City of Anacortes, 2006. City of Anacortes Wetlands Classification Map. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of 

the United States. Office of Biological Services, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, 

District of Columbia. 

Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report 

Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Guzy, 2001. Memorandum. Supreme Court Ruling Concerning CWA Jurisdiction over Isolated Waters 

Regarding Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

Hruby, T., 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised. 

Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. Annotated version: 

August 2006. Available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0406025.pdf. Accessed 

on January 4, 2010. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2010a. National Soil Survey Handbook, Skagit 

County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. Available at: 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed on January 3, 

2010. 

Natural Resources Conservation (NRCS), 2010b. List of Hydric Soils. National List – OH 

through WY (January 2009). Accessed on December 31, 2009. Available at: 

http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/

Reed, P.B., Jr., 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0). 

Biological Report 88 (26.10). National Ecology Research Center, National Wetlands Inventory, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 

Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. ERDC/EL TR08-13. April 2008. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center. Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 30, 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2010. National Wetlands Inventory. Available online 

at: http.//www.fws.gov/nwi/. Accessed January 4, 2010. 
Analytical Environmental Services 21 Samish-Thompson Site Fee-To-Trust 

 Waters of the U.S. Delineation Report 

Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and 

Delineation Manual. Department of Ecology, Publications Distribution Center. 

Publication No. 96-94. March 1997. 

Weather Underground, Inc., 2010. KWAANACO2 Overlooking Fidalgo Bay, Anacortes, 

Washington. Yearly summary of 2009. Available at: http://www.wunderground.com/. 

Accessed January 4, 2010. 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2010. Anacortes, Washington (450176) Monthly 

Climate Summary. Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa0176. 

Accessed June 2, 2010. 
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 

DELINEATION DATA SHEETS 




















APPENDIX B 

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY 

(CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT BOUND UNDER SEPARATE 

COVER) 
STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106  Olympia, Washington 98501 

Mailing address: PO Box 48343  Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 

(360) 586-3065  Fax Number (360) 586-3067  Website: www.dahp.wa.gov 

August 6, 2012 

Mr. Chuck James 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

911 NE 11th Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97232 

 Re: 14.84 Samish Indian Nation Fee to Trust Project 

 Log No.: 080212-11-BIA 

 

Dear Mr. James; 

Thank you for contacting our department. We have reviewed the copy of the professional archaeological 

survey report you provided for the proposed 14.84 Samish Indian Nation Fee to Trust Project at March 

Point, Anacortes, Skagit County, Washington. 

We concur with your Determination of No Historic Properties Affected. 

We 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). 

In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the 

immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and the concerned tribes and this office notified. 

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) 586-3080 

 email: rob.whitlam@dahp.wa.gov
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT 

BOUND SEPARATELY* 

* THE CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT HAS BEEN BOUND SEPARATELY 

TO PROTECT POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE 

LOCATION AND NATURE OF CULTURAL RESOURCES. 
APPENDIX C 

FEMA FIRM 

PROJECT

SITE

Thompson Road

SR-20

Stevenson Road

APN : P 120595

(2.07ac)

APN : P 19916

(0.97ac)

APN : P 19915

(0.25ac)

0 610 1,220

Feet

!¢N O R T H

Ð

Sheet x

Project Boundary A

An area inundated by 100-year flooding, 

for which no BFEs have been determined.

ANI

An area that is located within a community or county

that is not mapped on any published FIRM.

X

An area that is determined to be outside the 

100- and 500-year floodplains.
APPENDIX D 

AIR QUALITY DATA 








Table 2

Mobile Operations Criteria Pollutant and GHG Emissions

Speed (mph) Freeway. Arterial, and Local 

vmt/yr 2,752,100

Criteria Pollutant (tpy)

Tons per Year

NOx 2.7

VOC 1.9

SO2 0.0

CO 33.8

PM2.5 0.1

PM10 0.1

Greenhouse Gas

CO2 1693.0

Criteria pollutant emissions were calculated using half summer/winter EF. 

Source: Mobile 6.2, 2003; AES, 2011.

Table 1 

Percent Distribution, Patrons, and Vehicle Miles Travels per Year

Routes1 Market Areas Trip Distribution1 Distance (miles) Proposed Project

Patrons VMT/Year

Highway 2 - West Anacortes 0.40 5.0 189800 949,000

Highway 2 - East Burlington, Sedro-Woolly 0.40 13.0 189800 1,644,933

Thomson Road - South Similk Beach 0.05 4.0 23725 63,267

Thomson Road - North Oil Refiner 0.15 2.0 71175 94,900

Total VMT (miles) 2,752,100

Source: AES, 2011
Table 3

Operational Emission Factors

Season Winter Summer 

Default Speeds

Freeway, 

Arterial, and 

Local1

Freeway, 

Arterial, and 

Local1

Criteria Pollutant grams per mile

NOx 0.94 0.846

VOC 0.658 0.622

SO2 0.0078 0.0078

CO 13.853 8.436

PM2.5 0.0207 0.0201

PM10 0.0362 0.0356

Greenhouse Gas

CO2 557.42 558.7

1

Freeway, Arterial, and local speeds = 55, 40, and 25 

miles per hour, repectively. 

