PLN50287 SVAR Exhibit Packet_HEXExhibit List
Dufresne
PLN50287 SVAR
Staff Contact: Kelly Tayara, Associate Planner Public Hearing: March 9, 2018
No. Document Description
1 Application for Shoreline Variance Submitted Mar 2, 2017
2 Site Plan, Grading Plan and Elevation Drawing Submitted Mar 2, 2017
3 Topographic Survey (MacLearnsberry Inc) Dated Dec 5, 2016
4 Applicant Narrative of Shoreline Variance Decision Criteria Submitted Mar 2, 2017
5 Notice of Application and Affidavit of Publication Published Apr 14, 2017
6 Drainage Plan (Browne Wheeler Engineering) Dated Feb 23, 2017
7 Site-Specific Analysis with Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Dated Feb 28, 2017
8 Geotechnical Engineering Consultation Report (Perrone
Consulting) Dated Feb 14, 2016
9 Geotechnical Report (Aspect Consulting) Dated Jul 20, 2017
10
(a – c)
Correspondence between the City Development Engineer
(Peter Corelis), the Geotechnical Engineer (Aspect Consulting)
and the Third-party Reviewer (Amec Foster Wheeler), including
two attachments: Information request from Amec Foster dated
Oct 5, 2017 and response from Aspect dated Nov 7, 2017
Dated June 22, 2017 – Jan 23,
2018
11 Public Comment - Schmid Dated May 15, 2017
12 Public Comment - Vittig Dated Apr 20, 2017
13 Public Comment - Clare Dated May 15, 2017
14 Fire Marshal Comment Dated Mar 20, 2017
15
(a - b)
Correspondence between the Fire Marshal and applicant re:
Road restrictions and deck obstruction Dated Feb 9 – Feb 21, 2018
16 City Engineer Comment Dated Jan 8, 2018
17
(a – b)
City Survey Program Manager Comment, including comment on
Common Property Line Agreements Survey AFN 200503240119 Dated Feb 20, 2018
18
(a – d)
Common Property Line Agreements AFN 200503240117 and
200503240118 and Statutory Warranty Deeds AFN
201011090299 and 201011080315
Recorded Mar 24, 2005 and Nov
8, 2010, respectively
19 City Building Official Comment Entered Feb 20, 2018
20 Planner request re: Property aggregation and title report with
applicant response, including three attachments Dated Jan 8, 2018
21
(a - b) Correspondence from applicant re: Road and septic systems Dated Jan 31 – Feb 2, 2018
22 Correspondence from applicant re: Neighborhood concerns Dated Feb 4, 2018
23 Correspondence from applicant re: Neighborhood concerns
and request that the deck on neighboring property be removed Dated Feb 10, 2018
24
(a - h)
Correspondence from applicant re: Requests to remove deck
from neighboring property, including an easement agreement Dated Feb 16 – 21, 2018
25 Preapplication Conference Summary Letter Dated Jul 10, 2015
26 Administrative Code Interpretation Issued Nov 6, 2015
27 Code Interpretation Appeal Decision Ordered Mar 16, 2016
28 Notice of Hearing and Affidavit of Publication Published Feb 16, 2018
29
(a – d) Site photographs Photographed Jan 30, 2018
30 Staff Report Dated Feb 22, 2018
4
0
1
4
1
6
1
8
2
0
2
2
2
4
2
6
2
8
3
0
3
2
13
1
2
1
2
1
0
5
1
1
0
1
1
5
1
2
0
1
2
5
1
3
0
9
0
9
5
1
0
0
7
0
7
5
8
0
8
5
6
0
6
5
5
0
5
5
DATUM
SmartNet GPS RTN
NAVD88 2011
Concrete flatwork
Building
Legend
)RXQGöLURQSLSHZLWKVXUYH\RU
VLGFDSQR
Project benchmark: Steel spike; Elevation: 11.39
Date
of
SINCE
1976
As
s
u
m
e
d
Client
Drawn by:
Scale
Job No.
Sheet
16057
111" = 10'
December 5, 2016
BAM
BAM
Rolling Bay Walk
Margaret Dufresne
Retaining wall
D
S ETI
R
EG R E
N
O
T
G
N
IHSAWFOETATS
12/5/2o16
1" = 10'
4020105010
40-100% slope
20-40% slope
15-20% slope
0-15% slope
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
Pad-mounted power transformer
Telephone riser
Solid contours hereon are ground-measured by this firm.
Dashed, gray contours hereon are from Puget Sound LiDAR
Consortium data and are included only to show the general
magnitude of the slope beyond the ground-mapped area.
Elevation 13 is the upper limit of the FEMA flood zone for
this locale.
