HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD2021-00360-09C- FEMA Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Plan
Zagula Residential Development
FEMA Habitat Assessment &
Mitigation Planting Plan
September 13th, 2021
For: StudioSTL
1044 Lawrence Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
C/O Property Owners John and Terri Zagula
Jefferson County Parcel #: 932200702 & 932200701
Table of Contents
1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Applicant Information ...................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Construction Details ......................................................................................................... 4
1.7 Action Area ...................................................................................................................... 9
2 Habitat Conditions Onsite ....................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Ordinary High Water Mark Determination ...................................................................... 9
2.2 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Wildlife Observed ...........................................................................................................11
3 Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) ......................................................11
3.1 State Priority Habitat & Species......................................................................................11
3.1.1 Forage Fish.............................................................................................................. 13
3.1.2 Eelgrass and Kelp ................................................................................................... 14
3.1.3 Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas ....................................................... 14
3.2 Federal ESA-Listed Species & Critical Habitat ............................................................. 14
3.2.1 Puget Sound Chinook ............................................................................................. 15
3.2.2 Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ............................................................................. 16
3.2.3 Bull Trout ................................................................................................................ 16
3.2.4 Puget Sound Steelhead ............................................................................................ 17
3.2.5 Rockfish .................................................................................................................. 17
3.2.6 Marbled Murrelets .................................................................................................. 18
3.2.7 Humpback whale .................................................................................................... 19
3.2.8 Leatherback Sea Turtle ........................................................................................... 19
3.2.9 Southern Resident Killer Whale ............................................................................. 19
4 Effects of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 20
4.1 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 20
4.2 In-Air Noise.................................................................................................................... 21
4.3 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................... 21
4.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Related Impacts ........ 21
4.5 Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 23
4.6 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects ................................................................................ 24
5 Conservation Measures to Avoid & Minimize Impacts ........................................................ 24
5.1 Determination of Effect .................................................................................................. 26
6 Mitigation Plan for No Net Loss of Ecological Function ..................................................... 28
6.1 Proposed Mitigation ....................................................................................................... 28
6.2 Mitigation Goals ............................................................................................................. 29
Goal (1) Buffer Enhancement ............................................................................................... 29
Goal (2) Emergent Cover ...................................................................................................... 29
Goal (3) Survival................................................................................................................... 29
Goal (4) Soil .......................................................................................................................... 29
6.3 Mitigation Performance Standards ................................................................................. 29
Performance Standard (1) Buffer Enhancement ................................................................... 29
Performance Standard (2) Emergent Cover .......................................................................... 30
Performance Standard (3) Survival ....................................................................................... 30
Performance Standard (4) Soil .............................................................................................. 30
6.4 Site Preparation .............................................................................................................. 30
6.5 Plant Procurement .......................................................................................................... 30
6.6 On Center Dimensions and Area Coverage.................................................................... 30
6.7 Planting Instructions ....................................................................................................... 31
6.8 Inspection and Maintenance Criteria.............................................................................. 32
6.9 Planting Plan .................................................................................................................. 33
7 Monitoring & Maintenance................................................................................................... 36
7.1 As-Built Report .............................................................................................................. 36
7.2 Monitoring Schedule ...................................................................................................... 36
7.3 Monitoring Methods ....................................................................................................... 36
7.4 Maintenance ................................................................................................................... 37
7.5 Contingency ................................................................................................................... 37
8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 38
References ..................................................................................................................................... 39
List of Tables
Table 1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Designated Critical Habitat ........................................................................................................... 14
Table 2. Existing and Proposed Impervious Surface & Native Vegetation Quantities ................. 29
Table 3. Plant List ......................................................................................................................... 33
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Proposed site plans .......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Photo of OHWM ........................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4. WDFW PHS Mapper ..................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5. WDFW & WDNR Documented Forage Fish Spawning Map ...................................... 13
Figure 6. FEMA Flood Zone Map ................................................................................................ 23
Figure 7. Planting Instructions ...................................................................................................... 32
Figure 8. Planting Plan Design Map ............................................................................................. 35
Appendices
A. Site Photos
B. Native Plant Sources for the Pacific NW
C. FEMA Elevation Survey Certificates
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 1
1 Project Overview
1.1 Purpose
Marine Surveys & Assessments (MSA) was authorized by StudioSTL on behalf of the property
owners, John and Terri Zagula, to complete a FEMA Habitat Assessment, including a mitigation
planting plan, to meet Jefferson County code (JCC) and no net loss (NNL) criteria for the
permitting of two single-family residences. One residence is a reconstruction within the existing
structure’s footprint, and the second is a new cabin on the adjacent parcel. This project is located
on the southeastern side of Beckett Point.
This FEMA Habitat Assessment has been prepared in compliance with the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 18.25), the
Jefferson County Critical Areas Code (Chapter 18.22), and the Regional Guidance
For Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin
(Produced by FEMA - Region 10, August 2013).
This report serves to describe MSA’s findings, including evaluating potential direct and indirect
effects of the project on sensitive habitat and wildlife species that may occur in the project area,
potential impacts to the water quality of nearby waterways, and a proposed mitigation plan to
meet the criteria of NNL of ecological function. Because this project occurs within the 100-year
floodplain, FEMA flood zone information is also provided.
A FEMA elevation survey was conducted on September 16th, 2020 by NTI Surveying (Appendix
C).
A habitat survey was conducted by MSA biologist Jill Cooper on August 4th, 2021. The weather
was clear and sunny with a light breeze (~8mph from the west), and 67° Fahrenheit.
1.2 Regulatory Framework
The proposed replacement and new residence are within a Shoreline Residential designation area
according to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (18.25.500(3) Residential Shoreline
Environmental Regulations). Under JCC 18.25.270(4), development projects along marine
shorelines must maintain a standard buffer of 150 ft (minimum) landward of the Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM), plus a 10-ft-wide building setback for a total of 160 ft. Exceptions can be
made by Jefferson County if a buffer reduction is requested and a no net loss (NNL) mitigation
plan is implemented (JCC 18.22.640 & 18.22.660). According to JCC 18.22.640, “The buffer
shall not be reduced to less than 75 percent of the standard buffer, unless it can be demonstrated
through a special report prepared by a qualified professional that there will be no net loss of
FWHCA functions or values.” Additionally, both parcels are entirely within the FEMA 100-year
flood plain, so a FEMA Habitat Assessment is required as outlined in JCC
18.22.940 Frequently flooded area reports.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 2
As required under JCC 18.22.660, an onsite mitigation planting plan with a 1:1 mitigation ratio
will be implemented to achieve NNL of ecological function criteria and mitigate for the new
building footprint within the shoreline buffer (Section 6).
1.3 Applicant Information
Name: John and Terri Zagula
Mailing Address: 1220 Beckett Point Rd, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Phone Number: (425) 241-6446
Email address: john@igncap.com
1.4 Project Location
NW ¼ of Section 24, Township 30N, Range 2W
Physical address: 1220 Beckett Point Road, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Jefferson County Parcel #: 932200702 & 932200701
Latitude: North 48.077638°, Longitude: West -122.884342°
Waterbody: Discovery Bay, Puget Sound
WRIA: 17 - Quilcene - Snow
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
The project is located on two parcels (932200701 & 932200702). Parcel # 932200701 is 0.07
acres in size and contains the existing single-family residence. Parcel #932200702 is
approximately 0.04 acres, and consists of an undeveloped lot, currently used for storage, with
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 3
two “Tuff” sheds, and some non-native cultivated plants. Both parcels are zoned as Rural
Residential (RR-20), which allows for a house of any size (subject to land use limitations), plus
one Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) that's 1,250 square feet or less (including garages and
basements). The parcels are bordered on the north side by a gravel drive that extends eastward
from the terminus of Beckett Point Road. To the east of the existing home is a garage and open
habitat consisting of a semi-forested slope that ends at the beach. To the south is Discovery Bay,
and to the west is a neighboring single-family residence.
1.5 Project Description
The proposed project is to replace the existing structure located on parcel number 932200701
with a new 2,062 square foot two-story single-family residence. In addition, on parcel number
932200702, the Zagula’s would like to construct a new 1,038 square foot two-story “cabin.”
