HomeMy WebLinkAboutHabitat Management Plan
Termination Point
Stormwater Outfall Pipe
Development Project
FEMA Habitat Assessment &
Mitigation Planting Plan
September 28, 2022
For: Jefferson County Parcel # 998600009
Port Ludlow 98365
c/o Johnny Magnuson
Termination Point Properties LLC
26548 Miller Bay Road
Kingston, WA 98346-9404
Oct 27 2022
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | i
Table of Contents
1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Applicant Information ................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.5 Project Description & Construction Details .................................................................................. 4
1.6 Action Area ................................................................................................................................... 8
2 Habitat Conditions Onsite .................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Ordinary High Water Mark Determination ................................................................................. 10
2.2 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Wildlife Observed ....................................................................................................................... 12
3 Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) .................................................................. 13
3.1 State Priority Habitat & Species ................................................................................................. 13
3.1.1 Forage Fish .......................................................................................................................... 14
3.1.2 Eelgrass and Kelp ................................................................................................................ 15
3.1.3 Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas .................................................................... 16
3.2 Federal ESA-Listed Species & Critical Habitat .......................................................................... 17
3.2.1 Puget Sound Chinook.......................................................................................................... 18
3.2.2 Hood Canal Summer-run Chum .......................................................................................... 18
3.2.3 Bull Trout ............................................................................................................................ 19
3.2.4 Puget Sound Steelhead ........................................................................................................ 19
3.2.5 Rockfish .............................................................................................................................. 20
3.2.6 Marbled Murrelets............................................................................................................... 21
3.2.7 Humpback whale................................................................................................................. 21
3.2.8 Leatherback Sea Turtle ........................................................................................................ 22
3.2.9 Southern Resident Killer Whale .......................................................................................... 22
3.2.10 Streaked Horned Lark ......................................................................................................... 23
3.2.11 Yellow-billed Cuckoo ......................................................................................................... 23
3.2.12 Monarch Butterfly ............................................................................................................... 24
3.2.13 Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly ........................................................................................... 24
3.2.14 Golden Paintbrush ............................................................................................................... 25
4 Effects of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 25
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | ii
4.1 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 26
4.2 In-Air Noise ................................................................................................................................ 27
4.3 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 27
4.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Related Impacts...................... 27
4.5 Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................................... 28
4.6 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects ............................................................................................. 29
5 Conservation Measures to Avoid & Minimize Impacts ..................................................................... 29
5.1 Determination of Effect............................................................................................................... 31
6 Mitigation Plan for No Net Loss of Ecological Function ................................................................... 33
6.1 Proposed Mitigation .................................................................................................................... 33
6.2 Mitigation Goals ......................................................................................................................... 34
Goal (1) Buffer Enhancement ............................................................................................................ 34
Goal (2) Emergent Cover ................................................................................................................... 34
Goal (3) Survival ................................................................................................................................ 34
Goal (4) Soil ....................................................................................................................................... 34
6.3 Mitigation Performance Standards .............................................................................................. 34
6.4 Site Preparation ........................................................................................................................... 35
6.5 Plant Procurement ....................................................................................................................... 35
6.6 On Center Dimensions and Area Coverage ................................................................................ 35
6.7 Planting Instructions ................................................................................................................... 35
6.8 Inspection and Maintenance Criteria .......................................................................................... 37
6.9 Planting Plan ............................................................................................................................... 37
7 Monitoring & Maintenance ................................................................................................................ 41
7.1 As-Built Report ........................................................................................................................... 41
7.2 Monitoring Schedule ................................................................................................................... 41
7.3 Monitoring Methods ................................................................................................................... 41
7.4 Maintenance ................................................................................................................................ 42
7.5 Contingency ................................................................................................................................ 42
8 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 43
References ................................................................................................................................................... 44
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | iii
List of Tables
Table 1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Designated Critical Habitat ......................................................................................................................... 17
Table 2. Locations and Total Numbers of Native Plants to be Installed ..................................................... 38
Table 3. Plant List for ditch on north side of Ricky Beach Drive (within the shoreline critical area) ........ 38
Table 4. Plant List for Catch Basin 1 .......................................................................................................... 39
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Proposed site plan .......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Stormwater Outfall Pipe & Critical Area Buffers by JC Wilson Engineering Consulting ............ 6
Figure 4. JC Wilson Engineering Drawings showing entire stormwater pipe from above ........................... 7
Figure 5. Engineered plan showing straw wattles and silt fence erosion protection measures ..................... 8
Figure 6. Cross Section of Topography Drawn by Johnny Magnuson ......................................................... 9
Figure 7. Photo of OHWM ......................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 8. WDFW PHS Mapper ................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 9. WDFW & WDNR Documented Forage Fish Spawning Map ..................................................... 15
Figure 10. WDNR Puget Sound Seagrass Monitoring Data ....................................................................... 16
Figure 11. DOH Commercial Shellfish Map .............................................................................................. 16
Figure 12. FEMA Flood Zone Map ............................................................................................................ 28
Figure 13. Planting Instructions .................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 14. Planting Plan Areas Highlighted ................................................................................................ 40
Appendices
Appendix A. Site Photos
Appendix B. Engineered Stormwater Plan Set
Appendix C. Native Plant Sources for the Pacific NW
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 1
1 Project Overview
1.1 Purpose
Marine Surveys & Assessments (MSA) was authorized by Johnny Magnuson, on behalf of the
Termination Point Properties LLC, to complete a FEMA Habitat Assessment (HA), including a
Mitigation Planting Plan, to meet Jefferson County Code (JCC) and No Net Loss (NNL) criteria
for the permitting of a proposed stormwater outfall pipe associated with the construction of the
Termination Point homeowners association multi-home development project.
This FEMA Habitat Assessment has been prepared in compliance with the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (Chapter
18.25), the Jefferson County Critical Areas Code (Chapter 18.22), and the Regional Guidance
For Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin
(Produced by FEMA - Region 10, August 2013).
This report serves to describe MSA’s findings, including evaluating potential direct and indirect
effects of the proposed stormwater outfall pipe on sensitive habitat and wildlife species that may
occur in the project area, potential impacts to the water quality of nearby waterways, and a
proposed mitigation plan to meet the criteria of NNL of ecological function. Because the
proposed stormwater outfall pipe occurs within the 100-year floodplain, FEMA flood zone
information is also provided.
A habitat survey was conducted by MSA biologist Jill Cooper on August 15th, 2022. The weather
was clear and sunny with a light breeze and temperatures of around 70° Fahrenheit. A second site
visit occurred on September 13th, 2022, for the purpose of meeting with the Washington
Department of Natural Resource’s (WDNR) Olympic Peninsula Natural Resources Specialist,
Levi Puksta, to further investigate the drainage and get a second opinion on whether the drainage
should be classified as a regulated stream.
In addition to this critical habitat areas report, a professional land survey and an engineered
stormwater and site plan informed by the recommendations from a geotechnical report have been
completed as separate documents by other consultants.
1.2 Regulatory Framework
The proposed stormwater outfall pipe is within a Natural Shoreline designation area according to
the Jefferson County SMP (18.25.500(3) Residential Shoreline Environmental Regulations).
Under JCC 18.25.270(4), development projects along marine shorelines must maintain a
standard buffer of 150 ft (minimum) landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), plus
a 10-ft-wide building setback for a total of 160 ft. Exceptions can be made by Jefferson County if
a buffer reduction is requested and a NNL mitigation plan is implemented (JCC 18.22.640 &
18.22.660).
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 2
Additionally, the engineered stormwater design and site plan, which has been approved by the
Jefferson County department of Public Works, proposes that the stormwater outfall pipe be
placed in an existing drainage which falls under the WDNR stream typing criteria for a type
“non-fish perennial” (Type-Np) stream. The DNR.wa.gov website describes Np streams as,
“Streams that have flow year round and may have spatially intermittent dry reaches
downstream of perennial flow. Type Np streams do not meet the physical criteria of a
Type F stream. This also includes streams that have been proven not to contain fish using
methods described in Forest Practices Board Manual Section 13.”
Jefferson County Critical Areas Code Table 18.22.630(1): Stream Buffers requires a 75-foot
buffer for Type-Np streams.
According to JCC 18.22.640, critical habitat area buffers “shall not be reduced to less than 75
percent of the standard buffer, unless it can be demonstrated through a special report prepared
by a qualified professional that there will be no net loss of FWHCA functions or values.”
Additionally, a portion of the proposed stormwater outfall pipe is located within the FEMA 100-
year flood plain, so a FEMA Habitat Assessment is required as outlined in JCC 18.22.940
Frequently flooded area reports.
As required under JCC 18.22.660, an onsite mitigation planting plan with a 1:1 mitigation ratio
will be implemented to achieve NNL of ecological function criteria and mitigate for the new
stormwater outfall pipe placement within the shoreline buffer (Section 6).
1.3 Applicant Information
Name: Termination Point Properties LLC, C/o Johnny Magnuson
Mailing Address: 26548 Miller Bay Road, Kingston, WA 98346-9404
Phone Number: (206) 842-6873
Email address: treesteward@hotmail.com
1.4 Project Location
Section 2, Township 27N, Range 1E
Jefferson County Parcel # 998600009
Legal Description: TERMINATION POINT LOT 19 NOTICE/TITLE AF#583823-RES#21-14
Latitude: 47.86513, Longitude: -122.64609
Waterbody: Squamish Harbor, Puget Sound
WRIA: 17 - Quilcene – Snow
WRIA Sub Basin: Quilcene-Dabob
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 3
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
The portion of the proposed stormwater outfall pipe that is located within the shoreline
jurisdiction is located within parcel number 998600009 (lot 19). Lot 19 is located along the
shoreline of Squamish Harbor, south of the Hood Canal Bridge, and can be accessed through
Ricky Beach Drive, a small private road now primarily used as a walking path. Lot 19 is entirely
undeveloped, approximately 0.29 acres in size, and zoned as rural residential (RR-5). The parcel
is bordered on the north side by Ricky Beach Drive, on the south side by Squamish Harbor, and
on the east and west by rural residential parcels. Outside of the shoreline jurisdiction, located to
the north of Ricky Beach Drive, is a steep cliff face, above which the Termination Point housing
development lots can be found (see Figure 2).
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 4
1.5 Project Description & Construction Details
The proposed stormwater outfall pipe will consist of standard 18-inch diameter HDPE pipe
placed within the existing NP stream bed. No grading or fill will be required, and the pipe will
simply be laid within the existing drainage, allowing the stream to flow freely around it. The pipe
will be closed with the exceptions of 4 points: The intake at Catch Basin 3, Catch Basins 1 & 2
(which are strategically placed in existing drainage ditches so that water can enter from
additional runoff sources), and the outfall.
The stormwater pipe will begin at Lot 32, above the cliff, where water will collect at an
engineered biofilter swale before entering the enclosed HDPE pipe at Catch Basin 3 (see Figures
2 through 4). The water will then be directed over the cliff, within the enclosed pipe, in the
location of the existing Type NP stream waterfall. After the waterfall, the pipe follows the
existing NP stream drainage channel before running into Catch Basin 2, which is located in a
manmade ditch that runs along the north side of Ricky Beach Drive. At the proposed location of
Catch Basin 2, the natural stream appears to have been historically re-routed to flow in a
southerly direction along the ditch. The HDPE pipe will run along that existing ditch for
approximately 400 ft before reaching Catch Basin 1. At this point, the pipe has entered the 150-ft
Shoreline Critical Area Buffer. At Catch Basin 1, the pipe turns south and goes through an
existing culvert under Ricky Beach Drive, then onto Lot 19, laying within the scoured Type-NP
stream channel. The pipe terminates at a diffuser “T” located approximately 20 ft above the
OHWM. Around the diffuser “T” 8 to 24-inch rip rap rocks will be placed to help dissipate and
slow the water so as to not cause additional erosion (see Appendix B for full Engineered
Stormwater Plan Set).
