Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKalaloch HMP Submitted Final Draft 6-1-16 Kalaloch Cabins Habitat Management Plan June 1, 2016 Site Address: 153573 Highway 101 Forks, WA 98331 Prepared for: Derek Zwickey, Delaware North 8358 Huffline Lane, Suite 2 Bozeman, MT 59718 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Project Information 2.1 Project Location and Site Description 2.2 Project Description 3. Regulatory Framework 3.1 Reasonable Economic Use Variance 3.2 Ecological Function/NNL Evaluation. 4. Environmental Setting 4.1 Site Survey A. Stratum B. Common Name C. Latin Name D. Stratum E. Common Name F. Latin Name 4.2 Washington State Priority Habitat and Species and Coastal Atlas 4.3 Surrounding Environment 4.4 Federal ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat within the Action Area 4.5 Status of Relevant Federally-listed species 4.5.1 Green Sturgeon 4.5.2 Humpback Whale 4.5.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle 5 Analysis of Effects 5.1 Vegetation – Wetland and Upland Areas 5.2 Wildlife 5.3 Shoreline Processes 5.4 Noise 5.5 Water Quality 5.6 Wetland 6 Conservation and Protection Measures 6.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures 6.2 Compensatory Mitigation & Planting Plan 6.2.1 Mitigation Site Description 6.2.2 Mitigation Site Assessment 6.2.3 Mitigation Plan 6.2.4 Performance Standards 6.2.5 Monitoring Plan 6.2.6 Maintenance and Contingency 6.3 Compliance with Jefferson County Mitigation Requirements 7 Conclusions 7.1 No Net Loss References List of Tables Table 1. List of Wetland Plants……………………………………………………………………………..7 Table 2. List of Upland Plants……………………………………………………………………………...8 Table 3. NMFS/USFWS Regional Critical Habitat……………………………………………………….11 Table 4. Planting Plan Species and Quantities…..………………………………………………………...16 List of Figures Figure 1. Site and Vicinity Map……...…………………………………………………………………....25 Figure 2. Parcel Map.....………………………………………………………………………………...…26 Figure 3. Kalaloch Cabins Site Plan with Mapped Wetlands and Associated Buffers …………………...27 Figure 4. 2006 Department of Ecology Shoreline photo of proposed building envelope site……. ….......28 Figure 5. WDFW PHS Map and Report…...…………….........…………………………………………..29 Figure 6. USFW Coastal Map of Wetlands..……………………………………………………………...31 Figure 7. View W from Northeast corner of mitigation area……………………………………………..32 Figure 8. Mitigation Site Plan…………………………………………………………………………….33 Figure 9. Planting Plan Map………………………………………………………………………………34 Figure 10. View N from Southeast corner of mitigation area…………………………………………….35 1 1. Introduction The multiple parcel development of seaside cabins and parking proposal described herein is within a 200’ buffer of a Category I Coastal Lagoon Wetland and adjacent to a 50’ buffer of a Category IV Slope Mosaic Wetland. The proposal is covered under the Reasonable Economic Use Variance which does provide some exceptions to requirements for critical areas, and does not require a Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP). However, it must still meet No Net Loss of ecological functions per the SMP (JCC 18.25.270). As stated in Jefferson County Code 18.22.265, Habitat Management Plans (HMP) are required when an applicant proposes to alter or decrease the standard buffer. This report follows requirements set forth for Habitat Management Plans (HMP) in Jefferson County Code, Chapter 18.22 for Critical Areas, Article VIII, Section 18.22.440 to address development impacts of the proposed project and mitigation for impacts, using the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations as the basis. As required under Section 18.22.440, this HMP has been prepared by qualified biologists with Marine Surveys & Assessments. This Habitat Management Plan also includes sections needed for a No Net Loss Evaluation, references a separately prepared Wetland Rating and Delineation report and includes references to the code sections (or guidance document), outlined below: No Net Loss Evaluation 18.25.270 Critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection A Wetland Delineation and Rating is provided in a separate report by MSA. A Pre-Application assessment and meeting, as well as several conference calls regarding this project took between place Isaac Wedam (project proponent) and Joel Peterson (Associate Planner with Jefferson County DCD). 2. Project Information 2.1 Project Location and Site Description The Property is known as Sea Crest and is comprised of five separate parcels equaling approximately 23.52 acres. The parcels are privately owned in western Jefferson County located at: 153573 Highway 101, Forks, WA 98331 on the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean (Figures 1 and 2). The property is currently zoned as Undesignated Rural Residential within Jefferson County’s West End Planning Area (WEPA) and also within the Quinault Indian Nation. The property is just north of the Queets River and approximately one half mile south of the Olympic National Park boundary. The property is also bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west. Highway 101 runs north and south and bisects the property. Address: 153573 Highway 101, Forks, WA 98331 County: Jefferson Tax Parcel Ids: 413273002, 413273004, 413273005, 413273006 & 413273007 2 Section: 27 Qtr Section: SW1/4 Township: 24N Range: 13W Latitude and longitude: 47°33'19.34"N, 124°21'28.81"W Water resource inventory area (WRIA): WRIA 21 (Queets/Quinault) Water bodies in which work will occur: none Water bodies bordering or adjacent to the project location: Adjacent to a coastal lagoon (see wetland report) and marine waters of Pacific Ocean. East of Highway 101 The portion of the property East of Highway 101 is approximately 4.11 acres and is relatively flat at approximately the same elevation as the highway. The site is mostly cleared with gravel placed over most of the property. Access to the site is from the highway at the North end. This is the location for the mitigation plan that will be discussed in the sections below. West of Highway 101 The Western portion of the property is split into 3 unique areas. The portion furthest to the west is along the ocean and relatively flat and rocky with a significant amount of ocean debris such as logs. Within this area there is a relatively large wetland. On the Eastern boundary of the wetland there is a steep, treed slope that extends North and South from one end of the property to the other. The top of the slope is approximately 80 ft in elevation. The portion of the property between the top of slope and Highway 101 is relatively long (north and south) and narrow (east and west). The section of the property between the top of the slope and the highway is partially developed with 2 small cabins. The cabins each have dedicated septic tank (2 total) and a shared leach field. There is also a shared propane tank for heating and cooking. Access to the existing cabins is off Highway 101 towards the north end of the property and a private gravel road services the cabins to the South. At one point there was an effort made to develop the site into an RV park or campground. Portions of the property were partially cleared for camp sites and access to the sites. The existing well and electrical infrastructure seems to have been sized to meet the demand of the full build out of the property. The shoreline is characterized as natural slope with no modification (Figure 4) with a Right to Left drift cell direction when looking at shore. The beach along this coastal shoreline is comprised of sand and natural drift longs are found just below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Above the OHWM is a vegetated bluff leading up to the uplands. The upland portion of the site is characterized as a coastal forest comprised of trees and shrubs. Between the bluff and shoreline exists a Category I Coastal Lagoon Wetland and buffer and a Category IV Slope Mosaic Wetland with standard 200 ft and 50 ft buffers, respectively. 