HomeMy WebLinkAboutstamped_032 Revised Marrowstone Inn Shoreline, Wetland, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Report January 2022
SHORELINE, WETLAND, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT,
AND FEMA FLOODPLAIN ASSESSMENT
MARROWSTONE INN
JANUARY 2022
SHORELINE, WETLAND, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT,
AND FEMA FLOODPLAIN ASSESSMENT
MARROWSTONE INN
JULY 23, 2021
REVISED JANUARY 24, 2022
PROJECT LOCATION
10 BEACH DRIVE
NORDLAND, WASHINGTON 98358
PREPARED FOR
ANDREW NORDSTROM
4014 HUNTS POINT
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004
(206) 650-3573
PREPARED BY
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC
2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335
(253) 514-8952
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn i Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Executive Summary
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) is assisting Andrew Nordstrom (Applicant) with a Shoreline,
Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment for a proposed renovation
and improvement project located at 10 Beach Drive in the Nordland area of unincorporated Jefferson
County, Washington. The subject property consists of two parcels situated in the Southeast ¼ of
Section 8, Township 29 North, Range 1 East, W.M (Jefferson County Tax Parcel Numbers 921084010
and 921084011).
SVC investigated, delineated, and assessed potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and
wildlife habitat, and/or priority habitats or species within 300 feet of the subject property in December
2020 and March and April 2021. Using current methodology, the site investigations identified two
potentially regulated wetlands (Wetlands A and B), and two marine shorelines (Kilisut Harbor and
Oak Bay). Wetland A is classified as a Category I estuarine wetland and Wetland B is classified as a
Category IV wetland. Wetland A is subject to a standard 300-foot buffer and Wetland B is subject to
a standard 50-foot buffer, based on the proposed high intensity land use. However, these wetland
buffers may be reduced to 225 feet and 40 feet, respectively, with the implementation measures to
minimize wetland impacts and with the protection of a vegetated corridor between the wetland and a
priority habitat or relatively undisturbed area, is established. Wetlands A and B and portions of the
project site along the shorelines of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay are also subject to the Jefferson County
Shoreline Master Program (JCSMP). All marine shorelines, regardless of the shoreline environment
designation (SED), are subject to a standard 150-foot shoreline buffer and an additional 10-foot
shoreline structure setback.
This report has been revised to address an additional site visit conducted by SVC November 2, 2021
with the Department of Ecology (Rebecca Rothwell) and Jefferson County (Shannen Cartmel) along
with Hoedemaker Pfieffer, as well as an additional follow-up site visit conducted by SVC and the
Department of Ecology on November 18, 2021 to reassess Ordinary High Water (OHW)
determinations at the request of the Department of Ecology (Rebecca Rothwell, personal
communication, January 4, 2022). The results of the site investigation determined that while the
Department of Ecology and Jefferson County agreed with the OHW delineation for Oak Bay, the
OHW of Kilisut Harbor needed to move further landward from the original delineation. A revised
Existing Conditions map depicting the updated OHW delineation is provided in Appendix C, and a
letter detailing the results of the November 2021 site visit is provided in Attachment D. In addition
to the changes to the prior OHW delineation, this report has been revised to remove language
regarding interrupted buffers to expedite the permitting process.
The Applicant proposes renovations and improvements to the existing resort facility to continue its
present use and to provide infrastructure and aesthetic upgrades to support use of the site as a special
events venue. Existing infrastructure onsite includes a main lodge, ten cabins, a mobile home with an
attached deck and detached garage, equipment and utility sheds, a barn, a boat launch, rock bulkhead
to the south adjacent to Oak Bay, and internal gravel and dirt access road s and paths. Renovation
activities include remodeling the main lodge to include a commercial kitchen for event purposes,
remodeling and upgrading all of the existing cabins and the mobile home and associated garage,
replacing the onsite septic system to meet current standards for waste management and to support
continued use of the existing cabins onsite, and upgrading and expanding internal site access for
accessibility. The proposed renovation activities will also include improving existing access paths
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn ii Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
throughout the site leading to the cabins. In addition to the remodel activities, the applicant proposes
the addition of a sauna, gravel parking areas and expanded site access to the proposed parking areas,
and two yurts on the subject property. All of the proposed activities are located landward of the OHW
of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay; some of these activities occur within shoreline and wetland buffers
or outside of buffers within the Shoreline Management Zone, and a some are landward of shoreline
jurisdiction.
The proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to the onsite critical areas by
locating all new infrastructure outside of the shoreline and wetland buffers and by limiting renovation
activities within the shoreline and wetland buffers to the footprints of the existing structures to the
greatest extent feasible, and complies with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, including
the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (JCSMP). However, due to the existing locations of
main lodge, Cabins 1-8, and portions of the internal access road and pathways within shoreline and
wetland buffers, complete avoidance is not feasible. As such, the proposed renovations/upgrades to
Cabin 5, Cabin 8, and the main lodge will require minor, permanent impacts to the buffers of Wetlands
A and B and Kilisut Harbor to increase the commercial capacity of the structures. Minor expansion
activities associated with Cabin 5 will be located landward of the cabin. Minor expansion activities
associated with Cabin 8 and the main lodge will be located waterward of the existing structures, but
landward of Cabin 5 and the existing access road. Replacing and upgrading the existing septic system
onsite to meet current standards will require minor, temporary impacts to the buffers of Wetland s A
and B, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak Bay during septic line installation. The septic line will be located
landward of Cabins 5-7 in the buffer of Wetland A and Kilisut Harbor; however, due to the elevations
of Cabins 1-4 relative to the shoreline of Oak Bay, the septic line must be places waterward of Cabins
1-4. Further, upgrades and improvements to the existing access road and cabin pathways within the
wetland and shoreline buffers will require minor, temporary impacts during construction, but the
improvements will result in an overall decrease in impervious surfaces associated with the access road
and pathways within the wetland and shoreline buffers and within portions of the shoreline
jurisdiction located outside of the buffers.
Minor permanent impacts associated with upgrades to Cabins 5 and 8 and the main lodge will be
offset through a reduction in impervious surfaces associated with existing cabin access paths within
the wetland and shoreline buffers and shoreline jurisdiction, the relocation of the exist ing septic
drainfield within the buffer of Wetlands A and B and Kilisut Harbor to an upland area outside of the
shoreline jurisdiction, and a landscaping plan that will provide an increase in native trees and shrubs
onsite. As the proposed project will result in no net loss of wetland or shoreline functions onsite, no
formal mitigation is proposed. All temporary impacts associated with septic line installation and site
access improvements will be restored with a native grass -seed mix to pre-disturbance conditions.
Additionally, all Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
(TESC) measures will be implemented to minimize construction impacts to the identified wetlands
and shorelines. It is expected that the proposed resort upgrades will require a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit and Shoreline Variance.
Cabin 4, associated access road improvements, and portions of the areas where sewer lines are
proposed waterward of Cabins 1-4 adjacent to Oak Bay are located within portions of the FEMA 100-
year floodplain, and remodeling activities associated with Cabin 4 are subject to the regulations of
Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.22 Article IV – Frequently Flooded Areas and JCC 15.15 – Flood
Damage Prevention.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn iii Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
As portions of the proposed project are located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain, compliance
with the NMFS Biological Opinion for implementation of the NFIP in Puget Sound. is required,
pursuant to JCC 18.22.430(2). Accordingly, this report includes a habitat assessment and effect
determinations for ESA-listed species that may be located in or near the project area, in compliance
with the criteria outlined in the Regional Guidance for Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation
in the Puget Sound Basin. Overall, the proposed project will have no effect on ESA-listed salmonids
or Orcas in the vicinity of the proposed project. Detailed effect determinations are described in
Chapter 7 of this report.
The table below summarizes the identified critical areas and their potential regulatory status by local,
State, and Federal agencies.
Feature
Name
Size
(onsite) Category/Type2 Regulated Under
Jefferson County Code
Regulated Under
RCW 90.48
Regulated Under
Clean Water Act
Kilisut Harbor ~673
linear feet Natural1 Yes Yes Yes
Oak Bay ~661
linear feet
Shoreline
Residential1 Yes Yes Yes
Wetland A ~43,070
square feet I Yes Yes Yes
Wetland B ~17,985
square feet IV Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
1. Shoreline Environmental Designation as shown on the Jefferson County Shoreline Environment Designation Map.
2. Current Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) wetland rating methods (Hruby, 2014) and current Jefferson County Code
(JCC) wetland and waterbody classification guidelines.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn iii Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2. Proposed Project ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Action Area .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 3. Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 4. Existing Conditions..................................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Landscape Setting ................................................................................................................................. 10
4.2 Soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
4.3 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................................. 11
4.4 Wetland and Stream Inventories ........................................................................................................ 12
4.5 Priority Habitats and Species ............................................................................................................... 12
4.6 FEMA Floodplain ................................................................................................................................. 12
4.7 Precipitation ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 5. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 14
5.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................. 14
5.2 Marine Shoreline of Kilisut Harbor .............................................................................................. 18
5.3 Marine Shoreline of Oak Bay ........................................................................................................ 18
Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations ......................................................................................................... 21
6.1 Wetland Categories and Protection Standards ................................................................................. 21
6.2 Shoreline Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 22
6.3 Frequently Flooded Areas ................................................................................................................... 38
6.5 State and Federal Regulatory Considerations ................................................................................... 40
Chapter 7. FEMA Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Species Information and Effects
Determinations ................................................................................................................................................. 42
7.1 FEMA Worksheet ................................................................................................................................. 42
7.2 Species Information .............................................................................................................................. 48
7.3 Direct and Short-Term Effects ........................................................................................................... 56
7.4 Indirect Effects ...................................................................................................................................... 57
7.5 Long-Term Effects ............................................................................................................................... 57
7.6 Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices ............................................................... 57
7.7 Determinations of Effects ................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter 8. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 64
Chapter 9. References .................................................................................................................................... 65
Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map. ................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Terrestrial Project Noise Attenuation to Ambient Levels (Hard Sites) .......................... 6
Figure 3. Terrestrial Project Noise Attenuation to Ambient Levels (Soft Sites) ............................ 7
Figure 3. Aerial Image of the Subject Property. ......................................................................... 10
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn iv Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Tables
Table 1. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations (Hard Sites) ................................................ 6
Table 2. Terrestrial Project Noise Attenuation Calculations (Soft Sites) ...................................... 7
Table 2. Precipitation Summary. ............................................................................................... 13
Table 3. Wetland Summary ...................................................................................................... 14
Table 4. Wetland A Summary ................................................................................................... 16
Table 5. Wetland B Summary ................................................................................................... 17
Table 8. Kilisut Harbor Summary ............................................................................................. 19
Table 8. Oak Bay Summary ...................................................................................................... 20
Table 9. Minimization Measures ............................................................................................... 22
Table 10. ESA-Listed Species Potentially Found in Jefferson County ......................................... 49
Table 11. Species Determination Summary ................................................................................ 59
Appendices
Appendix A –– Methods and Tools
Appendix B –– Background Information
Appendix C –– Existing Conditions and Proposed Plan
Appendix D –– Wetland Data Forms
Appendix E –– Wetland Rating Forms
Appendix F –– Wetland Rating Maps
Appendix G –– Action Area Map
Appendix H –– Site Photographs
Appendix I –– Author Qualifications
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 1 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) is assisting Andrew Nordstrom (Applicant) with a Shoreline,
Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment for a proposed renovation
and improvement project located at 10 Beach Drive in the Nordland area of unincorporated Jefferson
County, Washington. The subject property consists of two parcels situated in the Southeast ¼ of
Section 8, Township 29 North, Range 1 East, W.M (Jefferson County Tax Parcel Numbers 921084010
and 921084011).
The purpose this assessment is to identify the presence of potentially regulated waterbodies, wetlands,
fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority habitats or species that may be found on or near the project;
to assess potential impacts to any such protected areas; and to demonstrate how the proposed project
will ensure no net loss of shoreline function. This report also discusses how the proposal will comply
with Jefferson County’s floodplain habitat protection requirements.
This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding:
• Site description, project description, and area of assessment;
• Identification and assessment of potentially regulated wetlands, water bodies, fish and wildlife
habitat, and/or priority species located on or near the subject property;
• Site maps detailing existing site conditions, identified critical areas, proposed site plan and
project details;
• Identification of potential impacts to potentially-regulated features, priority habitat and species
(PHS), or associated buffers;
• Documentation of impact avoidance, minimization, mitigation measures, and shoreline no
net loss analysis;
• Analysis of project effects on Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species and critical
habitat;
• Potential regulatory considerations, restrictions, and site management recommendations;
• Supplemental information necessary for Federal, State, and local regulatory review.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 2 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Project Location
The proposed project is located on a 8.3-acre subject property at 10 Beach Drive in the Nordland area
of unincorporated Jefferson County, Washington. The subject property consists of two parcels
situated in the Southeast ¼ of Section 8, Township 29 North, Range 1 East, W.M (Jefferson County
Tax Parcel Numbers Jefferson County Tax Parcel Numbers 921084010 and 921084011).
To access the subject property from WA-19 North/Beaver Valley Road in the Port Ludlow area, turn
right onto Oak Bay Road. After 9.9 miles, turn right onto WA-16 / Flagler Road. Continue for 2.8
miles and turn right onto Robbins Road. After 0.2 mile, take a slight right to continue on R obbins
Road. Continue for 217 feet and turn right onto Resort Road. After 131 feet, turn right to stay on
Resort Road and continue for 203 feet where the subject property will be located on the left.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map.
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 3 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
2.2 Project Description
The Applicant proposes renovations and improvements to the existing resort facility to include
infrastructure and aesthetic upgrades that will support the continued use of the site as a resort and
special events venue. Existing infrastructure onsite includes a main lodge, ten cabins, a mobile home
with an attached deck and detached garage, equipment and utility sheds, a barn, a boat launch and
rock bulkhead to the south adjacent to Oak Bay, and internal gravel and dirt access roads. Renovation
activities include remodeling the main lodge to include a commercial kitchen for event purposes,
remodeling and upgrading all of the existing cabins and the mobile home and associated garage,
replacing the onsite septic system to meet current standards for waste management and to support
continued use of the existing cabins onsite, and improving internal site access for accessibility. The
proposed renovation activities will also include improving existing access paths throughout the site
leading to the cabins, which will result in a reduction of the footprint of the access paths, as currently
there are numerous social paths to the cabins rather than the proposed, more limited, formal pathways.
In addition to the remodel activities, the applicant proposes the minor landward expansion of Cabin
5 to provide a bedroom, minor expansion of Cabin 8 and the main lodge to improve accessibility, and
the addition of a sauna, gravel parking areas, new parking access roads, and two yurts tents on the
subject property.
The proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to the onsite critical areas by
locating all new infrastructure outside of the shoreline and wetland buffers and the 200-foot shoreline
jurisdiction and by limiting renovation activities within the shoreline and wetland buffers to the
footprints of the existing infrastructure to the greatest extent feasible, and complies with all applicable
Federal, State, and local regulations, including the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program
(JCSMP). However, due to the existing locations of main lodge, Cabins 1-8, and portions of the
internal access road and pathways within shoreline and wetland buffers, complete avoidance is not
feasible. As such, the proposed renovations/upgrades to Cabin 5, Cabin 8, and the main lodge will
require minor, permanent impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A and B and Kilisut Harbor to improve
accessibility and increase the capacity of these structures. Cabin 5 will be expanded slightly landward
to accommodate improvements to an existing bedroom, Cabin 8 will be expanded slightly waterward
(but landward of Cabin 5) to include a deck for improved access, and the main lodge will be expanded
slightly waterward (but landward of the existing internal access road) to provide a staircase for
improved access. Replacing and upgrading the existing septic system onsite to meet current County
standards will require minor, temporary impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A and B, Kilisut Harbor,
and Oak Bay during septic line installation. The septic line will be located landward of Cabins 5 -7 in
the buffers of Wetlands A and B and Kilisut Harbor; however, due to the elevations of Cabins 1-4
relative to the shoreline of Oak Bay, the septic line must be places waterward of Cabins 1-4. Further,
upgrades and improvements to the existing access road and cabin pathways within the wetland and
shoreline buffers will require minor, temporary impacts during construction, but the improvements
will result in an overall decrease in impervious surfaces associated with the existing site access within
the wetland and shoreline buffers and within portions of the shoreline jurisdiction outside of the
buffers. It should also be noted that Cabin 4, associated access road improvements, and portions of
the areas where sewer lines are proposed waterward of Cabins 1-4 adjacent to Oak Bay are partially
located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain, and remodeling activities associated with Cabin 4 are
subject to the regulations of JCC 18.22 Article IV – Frequently Flooded Areas and JCC 15.15 – Flood
Damage Prevention.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 4 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Overall, impacts within the buffers of Wetlands A and B, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak Bay will be limited
minor permanent impacts associated with increases to the footprints of the main lodge and Cabins 5
and 8, and to temporary impacts during the installation of the proposed sewer lines and temporary
impacts to improve the existing access roads located partially within wetland and shoreline buffers
and within the shoreline jurisdiction. The proposed project activities are located in areas that consist
primarily of grassy and herbaceous areas, and no trees or shrubs will be removed to suppor t the
proposed project. All areas that are temporarily disturbed during construction will be seeded with a
native grass mix to restore areas to pre-construction conditions. Additionally, impacts from the
proposed project will be offset by reducing existing impacts within the shoreline buffers and
jurisdiction. The existing access roads leading to Cabins 1-7 will be relocated to provide more direct,
formal access to the cabins and will result in a decrease of gravel surfaces as the proposed access
roads will have a narrower footprint than the existing access to the cabins. Additionally, the existing
septic drain field is located within the buffers of Wetland A and Kilisut Harbor. The drain field will
be decommissioned, and a new drain field will be placed outside of the wetland and shoreline buffers
and outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. These combined actions will reduce the overall footprint
of impervious surfaces within the shoreline jurisdiction by 4,638 square feet and improve hydrologic
and water quality functions associated with Wetlands A and B, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak Bay. The
proposed parking areas and new access paths will increase impervious surfaces onsite; however, the
new impervious surfaces are located entirely outside of the critical area buffers and shoreline setback.
Additionally, landscaping will be provided throughout the site which will provide trees and shrubs in
areas that currently consist of a mix of grazed and unmaintained grassy and herbaceous areas. The
addition of native trees and shrubs throughout the site will slow surface runoff and provide increased
filtration for sediments and pollutants prior to runoff reaching the identified critical areas.
Additionally, the addition of native trees and shrubs will increase habitat onsite for a variety of wildlife
species. BMPs and TESC measures will be incorporated throughout the duration of the project to
minimize and avoid construction impacts to the identified critical areas. Overall, the proposed
project will result in no net loss of shoreline or floodplain ecological functions onsite.
2.3 Action Area
The “Action Area” encompasses the locations where project activities will occur (the Project Area) as
well as all areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project through physical,
chemical, or biological mechanisms. The geographic limits of the Action Area were defined by
considering the potential spatial extent of mechanisms that may lead to impacts on listed species.
Mechanisms identified as having potential for impacting ESA-listed species or species habitat include
noise from construction equipment and a potential increase in turbidity from sediment in -water
suspension caused by construction activities; however, the proposed project is located entirely
landward of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay, and primarily within the footprint of existing
infrastructure, therefore water quality impacts are not anticipated. The Action Area for these potential
impact mechanisms is depicted in Appendix G.
2.3.1 Terrestrial Noise
In order to define the Action Area, this assessment discusses the project actions potentially generating
noise levels above normal daily noise levels found in the vicinity of the project area. At certain levels,
noise from project activities can adversely affect wildlife with various behavioral and/or health-related
consequences (WSDOT, 2020). Terrestrial noise (transmitted through air) is measured in decibels
(dBA) on an “A”-weighted (frequency weighted to approximate human hearing) logarithmic scale.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 5 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Project construction will utilize several common types of construction equipment. Among those likely
to be used, the three pieces having the loudest noise levels are an air compressor, excavator, and a
concrete pump truck. The use of construction equipment in this area will potentially lead to a higher
noise level than traffic noise and ambient sound levels during portions of the project actions. The
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Biological Assessment Preparation
Advanced Training Manual, Version 2020, lists average noise levels for typical construction
equipment; average ambient sound levels per population density of the surrounding area; and noise
levels for automobile traffic given certain speeds. According to WSDOT, the average decibel level at
50 feet from operation of an air compressor is 68 dBA, from an excavator is 97 dBA, and from a
concrete pump truck is 89 dBA. Using decibel addition, 91 dBA was calculated to be the loudest
projected noise level that will be heard at a 50 foot radius from where the construction actions will be
performed, in the worst case scenario that all of these pieces of loud equipment are used at the same
time.
The project area is located in a rural residential setting, and according to 2020 U.S Census estimates,
the population density in the vicinity of the subject property is 94 people per square mile. The
WSDOT guidance (WSDOT, 2020) states that ambient noise levels in areas with a population density
of 1-100 people per square mile, during the daytime, are found to be 35 dBA . The subject project
area is also located within 320 feet of WA-116. WSDOT traffic data from WA-116 within 320 feet of
the Project Area lists an average of 190 vehicles per hour (VPH) traveling along the highway. The
speed limit along WA-116 in this vicinity is 40 miles per hour (mph), and the associated traffic noise
level was estimated to be 58.5 dBA (WSDOT, 2020). This traffic noise level exceeds the residential
noise level in the vicinity of the Project Area and was used as the ambient noise level for determining
the terrestrial noise impact of the proposed project.
Construction noise levels will be elevated above normal background noise for a short time but will
not reach levels that are likely to significantly impact terrestrial species. Sound impacts on ESA-listed
species are discussed in Chapter 7. For terrestrial noise, standard attenuation is about 6 -7.5 dBA per
doubling of distance from the source of noise, depending on whether the site is classified as hard or
soft (WSDOT, 2020). The Project Area is generally considered a “hard” site to the north, south, and
west where surfaces primarily consist of open water. The Project Area is generally considered a “soft”
site to the east due to the presence of forested areas and sparse residential development. Using a
background noise level of 58.5 dBA and a normal attenuation of 7.5 dB per doubling of distance of
“hard” surfaces, the construction site will attenuate to background levels at approximately 2,109 feet
(0.40 mile) to the north, south, and west (Table 1 and Figure 2). Using a background noise level of
58.5 dBA and a normal attenuation of 6 dB per doubling of distance of “soft” surfaces, the
construction site will attenuate to background noise levels at approximately 998 feet (0.20 mile) to the
east (Table 2 and Figure 3). Therefore, the Action Area for noise has an approximately 2,109-foot
radius to the north, south, and west, and has an approximately 998-foot radius to the east. The Action
Area for terrestrial noise is depicted in Appendix G as a yellow circle surrounding the Project Area.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 6 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Table 1. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations (Hard Sites)
Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Table (Hard Sites)
Distance from Source Construction Noise Background Noise
(Feet) (Miles) (dBA) (dBA)
50 0.009469697 91 58.5
100 0.018939394 85 58.5
200 0.037878788 79 58.5
400 0.075757576 73 58.5
800 0.151515152 67 58.5
1600 0.303030303 61 58.5
3200 0.606060606 55 58.5
6400 1.212121212 49 58.5
12800 2.424242424 43 58.5
25600 4.848484848 37 58.5
Figure 2. Terrestrial Project Noise Attenuation to Ambient Levels (Hard Sites)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
50 500 5000 50000Sound Level (dB)Distance (feet)
Terrestrial Attenuation for Hard Sites
Background Noise
Construction Noise
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 7 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Table 2. Terrestrial Project Noise Attenuation Calculations (Soft Sites)
Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Table (Soft Sites)
Distance from Source Construction Noise Background Noise
(Feet) (Miles) (dBA) (dBA)
50 0.009469697 91 58.5
100 0.018939394 83.5 58.5
200 0.037878788 76 58.5
400 0.075757576 68.5 58.5
800 0.151515152 61 58.5
1600 0.303030303 53.5 58.5
3200 0.606060606 46 58.5
6400 1.212121212 38.5 58.5
12800 2.424242424 31 58.5
25600 4.848484848 23.5 58.5
Figure 3. Terrestrial Project Noise Attenuation to Ambient Levels (Soft Sites)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
50 500 5000 50000Sound Level (dB)Distance (feet)
Terrestrial Attenuation for Soft Sites
Construction Noise
Background Noise
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 8 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
2.3.2 Water Quality
The site is currently developed with a resort facility and much of the subject property has been cleared
and developed with a resort lodge, cabins, and associated outbuildings and infrastructure. The
proposed project activities will occur during the dry season and are located entirely landward of the
OHW mark.