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 5
Figure 2. Proposed site plan
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 6
Figure 3. Stormwater Outfall Pipe & Critical Area Buffers by JC Wilson Engineering Consulting
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 7
Figure 4. JC Wilson Engineering Drawings showing entire stormwater pipe from above
All equipment and construction materials will be staged outside of the 150-ft shoreline buffer
and along an existing dirt roadway/pathway on the north side of Ricky Beach Drive.
Construction will be completed by a licensed contractor. Before any construction work begins,
site construction limits for clearing and runoff will be clearly laid out on site. A silt fence and
straw wattles will be installed on the waterward side of the construction staging area, as well as
waterward of the proposed outfall pipe (just above the OHWM) – see Figure 5). Any disturbed
earth resulting from construction activity will be covered with mulch to mitigate sediment runoff.
Preserving native vegetation, minimizing disturbance, and minimizing sediment runoff from the
site is a high priority and will be reflected in every element of the outfall construction process.
All due diligence will be taken to ensure there are no fuel/oil leaks for any vehicles or machinery
on-site during construction.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 8
Figure 5. Engineered plan showing straw wattles and silt fence erosion protection measures
1.6 Action Area
For the purposes of this report, the “project area” is defined as the area within Lot 19 and the
Shoreline Juristiction where the construction work will take place. The project area also includes
areas that may be used for staging materials and equipment, as well as accessing the site.
The “action area” is defined as any area that may be ecologically impacted from short-term
construction activities or long-term habitat modifications and covers approximately 0.25 miles
from the project area to account for construction noise. This action area includes a portion of
Squamish Harbor/Hood Canal, Puget Sound.
2 Habitat Conditions Onsite
Lot 19 slopes up from the beach at an approximately 25% grade before meeting Ricky Beach
Drive (see Figures 3 & 6). A drainage which meets the criteria to be classified as a Type NP
stream, is located roughly in the center of the parcel, running north-south. The stream appears to
originate from groundwater seeps upslope of the Termination Point housing development. The
stream then flows through the Termination Point development area as a scoured channel,
approximately one to two feet wide, then through a man-made culvert, before flowing over the
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 9
cliff as a small waterfall. At the base of the waterfall, the stream again forms a natural scoured
channel approximately one to two feet wide, until it reaches Ricky Beach Drive and is directed
into manmade ditch located along the north side of Ricky Beach Drive. The stream follows this
ditch southerly until it reaches a large culvert that brings it to Lot 19. On Lot 19, the drainage
once again forms a natural scoured channel before it discharges into Squamish Harbor. At the
time of the survey there was water trickling over the cliff/waterfall, despite the recent dry
conditions, which indicated that this is a perennial water source.
Figure 6. Cross Section of Topography Drawn by Johnny Magnuson
The vegetation within Lot 19 consists of almost entirely native mixed conifer forest, with the
scoured drainage running roughly down the middle. The beach below the OHWM consists of
cobble intermixed with some sand and shell hash, including clam and oyster shells. Some sea
lettuce (Ulva) and macroalgae was observed washed up on shore, but no eelgrass (Zostera
marina) was present.
The Washington Department of Ecology (WECY) Coastal Atlas Map classifies the area around
Lot 19 as unstable (recent slide), and it is MSA’s understanding that a geotechnical analysis has
been completed for this project. The Coastal Atlas Map also shows this stretch of shoreline to be
a “feeder bluff” (WECY 2013). The littoral drift cell is labeled as “left to right” (west to east)
(WECY 2003).
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 10
2.1 Ordinary High Water Mark Determination
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) considers the OHWM as a physical and ecological
feature on the landscape; the OHWM is often a transition zone between the aquatic and
terrestrial environment and not a distinct line.
MSA biologist Jill Cooper visited the site on August 15th, 2022 to identify and delineate the
OHWM, and found it to be at the toe of the slope in many places (Figure 7). Field indicators of
the OHWM included exposed roots, overhanging vegetation, the line of persistent vegetation, as
well as wrack and driftwood.
Figure 7. Photo of OHWM
2.2 Vegetation
Within the bounds of the parcel the following species of vegetation were observed:
Trees/Saplings
• Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum)
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 11
• Pacific Madrona (Arbutus menziesii)
• Grand fir (Abies grandis)
• Bitter Cherry (Prunus emarginata)
• Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
• Red Alder (Alnus rubra)
• Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata)
Woody Shrubs
• Indian Plum (Oemleria cerasiformis)
• Thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus)
• Oceanspray/Ironwood (Holodiscus discolor)
• Salal (Gualtheria shallon)
• Red Huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium)
• Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus)
• Nootka Rose (Rosa nutkana)
Perennial Vines
• Twinberry Honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata)
• Trumpet Honeysuckle (Lonicera ciliosa)
• English Ivy (Hedera helix) – Invasive
• Morning Glory (Convolvulus arvensis) – Invasive
• Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) – Invasive
Herbaceous Plants
• Common Horsetail (Equisetum arvense)
• Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea)
• Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum)
• Piggyback Plant (Tolmiea menziesii)
• Curly Dock (Rumex crispus)
• Western Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum)
• Lady Fern (Athyrium filix-femina)
• Large-leaf Avens (Geum macrophyllum)
• Herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) – Invasive
• Tansy Ragwort (Tanacetum vulgare) – Invasive
Additionally, in and along the gravel road above the parcel, the following species were observed:
• Willowherb (Epilobium sp.)
• Trailing Buttercup (Ranunculus repens)
• Narrowleaf Plantain (Plantago lanceolata)
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 12
• Red Clover (Trifolium pratense)
• Soft Rush (Juncus effusus)
Above Ricky Beach Drive, in and around the catch basin, the vegetation was primarily Common
Horsetail (E. arvense) and Himalayan Blackberry (R. armeniacus).
2.3 Wildlife Observed
During the site visits, the MSA biologist observed the following species of wildlife:
• Douglas Squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) – midden
• Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) – visual observation
• Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) – auditory observation
• Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) – auditory observation
• American robin (Turdus americanus) – visual observation
• Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – visual observation
Additionally, located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction, above the cliff face and within the
Termination Point Housing Development area, there is an active Bald Eagle nest perched within
a large snag.
The Bald Eagle was federally delisted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) due to its
successful recovery. However, Bald Eagles are still protected under provisions of the
federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
According to www.fws.gov,
“The regulation authorizing incidental eagle take permits for bald and golden eagles can
be found in the Code of the Federal Register 50 CFR 22.80. Take means pursue, shoot,
shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or disturb" (50 CFR
22.6). Disturb means "to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes,
or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an
eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal
breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially
interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior" (50 CFR 22.6).
An incidental take permit is recommended for any construction activities near an
active bald eagle nest, however it is not required. This permit authorizes the disturbance
or other incidental take of eagles where the take results from, but is not the purpose of, an
otherwise lawful activity. An eagle disturbance permit provides you with legal
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 13
authorization that protects you from prosecution if your otherwise lawful activity
disturbs eagles.”
Termination point intends to leave the snag as-is and employ efforts as to not disturb the eagles,
but they have decided to not pursue an Incidental Take Permit through the USFWS at this time. It
is recommended that any construction activities occurring within a 200-meter buffer
area surrounding the nest be conducted within a work window ranging from August 1st to
January 31st, outside of nesting season (USFWS, 2007). If this is not possible, it is
recommended to avoid any construction activities within a 200-meter buffer area between the
dates of February 1st and April 15th, as this is the primary nesting season for bald eagles.
3 Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs)
The following are designated FWHCAs (as defined under JCC 18.22.610) that were identified
within the 0.25-mile action area and will be discussed in the following sections:
• Areas where federally listed species (endangered and threatened) and state-listed species
(endangered, threatened, and sensitive species) have a primary association.
• Rivers and streams
• Commercial and recreational shellfish areas.
• Kelp and eelgrass beds.
• Pacific Herring forage fish spawning areas.
• Species and habitats of local importance.
3.1 State Priority Habitat & Species
Within a 0.25-mile radius action area of the proposed project site, the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) mapper indicates there is
presence of hardshell clams, Pacific Geoduck (Panopea abrubta), oyster beds, Pacific Herring
(Clupea pallasii) breeding areas, and estuarine and marine wetland aquatic habitat (Figure 8).
However, none of these priority habitats or species are located within the project footprint area.
According to queries of the WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) data, no salmon bearing
streams have been documented in the action area. However, it is possible that salmonids may
utilize the nearshore habitat of Squamish Harbor, but because the proposed work is occurring
above the OHWM, these species are unlikely to be affected.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 14
Figure 8. WDFW PHS Mapper
3.1.1 Forage Fish
Migrating salmon utilize forage fish such as Pacific Herring (Clupea harengus pallasii), Pacific
Sand Lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), and Surf Smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) as prey resources.
These fish form a very important trophic link between plankton resources and a wide variety of
predatory marine organisms as well as providing food for marbled murrelets and bald eagles.
According to WDFW and WDNR, there is documented Pacific Herring (C. pallasii) spawning
along the shoreline within the 0.25-mile action area (Figure 9). However, the proposed project
area is located above the OHWM, outside of the forage fish habitat zone.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 15
Figure 9. WDFW & WDNR Documented Forage Fish Spawning Map
3.1.2 Eelgrass and Kelp
The WDNR has surveyed a portion of the Squamish Harbor shoreline as part of their Submerged
Vegetation Monitoring Program, with the last survey results showing in the online mapping tool
from 2010 data (Figure 10). Patchy eelgrass (Zostera marina) has been documented just west of
the project area, and within the 0.25-mile action area. No data is available for the portion of the
shoreline immediately adjacent to the project area. No kelp is documented near the project area
(WDNR maps, accessed 10, 2022).
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 16
Figure 10. WDNR Puget Sound Seagrass Monitoring Data
3.1.3 Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas
Washington State Department of Health’s Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer shows commercial
harvest sites as well as geoduck tracks along the shoreline adjacent to the project area, as well as
recreational shellfish beaches just to the west (Figure 11).
Figure 11. DOH Commercial Shellfish Map
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 17
3.2 Federal ESA-Listed Species & Critical Habitat
For each listed species with the potential to be in the project action area, the listing status,
distribution of species, and relevant life history traits are presented in the sections below. Salmon
species that that may migrate past the project site are also included. Critical habitat for federally
listed species within the 0.25-mile action area is listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Designated Critical Habitat
Species and Designated Critical Habitat
Likely or
documented
occurrence
within
Action Area
Designated
Critical
Habitat
located
within
Action Area
Likely or
documented
occurrence
within
Project Area
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Freshwater Critical Habitat
(NMFS, 2005) N N N
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Marine Critical Habitat
(NMFS, 2005) Y Y N
Chum Salmon Freshwater Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N N N
Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon Marine Critical
Habitat (NMFS, 2005) Y Y N
Bull Trout (USFWS, 2010) N N N
Puget Sound Steelhead (NOAA, 2016) Y N N
Bocaccio Rockfish (NMFS, 2014) Y Y N
Yelloweye Rockfish (NMFS, 2014) Y Y N
Humpback Whale (NMFS, 2021) N N N
Southern Resident Killer Whale – Inland Critical Habitat
(NMFS, 2006) Y Y N
Leatherback Sea Turtle (NMFS, 2012) N N N
Marbled Murrelet (USFWS, 2016) Y N N
Streaked Horned Lark (USFWS, 2013) N N N
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (USFWS, 2021) N N N
Monarch Butterfly (Candidate, no designated critical
habitat) (USFWS, 2020) N N N
Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly (USFWS, 2013) N N N
Golden Paintbrush (Threatened, no designated critical
habitat) (USFWS, 1997) N N N
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 18
3.2.1 Puget Sound Chinook
Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), also called the king salmon, are
distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size. Most Chinook in the Puget Sound
are “ocean-type” and migrate to the marine environment during their first year (Myers et al.