3 2.2 Project Description Overview The goal of the proposed project is to build 24 additional 1 bedroom cabins for public use as short term rentals. The cabins will be built off site and set on the bluff between the top of slope and Highway 101. A preliminary site plan has been created with a goal of providing the best view possible from each cabin while impacting the property as little as possible. Existing conditions have been thoughtfully considered in the site plan development (Figure 3). Zoning The proposed project will still be zoned Rural Residential with a designation as a cottage industry per JCC section 18.20.350.1q. Parking and Access The natural topography of the site and the locations of the existing access roads were considered when determining the locations of the proposed access roads and parking areas. The existing roads and clearings will continue to be used for vehicle access. Instead of providing vehicle access at each cabin, there is a paved pedestrian path that connects clustered parking areas and the proposed cabins. The path also connects each cabin and provides access to each fire pit. The existing access point off Highway 101 is paved and provides for 2 way traffic. The asphalt entrance transitions into a single lane gravel road with turnouts and additional driveways approximately 150 ft apart. The existing gravel roads will be utilized to minimize the impacts to the property and minimize the additional impervious area for the overall project. Parking spaces are provided in or adjacent to existing clearings and along the main access road. There is a ratio of 1 parking spot per cabin (assigning parking spaces is an option being considered) down the driveways with additional overflow parking spaces along the main drive. With the additional overflow parking spaces, the total ratio is 1.5 parking spaces per cabin. Cabins The proposed cabins are all 1 bedroom cabins and will be energy efficient, cabins that will be built off site and placed onto foundations. Each cabin will also have a bathroom, small kitchen and a small living space. There will be two types of cabins. One cabin will be slightly larger and will be at grade with a 10 ft. deck extending into the slope setback. The other type of cabin will be smaller and some will be elevated up to 5 feet off the ground to provide a “tree house” feel and maximize the view potential. These cabins will also have a deck. The total cabin square footage will remain under the 12,000 square foot threshold (existing and proposed cabins combined). 4 The cabins have been placed in a way to minimize the clearing of mature trees and placed within existing clearings, when possible. Pier foundations are planned to minimize the impact to trees and the site by reducing the required earthwork. Pier foundations will be drilled with an auger. The hole for each pier will be approximately 16 inches in diameter and 5 feet deep. Utilities Underground utilities will be installed within the limits of the access roads and pedestrian path whenever possible and will comply with separation standards set by the IBC, State of Washington and Jefferson County. Existing utilities are being utilized as much as possible. Electrical Electrical infrastructure has already been installed for the site and it is believed the electrical infrastructure is adequate for the proposed project. This assumption will require verification through the design process. Each cabin will receive electrical power through underground trenching and conduits. Water The water quality and quantity produced by the existing well was tested and the results show the well is adequate for the project. A report has been prepared showing the findings of the well test along with the plan showing how we will stay below the 5,000 gallons per day maximum usage. The report is attached as Appendix E. A water storage tank will be required for fire storage, water quality reasons and to provide a buffer for any peak demands (insurance to stay below a 5,000 gallon maximum draw in any given day). Each cabin will have a dedicated water service. Sewer A geotechnical study has been conducted for the property and part of that study included percolation testing and feasibility for the type of system to use. It was determined a series of septic tanks and a common leach field was the best option. The entire bluff section has approximately 6 feet of a top layer that is unsuitable for a leach fields. The southern portion of the site was selected as the best candidate to remove the top 6 feet of soil and replace with sand. A narrative has been supplied by the septic designer and included in Appendix F. Gas It is our understanding the current cabins use propane as the primary source for heating and cooking. Propane will be considered for the remaining cabins as well and compared to electrical heat and cooking options. Storm Water 5 Additional impervious area has been kept to a minimum but will include the additional cabins and gravel parking stalls, the pedestrian path and improvements to the existing gravel roads. Each cabin will require a splash pad to help alleviate erosion. A preliminary grading and drainage plan has been prepared as part of the preliminary site plan. The preliminary plan shows 8,500 cubic feet of additional storage will be required to contain a two year, 24-hour rain event. The proposed plan is to contain this additional runoff in swales adjacent to the access roads. 6 Action Area Due to the nature of the proposed development and the fact that the project is landward of the high water mark, the action area for this project should include the area within a one quarter-mile radius of the project location. 3. Regulatory Framework 3.1 Reasonable Economic Use Variance A Reasonable Economic Use variance may be applied for if the application of Environmentally Sensitive Area buffers (i.e. wetland, streams, geohazards, etc) identified in JCC 18.15.185 deny all reasonable economic use of a property. Applicants may apply for a reasonable economic use variance only upon denial of a permit due to the requirements of the JCC 18.22–Critical Areas. The property is bordered by Highway 101 on one side and the Pacific Ocean on the other. The property is at sea level on the western boundary and on a bluff approximately 80 ft in elevation on the western boundary. There is a coastal lagoon between the ocean and the bluff. The property is set within Jefferson County’s WEPA and also within the Quinault Indian Nation. The property is also relatively long and narrow. The required buffers and setbacks would make the proposed project impossible to build (Figure 3). Required buffers and setbacks: From Highway 101: 50 feet From Adjacent property (to the North and South): 5 feet From Well: 100 feet From Ordinary High Water Mark: 150 feet From Category I Coastal Lagoon Wetland: 200 feet From Category IV Slope Mosaic Wetland: 50 feet From Top