Renovation activities located within shoreline and wetland buffers will occur entirely within the
existing footprints of permitted cabins and the resort lodge onsite, with the exception of the minor
expansion of Cabin 5 to support improvements to an existing bedroom, the addition of a deck and
staircase for improved access to Cabin 8, and the addition of an external staircase to the main lodge.
The project also proposes to reduce the footprint of the access paths leading to Cabins 1-7 to provide
more formal, direct access to these areas. As such, the project will result in an overall decrease in
impervious surfaces within the shoreline buffers and shoreline jurisdiction, by 4,638 square feet and
renovation activities are not anticipated to have an adverse effect on local hydrologic and water quality
functions within the watershed.
All new infrastructure associated with the proposed project is located entirely outside of the FEMA
100-year floodplain, as well as the onsite shoreline and wetland buffer areas and the shoreline
jurisdiction. The new infrastructure includes gravel parking areas and associated gravel access roads,
a sauna, and yurts. Additionally, the proposed expansion of Cabins 5 and 8 and the main lodge is also
located outside of the FEMA 100-year floodplain, and increases in impervious surfaces associated
with these structures will be offset through decreases in impervious surfaces associated with the
existing access road and cabin pathways. As all new development activities are located outside of the
FEMA 100-year floodplain and either located outside of any critical area buffers and the 200-foot
shoreline jurisdiction or designed to result in a decrease in impervious surfaces within the critical area
buffers and shoreline jurisdiction, these actions are not anticipated to have an adverse effect on local
hydrologic and water quality functions within the watershed. Additionally, as all of the proposed
project activities are located landward of OHW, no turbidity impacts are anticipated.
Best Management Practices (BMPs), including silt fencing between onsite critical areas and
construction activities, are expected to prevent any potential sediments from entering Oak Bay or
Kilisut Harbor during renovation and construction activities.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 9 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
CHAPTER 3. METHODS
SVC investigated, delineated, and assessed potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and
wildlife habitat, and/or priority habitats or species within 300 feet of the subject property in December
2020 and March and April 2021. SVC also conducted follow up visits - one on November 2, 2021
with the Department of Ecology, Jefferson County, and Hoedemaker Pfieffer, and one on November
18, 2021 with the Department of Ecology to reassess the initial Ordinary High Water (OHW)
delineations associated with Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay. A letter detailing the site visits and
conclusions is provided in Appendix D. All determinations were made using observable vegetation,
hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
map, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, Washington Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) stream typing data, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) map data, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority
Habitats and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape database, Jefferson County Geographic Information
Systems (GIS), local precipitation data, and various orthophotographic resources. Appendix A
contains further details for the methods and tools used to prepare this report.
Wetlands, streams, and select fish and wildlife habitats and species are regulated features per JCC Title
18 and subject to restricted uses/activities under the same title. Wetland boundaries were determined
in accordance with JCC Chapter 18.22 and as outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE)
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and modified according to the
guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (USACE, 2010) and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
in the United States (USDA, 2018). Qualified wetland scientists marked boundaries of onsite wetlands
with orange surveyor’s flagging labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation along
the wetland boundary. Pink surveyors flagging was labeled alpha -numerically and tied to 3 -foot lath
or vegetation at formal sampling locations to mark the points where detailed data was collected (DP-
1 to DP-5). Additional tests pits were excavated throughout the subject property to further confirm
wetland boundaries.
Ordinary high water (OHW) mark determinations were made using Washington State Department of
Ecology’s (WSDOE’s) method as detailed in Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline
Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al., 2016) and the definitions established in
the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.030(2)(b) and Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 173-22-030(11). To mark the OHW of the shoreline, blue surveyor’s flagging was alpha-
numerically labeled and tied to vegetation. The shoreline was classified using the DNR water typing
system as outlined in WAC 222-16-030 per JCC 18.22.610(1) and the shoreline designation guidelines
outlined under JCC 18.25 – Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visits by qualified fish
and wildlife biologists. Experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and walking
survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of
fish and wildlife activity. Observations on the beach were made during a low tide , and observations
of aquatic vegetation were limited to the upper intertidal area.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 10 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
CHAPTER 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS
4.1 Landscape Setting
The approximately 7.47-acre subject property is located on the shoreline of Kilisut Harbor within the
Nordland area of Marrowstone Island, in unincorporated Jefferson County (Figure 3). The subject
property is currently developed with a resort facility which includes several cabins, a barn, and
additional outbuildings on the northern parcel, a main lodge, beachside cabins, additional outbuildings,
and a gravel driveway on the southern parcel, and mowed lawn areas throughout. The shoreline along
the southern boundary of the parcels is armored with a rock bulkhead and large woody debris and has
an existing boat ramp (Photographs 1 and 2, Appendix I). The subject property abuts Kilisut Harbor
(a Category I Estuarine Wetland) to the west, Oak Bay to the south and west, a residential development
to the north and east. It is bound by Robbins Road and Beach Drive to the east. Topography onsite
generally slopes down from east to west, with elevations ranging from 40 feet above mean sea level
(amsl) to 5 feet amsl. A Jefferson County topographic map is provided in Appendix B1. The subject
property is located in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 – Quilcene / Snow.
Figure 3. Aerial Image of the Subject Property.
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 11 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
4.2 Soils
The NRCS Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Washington identifies three soil series on the subject
property: Coastal beaches (Co); Clallam gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes (CmC); and Tidal
marsh (Td). A soil map is provided in Appendix B2. Below is a detailed description of the soil
profiles.
Coastal beaches (Co)
According to the survey, Coastal beaches consists of sandy and gravelly sloping beaches in long,
narrow strips. They have no vegetation and are subject to continual wave action during high tides and
storms. Coastal beaches are typically found at the base of coastal bluffs or lowlands bordering the
Pacific Ocean in western Jefferson County and along the Straits of Juan de Fuca, Admiralty inlet, and
Hood Canal in eastern Jefferson County. Coastal beaches is listed as non-hydric on the Jefferson
County Hydric Soils List (NRCS, n.d.).
Clallam gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes (CmC)
According to the NRCS survey, Clallam gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes is a well-drained
soil formed on terraces. In a typical profile, the surface layer is covered in leaves, needles, and twigs.
The subsoil at a depth up to ¾ inch is dark greyish-brown composed of highly acidic organic material.
The subsoil is grayish brown gravelly sandy loam mixed with roots and gravel to a depth of 3 inches.
Roots can penetrate to a depth of 20 to 40 inches. The substratum is a dark greyish-brown gravelly
sandy loam with light brownish-gray dry, weak subangular blocky structures to depth of 14 to 23
inches below ground surface. At 23 to 36 inches, the soil is olive-gray, weaky cemented gravelly sandy
loam with medium and coarse, dark yellowish-brown mottles. Water runoff is slow to medium, and
permeability is moderate above the cemented layer. This soil series is also documented to be saturated
part of the time during the rainy season and may have water moving laterally above the cemented
layer. Clallam gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes is listed as non-hydric on the Jefferson
County Hydric Soils List (NRCS, n.d.).
Tidal marsh (Td)
According to the NRCS survey, Tidal marsh consists of nearly level, extremely wet, salty or brackish
areas within the overflow limits of high tides. A soil profile is not typically formed as soil materials
are typically deposits of heterogenous river alluvium that are continually saturated with saltwater. The
mixed materials are gray or greenish gray and mottled. Tidal marsh is listed as a hydric soil on the
Jefferson County Hydric Soils List (NRCS, n.d.).
4.3 Vegetation
Upland vegetation onsite is dominated by a mix of mowed lawn areas and patches of trees and shrubs
throughout. A larger forested/ shrub patch exists along the western property boundary. Vegetation
within the forested / shrub areas of the site is dominated by Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca), Scouler’s
willow (Salix scouleriana), English hawthorne (Crataegus monogyna), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), and non-
native invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). Understory and herbaceous vegetation
throughout the remainder of the site is dominated by colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris), tall fescue
(Schedonorus arundinaceus), and soft rush (Juncus effusus).
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 12 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
4.4 Wetland and Stream Inventories
The USFWS NWI map (Appendix B3) and Jefferson County Stream and Wetland Inventory
(Appendix B4) identify potential estuarine wetlands to the south and west of the subject property, and
the USFWS NWI map also identifies potential marine wetlands to the south, greater than 300 feet
from the subject property. The DNR stream typing map (Appendix B5) does not identify any
potential streams on or near the subject property. No other potentially regulated wetlands or streams
are identified on or within 300 feet of the subject property by any existing inventories or map
resources.
4.5 Priority Habitats and Species
The WDFW PHS map (Appendix B6) identifies potential estuarine and marine wetlands to the south
and west of the subject property, and identifies potential hardshell clam, Pacific sandlance (Ammodytes
hexapterus), and waterfowl and shorebird concentrations along the shoreline and in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The WDFW Salmonscape map (Appendix B7) does not identify any salmonid
presence on or near the subject property, however salmon are known to exist in the Puget Sound in
the vicinity of the subject property. The WDFW forage fish survey map (Appendix B8) identifies
Pacific sand lance spawning on the southeast and southwest corners of the shoreline onsite, extending
east and west offsite. The DNR kelp map (Appendix B9) identifies patchy kelp presence on the
southeast half of the shoreline on the southern portion of the subject property, extending east offsite.
The DNR eelgrass map (Appendix B10) identifies patchy eelgrass presence along the entire shoreline
to the south, extending east and west offsite. No other priority habitats or species were identified on
or within 300 feet of the subject property.
4.6 FEMA Floodplain
The FEMA floodplain map (Appendix B11) identifies the western portion of the subject property
as within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. Areas within the FEMA 100-year floodplain are regulated
as Frequently Flooded Areas under JCC 18.22 Article IV. As such, this report provides a Biological
Evaluation and FEMA Floodplain Assessment consistent with the FEMA Region X Floodplain
Habitat Assessment and Mitigation guidelines (FEMA, 2013).
4.7 Precipitation
Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
weather station at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in order to obtain precipitation values during
and preceding the field investigation. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 2.
Precipitation levels during the December 22, 2020 site investigation were within the statistical normal
range for both the 2020/2021 water year and the prior 30 days (91 and 89 percent of normal).
However, over 3.32 inches of precipitation were observed in the week leading up to the December
site investigation, and 1.64 inches of precipitation were observed the day before the site investigation.
This precipitation data suggests that hydrologic conditions encountered during the December 2020
investigation were exaggerated, and areas normally dry may have been inundated at the time of the
investigation. Precipitation levels during the March 4, 2021 site investigation were within the statistical
normal range for both the 2020/2021 water year and the prior 30 days (98 and 110 percent of normal).
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 13 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Precipitation levels during the April 29, 2021 site investigation were also within the statistical normal
range for the 2020/2021 water year (97 percent normal); however, were below the statistical normal
range for the prior 30 days (28 percent normal). This precipitation data suggests that conditions
encountered at the time of the March 2021 site investigation were normal, while hydrologic conditions
encountered at the time of the April 2021 site investigation may have been drier than normal, and that
annual hydrologic conditions were normal. Such conditions were considered in making professional
wetland delineations.
Table 2. Precipitation Summary1.
Date Day
Of
Day
Before
1 Week
Prior
2 Weeks
Prior
Last 30 days
(Observed/Normal)
Year-to-Date2
(Observed/Normal)
Percent of
Normal
(month/year)
12/22/2020 0.00 1.64 3.32 4.56 5.43/5.95 12.75/14.28 91/89
3/4/2021 0.30 0.00 0.68 1.94 4.10/4.18 28.54/26.05 98/110
4/29/2021 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.92/3.34 31.77/32.75 28/97
Notes:
1. Precipitation volume in inches. Data obtained from the NOAA (http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sew) for Seattle-Tacoma
International airport.
2. Year-to-date precipitation is the total for the 2020/2021 water year from October 1 to the onsite dates.
3. Percent of normal is shown for the last 30 days and year to date.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 14 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS
The site investigations in the winter of 2020 and spring of 2021 identified and/or delineated two
potentially-regulated wetlands (Wetland A and Wetland B) and the marine shorelines of Kilisut Harbor
and Oak Bay on the subject property. No other potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and
wildlife habitat, and/or priority habitat or species were identified within 300 feet of the subject
property during the site investigations.
5.1 Wetlands
5.1.1 Overview
Two wetlands (Wetland A and Wetland B) were identified on the western portion of the subject
property. The identified wetlands contained indicators of hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and a
predominance of hydrophytic vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. No
soils data was collected in Wetland A, instead soils were inferred from geomorphic position and from
public information regarding a large-scale mitigation project associated with Wetland A and Kilisut
Harbor. Wetland data forms for Wetland B are provided in Appendix E; wetland rating forms are
provided in Appendix F; and wetland rating maps are provided in Appendix G. Table 3 summarizes
the wetlands identified during the site investigations.
Table 3. Wetland Summary
Wetland
Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating Approximate
Onsite
Wetland Size
(Square Feet)
Buffer Width
(feet)5 Cowardin1 HGM2 WSDOE3 Jefferson
County4
Wetland A E2EM1/USNP Estuarine I I 43,079 300/225
Wetland B PSSC Slope IV IV 17,985 50/40
Notes:
1. Cowardin et al. (1979), Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013), or NWI Class based on vegetation: E2 = Estuarine Intertidal,
EM1 = Persistent Emergent, US = Unconsolidated Bottom, PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub; Modifiers for Water Regime: C =
Seasonally Saturated, N = Regularly Flooded, P = Irregularly Flooded
2. Brinson, M. M. (1993).
3. Current WSDOE rating (Hruby, 2014).
4. JCC 18.22.710(2). Wetland classification according to Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby,
2014).
5. JCC 18.22.730(6). Wetland buffer widths. First number is the standard buffer width, per JCC Table 18.22.730(1)(a). The second
number is the reduced wetland buffer width (per JCC Table 18.22.730(1)(c)), based on the assumed future high intensity land use
with implementation of applicable minimization measures in JCC Table 18.22.730(1)(b).
Wetland A
Wetland A is approximately 43,079 square feet (0.99 acre) in size onsite and is located on the western
portion of the subject property, adjacent to the western boundary of Wetland B; it extends offsite to
the west. Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by daily tides, direct precipitation, and sheet flow
from Wetland B. Wetland vegetation is dominated by an herbaceous community composed of
pickleweed (Salicornia depressa), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), gumweed
(Grindelia spp.), and sea thrift (Armeria maritima). Wetland A is an Estuarine Intertidal/ Persistent
Emergent, Unconsolidated Bottom, Regularly Flooded, and Irregularly Flooded wetland
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 15 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
(E2/EM1USNP). Per JCC 18.22.710(2), Wetland A is a Category I estuarine wetland. Table 4
provides a detailed summary of Wetland A.
Wetland A is associated with Kilisut Harbor (described in section 5.2 below) and is part of a large-
scale restoration project that had been in progress since as early as 2011 (NOSC, n.d). The Kilisut
Harbor Restoration Project was completed in 2019, and restoration actions included replacing an
earthen causeway along WA-116 with a spanning bridge and dredging sediments from a large berm
that had formed due to restricted flow beneath the causeway, reconnecting Kilisut Harbor and Oak
Bay. This restoration work allows full water and sediment exchange by restoring connectivity and
flow in Kilisut Harbor and restores habitat connectivity between Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay, allowing
unrestricted migration of fish and wildlife between the harbor and the bay. Overall, Wetland A
provides important critical habitat for species in Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay and has the additional
potential to perform high levels of water quality and hydrologic functions.
Wetland B
Wetland B is approximately 17,985 square feet (0.41 acre) in size onsite and is located on the western
portion of the subject property, adjacent to the eastern boundary of Wetland A. It extends offsite to
the north. Although Wetland B is located adjacent to Wetland A, Wetland B was rated and delineated
as a separate unit due to the presence of a different hydrologic regime based on guidance from
WSDOE (Hruby, 2014). Wetland B is located landward of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor and does not
receive tidal influence, and therefore is not a continuation of the estuarine wetland habitat onsite.
Hydrology for Wetland B is provided by direct precipitation, surface runoff from adjacent uplands,
and hillside seeps. Wetland vegetation is dominated by Scouler’s willow, Pacific crabapple, English
hawthorne, and Nootka rose. Wetland B is Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Saturated wetland
(PSSC). Per JCC 18.22.710(2), Wetland B is a Category IV slope wetland. Table 5 provides a detailed
summary of Wetland B.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 16 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Table 4. Wetland A Summary
WETLAND A – INFORMATION SUMMARY
Location: Located on the western portion of the subject property, west of Wetland B.
Local Jurisdiction Jefferson County
WRIA 17 – Quilcene / Snow
WSDOE Rating
(Hruby, 2014) I
Jefferson County Rating I
Jefferson County
Standard/Reduced
Buffer Width
300/225 feet
Wetland Size 0.99 acre (onsite)
Cowardin Classification E2/EM1USNP
HGM Classification Estuarine
Wetland Data Sheet(s) N/A
Upland Data Sheet (s) N/A
Boundary Flag color N/A
Dominant
Vegetation
Wetland vegetation is dominated by pickleweed, Baltic rush, inland saltgrass, gumweed,
and sea thrift.
Soils N/A – Hydric soils presumed due to geomorphic position and public records.
Hydrology Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by daily tides from Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay,
and direct precipitation.
Rationale for
Delineation
Wetland boundaries were determined by a topographic drop and transition to a
hydrophytic plant community.
Rationale for
Local Rating
Local rating is based upon Hruby (2014) rating system per JCC 18.22.710(2), based on
Special Characteristics.
Wetland Functions Summary
Water Quality
Wetland A has potential to improve water quality through the presence of rooted
vegetation which may absorb pollutants and excess nutrients from the water before it
reaches Kilisut Harbor.
Hydrologic Wetland A provides potential to improve hydrology due to the presence of vegetation
which provides shoreline stability and interrupts flow velocity.
Habitat
Wetland A is an estuary adjacent to an area where Oak Bay connects to Kilisut Harbor.
Significant restoration actions have been conducted in previous years to restore habitat
connectivity between Wetland A/Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay. Wetland A has the
potential to provide significant forage habitat for migrating salmonids due to the presence
of vegetation that provides food and forage. Additionally, Wetland A provides important
staging and forage habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl. This function is anticipated to
improve overtime as restoration actions encourage the growth of eelgrass and kelp and
included beach substrate restoration to recruit forage fish (NOSC, n.d)..
Buffer
Condition
The buffer of Wetland A is partially degraded due to the existing beach resort and
associated infrastructure, residential development and mowed lawn areas, and WA-116.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 17 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Table 5. Wetland B Summary
WETLAND B – INFORMATION SUMMARY
Location: Located on the western portion of the subject property, east of Wetland A.
Local Jurisdiction Jefferson County
WRIA 17 – Quilcene / Snow
WSDOE Rating
(Hruby, 2014) IV
Jefferson County Rating IV
Jefferson County
Standard/Reduced
Buffer Width
50/40 feet
Wetland Size 0.41 acre (onsite)
Cowardin Classification PSSC
HGM Classification Slope
Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-3
Upland Data Sheet (s) DP-2
Boundary Flag color orange
Dominant
Vegetation
Wetland vegetation is dominated by Scouler’s willow, Pacific crabapple, English
hawthorn, and Nootka rose.
Soils Hydric soil indicators A11 (Depleted Below Dark Surface) and S5 (Sandy Redox) were
observed.
Hydrology Hydrology for Wetland B is provided by direct precipitation, surface sheet flow from
adjacent uplands, and hillside seeps.
Rationale for
Delineation
Wetland boundaries were determined by topography and a transition to a facultative plant
community.
Rationale for
Local Rating
Local rating is based upon Hruby (2014) rating system per JCC 18.22.710(2).
Wetland Functions Summary
Water Quality
Wetland B has some potential to improve water quality due to its gradual slope, the
presence of dense, uncut herbaceous plants in a majority of the unit, and the presence of
land uses that generate pollutants within 150 feet of the wetland. However, this function
is limited due to a lack of other sources of pollutants and water quality issues in the local
watershed. Wetland B’s score for water quality functions using the 2014 rating method
is low (5 points).
Hydrologic
Wetland B has some potential to provide hydrologic functions due to the presence of
dense, uncut, rigid plants in a majority of the unit, and land use that generates excess
runoff within 150 feet of the wetland. However, the wetland is not located in a basin
where flooding is an issue and the wetland is not in a position to minimize flooding, given
its proximity to marine waters. Wetland B’s score for hydrologic functions using the 2014
rating method is low (5 points).
Habitat
Wetland B has some potential to provide habitat functions due to the presence of special
habitat features in the wetland and priority habitats in proximity of the wetland. However,
Wetland B lacks multiple plant structures or hydroperiods and has low habitat
interspersion which limits suitability for a variety of wildlife species and is located in a
developed landscape that limits habitat accessibility. Wetland B’s score for habitat
functions using the 2014 rating method is low (5 points).
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 18 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Buffer
Condition
To the north, east, and south, the buffer of Wetland B is partially degraded by the existing
resort, residential development, and mowed lawn areas. To the west, Wetland B abuts
estuarine habitat associated with Wetland A and Kilisut Harbor.
5.2 Marine Shoreline of Kilisut Harbor
The subject property abuts the marine shoreline of Kilisut Harbor to the west. The shoreline of
Kilisut Harbor adjacent to the subject property is considered a low-energy marine environment and
was subject to a large-scale restoration project completed in 2019 that is restoring significant estuarine/
tidal marsh habitat. Restoration efforts included replacing a built-up causeway with a spanning bridge
and dredging sediments built up due to restricted flow in Kilisut Harbor, restoring connectivity and
habitat accessibility between Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay. The upper intertidal area waterward of
OHW is dominated with dense herbaceous vegetation associated with Wetland A which includes
pickleweed, Baltic rush, inland saltgrass, gumweed, and sea thrift. Landward of OHW vegetation is
dominated by scrub-shrub areas associated with Wetland B dominated by Scouler’s willow, Pacific
crabapple, English Hawthorn, and Nootka rose, herbaceous areas dominated by colonial bentgrass,
tall fescue, and soft rush, and development associated with the existing resort. Table 6 provides a
detailed summary of the shoreline of Kilisut Harbor.
5.3 Marine Shoreline of Oak Bay
The subject property abuts the marine shoreline of Oak Bay to the south. The shoreline of Oak Bay
adjacent to the subject property is considered a high-energy marine environment. The shoreline has
been modified with a rock bulkhead and a concrete boat ramp located waterward of the OHW.
Substrate along the shoreline consisted of sand and mixed cobble, and woody debris was observed
along a majority of the shoreline west of the existing cabins. Landward of OHW, the shoreline is
modified by existing beach cabins and mowed grasses dominated by colonial bentgrass, tall fescue,
and soft rush. Table 7 provides a detailed summary of the shoreline of Oak Bay.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 19 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Table 8. Kilisut Harbor Summary
SHORELINE INFORMATION SUMMARY
Waterbody Kilisut Harbor
WRIA 17 – Quilcene /
Snow
Local
Jurisdiction Jefferson County
Shoreline
Designation
Natural, Priority
Aquatic
Standard
Shoreline Buffer 150 feet
Minimum
Building
Setback
10 feet
PHS Documented Habitat
The WDFW PHS map documents the presence of estuarine and
marine wetlands, and Pacific sand lance breeding habit. The
WDFW Forage Fish map also identifies Pacific sand lance
spawning habitat.
Location of Shoreline Relative to
the Proposed Project
No activities are proposed within the shoreline buffer or setback,
however remodel activities associated with the main lodge,
portions of the existing access road, and Cabins 5-7 are located
within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction associated with Kilisut
Harbor.
Setback Condition
The existing shoreline buffer is largely intact due to the presence
of estuarine wetland areas (Wetland A) and slope wetland areas
(Wetland B). However, the outer portion of the shoreline buffer
is disturbed due to the presence of cabins, a resort lodge, gravel
access roads, and maintained lawns areas.
Priority Species Present
The WDFW PHS map documents the presence of shorebird and
waterfowl concentrations and the presence of hardshell clam. The
WDFW Salmonscape does not identify any potential salmonid
presence, however, mitigation activities have restored habitat
connectivity for ESA-list Hood Canal chum and Puget Sound
Steelhead and Chinook salmon known to migrate through Oak
Bay.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 20 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Table 8. Oak Bay Summary
SHORELINE INFORMATION SUMMARY
Waterbody Oak Bay
WRIA 17 – Quilcene /
Snow
Local
Jurisdiction Jefferson County
Shoreline
Designation
Shoreline
Residential
Standard
Shoreline Buffer 150 feet
Minimum
Building
Setback
10 feet
PHS Documented Habitat
The WDFW PHS map documents the presence of estuarine and
marine wetlands and Pacific sandlance breeding habitat (the latter
also shown within the WDFW Forage Fish). The DNR Kelp and
Eelgrass maps identify patchy eelgrass and kelp presence.