The existing home’s impervious area is currently 2,641 square feet (including the house
footprint, deck, porch, and patio). The proposed replacement structure will be 2,493 square feet
of impervious area (including the house roof area and patio). This results in a net loss of 148
square feet of impervious area for the re-construction portion of the project. Additionally, the
new home will be constructed with a slab on grade foundation raised 1-foot and 2-inches above
the FEMA flood plain (FFE 13-feet 2-inches – see Figure 2 for site plan, Section 4.4 for FEMA
impacts, and Appendix C for FEMA Elevation Survey Certificates).
The existing impervious deck, porch and patio (1,157 sq ft) surrounding the existing single-
family home will be replaced with a smaller patio (584 sq ft) made of pavers which will be
elevated to the finished floor level of the house, leaving a space where water can flow beneath in
times of potential flooding. Additionally, these pavers will have spaces in between for water to
percolate into soil.
The proposed new cabin structure will add 864 square feet of new impervious surface to the
currently undeveloped lot (including the new house footprint, roof area, and parking pad). The
cabin will also be placed on a slab on grade foundation at FFE 13-feet 2-inches to be located 1-
foot 2-inches above the FEMA flood plain. The two 8-foot x 8-foot “Tuff” sheds currently
located on this parcel will be removed.
In between the landward side of the bulkhead (OHWM) and the proposed new cabin footprint,
there is an existing 17-foot x 12-foot patio constructed from impervious concrete pavers. This
patio will be removed and will not be replaced.
The existing single-family residence will relocate its sewage pump basin to a location at least 50-
feet from the location of the existing bulkhead. The new cabin will also have a new septic pump
basin located 50-feet from the existing bulkhead (near the parking pad). There is an additional
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 4
existing pump basin located on the property that feeds the neighboring home, and that pump will
remain untouched and in place. Both residences will be connected to the existing community
septic through a sewer line.
See Figure 2 for the proposed site plans.
See Table 2 for breakdown of impervious surface calculations.
1.6 Construction Details
Construction will be completed by a licensed contractor. Before any construction work begins,
site construction limits for clearing and runoff will be clearly laid out on site. A silt fence and
straw wattles will be installed on the waterward (southern) sides of both proposed structures in
between the bulkhead and the proposed building sites. Additionally, this silt fence will wrap
approximately half-way around the east and west sides of both structures, containing any
potential runoff or debris. Any disturbed earth resulting from construction activity will be
covered with mulch to mitigate sediment runoff. The gravel drive will not be modified. All
staged building materials will be confined to the gravel-driveway area and/or the house footprint
itself. Utility trench work will be done as quickly as work and inspection will allow, to minimize
potential exposure of loose soils to rain and wind. Preserving native vegetation, minimizing
disturbance, and minimizing sediment runoff from the site is a high priority and will be reflected
in every element of the build process. All due diligence will be taken to ensure there are no
fuel/oil leaks for any vehicles or machinery on-site during construction.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 5
Figure 2. Proposed site plans
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 6
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 7
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 8
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 9
1.7 Action Area
For the purposes of this report, the “project area” is defined as the area within the portion of the
parcel where the construction work will take place. The project area also includes areas that may
be used for staging materials and equipment, as well as accessing the site.
The “action area” is defined as any area that may be ecologically impacted from short-term
construction activities or long-term habitat modifications and covers approximately 0.25 miles
from the project area to account for construction noise. This action area includes a portion of
Discovery Bay.
2 Habitat Conditions Onsite
The parcel is generally flat and located at the base of a ~45-degree slope, the base of which is
located approximately 10-feet to the north of the existing residential structure (however, the
proposed replacement structure will reduce the northern side of the house footprint by 10-feet,
moving it further from the toe of the slope). The slope itself is covered in a mixture of non-native
grasses and native conifers. The Department of Ecology (ECY) Coastal Atlas Map classifies the
area the house is built upon as “stable,” and the slope just to the north of the house as “unstable –
old slide.” It is MSA’s understanding that no geotechnical analysis is required for this project.
The Coastal Atlas Map also shows this stretch of shoreline to be in an “accretion shoreform,” and
to the east of the property the shoreline is classified as “feeder bluff.” The littoral drift cell is
labeled as “right to left” (east to west). It can be inferred from this that as the feeder bluff erodes
and produces new sediments to be added to the beach, these sediments drift westerly towards
Beckett point, slowly building up the sand spit that the homes sit upon.
Other than the beach, the parcels have no existing intact native habitat. The majority of parcel #
932200701 is taken up by the existing single-family residence, and parcel # 932200702 consists
of a concrete block patio area and cultivated non-native vegetation. However, the area to the east
of the parcels consists of undeveloped shoreline and partially forested bluffs.
2.1 Ordinary High Water Mark Determination
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) considers the OHWM as a physical and ecological
feature on the landscape; the OHWM is often a transition zone between the aquatic and
terrestrial environment and not a distinct line.
MSA biologist Jill Cooper visited the site on August 4th, 2021 to identify and delineate the
OHWM and found it to be approximately one foot up the existing bulkhead (Figure 3). Field
indicators of the OHWM included a distinct line of water staining on the face of the bulkhead as
well as wrack and driftwood at the foot of the bulkhead.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 10
Figure 3. Photo of OHWM
2.2 Vegetation
Within the bounds of the parcels, very little to no native vegetation currently exists. The existing
residential dwelling takes up most of the available space on the larger parcel, and the smaller
undeveloped parcel consists of a concrete block patio, “Tuff sheds,” and a small landscaped area
with non-native cultivated flowers, shrubs, and a couple of small trees. A few invasive weedy
plants also exist in this area landward of the bulkhead, including Autumn Hawkbit
(Scorzoneroides autumnalis) and Creeping Thistle (Cirsium arvense). Waterward of the
bulkhead, on the beach, there are several species of native plants, including Gumweed (Grindelia
integrifolia), Seaside Pea (Lathyrus japonicus), Silver Beachweed (Ambrosia chamissonis),
American Dunegrass (Leymus mollis), and American Sea Rocket (Cakile edentula), and non-
native Sweet Alyssum (Lobularia maritima) which seems to have migrated from the cultivated
flowerbeds on the undeveloped parcel.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 11
2.3 Wildlife Observed
During the site visits, the MSA biologist heard and/or saw the following species of birds:
Glaucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and Great Blue Heron
(Ardea Herodias). The biologist also noted evidence of Nutthal’s Cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii),
and Northern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea). No nests were seen in any trees along the
nearby slope.
3 Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs)
The following are designated FWHCAs (as defined under JCC 18.22.610) that were identified
within the action area and will be discussed in the following sections:
• Areas where federally listed species (endangered and threatened) and state-listed species
(endangered, threatened, and sensitive species) have a primary association.
• Commercial and recreational shellfish areas.
• Kelp and eelgrass beds.
• Pacific herring (forage fish) spawning areas.
• Species and habitats of local importance.
3.1 State Priority Habitat & Species
Within a 0.25 mile radius action area of the proposed project site, the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) mapper indicates there is
presence of hardshell clams, pandalid shrimp, and Pacific Geoduck (Panopea abrubta). In that
same radius exists Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasi) breeding area, Great Blue Heron (A.
Herodias) breeding area, saltwater wetland aquatic habitat (coastal salt marshes, salt meadows,
and brackish marshes), estuarine and marine wetland aquatic habitat, freshwater emergent
aquatic habitat, and freshwater pond aquatic habitat. However, none of these priority habitats or
species are located within the project parcels themselves.
According to queries of the WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) data, no salmon bearing
streams have been documented in the action area or anywhere on Beckett Point. However,
streams with presence of Coho, summer and fall chum, and winter steelhead feed into Discovery
Bay and these species could be present within the action area.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 12
Figure 4. WDFW PHS Mapper
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 13
3.1.1 Forage Fish
Migrating salmon utilize forage fish such as Pacific Herring (Clupea harengus pallasi), Pacific
Sand Lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), and Surf Smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) as prey resources.
These fish form a very important trophic link between plankton resources and a wide variety of
predatory marine organisms as well as providing food for marbled murrelets and bald eagles.
According to WDFW and WDNR, there is documented Pacific Herring (C. pallasi) spawning
along the shoreline within the 0.25 mile action area (Figure 5). However, the proposed project
area is located above the OHWM, outside of the forage fish habitat zone.