of Slope: 30 feet (setback and buffer combined) The amount of required buffers, setbacks and unbuildable areas within the site make it impossible to provide a project that is otherwise allowed for this property. The amount of buildable area defined by the required buffers and setbacks does not allow for a development that matches the intent of the project. Figure 3. shows the required buffers and setbacks required for the project. The specific variance being requested is the buffer from the coastal lagoon shown on site as an “existing pond.” The requested variance will allow the project to be constructed, as shown in the site plan, within a 200 ft. buffer from the Category I Coastal Lagoon Wetland. The 50 ft. buffer from the Category IV Slope Mosaic Wetland will not be encroached upon. The proposed reduction of the 200 ft. Category I Coastal Lagoon Wetland buffer is 100 feet or 50% for permanent impacts as a result of building footprints and 122 feet or 61% for temporary construction impacts in the project envelope. The proposed project will keep the current use of the property the same; it will just be adding additional cabins. The neighboring properties are zoned rural 7 residential, the same as this property. There is no alternative site plan that will allow this project to be built without a variance. 3.2 Ecological Function/NNL Evaluation. The project lies within a 200 ft. Category I Coastal Lagoon Wetland buffer. As stated in Jefferson County Code 18.22.265, Habitat Management Plans (HMP) are required when an applicant proposes to alter or decrease the standard buffer. This report follows requirements set forth for Habitat Management Plans (HMP) in Jefferson County Code, Chapter 18.22 for Critical Areas, Article VIII, Section 18.22.440 to address development impacts of the proposed project and mitigation for impacts, using the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations as the basis. This Habitat Management Plan also includes sections needed for a No Net Loss Evaluation. The results of assessment of impacts to habitat and ecological functions as well as the proposed mitigation to offset those impacts are provided in the sections below. 4. Environmental Setting 4.1 Site Survey A recent Wetland Rating and Delineation by MSA found the following list of vegetation in the wetland and upland areas of the project site. Table 1. Wetland Vegetation A. Strat um B. Common Name C. Latin Name Tree Red alder Alnus rubra Tree Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis Tree Hooker’s willow Salix hookeriana Tree Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Shrub Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis Shrub Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa Shrub Salal Gaultheria shallon Shrub Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata 8 Herb Lady Fern Athrium filix-femina Herb Water parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa Herb Slough sedge Carex obnupta Herb False lily of the valley Maianthemum dilatatum Herb Deer fern Blechnum spicant Herb Curly chickweed Stellaria crispa Herb Sword fern Polystichum munitum Herb Little western bitter-cress Cardamine oligosperma Herb Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia Table 2. Upland Vegetation D. Strat um E. Common Name F. Latin Name Tree Red alder Alnus rubra Tree Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis Tree Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla Tree Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Shrub Salal Gaultheria shallon Shrub Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa Shrub Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis Shrub Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata Shrub Evergreen Huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum Shrub Common gorse Ulex europaeus Herb Sword fern Polystichum munitum 9 Herb False lily of the valley Maianthemum dilatatum Herb Little western bitter-cress Cardamine oligosperma Herb Water parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa Herb Pearly everlasting Anaphalis margarticacea Herb Giant vetch Vicia gigantea This property is located in a relatively remote and undeveloped part of west Jefferson County within the Jefferson County West End Planning Area (WEPA) and the Quinault Indian Nation. It is north of the Queets River and approximately 1/2 mile south of the Olympic National Park boundary. The property is 23.52 acres and is divided into five parcels, which are bisected by Hwy 101. The portion of the property to the east of Highway 101 is approximately 4.11 acres. It is flat and gravel covered. Along the north and east boundaries of this portion, there is an approximate 8-foot wide drainage ditch, which in conjunction with the gravel, was likely used to turn wetland into a useable heavy machinery staging area. The western portion of the property where proposed construction will occur is bordered by Hwy 101 to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The access is at the north end of property (Figure 1). The top of the western portion of the property between Hwy 101 and the steep slope to the west is roughly 80' above sea level and is partially developed with two existing vacation cabins, a well and a septic system. The dominant vegetation is Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and salal (Gaultheria shallon). West of the developed portion there is a steep, mostly vegetated slope which drops to near sea level. On the northern end of property at the toe of the slope lies a 1.84 acre coastal lagoon and seaward of that, the Pacific Ocean. The lagoon is separated from the ocean by a mixed substrate of cobble, rock and sand, and the area is mostly vegetated with facultative and upland plant species and ocean tossed logs. The slope to the south of lagoon has a mosaic of wetland pockets, which are a result of ground water coming from the hillside in several different locations along the slope. This area extends south to the gravel access road running east and west from the top of bluff to the beach area. The adjacent property to the south is undeveloped and belongs to the Quinault Indian Nation. There is a wetland there as well, which appears to be a depression with no outlet. This pond is located outside of the required distance for protected buffers. A single-family residence occupies the adjacent property to the north of the subject property. 4.2 Washington State Priority Habitat and Species and Coastal Atlas A query of the site with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) database indicates the presence of Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) a federal species of concern and a state sensitive species within the terrestrial portion of the site. The habitats in the action area identified by WDFW PHS database are freshwater forested/shrub, wetland, and estuarine and marine (Figure 5). WDFW identifies priority habitats as a habitat type with unique or significant attributes to many species and WDFW defines priority species as wildlife species requiring protective measures as 10 described in the WDFW management guidelines 1991. These lists were established to help protect future development in these special areas. Similarly, a query of the site with the USFWS national wetlands mapper indicates the presence of forested and shrub wetlands present in the action area of this proposed project (Figure 6). 