Location of Shoreline Relative to
the Proposed Project
Remodel activities associated with Cabins 1-4 and the associated
access roads are proposed outside of the shoreline buffer and
setback (See section 6.1.1 below), but within the 200-foot shoreline
jurisdiction associated with Oak Bay. Additionally, the project
requires the placement of a sewer line waterward of Cabins 1-4 in
the shoreline buffer of Oak Bay.
Buffer/Setback Condition
The existing shoreline buffer is modified with an existing rock
bulkhead and concrete boat launch. Landward of the bulkhead the
shoreline is developed with beach resort cabins and gravel access
roads.
Priority Species Present
The WDFW PHS map documents the presence of waterfowl and
shorebird concentrations, hardshell clam, Dungeness crab, and
Pacific geoduck. The WDFW Salmonscape does not identify any
potential salmonid presence, however ESA-list Hood Canal chum
and Puget Sound Steelhead and Chinook salmon are known to
exist in the bay.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 21 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
CHAPTER 6. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
The site investigations in the winter of 2020 and spring of 2021 identified and/or delineated two
potentially-regulated wetlands (Wetland A and Wetland B) and the marine shorelines of Kilisut Harbor
and Oak Bay on the subject property. No other potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and
wildlife habitat, and/or priority habitat or species were identified within 300 feet of the subject
property during the site investigations.
6.1 Wetland Categories and Protection Standards
JCC 18.22.710(2) has adopted the current wetland rating system for western Washington (Hruby,
2014). Category IV wetlands generally provide low levels of function; they are typically more
disturbed, smaller, and/or more isolated in the landscape than Category I, II, or III wetlands. Category
IV wetlands provide low levels of functions and score less than 16 out of 27 points on the Revised
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). Category III
wetlands score between 16 and 19 points generally provide a moderate level of function, have usually
been disturbed in some way, and are often less diverse and/or more isolated in the landscape than
Category II wetlands. Category II wetlands score between 20 and 22 points, provide high levels of
some functions, and are more common than Category I wetlands. Category I wetlands score 23 or
more points, or receive a rating based on special characteristic, provide a high level of function, and
typically represent rare or unique wetland types that are sensitive to disturbance and difficult to replace
within a human lifetime.
Wetland A is classified as a Category I wetland based on special characteristics. Per JCC
18.22.730(6)(d) and Table 18.22.730(1)(a), Category I wetlands with high habitat scores or Category I
wetlands with “special characteristics” and adjacent to high intensity land uses are subject to standard
300-foot buffers. Wetland B is classified as a Category IV wetland. Per JCC 18.E.22.730(6)(d)(i) and
Table 18.22.730(1)(a), all Category IV wetlands are subject to a standard 50-foot buffers based on the
high intensity land use of the proposed project. Per JCC Table 18.22.730(1)(c), the standard buffer of
Wetland A may be reduced to 225 feet, and the standard buffer of Wetland B may be reduc ed to 40
feet provided the measures to minimize wetland impacts outlined in JCC Table 18.22.730(1)(b) (Table
9 below) are implemented, and that a protected vegetated corridor between the wetland and a priority
habitat or relatively undisturbed area, is established. The Kilisut Harbor estuary, immediately abutting
Wetlands A and B, is a protected priority habitat area. As such, the applicant proposes to incorporate
all applicable measures within Table 18.22.730(1)(b) to reduce the standard buffer of Wetland A to
225 feet and the standard buffer of Wetland B to 40 feet.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 22 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Table 9. Minimization Measures
Disturbance Minimization Measures
Lights • Direct lights away from wetland
Noise
• Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
• If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to
noise source
• For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise,
such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10-foot heavily
vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the activity
Toxic runoff
• Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not
dewatered
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetlands
• Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater
Runoff
• Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing development
• Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer
• Use Low Intensity Development techniques
Change in water
regime
• Infiltrate or treat, detain and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious
surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
disturbance
• Use privacy fencing; plant dense native vegetation to delineate buffer edge and
discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a long-term
conservation easement
Dust • Use best management practices to control dust
Portions of the existing infrastructure are considered nonconforming uses (see Section 6.2.3 below).
Per JCC 18.25.060, nonconforming uses and development within the shoreline jurisdiction are subject
to the JCSMP and not the critical area standards outlined under JCC 18.22.240.
6.2 Shoreline Considerations
Portions of the proposed renovation actions are located within the buffers and/or the 200-foot
shoreline jurisdiction associated with Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay. Jefferson County regulates
shorelines under its Shoreline Management Program (JCC Title 18.25). Wetlands A and B are both
located entirely within the 150-foot shoreline setback of Kilisut Harbor and as such the provisions for
shoreline development outlined under JCC Title 18.25 prevail over the critical area standards under
JCC 18.22, per JCC 18.25.270(4), and therefore potential impacts to Wetlands A and B are addressed
in compliance with the JCSMP.
6.2.1 Shorelines of Statewide Significance
Per JCC 18.25.240(3), the areas of Puget Sound and adjacent salt waters, lying seaward from the line
of extreme low tide, are designated as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Shorelines of Statewide
Significance are subject to prioritized preferred uses to: “recognize and protect the statewide interest
over local interest; preserve the natural character of the shoreline; seek long-term over short-term
benefits; protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; increase public access to publicly -owned
shoreline areas; and increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline area” (JCC
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 23 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
18.25.230(2)). The proposed project is located entirely landward of the OHW line, and as such will
not impact areas designated as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance.
6.2.2 Shoreline Environment Designation
According to the JCSMP Shoreline Environment Designed (SED) map (Appendix B12), the subject
property is located within the “Natural” and “Priority Aquatic” shoreline environments associated
with Kilisut Harbor and is located within the “Residential” shoreline environment associated with Oak
Bay. Wetland A is located waterward of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor and Wetland B is located
landward of the OHW, within areas mapped both as “Natural” and as “Priority Aquatic” associated
with Kilisut Harbor. No project activities are located on the portions of the subject property mapped
within the “Priority Aquatic” designation; however, remodeling activities will occur within both the
“Natural” and “Residential” shoreline environments. The purpose of the Natural SED is to protect
intact shorelines that have minimally degraded functions or processes and are relatively free of human
influence from harm or adverse impacts. The purpose of the Residential SED is to accommodate
residential development and accessory structures that are properly located and designed in areas where
high density residential developments and services exist or are planned. The proposed project has
been designed to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions onsite and is consistent with the
purposes of the Natural and Residential SEDs.
6.2.3. Protection Standards
Per JCC 18.25.270(4)(e), all marine shorelines, regardless of designation, are subject to a standard 150-
foot shoreline buffer. An additional 10-foot building setback is required from the edge of the shoreline
buffer, per JCC 18.25.270(4)(d).
Per JCC 18.25.270(4)(g), in the event that buffers for any shorelines or critical areas are contiguous or
overlapping, the most landward edge of all such buffers and setbacks shall apply. As the buffer of
Wetland A is the largest buffer onsite the shoreline buffer associated with Kilisut Harbor must extend
to the landward most edge of the buffer of Wetland A. The shoreline buffer of Oak Bay is
perpendicular to the buffer of Wetland A and is the most protective buffer on the southern portion
of the subject property. As described under section 6.1, measures to minimize wetland impacts
outlined under JCC 18.22.730(1)(b) will be incorporated to minimize impacts to Wetlands A and B
and the shorelines of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay from the proposed project.
6.2.4 Shoreline Exemption and Nonconforming Uses and Structures
Per JCC 18.25.660(1), legally established uses, building, structures, and/or lots of record that do not
meet the specific standards of this program are considered legal nonconforming and may continue as
long as they remain otherwise lawful and comply with one of the following criteria:
a. Existing, Permitted, or Vested. The use, building, structure, or lot was existing on the effective date of initial
adoption of this program (December 20, 1974), or any subsequent amendment thereto, or was authorized
under a permit or approval issued, or is otherwise vested to this program; or
b. Variance. A structure for which a variance has been issued; or
c. Conditional. The existing use is designated as a conditional use under this program and existed prior to the
adoption of this program or the adoption of an applicable amendment hereto and which has not obtained a
conditional use permit; or
d. Abandoned. As per JCC 18.20.260, the use or structure is not discontinued or abandoned for a period more
than two years.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 24 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
The existing resort facilities meet a combination of the criteria in part (a) above. The resort facility
was initially developed in 1940, prior to the adoption of the 1974 SMP. Since then, the resort has
been maintained and expanded under authorized permits and approvals. As such, the existing cabins,
main lodge, and gravel access road proposed to be upgraded and/or remodeled within the wetland
and shoreline buffers and 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction are considered legal nonconforming uses.
Per JCC 18.25.660(2) and JCC 18.25.560(3) normal maintenance and repair of existing nonconforming
structures or developments are exempt from the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial
development permit. Normal maintenance and repair activities include restoring a development to a
state similar to its original condition, or replacement of an existing structure or development where
the replacement is comparable to its original condition with regards to size, shape, configuration,
location, and external appearance, and does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources
or the environment.
Renovation activities associated with Cabins 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and the existing mobile home located
within wetland and/or shoreline buffers within the shoreline jurisdiction are all located entirely within
the existing footprint of those buildings and will be comparable to the original conditions of those
buildings. As these renovations occur entirely within the existing footprints of the cabins, they will
not result in adverse effects to shoreline resources or the environment. However, renovations to the
main lodge building which include upgrading the kitchen to meet commercial kitchen standards and
the addition of an external staircase accessing the lodge waterward of the building, improvements to
Cabin 5 which include landward expansion of the existing bedroom, improvements to Cabin 8 which
include the addition of a deck and staircase waterward of the building, and access road and path
upgrades, require activities within the shoreline and/or wetland buffers and shoreline jurisdiction that
would be considered more than normal maintenance and repair and as such are subject to a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit. Pursuant to JCC 18.25.550(6), since part of the proposed site
renovation is not eligible for a Substantial Development Permit Exemption, the entire proposal is
subject to a Substantial Development Permit, at a minimum.
6.2.5 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing
Per JCC 18.25.270(2), all shoreline use and development, including preferred uses and uses that are
exempt from permitting requirements, shall be located, designed, constructed, conducted, and
maintained in a manner that maintains shoreline ecological processes and functions, and uses and
developments that cause a net loss of ecological functions and processes shall be prohibited.
Proponents of shoreline use and development shall employ measures to mitigate adverse impacts on
shoreline functions and processes. Per JCC 18.25.270(2)(d), mitigation shall include the following
actions in order of priority:
i. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
The purpose of the proposed project is to renovate and upgrade the existing resort facilities and
infrastructure to support continued use of the site as resort and special events venue. The proposed
project avoids direct impacts to the shoreline of Kilisut Harbor, Oak Bay, and Wetlands A and B, by
locating new infrastructure outside of critical area buffers and outside of the 200 -foot shoreline
jurisdiction, and by limiting renovation activities to the footprints of the existing infrastructure onsite
to the greatest extent feasible. However, due to the existing locations of Cabins 1 -8, the main lodge,
and portions of the existing access road and pathways within the shoreline and wetland buffers and
shoreline jurisdiction associated with Wetlands A and B, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak Bay, complete
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 25 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
avoidance is not feasible. Minor, permanent impacts to the wetland and shoreline buffer associated
with Wetlands A and B and Kilisut Harbor are necessary and unavoidable to provide a staircase for
improved access to the main lodge, expand an existing bedroom to increase the capacity of Cabin 5,
and to provide a deck and staircase for improved access to Cabin 8. Additional temporary impacts to
the buffers of Wetlands A and B, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak Bay are necessary and unavoidable to
upgrade and improve existing site access and place sewer lines that will service Cabins 1 -4 within the
buffer of Oak Bay and sewer lines that will service Cabins 5-8 within the buffers of Wetlands A and
B and Kilisut Harbor.
ii. 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;
As mentioned above, the project minimizes impacts Wetland A and the shorelines of Kilisut Harbor,
Oak Bay, and Wetlands A and B, by locating new infrastructure outside of critical area buffers and the
200-foot shoreline jurisdiction and by limiting construction activities within the shoreline and/or
wetland buffers to the footprints of existing infrastructure onsite to the greatest extent feasible.
Additionally, while the footprints of the Cabins 5 and 8 and the main lodge will be increased, the
footprints of the existing pathways leading to Cabins 1-7 will be reduced resulting in a net decrease in
impervious surfaces within the wetland and shoreline buffers and the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction
by 4,638 SF. In addition to limiting construction to the footprints and square footage of the existing
buildings onsite to the greatest extent feasible, sewer line placement will limit excavation activities to
a narrow corridor that is the minimum necessary to support the lines. The areas that will be impacted
by the proposed project consist entirely of grassy and herbaceous areas that provide little habitat or
protection for the identified critical areas onsite, and no land clearing is necessary to support the
proposed project. TESC measures, to include silt fencing and seeding of temporarily disturbed areas,
will be implemented during and immediately following construction to further minimize impacts to
the shorelines of Kilisut Harbor, Oak Bay, and Wetlands A and B. Additional BMPs are described in
further detail in Chapter 7.
iii. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
No formal mitigation to repair, rehabilitate, or restore environments affected by the proposed project
is proposed, as permanent impacts to the buffers of Wetland A, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak Bay from
minor expansion of the main lodge and Cabin 5 will be offset through decreases in impervious surfaces
associated with the existing cabin access paths: the project proposes to replace existing gravel and dirt
access paths that lead to Cabins 1-4 and Cabins 5-7 with smaller gravel access paths. Impervious
surfaces located within the shoreline and associated buffers will be reduced over existing conditio ns
due to the project by 4,638 SF. Areas temporarily disturbed during sewer line placement will be
restored to pre-construction conditions by seeding disturbed soils with a native grass mix to decrease
erosion. The upgraded septic system onsite will improve water quality in the shoreline environments
compared to the existing outdated system onsite by collecting sewage from the cabins, which will be
treated and conveyed to a treatment tank located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction for additional
treatment before being conveyed to a drain field on the northeast portion of the site, landward of the
existing resort facility. The existing septic drain field onsite is located within the buffer of Wetland A
and shoreline setback of Kilisut Harbor, and as such the upgraded septic system will reduce existing
impacts to Wetland A and Kilisut Harbor.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 26 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
In addition to restoring all temporary impacts and reducing impervious surfaces onsite, the project
includes a landscaping plan that will provide native trees and shrubs throughout the subject property.
The landscaping plan will provide increased plant structure to slow and filter surface runoff to Kilisut
Harbor, Oak Bay, and Wetlands A and B. Additionally, the increased plant structure and diversity will
provide increased habitat for a variety of wildlife when compared to the existing mowed conditions
onsite. Overall, these combined actions will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions
onsite.
iv. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations;
Overall, the proposed project activities will improve shoreline ecological functions onsite when
compared to the existing conditions by reducing impervious surfaces in the buffers of Wetland A,
Kilisut Harbor, and Oak Bay, and the associated the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction by 4,638 SF,
providing an upgraded septic system that will improve water quality, and providing landscaping that
will increase plant structure and diversity which will in turn improve hydrologic, water quality, and
habitat functions associated with Kilisut Harbor, Oak Bay, and Wetlands A and B.
v. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments;
As impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A and B, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak Bay will be offset through
reductions in impervious surfaces associated with existing access paths onsite, replacement and
relocation of the existing septic drainfield outside of the buffer associated with Wetlands A and B and
Kilisut Harbor and outside of the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction, and landscaping that will provide
increased tree and shrub cover onsite, no formal compensation is required. Additionally, areas
temporarily disturbed during construction activities will be seeded with a native grass mix to restore
soils to pre-construction conditions.
vi. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures.
As impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A and B and Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay are being offset
through project design elements that will reduce existing impacts within the buffers beyond impacts
associated with additions to Cabins 5 and 8 and the main lodge, formal monitoring is not required.
6.2.6 Cumulative Shoreline Impacts
Per JCC 18.25.270(3)(a), the county shall consider the cumulative impact of individual uses and
developments, including preferred uses and uses that are exempt from permit requirements, when
determining whether a proposed use or development could cause a net loss of ecological functions.
Per JCC 18.25.270(3)(c), proponents of shoreline use and development shall take the following factors
into account when assessing cumulative impacts.
i. Current ecological functions and human factors influencing shoreline natural processes.
The subject property is currently developed with a resort facility which includes a main lodge, multiple
cabins, a mobile home with an attached deck and garage, equipment and utility sheds, a barn, a boat
launch, a rock bulkhead, and internal gravel and dirt access roads. Vegetation onsite has been largely
cleared to support the existing facility onsite and primarily consists of a grasses and herbaceous areas.
As such, the existing shoreline buffers and setbacks provide limited protection or habitat. The
proposed project includes the minor expansion of two cabins (Cabins 5 and 8) and the main lodge,
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 27 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
and the addition of a sauna, two yurts, additional site access, and additional parking areas onsite. The
proposed cabin and main lodge expansion will result in minor increases in impervious surfaces within
the buffers of Wetlands A and B and Kilisut Harbor that will be offset through decreases in impervious
surfaces associated with the existing access paths and relocation of the existing septic drainfield within
the buffers to an upland area outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. The sauna, yurts, parking areas,
and associated access will result in a minor increase of impervious surface area in the upland portions
of the subject property, outside of shoreline jurisdiction. Overall, the proposed project will result in
a net decrease in impervious surfaces and other existing impacts within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Additionally, the proposed project includes landscaping throughout the undeveloped portions of the
site to include native trees and shrubs, which will provide increased plant structure to slow flood
velocities and filter pollutants, as well as provide additional habitat. These actions combined will
provide a net lift in shoreline ecological processes and functions when compared to the existing
conditions onsite.
ii. Reasonably foreseeable future use and development of the shoreline.
The site will be maintained for its proposed use for the foreseeable future and further development
of the shoreline will not be necessary to support that use.
iii. Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws; and
Not Applicable.
iv. Mitigation measures implemented in conjunction with the proposed project to avoid, reduce and/or compensate
for adverse impacts.
As a majority of the proposed project is located entirely within the footprints of existing infrastructure
onsite and will result in a net decrease in existing impacts within the shoreline buffers and
environments, formal mitigation is not proposed. Reduction of the cabin access paths will result in a
minor reduction of impervious surfaces within the shoreline environment. This reduction in
impervious surfaces will reduce existing impacts to the shoreline buffers and shoreline environment
by reducing surface runoff to the shorelines and adjacent wetlands. The proposed project will also
replace the existing septic system onsite to meet current waste management standards. The upgraded
system will include waste treatment and will locate the new drain field outside of the onsite critical
area buffers and setbacks, as well outside of shoreline jurisdiction. Additionally, landscaping that
includes the addition of native trees and shrubs throughout the site will provide increased plant
structure to filter pollutants prior to surface water entering the shoreline environment and provide
increased habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Overall, these actions will decrease existing impacts
within the shoreline jurisdiction areas onsite, and result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
6.2.7 Access Paths to Cabins
The proposed project includes improvements to the existing access pathways that lead to Cabins 1-8
and the main lodge onsite to improve the aesthetic qualities of the site and provide more formal
pathways that are ADA accessible and will increase the visual aesthetic of the site. In addition, the
project proposes an external staircase leading up to the main lodge for event purposes . The access
roads proposed to provide access to the beach cabins and main lodge onsite are located within the
buffers of Wetlands A and B, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak Bay. In general, these actions will reduce the
footprints of the existing gravel areas that lead to the Cabins 1-8, resulting in a net decrease in
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 28 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
impervious surfaces within the shoreline buffers and 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. Per JCC
18.25.270(5)(d)(iv), public or private beach access structures that are accessory to residential,
commercial, industrial, port, or other allowed uses/developments may be permitted within a shoreline
buffer without shoreline variance provided the extent of the buffer modification is the minimum
needed to accommodate the development, and the development adheres to the standards of JCC 18.22
and JCC 18.25. Cabins 1-7 are along the shoreline and the beach may be accessed by foot directly
from these cabins. Therefore, the access paths to the cabins may be considered beach access structures
accessory to residential development. The proposed access path improvements within the shoreline
jurisdiction are the minimum necessary to meet the goals of the proposed project and have been
designed to adhere to the standards of JCC 18.22 and 18.25.
6.2.8 Shoreline Public Access
JCC 18.25.290 outlines policies and regulations for public access in the shoreline environment. Per
JCC 18.25.290(1)(a), providing access to public shorelines is a primary goal of the Shoreline
Management Act, and Jefferson County actively supports public and private efforts making better use
of existing facilities/opportunities. Per JCC 18.25.290(2), the following regulations apply when
considering shoreline public access:
a. Single-family residential developments consisting of four or fewer residential lots or dwelling units shall not be
required to provide public access.
The proposed project is not a single-family residential development; however, the resort facility has
more than four cabins that serve as dwelling units for people paying to use the resort facility, and the
resort has been maintained as a private facility by previous owners. The applicant proposes to
maintain private use of the resort facility so as not to interfere with the privacy of people utilizing the
site. However, the public is invited walk the beach at low tides, accessing it from adjacent properties
or from boat. The Kilisut Harbor estuary to the east is within South Indian Island County Park and
is accessible to the public from the water or from the opposite side of the Kilisut channel at low tide.
From there, members of the public are welcome to continue walking along the beach of Oak Bay
within the subject Marrowstone Inn property boundary.
b. Opportunities to provide visual and/or physical public access shall be considered during the review and
conditioning of all proposed commercial and industrial shoreline developments and residential developments
involving more than four residential lots or dwelling units.
Providing physical public access onsite is not feasible as it would have a negative impact on people
renting the facility for special events. Visual access and physical access to the shoreline is available
from South Indian Island County Park. A visual access point is also provided near the WA-116 bridge
north of the site. The property owner will allow for people passing through by boat and invites
residences in the general area to walk along the beach at low tide, however, access to the main resort
facility will not be open to the general public.
c. Physical public access shall be incorporated into all development proposals on public lands, all public and
private commercial and industrial uses/developments, and all residential subdivisions of greater than four lots
unless the project proponent demonstrates that any of the following conditions exist:
i. Unavoidable public health or safety hazards exist and cannot be prevented through reasonable means; or
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 29 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
ii. The use/development has inherent security or cultural sensitivity requirements that cannot be mitigated
though reasonable design measures or other solutions; or
iii. The cost of providing the access, easement or an alternative amenity is disproportionate to the total long-
term cost of the proposed development; or
iv. The public access will cause unacceptable environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated; or
v. The access would create significant, undue, and unavoidable conflicts with adjacent uses that cannot be
mitigated.
Maintaining physical public access to the onsite shorelines through the upland portion of the
Marrowstone Inn Resort would cause significant, undue, unavoidable conflicts with the existing and
proposed uses of the resort facility onsite. The resort facility has been maintained as a private use by
previous owners to ensure people staying at the resort have privacy and access to the beach without
their experience being affected by members of the public. Additionally, allowing public access
throughout the site to the shorelines would interfere with special events as it would create an
environment where the public may interrupt or intrude on private events. As such, maintaining public
access through the site itself would not be appropriate and may make species events onsite infeasible.
However, as mentioned above, the surrounding residences and people approaching the shoreline by
boat or from the County Park may freely access the onsite beach at low tides.
d. To be exempt from the public access requirements in subsection (2)(c) of this section, the project proponent
must demonstrate that all feasible alternatives have been considered, including, but not necessarily limited to:
i. Regulating access through means such as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use; and
ii. Separating uses and activities (e.g., fences, terracing, use of one-way glazing, hedges, landscaping,
etc.).
Access to the main resort will only be allowed for people paying to stay at the resort or utilizing the
resort as a special events venue. This will be regulated by creating formal ingress and egress points
that are clearly separated from the public roadway by landscaping.
e. When physical public access is deemed to be infeasible based on considerations listed in subsection (2)(c) of
this section, the proponent shall provide visual access to the shore or provide physical access at an off-site
location geographically separated from the proposed use/developmental (e.g., a street end, vista, or trail
system).
There are no impairments to visual access to the onsite shorelines, and they can be visually access ed
from Indian Island Park across Kilisut Harbor or from one of the parking areas adjacent to WA-116
north of the subject property.
f. Public access shall be located and designed to be compatible with the natural shoreline character, to avoid
adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions and processes, and to ensure public safety.
No public access through the resort will be provided. However, there will be no fencing and any
existing no trespassing signs inhibiting people from walking along the beach will be removed and not
replaced.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 30 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
g. When otherwise consistent with this program, public access structures shall be exempt from the shoreline
buffer requirements of this program, meaning that such structures shall be allowed to encroach into the
shoreline buffer when necessary to provide physical and/or visual access to the water’s edge.