Figure 5. WDFW & WDNR Documented Forage Fish Spawning Map
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 14
3.1.2 Eelgrass and Kelp
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has surveyed the southern shoreline of Beckett
Point as part of their Submerged Vegetation Monitoring Program. Patchy Eelgrass (Zostera
marina) has been documented in that location, with the last survey results showing in the online
mapping tool being from 2017. No kelp is documented near Beckett Point.
3.1.3 Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas
Washington State Department of Health’s Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer shows commercial
harvest sites to either side of the project area, as well as commercial growing areas throughout
Beckett Point’s shoreline, but no recreational shellfish beaches on the point. The nearest
recreational shellfish beach is located off the shoreline of Viewpoint Lane, just north of Beckett
Point.
3.2 Federal ESA-Listed Species & Critical Habitat
For each listed species with the potential to be in the project action area, the listing status,
distribution of species, and relevant life history traits are presented in the sections below. Salmon
species that that may migrate past the project site are also included. Critical habitat for federally
listed species within the 0.25 mile action area is listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Designated Critical Habitat
NMFS/USFWS Critical Habitat Action
Area
Final Nearshore Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014) Y
Final Deepwater Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014) Y
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 15
Chum Salmon Freshwater Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N
Marine Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
(NMFS, 2005) Y
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Freshwater Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N
Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Steelhead (NOAA, 2016) N
Marine Critical Habitat Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon (NMFS,
2005) Y
Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2006) Y
Steelhead Trout Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N
Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat (USFWS, 2010) N
Marbled Murrelet (USFWS, 2016) Y
Leatherback Sea Turtle Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2012) N
Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2009) N
Southern Eulachon (NMFS, 2011) N
Proposed Humpback Whale Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2021) N
3.2.1 Puget Sound Chinook
Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), also called the king salmon, are
distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size. Most Chinook in the Puget Sound
are “ocean-type” and migrate to the marine environment during their first year (Myers et al.
1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from March to May at a
length of 40 mm or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of
their first year at a length of 60-80 mm (Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed
on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans).
As they grow and move into neritic habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile
fish, drift insects, and euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type Chinook use
estuaries as rearing areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for
survival.
The Puget Sound Chinook is listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened
according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005). In
addition, NMFS has designated critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of
West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The portion of the action
area below the line of extreme high water is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget
Sound Chinook ESU (70 FR 52685; September 2, 2005).
The waterward portion of the action area is within Puget Sound Chinook marine critical habitat.
According to queries of the SaSI data (WDFW), the closest Chinook riverine presence is over 10
miles to the west, in the Dungeness River (spring and fall Chinook). It is possible this species
may utilize the nearshore habitat of Beckett Point, but it is unlikely this species will be affected
by the proposed work.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 16
3.2.2 Hood Canal Summer-run Chum
In Puget Sound, chum spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams.
Puget Sound chum typically spawn from September to March (WSCC 2003). Chum (along with
ocean-type Chinook) spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon
(Healey 1982). Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an average
residence of 24 days (Simenstad et al. 1982). Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in
and around eelgrass beds (harpacticoid copepods, gammarid amphipods, and isopods), but
change their diet to drift insects and plankton such as calanoid copepods, larvaceans, and
hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to 50 - 60 mm (Simenstad, Fresh, & Salo 1982).
Chum move offshore and switch diets when presented with a lack of food supply (Simenstad et
al. 1982).
NMFS has listed the Hood Canal summer run chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) as threatened
under the ESA (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005). NMFS designated critical habitat for the Hood
Canal summer-run chum ESU shortly after (70 FR 52739; September 2, 2005) and it includes the
entire Hood Canal and contiguous shoreline north/northwest, ending past Dungeness Bay near
Sequim.
The waterward portion of the action area is within Hood Canal Summer-run chum marine critical
habitat. According to queries of the SaSI data (WDFW), the closest Hood Canal summer-run
chum streams are Chimacum Creek (approximately 5 miles southeast of Beckett Point) and
Snow and Salmon Creeks at the southern end of Discovery Bay (approximately 6 miles from
Beckett Point). It is possible this species may utilize the nearshore habitat of Beckett Point, but it
is unlikely this species will be affected by the proposed work.
3.2.3 Bull Trout
In the United States, Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) once ranged from
northern California (now extinct in California) to Alaska. In the salmon family, they are members
of the char subgroup. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and
migration to the open sea (for anadromous populations) takes place in the spring. Very cold water
is required for the survival of eggs and juveniles. Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C
are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman & McIntyre, 1993). They live both in fresh
and marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater
(anadromous) before returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete
all of their life in the streams where they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions,
and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal Puget Sound population (64 FR 58910;
November 1,1999).
All populations of bull trout including the Coastal-Puget Sound populations, were listed as
threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1999 (64 FR 58910;
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 17
November 1, 1999). USFWS designated critical habitat for bull trout in 2010 (75 FR 63898;
October 18, 2010).
USFWS has designated critical habitat for bull trout in the Puget Sound watershed but no critical
habitat for bull trout is in or around Beckett Point; the nearest presence is over 10 miles to the
west, in the Dungeness River (SaSI, WDFW). It is unlikely this species would be found near the
project site or affected by the proposed work.
3.2.4 Puget Sound Steelhead
Steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the species Oncorhynchus mykiss. The
freshwater residents are called rainbow trout. Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning
and migrate to freshwater to spawn again, unlike Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to
two years in freshwater before heading to the open ocean, where they may stay for two to four
years before returning to Washington streams. Steelhead migrate quickly through Puget Sound
and into the open sea as individuals or in small groups (PSEMP 2012). Unlike Chinook,
steelhead do not have a long term feeding and growth period in Puget Sound nearshore areas
(PSEMP 2012).
NMFS has listed the Puget Sound steelhead (O. mykiss) as a threatened species under the ESA
(72 FR 26722; May 11, 2007). Critical habitat has been finalized for the Puget Sound steelhead
distinct population segment (81 FR 9252; February 24, 2016).
There is no designated critical habitat for steelhead in the action area. Contractors Creek
(approximately 2 miles away on the west side of Discovery Bay) is the closest area that contains
critical habitat for steelhead (SaSI, WDFW). Spawning of winter steelhead has been documented
in Contractors Creek, Snow Creek, and Salmon Creek at the head of Discovery Bay (WDFW
2021). Juveniles may be present in the action area during out-migration but migrate rapidly to the
ocean and are not typically shoreline-oriented (WDFW 2011). It is unlikely they would be
affected by the proposed work.
3.2.5 Rockfish
Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) and yelloweye (Sebastes ruberrimus) rockfish remain in the
upper part of the water column as larvae and pelagic juveniles. Around 3 to 6 months old,
bocaccio rockfish settle into intertidal, nearshore habitat; they prefer to settle in rocky reefs, kelp
beds, low rock, and cobble areas (Love et al. 2002). Juvenile yelloweye rockfish are usually
found in the upper extent of the adult depth range instead of in intertidal habitat (Studebaker et
al. 2009). As both species grow larger, they move into deeper waters. Adults are found around
rocky reefs and coarse habitats. Marine habitats high in complexity are associated with higher
numbers of rockfish species (Young et al. 2010). Adult yelloweye and bocaccio rockfish
generally inhabit depths from approximately 90 ft to 1,400 ft (Love et al. 2002). Both species are
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 18
opportunistic feeders, with their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators of adult rockfish
include marine mammals, salmon, other rockfish, lingcod, and sharks.
NOAA has listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of yelloweye (Sebastes ruberrimus) as
threatened species under the ESA and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio rockfish
(Sebastes paucispinis) as endangered (75 FR 22276; April 28, 2010). The Georgia Basin refers to
all of Puget Sound, including the area around the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia,
north to the mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia. The western boundary of the
Georgia Basin runs from east of Port Angeles to Victoria in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Critical
habitat for both species was designated in 2014 (79 FR 68042; November 13, 2014).
The waterward portion of the action area is within critical habitat for nearshore and deepwater
rockfish. There will be no in-water work and conservation measures will be implemented to
prevent any runoff from reaching Discovery Bay. It is unlikely this species will be affected by
the proposed work.
3.2.6 Marbled Murrelets
Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) are small marine birds in the Alcidae family.
They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical
nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival
and conservation of the species (WDW 1993). Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the
marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific herring, surf smelt, other
small schooling fish, and invertebrates.