4.3 Surrounding Environment According to the Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory (2008): Just south of the site, “Both the Queets and Quinault Rivers drain southwest from the glaciated Olympic Mountains, with peaks higher than 2,200 m. The rivers exit the mountains and flow across a 10 to 30 km wide coastal piedmont underlain by Quaternary glaciofluvial sediment. The Queets River drains a total area of about 1,170 km2 and the Quinault River drains 1,134 km2. During fall, winter, and spring, these basins are repeatedly subject to large storms from the southwest, delivering substantial rainfall at lower elevations and snow in the higher Olympic Mountains. Summers are relatively dry. The large precipitation volumes are reflected in high average flows. Average annual flow generation is 3.4 m3/m2 for the Queets basin and about 3.7 m3/m2 for the Quinault basin (O’Connor et al., 2003). Current land uses within the Quinault and Queets basins include timber harvest, agriculture, fishing, recreation, and tourism. The major landowner in the Quinault basin is the ONP. The Quinault Indian Nation owns 32 percent of the basin, while the remainder is owned or managed by the USFS (13 percent) and private landholdings (4 percent). Present-day settlements are small and include the village of Taholah and the Amanda Park and Neilton areas in the Quinault basin, and the small communities of Queets and Clearwater in the Queets basin. Currently, two hatcheries operate within the Quinault watershed: the Quinault National Fish Hatchery, located near Cook Creek, and the Quinault pen rearing facility, located in Lake Quinault.” Further north of the site, “Kalaloch Creek runs south through private and state timberland and then west through ONP to empty into the Pacific Ocean between the Queets and Hoh Rivers (Map 20). Shoreline of the state designation begins at the ONP boundary (roughly RM 1) and continues roughly 2 miles upstream to where the West Fork of Kalaloch Creek branches from the mainstem. The Kalaloch basin is 13,649 acres in size including four small, unnamed, independent tributaries that drain to the Pacific Ocean to the south of Kalaloch Creek. Most of the drainage consists of either privately owned land (40 percent) or WDNR lands (41 percent). The ONP owns 18 percent of the basin, including the coastal strip and approximately 1 mile of lower Kalaloch Creek. The Quinault Indian Nation lands include 1 percent of the drainage.” “The Kalaloch Creek planning area is composed of 94 percent evergreen forest. The vegetation in the remaining area is shrub and brush rangeland, and mixed forest. Only 4.4 percent of the planning area is wetland (palustrine scrub/shrub). Riparian conditions in the basin are mostly “fair” to “good” and hydrologic maturity is rated “good.” (Smith and Caldwell, 2000). Kalaloch Creek has a fairly confined channel due to topography, but channel conditions, floodplain connectivity, and sediment conditions are a data gap. The reach upstream from the ONP is on the 303(d) list for water temperature (Ecology, 1998).” 11 “Kalaloch Creek supports coho salmon, winter steelhead, bull trout, and coastal cutthroat trout. Historically, a small run of chum salmon was also present in the watershed (Smith and Caldwell, 2000). All of these runs are wild, native stocks and their current status is unknown.” Soils and Wetland data are included in the MSA Wetland Report. 4.4 Federal ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat within the Action Area A range of fish, marine mammal, and bird species listed under the Endangered Species Act may occur, or may have critical habitat, within the proposed action area. The designated critical habitat within the project envelope, action area, or adjoining wetland is presented below in Table 3. Table 3. NMFS/USFWS Regional Critical Habitat NMFS/USFWS Critical Habitat Project Envelope Action Area Chum Salmon Critical Habitat - Freshwater (NOAA, 2005) N N Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - Freshwater (NMFS, 2005) N N Final Nearshore Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014) N N Final Deepwater Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014) N N Leatherback Sea Turtle Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2012) N Y Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2009) N Y Marine Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (NOAA, 2005) N N Marine Critical Habitat Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon (NMFS, 2005) N N Sockeye Salmon Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N N Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2006) N N Steelhead Trout Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N N Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat (USFWS, 2015) N N Marbled Murrelet (USFWS, 2015) N N 4.5 Status of Relevant Federally-listed species For each listed species with the potential to be in the project action area or in the remainder of the adjoining wetland, the listing status, distribution of species, and relevant life history traits of are presented below. 4.5.1 Green Sturgeon On April 7, 2006, NMFS determined that the Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris; hereafter, “Southern DPS”) is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and listed the species as threatened 12 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (71 FR 17757). Southern DPS green sturgeon occupy coastal bays and estuaries from Monterey Bay, CA, to Puget Sound, WA and observations of green sturgeon in Puget Sound are much less common compared to the other estuaries in Washington. In 2006, two Southern DPS green sturgeon tagged in San Pablo Bay were detected near Scatchet Head, south of Whidbey Island. Activities of concern for green sturgeon occurring in Puget Sound include dredging and capping that could affect benthic habitats and alter water flow and water quality. The project action area is within Southern DPS green sturgeon critical habitat. 4.5.2 Humpback Whale NMFS has listed the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) as an endangered species that occurs on Washington’s coast of the Pacific Ocean. There is no designated critical habitat for humpback whales in Washington at this time. Humpback whales are regularly spotted in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Washington (Orca Network, 2015). Relevant life history: Due to excessive whaling practices, southern British Columbia and northern Washington State humpback whale population s significantly declined and were rarely seen in Puget Sound and Washington’s coast in the recent past (Angell & Balcomb III, 1982). 4.5.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle NMFS has listed the Pacific leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as an endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound. There is designated critical habitat for Pacific leatherback turtles along the outer coast of Washington State, and it is presence on the stretch of shoreline seaward of the project site. Relevant life history: There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington, even though they are occasionally seen along the coast (Bowlby, Green, & Bonnel, 1994). 