No public access through the upland portion of the resort will be provided.
h. Public shoreline access provided by public road ends, public road rights-of-way, public utilities and rights-of-
way shall not be diminished by the county, neighboring property owners, or other citizens, unless the property
is zoned for industrial uses in accordance with RCW 36.87.130.
No public access currently exists on the subject property, and as such, public access will not be
diminished by the proposed project.
i. Public access sites shall be directly connected to the nearest public street and shall include improvements that
conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when feasible and appropriate.
No public access sites associated with the resort are proposed.
j. Opportunities for boat-in public access and access to primitive shorelines not accessible by automobile shall be
provided where feasible and appropriate.
Boat-in access to Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay shall be allowed, however access through the upland
portion of the resort facility will not be permitted as it may interfere with special events and the privacy
of those staying at the resort.
k. When required for public land, commercial, port or industrial use/development as per subsections (2)(b) and
(c) of this section, public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use prior to final
occupancy of such use or development.
No public access sites associated with the resort are proposed.
l. Public access easements and permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or the face of a short
or long plat as a condition running, at a minimum, for a period contemporaneous with the duration of the
authorized land use. Recordation shall occur at the time of final plat approval or prior to final occupancy.
No public access sites or easements associated with the resort are proposed.
m. The location of new public access sites shall be clearly identified. Signs with the appropriate agency’s logo
shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the project proponent in conspicuous locations at public
access sites and/or along common routes to public access sites. The signs shall indicate the public’s right of
access, the hours of access, and other information as needed to control or limit access according to conditions of
approval. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VI § 3)].
No public access sites associated with the resort are proposed.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 31 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
6.2.9 Vegetation Conservation
JCC 18.25.310 outlines the policies and regulations for the maintenance of native shoreline vegetation
within the shoreline environment and section (1) outlines the following policies for vegetation
conservation in the shoreline: maintain native shoreline vegetation; design new uses and developments
to preserve native shoreline vegetation and shoreline ecological functions and processes; establish
native shoreline vegetation such that the composition, structure, and density of the plant community
resemble a natural, unaltered shoreline as much as possible; maintain well-vegetated shorelines as a
preference over clearing vegetation to create views or lawns; encourage shoreline landowners to
preserve and enhance native woody vegetation and native groundcovers to stabilize soils and provide
habitat; and, prior to granting a shoreline permit, the county should evaluate site plans to determine
the extent to which vegetation is conserved.
The proposed project activities are located in areas that consist entirely of mowed grasses and
herbaceous vegetation, and as such no significant vegetation clearing is proposed and the specific
criteria of this chapter are not formally addressed as they generally refer to clearing activities . Areas
disturbed during construction activities will be seeded with a native grass mix to stabilize disturbed
soils and restore the affected areas to pre-construction conditions. In addition, the proposed project
includes a landscaping plan that will provide native trees and shrubs throughout the subject property.
The proposed landscaping plan will provide a net increase in shoreline ecological functions and habitat
by increasing plant structure to slow surface runoff and filter pollutants and increasing plant structure
and diversity to provide increased habitat for wildlife.
6.2.10 Water Quality and Quantity
JCC 18.25.320 outlines policies and regulations for maintaining the quality and quantity of surface
water and ground water within the shoreline environment. Per JCC 18.25.320(1), the policies for
water quality and quantity in the shoreline include: the location, construction, and maintenance of all
shoreline uses and developments should maintain or enhance the quantity and quality of surface and
groundwater over the long term; shoreline use and development should minimize the need for
chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, or other similar chemical treatments that could contaminate
surface or groundwater or cause adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions and values;
appropriate buffers along all wetlands, streams, lakes, and marine waterbodies should be provided and
maintained in a manner that avoids the need for chemical treatment; potential adverse effects of
agricultural activities on water quality shall be minimized by implementing BMPs, buffers, and other
appropriate measures; effective erosion control and water-runoff treatment methods should be
provided for all shoreline development and use; and encourage pervious materials and other
appropriate low impact development techniques where soils and geologic conditions are suitable and
where such practices could reduce stormwater runoff.
The following regulations outlined under JCC 18.25.320(2) apply to water quality and quantity in the
shoreline environment:
a. All shoreline uses and activities shall use effective erosion control methods during both project construction and
operation. At a minimum, effective erosion control methods shall require compliance with the current edition of
the Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual, NPDES General Permit requirements, and
the stormwater management provisions of JCC 18.30.070.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 32 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
BMPs and TESC measures will be provided throughout the duration of construction in compliance
with the Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual, NPDES General Permit
requirements, and the stormwater management provisions of JCC 18.30.070. Examples of measures
that will be incorporated include silt fencing on the waterward boundary of all construction activities
and seeding of disturbed soils with a native grass mix to restore d isturbed soils to pre-construction
conditions.
b. To avoid water quality degradation by malfunctioning or failing septic systems located within shoreline
jurisdiction, on-site sewage systems shall be located and designed to meet all applicable water quality, utility,
and health standards.
The project includes upgrades to the existing septic system onsite to meet current standards, which
will primarily be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction and landward of the existing septic system
components onsite. However, due to the locations of Cabins 1-7 within the buffers of Kilisut Harbor
and Oak Bay, sewer lines must be placed within the shoreline buffers. Sewer lines will be located and
designed to meet all applicable water quality, utility, and health standards. The project requires placing
portions of the sewer lines waterward of Cabins 1-4, and landward of Cabins 5-7 to facilitate initial
collection and treatment due to the location of the cabins, and the elevation of the Cabins 1-4 relative
to the shoreline of Oak Bay. Water testing will be conducted during installation to prevent leakage
into the shoreline and wetland buffers onsite, and redundant pump systems w ill be incorporated to
prevent overflow in the event of a single component failure associated with the upgraded system.
c. All materials that may come in contact with water shall be composed of nontoxic materials, such as wood,
concrete, approved plastic composites or steel, that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or
animals. Materials used for decking or other structural components shall be approved by applicable state agencies
for contact with water to avoid discharge of pollutants from wave splash, rain, or runoff. Wood treated with
creosote, copper chromium arsenate or pentachlorophenol is prohibited in shoreline water bodies.
The proposed sewer lines are located landward of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay and will
not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals. Sewer lines will be buried and any
disturbance to aquatic plants or animals will be extremely temporary in nature. All materials will be
inert and nontoxic.
d. Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any ground water or surface water
or to be discharged onto land. The release of oil, chemicals, genetically modified organisms or hazardous materials
onto land or into the water is prohibited.
No solid or liquid wastes, or untreated effluents will be allowed to enter any groundwater or surface
water or be discharged onto land. Sewage from the cabins will be collected and conveyed to the
sewage tanks for initial treatment and settling prior to discharge to an upland drainfield.
6.2.11 Utilities in the Shoreline Setback
The proposed project requires upgrades to the onsite septic system to meet current County standards.
Per JCC 18.25.530(1), utilities located within the shoreline environment are subject to the following
policies:
a) New public or private utilities should be located inland from the land/water interface, preferably outside of
the shoreline, unless:
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 33 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
i. The utility requires a location adjacent to the water; or
ii. Alternative locations are infeasible; or
iii. Utilities are required for permitted shoreline uses consistent with this program.
In a pre-application meeting with Jefferson County, the county indicated upgrades to the existing
septic system onsite are required to bring the resort facility up to current standards. A majority of the
activities associated with replacing the existing septic system onsite will be located outside of onsite
buffers and the 200-foot shoreline management zone. However, Cabins 1-7 are presently located
within the buffers of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay. These cabins were permitted prior to
implementation of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program; the sewer lines therefore abide by
a) iii, above, in that they are necessary to serve these existing shoreline uses. Cabins 1-4 are located in
the Shoreline Residential Environment associated with Oak Bay. Due to topography and elevations
between the cabins and shoreline buffer, it is necessary to locate portions of the sewer line waterward
of the cabins to facilitate collection and initial water treatment. Cabins 5-7 are located in the Shoreline
Natural Environment associated with Kilisut Harbor. The proposed sewer lines will be located
landward of the cabins.
b) Utilities should be located and designed to avoid public recreation and public access areas and significant historic,
archaeological, cultural, scientific, or educational resources.
The proposed utilities will be located below ground and will not impact public recreation or access
areas, or significant historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific, or educational resources.
c) Pipeline and cable development should be designed and sited to avoid crossing aquatic lands. If a water crossing
is unavoidable, it should be located in an area that will cause the least adverse ecological impact, be installed
using the methods that minimize adverse impacts, and be the shortest length feasible.
The proposed sewer lines and upgraded septic system will not require crossing of aquatic lands.
d) Utility facilities of all kinds that would require periodic maintenance activities should avoid shoreline locations
to prevent disruption of shoreline ecological functions.
The proposed sewer lines and septic systems are expected to require scheduled maintenance.
e) New utilities should use existing transportation and utility sites, rights-of-way and corridors, rather than
creating new corridors.
The proposed sewer lines and replacement of the existing septic system onsite will not require the
creation of any new utility corridors.
f) New utility installations should be planned, designed and located to eliminate the need for structural
shoreline armoring or flood hazard reduction measures.
The proposed sewer lines and upgrades to the existing septic system onsite will not require any
structural shoreline armoring or flood hazard reduction measures.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 34 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
g) Utility facilities and corridors should be planned, designed and located to protect scenic views. Where feasible,
conveyance utilities should be placed underground or alongside or under bridges, unless doing so would cause
greater ecological impact or harm.
The proposed sewer lines located within the shoreline environment will be located belowground and
will not impact scenic views. The proposed septic system upgrades are also located below ground and
are located entirely outside of the 200-foot shoreline management zone and also will not impact scenic
views.
h) Power generating facilities and other utilities using emerging technologies such as tidal energy generators should
be carefully evaluated to ensure that the potential impacts are fully understood. Before approving such facilities,
the county should consider whether the benefits to the public outweigh the potential impacts. The county should
ensure such facilities are designed and located to protect ecological functions and shoreline resources.
No power generating facilities or associated utilities are proposed onsite.
The proposed septic upgrades require the placement of underground sewer lines waterward of Cabins
1-4, within the 150-foot shoreline setback in the Residential Shoreline Environment. Per JCC
18.25.530(2)(e), utility development consisting of local distribution facilities is allowed subject to the
policies and regulations of JCC 18.25.530. As the proposed sewer lines are considered a local facility
for the existing resort onsite they are permitted under this title.
The proposed septic upgrades also require the placement of underground sewer lines landward of
Cabins 5-7, within the 225-foot shoreline setback within the Natural Shoreline Environment. Per
JCC 18.25.530(2)(c), the following regulations apply to utilities in the Natural Shoreline
Environment:
i. Utility development is prohibited.
ii. Maintenance of existing utilities is allowed; provided, that the operator makes every effort to protect shoreline
ecological functions and the natural features therein. Removal of existing utilities is preferred over time.
iii. Utilities accessory to and serving permitted uses are allowed.
As the proposed sewer lines are necessary to comply with current sanitation standards and serve the
existing permitted cabins onsite, they are permitted under section iii of this title.
In addition to the regulations associated with the Residential and Natural Shoreline Environments,
utilities proposed within the shoreline are subject to the following general regulations outlined under
JCC 18.25.530(3).
a. All underwater pipelines transporting liquids intrinsically harmful to aquatic life or potentially injurious to
water quality are prohibited, except in situations where no other feasible alternative exists. In those limited
instances when permitted, automatic shut-off valves shall be provided on both sides of the water body, and pipe
sleeves shall be used to facilitate repair without future encroachment on surface waters and wetlands, unless more
feasible or technically superior alternatives exist that provide equivalent protection, as deemed by the
administrator.
No underwater pipelines are proposed.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 35 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
b. Utilities that are not water-dependent shall be located outside shoreline buffers unless it is demonstrated that
alternative locations and alternative technology are infeasible.
As described in part a above, the replacement of the existing septic system onsite is necessary to ensure
the proposed resort/special events venue meets current County standards for sanitation. Due to the
location of the existing cabins that need to be serviced within the shoreline, topographic restraints
between the shoreline and the existing cabins, and the need to facilitate collection and initial waste
treatment, the project requires the placement of portions of the underground sewer lines waterward
of Cabins 1-4 in the Shoreline Residential Environment, and the placement of portions of the
underground sewer lines landward of Cabins 5-7 in the Shoreline Natural Environment.
c. The construction, operation and maintenance of utilities shall not cause a net loss of shoreline ecological functions
or processes or adversely impact other shoreline resources and values.
Construction and operation of the proposed underground sewer lines within the shoreline
environment will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes, nor adversely
impact other shoreline resources and values. Installation activities will minimize impacts to the
shoreline environment by limiting installation in the buffer to a single narrow corridor, avoiding
forested and shrub areas within the buffer to prevent clearing, and installing only the minimum
components necessary to convey sewage outside of the shoreline environment. Additionally, BMPs
and TESC measures including silt fencing to prevent erosion or sedimentation, water testing of tanks
during installation to prevent leakage, and redundant pump systems to prevent overflow in the event
of a single component failure will be implemented during installation to further prevent impacts to
the shoreline environment. Following installation, the sewer lines will be buried and disturbed areas
will be seeded with a native grass mix to prevent further erosion hazard. The areas that will be
temporarily disturbed during installation of the sewer lines primarily consist of mowed lawn areas and,
as such, no significant land clearing is proposed.
d. The following information shall be required for all proposals for utility facilities:
i. A description of the proposed facilities.
The proposed septic system is necessary to replace the existing outdated septic system onsite, which
currently drains in the buffer of Wetland A/Kilisut Harbor. The upgraded facility includes sewer lines
waterward of Cabins 1-4 and landward of Cabins 5-7, however, due to the location of these cabins,
the sewer lines must be located within portions of the buffers associated with Kilisut Harbor and Oak
Bay. The sewer lines will collect sewage from the cabins and route it to tanks for initial treatment and
dosing. The sewer lines will then convey waste material to a new drain field on the northeast portion
of the subject property, landward of the existing resort facility, for discharge and infiltration.
ii. The rationale and justification for siting the proposed facility within shoreline jurisdiction; and
The placement of the sewer lines within the shoreline buffers is necessary due to the locations of
Cabins 1-8 and the main lodge within the shoreline buffers (the main lodge and Cabin 8 are located
landward of Cabins 1-7). The placement of sewer lines waterward of Cabins 1-4 is necessary due to
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 36 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
the sloping topography down to the shoreline of Oak Bay. Sewer lines must be placed down gradient
to facilitate collection and initial treatment.
iii. A discussion of alternative locations considered and reasons for their elimination; and
Alternative locations to service the existing infrastructure within the shoreline jurisdiction are not
feasible.
iv. A description of the location of other utility facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project and any
plans to include facilities or other types of utilities in the project; and
One control panel with a power supply pump, accessory to the septic system, will be located
adjacent to Cabin 4.
v. A plan for the reclamation of areas disturbed both during construction and following
decommissioning and/or completion of the useful life of the facility; and
Not Applicable.
vi. A plan for the control of erosion and turbidity during construction and operation; and
The proposed sewer lines in the shoreline buffers are located landward of the OHW of Oak Bay and
Kilisut Harbor and will not increase turbidity in these waters. Installation will occur during the dry
season to prevent sedimentation to the greatest extent feasible. Following installation, the sewer lines
will be buried, and disturbed soils will be seeded with a native grass mix to stabilize bare soils and
restore the area to pre-construction conditions.
vii. An analysis of alternative technologies; and
Alternative technologies were not considered.
viii. Documentation that utilities avoid public recreation areas and significant natural, historic or
archaeological or cultural sites or that no alternative is feasible and that all feasible measures to reduce
harm have been incorporated into the proposal.
The proposed sewer lines are not within or adjacent to any public recreation areas . While they are
within the shoreline and while those lines serving Cabins 1-4 are within the shoreline setback, all sewer
lines will be buried so as to have zero affect upon the public’s use of the water. An archeological
survey is underway and the results of that are pending. However, an unanticipated discovery plan will
be in place to address any culturally significant objects if any are unexpectedly found during excavation
and placement of the sewer lines.
ix. When feasible, utility lines shall use existing rights-of-way, corridors and/or bridge crossings and
shall avoid duplication and construction of new or parallel corridors in all shoreline areas.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 37 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
The replacement of individual septic systems presently serving groups of cabins with an improved
system and a drainfield that is out of shoreline jurisdiction will require the placement of new sewer
lines.
e. Utility facilities shall be constructed using techniques that minim ize the need for shoreline fill. When crossing
water bodies, pipelines and other utility facilities shall use pier or open pile construction.
The proposed sewer lines within the shoreline environment will not require any shoreline fill.
f. Vegetation clearing during utility installation or maintenance shall be minimized, and disturbed areas shall
be restored or enhanced following project completion consistent with the requirements of this program.
As mentioned above, the locations of the proposed sewer lines consist primarily of mowed grassy
areas, and as such vegetation clearing will be minor and limited to the described grasses. Following
burial of the sewer lines, disturbed soils will be seeded with a native grass mix to prevent impacts to
help stabilize soils and prevent impacts from erosion to Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay.
6.2.12 Shoreline Variance
The proposed project requires minor expansion of Cabin 5 to accommodate improvements to the
existing bedroom, the addition of a deck and staircase to Cabin 8 for improved access, and the addition
of a staircase to the main lodge for improved access. Per JCC 18.25.660(10)(b), for non-single-family
residential structures, the expansion, relocation, or enlargement of any non-conforming use must
obtain a Shoreline Variance Permit, therefore, it is expected a Shoreline Variance Permit is needed.
Per JCC 18.25.580, projects seeking a Shoreline Variance Permit must demonstrate the following:
a. That the strict application of bulk or dimensional criteria set forth in this program precludes or significantly
interferes with a reasonable permitted use of the property.
Strict application of the bulk and dimensional criteria set forth in this program would sign ificantly
interfere with reasonable use of the property as it would prevent upgrades to the existing resort onsite
that are necessary to provide upgrades to the structures and infrastructure as well as safe access to the
existing non-conforming cabins onsite.
b. That the hardship describes above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of conditions such as
irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this program, and not, for example, from
deed restrictions or the applicant’s/proponents own actions.
The hardship described above is specifically related to the locations of the existing cabins within the
wetland and/or shoreline buffers associated with Wetland A, Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay. The
existing cabins are an approved and permitted non-conforming use within the shoreline jurisdiction.
c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted in the area and will not cause adverse side
effects on adjacent properties or the shoreline environment.
The proposed activities are internal to the existing developed areas and will not increase impervious
surfaces onsite nor change the use of the cabins in a way that is not compatible with the other
permitted uses in the area. The project will not cause adverse effects on adjacent properties or the
shoreline environment.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 38 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties
in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief.
The proposed variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties
in the area as it will not change the existing use of the cabins or the developed areas onsite.
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
The proposed project does not include a significant change to the existing use of the facilities and is
limited to upgrades necessary to improve site accessibility and improve the existing infrastructure to
accommodate the use of the property as a wedding venue. Additionally, the proposed project will
only result in minor permanent impacts to the buffers of Wetland A and Kilisut Harbor that will be
offset through a reduction of existing impacts within the buffers and 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction
onsite, and as such will have no detrimental effects to public interest.
f. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be materially interfered with by the
granting of the variance.
No work below the OHW of Kilisut Harbor or Oak Bay is proposed, and as such there will be no
interference of public rights of navigation or of the use of the shorelines.
g. Mitigation is provided to offset unavoidable adverse impacts caused by the proposed development or use.
As no adverse impacts to the shorelines of Kilisut Harbor or Oak Bay from the proposed project are
anticipated, no mitigation is required. However, it should be noted that the proposed project activities
will reduce existing impacts within the wetland and shoreline buffers and 200-foot shoreline
jurisdiction by replacing and relocating the existing septic drain field in the buffer of Wetland A and
Kilisut Harbor to an upland area onsite, landward of the existing resort facilities, providing enhanced
waste treatment, and by reducing impervious surfaces in wetland and shoreline buffers and the
shoreline jurisdiction by reducing the footprint of the existing cabin access paths.
6.3 Frequently Flooded Areas
A majority of the proposed project is located outside of the FEMA 100-year floodplain and outside
of the FEMA “Protected Area”. However, a portion of one of the existing cabins (Cabin 4, Appendix
B11) proposed for remodel activities is located within the FEMA “Protected Area”. Per JCC
18.22.430, projects proposed within the FEMA 100-year floodplain are required to comply with flood
insurance rate maps (FIRMS), comply with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological
opinion to ensure no impacts to listed fish and wildlife habitat, and provide a habitat assessment that
meets the requirements of JCC 18.22.940.
This report has been prepared to assess potential impacts to ESA listed species in compliance with
the FEMA Region X Guidelines established by NMFS (Chapter 2 and Chapter 7), and meet all of the
Habitat Assessment requirements outlined under JCC 18.22.940.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 39 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
6.3.1 Flood Damage Prevention
In addition to the regulations for Frequently Flooded Areas, FEMA 100-year floodplain areas are
regulated under JCC Chapter 15.15 – Flood Damage Prevention. Per JCC 15.15.070(1)(a), a
development permit must be obtained prior to construction or development within any area of special
flood hazard. Per JCC 15.15.070(1)(b), applications for floodplain development must provide the
following information:
i. Elevation in relation to mean sea level of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures recorded on a
current elevation certificate with Section B completed by the local official;
ii. Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed;
iii. Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing methods for any
nonresidential structure meet floodproofing criteria in JCC 15.15.080(2)(b); and
iv. Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development.
In addition to the above criteria, the following provisions for flood hazard reductions outlined under
15.15.080(1) apply to the proposed project:
a. Anchoring.
i. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or
lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the
effects of buoyancy.
ii. All manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement, and
shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may
include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors.
b. Construction Materials and Methods.
i. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility
equipment resistant to flood damage.
ii. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and practices
that minimize flood damage.
iii. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities
shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or
accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Locating such equipment below the
base flood elevation may cause annual flood insurance premiums to be increased.
These standards for floodplain development, anchoring, and construction materials and methods will
be considered during final architectural and engineering design and remodel activities associated with
Cabin 4 and installation of the proposed sewer lines and will be addressed under separate cover.
c. Utilities.
i. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration
of floodwaters into the systems;
The proposed sewer lines within the FEMA 100-year floodplain have been designed to minimize and
eliminate infiltration of floodwater into the systems. The sewer lines will collect and treat water from
the cabins and direct effluent to a drainfield system that is outside of the floodplain and outside of the
shoreline, where it will be infiltrated within uplands.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 40 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
ii. Water wells shall be located on high ground that is not in the floodway;
No water wells are proposed to support the upgraded septic system onsite.
iii. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration
of floodwaters into the systems and discharges from the systems into floodwaters;
The proposed sewer lines within the FEMA 100-year floodplain will collect water from the shoreline
cabins and carry water to a new drainfield that will be located in uplands away from the shoreline and
the FEMA 100-year floodplain. No infiltration or discharged into floodwaters will occur.
iv. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from
them during flooding.
Onsite waste disposal will be located on the upland portions of the subject property, landward of the
existing septic drainfield onsite and away from the shoreline environment and floodplain to avoid
impairment or contamination during flooding.
Cabin 4 will continue to be rented for short term, residential usage. Accordingly, JCC 15.15 (2)(a)
applies, which states that:
i. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor,
including basement, elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation (BFE).
ii. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to
automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters.
Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or
must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:
(A) A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every
square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided;
(B) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; and
(C) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices; provided, that they
permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.
These specific standards for substantial improvement of a residential structure will be considered
during final architectural and engineering design and remodel activities associated with Cabin 4 and
installation of the proposed sewer lines can be expected to be addressed by Jefferson County during
their review of the proposed actions.
6.5 State and Federal Regulatory Considerations
The Navigable Waters Protection Rule Definition of “Waters of the United States”, effective June 22,
2022, describes waters which are subject to regulation by the Federal Government as Waters of the
United States (WOTUS), subject to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The following
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 41 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
describes potential regulatory classifications for the onsite stream, wetlands, and ditches under the
Navigable Waters Protection Rule.
Under the final Navigable Waters Protection Rule, the agencies interpret the term WOTUS to
encompass: 1) the territorial seas and traditional navigable waters; 2) perennial and intermittent
tributaries that contribute surface water flow to such waters; 3) certain lakes, ponds, and
impoundments of jurisdictional waters; and 4) wetlands adjacent to other jurisdictional waters.