1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from March to May at a
length of 40 mm or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of
their first year at a length of 60-80 mm (Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed
on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans).
As they grow and move into neritic habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile
fish, drift insects, and euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type Chinook use
estuaries as rearing areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for
survival.
The Puget Sound Chinook is listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened
according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005). In
addition, NMFS has designated critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of
West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The portion of the action
area below the line of extreme high water is in an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget
Sound Chinook ESU (70 FR 52685; September 2, 2005).
The waterward portion of the action area is within Puget Sound Chinook marine critical habitat.
According to queries of the SaSI data (WDFW), the closest Chinook riverine presence is
approximately 8 miles to the west, in Tarboo Creek (Fall Chinook run). It is possible this species
may utilize the nearshore habitat of Squamish Harbor, but it is unlikely this species will be
affected by the proposed work.
3.2.2 Hood Canal Summer-run Chum
In Puget Sound, chum spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams.
Puget Sound chum typically spawn from September to March (WSCC 2003). Chum (along with
ocean-type Chinook) spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon
(Healey 1982). Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an average
residence of 24 days (Simenstad et al. 1982). Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in
and around eelgrass beds (harpacticoid copepods, gammarid amphipods, and isopods), but
change their diet to drift insects and plankton such as calanoid copepods, larvaceans, and
hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to 50 - 60 mm (Simenstad, Fresh, & Salo 1982).
Chum move offshore and switch diets when presented with a lack of food supply (Simenstad et
al. 1982).
NMFS has listed the Hood Canal summer run chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) as threatened
under the ESA (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005). NMFS designated critical habitat for the Hood
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 19
Canal summer-run chum ESU shortly after (70 FR 52739; September 2, 2005) and it includes the
entire Hood Canal and contiguous shoreline north/northwest, ending past Dungeness Bay near
Sequim.
The waterward portion of the action area is within Hood Canal Summer-run Chum marine
critical habitat. According to queries of the SaSI data (WDFW), the closest Hood Canal summer-
run Chum streams are Snow Creek (approximately 12 miles northwest of the project area) and
the Quilcene Rivers (approximately 10 miles southwest of the project area). It is possible this
species may utilize the nearshore habitat of Squamish Harbor, but it is unlikely they will be
affected by the proposed work.
3.2.3 Bull Trout
In the United States, Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) once ranged from
northern California (now extinct in California) to Alaska. In the salmon family, they are members
of the char subgroup. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and
migration to the open sea (for anadromous populations) takes place in the spring. Very cold water
is required for the survival of eggs and juveniles. Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C
are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman & McIntyre, 1993). They live both in fresh
and marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater
(anadromous) before returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete
all of their life in the streams where they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions,
and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal Puget Sound population (64 FR 58910;
November 1,1999).
All populations of bull trout including the Coastal-Puget Sound populations, were listed as
threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1999 (64 FR 58910;
November 1, 1999). USFWS designated critical habitat for bull trout in 2010 (75 FR 63898;
October 18, 2010).
USFWS has designated critical habitat for bull trout in the Puget Sound watershed but no critical
habitat for bull trout is in or around Squamish Harbor; the nearest presence is over 10 miles to
the southwest, in the Big Quilcene River (SaSI, WDFW). It is unlikely this species would be
found near the project site or affected by the proposed work.
3.2.4 Puget Sound Steelhead
Steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the species Oncorhynchus mykiss. The
freshwater residents are called rainbow trout. Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning
and migrate to freshwater to spawn again, unlike Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to
two years in freshwater before heading to the open ocean, where they may stay for two to four
years before returning to Washington streams. Steelhead migrate quickly through Puget Sound
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 20
and into the open sea as individuals or in small groups (PSEMP 2012). Unlike Chinook,
steelhead do not have a long-term feeding and growth period in Puget Sound nearshore areas
(PSEMP 2012).
NMFS has listed the Puget Sound steelhead (O. mykiss) as a threatened species under the ESA
(72 FR 26722; May 11, 2007). Critical habitat has been finalized for the Puget Sound steelhead
distinct population segment (81 FR 9252; February 24, 2016).
There is no designated critical habitat for steelhead in the action area, however, a winter run of
steelhead is documented in a creek that runs into Squamish Harbor, located approximately 2.3
miles west (SaSI, WDFW). Juveniles may be present in the action area during out-migration but
migrate rapidly to the ocean and are not typically shoreline-oriented (WDFW 2011). It is
unlikely they would be affected by the proposed work.
3.2.5 Rockfish
Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) and yelloweye (Sebastes ruberrimus) rockfish remain in the
upper part of the water column as larvae and pelagic juveniles. Around 3 to 6 months old,
bocaccio rockfish settle into intertidal, nearshore habitat; they prefer to settle in rocky reefs, kelp
beds, low rock, and cobble areas (Love et al. 2002). Juvenile yelloweye rockfish are usually
found in the upper extent of the adult depth range instead of in intertidal habitat (Studebaker et
al. 2009). As both species grow larger, they move into deeper waters. Adults are found around
rocky reefs and coarse habitats. Marine habitats high in complexity are associated with higher
numbers of rockfish species (Young et al. 2010). Adult yelloweye and bocaccio rockfish
generally inhabit depths from approximately 90 ft to 1,400 ft (Love et al. 2002). Both species are
opportunistic feeders, with their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators of adult rockfish
include marine mammals, salmon, other rockfish, lingcod, and sharks.
NOAA has listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of yelloweye (Sebastes ruberrimus) as
threatened species under the ESA and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio rockfish
(Sebastes paucispinis) as endangered (75 FR 22276; April 28, 2010). The Georgia Basin refers to
all of Puget Sound, including the area around the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia,
north to the mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia. The western boundary of the
Georgia Basin runs from east of Port Angeles to Victoria in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Critical
habitat for both species was designated in 2014 (79 FR 68042; November 13, 2014).
The waterward portion of the action area is within critical habitat for bocaccio and yelloweye
rockfish. There will be no in-water work and conservation measures will be implemented to
prevent any potential suspended sediments from erosion from reaching Squamish Harbor. It is
unlikely these species will be affected by the proposed work.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 21
3.2.6 Marbled Murrelets
Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) are small marine birds in the Alcidae family.
They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical
nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival
and conservation of the species (WDW 1993). Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the
marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific herring, surf smelt, other
small schooling fish, and invertebrates.
Marbled murrelets have been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992 (57 FR 45328;
October 1, 1992). Critical habitat was designated by USFWS in 1996, revised in 2011, and
reviewed again in 2016 to determine if the ESA definition of critical habitat was being met (81
FR 51348, August 4, 2016).
There is no critical habitat for marbled murrelets within the action area, however, marine habitat
that may be utilized by them is in the waterward portion of the action area. Over 300 sightings
have been documented in and around Squamish Harbor and the Hood Canal Bridge since 1997
(eBird).
Marbled murrelets primarily nest 30-60 kilometers inland in low elevation old-growth and
mature coniferous forests, with multi-layered canopies and thick moss. Marbled murrelets may
have evolved to nest further from the coast to avoid nest predation by gulls and corvids, which
are more abundant in coastal zones (Hammer and Nelson 1995). Because the project site is near
the coast and lacking the preferred habitat, it is unlikely that marbled murrelets would nest
nearby. However, they may use the waterward areas for resting or foraging, especially in the
winter and spring months when there are storm events that they may seek shelter from, and/or
herring to feed on. Other than some potential behavioral disturbance from in-air noise from
construction activities, it is unlikely this species will be affected by the proposed project.
3.2.7 Humpback whale
NMFS has listed the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) as an endangered species that
may occur in Puget Sound (81 FR 62260; September 8, 2016). Critical habitat was designated by
NMFS in 2021, but does not include Squamish Harbor (86 FR 21082; April 21, 2021).
According to queries of the Orca Network’s sightings archives, humpback whales have not been
documented near Squamish Harbor and the Hood Canal Bridge in recent history, however there
was one documented sighting in the southern portion of the Hood Canal in March of 2021, and it
is likely that they occasionally pass through the area. Even so, it is unlikely this species would be
affected by the proposed work, since it is all occurring above the OHWM.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 22
3.2.8 Leatherback Sea Turtle
NMFS has listed the Pacific leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as an endangered species
that may occur in Puget Sound (35 FR 8491; June 2, 1970). There is no designated critical
habitat for Pacific leatherback turtles in Puget Sound at this time; it is designated along the outer
coast of Washington state (77 FR 4170; January 26, 2012).
Breeding habitat for leatherback sea turtles in Washington does not exist, even though they are
occasionally seen along the coast (Bowlby et al. 1994). Leatherback sea turtles are rarely seen in
Puget Sound. It is highly unlikely leatherback turtles would be found near the project site or
affected by the proposed work.
3.2.9 Southern Resident Killer Whale
The Southern Resident population consists of three pods: J, K and L. According to Wiles (2004),
“While in inland waters during warmer months, all of the pods concentrate their activity in Haro
Strait, Boundary Passage, the Southern Gulf Islands, the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and several localities in the southern Georgia Strait.” During early autumn, these pods, especially
J pod, extend their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and Chinook
salmon runs. Southern resident killer whales (SRKW) spend more time in deeper water and only
occasionally enter water less than 5 meters deep (Baird 2001).
On November 15, 2005 NMFS listed the SRKW (Orcinus orca) as endangered under the ESA
(70 FR 69903; November 18, 2005). NOAA Fisheries has designated critical habitat for killer
whales: "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20 ft relative to a contiguous shoreline
delimited by the line of extreme high water." (71 FR 69054; November 29, 2006).
The Orca Network’s sighting archives have documented occasional sightings near Squamish
Harbor and the Hood Canal Bridge. No sightings have been documented for 2022 thus far
(through the month of September). In 2021, the Orca Network did not document any SRKW
sightings, but there were sightings of two transient killer whales in April, two transient killer
whales in August, and one transient killer whale in October in the area of Squamish Harbor and
the Hood Canal Bridge.
The NOAA Fisheries SRKW sighting archive documented the following number of sightings
near Squamish Harbor and the Hood Canal Bridge between 1990 and 2013 (Olson 2014):
Number of SRKW Individuals Month
0 January
2 February
0 March
1 April
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 23
0 May
0 June
0 July
2 August
0 September
1 October
2 November
1 December
Other than some potential behavioral disturbance from in-air noise from construction activities, it
is unlikely this species will be affected by the proposed project.
3.2.10 Streaked Horned Lark
The Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) is a small, long-bodied songbird that
has a short thin bill and a head shape that sometimes presents two small “horns” of feathers
which stick up. Male Horned Larks are sandy to rusty brown above, with a black chest band, a
curving black mask, and head stripes that extend to the back of the head. The face and throat are
either yellow or white. Females have similar plumage but are less defined (USFWS ECOS).