5. Analysis of Effects 5.1 Vegetation – Wetland and Upland Areas The proposed development envelope covers approximately 5.43 acres of upland areas above the bluff. Approximately 1.837 acres of this development envelope is within the 200 foot Category I Coastal Lagoon Wetland buffer. The location of the project partially developed with two existing vacation cabins, a well and septic system. The dominant vegetation is Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and salal (Gaultheria shallon). Most of the major trees are proposed to be retained as cabins will be built around them. However some of the existing vegetation will be removed and disturbed as a result of the proposed development. A compensatory mitigation plan is proposed in the following section to offset for the loss of the vegetation. 5.2 Wildlife Wildlife barriers or loss of connectivity are not expected to occur from proposed building envelope and the conditional maximum 5.43 acres. Open space will be maintained between the proposed developments and developments on neighboring properties that can easily be traversed by wildlife. Moreover no species or critical habitat is known to occur within the project envelope. 13 5.3 Shoreline Processes Development along shorelines can alter the composition and distribution of substrates and their contribution to physical processes. This in turn can adversely affect spawning habitats for beach spawning forage fish (pacific herring, sand lance, and surf smelt) which are fundamental components of the marine food web, no forage fish is documented in the action area. The project envelope is well away from the shoreline and its 150 foot buffer. 5.4 Noise Some temporary increases in ambient noise will be generated during development of the property. Noise generated during construction is not expected to impact wildlife in the long term. 5.5 Water Quality Increased run-off from the building area or other impervious surfaces could occur with development within the building envelope. Recommendations for low-impact design and maintenance of the property are presented in the following section outlining conservation measures. 5.6 Wetland Please refer to accompanying Wetland Delineation & Rating Report for discussions on the impact of this project on the adjacent wetlands and their buffers. 6. Conservation and Protection Measures Conservation Measures presented here include Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMM) and Compensatory Mitigation that are intended to address Jefferson County criteria. The compensatory mitigation measures described below are designed to enhance the habitat function of the wetland. 6.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures Great efforts have been made to reduce the impacts on the property and the proponent is requesting the minimum deviation from the standards in order to proceed with the project. As required under JCC 18.22.090 to meet the criteria for Reasonable Economic Use Variance, the following measures will be employed: All development is set away from the ocean and wetlands, on the bluff above. The proposed development should have minimal impacts on the coastal lagoon, which is the wetland that the buffer variance being requested for. 14 Existing gravel roadways will be used as much as possible to minimize the impacts to the site and minimize the functional characteristics such as the existing contours, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources and hydrological conditions. The existing well will be used for the project so no additional drilling will be required. Energy efficient cabins are being proposed. Cabins, parking and site utilities are placed in a way to minimize impacts to existing trees and vegetation Pier foundations will be used to minimize the impacts on existing trees and minimize earthwork. The existing electrical facilities will be used for the project No additional trails will be created around the wetlands or on the lower section of the property The property east of the highway is not being developed, however this is where the mitigation is being proposed. No non-native landscaping will be utilized. Existing vegetation will be left in place as much as possible. Water usage will be below 5,000 gallons per day. In addition to the conservation measures above, a wetland creation/habitat enhancement plan has been developed as compensatory mitigation and is described in detail in the following sections. 6.2 Compensatory Mitigation & Planting Plan 6.2.1 Mitigation Site Description Following MSA wetland specialists’ assessment of the proposed project site, there is little potential mitigation possible on the west side of US-101, due to pre-existing environmental conditions. However, across US-101 is a 4.1 acre (178,596 sq. ft.) parcel that has been previously clearcut, is located within an area historically shared by a loose mosaic of seasonally flooded, palustrine, scrub-shrub wetlands (as defined by the USFWS national wetlands mapper) (Figure 6), currently holds little or no environmental value, and was deemed by MSA wetland specialists as ideal for project mitigation. The parcel is just north of the Queets River, approximately one half mile south of the Olympic National Park boundary, and is bordered to the west by US-101. It is separated from the Clearwater River drainage to the east by a north-south ridge, and precipitation-based water generally moves via shallow subsurface or surface flow in an approximate southwesterly direction, down from elevation toward the Pacific coast and the mouth of the Queets River. Of the entire 4.1 clearcut parcel, 3.47 acres (151,153 sq. ft.) is covered by rock/large gravel. Running the N and E boundaries of this area, there is an 8 ft. wide drainage ditch (Figure 7), which covers approximately .64 acres (25752 sq. ft.) without rock/large gravel coverage (Figure 8). 15 6.2.2 Mitigation Site Assessment MSA wetland specialists repeatedly sampled substrate from within the gravel covered section of the mitigation parcel, within the non-gravel covered section of the mitigation area, and outside of the mitigation area itself. Substrate samples from outside the mitigation parcel, to the north and to the east of the clearcut, showed black, reduced soil with reddish oxidized streaks within the rhizosphere of extant plants, indicative of seasonally flooded, hydric soils. Substrate samples from within the non-gravel covered section of the clearcut showed similar soil components, with wetland plants being expressed from the persistent seed bank (Fig. 10), along with algal presence on the topsoil which also indicates sub- surface water. Substrate samples from within the gravel covered section of the mitigation area were difficult to obtain, as the top gravel layer had evidently been compressed over time, perhaps by use as a heavy equipment staging area. The presence of persistent wetland vegetation, topsoil algal discoloration, and hydric soils within the clearcut, non-gravel covered area, compared to with the general lack of the same within the clearcut, gravel covered area, indicated to MSA wetland specialists that the primary limiting environmental factors are altered substrate (imported, compressed rock/large gravel suppressing native vegetation growth) in conjunction with altered hydrology (8 ft. wide drainage ditch separating wetland from contributing shallow-flow watershed). Native plant species observed on the project site include: Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Grand Fir (Abies grandis), Prunus sp., Pacific Madrona (Arbutus menziesii), Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata), Red alder (Alnus rubra), Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), Bracken Fern (pteridium