Under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay are regulated
under Category 1 of WOTUS as they are traditionally navigable waters associated with the Puget
Sound. Additionally, Wetlands A and B are regulated under Category 4 of WOTUS due to their
locations adjacent to Kilisut Harbor. The identified waters are also regulated as waters of the State of
Washington under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48. However, as no direct impacts
are proposed to Kilisut Harbor, Oak Bay, or Wetlands A or B, potential regulatory classification for
these features is not described in this report, and permitting through the USACE is not required to
support the proposed project.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 42 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Chapter 7. FEMA Floodplain Habitat Assessment and
Species Information and Effects Determinations
Under JCC 18.22.430(3), activities within the 100-year floodplain require a habitat assessment report
prior to issuance of a development permit in order to ensure compliance with Federal ESA
requirements. Additionally, under JCC 18.22.430(1) development within the 100-year floodplain must
comply with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological Opinion criteria outlined in the
Puget Sound Biological Opinion Floodplain Habitat Assessment Worksheet (FEMA, 2017),
henceforth referred to as the “FEMA worksheet”. The FEMA 100-year floodplain encumbers the
western portion of the subject property (Appendix B11), including portions of the proposed project,
including the remodel of Cabin 4, and the placement of sewer lines waterward of Cabins 1-4 adjacent
to Oak Bay. The remainder of the proposed project is located entirely outside of the FEMA 100-year
floodplain. This chapter assesses potential impacts to ESA-listed species and associated critical habitat
and provides impact determinations in compliance with FEMA floodplain habitat assessment
guidance. The project is anticipated to have no adverse effect on any ESA-listed species.
7.1 FEMA Worksheet
The project proposes renovations to an existing cabin located within the 100-year floodplain, requiring
a floodplain development permit, and does not meet any of the listed exceptions identified in Sections
1.1 or 1.2 of the FEMA worksheet. Therefore, a floodplain habitat assessment is required. The
Applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity meets the minimum standards or how and why
they are not applicable. This section documents the General BiOp and Habitat Assessment Minimum
Standards.
7.1.1 General BiOp Minimum Standards
• New structures located in the least impactful location, as practicable. The permit file should include
documentation of the measures taken to avoid placing structures in the floodplain and to minimize the impacts
of the proposed project on floodplain functions (see Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Miti gation, Section
5.2)
The proposed project has been designed to avoid new development within the Protected Flood
Area to the greatest extent feasible; however, due to the location of Cabin 4 within the Protected
Flood Area, and the locations and elevations of Cabins 1-4 along Oak Bay, renovations to Cabin
4 and the placement of a portion of the proposed sewer line waterward of Cabins 1 -4 will occur
within the Protected Flood Area. Placement of the sewer lines at this location is necessary to
facilitate collection and initial treatment of waste from Cabins 1-4. Wastewater conveyed through
the sewer lines will be directed to a drain field in the upland portions of the site, away from the
floodplain, and no infiltration within the Protected Flood Area will occur.
• Any removed large woody debris is replaced per WDFW Aquatic Habitat guidelines.
Remodeling activities to Cabin 4 and the placement of sewer lines within the Protected Flood
Area will not require the removal of any large woody debris.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 43 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
• Bank armoring/stabilization follows and documents methodology consistent with WDFW Marine Shorelines
Design Guidelines or the Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines. A needs and alternatives analysis is
essential for these projects.
No work waterward of the OHW of Oak Bay or Kilisut Harbor is proposed, and as such no
shoreline armoring or stabilization is required. The existing shoreline adjacent to the cabins along
Oak Bay is already modified with a rock bulkhead which will be retained for flood protection,
however no new infrastructure is proposed.
• The project is either inherently designed to avoid adverse impacts on floodplain functions (if in the Protected
Area) or compensatory mitigation is provided so there are no adverse impacts on floodplai n functions that
support ESA listed species.
Portions of Cabin 4 are located within the Protected Flood Area, and due to the elevations of
Cabins 1-4 relative to the shoreline, the project also requires the placement of sewer lines within
the Protected Flood Area. The Applicant proposes to remodel Cabin 4 entirely within the existing
footprint to avoid any adverse impacts on floodplain functions that support ESA -listed species.
Placement of sewer lines will require minor, temporary impacts to the shoreline environment and
Protected Flood Area as minor excavation activities are required to install the lines. Excavation
activities will be limited to a single narrow corridor to limit temporary impacts within the Protected
Area, and the sewer line will be the minimum component necessary to convey sewage outside of
the Protected Flood Area. BMPs and TESC measures, including silt fencing waterward of
installation activities to minimize erosion and sedimentation, avoiding vegetation clearing, water
testing during installation to prevent leakage, and redundant pump systems to prevent overflow
in the event of single component failure will be incorporated during installation to eliminate
adverse impacts to floodplain functions and ESA listed species. Additionally, following
installation, sewer lines will be buried, and disturbed soils will be seeded with a native grass mix to
stabilize soils and prevent erosion within the Protected Flood Area.
The remaining project activities are located outside of the Protected Flood Area and will not have
an adverse impact on floodplain functions. The proposed yurts, sauna, minor expansion of Cabins
5 and 8 and the main lodge, and new parking areas and associated access roads will result in minor
increases in impervious surfaces outside of the Protected Area. However, the project includes
landscaping throughout the site with native trees and shrubs, which will provide increased plant
structure when compared to the existing mowed grasses onsite. These actions overall will improve
hydrology and water quality for surface water entering the Protected Flood Area.
• As part of the flood permit, applicant has been notified that their property contains land within the Riparian
Buffer Zone (RBZ) and/or floodplain.
The Applicant has been notified that the property contains land within the 100-year floodplain.
• Prior to permit issuance, the applicant has recorded a notice on the title of the property stating that the property
is within the RBZ and/or the 100-year floodplain.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 44 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
The Applicant will record a Notice on Title stating the subject property is located within the 100-
year floodplain prior to the issuance of the permit.
7.1.2 Minimum Habitat Assessment Standards
• Project and action area description, maps, and site plans have been provided.
The Action Area is described in Chapter 2.3 of this report, and maps are provided in Appendix
H.
• Methods of work are described.
Typical BMPs including TESC measures and stormwater management will be utilized during
construction. These are described in further detail in section 7.1.1 above. Detailed construction
methods will be provided under separate cover by the project engineer.
• Projects in the Protected Area are designed to inherently avoid detrimental impacts without mitigation.
The proposed project locates all new development activities and renovation activities that require
the expansion of building (Cabins 5 and 8 and the main lodge) outside of the Protected Flood
Area to avoid detrimental impacts. Remodeling activities associated with Cabin 4 located within
the Protected Area will located entirely within the existing footprint of the cabin to avoid increases
in impervious surfaces or a loss of flood storage. Additionally, the proposed project includes
landscaping throughout the subject property to offset increases in impervious surfaces outside of
the floodplain.
• The HA specifically considers both direct and indirect impacts. Indirect impacts are a result of an action and
can occur later in time or in a different place and are reasonably foreseeable.
Direct and indirect impacts to ESA-listed species are discussed in sections 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 below.
As the proposed cabin remodel is located entirely within the footprint of the existing building, the
proposed project will not adversely impact floodplain storage or functions.
• The HA evaluates the impacts of interrelated and interdependent activities.
An interrelated activity is an action that is part of a larger action and depends on the larger action
for its justification (50 CFR 402.02). The proposed action itself can be part of a larger action or
may require additional related actions for its completion. An interdependent activity is an activity
that has no independent utility apart from the proposed action (50 CFR 402.02).
There are no interrelated or interdependent activities associated with the subject project. The
proposed project will not require any infrastructure upgrades beyond those to the existing
infrastructure onsite. The property is already developed and already accessible from Beach Drive.
The proposal will only result in upgrades to continue the use of the site as a resort.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 45 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
• The HA specifically considers cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects beyond the subject
proposal/lot for all of the elements of the analysis listed below, and especially loss of storage.
Cumulative impacts to ESA-listed species are discussed in the following sections. Remodel
activities associated with Cabin 4 within the Protected Flood Area will be located entirely within
the existing footprint of the cabin and will not impact flood storage. Additionally, the proposed
sewer lines will be located underground, on the outskirts of the Protect Area, and will not result
in an increase in impervious surfaces, and will also have no impact on flood storage.
In addition to the activities proposed within the Protected Flood Area, the proposed project will
include upgrades to the existing site access that will result in a net decrease in impervious surfaces
within the shoreline jurisdiction. The reduction of the footprints of existing impervious gravel
and packed dirt access roads in the shoreline jurisdiction will allow more surface runoff to infiltrate
prior to reaching the Protected Flood Area, resulting in no net loss of floodplain functions or
storage.
• The HA contains sufficient analysis for each specific item below to demonstrate a claim of no adverse effect on
the existing (legal) condition of the floodplain functions (baseline condition). If an element does not apply to a
particular project, the HA should briefly explain why.
1. Water quantity and quality will not be affected by demonstrating that pre-development water pattern
will be substantially the same as the post-development water pattern. The following items should be
included in the analysis:
▪ The HA demonstrates how low impact development techniques have been used
A detailed discussion of construction and design elements will be provided under
separate cover by the Project Engineer. In general, the proposed project minimizes
impacts to the Protected Flood Area by utilizing the footprint of the existing buildings
onsite to the greatest extent feasible and locating new structures outside of the
Protected Flood Area. Impacts from the installation of the sewer lines within the
Protected Flood Area will be limited to the minimum necessary by limiting excavation
activities to a narrow corridor within the Protected Flood Area and by installing only
the minimum components necessary to convey sewage outside of the Protected Flood
Area and shoreline environment.
▪ New impervious surfaces are noted and included in the analysis
Overall, the proposed project will result in a net decrease in impervious surfaces onsite
by 4,638 SF.
▪ Water temperature impacts from development have been evaluated
The proposed project is located entirely landward of the OHW of Oak Bay and Kilisut
Harbor, and wastewater will be captured through a new septic system onsite, which
will direct sewage from the cabins within portions of the Protected Flood Area and
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 46 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
shoreline environments to the upland portions of the site where it will be treated and
infiltrated. As such, no change in water temperature is anticipated.
▪ Potential changes in groundwater and hyporheic functions, pollutants, and sediment runoff
have been evaluated
The proposed project will not result in changes to groundwater. The applicant
proposes upgrades to the existing septic system onsite which will include treatment
prior to infiltrating water into the upland portions of the site. Additionally, the
proposed project includes a landscaping plan that will provide increased plant structure
when compared to the existing mowed areas onsite. The proposed landscaping plan
will provide increased plant structure to slow surface runoff and filter sediment and
pollutants from the existing and proposed infrastructure onsite. The proposed sewer
system and landscaping plan is an improvement over the existing mowed conditions
and outdated septic system onsite.
▪ Stormwater leaves the site with the same frequency, timing, and duration as before the
development
The proposed project includes replacing the existing septic system onsite with a n
upgraded septic system that will capture and treat sewage from the cabins within the
shoreline environment and carry sewage to an upland portion of the subject property
where it will be further treated prior to infiltration. The updated septic system is an
improvement over the existing outdated system onsite, and will ensure that stormwater
leaves the site with the same frequency, timing, and duration following development
activities onsite.
2. Flood velocities and volumes are not increased, even when considering cumulative impacts.
Even when cumulative impacts are considered, flood velocities and volumes will not
increase due to the proposed project. New development outside of the floodplain and
critical area buffers will result a net decrease in impervious surfaces within the shoreline
management zone and a minor increase in impervious surfaces outside of shoreline
jurisdiction from the new parking area; however, landscaping is proposed throughout the
property which will slow flows from increased surface runoff and provide increased plant
structure to filter pollutants prior to runoff reaching the Protected Area.
3. Flood storage capacity is not affected or compensatory storage has been proposed that:
Activities proposed within the Protected Flood Area will occur primarily within the
existing footprint of Cabin 4 onsite. The addition of sewer lines within the floodplain
will not result in an increase in impervious surfaces, and will not be significant enough
in size to displace flood storage volumes. As such, no flood storage volume will be
displaced as a result of remodel activities.
4. Riparian vegetation evaluation has been included
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 47 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Vegetation onsite largely consists of grasses and herbaceous vegetation that has been
mowed to maintain resort facilities onsite, and as such riparian vegetation within the
Protected Flood Area is limited. Existing riparian vegetation is primarily associated
with Wetlands A and B adjacent to Kilisut Harbor in areas where no project activities
are proposed. No plantings within the Protected Flood Area are proposed.
5. Measures to preserve habitat forming processes (such as large woody debris recruitment) are included
Existing habitat onsite is largely non-existent due to the existing resort facility which
required previous clearing of a majority of the site. The proposed sewer lines and
upgrades to Cabin 4 are located on the outskirts of the Protected Flood Area onsite,
landward of the OHW of the marine shorelines onsite, in areas that consist primarily
of mowed grasses. As such, the proposed will not impact habitat forming processes.
No new habitat is formally proposed; however, the proposed project does include
landscaping throughout the site which will include planting native trees and shrubs
throughout the site. These actions have the potential to provide increased habitat
onsite.
6. Refuge from higher velocity floodwaters is provided
Potential refuge habitat onsite is largely limited to the habitat provided by Wetlands A
and B adjacent to Kilusut Harbor on the western boundary of the subject property.
Given the developed nature of the subject property and the distance between the
proposed project activities and Wetlands A and B, no potential refuge habitat will be
impacted and none is proposed.
7. Spawning substrate is provided or protected
Given the location of the proposed project landward of the OHW of the marine
shorelines onsite, no potential spawning habitat areas will be impacts by the proposed
project. BMPs and TESC measures will be incorporated throughout the duration of
the project to prevent sediments from entering the shoreline and impacted spawning
substrate. These measures are discussed in further detail in section 7.6 below.
8. Ensure there are no adverse effects resulting from:
▪ Habitat isolation
Given the developed nature of the site, there is no habitat present onsite in its
existing condition, therefore no habitat isolation is anticipated.
▪ Bank armoring
The existing shoreline of Oak Bay is modified with a rock bulkhead. However,
no new bank armoring or stabilization is proposed.
▪ Channel straightening
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 48 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
No channel straightening is proposed.
▪ Construction effects (transport of sediment from the work area, noise, etc.)
Standard BMPs will be implemented in order to control sediment. Additional
BMPs and construction noise effects are discussed further in the following
sections.
▪ Direct effects
Direct impacts to the Protected Flood Area are limited to temporary impacts
during the installation of the proposed sewer lines. Following installation,
disturbed areas will be seeded with a native grass mix to return the
environment to pre-installation conditions. Remodel activities associated with
Cabin 4 onsite will be located entirely within the existing footprint of the cabin
and will not result in direct effects to the Protected Flood Area or floodplain
functions.
7.1.3 Effect Determinations
Species effect determinations are further detailed in the following Sections 7.2 through 7.7. It has
been determined the project will have No Effect on listed species.
7.1.4 Protected Area
The western portion of the subject property is located within a FEMA 100-year floodplain, which is
considered a regulated Frequently Flooded Area. Per the FEMA worksheet, the Protected Area is
defined as that portion of the 100-year floodplain that is the greater of the Floodway, Riparian Buffer
Zone (RBZ), or Channel Migration Zone (CMZ). The marine Riparian Buffer Zone is 200 feet from
the OHW (so, equivalent to the Shoreline Management Zone). Therefore, the Protected Area onsite
extends only to the outer limit of the 100-year floodplain on the western portion of the subject
property. A majority of the proposed project is located outside of the FEMA 100-year floodplain,
however, portions of one of the existing cabins to be renovated are located on the outer edge of the
floodplain, and within the Protected Area.
The proposed project activities have been designed to meet the General BiOp Minimum Standards as
explained in Section 7.1.1, the minimum Habitat Assessment Standards as detailed in Section 7.1.2,
and are not anticipated to affect or adversely affect any listed species as determined in Section 7.7.
New structures are located well outside of the Protected Area—approximately 100-feet or greater
outside of the Protected Area. The proposed renovation activities within the Protected Area will not
impact the 100-year floodplain or compensatory flood storage as they will occur entirely within the
existing footprints of the resort cabins onsite and will not result in any fill placement or increases in
impervious surfaces.
7.2 Species Information
SVC staff reviewed data obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
(NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), USFWS, and WDFW’s PHS and SalmonScape
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 49 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
data in order to determine species listed under the ESA that may be found in Jefferson County and
near the proposed project (Table 10).
There are eight ESA-listed species potentially within the action area or that rely on the action area of
the proposed project (Table 10) to which the subject project has any potential to impact. These species
include marbled murrelet, killer whale (Southern Resident Distinct Population Segment), boccacio
rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, steelhead trout (Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment), chinook
salmon (Puget Sound Evolutionary Significant Unit), chum salmon (Hood Canal Evolutionary
Significant Unit), and bull trout. Section 7.7 discusses the effect determinations for each of these
species and the rationale behind those determinations.
Table 10. ESA-Listed Species Potentially Found in Jefferson County
Species Name Common
Name
ESA Listing
Status Jurisdiction Critical Habitat
Present
Potential for
Impacts
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Marbled
Murrelet Threatened USFWS No Potential
Phoebastria albatrus Short-tailed
Albatross Endangered USFWS No None
Coccyzus americanus Yellow-Billed
Cuckoo Threatened USFWS
Critical Habitat
designated –
Location not
available
None
Eremophila alpestris
strigata
Streaked
Horned Lark Threatened USFWS No None
Strix occidentalis
caurina
Northern
Spotted Owl Threatened USFWS No None
Megaptera
novaeangliae
Humpback
Whale Endangered NMFS No None
Orcinus orca
Southern
Resident
Killer Whale
Endangered NMFS Yes Potential
Eschrichtius robustus Gray Whale Endangered NMFS None currently
designated None
Megaptera
novaeangliae
Humpback
Whale Endangered NMFS None None
Sebastes
paucispinis
Boccacio
Rockfish Endangered NMFS Yes Potential
Sebastes
ruberriumus
Yelloweye
Rockfish Threatened NMFS Yes Potential
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
Steelhead
Trout Threatened NMFS No Potential
Oncorhyncus
tshawytscha
Chinook
Salmon Threatened NMFS Yes Potential
Oncorhynchus
kisutch Chum Salmon Threatened NMFS Yes Potential
Salvenlinus
confluentus Bull Trout Threatened USFWS No Potential
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 50 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
7.2.1 Species Not Likely Present
The following species are not likely located in the vicinity of the project or are unlikely to be impacted
by the proposed project. Species for which there may be possible impacts are discussed in Section
7.7.
• Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) are migratory birds and historically ranged from
British Columbia to northern Mexico. Yellow-billed cuckoo habitat consists of low to mid-
level riparian forests dominated by cottonwoods and willows. Additional riparian habitat
species may include ash, walnut, mesquite, and tamarisk. Breeding cuckoos prefer larger and
wider patches of riparian habitat. Habitat assessments of yellow-billed cuckoo from California
indicate that optimal habitat is greater than approximately 198 acres and wider than 600
meters; suitable habitat is approximately 100 to 198 acres and wider than 200 meters; marginal
habitat is approximately 20 to 100 acres and 100 to 200 meters wide; and unsuitable habitat is
smaller than approximately 37 acres and less than 100 meters wide (Wiles & Kalasz, 2017).
Twenty sightings of the yellow-billed cuckoo have been confirmed in in Washington between
the 1950s and 2017; none of these sightings were of breeding birds. Sixteen of these 20
confirmed sightings were east of the Cascades; and the sighted birds were likely vagrants or
migrants (Wiles & Kalasz, 2017). Wetland B contains some riparian vegetation including
Scouler’s willow, however, the Action Area and nearby areas generally contain coniferous tree
canopy, and there is no documented occurrences of yellow-billed cuckoo in the area. Due to
a lack of suitable habitat within the Action Area, the project will have No Effect on Yellow-
Billed Cuckoo.
• Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) are found primarily in prairie habitat or
unvegetated to sparsely vegetated open habitats (Pearson & Anderson, 2015). The current
range of the streaked horned lark includes the Puget lowlands, in which the project area is
located; the largest known populations of streaked horned larks are found at the Corvallis
Municipal Airport (Corvallis, Oregon), the Olympia Regional Airport (Olympia, Washington),
and at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington (USFWS, 2019). Streaked horned lark nests
are typically found on the ground in sparsely vegetated sites dominated by grasses and forbs,
in a broad range of habitats including sparsely vegetated edges of grass fields. Wintering
streaked horned larks use habitats similar to breeding habitats. However, studies conducted
by the USFWS indicate that sites used by larks are generally found in open (i.e., flat, treeless)
landscapes 300 acres or more in size such as airports (USFWS, 2013). Due to the lack of
suitable habitat and no documented presence or observations in the Action Area or vicinity,
there will be No Effect on Streaked Horned Lark. No Critical Habitat has been designated
within the Action Area; therefore, the proposed project will have No Effect on Streaked
Horned Lark Critical Habitat.
• Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) prefer large coniferous trees for nesting, typically
associated with mature or old growth coniferous forests. Their habitat areas require platforms,
cavities, or other structural features to provide protection from adverse weather conditions
and predation. Suitable habitat typically includes areas for nesting, roosting, foraging, and
dispersal habitats. Northern spotted owls forage on small nocturnal mammals near their
roosting areas, including flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus),
bushy-tailed woodrats (Neotoma cinerea), and boreal red-backed voles (Clethrionomys gapperi)
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 51 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
(Buchanan, 2016). Habitat requirements for this species are not found within or near the
Action Area; therefore, the project will have No Effect on Northern Spotted Owl.
7.2.2 Species Potentially Present
The proposed project is located in rural-residential setting. The subject property is currently
developed with a resort which includes a main lodge, cabins, gravel access roads, and associated
outbuildings and infrastructure. The subject property is located adjacent to the shoreline of Oak Bay
and Kilisut Harbor in the Puget Sound where there is known presence of ESA -listed killer whale,
boccacio and yellow-eye rockfish, steelhead trout, chinook salmon, chum salmon, and bull trout.
Additionally, marbled murrelet have been observed in the Puget Sound area and the estuarine habitat
onsite may provide suitable forage. Life histories are discussed below for ESA -listed species
considered for impacts from this project. Species determinations are presented in Section 7.7.
Marbled Murrelet
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Threatened, listed 1992 - Critical Habitat designated November 13, 2014
Marbled murrelet are members of the Alcidae family of seabirds such as puffins, murres, and auklets.
In the state of Washington, they are year-round residents on coastal waters. They primarily feed in
waters within 500 feet of the shore, out to 1.2 miles from shore at depths of less than one hundred
feet. Preferred prey includes small fish and crustaceans; nestlings may be fed larger fish. Nests and
roosts are found in mature and old growth forests of western Washington. Nesting typically occurs
from April to September (WDFW, 1991). Nest trees are typically greater than thirty-two inches
diameter at breast height, with nesting preference on large flat conifer branches, often covered with
moss (WDFW, 1991) and found in old growth forests. Marbled murrelets have been found in the
largest numbers in marine waters near the coastal waters surrounding the Olympic Peninsula (Pearson
& Lance, 2010) and are more sparsely distributed elsewhere in this region. Prey species (sand lance
(Ammodytes hexapterus), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi)) are
important forage fish for marbled murrelets.
Southern Resident Killer Whale
Orcinus orca
Endangered, listed November 15, 2005 - Critical Habitat designated November 2006
The southern resident killer whale is found in open seas and coastal waters. Maximum lifespan is
estimated to be 80-90 years for females and 50-60 years for males. The three southern resident pods
(J, K, and L pods) differ from each other based on pod size, dialect, and home range. Mating typically
occurs between May and October. Gestation typically last around 17 months, and the calves remain
close to their mothers for their first year of life. Nursing likely ends around 1-2 years of age and
offspring maintain a highly stable social relationship with their mothers throughout their lives. Two
to six calves were historically born each year across the three pods; the birthrate is currently declining.
Southern resident killer whales spend around 12-15% of their time socializing, becoming especially
vocal with a wide range of whistles and calls. Southern resident killer whales have been documented
to consume 22 species of fish and 1 species of squid. The majority of the whales’ diet consists of
salmon, particularly the large and fatty chinook salmon during the spring and summer months. During
the late fall through winter months, southern resident killer whales feed extensively on chum salmon
(NMFS, 2006). Southern resident killer whale may be found in the Puget Sound, the Straits of Georgia
and Juan de Fuca during spring through fall. Their movement into Puget Sound waters likely coincides
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 52 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
with prey movement into the Puget Sound (NMFS, 2008b). During late fall through the winter
months, they disperse widely through the waters of the outer coast, ranging from San Francisco to
Southeast Alaska. Of the three pods, J-pod tends to remain the longest in inland waters (Marine
Mammal Commission, 2019).
Gray Whale (Western North Pacific DPS)
Eschrichtius robustus – Endangered – Foreign, listed in 1970, and relisted in 1994.