Marbled murrelets have been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992 (57 FR 45328;
October 1, 1992). Critical habitat was designated by USFWS in 1996, revised in 2011, and
reviewed again in 2016 to determine if the ESA definition of critical habitat was being met (81
FR 51348, August 4, 2016).
Marbled Murrelet habitat is located in the waterward portion of the action area. Recorded eBird
sightings from Beckett point include:
# of MAMU Individuals Month Year
2 November 2001
2 October 2013
6 December 2020
2 January 2021
2 February 2021
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 19
Marbled murrelets primarily nest 30-60 kilometers inland in low elevation old-growth and
mature coniferous forests, with multi-layered canopies and thick moss. Nesting greater distances
from the coast may have evolved to avoid nest predation by corvids and gulls which are more
abundant in coastal areas (Hammer and Nelson 1995). Because the project site is near the coast
and lacking the preferred habitat, it is unlikely that Marbled Murrelets would nest nearby.
However, they may use the waterward areas for resting or foraging, especially in the winter and
spring months when there are storm events that they may seek shelter from, and/or herring to
feed on. Other than some potential behavioral disturbance from in-air noise from construction
activities, it is unlikely this species will be affected by the proposed project.
3.2.7 Humpback whale
NMFS has listed the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) as an endangered species that
may occur in Puget Sound (81 FR 62260; September 8, 2016). Critical habitat was proposed by
NMFS in 2019, but does not include Flounder Bay (84 FR 54354; October 9, 2019).
According to queries of the Orca Network’s sightings archives, humpback whales have not been
documented in Discovery Bay in recent history. It is unlikely this species would be affected by
the proposed work.
3.2.8 Leatherback Sea Turtle
NMFS has listed the Pacific leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as an endangered species
that may occur in Puget Sound (35 FR 8491; June 2, 1970). There is no designated critical
habitat for Pacific leatherback turtles in Puget Sound at this time; it is designated along the outer
coast of Washington state (77 FR 4170; January 26, 2012).
Breeding habitat for leatherback sea turtles in Washington does not exist, even though they are
occasionally seen along the coast (Bowlby et al. 1994). Leatherback sea turtles are rarely seen in
Puget Sound. It is highly unlikely leatherback turtles would be found near the project site or
affected by the proposed work.
3.2.9 Southern Resident Killer Whale
The Southern Resident population consists of three pods: J, K and L. According to Wiles (2004),
“While in inland waters during warmer months, all of the pods concentrate their activity in Haro
Strait, Boundary Passage, the Southern Gulf Islands, the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and several localities in the southern Georgia Strait.” During early autumn, these pods, especially
J pod, extend their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and Chinook
salmon runs. Southern resident killer whales (SRKW) spend more time in deeper water and only
occasionally enter water less than 5 meters deep (Baird 2001).
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 20
On November 15, 2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) as
endangered under the ESA (70 FR 69903; November 18, 2005). NOAA Fisheries has designated
critical habitat for killer whales: "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20 ft relative to a
contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water." (71 FR 69054; November 29,
2006).
The Orca Network’s sighting archives have documented an occasional sighting within Discovery
Bay, primarily towards the mouth of the bay in deeper waters. Only two sightings were recorded
by the Orca Network between January 2017 and December 2020, one in October of 2019, and
one in January of 2017. The NOAA Fisheries SRKW sighting archive documented the following
number of sightings in Discovery Bay between 1990 and 2013:
Number of SRKW Individuals Month
0 January
1 February
1 March
0 April
1 May
1 June
0 July
1 August
0 September
1 October
1 December
Other than some potential behavioral disturbance from in-air noise from construction activities, it
is unlikely this species will be affected by the proposed project.
4 Effects of the Proposed Action
When reviewing all the data, the direct and indirect effects of the project on the listed species and
their critical habitat should be considered. Impacts to ESA-listed species and critical habitats are
based on current baseline conditions versus historic pre-development conditions, where existing
structures are considered an element of the environmental baseline at the time of a proposed
action.
4.1 Water Quality
Impervious surfaces or compacted soil in areas without adequate planting and restoration
practices can result in reduced permeability where runoff does not percolate into soil, but instead
“gathers in volume, velocity, and contaminants as it flows over the now-converted landscape
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 21
toward its ultimate destination—a waterway such as Puget Sound” (Brennan & Culverwell
2004).
The proposed development of the property includes new impervious surfaces, which could cause
increased runoff. If this run-off were to enter Discovery Bay, variations in suspended sediment
concentration can negatively impact species composition, biomass, algal growth and can affect
secondary production as well (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Filter feeders can have
blockages in feeding structures which affects their feeding efficiency, in turn reducing growth
rates, increasing stress or in some cases can result in death (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991).
Suspended sediments can also impact salmonid fishes by increasing mortality rate, reducing
growth rate and/or reducing resistance to disease, modifying natural movements, interfering with
development, reducing prey abundance and fish catch methods (Newcombe and MacDonald
1991).
Avoidance and minimization measures described in the following section will be implemented to
prevent run-off from entering Discovery Bay during construction. No vegetation will be removed
or disturbed below the bulkhead and OHWM, and a silt fence and straw wattles will be installed
between the construction area and the shoreline during construction activities. Additionally, new
native vegetation will be planted for mitigation, introducing more diverse habitat and reducing
future potential erosion that could affect water quality.
4.2 In-Air Noise
Some temporary increases in ambient noise will be generated during development of the
property. Noise generated during construction may cause wildlife to temporarily avoid the area
but is not expected to impact wildlife or ecosystem function in the long term.
4.3 Wildlife
Wildlife barriers or loss of connectivity are not expected to occur from the proposed new and
replacement buildings, which will be located on the southeastern extent of Beckett Point. This
area is already highly developed with existing single-family homes to the west, a garage building
to the east, shoreline on the south side, and a steep slope on the north side. The shoreline and
hillslope area will remain undeveloped and connected to existing habitat.
4.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Related
Impacts
The entirety of both parcels is within a FEMA flood zone (Figure 6). A FEMA Elevation Survey
was conducted by NTI Surveying on September 16th, 2020, and the FEMA flood elevation was
determined to be 12-feet (Appendix C). Because of this, as well as projected sea level rise, the
replacement single family home will have a foundation raised by 1-foot 2-inches above the
FEMA flood plain (FFE 13-feet 2-inches). Additionally, the existing single-family home will
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 22
reduce its impervious footprint by 148 square feet, and the patio, though still technically
impervious, will be constructed of pavers which are elevated and spaced, allowing water to seep
in between the blocks and flow beneath the patio in times of flooding.
The proposed new cabin structure will add 864 square feet of new impervious surface to the
currently undeveloped lot (including the house footprint, roof area, and parking pad). However, a
204 square foot patio made of impervious pavers and two 8-ft x 8-ft “Tuff” sheds will be
removed from the site and not replaced. The cabin will also be placed on a 13-feet 2-inches FFE
to be located 1-foot 2-inches above the 12-foot elevation FEMA floodplain (Appendix C).
The existing single-family residence will relocate its sewage pump basin to a location at least 50-
feet from the location of the existing bulkhead. The new cabin will also have a new septic pump
basin located 50-feet from the existing bulkhead (near the parking pad). There is an additional
existing pump basin located on the property that feeds the neighboring home, and that pump will
remain untouched and in place. Both residences will be connected to the existing community
septic through a sewer line.
A mitigation planting plan will be implemented to offset the increase of the new residence’s
footprint within the shoreline buffer and to help improve habitat function. It is MSA’s opinion
that no new significant effects on flooding or erosion are expected to occur due to the
development of the proposed residences. The Beckett Point Fisherman’s Club neighborhood,
which is built on a historic sandspit, has existed for several generations in its current form, and
barring significant sea level rise or a natural disaster, it will likely continue to exist for the
coming years. The proponents are doing their due diligence to bring both structures up to current
safety and environmental standards.
Any effects to water quality within the FEMA flood zone were discussed in section 4.1 above. To
summarize, avoidance and minimization measures described in the following section will be
implemented to prevent run-off from entering Discovery Bay during construction.
See Figure 6 for FEMA flood map.
See Appendix C for FEMA flood elevation certificates.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 23
Figure 6. FEMA Flood Zone Map
4.5 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects, which take into account this project as well as future development in the
area, are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. The project area includes many shoreline
properties within 0.25 miles to the north and east. These cumulative habitat alterations could
impact ESA-listed species and/or their critical habitat areas, as well as human water-dependent
activities, such as shellfish harvesting. These potential cumulative effects could be caused by
physical obstructions from development, changes in stormwater flow on the landscape, changes
in turbidity and pollution levels, and other such factors.