aquilinum), Lady Fern (Athyrium filix-femina), Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum), Service Berry (Amelanchier alnifolia), Beaked Hazlenut (Corylus cornuta), Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), Indian Plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Nootka Rose (Rosa nutkana), Aster sp., Sticky Bedstraw (Galium aparine), Trailing Blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Grass sp., Sedge sp., Foam Flower (Tiarella cordifolia), Geranium sp., and Horse Tail (Equisetum) 6.2.3 Mitigation Plan To mitigate for the 1.84 acres (80,150 sq. ft.) of long and short term impact involved with cabin construction, MSA recommends: Removal of existing foreign substrate (rock/large gravel) top layer from 1.2 acres (52,272 sq. ft.) of mitigation area, adjacent to section of mitigation area without rock/large gravel (Fig. 9). Removal/filling of drainage ditch on N and E mitigation area boundary to restore hydrology. Planting native wetland vegetation over 1.84 acres of restored substrate. Subsequent monitoring plan to ensure restoration success. Removal of few extant invasive plants on western parcels of US-101 Monitoring plan for short term construction footprint, to ensure no permanent vegetation damage and/or long term impact. Possible constraints to these recommendations include: 1. Method of foreign substrate removal; use of heavy machinery might possibly further compact soils, or needlessly remove existing hydric soils, reducing potential restoration success rate. 2. Failure of restored hydrology to nourish hydric soils. 16 3. Failure of planted vegetation to survive. 4. Colonization of aggressive invasive vegetation after prescribed site disturbance. These possible constraints may be minimized by: 1. Using the smallest/lightest earth-moving machinery necessary to achieve targeted gravel removal. Following protocol such that earth-moving machinery is always on gravel that has yet to be removed: work would begin along area contiguous to non-gravel covered section of mitigation area (green polygon in Figure 8), working SW (through orange polygon in Figure 8). Removing only layer of rock/large gravel, as hydric soils often contain a seedbank of wetland plants that supplement any additional planting. 2. Completing construction (including filling of drainage ditch) by late fall, to allow for winter precipitation to adequately flood mitigation site. 3. Planting native vegetation (Table 4, Figure 9) in early spring following the construction work and winter precipitation. During this time plants are semi-dormant, soils are easier to work, and success rates are higher. 4. Planting native plants in greater quantities and in closer proximity than otherwise recommended in a less disturbed setting, to naturally suppress aggressive invasives. Part of the subsequent monitoring plan should likely include periodic, mechanical removal of invasives. Current research indicates that on-site mitigation disturbed areas is not sustainable without continual monitoring and maintenance to counteract the effects of disturbance. For example, re-creating a plant community indicative of less disturbed conditions will require continual removal of opportunistic (invasive) species that are better adapted to disturbed sites. Table 4. Plant species and quantities used in mitigation Plants should be installed in late fall or early spring following the construction work, as laid out in planting plan (Figure 9). During these times, plants are semi-dormant and soils are easier to work. Plants will be laid out by hand generally following the spacing specified on the planting plan map. The plants will be installed by digging a one- to two-foot hole, loosening the soil, and placing the plant in the ground after loosening soil around the root ball. The hole must be deep enough to ensure the roots are straight, but not so deep as to bury plants too far above the root collar. Once the plant is in place, the hole will be backfilled and tamped lightly. Mulch should be applied 3" deep around plants, being careful not to touch the stem of the plant. No extraordinary measures are proposed at this time to protect installed plants other than mulching, weeding and watering. Substitutions might be necessary for species or individuals that Common Name Scientific Name Purchase Size Plants Avg. Mature Height Avg. Mature Width Single Plant Coverage Total Plant Coverage Red Alder Alnus rubra 3' seedling 21 80 40 1256 26376 Douglas Fir Psuedotsuga menziesii 15" seedling 13 200 50 1962.5 25512.5 Scouler's Willow Salix scouleriana 10' rooted 29 30 15 176.7 5124.3 Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis 2' seedling 18 125 25 490.6 8830.8 Red Osier Dogwood Cornus stolonifera 6' rooted 39 20 10 78.5 3061.5 Black Twinberry Lonicera involucrata 6' rooted 58 10 8 50.24 2913.92 Nootka Rose Rosa nootkana 2' rooted 63 6 3 7.1 447.3 Pacific Ninebark Physocarpus capitus 6' rooted 36 15 10 78.5 2826 Slough Sedge Carex obnupta 12" rooted 200 5 3 7.1 1420 Soft Rush Juncus effusus 12" rooted 200 3 1.5 1.8 360 Coastal Strawberry Fragaria chiloensis 3.5" pot 45 0.5 6 28.3 1273.5 Kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 3.5" pot 40 0.66 8 50.3 2012 TOTAL 80157.82 Overseed with mix of sterile rye grass and native grasses/nurse species to aid in natural invasive species suppression 17 cannot be found at local nurseries. All plant substitutions will be approved by the project biologist prior to installation to ensure their suitability for the site. 6.2.4 Performance Standards Performance standards are measurable criteria for determining if the goals and objectives of the mitigation project are being achieved. If the proposed benchmarks are not achieved by comparing the surveys to the mitigation goals, then contingency plans will need to be implemented. Performance Standard # 1 (survival rate): Immediately after planting, all plants will be counted and documented. At the end of each growing season (late Aug- early Sept) plots will be visited and a count of surviving plants will be documented. The percent survival for the plots will be calculated by dividing the total number of plants after planting by the total number of surviving plants at the end of the season. Photo stations for each replanting site will be determined and a photograph of each transplant location will be taken on an annual basis. Individual plants that die must be replaced with native species in order to meet the survival performance standards. Performance Standard # 2 (percent cover): The percent cover standard will be monitored by looking at each monitoring unit of the enhanced areas from above and estimating the area covered by the individual species. The percent cover within an area can be quantified as a total greater than 100% because plants (in tree, high/low shrub and herbaceous layers) overlap in cover. Performance Standard #3 (invasive removal): All areas where invasive plants were removed will be surveyed visually and categorized with photo stations. This is to ensure that 0% (none) of the targeted Invasive species will be present and have not reestablished within each monitoring year. MONITORING PLAN An as-built drawing and report will be submitted to Jefferson County DCD as documentation of the implementation of the approved planting plan within one month of installation. Once approved, the monitoring proposal is to maintain and monitor the survival of the native plants installed