Gray whales were once common throughout the northern hemisphere, but now are only found
regularly in the North Pacific Ocean where there are two distinct populations, one in the eastern North
Pacific and one in the western North Pacific (NOAA Fisheries, 2021). Populations in the eastern
North Pacific have recovered since 1970 when gray whales were originally listed as endangered, and
the eastern population segment was delisted in 1994. However, western populations have remained
low in numbers and as such are still listed as endangered. Gray whales have one of the longest
migrations of any mammal, and on average migrate between 10,000 to 14,000 miles round trip. They
typically travel alone or in rare groups, and are typically found in shallow coastal waters, where they
feed on benthic and epibenthic invertebrates found near the sea floor. Gray whales typically migrate
along the outer coast of the North Pacific Ocean; however, they have been observed in the Puget
Sound. The most recent gray whale sighting in the Puget Sound was in Possession Sound west of
Whidbey Island on June 19, 2021 (Orca Network, 2021).
Humpback Whale
Megaptera novaeangliae – Endangered, listed June 2, 1970.
NOAA Fisheries has identified fourteen (14) Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of humpback whale
around the world. The Central America DPS which has feeding grounds along the Washington Coast
is listed as Endangered. Humpback whales range from southern California, north through the
Aleutian Islands while feeding in the Pacific Ocean (NMFS, 1991). Humpback whales travel long
distances during their seasonal migration, and typically stay near the surface of the ocean. Their
feeding grounds are in cold coastal waters while their calving is usually in warmer, shallower waters
(NOAA, 2016). While humpback whales are found in the Puget Sound, they are more likely to remain
in waters on the outer coast during their migration. The most recent humpback whale sightings in the
Puget Sound were near the San Juan Islands on June 21, 2021 (Orca Network, 2021).
Bocaccio Rockfish
Sebastes paucispinis
Endangered, listed, July 27, 2010 - Critical Habitat designated February 11, 2015 (79FR68041)
Bocaccio rockfish give birth to live larval young. The larvae are found in surface waters and may be
distributed over a wide area. Larvae and small juveniles may remain in open waters for several months,
being passively dispersed by ocean currents. Larval fish feed on diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids,
and cladocerans, while juveniles consume copepods and euphasiids of all life stages. Adults eat
demersal invertebrates and small fishes, including other species of rockfish, associated with kelp beds,
rocky reefs, pinnacles, and sharp drop-offs (NMFS, 2011). Bocaccio rockfish are most common
between one hundred sixty (160) and eight hundred twenty (820) feet depth. In general, adults move
into deeper water as they grow and age but usually exhibit stro ng site fidelity to rocky bottoms and
outcrops. Juveniles and subadults may be more common than adults in shallower water, and are
associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures, such as piers and oil platforms.
Threats to bocaccio rockfish are fishing and bycatch related, and adverse environmental factors in the
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 53 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
early to mid-1990’s that led to recruitment failures (NMFS, 2011). Rockfish status in the Puget Sound
(South Sound) is identified by WDFW as “critical”.
Yelloweye Rockfish
Sebastes ruberrimus
Threatened, listed July 27, 2010 - Critical Habitat designated February 11, 2015 (79FR68041)
Yelloweye rockfish give birth to live larval young. Larvae are found in surface waters and may be
distributed over a wide area. Larvae and small juvenile yelloweye rockfish may remain in open waters
for several months, being passively dispersed by ocean currents. Larval yelloweye rockfish feed on
diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and cladocerans, while juveniles consume copepods and eu phasiids
of all life stages. Adults eat demersal invertebrates and small fishes, including other species of rockfish,
associated with kelp beds, rocky reefs, pinnacles, and sharp drop-offs. Approximately fifty percent of
yelloweye rockfish are mature by about six years of age (approximately sixteen inches total length).
Yelloweye rockfish are among the longest lived of rockfish, living up to one hundred eighteen (118)
years old. Yelloweye rockfish occur in waters eighty (80) to one thousand five hundred sixty (1,560)
feet deep, but are most commonly found between three hundred (300) to five hundred ninety (590)
feet deep. Juveniles and subadults tend to be more common than adults in shallow water and are
associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures, such as piers and oil platforms.
Adults generally move into deeper water as they grow but usually exhibit strong site fidelity to rocky
bottoms and outcrops. Threats to yelloweye rockfish are fishing and bycatch related, and adverse
environmental factors in the early to mid-1990’s that led to recruitment failures (NMFS, 2012 website).
Yelloweye rockfish status in the Puget Sound (South Sound) is identified by WDFW as “critical”.
Puget Sound Steelhead Trout DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Threatened, listed May 11, 2007 - Critical Habitat designated February 24, 2016
Steelhead are an anadromous species with lifespans of up to 11 years. Steelhead can be iteroparous,
but rates are highly variable between populations. In general, the females are more likely to be
iteroparous (Keefer, 2008). Steelhead typically spend 2-3 years but can stay up to 7 years rearing in
freshwater environments before migrating to marine ecosystems in late winter and spring to spend
their adult lives in the ocean (USACE, 2007). They can remain at sea for up to 3 years before returning
to spawn. Steelhead have winter and summer spawning runs. Winter runs are more typical of western
Washington populations (USFWS, n.d.). Once the juveniles reach the Puget Sound, they occupy
inshore waters very briefly, only staying for a couple of weeks before quickly moving offshore towards
the pelagic waters of the Gulf of Alaska where they remain for their first year at sea. In the following
years, steelhead tend to move northwest out of the Puget Sound through the spring and summer and
southeast during the fall and winter months. Post-spawning steelhead follow this same pattern but
do not move as far west. This species tends to reside within 10 meters of the surface, but they
sometimes move to greater depths (Light et al., 1989).
In freshwater habitats, steelhead prefer cool water but can tolerate temperatures up to 22 degrees
Celsius. They need productive, well-oxygenated streams for spawning that have riffles, pools,
overhanging vegetation, boulders and gravel to lay their eggs. Steelhead prefer fast water in small-to-
large mainstem rivers, and medium-to-large tributaries. In streams with steep gradient and large
substrate, they spawn between these steep areas, where the water is flatter and the substrate is small
enough to dig into. Steelhead are sensitive to sedimentation and channel scouring. Juveniles tend to
move throughout natal stream systems and prefer streams with protective cover and lower velocity as
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 54 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
they can be swept away and killed (Behnke, 1992). Young steelhead feed on zooplankton and
invertebrate larvae. The juveniles tend to wait near boulders in the middle of the water profile to
catch drifting prey and conserve energy (Smith, 1991). Adults can eat a variety of foods in both
freshwater and marine environments which can include fish eggs, aquatic and terrestrial insects,
crustaceans, mollusks, and small fish (USFWS, n.d). WDFW does not document the presence of
steelhead trout in proximity of the proposed project, however steelhead trout are known to exist in
Oak Bay and Kilisut Harbor adjacent to the subject property.
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Threatened, listed (reaffirmed) June 28, 2005 - Critical Habitat designated September 2, 2005
Chinook salmon are a semelparous species that returns to natal streams to spawn during the summer
and fall months, with abundance peaking in October. Adult chinook tend to move quickly through
the Puget Sound when returning to natal streams to spawn. Chinook bury their eggs in gravel
substrate, and the alevins emerge 3 months later between December to April. There are two main
kinds of life history strategies for this species: stream type and the ocean type chinook. The stream
type migrates upstream earlier to spawn, from late spring to summer. After emergence they dela y
estuary migration to the following spring, overwintering in the river (Healy, 1998). Once they reach
the Puget Sound, they spend little time there before moving out into deeper marine waters. There are
two varieties of ocean type chinook: the delta fry remain in their natal delta for weeks to a few months
before entering the estuary to rear, while parr migrants remain in freshwater to rear for up to 6 months
before entering the natal estuary between May and July (Groot, 1991). Time spent in the Puget Sound
is dependent on several factors including size, fry typically remain in estuarine nurseries until they
reach about 70mm in fork length before moving seaward which usually occurs in under 2 months.
Juvenile chinook abundance in the Puget Sound peaks around June and July, but they can still be
found through October (Fresh, 2006). Once in marine waters, chinook salmon disperse widely,
moving both northward and southward and will spend 2 to 4 years in the ocean. First ocean year
stream type salmon prefer outer coasts while ocean type chinook utilize more sheltered waters (Groot,
1991). Fall Chinook populations in the Central and South Puget Sound regions are primarily sustained
through hatchery production; indigenous populations have diminished from habitat degradation,
over-fishing, and the use of hatchery fish in the ecosystem. Chinook are highly valued by the
commercial fishery.
Chinook range from Kotzebue Sound, Alaska down to Santa Barbara, California (PSMFC, 2012).
Many of the rivers located within their range are used for Chinook spawning and rearing. In
freshwater, spawning chinook require deep, coarse gravel with adequate irrigation to build their redds.
Water temperatures must not exceed 14 degrees Celsius and as chinook are larger salmon, they are
able to spawn in faster flowing rivers compared to other species. Chinook will spawn in a variety of
habitats from small, shallow tributaries to the main stem of a large river. Most redds are built at the
head of a riffle or in pools below log jams where the rate of sub gravel flow was increased (Groot,
1991).
Adults have been documented to eat other salmon eggs during their upstream migration; the
proportion of chinook showing this trait varies across rivers (Garner, 2007). Juvenile chinook feed
first on plankton and then as they grow larger eat dipteran larva e, beetle larvae, stonefly nymphs and
leaf hoppers. Bank cover is important for juveniles as it provides shade and protection from predators
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 55 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
as well as increased prey. In estuaries chinook are opportunistic feeders and their diet varies from
place to place within the estuary, in general they prefer larval and adult insects as well as amphipods
(Hammerson, 2010). Eelgrass habitat is especially important to juvenile chinook and it has been
documented that a majority of their diet consists of prey associate d with eelgrass habitats (Kennedy,
2018). During high tide, juvenile chinook can be found in surface waters at the edges of the shoreline
and move into tidal channels and creeks when the tide lowers. Smaller chinook are not able to perform
osmoregulation at the same capacity as larger salmon and prefer lower salinity waters. Pocket estuaries
are essential for juvenile chinook and they are found in greater abundance in these areas than offshore
and nearshore sites. A majority of the chinook found in pock et estuaries are a rearing population as
these habitats provide refuge from predators (Beamer, 2003). WDFW does not document the
presence of Chinook salmon in proximity of the proposed project, however, Chinook salmon are
known to exist in Oak Bay and Kilisut Harbor adjacent to the subject property.
Hood Canal Chum
Oncorhynchus keta
Threatened, listed (reaffirmed) April 14, 2014
Chum salmon have a lifespan of 2-7 years and die after spawning once. Hood Canal Chum Salmon
have summer, fall and winter spawning runs with the fall run being the largest. Eggs typically hatch
in the winter approximately 4 months. Once the juvenile chum salmon have emerged, they head to
the ocean after only a few days where they either pass directly through natal estuaries to t he Puget
Sound or rear for a few weeks in estuarine areas before moving into shoreline habitats. Small chum
salmon fry primarily migrate along shallow shoreline waters less than 2 meters in depth to avoid
predators. Nearshore abundance peaks in May and June, but juveniles can be found in the nearshore
throughout the summer months until October. Chum spend most of their lives in the ocean, between
3-5 years. Advanced sexual development and spawning occurs immediately following the adults’
return to the freshwater environment (Fresh, 2006).
In freshwater, chum salmon will make redds in a variety of rivers and streams that are at least 3 meters
deep with current speeds around 20 cm/second. They prefer to nest in riffles with coarse gravel
substrate and areas with upwelling currents to provide oxygen to their eggs. They tend to spawn in
the lower reaches of large rivers within 60 miles of the ocean. Juveniles feed on planktonic and benthic
organisms. In estuaries, nearshore habitat that contains eelgrass is critical for the development of
juvenile chum salmon as they feed on epibenthic invertebrates, particularly harpacticoid copepods and
gammarid amphipods which are found in protected, fine-grain substrates and eelgrass. These habitats
also provide protection from predators. In marine environments, adult chum salmon eat copepods,
squid, small fishes, crustacean larvae, pteropods, and polychaetas (Fresh, 2006). WDFW does not
document the presence of chum salmon in proximity of the proposed project, however chum salmon
are known to exist in Oak Bay and Kilisut Harbor adjacent to the subject property.
Bull Trout
Salvelinus confluentus
Threatened, listed November 1, 1999 - Critical Habitat designated October 18, 2010
Bull trout are an iteroparous species that mature around ages 5 to 7 years and have a lifespan of 12
years or more. There are four life history strategies for Bull Trout: 1) non-migratory populations that
spend their entire lives in small streams and headwater tributaries, 2) riverine populations that spawn
in tributaries and mature in large rivers, 3) lacustrine populations that spawn in tributaries and mature
in lakes, and 4) anadromous populations that spawn in natal tributaries and migrate downstream t o
mature in nearshore estuarine and marine waters (USFWS, 2010). The anadromous populations are
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 56 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
only found in western Washington. These populations tend to travel only modest distances
throughout the Puget Sound, although some individuals have been known to travel greater distances
and maintain prolonged residence in marine waters. They tend to overwinter in nearshore marine
waters or lower portions of streams (Brenkman & Corbett, 2011). Bull trout spawn in the fall, and
the eggs incubate for approximately 220 days with emergence typically in the spring (Shellberg, 2002).
Juveniles rear for a short time in their natal stream before migrating and maturing in nearshore marine
areas in the late spring. Once sexual maturity is reached, they return to upper reaches of mountain
freshwater streams to spawn, continuing this migration pattern to and from marine waters for up to
10 years. Nearshore use occurs predominantly in March through July (Goetz, 2003).
Bull trout occur in less than half their historic range, with scattered populations throughout Oregon,
Washington, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. Temperature is a major factor in determining bull trout
habitat. Bull trout cannot tolerate temperatures over 15 degrees Celsius and require temperatures
below 9 degrees Celsius to initiate spawning. Stream and riverine bull trout habitats are found in
channels with cold, stable flow; low levels of fine substrate sediment; clean gravel beds for spawning;
and complex habitat features that still allow corridors for migration. Complex stream and riverine
habitat features include abundant vegetation, debris jams, boulders, root wads, deep pools and
undercut banks (Shellberg, 2002). In Washington bull trout can be found in major tributaries from
the Cascades that flow into the Puget Sound as well as the major tributaries from the Olympic
Mountains that flow into Hood Canal, Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Ocean (USFWS, 2015).
After emergence, bull trout fry are most abundant in side-channels and pools with submerged cover
(McPhail & Baxter, 1996). Juveniles eat small aquatic invertebrates, while adults are primarily fish
predators. They are opportunistic feeders and will eat mountain whitefish, sculpins, darters, other
trout, salmon fry, shrimps, snails, leeches and fish eggs (Hammerson, 2010). Lacustrine populations
prefer oligotrophic and high-altitude lakes. They forge in the littoral zone in fall and spring and move
to deep water in the summer, likely due to temperature constraints (Goetz, 1989). Within marine
waters, bull trout prefer protected estuaries that contain coastal deposits, low banks, and sediment
bluffs. Shallow water areas that contain eelgrass and green algae are important to bull trout and provide
food for maturing juveniles (Hayes et al., 2011). In western Washington, small saltwater fish such as
surf smelt, herring and sandlance are important food sources in marine habitats for adult bull trout
(USFWS, 2015). WDFW does not document the presence of bull trout in proximity of the proposed
project, however bull trout are known to exist in Oak Bay and Kilisut Harbor adjacent to the subject
property.
7.3 Direct and Short-Term Effects
The proposed project actions has two potential mechanisms for direct and short-term impacts to any
ESA-listed species potentially present: a temporary increase in terrestrial noise caused by construction
activities, and temporary increases in erosion and sedimentation during the installation of sewer lines
within the buffers of Wetland A, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak Bay. Though construction equipment will
likely produce terrestrial noise at levels higher than ambient levels, terrestrial noise does not transmit
into the water where it might otherwise affect fish species. Installation of the sewer lines will require
minor excavation activities, however this will be limited to one narrow corridor that is the minimum
necessary to install the sewer lines. Additionally, following installation, the sewer lines will be buried
and disturbed soils will be seeded with native grass seed mix to stabilize soils and prevent future
impacts from erosion.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 57 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
No work is proposed waterward of the OHW of Oak Bay or Kilisut Harbor, and as such no turbidity
impacts from the proposed project are anticipated. Project activities will occur during the dry season
when it is less likely for loose sediments to be washed into the adjacent shoreline and wetland areas.
Additionally, BMPs and TESC measures (described further in section 7.6) will be incorporated
throughout the duration of the proposed project to further prevent sediment discharge to the Kilisut
Harbor, Oak Bay, and Wetlands A and B.
Any anticipated short-term effects are anticipated to be brief in time and space and not likely to
negatively affect, either directly or indirectly, any ESA-listed species.
7.4 Indirect Effects
Indirect impacts to the shoreline environments and Protected Flood Area onsite are expected to be
limited due to the existing developed conditions onsite, lack of functional habitat within the project
area, lack of in water work, and the proposed project activities which will primarily occur within the
footprint of the existing buildings and infrastructure onsite. New infrastructure is proposed, which
includes a sauna, two yurts, and the minor expansion of Cabins 5 and 8 and the main lodge, The
proposed sauna and yurts are located entirely outside the shoreline environments, and the minor
expansion of Cabins 5 and 8, the main lodge, and the sauna and yurts are located outside of the
Protected Flood Area. These minor increases in impervious surfaces outside of the shoreline
jurisdiction will be offset by a reduction in impervious surfaces associated with the existing cabin
access pathways located in the shoreline jurisdiction, and the addition of native trees and shrubs
throughout the site. These actions will increase filtration and infiltration onsite and reduce surface
runoff to the identified shorelines, floodplain, and wetland areas onsite.
7.5 Long-Term Effects
Long term effects of the proposed project on shoreline habitat and species and floodplain functions
are anticipated to be extremely minimal due to the current habitat conditions onsite coupled with the
proposed project actions which will result in a decrease in impervious surface area onsite within the
shoreline jurisdiction and will occur primarily within the footprints of the existing buildings and
infrastructure onsite. The existing habitat onsite is largely nonexistent due the existing resort facility
and associated mowed grass areas. In addition to the proposed project activities, landscaping
throughout the entire site is proposed. The landscaping will provide native trees and shrubs in areas
that currently consist of mowed grasses and herbaceous species. These actions, coupled with the
decrease in impervious surfaces and upgrades to the existing septic system onsite will improve
infiltration and provide sewage treatment and increased plant structure to slow surface runoff and
filter sediments and pollutants. These actions are anticipated to improve hydrology, water quality, and
habitat functions associated with the shoreline environments, floodplain areas, and Wetlands A and B
onsite, and will result in no net loss of ecological functions onsite or in the greater Quilcene/Snow
watershed.
7.6 Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices
All construction areas will be contained to upland areas and areas landward of the OHW of the marine
shorelines onsite; proper staging will be implemented to avoid disturbance to the shoreline
environments, floodplain areas, and identified wetlands to the greatest extent feasible. BMPs will be
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 58 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
implemented to minimize temporary project impacts. BMPs to avoid and minimize project impacts
include, but are not limited to:
• Construction staging will take place in secure upland areas to the maximum feasible extent;
• Incorporating erosion and sediment control measures such as silt fencing during earth
disturbing activities;
• Prepare and train construction team regarding a spill prevention and pollution control plan;
• Store, stage, and refuel equipment away from shoreline area; and
• Properly maintain and inspect equipment for leaks daily;
In addition to the general project BMPs identified above, particular care will be taken during the
installation of sewer lines within the shoreline environments to prevent excess or waste materials, or
increased sediments from entering Oak Bay. Sewer lines installed in the shoreline environment
associated with Kilisut Harbor will be located landward of the existing infrastructure onsite, outside
of the Protected Flood Area, but these BMPs will still be incorporated to ensure no net loss of
shoreline ecological function. BMPs associated with the installation of sewer lines within the shoreline
environments and portions of the Protected Flood Area will include:
• Limiting excavation activities to a single narrow corridor that is the minimum necessary to
support sewer line placement.
• Water testing of tanks during installation to prevent leakage into the shoreline environments
and Protected Flood Areas.
• Use of redundant pump systems to prevent overflow in the event of a single component
failure; and
• Restoring disturbed areas to pre-construction conditions.
In general, excess or waste materials will be kept from entering the identified critical areas to the
maximum extent possible, and all excess or waste materials will be collected and recycled or disposed
of at an approved facility. The contractor will comply with wate r quality restrictions as required by
law and implement corrective measures if temporary water quality standards are exceeded. Care will
be taken to prevent any petroleum products or other toxic or deleterious materials from entering the
water. Fuel hoses, oil drums, oil or fuel transfer valves and fittings, et cetera will be checked regularly
for drips or leaks and shall be maintained and stored properly to prevent spills. The contractor will
have a spill kit with oil-absorbent materials onsite to be used in the event of a spill or if any oil product
is observed in the water. The contractor will be responsible for the preparation of a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan to be used for the duration of the project if required by
permitting agencies.
7.7 Determinations of Effects
This section includes an analysis of project affects to ESA -listed species that have potential for
presence within the subject Action Area. The species assessed include marbled murrelet, southern
resident killer whale, gray whale, humpback whale, boccacio and yelloweye rockfish, steelhead trout
(Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment), chinook salmon (Puget Sound Evolutionary Significant
Unit), chum salmon (Hood Canal summer-run Evolutionary Significant Unit), and bull trout.
Potential project impacts are evaluated based upon specific habitat components that would be altered
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 59 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
or removed and the degree to which such alteration may occur; the abundance and distribution of the
habitat components; the distribution and population levels of the species (if known); the possibility of
direct or indirect impacts to the species and/or habitat, and the potential to mitigate for adverse
effects. These determinations are summarized in Table 11 below.
Table 11. Species Determination Summary
Species Name Common
Name ESA Listing Status Potential for
Impacts
Determination
of Effect
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Marbled
Murrelet Threatened Potential No Effect
Orcinus orca
Southern
Resident Killer
Whale
Endangered Potential No Effect
Eschrichtius robustus Gray Whale Endangered Potential No Effect
Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback
Whale Endangered Potential No Effect
Sebastes paucispinis Boccacio
Rockfish Endangered Potential No Effect
Sebastes ruberriumus Yelloweye
Rockfish Threatened Potential No Effect
Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead Trout Threatened Potential No Effect
Oncorhyncus
tshawytscha
Chinook
Salmon Threatened Potential No Effect
Oncorhynchus kisutch Chum Salmon Threatened Potential No Effect
Salvenlinus confluentus Bull Trout Threatened Potential No Effect
Marbled Murrelet
Brachyramphus marmoratus – Threatened, listed 1992.
Critical habitat designated May 1996 (50 CFR Part 17.11)
The Action Area does not contain potential suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelet; however,
foraging habitat may be found in the Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca as marbled murrelet
are opportunistic feeders. Flybys and foraging have been recorded in this area by citizen scientists
(eBird, 2021). While the proposed activities will result in elevated construction noises, the proposed
activities are not anticipated to result in in-air noise levels that would harass or harm this species. No
in-water work or work below the OHW of Kilisut Harbor or Oak Bay is proposed, and as such no
increases in turbidity that would impact prey species for foraging Marbled Murrelet is anticipated.
Therefore, the proposed actions May Affect, but are Not Likely to Adversely Affect Marbled
Murrelet.
Southern Resident Killer Whale
Orcinus orca – Endangered, listed November 15, 2005.
Critical Habitat designated November 2006.
Southern resident killer whale may be found in the Puget Sound or the Straits of Georgia and Juan de
Fuca during spring through fall. The website, www.orcanetwork.org, lists the most recent orca
sighting near the San Juan Islands on June 21, 2021. The proposed project is located entirely landward
of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay, and will no direct impacts to the shorelines or associated
wetlands are proposed. As all of the proposed work is located landward of OHW, no turbidity impacts
are anticipated. Additionally, the project will have no effect on Chinook salmon (more information
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 60 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
provided below) which is the primary prey species for Southern Resident Killer Whale. As there are
no mechanisms for the proposed project to impact Southern Resident Killer Whale, the proposed
project will have No Effect on Southern Resident Killer Whales.
Almost the entire Puget Sound has been designated as Critical Habitat for southern resident killer
whale, excluding areas that are less than twenty (20) feet deep during periods of high tide (NMFS,
2012a). Under the ESA “Critical habitat” is defined as: (1) specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to
conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that
the area itself is essential for conservation”. It is extremely unlikely that a southern resident killer
whale will come close to shore unless it is sick or dying. Additionally, all of the proposed project
activities are located landward of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay, and have no potential to
impact water quality as the project will incorporate BMPs and TESC measures for the duration of
construction, upgrade waste management facilities onsite, and will decrease impervious surfaces within
shoreline jurisdiction onsite. Therefore, the proposed project will have No Effect Southern
Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat.