Horned Larks are often found in open landscapes with bare, dry ground, and short, sparse
vegetation. They avoid areas of tall grass. Common habitats include prairies, tundra, beaches,
deserts, dunes, and heavily grazed pastures. Horned Larks will also gravitate towards areas
cleared by humans, such as plowed fields and mowed areas (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2015)
Streaked Horned Larks are Threatened; likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of their range (USFWS ECOS). Final critical habitat
for this species was designated in 2013 (78 FR 61506; October 3, 2013).
There is no critical habitat or open habitat within close range of the project area, and there have
been no sightings within 0.25 miles of the project site (WDFW, USFWS, eBird), so it is unlikely
this species will be affected by the proposed project.
3.2.11 Yellow-billed Cuckoo
The Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is a fairly large bird that is long and slim with
a hunchbacked appearance. Its bill is mostly yellow, thick and downcurved, and nearly as long as
the head is wide. They have a long black tail with large white spots, and their bodies are a warm
brown color above with whitish below (USFWS ECOS & Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2015).
Yellow-billed Cuckoos prefer densely wooded habitat with water nearby, including woodlands
with low, scrubby, vegetation, overgrown orchards, abandoned farmland, and dense thickets
along streams and marshes (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2015)
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 24
Yellow-billed Cuckoos are Threatened; likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Critical habitat for this the Western
Distinct Population was first designated in 2014, and has been since revised and updated (86 FR
20798; April 21, 2021).
There is no critical habitat within close range of the project area, and there have been no
sightings within 0.25 miles of the project site (WDFW, USFWS, eBird), so it is unlikely this
species will be affected by the proposed project.
3.2.12 Monarch Butterfly
The Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is large and conspicuous, with bright orange wings
surrounded by a black border, and covered with black veins. The black border has a double row
of white spots, present on the upper side of the wings. During the breeding season, monarchs lay
their eggs on their obligate milkweed host plant (primarily Asclepias spp.). In temperate western
North America, monarchs undergo long-distance migration and live for an extended period of
time. This migration can take monarchs distances of over 3,000 km and last for over two months
(USFWS ECOS).
Monarch Butterflies are a Candidate species and not yet listed or proposed for listing. There are
generally no ESA Section 7 requirements for candidate species, but it is encouraged by all
agencies to take advantage of any opportunity there may be to conserve the species (USFWS
ECOS & 85 FR 81813, 2020). The population of Monarch butterflies in Washington is low and is
considered to have a declining trend. This butterfly faces significant threats in both summer and
winter habitats, and action is needed to restore populations. In Washington, they are usually
found east of the Cascades, where milkweed occurs (WDFW & NatureServe.org).
The geographic area and habitat near the project area is not known to be of high priority for
Monarch Butterflies, especially considering they primarily occur east of the Cascades (WDFW &
NatureServe.org). Thus, it is unlikely this species will be affected by the proposed project.
3.2.13 Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly
The Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) is a Pacific Northwest
endemic butterfly. This butterfly is medium-sized, with a striking checkered pattern of orange to
brick red, black, and cream. It is a subspecies of Edith’s Checkerspot; three additional Edith’s
Checkerspot subspecies occur within Washington (colonia, beani, and edithana) (WDFW, 2022).
The Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly historically ranged from the Puget Trough/Willamette
Valley/Georgia Basin, from west central Oregon, through Washington, to southern Vancouver
Island in Canada (NatureServe 2022). It is currently restricted to a small scattering of 8
populations in Washington, a single population in British Columbia, and 2 populations in Oregon
(WDFW 2022). The decline of this butterfly has accompanied the loss of open, prairie and
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 25
grassland habitats. Threats include habitat loss and degradation due to development, natural
forest succession and the spraying of bacterial insecticide to control pest insects. In Washington
several major colonies are on public lands, but some of these lands have uses that could be
incompatible with butterfly conservation. The USFWS (2007) reports that only about 5% of the
species' total occurrence is on private land and over half is at the Military Joint Base Lewis-
McChord (NatureServe, 2022).
The Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly is federally listed as “Endangered Wherever Found” (78 FR
61505 61589; Oct 3, 2013). It is also listed as Endangered in Washington State. The Taylor’s
Checkerspot is dependent on prairie and grassland habitats. It also occupies coastal bluffs and
dunes as well as small forest openings (balds) (WDFW, 2022).
There is no known suitable habitat (dunes, balds, or prairie grasslands) located near the proposed
project area, thus it is unlikely that this project will have an impact on the Taylor’s Checkerspot.
3.2.14 Golden Paintbrush
Golden Paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) is a member of the Orabanchaceae family. It was known
from 11 distinct populations at the time of listing. After years of experimentation on how best to
establish the species, it is now known that Golden Paintbrush can be established through
prescribed fire, spot spraying with herbicides (only if needed), and seeding it into treated sites.
There are now greater than 40 established new populations within Oregon and Washington, and
more than 15 of the populations have met the recovery population goal size of greater than 1,000
individual flowering plants per site (USFWS ECOS).
No critical habitat has been designated for this species, however, Golden Paintbrush is listed as
Threatened Wherever Found (62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997). Because of its conservation
successes since 1997, Golden Paintbrush has recently been proposed for delisting (86 FR 34695;
June 30, 2021).
There is no known suitable habitat (prairie) located near the proposed project area, thus it is
unlikely that this project will have an impact on Golden Paintbrush.
4 Effects of the Proposed Action
When reviewing all the data, the direct and indirect effects of the project on the listed species and
their critical habitat should be considered. Impacts to ESA-listed species and critical habitats are
based on current baseline conditions versus historic pre-development conditions, where existing
structures are considered an element of the environmental baseline at the time of a proposed
action.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 26
4.1 Water Quality
Disturbed surfaces or compacted soil in areas without adequate planting and restoration practices
can result in reduced permeability where runoff does not percolate into soil, but instead “gathers
in volume, velocity, and contaminants as it flows over the now-converted landscape toward its
ultimate destination—a waterway such as Puget Sound” (Brennan & Culverwell 2004).
The native soils in our area filter, absorb, store, and slowly release clean, cool water to our
natural waterways. As the region develops, native soils and forests are replaced with more
impervious surfaces (roads, rooftops, etc.). Precipitation then causes more water to flow from
these hard surfaces in comparison with undisturbed areas, and this runoff can carry oil,
pesticides, fertilizers, sediments, and other pollutants downstream. Much of the pollution in the
Puget Sound now comes from stormwater flowing off developed areas, and this influx of water
carrying pollutants from developed areas can be damaging to aquatic life and ecology (Hinman
et al., 2013).
The proposed stormwater outfall pipe could create some disturbance and/or compaction of
topsoil, especially during installation, which could lead to a minor increase in erosion.
Additionally, routing stormwater directly from a development area to the shoreline, rather than
allowing it to first infiltrate through the ground, could cause an increase of unfiltered sediments
discharging into the Puget Sound. If this run-off were to enter Squamish Harbor with suspended
sediments, the variation of sediment concentration could negatively impact species composition,
biomass, algal growth and could affect secondary production as well (Newcombe and
MacDonald 1991). Filter feeders can have blockages in feeding structures which affects their
feeding efficiency, in turn reducing growth rates, increasing stress or in some cases can result in
death (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Suspended sediments can also impact salmonid fishes
by increasing mortality rate, reducing growth rate and/or reducing resistance to disease,
modifying natural movements, interfering with development, reducing prey abundance and fish
catch methods (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991).
Jefferson County SMP Chapter 18.25.320(2) Water quality and quantity states:
(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.
This project should follow the Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development
(WA ECY Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Figure I-3.1, 2019), and
may require a separate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 27
Avoidance and minimization measures described in the following section will be implemented to
prevent run-off from entering Squamish Harbor during construction. No vegetation will be
removed, and a silt fence and straw wattles will be installed between the construction and staging
areas and the shoreline. The new stormwater pipe will not require any grading or fill. The pipe
will simply lay within the existing Type NP stream channel, allowing the drainage to continue to
flow freely around it. Additionally, new native vegetation will be planted for mitigation,
introducing more diverse habitat and reducing future potential erosion that could affect water
quality.
4.2 In-Air Noise
Some temporary increases in ambient noise will be generated during installation of the proposed
stormwater pipe. Noise generated during construction may cause wildlife to temporarily avoid
the area but is not expected to impact wildlife or ecosystem function in the long term.
4.3 Wildlife
Wildlife barriers or loss of connectivity are not expected to occur from the proposed new
stormwater outfall pipe. The stream will continue to flow freely around the pipe, and Lot 19 will
remain undeveloped and connected to existing habitat.
4.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Related
Impacts
A portion of the proposed stormwater outfall pipe is located within the FEMA flood zone VE
(Elevation 16 feet, Figure 12). Any effects to water quality within the FEMA flood zone were
discussed in section 4.1 above. To summarize, avoidance and minimization measures described
in the following section and the engineered swales that will be constructed at the origin of the
stormwater pipe, along with a mitigation planting plan that will be implemented, will help in
offsetting the increase in stormwater that will being directly discharged into Squamish Harbor.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 28
Figure 12. FEMA Flood Zone Map
4.5 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects, which take into account this project as well as future development in the
area, are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. The project area includes many shoreline
properties within 0.25 miles. These cumulative habitat alterations could impact ESA-listed
species and/or their critical habitat areas, as well as human water-dependent activities, such as
shellfish harvesting. These potential cumulative effects could be caused by physical obstructions
from development, changes in stormwater flow on the landscape, changes in turbidity and
pollution levels, and other such factors.
The full scope of cumulative impacts cannot be quantified in this assessment, but with
appropriate regulations in place, and if the Washington Department of Ecology stormwater
guidelines are followed (See Water Quality Section 4.1), it is unlikely that ESA-listed species,
critical habitat areas, or human activities will be greatly affected by the construction of the
proposed stormwater outfall pipe.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 29
4.6 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects
Completion of this project goes hand in hand with the Termination Point multi-family home
development project located above the cliff. The geotechnical engineers who surveyed the site
deemed it necessary to install the stormwater pipe for this development to avoid additional
stormwater infiltrating into the ground in an unstable cliff area, to prevent future potential
landslides that could endanger the homes that are planned to be built in this location.
5 Conservation Measures to Avoid & Minimize Impacts
Conservation measures presented here include avoidance and minimization measures that are
intended to address both Jefferson County SMP criteria and FEMA requirements. The FEMA
requirements pertain to marine critical habitat and ESA-listed species within the adjoining
floodplain.
All shoreline development must be located, designed, constructed, and maintained in a manner
that protects ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. This section describes the steps
taken during project planning and implementation to find the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative to achieve the project goal.
The following mitigation sequencing steps, as described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) and JCC
18.22.660(2), were considered during project development and site selection:
• No action: To avoid the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action.
o The project purpose and need are described in more detail in the Project
Description section. “No Action” would not achieve the project goal. The
Termination Point multi-home development is located on top of a cliff which has
been classified as a geotechnical hazard. To protect the safety of future residents,
it is necessary to control stormwater runoff to ensure that the water does not
infiltrate into the ground and cause a landslide.
• Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid
or reduce impacts.
o The proposal includes the minimum footprint necessary to achieve the goal. Best
Management Practices (BMPs) discussed below will be implemented during
construction/installation to minimize impacts.
• Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
o Any disturbed earth resulting from construction activity will be covered with
mulch to mitigate sediment runoff. A mitigation planting plan has also been
prepared to offset any impacts from the stormwater pipe installation within the
shoreline buffer (see Section 6).
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 30
• Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations.
o Opportunities to reduce or eliminate the permanent direct and indirect negative
impacts from the project over time are described below.
• Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments.
o The proposed mitigation planting plan (Section 6) will be installed to offset
potential impacts from the installation of the stormwater pipe within the shoreline
buffer in order to meet NNL criteria.
• Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate corrective
measures.
o Five years of monitoring, required by Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance
(JCC 18.22.950(3)(h)(iii) Habitat management reports) will be completed to
ensure the success of native plantings and to make recommendations on any
corrective measure that need to be taken to ensure success of the plantings.
The applicants propose the following BMPs during construction to reduce adverse effects:
• Before any construction work begins, site construction limits for clearing, tree protection,
and runoff will be clearly laid out on site.
• Prior to any construction activity, a silt fence and straw wattles will be installed across
the entire property above and parallel to the OHWM.
• Any disturbed earth resulting from construction activity will be covered with mulch to
mitigate sediment runoff.
• All staged building materials will be confined to the existing dirt road/pathway area
located outside of the 150-foot shoreline buffer.
In order to minimize potential impacts to ESA-listed and priority species and habitat associated
with this project, the following BMPS are recommended by MSA for implementation at the site:
General Best Management Practices for Small Construction Sites
• Whenever possible, use hand-tools during construction.
• Whenever possible, work should be performed from upland area to avoid impacts to
beach.
• Construction should not be conducted during heavy precipitation events, regardless of the
protection of vegetation. If vegetation is damaged, or rutting occurs, it is recommended
that those areas be re-planted with native vegetation and a layer of mulch at a minimum
depth of 3 inches.
• Limit the extent of clearing operations and phase construction operations.
• All work should be performed during approved work windows, when applicable, and/or
following any permitting agency seasonal restrictions.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 31
• The duff layer, native topsoil, and natural vegetation should be retained in an undisturbed
state to the maximum extent practicable. The single most effective means of limiting
stormwater impacts during and after construction and minimizing costs of implementing
BMPs is to retain existing soil and vegetation to the maximum practical extent.
• Daily check list of potential safety areas.
• All oil containing equipment will be staged in secondary containment capable of handling
3x the volume of oil contained in said equipment.
• Stacking soils adjacent to areas of excavation to facilitate replacement.
• Daily housekeeping to ensure debris does not enter the water/area adjacent to the work
site.
• Divert runoff away from exposed areas wherever possible. Keep clean water clean.
• Reduce runoff velocities to prevent channel erosion.
• Schedule installation of BMPs. Some temporary BMPs should be installed before
earthmoving activities begin.
• Schedule regular inspections of the site and the stormwater BMPs throughout the
construction process. Repair or replace BMP equipment or materials as needed. Maintain
the BMP equipment or materials as necessary. Without proper maintenance of equipment
and materials, BMPs may fail.
• Before reseeding a disturbed soil area, amend all soils with compost wherever topsoil has
been removed.
• Prevent the tracking of sediment off-site.
• Be realistic about the limitations of controls that are specified and the operation and
maintenance of those controls. Anticipate what can go wrong, how to prevent it from
happening, and what will need to be done to fix it.
• Make sure that bids and estimates include costs of purchase of materials and manpower
for installation, maintenance, and removal of BMPs.
• Schedule removal of the temporary BMPs (or retrofit them for permanent use) at the end
of the construction project.
5.1 Determination of Effect
ESA-listed species and critical habitat in the action area and FEMA Flood Hazard Area are
evaluated below based on the following assessments:
• No effect (absolutely no effect whatsoever, either positive or negative);
• May affect, not likely to adversely affect (insignificant effects that never reach the
level where take occurs, or effects are discountable and extremely unlikely to occur;
or there would be an entirely beneficial effect); or,
• May affect, likely to adversely affect (measurable or significant effects are likely, and
the project will require formal consultation).
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 32
This determination of effect for protected species is contingent upon implementation of the
conservation and minimization measures in Section 5 and the mitigation plan outlined in Section
6. In general, direct adverse effects to ESA-listed species (avoidance, behavior modification) will
be short-term and would not contribute to an increased risk of extinction.
After reviewing the appropriate data, the determination of effect to each ESA-listed species and
designated critical habitat within the action area is:
• Puget Sound Chinook – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
• Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
• Bull trout – “No effect”
• Hood Canal Summer-run chum – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
• Puget Sound Steelhead – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
• Marbled Murrelet – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
• Humpback whale – “No effect”
• Leatherback sea turtle – “No effect”
• Southern Resident Killer Whale – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
• Streaked Horned Lark – “No effect”
• Yellow-billed Cuckoo – “No effect”
• Monarch Butterfly – “No effect”
• Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly – “No effect”
• Golden Paintbrush – “No effect”
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 33
6 Mitigation Plan for No Net Loss of Ecological Function
6.1 Proposed Mitigation
This mitigation plan aims to minimize any potential resource impacts for the section of the
proposed stormwater outfall pipe that is located within the marine shoreline critical area buffer.
The section of the stormwater outfall pipe that will be located within the marine shoreline critical
area buffer is approximately 130-feet long and the HDPE pipe is 18-inches in diameter.
Mitigation Calculation breakdown:
• 130 ft length of stormwater pipe located within shoreline buffer x 12 inches in a foot =
1,560 inches length of stormwater pipe located within shoreline buffer.
• 1,560 inches length of stormwater pipe located within shoreline buffer x 18 inches HDPE
standard pipe diameter = 28,080 square inches of new surface area located within the
shoreline buffer
• 28,080 square inches divided by 144 square inches (the number of inches in a square
foot) =
A total of 195 ft2 of mitigation recommended to comply with the 1:1 mitigation required
for new disturbance area within a Critical Area buffer, as per Jefferson County Critical
Areas Ordinance Section 18.22.660(3)[a] Mitigation.
The proposed stormwater outfall pipe will not require any excavating, grading, or filling within
the shoreline critical habitat area. The pipe will simply be placed within the Type NP stream
channel allowing the natural flow of water from the stream to continue around it. The main
ecological impact of the stormwater outfall pipe is that water, which would normally percolate
through the soil and vegetation above the cliff prior to discharging into Squamish Harbor, will
now be transported directly from the Termination Point housing development down to the
shoreline, thus lacking the biofiltration that would usually happen naturally. Because of this, the
engineered biofiltration swales are providing an important role in mitigating the stormwater as
well as reducing potential ecological impacts. Additionally, it is recommended that the 195 ft2 of
required mitigation for the section of the stormwater pipe which is located within the shoreline
critical area buffer be focused around Catch Basin 1 and the manmade ditch that is located on the
north side of Ricky Beach Drive.
Each catch basin ditch/swale is approximately 14-feet in diameter and has the opportunity for
planting native plants along a margin that is approximately 3-feet wide. 14-feet x 3.14 = a 43.96-
foot circumference for each catch basin. 43.96-feet circumference x 3-foot-wide margin = a
131.88 ft2 area at each catch basin that could be planted with native plants. There are three total
catch basins, but only one of them is located partially within the shoreline critical habitat area.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 34
6.2 Mitigation Goals
Goal (1) Buffer Enhancement: Create a newly vegetated area of approximately 195 ft2 O.C.
mature plant coverage of diverse native plant species. This will enhance the ecological value and
function of the habitat within the critical area buffer by reducing erosion, improved nutrient
input, and creating wildlife habitat.
Goal (2) Emergent Cover: 60% by year one, 80% by year three, 90% by year five.
Goal (3) Survival: 100% by year one, 90% survival by year three, 80% survival by year 5.
Goal (4) Soil: For newly planted plants, deconsolidate and amend soil where holes are dug
before plants are installed and add a minimum of 3” mulch, ensuring that the mulch is placed at
least 1-inch away from plant stems to avoid rot.
6.3 Mitigation Performance Standards
Performance standards are measurable criteria for determining if the goals and objectives of the
mitigation project are being achieved. If the proposed benchmarks are not achieved by
comparing the surveys to the mitigation goals, then contingency plans will need to be
implemented, which are outlined in section 7.5 below.
Performance Standard (1) Buffer Enhancement: Native plants will be installed in year one.
Photographs will be taken during monitoring years. A comparison of photographs from previous
years along with the percent cover and survivorship standards outlined below will help in
assessing the quality of the buffer. The planting area is clearly outlined in this report, and
described in Goal (1), Tables 2 – 4, and Figure 13.
Photo stations for the planting sites will be determined, and a photograph of each location will be
taken on an annual basis. To meet survival performance standards, individual plants that die must
be replaced with the same species unless a different species is suggested by the project biologist
due to site conditions.
Performance Standard (2) Native Cover:
The percent cover standard will be monitored by visually estimating the amount of native plant
coverage during each monitoring year. For consistency, this will be done from each individual
photo station.
Performance Standard (3) Survival:
Immediately after planting, all plants will be counted and documented. At the end of each
growing season (late Aug- early Sept) plots will be visited and a count of surviving plants will be
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 35
documented. The percent survival for the plots will be calculated by dividing the total number of
plants after planting by the total number of surviving plants at the end of the season.
Performance Standard (4) Soil: A minimum of 20% organic matter by bulk density in the soil
will be verified by invoices.
6.4 Site Preparation
Topsoil around and beneath newly installed native plants will be comprised of a minimum of
20% organic matter. MSA recommends that the amended soil consist of 6" of coarse sand and 6"
of vegetative compost which should be worked into the soil before planting. After plant
installation, a layer of mulch at least 3” thick will be placed as a groundcover around the plants,
while making sure to keep mulch 1” from the installed plants’ stems to avoid rot.
6.5 Plant Procurement
Plants will be selected from a regional native plant nursery. Invoices will be provided after
purchase. See Appendix C for a list of local native plant nurseries and resources. Substitutions
may be necessary for species or individuals outlined in this planting plan which cannot be found
at local nurseries. All plant substitutions will be approved by the project biologist prior to
installation to ensure their suitability for the site.
6.6 On Center Dimensions and Area Coverage
The total square footage of native plant coverage was calculated using “on center” dimensions
(i.e. the distance between the center of one plant to the center of the next plant, when mature).
The average on center (O.C.) dimensions of each plant species was sourced from Sound Native
Plant’s “Calculating Plant Quantities” guidelines, and a conservative estimate of coverage was
calculated using a typical plant quantity/coverage calculator.
6.7 Planting Instructions
Whenever possible, planting should be done between mid-October and mid-December as plants
grow roots during the cool weather, even when the tops of the plants are dormant. Planting
between mid-December and mid-April is also acceptable but more attention to supplemental
watering may be required due to drier seasonal weather conditions. Any nursery instructions that
come with the plants should be read and followed.
Plants should be laid out by hand generally following the spacing specified on the planting plan
map (Tables 2 – 5 & Figure 13). Before planting, set the potted plants out on the landscape
according to the planting plan design and make sure the arrangement works before digging any
holes. Next, dig a bowl-shaped hole for each plant at least twice the width, and slightly deeper,
than the potted plant’s container. Roughen the sides and the bottom of the hole with a pick or
shovel. If the soil is especially dry, fill the hole with water and let it soak in before continuing.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 36
Remove the plant from its container gently without pulling on the stem of the plant. Loosen
bound roots on the outer inch of soil and cut any roots that encircle the root ball to ensure that the
plant will not continue to grow within its “memory” of the pot wall confines. Set the plant in the
hole so that the top of the soil remains level with the surrounding soil. Fill the surrounding space
with loose topsoil comprised of at least 20% organic matter. Native top-soils are preferred,
whenever possible. Cover any exposed roots but do not pile dirt onto the stem or root collar, as
this can kill some plants. To discourage root rot, gently tamp down the filled soil to remove any
air pockets that may exist below ground, while allowing the soil to remain somewhat loose.