Dufresne Single Family Residence
Site-Specific Impact Analysis Report
Date: February 28, 2017
Prepared for:
Margaret Dufresne
3912 Hwy 104
Poulsbo, Washington 98370
Site address:
11131 and 11143 Rolling Bay Walk NE
Bainbridge Island, Washington
Contents
1. Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Location and Regulatory Jurisdiction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Footprint .......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Construction Methods .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Construction Schedule ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Project Implementation ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.6 Best Management Practices (BMPs) ............................................................................................................ 2
2. Site Description .................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Site visit description and findings ................................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Baseline environmental conditions .............................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Local Species & Habitats ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.4 State Species & Habitats .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.5 Federal Species & Habitats .......................................................................................................................... 5
3. Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 6
3.1 Mitigation Sequencing ................................................................................................................................. 6
4. Impacts of Project ................................................................................................................................................ 7
5. Mitigation Summary and No Net Loss Analysis ................................................................................................. 8
References .................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix A: Kreutzer Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................ 16
Appendix B: USFWS’ Information from Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resources Report .................... 23
List of Figures
Figure 1. Dufresne Single Family Residence Vicinity Map ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Dufresne Site Plan with impact areas ......................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3. Profile view of Dufresne property and proposed structure. ........................................................................ 12
Figure 4. Official Shoreline Designation: Shoreline Residential ............................................................................... 13
Figure 5. Site located outside Bainbridge Island Aquatic Conservancy Zones ......................................................... 13
Figure 6. Geomorphic Shore Type ............................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 7. FEMA Flood Hazard, steep slopes, and documented landslides at and near project location. ................... 14
Figure 8. WDFW forage fish spawning habitat data .................................................................................................. 15
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Figures
Figure A-1. Site Photos.........................................................................................................................................21
Figure A-2. Planting Plan Map.............................................................................................................................22
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 1
Duf resne Site Specific Analysis
All shoreline development, use and activities, regardless of whether a permit is required, must result in no
net loss of ecological functions and processes necessary to sustain shoreline resources. To demonstrate
that the no net loss standard is met, this project includes a Site-Specific Impact Analysis. This analysis
and report identifies existing conditions and ecological functions, impacts from the project, avoidance
measures, and proposed mitigation.
1. Project Description
The project proposal includes a 2-story Single Family Residence (SFR; including a garage) and a
driveway within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction of Bainbridge Island (Figure 1 & 2). The proposed
structure will be 60’ wide (alongshore) x 20’ deep. A 2’ overhang on all sides of the building resulting in
64' x 24' of roof area and 1536 square feet of new impervious surface. A 8' x 60' driveway will also be
built between the SFR and the existing paved private road. The driveway will be built from permeable
pavers so it will not contribute to impervious surfaces, but will introduce 480 square feet of permanent
impacts to vegetation.
Because a rain garden cannot be installed at the site due to topography (Figure 3), a planting plan is
included with the project to mitigate for negative impacts from the new impervious surface (Appendix A).
Because high tides may overtop the bulkhead, the drainage plan for stormwater at the site includes
overlaying the existing paved road surface with a positive slope from the top of the existing bulkhead to
your building.
1.1 Location and Regulatory Jurisdiction
The project site is located along the northeastern shoreline of Bainbridge Island (Figure 1) at:
11131 and 11143 Rolling Bay Walk NE, Bainbridge Island, Washington;
Kitsap County Parcels M142441988300 & M142441996300;
47.664087, -122.503108
The shoreline designation at this site is “Shoreline Residential.” The property is located upland of a
bulkhead and 10-foot wide private road and is considered functionally isolated from the shoreline, so
ecological buffers do not apply. Typically, a buffer for this area would be 75 feet (Shoreline Residential -
Developed Lots- Category A) with Zone 1 of the buffer extending 30 feet from the OHWM based on the
nature of vegetation and ecological function present along the shoreline (CoBI 2014). While the shoreline
buffers do not apply, the project is within the 200 foot setback for Shoreline Residential nonwater-
oriented development and still must meet standards for No Net Loss of ecological function.
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 2
The entire property is 118’ wide (alongshore) x 162’ deep and the SFR development is proposed only on
the 38’ x 118’ area of property along the shoreline road, which is downslope of a retaining wall and bluff.
The entire property is within the 200’ shoreline jurisdiction.
1.2 Project Footprint
The proposed structure is a 2-story structure (with a garage on the lower level to minimize footprint
size). The 8’ x 60’ driveway would be adjacent to the road (because it is a private road, building setbacks
are not required). The 20’ x 60’ structure (i.e. including the 2-4’ overhang of the eaves) would be adjacent
to the driveway, with the foundation 18’ from the top of the bulkhead.
The total new impervious surface of the project will be 1536 square feet and the total area of permanent
vegetation removal resulting from the construction of the SFR and driveway will be 1680 square feet
(approximately 8.8% of the area of the lot). The project also includes mitigation measures to compensate
for these impacts: native plantings (covered in detail in Sections 4 & 5, and in the Mitigation and Planting
Plan included in Appendix A).