Gray Whale
Eschrichtius robustus – Endangered – Foreign, listed in 1970 and 1994.
While gray whales may be found in the Puget Sound, likely during foraging or migration, they are more
likely to remain in waters on the outer coast during their migration. Recent sightings of Gray Whales
in the Puget Sound waters have been reported as recently as June 2021 (Orca Network, 2021).
It is extremely unlikely that a gray whale would come into Oak Bay or Kilisut Harbor , especially
towards the nearshore environment. As no construction is proposed below OHW, the proposed
project will not increase sedimentation or turbidity within Oak Bay or Kilisut Harbor, and over water
noise will not project underwater, there is no potential for impacts to gray whale in the vicinity of the
proposed project during construction. Additionally, the proposed project has been designed to ensure
no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and will not impact food sources for gray whales. As
such, the proposed project will have No Effect on Gray Whale.
Humpback Whale
Megaptera novaeangliae – Endangered, listed June 2, 1970.
While humpback whales are found in the Puget Sound likely during foraging or migration, they are
more likely to remain in waters on the outer coast during their migration. Rece nt sightings of
humpback whales in Puget Sound waters have been reported as recently as June 2021 (Orca Network,
2021). Humpbacks are estimated to be increasing in abundance in much of their range (NOAA, 2016).
It is extremely unlikely that a humpback whale would come into Oak Bay or Kilisut Harbor, especially
towards the nearshore environment. As no construction is proposed below OHW, the proposed
project will not increase sedimentation or turbidity within Oak Bay or Kilisut Harbor, and over water
noise will not project underwater, there is no potential for impacts to humpback whale in the vicinity
of the proposed project during construction. Additionally, the proposed project has been designed to
ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and will not impact food sources for humpback
whales. As such, the proposed project will have No Effect on Humpback Whales.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 61 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Bocaccio Rockfish Sebastes paucispinis – listed Endangered July 27, 2010 and Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes
ruberrimus – listed Threatened July 27, 2010.
Bocaccio rockfish have not been documented in the Puget Sound since 2001, although it is assumed
that an extant population exists (NMFS 2008a). Yelloweye rockfish are considered relatively rare in
the Puget Sound, observed more frequently in north Puget Sound than in southern areas (Miller and
Borton 1980). Juvenile rockfish recruitment is likely to be found in areas with shallow high – relief
zones with crevices and sponge gardens (Love et al 2002). Juveniles move from shallow roc ky reefs
to deeper pinnacles and rocky habitats as they mature (NMFS 2008a). Adults are most common
between 300 to 600 feet water depth, sometimes associated with depths between 40 to 1,560 feet deep
(Love et al 2002). The proposed Project Area is located entirely landward of the OHW of Kilisut
Harbor and Oak Bay and no increases in turbidity within Kilisut Harbor or Oak Bay are anticipated.
As such, the project will not impact the nearshore environment that may be used by juvenile and larval
rockfish present within the Puget Sound waters during the spring and summer months. Additionally,
the proposed project has no potential to impact water quality as the project will incorporate BMPs
and TESC measures during construction, will upgrade waste management facilities onsite, and will
generally decrease impervious surfaces in the shoreline environment. Due to the lack of impacts to
the marine environment from the proposed project, the proposed actions will have No Effect on
these Distinct Population Segments of Rockfish.
Rockfish critical habitat includes availability of prey to support individual growth, survival, and
reproduction of adult and juvenile rockfish. The proposed Project Area is too shallow to support
adult rockfish habitat; however, the Project Area likely provides habitat for juvenile rockfish. The
proposed project will result in no net loss of upper intertidal habitat availability. The proposed project
May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Rockfish
species.
Puget Sound Steelhead Trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss – Threatened, listed May 11, 2007.
Critical habitat designated February 2016 (81FR9251).
Puget Sound steelhead trout are documented within Puget Sound. The Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) in the Puget Sound includes all naturally spawned anadromous winter-run and summer –run
steelhead populations in streams in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and
Hood Canal, Washington bounded to the west by the Elwha River and to the north by the Nooksack
River and Dakota Creek as well as the Green River natural and Hamma Hamma winter –run steelhead
hatchery stocks. The proposed project is located entirely landward of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor
and Oak Bay, and no increases in turbidity within the marine shorelines is anticipated. Additionally,
the proposed project has no potential to impact water quality as the project will incorporate BMPs
and TESC measures during construction, will upgrade waste management facilities onsite, and will
generally decrease impervious surfaces in the shoreline environment. As such, no impacts to the
nearshore environment that may be used by steelhead for foraging and migration are anticipated. Due
to the location of the proposed project actions landward of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay,
and the lack of water quality impacts or permanent impacts to the shoreline environments, the
proposed project actions will have No Effect of Puget Sound Steelhead Trout.
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha – Threatened, listed (reaffirmed) June 28, 2005 (70FR37160).
Critical habitat designated September 2005 (70FR52630).
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 62 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Puget Sound Fall Chinook salmon are documented within Puget Sound. “Fall Chinook populations
in the Central and South Sound, Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca regions are sustained
predominately by hatchery production” (NMFS, 2012b). The proposed project is located entirely
landward of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay, and no increases in turbidity within the marine
shorelines is anticipated. Additionally, the proposed project has no potential to impact water quality
as the project will incorporate BMPs and TESC measures during construction, will upgrade waste
management facilities onsite, and will generally decrease impervious surfaces in the shoreline
environment. As such, no impacts to the nearshore environment that may be used by steelhead for
foraging and migration are anticipated. Due to the location of the proposed project actions landward
of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay, and the lack of water quality impacts or permanent
impacts to the shoreline environments, the proposed project actions will have No Effect Chinook
Salmon.
Due to the lack of potential for water quality impacts and lack of permanent impacts from the
proposed project, the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Chinook Salmon Critical
Habitat.
Hood Canal Summer Chum
Oncorhynchus keta – Threatened, listed (reaffirmed) April 14, 2014
Critical Habitat designated September 2, 2005
Hood Canal summer chum are documented within the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Hood Canal,
and have potential to migrate and forage in the shoreline areas associated with Kilisut Harbor and
Oak Bay. The proposed project is located entirely landward of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor and Oak
Bay, and no increases in turbidity within the marine shorelines is anticipated. Additionally, the
proposed project has no potential to impact water quality as the project will incorporate BMPs and
TESC measures during construction, will upgrade waste management facilities onsite, and will
generally decrease impervious surfaces in the shoreline environment. As such, no impacts to the
nearshore environment that may be used by steelhead for foraging and migration are anticipated. Due
to the location of the proposed project actions landward of the OHW of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay,
and the lack of water quality impacts or permanent impacts to the shoreline environments, the
proposed project actions will have No Effect on Hood Canal Summer Chum Salmon.
Due to the lack of potential for water quality impacts and lack of permanent impacts from the
proposed project, the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Hood Canal Summer Chum
Salmon Critical Habitat.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 63 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Bull Trout
Salvelinus confluentus – Threatened, listed November 1, 1999.
Critical Habitat designated October 2010 (75 FR 63898).
Bull trout are documented within Jefferson County; WDFW does not document presence of bull trout
in the vicinity of the proposed project, however the shorelines of Oak Bay and Kilisut Harbor provide
habitat and forage for migrating bull trout. The proposed project is located entirely landward of the
OHW of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay, and no increases in turbidity within the marine shorelines is
anticipated. Additionally, the proposed project has no potential to impact water quality as the project
will incorporate BMPs and TESC measures during construction, will upgrade waste management
facilities onsite, and will generally decrease impervious surfaces in the shoreline environment. As such,
no impacts to the nearshore environment that may be used by steelhead for foraging and migration
are anticipated. Due to the location of the proposed project actions landward of the OHW of Kilisut
Harbor and Oak Bay, and the lack of water quality impacts or permanent impacts to the shoreline
environments, the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Bull Trout.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 64 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS
The findings and conclusions documented in this assessment report have been prepared for specific
application to the Marrowstone Inn site. These findings and conclusions have been developed in a
manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the
environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The
conclusions and recommendations presented in this assessment report are professional opinions based
on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope,
budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes
in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due to such changes, our observations and
conclusions applicable to this assessment may need to be revised wholly or in part in the future.
OHW and wetland boundary determinations identified by SVC are based on conditions present at the
time of the site visit and considered preliminary until the determinations are validated by the
jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the OHW and wetland boundary determinations and
jurisdictional status of such features by the regulatory agencies provides a certification, usually written,
that the determinations verified are the units that will be regulated by the agencies until a specific date
or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulatory agencies can provide this certification.
As waterbodies are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in
boundaries may be expected; therefore, OHW and wetland boundary determinations cannot remain
valid for an indefinite period of time. Regulatory agencies may recognize the validity of an OHW and
wetland boundary determination for a period of 5 years after completion of an assessment report.
However, natural events such as shoreline erosion may alter the location of OHW or shoreline
wetlands. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due to such
changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in
part.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 65 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
CHAPTER 9. REFERENCES
Anderson, P.S., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark
for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Publication No. 16-06-029. Final Review
Draft. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C.
Ehinger, S.I., J.P. Fisher, R. McIntosh, D. Molenaar, and J. Walters. 2015. Working Draft, April
2015: Use of the Puget Sound Nearshore Habitat Values Model with Habitat Equivalency
Analysis for Characterizing Impacts and Avoidance Measures for Projects that Adversely Affect
Critical Habitat of ESA-Listed Chinook and Chum Salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Lacey, WA.
eBird. 2021. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Data accessed online: https://ebird.org/map. July 23,
2021 .
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United
States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic
Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
FEMA. 2013. Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation: Regional Guidance for the Puget
Sound Basin. August 2013.
Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale.
2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, Washington.
April 2005.
Hitchcock, C.L. & A. Cronquist, Ed. by D. Giblin, B. Ledger, P. Zika, and R. Olmstead. 2018. Flo ra
of the Pacific Northwest, 2nd Edition. U.W. Press and Burke Museum. Seattle, Washington.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
(Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.
Jefferson County. 2020. Jefferson County Code Title 18.22: Critical Areas. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/#!/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCou
nty1822.html#18.22. Current through December 21, 2021.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 66 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Jefferson County. 2020. Jefferson County Code Title 18.25: Shoreline Master Program. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/#!/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCou
nty1825.html#18.25. Current through December 21, 2021.
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant
List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153
733X.
Love, M.S., M.H. Carr, and L.J. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of
the genus Sebastes. Environ. Biol. Fish. 30:225-243.
Love, M.S., M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the northeast Pacific.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
McCreary, Fred R.. 1975. Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Miller, B.S. and S.F. Borton. 1980. Geographical Distribution of Puget Sound Fishes: Maps and
Data Source Sheets. Volume 2. Family Percichthyidae (Temperate Basses) 32.1 through Family
Hexigrammidae (Greenlings) 54.6.
Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Final Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale
(Megaptera novaeanglia). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National
Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 105 pp.
NMFS. 2005. Status Review Update for Puget Sound Steelhead. NMFS Puget Sound Biological
Review Team. July 2005.
NMFS. 2008a. Preliminary scientific conclusions of the review status of 5 species of rockfish:
bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes
ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish (Sebastes elongatus), and redstriped rockfish (Sebastes proriger) in
Puget Sound, Washington. NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington.
December 2008.
NMFS. 2008b. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.
NMFS. 2011. Batched Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Management Act Consultations: Thiesen and McClure Lots, Arcadia Point Seafood, Thurston
County, Washington (4th Field HUC 17110019, Puget Sound). NMFS Tracking Numbers
2011/02657 and 2011/02656. Seattle, Washington. August 2, 2011.
NMFS. 2012a. Data accessed from website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response [and Fish and
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 67 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Wildlife Coordination Act Recommendations] for the Regional General Permit 6 (RGP-6): Structures in Inland
Marine Waters of Washington State. Published September 13 by National Marine Fisheries Services.
NOAA Fisheries. (n.d.). Gray Whale. NOAA Species Directory - Gray Whale.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/gray-whale.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2016. NOAA Fisheries: Humpback
Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Data accessed from website:
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/humpback-whale.html.
NOAA Fisheries. (n.d.). Gray Whale. NOAA Species Directory - Gray Whale.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/gray-whale.
North Olympic Salmon Coalition (NOSC) (n.d). Kilisut Harbor Restoration Project.
https://nosc.org/kilisut-harbor-restoration-project/.
Northwest Public Broadcasting. 2019. ‘Humpback Comeback’ Delights Whale Watchers As
Rescuers Study Surge And Warn Of Risks. Published August 14, 2019. Pullman, WA.
Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). N.d. Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List (Soil Data
Access Live). Website:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.html
NRCS. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W.
Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils
Orca Network. 2021. Data accessed online:
http://www.orcanetwork.org/Main/index.php?categories_file=Sightings#map
Osborne, R. 2008. Data accessed online:
http://www.whalemuseum.org/education/library/whalewatch/arrivals.html
Pacific States Marine Fishery Commission (PSMFC). 2012. Chinook Salmon. Website.
http://www.psmfc.org/habitat/edu_chinook_facts.html.
Pearson, S. and M. Lance. 2010. Marbled murrelet population trends. Lead scientists, Scott Pearson
and Monique Lance. Data accessed on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife website:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/research/projects/seabird/marbled_murrelet_population/in
dex.html
Pearson, S. and H. Anderson. 2015. Streaked Horned Lark Habitat Characteristics. Website:
http://cascadiaprairieoak.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Streaked-horned-lark-habitat-
characteristics_April-2015.pdf
Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E.
Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington
State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, Washington. March 2005.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn 68 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme
Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. EPA/USACE. December 2,
2008.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains,
Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL
TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F.
Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for
Hydric Soils.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program:
report to Congress. 406 pp.
USFWS. 2011. Data accessed online: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/.
USFWS. 2016. Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles. ECOS Environmental Conservation
Online System. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/#
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1991. Management Recommendations for
Washington’s Priority Habitats and Species. May 1991.
WDFW. 2000. Bull Trout and Dolly Varden Management Plan. September 2000.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2020. Advanced Training Manual
Version 2020, Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects. Olympia,
Washington.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix A –– Methods and Tools
Table A1. Methods and tools used to prepare the report.
Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference
Wetland
Determination
USACE 1987
Wetland
Delineation
Manual
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mi
l/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Regional
Supplement to the
Corps of
Engineers Wetland
Delineation
Manual: Western
Mountains,
Valleys, and Coast
Region
http://www.usace.army.mil
/Portals/2/docs/civilworks
/regulatory/reg_supp/west
_mt_finalsupp.pdf
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010.
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Ver2.0),
ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MSS: U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development
Center.
Wetland
Classification
USFWS / Cowardin
Classification System
http://www.fws.gov/nwi/Pub
s_Reports/Class_Manual/class
_titlepg.html
https://www.fgdc.gov/standar
ds/projects/wetlands/nvcs-
2013
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T.
LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats
of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second
Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal
Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Hydrogeomorphic
Classification
(HGM) System
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mi
l/wetlands/pdfs/wrpde4.pd
f
Brinson. M. M. 1993. “A hydrogeomorphic
classification for wetlands,” Technical Report
WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Wetland Rating
Washington State
Wetland Rating
System
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/bib
lio/0406025.html
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State wetland
rating system for western Washington –Revised.
Publication # 04-06-025.
Wetland
Indicator Status
2016 National
Wetland Plant List
https://www.fws.gov/wetla
nds/documents/National-
Wetland-Plant-List-2016-
Wetland-Ratings.pdf
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner,
and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National
Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings.
Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April
2016. ISSN 2153 733X
Shoreline OHW
Delineation
Washington State
Shoreline
Management Act
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy
/publications/summarypage
s/1606029.html
Anderson, P.S., S. Meyer, P. Olson, and E.
Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary
High Water Mark for Shoreline Management
Act Compliance in Washington State.
Publication No. 16-06-029. Final Review Draft.
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance
Program, Washington State Department of
Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
USDA Plant
Database
http://plants.usda.gov/ Website.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference
Plant Names
and
Identification
Flora of the Pacific
Northwest
http://www.pnwherbaria.or
g/florapnw.php
Hitchcock, C.L. & A. Cronquist, Ed. by D.
Giblin, B. Ledger, P. Zika, and R.
Olmstead. 2018. Flora of the Pacific
Northwest, 2nd Edition. U.W. Press and Burke
Museum. Seattle, Washington.
Soils Data
Soil Color Charts
Munsell® Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color
Charts. New Windsor, New York.
Soil Data Access
Hydric Soils List
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov
/Internet/FSE_DOCUME
NTS/nrcseprd1316620.html
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
N.d. Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List (Soil
Data Access Live).
Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/In
ternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/n
rcs142p2_053171.pdf
NRCS. 2018. Field Indictors of Hydric Soils in
the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasialas,
G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA,
NRCS, in cooperation with the National
Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Washington
Natural Heritage
Program
http://data-
wadnr.opendata.arcgis.com/
datasets/wnhp-current-
element-occurrences
Washington Natural Heritage Program
(Data published 07/19/17). Endangered,
threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington.
Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Washington Natural Heritage
Program, Olympia, WA
Washington
Priority Habitats
and Species
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/p
hspage.htm
Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
Program Map of priority habitats and species
in project vicinity. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife.
Species of
Local
Importance
WDFW GIS Data http://wdfw.wa.gov/mappi
ng/salmonscape/
Website
Report
Preparation
Jefferson County
Shoreline Master
Program (JCSMP)
Jefferson County
Code (JCC)
https://www.codepublishin
g.com/WA/JeffersonCount
y/#!/JeffersonCounty18/Je
ffersonCounty1825.html#1
8.25.560
JCSMP Chapter 18.25
JCC Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B –– Background Information
This appendix includes a Jefferson County Topographic Map (B1); NRCS Soil Survey Map (B2);
USFWS NWI Map (B3); Jefferson County Stream and Wetland Inventory Map (B4); DNR Stream
Typing Map (B5); WDFW PHS Map (B6): WDFW Salmonscape Map (B7); WDFW Forage Fish
Survey Map (B8); DNR Kelp Map (B9); DNR Eelgrass Map (B10); FEMA Flood Hazard Map (B11);
Jefferson County Shoreline Environment Designations Map (B12).
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B1 –– Jefferson County Topographic Map
Subject Property
Location
(Approximate)
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B2 –– NRCS Soil Survey Map
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B3 –– USFWS NWI Map
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B4 –– Jefferson County Stream and Wetland Inventory
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B5 –– DNR Stream Typing Map
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B6 –– WDFW PHS Map
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix 7 – WDFW Salmonscape Map
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B8 –– WDFW Forage Fish Map
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B9 –– DNR Kelp Map
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B10 –– DNR Eelgrass Map
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B11 –– FEMA Floodplain Map
Subject Property
Location
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix B12 – Jefferson County Shoreline Environment Designations Map
Subject Property
Location
(Approximate)
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix C –– Existing Conditions and Proposed Plan
àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
BEACH DRIVE - EXISTING CONDITIONS
¢
0 150 30075 Feet
PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC 10 BEACH DRIVENORDLAND, WA 98358
JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:921084011 & 921084010
BEACH DRIVE DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO.
1/14/2022
2199.0001
DLS
1
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET
Wetland ACategory IEstuarine Wetland
1 " = 150 '
200' Shoreline Management Zone
150' Shoreline Buffer
Reduced 225' Wetland Buffer
OHW
ààààààààààà
àà
àà
Estuarine Wetland
ààààààààààà
àà
Slope Wetland
Site Boundary
Existing Boat Ramp
Existing Rock Bulkhead
Photo: From ramp southeast along bulkhead
Wetland BCategory IVSlope Wetland
Kilisut Harbor
àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààà
àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
ààààààààààààààààààààààà
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
BEACH DRIVE - EXISTING CONDITIONS
¢
0 150 30075 Feet
PRELIMINARYINFORMATION ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC 10 BEACH DRIVENORDLAND, WA 98358
JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:921084011 & 921084010
BEACH DRIVE DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO.
1/14/2022
2199.0001
DLS
2
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMESNO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FORCONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, ORESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET
Wetland ACategory IEstuarine Wetland
1 " = 150 '
200' Shoreline Management Zone(Natural)
200' Shoreline Management Zone(Shoreline Residential)
OHW
ààààààààààà
ààà
Estuarine Wetland
ààààààààààà
ààà
Slope Wetland
Site Boundary
Existing Boat Ramp
Existing Rock Bulkhead
Photo: From ramp southeast along bulkheadKilisut Harbor
Wetland BCategory IVSlope Wetland
XPROPERTY LINEORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE150' SHORELINE SETBACK200' SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ZONE225' REDUCE WETLAND BUFFERWATER SUPPLY LINEELECTRICAL POWERGAS SUPPLY LINETREEGRAVELCONCRETE PAVINGROCKBRICK PAVINGASPHALT PAVINGLEGENDLEGAL DISCRIPTIONASSESSOR'S PARCEL #921084010, 921084011,921084029, 1071400. FOR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SEE"EXHIBIT A" OF THAT DEED FILED UNDER JEFFERSONCOUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE #641419.PARCEL AREA:921084010 - 4.4 ACRES921084011 - 3.9 ACRES1. REFER TO SHORELINE, WETLAND, AND FEMAFLOODPLAIN ASSESSMENT REPORT FORSITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS2. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR GRADING &DRAINAGE INFORMATIONGENERAL NOTESIMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND DRAINAGEREFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONALIMPERVIOUS SURFACE INFORMATION.NSITE PLAN1PROPERTY LINE N 88° 58' 30" W 637.81'PROPERTY LINE S 00° 31' 40" W 24.98'PROPERTY LINE N 88° 58' 30" W 640.05'PROPERTY LINE S 00° 05' 54" W 300.04'
PROPERTY LINE S 00° 31' 40" W 300.1'(E) LODGE(E) B-1(E) B-2(E) B-3(E) B-4(E) B-5(E) B-6(E) B-7(E) B-8(E) B-9(E) B-10EQUIP.UTIL.(E)BARNPROPERTY LINE S 00° 51' 04" E 276.80'(E) GARAGE W/CARETAKER'SRESIDENCEWETALAND BWETALAND BOHWMOHWMOHWMOHWMOHWMOHWMWETALAND BOHWM150'SHORELINEBUFFER10'BUILDINGSETBACK200'SHORELINEMANAGEMENTZONE225'WETLANDBUFFER150'SHORELINEBUFFER10'BUILDINGSETBACK150'SHORELINEBUFFER10'BUILDINGSETBACK200'SHORELINEMANAGEMENTZONE225'WETLANDBUFFER200'SHORELINEMANAGEMENTZONERESORT RDESTUARYWETALAND BOHWMOHWMOHWMOHWMOHWMOAKBAYRESORT RDSTUDIOSPARCEL #921084010PARCEL #9210840116113 13th Avenue South,Seattle, Washington 98108206 545 8434NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONHOEDEMAKERISSUE DATEMARROWSTONE INN
PFEIFFER#10129STATE OF WASHINGTON10 BEACH DRIVE
NORDLAND, WA.