The full scope of cumulative impacts cannot be quantified in this assessment, but with
appropriate regulations in place, it is unlikely that ESA-listed species, critical habitat areas, or
human activities will be greatly affected by the replacement of the single-family home and
construction of the new cabin residence. In addition, it is the opinion of MSA that the proposed
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 24
mitigation planting plan will result in no net loss of ecological function at the site, and in some
cases may improve the understory habitat by introducing more diverse native plant species.
4.6 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects
Completion of this project is not anticipated to promote future construction or other activities
that would not otherwise occur without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or
interdependent actions that could affect sensitive species are anticipated to occur because of this
project.
5 Conservation Measures to Avoid & Minimize Impacts
Conservation measures presented here include avoidance and minimization measures that are
intended to address both Jefferson County SMP criteria and FEMA requirements. The FEMA
requirements pertain to marine critical habitat and ESA-listed species within the adjoining
floodplain.
All shoreline development must be located, designed, constructed, and maintained in a manner
that protects ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. This section describes the steps
taken during project planning and implementation to find the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative to achieve the project goal.
The following mitigation sequencing steps, as described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) and JCC
18.22.660(2), were considered during project development and site selection:
• No action: To avoid the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action.
o The project purpose and need are described in more detail in the Project
Description section. “No Action” would not achieve the project goal.
• Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid
or reduce impacts.
o The proposal includes the minimum footprint necessary to achieve the goal. The
residence and new septic tank will be installed landward of the reduced 112.5 ft
shoreline buffer. Best Management Practices (BMPs) discussed below will be
implemented during construction to minimize impacts.
• Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
o Any disturbed earth outside of the building footprint resulting from construction
activity will be covered with mulch to mitigate sediment runoff. Any removed
vegetation will be chipped/mulched and re-used onsite. Sword ferns and other
native perennials in the proposed building area will be transplanted to other areas
onsite, safely away from construction activities.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 25
• Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations.
o Opportunities to reduce or eliminate the permanent direct and indirect negative
impacts from the project over time are described below.
• Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments.
o The proposed mitigation planting plan (Section 6) will be installed to offset the
portion of the residence’s footprint that is within the shoreline buffer in order to
meet NNL criteria.
• Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate corrective
measures.
o Five years of monitoring, required by Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance
(JCC 18.22.950(3)(h)(iii) Habitat management reports). will be completed to
ensure the success of native plantings and to make recommendations on any
corrective measure that need to be taken.
The applicants propose the following BMPs during construction to reduce adverse effects:
• Before any construction work begins, site construction limits for clearing, tree protection,
and runoff will be clearly laid out on site.
• Prior to any construction activity, a silt fence and straw wattles will be installed across
the entire property above and parallel to the OHWM.
• Any disturbed earth resulting from construction activity will be covered with mulch to
mitigate sediment runoff.
• All staged building materials will be confined to the gravel-driveway area and/or the
house footprint itself.
• Utility trench work will be done as quickly as work and inspection allow, to minimize
potential exposure of loose soils to rain and wind.
In order to minimize potential impacts to ESA-listed and priority species and habitat associated
with this project, the following BMPS are recommended by MSA for implementation at the site:
General Best Management Practices for Small Construction Sites
• Whenever possible, use hand-tools during construction.
• Whenever possible, work should be performed from upland area to avoid impacts to
beach.
• Construction should not be conducted during heavy precipitation events, regardless of the
protection of vegetation. If vegetation is damaged, or rutting occurs, it is recommended
that those areas be re-planted with native vegetation and a layer of mulch at a minimum
depth of 3 inches.
• Limit the extent of clearing operations and phase construction operations.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 26
• All work should be performed during approved work windows, when applicable, and/or
following any permitting agency seasonal restrictions.
• The duff layer, native topsoil, and natural vegetation should be retained in an undisturbed
state to the maximum extent practicable. The single most effective means of limiting
stormwater impacts during and after construction and minimizing costs of implementing
BMPs is to retain existing soil and vegetation to the maximum practical extent.
• Daily check list of potential safety areas.
• All oil containing equipment will be staged in secondary containment capable of handling
3x the volume of oil contained in said equipment.
• Stacking soils adjacent to areas of excavation to facilitate replacement.
• Utilizing ball valves on all concrete and grout ports to ensure no grout enters the water
column.
• Daily housekeeping to ensure debris does not enter the water/area adjacent to the work
site.
• Divert runoff away from exposed areas wherever possible. Keep clean water clean.
• Reduce runoff velocities to prevent channel erosion.
• Schedule installation of BMPs. Some temporary BMPs should be installed before
earthmoving activities begin.
• Schedule regular inspections of the site and the stormwater BMPs throughout the
construction process. Repair or replace BMP equipment or materials as needed. Maintain
the BMP equipment or materials as necessary. Without proper maintenance of equipment
and materials, BMPs may fail.
• Before reseeding a disturbed soil area, amend all soils with compost wherever topsoil has
been removed.
• Prevent the tracking of sediment off-site.
• Be realistic about the limitations of controls that are specified and the operation and
maintenance of those controls. Anticipate what can go wrong, how to prevent it from
happening, and what will need to be done to fix it.
• Make sure that bids and estimates include costs of purchase of materials and manpower
for installation, maintenance, and removal of BMPs.
• Schedule removal of the temporary BMPs (or retrofit them for permanent use) at the end
of the construction project.
5.1 Determination of Effect
ESA-listed species and critical habitat in the action area and FEMA Flood Hazard Area are
evaluated below based on the following assessments:
• No effect (absolutely no effect whatsoever, either positive or negative);
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 27
• May affect, not likely to adversely affect (insignificant effects that never reach the
level where take occurs, or effects are discountable and extremely unlikely to occur;
or there would be an entirely beneficial effect); or,
• May affect, likely to adversely affect (measurable or significant effects are likely, and
the project will require formal consultation).
This determination of effect for protected species is contingent upon implementation of the
conservation and minimization measures in section 5. In general, direct adverse effects to ESA-
listed species (avoidance, behavior modification) will be short-term and would not contribute to
an increased risk of extinction.
After reviewing the appropriate data, the determination of effect to each ESA-listed species and
designated critical habitat within the action area is:
• Puget Sound Chinook – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
• Rockfish – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
• Bull trout – “No effect”
• Hood Canal Summer-run chum – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
• Puget Sound Steelhead – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
• Marbled Murrelet – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
• Humpback whale – “No effect”
• Leatherback sea turtle – “No effect”
• Southern Resident Killer Whale – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 28
6 Mitigation Plan for No Net Loss of Ecological Function
6.1 Proposed Mitigation
This mitigation plan aims to minimize any potential resource impacts for the proposed project by
enhancing ecological value and function of the existing site, particularly along the Marine
Critical Area buffer. This will be done by planting a minimum of 512 square foot area of newly
installed native plants in the area just upland of the OHWM, between the bulkhead and the south
face of the new/proposed cabin structure (where a patio made of concrete pavers currently
exists). These newly installed native plants will help to reduce runoff and erosion, improve
nutrient input, and create additional wildlife habitat along the Marine Critical Area buffer.
It is recommended that a 512 square foot area be planted to comply with the 1:1 mitigation
required for new disturbance area within a Critical Area buffer, as per Jefferson County Critical
Areas Ordinance Section 18.22.660(3)[a] Mitigation. The square footage was calculated to
mitigate for the following aspects of the project:
1. Replacement single family home: This structure is self-mitigating because the overall
impervious surface area (including house/roof, deck, porch, and patio) will be reduced
from the existing 2,641 square feet to a new footprint of 2,493 sq ft. This leaves a net
gain of 148 square feet of undeveloped ground.
2. New cabin construction: This proposed new construction will create 864 square feet of
new impervious surface area (including house/roof and new paved parking area).
However, a 17-ft x 12-ft area (204 sq feet) of concrete pavers, currently creating a patio
area just landward of the bulkhead, will be removed, and it is recommended that this
impervious surface removal count towards its mitigation. This leaves 660 square feet of
new impervious surface needing mitigation.