Source: Mobile6.2, 2003; AES, 2011

Table 4

Fugitive Dust Emissions from Construction

Alternatives Proposed Project

Area to be Graded (acres) 1.78

Grading Duration (day) 22

PM10 Emisson Factor (tons PM10/acre-day) 0.0191

PM10 Emissions (tons/year) 0.002

PM2.5 Emisson Factor (tons PM10/acre/day) 0.005

PM2.5 Emissions (tons/year)1 0.00043

Source: OFFROAD air quality model, 2007.
Table 5

Proposed Project - Construction Emissions

Construction Equipment1 Horsepower2Load Factor2 Hours in Use2 

(hours/day)

Emission Factors (g/bhp/hr)4Emisssion (tons/year)

CO VOC NO2 SO2 PM10 PM 2.5

3 CO VOC NO2 SO2 PM10 PM 2.53

Year 2013 Site Grading 

1 Bulldozer 352 0.59 8 1.38 0.36 4.76 0.74 0.33 0.32 0.06 0.01 0.19 0.03 0.01 0.01

1 Motor Grader 174 0.575 8 1.36 0.35 7.43 0.74 0.33 0.32 0.03 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.01

1 Water Truck 417 0.49 8 2.07 0.44 5.49 0.74 0.41 0.40 0.08 0.02 0.22 0.03 0.02 0.02

2 Other Construction Equipment 190 0.62 8 1.55 0.38 5.00 0.74 0.35 0.34 0.07 0.02 0.23 0.03 0.02 0.02

Total Miles Traveled Emission Factors (g/miles) Emissions (tons/year)

Employee Trips3 2,640 17.946 0.735 1.156 0.0078 0.0371 0.0215 0.05222 0.00214 0.00336 0.00002 0.00011 0.00006

Fugitive Dust 0.002 0.0004

Total Site Grading Emissions 0.29 0.06 0.78 0.11 0.05 0.05

2013 Building

1 Concrete/Industrial Saw 84 0.73 8 8.50 1.00 5.80 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.44 0.05 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.01

2 Rough Terrain Forklift 94 0.475 8 7.76 1.98 8.56 0.95 1.39 1.35 0.58 0.15 0.64 0.07 0.10 0.10

1 Rubber Tire Loader 165 0.465 8 1.55 0.38 5.00 0.74 0.35 0.34 0.10 0.02 0.32 0.05 0.02 0.02

1 Tractors/Loader/Backhoe 79 0.465 8 8.21 1.85 7.22 0.95 1.37 1.33 0.25 0.06 0.22 0.03 0.04 0.04

Total Miles Traveled Emission Factors (g/miles) Emissions (tons/year)

Employee Trips3 23,100 17.946 0.735 1.156 0.0078 0.0371 0.0215 0.46 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving4

1 Paver 132 0.59 8 8.5 1.0 5.8 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 Paving Equipment 111 0.53 8 8.5 1.0 5.8 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 Rollers 114 0.43 8 8.5 1.0 5.8 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00

Architectural Coating 

Coating 0.08

Total Building Emissions 2.09 0.41 1.69 0.16 0.18 0.18

Total 2013 Construction Emission52.38 0.47 2.47 0.27 0.24 0.23

Source: EPA, 2007; AES, 2011

1 Construction equipment list from USEPA approved URBEMIS 2007 air model.

2 Hours per normal work day.

3 Based on 10 mile trip length and EMFAC, 2007 emission factors (grams/mile). 

4 Emission factors provided by EPA approved OFFROAD 2007, based on equipment age distribution in the U.S. in g/bhp/hr = grams per brake horsepower per hour
Table 6

Proposed Project - Construction GHG Emissions

Construction Equipment1 Horsepower Load 

Factor

Hours in 

Use2 

(hours/day)

Emission Factors 

(g/bhp/hr)3

Emisssion 

(tons/year)

CO2 CO2

Site Grading 

1 Bulldozer 352.00 0.59 8.00 536.20 19.58

1 Motor Grader 174.00 0.58 8.00 536.30 9.43

1 Water Truck 417.00 0.49 8.00 536.00 19.25

2 Other Construction 

Equipment 190.00 0.62 8.00 536.20 11.10

Miles Traveled Emission Factors (g/miles)

Emisssion 

(tons/year)

Employee Trips 2,640 552.80 1.46

Construction 

1 Concrete/Industrial Saw 84.00 0.73 8.00 529.70 27.19

2 Rough Terrain Forklift 94.00 0.48 8.00 690.80 51.63

1 Rubber Tire Loader 165.00 0.47 8.00 536.20 34.43

1 Tractors/Loader/Backhoe 79.00 0.47 8.00 691.10 21.25

Miles Traveled Emission Factors (g/miles)

Emisssion 

(tons/year)

Employee Trips 23,100 552.80 12.77

Paving

1 Paver 132.00 0.59 8.00 520.30 5.36

1 Paving Equipment 111.00 0.53 8.00 520.30 4.05

1 Rollers 114.00 0.43 8.00 520.30 6.74

Total GHG Construction Emissions 224.24

Source: EPA, 2007; AES, 2011

1 Construction equipment list from USEPA approved URBEMIS 2002 air model.

2 Hours per normal work day.

3 Emission factors provided by EPA approved NONROAD 2005.
Table 7 

Stationary Source Emissions

Pollutant/GHG MMscf/year 

Emission 

Factors 

(lb/MMscf)

Conversion 

factor 

(lb/tons)

Emissions 

(tons)

VOC (natural gas) 2 5.5 0.0005 0.01

VOC (fugitive gas 

vapor)1120,000 5 lb/kgal 0.0005 3.60

NOx 2 0.64 0.0005 0.00

CO 2 11 0.0005 0.01

SO2 2 0.6 0.0005 0.00

PM10 2 5.7 0.0005 0.01

PM2.5 2 1.9 0.0005 0.00

Greenhouse Gas lb/MT MT

CO2 2 120,000 0.00045 108

lb = pounds; gal = gallons; MMBtu = British thermal units. 

1

gallons of cas pumped per month. 

Source: AP-42, 1995; AES, 2011.