Form a temporary basin or trench around each plant to encourage water collection, and then
water thoroughly.
Immediately after watering, mulch such as wood chips, leaves, or brown carbon rich compost
should be added to a 3-inch thickness over the entire planting area without covering the stems of
the plants. The mulch will aid in slope stability, moisture and nutrient retention, and weed
control. Heavy duty woodchips are preferable in areas where noxious or invasive species may
become a problem. Staking of trees or shrubs should not be necessary unless high winds exist or
the tree is tall and has little roots. If staking is deemed necessary, use a thick rope or padding
around the trunk of the tree to prevent damage to the bark, and use the minimum amount of
tension necessary to achieve balance.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 37
Figure 13. Planting Instructions
(sourced from City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development Environmentally Critical
Areas Standard Mitigation Plan)
6.8 Inspection and Maintenance Criteria
Maintenance must be done twice yearly. No herbicides or pesticides are to be used, and all work
should be performed by hand whenever possible, with the lightest possible equipment where
such use is necessary.
During year one, every failed plant must be replaced within the plot. During year one, and during
the first year after any replacement planting, plantings must receive 1 inch of water at least once
weekly between June 15 and September 15. Trees and shrubs must be weeded to the dripline, and
mulch must be maintained at a depth of 3 inches. Weed herbaceous plantings as necessary
(flowers, ferns, etc.). All litter and non-native vegetation must be removed, such as Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), evergreen blackberry
(Rubus laciniatus), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), English ivy (Hedera helix), morning glory
(Convolvulus arvensis), Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), etc., and properly disposed of
off-site. Any receipts obtained from work done on the site should be filed with the Department of
Permitting through the project biologist monitoring report.
6.9 Planting Plan
To cover a minimum of 195 ft2, it has been determined that 13 shrubs or large perennials (4-ft
O.C.) will be required for this planting plan. To get to this number, a planting spacer multiplier
was calculated using the following formula:
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 38
For a 4-ft O.C. shrub/large-perennial, calculate how many inches are in 4-feet (48). Then
multiply 48 x 48 to get the area in square inches (2,304). Then divide 144 by 2,304, which gives
the multiplier of .0625.
Multiply the square feet needed by the spacing multiplier above:
• 195 sq ft x 0.625 (the shrub/large-perennial multiplier) =
Total of 13 shrubs/large-perennials needed to fill 195 ft2 using 4-ft O.C. spacing.
Table 2. Locations and Total Numbers of Native Plants to be Installed
LOCATION OF PLANTINGS TOTAL SHRUBS/LARGE-PERENNIALS (4-
ft O.C.)
Catch Basin 1 along stormwater outfall pipe 7
Section of ditch on the north side of Ricky Beach
Drive where stormwater pipe is located within the
shoreline critical habitat area buffer
6
Total Plants 13 Shrubs
Following is a table showing the plant species, recommended numbers, and O.C. dimensions for
the planting areas. Plants will be selected from a regional native plant nursery. The species in the
table below were chosen to create bird and insect habitat, while taking into account hardiness,
ecology, and ability to prevent erosion. Site photos of the planting areas can be seen in Appendix
A.
Table 3. Plant List for ditch on north side of Ricky Beach Drive (within the shoreline critical area)
Quantity Botanical Name Common Name Spacing Notes/Ecology
1 Rosa pisocarpa Clustered Rose Spacing: 4’
O.C. Versatile, sun to part shade. FAC.
1 Ribes lacustre Bristly Black
Goosberry
Spacing: 4’
O.C. Shrub. Shade to part sun. FAC.
1 Cornus alba Red Osier Dogwood Spacing: 4’
O.C. Shrub. Versatile. FACW.
1 Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Spacing: 4’
O.C.
Shrub. Versatile. FACU but does wet in
moist soils.
1 Lonicera
involucrata
Twinberry
Honeysuckle
Spacing: 4’
O.C. Shrub. Versatile. FAC.
1 Juncus effusus Soft Rush Spacing: 4’
O.C.
Large herbaceous perennial. Shade to
part sun. FACW. Plant at lowest point
for maximum water absorption.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 39
Table 4. Plant List for Catch Basin 1
Quantity Botanical Name Common Name Spacing Notes/Ecology
1 Cornus alba Red Osier Dogwood Spacing: 4’
O.C. Shrub. Versatile. FACW.
1 Rosa pisocarpa Clustered Rose Spacing: 4’
O.C. Versatile, sun to part shade. FAC.
1 Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Spacing: 4’
O.C.
Shrub. Versatile. FACU but does wet in
moist soils.
2 Carex obnupta Slough Sedge Spacing: 4’
O.C.
Large herbaceous perennial. Versatile.
OBL but does well in a variety of
conditions. Plant at lowest point for
maximum water absorption.
2 Juncus effusus Soft Rush Spacing: 4’
O.C.
Large herbaceous perennial. Shade to
part sun. FACW. Plant at lowest point
for maximum water absorption.
OBL – Obligate Wetland Species, FACW – Facultative Wetland Species, FAC – Facultative
Species, FACU – Facultative Upland Species, UPL – Obligate Upland Species. (Plants classified
according to the Fish and Wildlife Service; 1988, 1993)
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 40
Figure 14. Planting Plan Areas Highlighted (Planting areas are highlighted above. On-center
spacing dimensions should be followed during landscape design and plant installation.)
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 41
7 Monitoring & Maintenance
7.1 As-Built Report
An as-built drawing and report will be submitted as documentation of the implementation of the
approved planting plan within one month of installation. The plan will include a
quantitative final list of species, vegetation descriptions, and photo documentation from
established photo stations. A Panoramic photo of each mitigation site will also be provided.
Photos should be taken between June and August, during the growing season.
7.2 Monitoring Schedule
Monitoring will take place over a period of five years during the growing season of each
monitoring year. The performance standards will be monitored by measuring plots within the
planting area, which will be established and mapped after the planting occurs. Collected data and
photos will be compiled into an annual Riparian Monitoring Report, which will be submitted by
October 31 each monitoring year for five years.
7.3 Monitoring Methods
Each annual monitoring report shall include written and photographic documentation on plant
mortality and any replanting efforts. There will be specific locations where photos will be taken
from for each plot, and these photo points will be referenced on the as-built plan. Each year,
photos will be taken at the established photo points for each site, and these successive photos will
be used for comparison over the 5 years. Photos will be taken at all established photo points for
all monitoring years to provide visual documentation of the performance standards progress, or
lack thereof. In addition to photos at designated locations, photo documentation must include a
panoramic view of the entire planting area. Submitted photos must be formatted on standard 8
1/2" by 11" paper, and must include the date the photo was taken, as well as the direction from
which the photo was taken. The established photo location points must be identified on a site
drawing.
Percent cover will be measured by visual estimation, as described above in the Performance
Standards, section 6.3. Up to 20% of any stratum can be composed of desirable native volunteers
when measuring cover. No more than 10% cover of non-native or other invasives (e.g.,
Himalayan Blackberry, Japanese Knotweed, Evergreen Blackberry, Reed Canary Grass, Scots
Broom, English Ivy, Morning Glory, etc.) is permissible in any monitoring year. Bond holders
are encouraged to maintain mitigation sites within these standards throughout the monitoring
period, to avoid corrective measures. Measurement criteria will follow the goals outlined in
section 6.2.
A qualitative review of the condition of the site’s hydrology (e.g. erosion, slope stability, etc.),
soil health, buffer condition, and wildlife use will be included in the monitoring report. The
Monitoring Report will also document whether the performance standards are being met.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 42
The results of the monitoring visit will determine whether or not contingency measures will be
needed. If deficiencies are found, they will be corrected within 60 days. Monitoring may be
extended if mitigation goals have not been met. Receipts for any maintenance activities such as
re-planting, dump runs for weed removal, structural replacement, etc. will be provided to the
project biologist to include in the monitoring report. The applicants will be responsible for the
maintenance of their site, and will hire a biologist of their choosing to conduct the as-built and
monitoring surveys and to prepare the required reports to document the progress. Contact
information for MSA can be found in the title page of this report, and the applicant information is
located in Section 1.3.
7.4 Maintenance
Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the survival of all
native species within the mitigation area, including volunteer natives. Watering by hand or
sprinkler may be necessary during year number one until the plants are established (see Section
7.5). Water requirements will depend on the timing of planting with the seasons and weather
conditions. Once plants are established, extra watering may not be necessary. Hand weeding may
be necessary around all plants that are being monitored for survival and coverage.
If the required survival rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year, plants lost to mortality
will be replaced to achieve the percentage cover performance standard described above. Prior to
replacement, observations will be made on plants that did not survive in order to attempt to
determine whether their survival was affected by species/site selection, damage caused by
wildlife, or other factors. Subsequent contingency actions must be designed to respond directly
to any stressor(s) that are determined to have increased the mortality of planted native species
(Section 7.5).
Monitoring on an annual basis for five years will occur with photographs to determine the
survival rate of the transplanted area. If 100% success is achieved before reaching the five-year
mark, monitoring will continue without extra replanting efforts.
7.5 Contingency
Contingency actions must be designed to respond directly to any stressor(s) that are determined
to have increased the mortality of planted native species. If it is found that a particular plant
species is not surviving well at the site, a more appropriate species will be selected for its
replacement. If excessive damage by wildlife, exposure, or other elements is observed, protective
measures may need to be introduced. Monitoring years may be added if significant re-planting
becomes necessary. Monitoring on an annual basis for five years will occur with photographs
and measurements outlined in Section 7.3 to determine the survival rate of the transplanted area.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 43
8 Conclusion
The proposed stormwater outfall pipe placement within the SMA Shoreline Jurisdiction area may
result in some short-term adverse impacts, mainly in the form of noise. Additionally, potential
long-term impacts, such as negative effects from the stormwater diversion, primarily in the form
of unfiltered runoff being discharged into Squamish Harbor, are possible. However, the overall
outcome is unlikely to cause long-term adverse impacts to ecological function of the nearshore
marine environment if the mitigation planting plan is followed. Short-term impacts will likely be
temporary and minor. If mitigation and monitoring are carried through, then this project should
be able to achieve No Net Loss of ecological function within the shoreline critical area buffer.
Final jurisdictional authority and permitting on this project will be the responsibility of the
appropriate local, state, and/or federal government agencies involved. All information contained
in this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to approval or
issuance of permits.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 44
References
Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 115:676-
701.
Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in
Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program, Copyright 2005, UW Board
of Regents, Seattle, WA. 34 p.
Buckingham N, Schreiner E. Kaye T, Burger J, Tisch E. 1995. Flora of the Olympic Peninsula. Northwest
Interpretive Association and the Washington Native Plant Society.
Crawford, B. A. 2012. Methods and quality of VSP monitoring of ESA listed Puget Sound salmon and
steelhead with identified critical gaps. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region,
Olympia, WA.
Dethier, M.N., 1990. A marine and estuarine habitat classification system for Washington State.