3. Tuff sheds: two 8-ft x 8ft “Tuff” sheds exist on the undeveloped parcel. These structures
were unpermitted due to their temporary nature (i.e. no foundation), and will be removed.
No mitigation is needed for these structures, however it is recommended that their
removal not count towards the overall mitigation score.
The 660 square feet of new impervious surface area created by the proposed cabin construction
minus the net gain of 148 square feet of impervious/undeveloped surface area from the reduction
of the current structure’s footprint equals 512 square feet of mitigation needed to achieve no net
loss of ecological function (See Table 2). Thus, 512 square feet of native plants will need to be
installed to meet the 1:1 mitigation ratio required by the county.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 29
Table 2. Existing and Proposed Impervious Surface & Native Vegetation Quantities
Surface Type Parcel # 932200701 Parcel # 932200702
Total Site sq ft
(both parcels
combined)
Existing impervious
surfaces 2,641 0 2,641
Existing Impervious
Surfaces to be removed -148 -204 -352
New Proposed Impervious
Surface 0 864 864
Existing Native Vegetation
above OHWM 0 0 0
Total Impervious Surface
(existing plus new) 2,493 660 3,153
Mitigation
Net Increase in Hard Surfaces (new minus existing) 512
Net Increase in Native Vegetation Through Mitigation 512
6.2 Mitigation Goals
Goal (1) Buffer Enhancement: Create a newly vegetated area of approximately 512 square feet
O.C. mature plant coverage of diverse native plant species. This will enhance the ecological
value and function of the habitat within the critical area buffer by reducing erosion, improved
nutrient input, and creating wildlife habitat.
Goal (2) Emergent Cover: 60% by year one, 80% by year three, 90% by year five.
Goal (3) Survival: 100% by year one, 85% survival by year three.
Goal (4) Soil: For newly planted plants, deconsolidate and amend soil where holes are dug
before plants are installed and add a minimum of 3” mulch.
6.3 Mitigation 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, which are outlined in section 7.5 below.
Performance Standard (1) Buffer Enhancement: Native plants will be installed in year one.
Photographs will be taken during monitoring years. A comparison of photographs from previous
years along with the percent cover and survivorship standards outlined below will help in
assessing the quality of the buffer. The planting area is clearly outlined in this report, and
described in Goal (1) and Table 2.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 30
Photo stations for the planting site will be determined, and a photograph of the restoration
location will be taken on an annual basis. To meet survival performance standards, individual
plants that die must be replaced with the same species unless a different species is suggested by
the project biologist due to site conditions.
Performance Standard (2) Emergent Cover:
The percent cover standard will be monitored by using the Point Intercept Method of surveying
the planting plots. One or more transect lines will be established by stretching a measuring tape
between two points. The location of the transect will be staked and flagged at each end so that the
same transect can be surveyed each monitoring year. A data form will be used to collect
information at a minimum of five-foot intervals, stopping along the tape to record what is located
directly beneath it at each interval point. If no plants are present, bare ground will be noted. Once
data is recorded, the following formula will be used to calculate the percent of bare ground:
(Number of points with bare ground divided by total number of points evaluated) X 100 =
percent of bare ground
Performance Standard (3) Survival:
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.
Performance Standard (4) Soil: A minimum of 20% organic matter by bulk density in the soil
will be verified by invoices.
6.4 Site Preparation
Topsoil around and beneath newly installed native plants will be comprised of a minimum of
20% organic matter. MSA recommends that the amended soil consist of 6" of coarse sand and 6"
of vegetative compost which should be worked into the soil before planting. After plant
installation, a layer of mulch at least 3” thick will be placed as a groundcover around the plants.
6.5 Plant Procurement
Plants will be selected from a regional native plant nursery. Invoices will be provided after
purchase. See Attachment 1 for a list of local native plant nurseries and resources. Substitutions
may be necessary for species or individuals outlined in this planting plan which 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.
6.6 On Center Dimensions and Area Coverage
The total square footage of native plant coverage was calculated using “on center” dimensions
(i.e. the distance between the center of one plant to the center of the next plant, when mature).
The average on center (O.C.) dimensions of each plant species was sourced from Sound Native
Plant’s “Calculating Plant Quantities” guidelines, and a conservative estimate of coverage was
calculated using a typical plant quantity/coverage calculator.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 31
6.7 Planting Instructions
Whenever possible, planting should be done between mid-October and mid-December as plants
grow roots during the cool weather, even when the tops of the plants are dormant. Planting
between mid-December and mid-April is also acceptable but more attention to supplemental
watering may be required due to drier seasonal weather conditions. Any nursery instructions that
come with the plants should be read and followed.
Plants should be laid out by hand generally following the spacing specified on the planting plan
map (Figure 8). Before planting, set the potted plants out on the landscape according to the
planting plan design and make sure the arrangement works before digging any holes. Next, dig a
bowl-shaped hole for each plant at least twice the width, and slightly deeper, than the potted
plant’s container. Roughen the sides and the bottom of the hole with a pick or shovel. If the soil
is especially dry, fill the hole with water and let it soak in before continuing.
Remove the plant from its container gently without pulling on the stem of the plant. Loosen
bound roots on the outer inch of soil and cut any roots that encircle the root ball to ensure that the
plant will not continue to grow within its “memory” of the pot wall confines. Set the plant in the
hole so that the top of the soil remains level with the surrounding soil. Fill the surrounding space
with loose topsoil comprised of at least 20% organic matter. Native top-soils are preferred,
whenever possible. Cover any exposed roots but do not pile dirt onto the stem or root collar, as
this can kill some plants. To discourage root rot, gently tamp down the filled soil to remove any
air pockets that may exist below ground, while allowing the soil to remain somewhat loose.
Form a temporary basin or trench around each plant to encourage water collection, and then
water thoroughly.
Immediately after watering, mulch such as wood chips, leaves, or brown carbon rich compost
should be added to a 3-inch thickness over the entire planting area without covering the stems of
the plants. The mulch will aid in slope stability, moisture and nutrient retention, and weed
control. Heavy duty woodchips are preferable in areas where noxious or invasive species may
become a problem. Staking of trees or shrubs should not be necessary unless high winds exist or
the tree is tall and has little roots. If staking is deemed necessary, use a thick rope or padding
around the trunk of the tree to prevent damage to the bark, and use the minimum amount of
tension necessary to achieve balance.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 32
Figure 7. Planting Instructions
(sourced from City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development Environmentally Critical
Areas Standard Mitigation Plan)
6.8 Inspection and Maintenance Criteria
Maintenance must be done twice yearly. No herbicides or pesticides are to be used, and all work
should be performed by hand whenever possible, with the lightest possible equipment where
such use is necessary.
During year one, every failed plant must be replaced within the plot. During year one, and during
the first year after any replacement planting, plantings must receive 1 inch of water at least once
weekly between June 15 and September 15. Trees and shrubs must be weeded to the dripline, and
mulch must be maintained at a depth of 3 inches. Weed herbaceous plantings as necessary
(flowers, ferns, etc.). All litter and non-native vegetation must be removed, such as Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), evergreen blackberry
(Rubus laciniatus), Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius), English ivy (Hedera helix), morning glory
(Convolvulus arvensis), Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), etc., and properly disposed of
off-site. Any receipts obtained from work done on the site should be filed with the Department of
Permitting through the project biologist monitoring report.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 33
6.9 Planting Plan
To cover a minimum of 512 square feet, it has been determined that 28 shrubs (4-ft O.C.) and
144 herbaceous plants (8” O.C.) will be required for this planting plan. To get to this number, a
planting spacer multiplier was calculated using the following formula:
For a 4-ft O.C. shrub, calculate how many inches are in 4’ (48”). Then multiply 48 x 48 to get the
area in square inches (2,304). Then divide 144 by 2304, which gives the multiplier of .0625.
For an 8-in O.C. herbaceous plant, calculate 8 x 8, which equals 64 square inches. Then divide
144 by 64, which gives the multiplier of 2.25.
For a planting plan that would include 1/8-part herbaceous plants, and 7/8-parts shrubs, divide
the total square feet needed (512) by Eight.
• 1/8th of 512 sq ft is 64 sq ft of herbaceous plant coverage, and
• 7/8ths of 512 sq ft is 448 sq ft of shrub coverage.
Next, multiply the square feet needed by the spacing multiplier above:
• 64 sq ft x 2.25 (the herbaceous multiplier) = 144 herbaceous plants needed to fill 64
square feet, using 8” spacing.