as well as removal of the invasive plants for five years. The plan will include vegetation description and photo documentation from established photo stations. A panoramic photo of the entire mitigation site will also be provided. Monitoring will take place over a period of five years at the end of the growing season (late August or early September) of each monitoring year. The performance standards will be monitored by measuring plots in zones within the planting area that will be established and mapped after planting occurs, on the as-built plan. There will be photo points for each plot and they will be referenced on the as-built plan. Each year the photo points that are established at each site will be used for comparison. Photos will be taken at all points for all years as visual documentation of the performance standards progress, or lack of. In addition to photos at designated points, photos documentation must include a panoramic view of the entire planting area. Submitted photos must be formatted on standard 8 ½” by 11” paper, dated with the date the photo was taken, and clearly labeled with the direction from which the photo was taken. The photo location points must be identified on an appropriate drawing. Collected data and photos will be compiled into an annual Wetland Planting report each year and submitted to the Jefferson County DCD by December of each monitoring year for five years. Each annual 18 monitoring report shall include written and photographic documentation on plant mortality and replanting efforts and must document whether the performance standards are being met. Monitoring results will determine whether or not contingency measures will be needed. Performance Standards #1 and 2 Year 1: Achieve 100% survival success of planted natives into mitigation areas. Year 2: Achieve 100% survival success at end of second year into mitigation areas. Year 3: Achieve 80% survival success at end of third year into mitigation areas. Year 4: Achieve 80% survival success at end of fourth year into mitigation areas. Year 5: Achieve 80% survival success at end of into mitigation areas. Performance Standard #3 Year 1: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas. Year 2: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas. Year 3: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas. Year 4: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas. Year 5: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas. MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the survival of all native species within the mitigation area, including volunteer natives. Watering by hand may be necessary during year one until natural underlying hydrology is re-established. Water requirements will depend on the timing of planting with the seasons, weather conditions, and underlying hydrology. Once plants are established, extra watering is not anticipated to be necessary. Removal of aggressive invasive vegetation will be necessary within all sections that are being monitored for survival and coverage, until either native plantings can naturally suppress competition or five-year monitoring period has passed. If the required survival rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year, plants lost to mortality will be replaced to achieve the percentage cover performance standard described above. Prior to replacement, an appropriate assessment will be performed to determine if the survival was affected by species/site selection, animal damage, or some other factor. Subsequent contingency actions must be designed to respond directly to the stressor(s), which are increasing mortality of planted native species. If a particular species is shown not to endure site conditions then another, more appropriate species will be selected. If excessive damage is observed, protective measures will be introduced. Monitoring years may be added if significant re-planting becomes necessary. 19 Monitoring on an annual basis for five years will occur with photographs to determine the survival rate of the transplanted area. If 100% success is achieved before reaching the five-year mark, monitoring will continue without extra replanting efforts. Within the five-year time period, transplanting will occur on an annual basis to replace any plants that are lost until 100% success is achieved. 20 6.3 Compliance with Jefferson County Mitigation Requirements Requirements for compensatory mitigation measures are clearly outlined in Jefferson County SMP 18.25.270 (Critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection). This mitigation proposal satisfies these requirements as outlined below: The quality and quantity of the replaced, enhanced, or substituted resources shall be the same or better than the affected resources: To compensate for the maximum 80,150 square feet of building area within the proposed building envelope, approximately 80,150 square feet of area will be improved; 52,272 square feet of compacted gravel will be mechanically removed, approximately 19,920 square feet of drainage ditch will be filled to restore site hydrology, approximately 80,150 square feet of native vegetation planted that will provide higher functioning ecological value, and the few minimal invasive Scotch Broom plants on site will be removed. The mitigation site and associated vegetative planting shall be nurtured and maintained such that healthy native plant communities can grow and mature over time, and to ensure that intended functions and values are achieved: The planting plan includes maintenance, monitoring, and contingency plans. The monitoring timeframes shall be consistent with JCC 18.22.350(3)(h). The mitigation shall be informed by pertinent scientific and technical studies, including but not limited to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (Final – Revised November 2008), the Shoreline Restoration Plan (Final October 2008) and other background studies prepared in support of this program: The planting plan is based on site characterizations performed by MSA wetland biologists and is designed to enhance well-documented wetland functions. Hydrologic restoration can enhance hydric soils, foster wetland vegetation, and increase water residence time in/on the landscape. This is turn can help trap sediment, prevent excess nutrients from reaching the aquatic environment, and slow run-off, preventing erosion. The mitigation shall replace the functions as quickly as possible following the impacts to ensure no net loss: Development of a mature plant community can take several years, but benefits to wetland ecosystems adjacent to this area will last for the foreseeable future. Trees will take the longest to establish and to improve ecological function, but will be a significant improvement in shoreline stabilization and habitat improvement for birds and fish. Planting is planned for immediate improvement in environmental quality, as well as long term, sustainable habitat improvement. The county shall require the applicant/proponent to post a bond or provide other financial surety equal to the estimated cost of the mitigation in order to ensure the mitigation is carried out successfully. The bond/surety shall be refunded to the applicant/proponent upon completion of the mitigation activity and any required monitoring. 