Washington Natural Heritage Program, Dept. Natural Resources.
Ecology, Washington Department of. 2019. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations.
Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730-1, BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730.
Federal Register / Vol. 35, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 2, 1970 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 191 / Thursday, October 1, 1992 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 1999 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 52 / Thursday, March 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Friday, November 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Resister / Vol 81, No 36 / Wednesday, February 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 45
FEMA Region 10, August 2013. Regional Guidance For Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in
the Puget Sound Basin.
Franklin, J.T. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA, Forest
Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8.
Hammer, Thomas E. and Nelson, Kim S. 1995. Chapter 6: Characteristics of Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees
and Nesting Stands. Ecology and conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-
GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture; p. 69-82
Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries - the life support system, p. 315 - 341. In: V.S.
Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Heerhartz, S.M. & Toft, J.D. (2015) Movement patterns and feeding behavior of juvenile salmon
(Oncorhynchus spp.) along armored and unarmored estuarine shorelines. Environ. Biol. Fishes, 98, 1501-
1511. DOI 10.1007/s10641-015-0377-5
Hinman et al., 2013. Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington: A Guide for Design, Installation,
and Maintenance, Washington State Department of Ecology/Washington State University
Extension/Kitsap County, June 2013. (viii)
Hitchcock, L.C. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press.
Jefferson County Critical Areas Code section 18.22.
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Chapter 18.25
King County Critical Areas PDF resource. 2012. Restoration & Enhancement in King County;
Understanding the process & technical assistance in preparing a plan.
Love, M.S., M.M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific.
University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W.
Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo.
NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp.
Newcombe, C.P. and MacDonald, D.D., 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems.
North American journal of fisheries management, 11(1), pp.72-82.
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 46
Olson, J. 2014. Southern Resident Killer Whale Sighting Compilation 1948-2013. Web.
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/marine_mammal
s/killer_whales/occurrencemap.pdf
Orca Network. Web. Available at: http://www.orcanetwork.org/sightings/ Accessed October, 2022.
Penttila, D. 2007. Marine forage fishes in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No.
2007-03. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington.
Pojar and Mackinnon 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington, Oregon British Columbia
& Alaska.
Puget Sound Water Quality Action (WQA) Team. 2002. Puget Sound update 2002. Eighth report of the
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Olympia,
WA.
Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull
Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 38 pp.
Seattle Audubon Society. 2010. Puget Sound Seabird Survey site locations. Retrieved from Science
Manager Adam Sedgley on August 16, 2010.
Seattle Audubon Society. 2009. Puget Sound Seabird Survey Protocol. Retrieved from
http://www.seattleaudubon.org/sas/Portals/0/Science/Puget_Sound_Seabird_Survey/PSS
S_Protocol_09-10.pdf. Accessed October, 2022.
Simenstad C.A., Fresh K.L., and Salo E.O. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal
estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function (Oncorhynchus
spp.). National Inland Fisheries Inst., Bangkok (Thailand).
Sound Native Plants Ecological Restoration Specialists website. Calculating Plant Quantities PDF
resource. https://soundnativeplants.com/wp-content/uploads/Calculating_plant_quantities.pdf.
Studebaker, R.S., K.M. Cox, and T.J. Mulligan. 2009. Recent and historical spatial distributions of
juvenile Rockfish, Sebastes spp., in rocky intertidal tidepools with emphasis on Sebastes
melanops, Trans., Am. Fish. Soc., 138:645-651.
United States Fish & Wildlife Service (2007). “National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.”
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1993. Status of the Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus
marmoratus in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Ecology (WECY). Coastal Atlas Map. Accessed October, 2022. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx
Termination Point Stormwater Outfall Project FEMA HA & Mitigation Plan MSA | 47
Washington Department of Ecology (WECY). 2003. Coastal Atlas Map. Drift Cell data. (Accessed:
January 25, 2022).
Available at: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx
Washington Department of Ecology (WECY). 2013. Coastal Atlas Map. Coastal Landform data.
(Accessed: January 25, 2022).
Available at: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDFW) 2011. Puget Sound Steelhead Foundations: A Primer for
Recovery Planning
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) report.
Accessed October, 2022. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). Accessed
October, 2022. Available at: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html#
Washington State Department of Health. Office of Environmental Health and Safety. Commercial
Shellfish Map Viewer. Accessed October, 2022.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/oswpviewer/index.html
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2001. Washington State ShoreZone Inventory
User’s Manual. Nearshore Habitat Program. Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2021. Puget Sound Seagrass Monitoring Data
Viewer. Aquatic Resources Division, Nearshore Habitat Program Submerged Vegetation
Monitoring Program (SVMP). Accessed October, 2022.
Washington State Department of Health. Office of Environmental Health and Safety. Commercial
Shellfish Map Viewer. Accessed October, 2022.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/oswpviewer/index.html
Young et al. 2010. Multivariate bathymetry-derived generalized linear model accurately predicts Rockfish
distribution on Cordell Bank, California, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 415: 247-
261.
Appendix A:
Site Photos
Type NP streambed. Photo facing south toward beach and Squamish Harbor. Proposed stormwater pipe
outfall to be located approximately 20-feet upland from OHWM in this location
Same location as above, facing north from beach. Photo taken by Johnny Magnuson after clearing some
invasive Himalayan Blackberries out of channel
Close up of stream bed in same location as above photos, showing scour. Proposed stormwater pipe to lay
freely in this channel
Culvert under Ricky Beach Drive, where water flows onto Lot 19 in Type-NP streambed. Proposed
stormwater pipe to lay inside the culvert, allowing the stream to continue to flow freely around it
Ricky Beach Drive, photo facing south/southeast
North side of Ricky Beach Drive, where Catch Basin 1 is proposed to be located
Driveway/clearing on Lot 19
Lot 19 facing north, showing OHWM and footpath to beach (next to shovel)
Natural shoreline by Lot 19, facing northeast toward Hood Canal Bridge
Standing on beach near Lot 19, facing northeast toward Hood Canal Bridge. Abundant Ulva on rocks with
some macroalgae and shellfish
Feeder bluff just east of Lot 19
Bald Eagle nest in Termination Point development area, off Linda View Drive
Photo facing north, just north of Ricky Beach Drive, showing a 1 to 2-foot scoured channel section of the
Type NP stream, along with the small waterfall which flows over the cliff face
Appendix B:
Engineered Stormwater Plan Set
SHEET INDEX
NO.DESCRIPTION
VICINITY MAP
DRAINAGE NOTES
STORM DRAINAGE PLAN
SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES
NOTE: VOLUME 4 OF PLATS, PAGES 25-26
SCHEDULE OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION
AGENCIES
NEW
LEGEND
EXISTING DESCRIPTION
Y
X
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
10987654321JC WILSONENGINEERING &CONSULTING, LLCPO BOX 162NORTH BEND, OR 97459WWW.JCWILSONENGINEERING.COMP: (208) 553-6742SYM.REVISIONDATESHEET:SCALE:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED:REVIEW:DATE: DSR DRAFTING & DESIGN, LLC ●
1 OF 9DSRDSRJCW10/18/2022 2:56 PMSTORM DRAINAGE PLANAS SHOWNTERMINATION POINT PROPERTIES, LLCTERMINATION POINT, WACOVERCOVER
C:\DSR-Drafting\Projects\JCW\2107-Termination Point\2107-TPNT-PLAN.dwgCITY10/18/22
Shine Road
Harbor View PlaceLin
d
a
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e Ricky Beach DriveLinda View DriveRicky Reac
h
D
r
i
v
e
150175
200
225
140
145
155
160165170
180
185
190
195205210
215
220
230
235
235
235
240
240
240
245245
25
50
75
100
125
150
17
5
55
10
15
20
30
35
40
4555
60
65
70
80
85
90
95
105110
115
120
130
135
140
145
155155
1
55
160
165170180180180
185
190
75
100
125
150175 200
70
80
85
90
95
105110115
120
130135
140145155160
165
170
180
185
190
195
205
210
215
220
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 18
Lot 19
Lot 36
Lot 37
Lot 38
Lot 39
Lot 40
Lot 41
Lot 20
Lot 21
Lot 22
Lot 23
Lot 24
Lot 25
Lot 26
Lot 27 Lot 28
Lot 29
Lot 30
Lot 31
Lot 32
Lot 33
Lot 34
Lot 35
Lot 51
Lot 50
Lot 49Lot 48Lot 47Lot 46
Lot 45
Lot 44
Lot 43
Lot 42
Lot 56 Lot 55 Lot 54 Lot 53 Lot 52
Lot 4
Shine Road
2550
20
303540453
7
1
7
1
7
3
7
3
7
3
7
8
8
Lot 721022004
7
8
7
8
7
8
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
10987654321JC WILSONENGINEERING &CONSULTING, LLCPO BOX 162NORTH BEND, OR 97459WWW.JCWILSONENGINEERING.COMP: (208) 553-6742SYM.REVISIONDATESHEET:SCALE:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED:REVIEW:DATE: DSR DRAFTING & DESIGN, LLC ●