• 448 sq ft x 0.625 (the shrub multiplier) = 28 shrubs needed to fill 448 square feet.
Following is a table showing the plant species, recommended numbers, and O.C. dimensions for
the planting areas. Plants will be selected from a regional native plant nursery. The species in the
table below were chosen to create bird and insect habitat, while taking into account hardiness,
ecology, and aesthetics. Site photos of the planting areas can be seen in Attachment A.
Table 3. Plant List
Quantity Botanical Name Common Name Spacing Notes/Ecology
4 Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray Spacing: 4’ O.C. Shrub. Versatile. Salt
spray tolerant. FACU.
5 Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen Huckleberry Spacing: 4’ O.C. Shrub. Shade to part sun.
Salt spray tolerant. FACU.
4 Ribes sanguineum Red Flowering Currant Spacing: 4’ O.C. Shrub. Shade to part sun.
Salt spray tolerant. FACU.
6 Rosa pisocarpa Clustered Wild Rose Spacing: 4’ O.C. Shrub. Versatile. Salt
spray tolerant. FAC.
3 Ceanothus sanguineus Red-stemmed
Ceanothus Spacing: 4’ O.C.
Shrub. Full sun. Salt spray
tolerant. Does well in poor
well drained soils. UPL.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 34
3 Amelanchier alnifolia Serviceberry Spacing: 4’ O.C.
Shrub. Full sun to part
shade. Salt spray tolerant.
FACU.
3 Mahonia aquifolium Tall Oregon Grape Spacing: 4’ O.C. Shrub. Versatile. Salt
spray tolerant. FACU.
21 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick Spacing: 8” O.C.
Herbaceous. Full sun to
light shade. Does well in
poor/sandy soils. Slow the
first year but rapid to
spread thereafter. FACU.
26 Leymus mollis American Dune Grass Spacing: 8” O.C. Grass. Full sun. Salt spray
tolerant. FACU.
27 Armeria maritima Sea Pink Spacing: 8” O.C. Herbaceous. Full sun.
Salt spray tolerant. FAC.
29 Fragaria chiloensis Coastal Strawberry Spacing: 8” O.C.
Herbaceous. Full sun to
part shade. Salt spray
tolerant. FACU.
10 Lupinus littoralis Coastal Lupine Spacing: 8” O.C. Herbaceous. Full sun. Salt
spray tolerant. FACU.
25 Carex pansa Sand-dune Sedge Spacing: 8” O.C. Sedge. Full sun. Salt spray
tolerant. FAC.
11 Lathyrus maritimus Beach Pea Spacing: 8” O.C.
Herbaceous. Full sun to
part shade. Salt spray
tolerant. FACU.
OBL – Obligate Wetland Species, FACW – Facultative Wetland Species, FAC – Facultative
Species, FACU – Facultative Upland Species, UPL – Obligate Upland Species. (Plants classified
according to the Fish and Wildlife Service; 1988, 1993)
Individual plant species quantities can be modified as long as the following two conditions are
met:
1. A minimum of 3 of each species in the above table must be installed to achieve habitat
diversity and function standards, and
2. The final number of shrubs and herbaceous plants must add up to the 28 and 144
described above.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 35
Figure 8. Planting Plan Design Map
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 36
Planting areas are shown as three zones in the above planting plan map (Figure 8), with species
recommendations for each zone. On-center spacing dimensions should be followed during
landscape design and plant installation.
7 Monitoring & Maintenance
7.1 As-Built Report
An as-built drawing and report will be submitted as documentation of the implementation of the
approved planting plan within one month of installation. The plan will include a
quantitative final list of species, vegetation descriptions, and photo documentation from
established photo stations. A panoramic photo of the entire mitigation site will also be provided.
Photos should be taken between June and August, during the growing season.
7.2 Monitoring Schedule
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 within the planting area, which will be established and mapped
after the planting occurs. Collected data and photos will be compiled into an annual Riparian
Monitoring Report, which will be submitted by October 31 each monitoring year for five years.
7.3 Monitoring Methods
Each annual monitoring report shall include written and photographic documentation on plant
mortality and any replanting efforts. There will be specific locations where photos will be taken
from for each plot, and these photo points will be referenced on the as-built plan. The site will
have at least four photo points per project, or ¼ acre (whichever is greater). Each year, photos
will be taken at the established photo points for each site, and these successive photos will be
used for comparison over the 5 years. Photos will be taken at all established photo points for all
monitoring years to provide visual documentation of the performance standards progress, or lack
thereof. In addition to photos at designated locations, photo documentation must include a
panoramic view of the entire planting area. Submitted photos must be formatted on standard 8
1/2" by 11" paper, and must include the date the photo was taken, as well as the direction from
which the photo was taken. The established photo location points must be identified on a site
drawing.
Percent cover will be measured using the point intercept method as described above in the
Performance Standards, section 6.3. There will be at least one transect per plant community, and
transect locations will be shown on the site plan. Up to 20% of any stratum can be composed of
desirable native volunteers when measuring cover. No more than 10% cover of non-native or
other invasives (e.g., Himalayan Blackberry, Japanese Knotweed, Evergreen Blackberry, Reed
Canary Grass, Scots Broom, English Ivy, Morning Glory, etc.) is permissible in any monitoring
year. Bond holders are encouraged to maintain mitigation sites within these standards throughout
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 37
the monitoring period, to avoid corrective measures. Measurement criteria will follow the goals
outlined in section 6.2.
A qualitative review of the condition of the site’s hydrology (e.g. erosion, slope stability, etc.),
soil health, buffer condition, and wildlife use will be included in the monitoring report. The
Monitoring Report will also document whether the performance standards are being met.
The results of the Monitoring Report will determine whether or not contingency measures will be
needed. If deficiencies are found, they will be corrected within 60 days. Monitoring may be
extended if mitigation goals have not been met. Receipts for any maintenance activities such as
re-planting, dump runs for weed removal, structural replacement, etc. will be provided to the
project biologist to include in the monitoring report. The applicants will be responsible for the
maintenance of their site, and will hire a biologist of their choosing to conduct the as-built and
monitoring surveys and to prepare the required reports to document the progress. Contact
information for MSA can be found in the title page of this report, and the applicant information is
located in section 1.3.
7.4 Maintenance
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 or
sprinkler may be necessary during year number one until the plants are established (see section
7.5). Water requirements will depend on the timing of planting with the seasons and weather
conditions. Once plants are established, extra watering may not be necessary. Hand weeding may
be necessary around all plants that are being monitored for survival and coverage.
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, observations will be made on plants that did not survive in order to attempt to
determine whether their survival was affected by species/site selection, damage caused by
wildlife, or other factors. Subsequent contingency actions must be designed to respond directly
to any stressor(s) that are determined to have increased the mortality of planted native species
(Section 7.5).
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.
7.5 Contingency
Contingency actions must be designed to respond directly to any stressor(s) that are determined
to have increased the mortality of planted native species. If it is found that a particular plant
species is not surviving well at the site, a more appropriate species will be selected for its
replacement. If excessive damage by wildlife, exposure, or other elements is observed, protective
measures may need to be introduced. Monitoring years may be added if significant re-planting
becomes necessary. Monitoring on an annual basis for five years will occur with photographs
and measurements outlined in section 7.3 to determine the survival rate of the transplanted area.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 38
8 Conclusion
While the proposed project may result in some short-term adverse impacts, mainly in the form of
noise, it is the opinion of MSA that the overall outcome is unlikely to cause long-term adverse
impacts to ecological function of the nearshore marine environment. Short-term impacts will
likely be temporary and minor. The native planting plan (Figure 8) should be sufficient to
mitigate any long-term potential adverse effects from the project and to achieve no net loss of
ecological function.
Final jurisdictional authority and permitting on this project will be the responsibility of the
appropriate local, state, and/or federal government agencies involved. All information contained
in this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to approval or
issuance of permits.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 39
References
Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist
115:676-701.
Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions
in Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program, Copyright 2005, UW
Board of Regents, Seattle, WA. 34 p
Crawford, B. A. 2012. Methods and quality of VSP monitoring of ESA listed Puget Sound
salmon and steelhead with identified critical gaps. National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northwest Region, Olympia, WA.