21 7 Conclusions 7.1 No Net Loss No Net Loss and Mitigation Regulations under Jefferson County’s SMP (18.25.270) requires that all shoreline, wetland, and critical area use and development be located, designed, constructed, conducted, and maintained in a manner that maintains shoreline ecological processes and functions. Uses and developments that cause a net loss of ecological functions and processes are prohibited but can be offset by employing measures to mitigate adverse impacts on shoreline functions and processes. Avoidance measures in this project include locating the building envelope outside the delineated wetland area and maintaining a proposed 100 foot buffer from the edge of the Category I Coastal Lagoon Wetland. As described in the previous section, the quality and quantity of enhancements will be better than the affected resources: 1.84 acres of the project footprint, primarily in Category I Coastal Lagoon Wetland buffer, will be offset with 1.84 acres of wetland creation on the East side of Highway 101. Based on our review of the proposed development envelope for the Kalaloch Cabins, the existing conditions on site, and the mitigation measures, MSA concludes that there will be No Net Loss in habitat function or value above current baseline conditions, assuming recommendations put forth in this Habitat Management Plan are implemented. 22 References Angell, T., & Balcomb III, K. (1982). Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Seattle, WA: Puget Sound Books, University of Washington Press. Bowlby, C. E., Green, G. A., & Bonnel, M. L. (1994). Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon. 75:33-35. Healey, M. C. (1982). Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, pp. 315 - 341. In: V.S. Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine comparisons. Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Comprehensive Update. February 7, 2014 Jefferson County Code. Article VIII. Special Reports; Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas. JCC 18.22.440. [Ord. 3-08§1] Jefferson County 2008. Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory & Characterization – Revised November 2008 Love, M., Yoklavich, M., & Thorsteinson, L. (2002). The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Myers, J. M., Kope, R. G., Bryant, G. J., Teel, D., Lierheimer, L. J., Wainwright, T. C., . . . Waples, R. (2000). Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp. NMFS. (2002). Status Review for North American Green Sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris. NMFS. (2006). Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma NMFS. (2009). Designation of Critical Habitat for the threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon Final Biological Report. National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region Protected Resources Division. NMFS. (2009). Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma NMFS. (2011). Critical Habitat for the Southern Eulachon Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma NMFS. (2012). Leatherback Sea Turtle Critical Habitat. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma 23 NMFS. (2014). Final Nearshore Rockfish Critical Habitat . Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma NMFS. (2014a). Final Deepwater Rockfish Critical Habitat . Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma NOAA. (2005). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-66 Updated Status of Federally Listed ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. NOAA. (2005). Northwest Regional Office Critical Habitat Mapper. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from http://map.streamnet.org/website/CriticalHabitat/viewer.htm NOAA. (2006). Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI). Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma NOAA. (2006). Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. NOAA. (2013). Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Yelloweye Rockfish, Canary Rockfish and Bocaccio of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. NOAA. NOAA. (2013). Fisheries Data: Critical Habitat. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from NOAA Fisheries: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/gis/data/critical.htm Orca Network. (2015). Retrieved October 12, 2015, from http://www.orcanetwork.org/sightings/ Rieman, B. E., & McIntyre, J. (1993). Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 38 pp. Simenstad, C. A., Fresh, K., & Salo, E. (1982). The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364. In: V. S. Kennedy, (ed.). Estuarine comparisons. USFWS. (1998). Endangered Species Act Consultation Handook; Procedures for Conducting Section 7 Consultations and Conferences. USFWS and NMFS, March 1998 Final. USFWS. (2015). USFWS Final Critical Habitat . Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma WDFW. (1993). Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Olympia, WA. WDFW. (1993). Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Olympia, WA. WDFW. (2005). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Point No Point Treaty Tribes. 2005. 2004 progress report on Hood Canal summer chum salmon . Olympia, WA. 24 WDFW. (2009). 2008 Washington State Herring Stock Status Report. WDFW. (2012). Northwest Fish Distribution (StreamNet). Retrieved 12 2015, October, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma WDFW. (2014). Forage Fish Spawning Map - Washington State. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from http://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html WDFW. (2014a). Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) . Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma WDFW. (2014b). Forage Fish Spawning Data. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma WDFW. (2015). Generalized Kelp Locations. WDFW Fish Program, WA Dept of Natural Resources, Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP). Retrieved 12 2015, October, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/ WDFW. (2015a). Invertebrates: Natural Resources, Habitats, & Managed Areas, Coastal Resources & Habitats, Shellfish/Invertebrates (Layer Name: Shellfish - Puget Sound and Straits). Data accessed through NOAA’s Environmental Response Management Application October 12, 20. WDFW. (2015a). Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) on the Web. Retrieved from http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/ WDNR. (2015). Eelgrass Distribution in Puget Sound. Retrieved from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/ WDOH. (2013). Commercial Shellfish Growing Areas . Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma WDOH. (2014). Vibriosis Advisory Areas. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/erma WSCC. (2000). Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (East) Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission. WSCC. (2002). Salmon And Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Area 17 Quilcene-Snow Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission. 25 Figure 1. Site and Vicinity Map 26 27 Figure 2. Parcel Map 28 Figure 3. Kalaloch Cabins Site Plan with Mapped Wetlands and Associated Buffer 29 Figure 4. 2006 Department of Ecology Oblique Shoreline photo. 30 Figure 5. WDFW PHS Map and Report: surrounding freshwater forested/shrub wetland 31 32 Figure 6. USFW National Wetlands Map 33 Figure 7. View W from Northeast corner of mitigation area 34 Figure 8. Mitigation Site Plan 35 Figure 9. Planting Plan Map 36 Figure 10. View N from Southeast corner of mitigation area