2 OF 9DSRDSRJCW10/18/2022 2:56 PMSTORM DRAINAGE PLANAS SHOWNTERMINATION POINT PROPERTIES, LLCTERMINATION POINT, WADRAINAGE PLANDRAINAGE PLAN
C:\DSR-Drafting\Projects\JCW\2107-Termination Point\2107-TPNT-PLAN.dwg JEFF COUNTY10/18/22
6
7
11
9
11
9
75
10
0
1
25 6065
7
0
80
85
90
9
5
10
5
1
1
011
512
0
13
013
5
50
40
45Ricky Beach Drive100
125
150
80
85
90
95
105
110
115
120
130
135
140
145
Lot 30
Lot 31
Lot 32
Lot 33
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
10987654321JC WILSONENGINEERING &CONSULTING, LLCPO BOX 162NORTH BEND, OR 97459WWW.JCWILSONENGINEERING.COMP: (208) 553-6742SYM.REVISIONDATESHEET:SCALE:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED:REVIEW:DATE: DSR DRAFTING & DESIGN, LLC ●
3 OF 9DSRDSRJCW10/18/2022 2:56 PMSTORM DRAINAGE PLANAS SHOWNTERMINATION POINT PROPERTIES, LLCTERMINATION POINT, WABIO-SWALE PLAN & PROFILEBIO-SWALE PLAN & PROFILE
C:\DSR-Drafting\Projects\JCW\2107-Termination Point\2107-TPNT-PLAN.dwgCITY10/18/22
Ricky
R
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Drive
Lot 19
Lot 721022004
9
7
4
7
9
7
8
8
Lin
d
a
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
125
150175
130135140145155160
165
170
180
185
190
Lot 21
Lot 22
Lot 23
Lot 24
Lot 25
Lot 26
Lot 27 Lot 28
Lot 29
Lot 30
Lot 31
Lot 32
Lot 50
Lot 45
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
10987654321JC WILSONENGINEERING &CONSULTING, LLCPO BOX 162NORTH BEND, OR 97459WWW.JCWILSONENGINEERING.COMP: (208) 553-6742SYM.REVISIONDATESHEET:SCALE:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED:REVIEW:DATE: DSR DRAFTING & DESIGN, LLC ●
4 OF 9DSRDSRJCW10/18/2022 2:56 PMSTORM DRAINAGE PLANAS SHOWNTERMINATION POINT PROPERTIES, LLCTERMINATION POINT, WAPLAN & PROFILEPLAN & PROFILE
C:\DSR-Drafting\Projects\JCW\2107-Termination Point\2107-TPNT-PLAN.dwgCITY10/18/22
6
7
Shine Road
Harbor View PlaceLin
d
a
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e Ricky Beach DriveLinda View DriveRicky Reac
h
D
r
i
v
e
150175200 225
140
145
155
160165170
180
185
190
195205210
215
220
230
235
235
235
240
240
240
245245
245
25
50
75
100
125
150
17
5
55
10
15
20
30
35
40
45
55
60
65
70
80
85
90
95
105110
115
120
130
135
140
145
15515515
5
160
165170180180180
185
190
75
100
125
150175 200
70
80
85
90
95
105110115
120
130135
140145155160
165
170
180
185
190
195
205
210
215
220
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 7
Lot 18
Lot 19
Lot 36
Lot 37
Lot 38
Lot 39
Lot 40
Lot 41
Lot 20
Lot 21
Lot 22
Lot 23
Lot 24
Lot 25
Lot 26
Lot 27 Lot 28
Lot 29
Lot 30
Lot 31
Lot 32
Lot 33
Lot 34
Lot 35
Lot 51
Lot 50
Lot 49Lot 48Lot 47Lot 46
Lot 45
Lot 44
Lot 43
Lot 42
Lot 56 Lot 55 Lot 54 Lot 53 Lot 52
Lot 4
Shine Road
2550
20
30
3540451B
6
1B
6
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
10987654321JC WILSONENGINEERING &CONSULTING, LLCPO BOX 162NORTH BEND, OR 97459WWW.JCWILSONENGINEERING.COMP: (208) 553-6742SYM.REVISIONDATESHEET:SCALE:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED:REVIEW:DATE: DSR DRAFTING & DESIGN, LLC ●
5 OF 9DSRDSRJCW10/18/2022 2:56 PMSTORM DRAINAGE PLANAS SHOWNTERMINATION POINT PROPERTIES, LLCTERMINATION POINT, WASWPPPSTORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
C:\DSR-Drafting\Projects\JCW\2107-Termination Point\2107-TPNT-PLAN.dwgCITY10/18/22
Lot 721022004
1B
6
1B
6
1B
6
1B
6
2B
6
2B
6
2B
6
1A
5
STRAW WATTLE DETAIL
NO SCALE
1B
5
SILT FENCING DETAIL
NO SCALE
EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES
BIOFILTRATION SWALE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
STRAW WATTLES & SILT FENCE REQUIREMENTS
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
10987654321JC WILSONENGINEERING &CONSULTING, LLCPO BOX 162NORTH BEND, OR 97459WWW.JCWILSONENGINEERING.COMP: (208) 553-6742SYM.REVISIONDATESHEET:SCALE:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED:REVIEW:DATE: DSR DRAFTING & DESIGN, LLC ●
6 OF 9DSRDSRJCW10/18/2022 2:56 PMSTORM DRAINAGE PLANAS SHOWNTERMINATION POINT PROPERTIES, LLCTERMINATION POINT, WAEROSION CONTROL DETAILSTEMPORARY SEDIMENT & EROSION
CONTROL DETAILS
C:\DSR-Drafting\Projects\JCW\2107-Termination Point\2107-TPNT-PLAN.dwgCITY10/18/22
CHECK DAM DETAIL
NO SCALE
AA
A ABB AA
7
8
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
10987654321JC WILSONENGINEERING &CONSULTING, LLCPO BOX 162NORTH BEND, OR 97459WWW.JCWILSONENGINEERING.COMP: (208) 553-6742SYM.REVISIONDATESHEET:SCALE:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED:REVIEW:DATE: DSR DRAFTING & DESIGN, LLC ●
7 OF 9DSRDSRJCW10/18/2022 2:56 PMSTORM DRAINAGE PLANAS SHOWNTERMINATION POINT PROPERTIES, LLCTERMINATION POINT, WADETAILSDETAILS
C:\DSR-Drafting\Projects\JCW\2107-Termination Point\2107-TPNT-PLAN.dwgCITY10/18/22
3
2
CULVERT END DETAILS
NOT TO SCALE
ROCK LINING 2" TO 4"
NOT TO SCALE
2
2
SWALE DIVIDING BERM
NOT TO SCALE
1
2
5
-
YARD & ROOF DRAIN CONNECTIONS
NOT TO SCALE
6
2
YARD DRAIN
NOT TO SCALE
5
7
4
2
DEBRIS CAGE IN SWALE
NOT TO SCALE
Lot 18 Lot 19
(0)
(2
)
(2.5)(3)(3.5)(4)
)
2550
5
51015
20
30354045
(1)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
10987654321JC WILSONENGINEERING &CONSULTING, LLCPO BOX 162NORTH BEND, OR 97459WWW.JCWILSONENGINEERING.COMP: (208) 553-6742SYM.REVISIONDATESHEET:SCALE:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED:REVIEW:DATE: DSR DRAFTING & DESIGN, LLC ●
8 OF 9DSRDSRJCW10/18/2022 2:56 PMSTORM DRAINAGE PLANAS SHOWNTERMINATION POINT PROPERTIES, LLCTERMINATION POINT, WADETAILSDETAILS
C:\DSR-Drafting\Projects\JCW\2107-Termination Point\2107-TPNT-PLAN.dwgCITY10/18/22
CATCH BASIN - TYPE II
7
2
CATCH BASIN
NOT TO SCALE
3
-
DEBRIS CAGE
8
2
DIFFUSER TEE
NOT TO SCALE
9
2
OUTLET DETAIL
SCALE: 1" = 30'Ricky Reach Rd
~Squa
m
i
s
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
H
o
o
d
C
a
n
al
~60'20'70'200'150'
75'
75'
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
10987654321JC WILSONENGINEERING &CONSULTING, LLCPO BOX 162NORTH BEND, OR 97459WWW.JCWILSONENGINEERING.COMP: (208) 553-6742SYM.REVISIONDATESHEET:SCALE:DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED:REVIEW:DATE: DSR DRAFTING & DESIGN, LLC ●
9 OF 9DSRDSRJCW10/18/2022 2:56 PMSTORM DRAINAGE PLANAS SHOWNTERMINATION POINT PROPERTIES, LLCTERMINATION POINT, WADETAILSDETAILS
C:\DSR-Drafting\Projects\JCW\2107-Termination Point\2107-TPNT-PLAN.dwgCITY10/18/22
10
-
BIO SWALE PLANTS
NOT TO SCALE
SWALE MAINTENANCE
NOT TO SCALE
9
-
MAINTENANCE STANDARDS - WET BIOFILTRATION SWALE RECOMMENDED PLANTS FOR WET BIOFILTRATION SWALE
2" COVER
7'± 9'2'1'2'5'
11
2
ROAD HALF SECTION AT LOTS 45 & 46
NOT TO SCALE
2" COVER
Appendix C:
Native Plant Sources for the Pacific NW
Native Plant Sources for the Pacific Northwest
This list contains those nurseries known to Permitting staff that grow plants native to the Puget lowlands of
Western Washington in quantities suitable for most mitigation sites. It was extracted from a longer list
compiled by the Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) of King County for your convenience, drawing
in part on the Hortus West native plant directory and journal: Hortus West, P.O. Box 2870, Wilsonville, OR
97070. 800-704-7927. Fax: 503-570-0855. E-mail: editor@hortuswest.com. It is not an endorsement of these
businesses. The full list is available from WLRD at 206-296-6519.
Nurseries that specialize in seeds are marked (SEEDS).
Abundant Life Seed Foundation (SEEDS) Davenport Seed Corporation (SEEDS)
P.O. Box 772 P.O. Box 187
Port Townsend, WA 98368 Davenport, WA 99122-0187
360-385-5660 800-828-8873
Barford's Hardy Ferns Emmery's Gardens
23622 Bothell Way 2829 - 164th Avenue SW
Bothell, WA 98248 Lynnwood, WA 98037
Phone: 425-438-0205 Phone: 425-743-4555
Fax: 206-483-0205 Fax: 425-743-0609
Botanica Firetrail Nursery
P.O. Box 19544 3107 - 140th Street NW
Seattle, WA 98109 Marysville, WA 98271
206-634-1370 360-652-9021
Clark's Native Trees and Shrubs Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration (SEED)
1215 - 126th Avenue SE P.O. Box 53
Everett, WA 98208 Langley, WA 98260
206-337-3976 360-579-2332
Cold Creek Nursery Heathwood Cottage Nursery
18602 NE 165th Street 18540 - 26th Avenue NE
Woodinville, WA 98072 Lake Forest Park, WA 98072
425-788-0201 206-363-3189
Colvos Creek Farm IFA Nurseries, Inc.
P.O. Box 1512 463 Eadon Road
Vashon, WA 98070 Toledo, WA 98591
206-441-1509 425-864-2803
Inside Passage (SEEDS) Sound Native Plants
P.O. Box 639 P.O. Box 10155
Port Townsend, WA 98368 Olympia, WA 98502
206-781-3575 Phone: 360-352-4122
Fax: 360-943-7026
Sourced from the King County Critical Areas Restoration and Enhancement document, Appendix A 2020
J & J Landscape Co. Storm Lake Growers
19538 - 75th NE 21809 - 89th SE
Bothell, WA 98011 Snohomish, WA 98290
360-794-4842
Judd Creek Wetland and Native Plant Nursery Sweet Briar
20929 - 111th Avenue SE P.O. Box 25
Vashon, WA 98070 Woodinville, WA 98072
206-463-2812 425-821-2222
MSK Nursery Thorsett Landscaping Nursery
20066 - 15th Avenue NW 13503 Southeast 226th Place
Seattle, WA 98177 Kent, WA 98042
206-546-1281 253-361-5838
Northfork Nursery Wabash Farms Native Plants 15751 Polson Road Ornamental and Reclamation
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273-7142 19390 SE 400th
360-445-4741 Enumclaw, WA 98022
Phone: 360-825-7051
Fax: 360-825-1949
Pacific Natives & Ornamentals Weyerhauser-Western Revegetation Greenhouse
P.O. Box 23 33405 - 8th Avenue South
Bothell, WA 98041 Federal Way, WA 98003
Phone: 425-483-8108 800-732-4769
Fax: 425-487-6198
Revegetate & Resource Plants Woodbrook Native Plant Nursery
17836 Cedar Grove Road 5919 78th Ave NW
Maple Valley, WA 98038 Gig Harbor, WA 98335
425-432-9018 253-857-6808, woodbrk@harbornet.com
Additional Native Plant Resources for the Olympic Peninsula area:
Woodbrook Native Plant Nursery
5919 78th Ave. NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
(253) 857-6808
Shore Road Nursery
By appointment only:
shoreroadnursery@gmail.com
(360) 775-8984
Friendly Natives Plants and Design
By appointment only:
lissa@friendlynatives.net
(206) 387-5943
Plantasia Design Center
2838 Sandtrap Ct SW
Olympia, WA 98501
360-754-4321
www.plantasiagardens.com
Rogers Country Nursery & Gardens
2075 Seabeck Hwy NW
Bremerton, WA 98312
360-478-0228
chris@kitsapcountrynursery.com
www.kitsapcountrynursery.com
Sound Native Plants
PO Box 7505
Olympia, WA 98507-7505
360-352-4122
info@soundnativeplants.com
www.soundnativeplants.com
Whitney Gardens and Nursery
306264 US-101
Brinnon, WA 98320
(360) 796-4411
https://www.whitneygardens.com/