Dethier, M.N., 1990. A marine and estuarine habitat classification system for Washington State.
Washington Natural Heritage Program, Dept. Natural Resources.
Federal Register / Vol. 35, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 2, 1970 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 191 / Thursday, October 1, 1992 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 52 / Thursday, March 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Friday, November 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Resister / Vol 81, No 36 / Wednesday, February 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
FEMA Region 10, August 2013. Regional Guidance For Floodplain Habitat Assessment and
Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin.
Hammer, Thomas E. and Nelson, Kim S. 1995. Chapter 6: Characteristics of Marbled Murrelet
Nest Trees and Nesting Stands. Ecology and conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture; p. 69-82
Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries - the life support system, p. 315 - 341.
In: V.S. Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 40
Heerhartz, S.M. & Toft, J.D. (2015) Movement patterns and feeding behavior of juvenile salmon
(Oncorhynchus spp.) along armored and unarmored estuarine shorelines. Environ. Biol.
Fishes, 98, 1501-1511. DOI 10.1007/s10641-015-0377-5
Jefferson County Critical Areas Code section 18.22.
Love, M.S., M.M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockfishes of the Northeast
Pacific. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand,
F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook
salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp.
Newcombe, C.P. and MacDonald, D.D., 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic
ecosystems. North American journal of fisheries management, 11(1), pp.72-82.
Orca Network. Web. Available at: http://www.orcanetwork.org/sightings/ Accessed May 2021.
Penttila, D. 2007. Marine forage fishes in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Report No. 2007-03. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle,
Washington.
Puget Sound Water Quality Action (WQA) Team. 2002. Puget Sound update 2002. Eighth report
of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team.
Olympia, WA.
Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation
of Bull Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,
Ogden, UT. 38 pp.
Seattle Audubon Society. 2010. Puget Sound Seabird Survey site locations. Retrieved from
Science Manager Adam Sedgley on August 16, 2010.
Seattle Audubon Society. 2009. Puget Sound Seabird Survey Protocol. Retrieved from
http://www.seattleaudubon.org/sas/Portals/0/Science/Puget_Sound_Seabird_Survey/PSS
S_Protocol_09-10.pdf. Accessed: August 16, 2020.
Simenstad C.A., Fresh K.L., and Salo E.O. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington
coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function
(Oncorhynchus spp.). National Inland Fisheries Inst., Bangkok (Thailand).
Studebaker, R.S., K.M. Cox, and T.J. Mulligan. 2009. Recent and historical spatial distributions
of juvenile Rockfish, Sebastes spp., in rocky intertidal tidepools with emphasis on
Sebastes melanops, Trans., Am. Fish. Soc., 138:645-651.
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1993. Status of the Marbled Murrelet
Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia,
WA.
Washington Department of Ecology (ECY). Coastal Atlas Map. Accessed April 2021. Available
at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx
Zagula FEMA Habitat Assessment & Mitigation Planting Plan MSA | 41
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDFW) 2011. Puget Sound Steelhead Foundations: A
Primer for Recovery Planning
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
report. Accessed May 2021. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI).
Accessed May 2021. Available at: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html#
Washington State Department of Health. Office of Environmental Health and Safety.
Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer. Accessed May 2021.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/oswpviewer/index.html
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2001. Washington State ShoreZone
Inventory User’s Manual. Nearshore Habitat Program. Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2021. Puget Sound Seagrass Monitoring
Data Viewer. Aquatic Resources Division, Nearshore Habitat Program Submerged
Vegetation Monitoring Program (SVMP). Accessed May 2021.
Washington State Department of Health. Office of Environmental Health and Safety.
Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer. Accessed May 2021.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/oswpviewer/index.html
Young et al. 2010. Multivariate bathymetry-derived generalized linear model accurately predicts
Rockfish distribution on Cordell Bank, California, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series.
Vol. 415: 247-261.
Appendix A. Site Photos
Existing Zagula residence and vacant lot on left with two “Tuff” sheds (photo facing north)
Photo facing east from beach in front of Zagula residence
Photo facing west from Zagula undeveloped parcel, showing 17’ x 12’ patio to be removed
Photo facing south from Zagula undeveloped parcel, showing same patio area as above
East side of existing residential home
Existing deck, to be replaced with spaced elevated pavers to allow water flow underneath
Existing impervious concrete block patio, to be removed and partially replaced with spaced elevated
pavers to allow water flow underneath
Slope located on north side of existing residence & end of bulkhead
Currently undeveloped parcel featuring two “Tuff” sheds and a concrete block patio (to be removed)
Appendix B.
Native Plant Sources for the Pacific NW
Native Plant Sources for the Pacific Northwest
This list contains those nurseries known to Permitting staff that grow plants native to the Puget lowlands of
Western Washington in quantities suitable for most mitigation sites. It was extracted from a longer list
compiled by the Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) of King County for your convenience, drawing
in part on the Hortus West native plant directory and journal: Hortus West, P.O. Box 2870, Wilsonville, OR
97070. 800-704-7927. Fax: 503-570-0855. E-mail: editor@hortuswest.com. It is not an endorsement of these
businesses. The full list is available from WLRD at 206-296-6519.
Nurseries that specialize in seeds are marked (SEEDS).
Abundant Life Seed Foundation (SEEDS) Davenport Seed Corporation (SEEDS)
P.O. Box 772 P.O. Box 187
Port Townsend, WA 98368 Davenport, WA 99122-0187
360-385-5660 800-828-8873
Barford's Hardy Ferns Emmery's Gardens
23622 Bothell Way 2829 - 164th Avenue SW
Bothell, WA 98248 Lynnwood, WA 98037
Phone: 425-438-0205 Phone: 425-743-4555
Fax: 206-483-0205 Fax: 425-743-0609
Botanica Firetrail Nursery
P.O. Box 19544 3107 - 140th Street NW
Seattle, WA 98109 Marysville, WA 98271
206-634-1370 360-652-9021
Clark's Native Trees and Shrubs Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration (SEED)
1215 - 126th Avenue SE P.O. Box 53
Everett, WA 98208 Langley, WA 98260
206-337-3976 360-579-2332
Cold Creek Nursery Heathwood Cottage Nursery
18602 NE 165th Street 18540 - 26th Avenue NE
Woodinville, WA 98072 Lake Forest Park, WA 98072
425-788-0201 206-363-3189
Colvos Creek Farm IFA Nurseries, Inc.
P.O. Box 1512 463 Eadon Road
Vashon, WA 98070 Toledo, WA 98591
206-441-1509 425-864-2803
Inside Passage (SEEDS) Sound Native Plants
P.O. Box 639 P.O. Box 10155
Port Townsend, WA 98368 Olympia, WA 98502
206-781-3575 Phone: 360-352-4122
Fax: 360-943-7026
Sourced from the King County Critical Areas Restoration and Enhancement document, Appendix A 2020
J & J Landscape Co. Storm Lake Growers
19538 - 75th NE 21809 - 89th SE
Bothell, WA 98011 Snohomish, WA 98290
360-794-4842
Judd Creek Wetland and Native Plant Nursery Sweet Briar
20929 - 111th Avenue SE P.O. Box 25
Vashon, WA 98070 Woodinville, WA 98072
206-463-2812 425-821-2222
MSK Nursery Thorsett Landscaping Nursery
20066 - 15th Avenue NW 13503 Southeast 226th Place
Seattle, WA 98177 Kent, WA 98042
206-546-1281 253-361-5838
Northfork Nursery Wabash Farms Native Plants
15751 Polson Road Ornamental and Reclamation
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273-7142 19390 SE 400th
360-445-4741 Enumclaw, WA 98022
Phone: 360-825-7051
Fax: 360-825-1949
Pacific Natives & Ornamentals Weyerhauser-Western Revegetation Greenhouse
P.O. Box 23 33405 - 8th Avenue South
Bothell, WA 98041 Federal Way, WA 98003
Phone: 425-483-8108 800-732-4769
Fax: 425-487-6198
Revegetate & Resource Plants Woodbrook Native Plant Nursery
17836 Cedar Grove Road 5919 78th Ave NW
Maple Valley, WA 98038 Gig Harbor, WA 98335
425-432-9018 253-857-6808, woodbrk@harbornet.com
Sourced from the King County Critical Areas Restoration and Enhancement document, Appendix A 2020
Appendix C.
FEMA Elevation Survey Certificates