98358 REGISTEREDARCHITECTSTEPHEN DAVID HOEDEMAKERThis document contains informationproprietary to Hoedemaker Pfeiffer, LLC andis furnished in confidence for the limitedpurpose of evaluation, bidding, or review. Thisdocument or its contents may not be used forany other purpose and may not bereproduced or disclosed to others without thepre-written consent of Hoedemaker Pfeiffer,LLC. All rights reserved. Copyright 2019.1" = 40'-0"A003PROPOSEDOVERALLSITE PLANYURT 1YURT 208.06.2021VARIANCE, CUP & SSDPSUBMITTALKEYNOTES1(E) DECK TO REMAIN2(E) DECK TO BE REMOVED AND ENLARGED3(E) GRAVEL LOOP ROAD TO REMAIN AND BE REPAIRED4(E) SEPTIC DRAINFIELD TO BE DECOMMISSIONED5(E) WELL TO BE DECOMMISIONED6(E) GLENDON BIOFILTER SEPTIC SYSTEM TO REMAIN7(E) ROCKERY8(E) ELECTRICAL VAULT9(E) EQUIPMENT SHED TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED.10(E) WATER METER11(E) RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN.12(E) GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA TO BEREMOVED AND RESTORED AS VEGETATED AREA13(N) CRUSHED ROCK PARKING LOT W/ (30) PARKING SPACES.PARKING LOT TO BE SLOPED TOWARDS VEGETATED BUFFERAREA14(N) CRUSHED ROCK SERVICE PARKING W/ (5) PARKINGSPACES15(N) CRUSHED ROCK ROAD. DRIVEWAY TO BE DIRECTEDWEST TO SHEET FLOW THROUGH VEGETATED AREA16(N) DEVELOPMENT WITHIN (E) CARPORT FOOTPRINT. NONEW GROUND DISTURBANCE.17(N) WALKING PATH18(N) YURT. PER JCC 18.10.030 - "CAMPGROUND ANDCAMPING FACILITIES" MEANS A FACILITY IN WHICH SITESARE OFFERED FOR PERSONS USING TENTS OR OTHERPERSONAL, PORTABLE OVERNIGHT SHELTERS - (N) YURTDOES NOT QUALIFY AS CAMPGROUND.19(N) STAIR20(N) WATER LINE21(N) SEPTIC LINE22(N) SEPTIC TANK & PUMP CHAMBER23(N) SEPTIC DISPOSAL COMPONENTS AND DRAINFIELD24(N) 10' VEGETATED BUFFER STRIP FOR STORMWATERDISPERSION25(N) SECONDARY TREATEMENT/DOSING TANKS26(N) 30' VEGETATED BUFFER STRIP FOR STORMWATERDISPERSION27(N) CURTAIN DRAIN28(N) ENTRY.29LINE OF (E) WOODS AND BRUSH30(1) (N) ADA COMPLIANT PARKING SPACE31(N) (3) UNIT STUDIO BUILDING. STRUCTURE TO REPLACE (E)(3) BEDROOM MANUFACTURED HOME WITHIN (E)FOOTPRINT. NO NEW GROUND DISTURBANCE.32(N) BEDROOM EXTENSION LANDWARD OF (E) SHORELINE ENCROACHMENT1111111222223TYP.3TYP.455556778910101112TYP.12TYP.12TYP.13141515161617TYP.17TYP.17TYP.18181920TYP.21TYP.2222252223242627272928303112TYP.29292929(N) VEGETATED BUFFER STRIP(E) BUILDING FOOTPRINT(N) ADDITION WITH (E) FOOTPRINT(N) BUILDING(E) GRAVELED AREA TO BE RESTORED TO NATIVE PLANTING4637'-8"299'-11"189'-7"
300'-1"458'-7"233201.03.2021RFI-01 RESPONSE
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix D – Response to County Comments Letter
(January 3, 2022)
HOEDEMAKER PFEIFFER
6113 13th Avenue South Seattle, W A 98108 206 545 8434
January 03, 2022
SHANNEN CARTMEL
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
RE: SITE ADDRESS: 10 BEACH DR
CASE #: MLA21-00080 (SDP2021-00012 and ZON2021-00049)
Dear Ms. Cartmel:
Thank you for your initial review of our proposal. See below for responses to the requests for information sent November 4,
2021.
Traffic Impact Analysis Request
Per the request, a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was conducted by Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. See attached.
Septic Line Placement
See attached for justification/clarification of the proposed septic system and placement.
Ordinary High Water Mark Location
During Ecology’s office review of the proposed Marrowstone Inn site plan, ECY questioned the determination of the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM) based on their observation that the OHWM mapped by Soundview Consultants
(SVC) did not appear to align with the landward limit of vegetation, as observed by projecting the surveyed OHWM
upon aerial photographs. A joint site visit was conducted with the Department of Ecology (ECY, Rebecca Rothwell) and
Jefferson County (Shannen Cartmel) along with Hoedemaker Pfeiffer (John Sampson) and Soundview Consultants (Ann
Boeholt) on November 2, 2021 for the purpose of reviewing the OHWM location. During that site visit ECY agreed with
the location of the OHWM along the southern shoreline (of Oak Bay) but generally disagree d with the location of the
OHWM along the low energy marine shoreline of Kilisut Harbor (along the western boundary of the subject property)
and suggested that the OHWM was at a higher elevation than SVC had determined it to be. ECY placed a handful of
tentative flags in the ground, indicating where they were inclined to mark the OHWM and it was agreed to revisit the
site at a later date to confirm this revised OHWM after ECY and SVC both had the chance to conduct follow up research
and/or to coordinate with Senior Shoreline planners.
SVC and ECY revisited the site on November 18, between 9 and 10:30 am. The Port Townsend Tidal Datum Station
recorded observed tides of 8.13 ft (MLLW) at 4:50 am on that morning of November 18 and a recent high tide of 10.19
ft (MLLW) on Monday, November 15.
The Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) at the Port Townsend datum station is 8.52 feet (NOAA). Background research
and Ecology guidance suggest that the biological mark known as the OHWM mark can be expected to be roughly 1 to 2
feet above MHHW in northern Puget Sound. Based on this, the OHWM was expected to be approximately 9.5 feet at
Port Townsend, and roughly the same at the Marrowstone Inn, Kilisut Harbor shoreline, which is approximately 7.3
miles south of Port Townsend. Accordingly, it was expected that the most recent high tide from the early morning of
November 18 was below the OHW and that the recent highest tide of 10.19 feet was at or above the OHW.
During the site investigation of November 18, SVC and ECY observed a line of fresh flotsam that appeared indicative of
that morning’s high tide and another, higher, clear line of flotsam that was indicative of that highest recent tide (of
10.19 feet). The two lines of flotsam appeared to sufficiently “bookend” where the actual OHW was expected to
lie. SVC and ECY further observed that this highest line of flotsam conveniently coincided with distinct changes in the
vegetation community. Specifically, SVC and ECY keyed in on the waterward extent of Nootka rose and that point,
moving from higher to lower on the shoreline, where American dunegrass (Leymus mollis), yarrow (Achillea
millefolium), Puget sound gumweed (Grindelia integrifolia), and silver beachweed (Ambrosia chamissonis) (all
somewhat less salt tolerant vegetation) became less predominant, and where sea thrift (Armeria maritima) became
more so.
OHWM is defined as...
H O E D E M A K E R P F E I F F E R
6113 13 th Avenue South Seattle, W A 98108 206 545 8434
"Ordinary high water mark" on all lakes, streams, and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining
the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and
so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting
upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter,
or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the department:
PROVIDED, That in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water
mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide...” (RCW90.58.030).
What is known for certain was that there had been a recent very high tide along this shoreline, that it likely occurred at
the same time that a 10.19 ft tide was observed at Port Townsend, and that a clear line of flotsam indicated where this
high tide had reached upon the Marrowstone Inn, Kilisut Harbor shoreline. We also knew that this high tide was
approximately 2 feet above the MHHW. That didn’t necessarily imply that tide reached but did not exceed the OHWM.
However, ECY and SVC observed and agreed that the changes in the vegetation community coincided nearly exactly
with this recent deposition of flotsam and that the line of flotsam and that that recent high tide were, in fact, a very
close approximation of the OHWM. We observed that where flotsam was not evident, we were able to key in on the
subtle changes in the vegetation community to demark the OHWM and where changes in vegetation were too subtle
to discern, we were able to rely on the location of the more obvious flotsam line to approximate the OHWM. SVC and
ECY re-flagged the OHWM according to these on-the ground indicators and this line was then picked up by survey.
In some cases, the OHWM remained unchanged from where SVC had previously mapped it. In other areas, the OHWM
moved further landward. For the most part, the OHWM was NOT at the landward edge of American Dunegrass which
was found to be at a significantly higher elevation, and the OHWM was not as high as ECY had suggested it might be
during the joint site visit of November 2, 2021.
SVC has reviewed the revised survey and finds that it is a correct representation of the OHW agreed upon in the field
with ECY on November 18, 2021.
It is important to note that ECY did not question the delineations of the estuarine wetland (Wetland A) nor the slope
wetland (Wetland B). Those wetland boundaries, and their standard buffers, remain unchanged. This is significant
because the more extensive landward buffer of either the Shoreline (OHWM) or the wetland is the controlling buffer
(JCC 18.25.270(4)(g)). Along the western edge of the subject property, the reduced 225-foot estuarine wetland buffer
reaches farther landward than the 150-foot standard shoreline setback, even after this recent OHWM adjustment. This
does not affect the proposed site plan at the north end of the project area, in the vicinity of the proposed parking lot,
resort road, and septic system dosing tanks.
Interrupted Buffers
Our initial site plan incorporated an interrupted buffer due to our interpretation of the wetland buffer interruption
clause within County Code JCC 18.22.730(6)(b), “wetland buffers do not include areas that are functionally and
effectively disconnected from the wetland by an existing, legally established road or another substantial developed
surface.” We believe this to mean that the existing gravel road (that was legally established or nonconforming) is an
effective buffer interruption, especially when recognizing that the Jefferson County definition of impervious surfaces
includes gravel roads. Although we believe the requirements for an interrupted buffer are met, we will not move
forward with a request for a code interpretation and have removed the interrupted buffer from our proposal. See
updated site plan.
Thank you,
John Sampson
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix E –– Wetland Data Forms
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Beach Drive Nordland/Jefferson 3/4/2021
Andrew Nordstrom WA DP-1
Rachael Hyland 8,29N,1E
Hillslope Convex 5
A2 48.017095 -122.69768622 WGS 84
Clallam gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes (CmC)N/A
Not all three wetland criteria met; only wetland hydrology present. Data was collected in the northeastern portion of the subject
property.
Prunus sp.*15 Yes FACU 1
3
15 33%
Rubus armeniacus 5 Yes FAC
0 0
0 0
25 75
5 98 392
7 35
Dactylis glomerata 70 Yes FACU 130 502
Ranunculus acris 10 No FAC
Schedonorus arundinaceus 10 No FAC 3.86
Trifolium repens 8 No FACU
Cirsium vulgare 5 No FACU
Vicia sp.*5 No UPL
Geranium molle 2 No UPL
110
0
-10
No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance Test or Prevalence Index.
*Prunus sp. and Vicia sp. considered facultative upland and upland, respectively, for scoring purposes.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
DP-1
0 - 14 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaLo Sandy loam
14 - 16 10YR 3/2 70 10YR 3/6 2 C M LoSa Loamy sand; mixed
-10YR 4/2 28 ------
None
-
No hydric soil indicators observed.
None
12
10
Wetland hydrology criteria met through A2 and A3.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Beach Drive Nordland/Jefferson 4/29/2021
Andrew Nordstrom WA DP-2
Rachael Hyland 8,29N,1E
Hillslope None 2
A2 48.016704 -122.69893854 WGS 84
Tidal Marsh (Td)N/A
No wetland criteria met. Data was collected in the western portion of the subject property.
Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 Yes FACU 2
4
10 50%
Rosa nutkana 15 Yes FAC
0 0
0 0
60 180
15 65 260
0 0
Plantago lanceolata 30 Yes FACU 125 440
Agrostis capillaris 20 Yes FAC
Schedonorus arundinaceus 15 No FAC 3.52
Leucanthemum vulgare 10 No FACU
Anthoxanthum odoratum 10 No FACU
Alopecurus pratensis 10 No FAC
Trifolium pratense 5 No FACU
100
0
0
No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance Test or Prevalence Index.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
DP-2
0 - 7 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaLo Sandy loam
7 - 11 10YR 4/3 83 10YR 3/4 2 C M LoSa Loamy sand; mixed
-10YR 3/2 10 10YR 4/2 5 D M LoSa Loamy sand; mixed
11 - 12 10YR 4/3 85 10YR 3/4 15 C M LoSa Loamy sand
12 - 16 10YR 4/2 85 7.5YR 3/3 15 C M LoSa Loamy sand
None
-
No hydric soil indicators observed.
None
None
None
No wetland hydrology criteria met; soil pit dug to 16 inches.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Beach Drive Nordland/Jefferson 4/29/2021
Andrew Nordstrom WA DP-3
Rachael Hyland 8,29N,1E
Depression Concave 0
A2 48.016785 -122.69891969 WGS 84
Tidal Marsh (Td)N/A
All three wetland criteria met. Data was collected in Wetland A.
Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 Yes FACU 3
5
10 60%
Rosa nutkana 25 Yes FAC
Rubus armeniacus 10 Yes FAC
Crataegus monogyna 5 No FAC
Frangula purshiana F 2 No FAC
42
Anthoxanthum odoratum 25 Yes FACU
Holcus lanatus 20 Yes FAC
Ranunculus acris 15 No FAC
Plantago lanceolata 10 No FACU
Persicaria sp.*10 No OBL
Taraxacum officinale 5 No FACU
85
15
0
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
DP-3
0 - 6 10YR 3/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly sandy loam
6 - 14 10YR 5/2 90 10YR 3/4 10 C M LoSa Loamy sand
None
-
Hydric soil criteria met through F3 and S5.
None
10
8
Wetland hydrology criteria met through primary indicators A2 and A3.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Beach Drive Nordland/Jefferson 4/29/2021
Andrew Nordstrom WA DP-4
Rachael Hyland 8,29N,1E
Hillslope None 3
A2 48.017011 -122.69843956 WGS 84
Clallam gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes (CmC)N/A
No wetland criteria met. Data was collected in the north central portion of the subject property.
Salix scouleriana 40 Yes FAC 3
7
40 43%
Rosa nutkana 25 Yes FAC
Gaultheria shallon 25 Yes FACU
Crataegus monogyna 25 Yes FAC 0 0
Holodiscus discolor 25 Yes FACU 0 0
Oemleria cerasiformis 15 No FACU 95 285
115 150 600
0 0
Polystichum munitum 35 Yes FACU 245 885
Hedera helix 30 Yes FACU
Mahonia nervosa 10 No FACU 3.61
Rubus ursinus 5 No FACU
Rubus armeniacus 5 No FAC
85
0
15
No hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance Test or Prevalence Index.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
DP-4
0 - 7 7.5YR 2.5/1 100 ----SaLo Sandy loam
7 - 12 10YR 4/3 80 ----LoSa Loamy sand; mixed
-10YR 3/2 20 ----LoSa Loamy sand; mixed
12 - 16+10YR 5/2 92 10YR 4/4 8 C M LoSa Loamy sand
None
-
No hydric soil indicators observed.
None
None
None
No wetland hydrology criteria met; soil pit dug to 18 inches.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft)
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Beach Drive Nordland/Jefferson 4/29/2021
Andrew Nordstrom WA DP-5
Rachael Hyland 8,29N,1E
Terrace None 0
A2 48.017011 -122.69843956 WGS 84
Tidal marsh (Td)N/A
Not all three wetland criteria met; no wetland hydrology present. Data was collected in the south western portion of the subject
property.
2
2
0 100%
0
Agrostis capillaris 40 Yes FAC
Grindelia sp.*20 Yes FACW
Leucanthemum vulgare 10 No FACU
Cirsium arvense 10 No FAC
Holcus lanatus 8 No FAC
Achillea millefolium 5 No FACU
Vicia sp.*5 No UPL
Geranium molle 2 No UPL
100
0
0
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met through Dominance Test.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:________________________________
Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
DP-5
0 - 7 10YR 3/2 100 ----SaLo Sandy loam
7 - 14 10YR 4/2 100 ----SaLo Sandy loam
None
-
Hydric soil criteria met through A11.
None
None
None
No wetland hydrology criteria met; soil pit dug to 16 inches.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix F –– Wetland Rating Forms
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1.Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential
Landscape Potential
Value TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2.Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
B
B 03/04/21
Rachael Hyland 4 3/2019
Slope 4
ESRI ArcGIS
IV 4
M M L
M M L
L L M
5 5 4 14
N/A
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 2
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3
Riverine Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Ponded depressions R 1.1
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2
Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1
Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3
Lake Fringe Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4
Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3
Slope Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4
Hydroperiods H 1.2
Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3
Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants
(can be added to figure above)
S 4.1
Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3
B
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1.Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2.The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5.Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
B
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7.Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8.Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
B
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 11
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every
100 ft of horizontal distance)
Slope is 1% or less points = 3
Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2
Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1
Slope is greater than 5% points = 0
S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0
S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants:
Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you
have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher
than 6 in.
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3
Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2
Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1
Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0
Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants?
Yes = 1 No = 0
S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1?
Other sources _________________________________________________________________ Yes = 1 No = 0
Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is
on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0
S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES
if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
B
2
0
6
8
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 12
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SLOPE WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion
S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion?
S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate
for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8
in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows .
Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1
All other conditions points = 0
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site?
S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess
surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstr eam that have flooding problems:
The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or
natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2
Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1
No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0
S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
Yes = 2 No = 0
Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
1
1
0
0
0
B
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
____Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
____Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
____Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
____The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
____Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
____Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
____Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
____Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
____Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
____Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
____Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: > 19 species points = 2
5 - 19 species points = 1
< 5 species points = 0
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams
in this row
are HIGH = 3points
B
0
0
1
0
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 14
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
____Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
____Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland
____Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m)
____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed)
____At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians)
____Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata)
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______% Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
If total accessible habitat is:
> 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
< 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
[(% moderate and low intensity land uses) /2] = _______%
points = 3
points = 2
points = 1
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat +
Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches
Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches
Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
> 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a
Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page
B
2
3
2.65 1.02 3.16
0
30.06 17.51 38.815
1
-2
-1
1
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and
wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-
layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200
years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less
than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that
found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak
component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet
prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide
functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and
Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report –
see web link on previous page).
Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock,
ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite,
and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
B
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
B
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
B
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
This page left blank intentionally
B
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix G –– Wetland Rating Maps
10 BEACH DRIVENORDLAND, WA 98358
JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:921084011 & 921084010
BEACH DRIVE
BEACH DRIVE - COWARDIN MAP
¢
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO.
6/28/2021
2199.0001
RJK
11 " = 175 '
Site Boundary
Scrub Shrub
330' Boundary
of 4
0 175 35087.5 Feet
10 BEACH DRIVENORDLAND, WA 98358
JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:921084011 & 921084010
BEACH DRIVE
BEACH DRIVE - HYDROPERIOD MAP
¢
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO.
6/28/2021
2199.0001
RJK
21 " = 150 '
Site Boundary
Saturated
150' Boundary
of 4
0 150 30075 Feet
10 BEACH DRIVENORDLAND, WA 98358
JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:921084011 & 921084010
BEACH DRIVE
BEACH DRIVE - HABITAT MAP
¢
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO.
6/28/2021
2199.0001
RJK
31 " = 1,250 '
1KM Polygon
Moderate & Low Intensity
Relatively Undisturbed
High Intensity
of 4
0 1,250 2,500625 Feet
Abutting Undisturbed Habitat 2.65%
Abutting Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 1.02%
Accessible Habitat 3.16%
Undisturbed Habitat 30.06%
Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 17.51%
Undisturbed Habitat in 1 KM Polygon 38.82%
High Intensity Land Use in 1 KM Polygon 52.42%
H.2.2
H.2.3
H.2.0 Wetland A
H.2.1
ààààà
à
10 BEACH DRIVENORDLAND, WA 98358
JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:921084011 & 921084010
BEACH DRIVE
BEACH DRIVE - 303(D) MAP
¢
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC
DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO.
6/28/2021
2199.0001
RJK
4
Sub Basin
Category 5 Assessed Waters
Water Quality Improvement Project
DNR - Streams
of 4
SITE
0 2 41 Miles
1 " = 2 mi
NOTE: No TMDL/WQIP projects locatedwithin the Subbasin, nor 303(D) waters within 5-miles that could be impacted
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix H –– Action Area Map
BEACH DRIVE - ACTION AREA
¢
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
www.soundviewconsultants.com
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC 10 BEACH DRIVENORDLAND, WA 98358
JEFFERSON COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:921084011 & 921084010
BEACH DRIVE DATE:
JOB:
BY:
SCALE:
FIGURE NO.
6/25/2021
2199.0001
RJK
11 " = 1,000 '
2,109-Foot Noise Action Area (Hard Site)998-Foot Noise Action Area (Soft Site)
Project Area
998-foot2,109-foot
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix I –– Site Photographs
Photo 1. Existing shoreline conditions along Oak Bay: rock
bulkhead and cabins 2-4. Cabin 1 is set back, behind Cabin 2,
and out of view.
Photo 2. Existing concrete boat ramp—to be retained in
current condition.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Photo 3. Oak Bay Shoreline, looking east from boat ramp.
Photo 4. Existing Shoreline condition at SW property corner,
facing north. Cabin 5 in center right of photo.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Photo 5. Existing conditions on the Western portion of the
subject property, with cabins 5, 8, 9, and the main lodge in
view.
Photo 6. Existing conditions in northwest corner of property,
facing east, showing cabins 6 and 7.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Appendix J –– Author Qualifications
All field inspections, habitat assessments, wetland delineations, and supporting documentation,
including this Shoreline, Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain
Assessment prepared for the Marrowstone Inn project site were prepared by, or under the direction
of, Ann Boeholt of SVC. In addition, the field investigations were performed by Ann Boeholt and
Rachael Hyland, and report preparation was completed by Morgan Kentch.
Ann Boeholt, SPWS
Senior Environmental Planner
Professional Experience: 30+ years
Ann Boeholt is a Senior Environmental Planner and a Certified Senior Professional Wetland Scientist
with over 30 years of experience in aquatic resources management in western Washington. Ann earned
a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science from the Evergreen State College and
completed coursework and a thesis towards a Master of Science in Aquatic Ecology from the
University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences. Ann has formal training and
extensive experience in wetlands delineations and ratings, shorelands management, fish and wildlife
and marine assessments, ordinary high water mark determinations, environmental planning,
negotiations and permitting, native plant selection, care and maintenance, ecological performance
monitoring and scientific data analysis, mitigation banking and alternative mitigation programs. She
listed as a Qualified Wetland Scientist by Pierce County and as a WSDOT Junior BA author.
Ann served as Project Manager for several significant projects within Pierce County, including the
successful development of Pierce County’s In-Lieu Fee Program and the aquatic habitat restoration
design and construction of the 15-acre South Midland Wetland Reserve.
As a Senior Environmental Planner, Ann is responsible for project planning and management,
including researching regulations, analyzing and sharing findings, participating in strategic planning of
projects, reviewing and finalizing assessment reports and permit applications, supporting projects
through the permit review process, and related tasks.
Rachael Hyland, WPIT
Environmental Scientist & Certified Ecologist
Professional Experience: 8 years
Rachael Hyland is an Environmental Scientist with extensive wetland and stream delineation and
regulatory coordination experience. Rachael has a background in wetland and ecological habitat
assessments in various states, most notably Washington, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
and Ohio. She has experience in assessing wetland, stream, riparian, and tidal systems, as well as
complicated agricultural and disturbed sites. She currently performs wetland, stream, and shoreline
delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and
prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit
applications to support clients through the regulatory and planning process for various land use
projects. She also has extensive knowledge of bats and their associated habitats and white nose
syndrome (Pseudogymnoascus destructans), a fungal disease affecting bats which was recently documented
in Washington.
2199.0001 Nordstrom – Marrowstone Inn Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline, WL, F & W Habitat, and FEMA Floodplain Assessment Revised January 24, 2022
Rachael earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University
of Connecticut, with additional ecology studies at the graduate level. Rachael is a Wetland Professional
in Training (WPIT) through the Society of Wetland Scientists as well as a Certified Ecologist through
the Ecological Society of America. She has completed 40-hour wetland delineation training for
Western Mountains, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplement, in addition to formal
training for the Northcentral and Northeast supplement, and experience with the Midwest, Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont, and Atlantic and Gulf Coast supplements. She has also received formal
training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in the Using the Revised 2014 Wetland
Rating System for Western Washington, How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark,
Navigating SEPA, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach, and Wetland
Classification. Rachael has also received training from the Washington State Department of
Transportation in Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects and is listed by
WSDOT as a junior author for preparing Biological Assessments.
Morgan Kentch
Staff Scientist
Professional Experience: 2 years
Morgan Kentch is a Staff Scientist with a background concentrating in marine biology and aquatic
ecosystems in Washington State. Morgan earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Biology with
marine emphasis from Western Washington University, Bellingham. There she received extensive,
hands-on experience working in lab and field settings, and studying local marine and aquatic organisms
and ecosystems. One of Morgan’s more exceptional projects included monitoring a stream restoration
project for the City of Bellingham by assessing stream habitat and biotic quality, collecting data,
identifying local stream invertebrates, and writing a report outlining analyzed results. Morgan also
participated in a study abroad program in La Paz, Baja California Sur, where she led an independent
study on the effects of temperature on bioluminescent organisms in a local bay. Through this project,
she demonstrated a strong understanding of collecting background research, following the scientific
method, conducting scientific research, and writing a scientific paper formatted for journal
submission.
Morgan currently assists in wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat
assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and prepares environmental assessment and
mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications to support clients through the
regulatory and planning process for various land use projects. She has received wetland delineation
training (Western Mtns, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplemen t), and has received
formal training through the Washington State Department of Ecology and Coastal Training Program
in Using the 2014 Wetland Rating System, and How to Conduct a Forage Fish Survey.