1.3 Construction Methods
The staging area and access for construction will be the existing road and sideyard. Grading will be
minimal and only as required (around the new building only). There will be minimal heavy equipment (a
small backhoe for excavation and site preparation, bulldozer, and large trucks).
1.4 Construction Schedule
Construction will begin as soon as possible after all permitting and approvals are complete. Schedule to
be determined by contractor and any potential construction work windows that may be included as
conditions of the permit.
1.5 Project Implementation
The contractor is yet to be determined. Once a contractor is chosen, the name and contact information will
be submitted to the Planning Department before project work begins.
1.6 Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Contractor will follow Washington State erosion and sediment control BMP’s (Washington State
Department of Ecology's Storm Water Management Manual For The Puget Sound Basin, 2012),
and:
o The contractor shall apply all measures necessary to prevent the discharge of sediment -
laden water off the project site.
o The contractor shall inspect and maintain all erosion control facilities regularly,
particularly during and following large storms.
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 3
o All streets adjacent to this project shall be kept clean of all material deposits resulting
from construction.
o Site work shall be scheduled to minimize the exposure of disturbed soils. All disturbed
areas shall be stabilized (clear plastic, mulching, etc.) as quickly as possible after
completion of work in the area.
o From October 1 through April 30, no soils shall remain exposed for more than 2 days.
From May 1 through September 30, no soils shall remain exposed for more than 7 days.
o Care shall be taken to prevent any discharge of sediment-laden water into the stormwater
systems. Any inlets which receive runoff should be protected with sediment filters.
o Petroleum products and other potential pollutants shall be protected to prevent their
introduction into site runoff or the storm drainage system.
o The contractor shall develop a dewatering plan to prevent sediment laden water from
discharging to the beach.
o Clearing limits, if shown, shall be clearly flagged prior to any clearing or construction on
the site. During construction, no disturbance beyond the flagged clearing limits shall be
permitted. The flagging shall be maintained by the contractor until all construction is
approved.
o All temporary erosion control facilities, including perimeter controls, shall remain in
place until final site construction is complete and approval has been received from the
city.
Staging areas for equipment and materials will be located on existing paved street or existing
paved turnaround area or within approved clearing limits.
Soil will not be disturbed within the drip-line of existing trees to be retained. Within 3-feet of the
tree drip-line, soil amendments should be incorporated no deeper than 3 to 4-inches to reduce
damage to roots.
Stormwater drainage design will include roof drains leading to a splash block and then onto the
pavement, reducing risk of erosion on the site during storm events. The footing drains would also
discharge on a splash block on the landward side of the house. (The footing drains may need to
be pumped to accomplish this to get positive based on sea level in the area).
Permeable material (pavers or concrete) will be used for the driveway, decreasing the area of new
impervious surfaces.
2. Site Description
2.1 Site visit description and findings
The entire property is 118’ wide (alongshore) x 162’ deep and development is proposed only on the 38’ x
118’ area of property along the shoreline road, which is downslope of a retaining wall and bluff.
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 4
A site visit was performed by Marine Surveys & Assessments on February 18, 2017. The property was
characterized as an undeveloped lot approximately 0.44 acres in size. The upland ecological functions are
disconnected from the shoreline by a concrete drive and bulkhead. The portion of the lot between Rolling
Bay Walk and the first of two wood enforcement walls (approximately 4,193 square feet) is covered
mostly by invasive species (approximately 85%). Non-native invasive species include: English ivy
(Hedera helix), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii) and English
laurel (Prunus laurocerasus). Other, native vegetation includes: red alder (Alnus rubra), sword fern
(Polystichum munitum), fringecup (Tellima grandiflora), moss sp., grass sp. and unidentified herbaceous
species (dormant during visit, See Figure A-2). Neighboring properties are developed, with single-family
homes immediately adjacent to Rolling Bay Walk, within 12 feet of the OHWM.
2.2 Baseline environmental conditions
The shoreline at the project site is characterized by a seawall and a 10-foot wide paved private road along
the top of the seawall. It is classified as estuarine, intertidal, mixed-coarse substrate, partly enclosed,
eulittoral zone (WaDNR 2001). The project is located within drift cell KS-14-1, identified as a Bainbridge
Island Drift Cell Restoration General Priority (second to lowest priority of 5 priority rankings) in a small
stretch of shoreline that does not include feeder bluff activity but is within a High Bluff geomorphologic
class (Ecology 2013, CoBI 2004).
The site is in the Rolling Bay - Point Monroe Management Area on Bainbridge Island, where
overhanging riparian vegetation covers only approximately 29% of the shoreline with impervious surfaces
(e.g., roads, roofs) representing 17% of the riparian zone land cover. Shoreline development in MA-3 is
primarily residential in nature. Approximately 38% of shoreline is modified by armoring and 27% of the
shoreline has armoring that encroaches into the intertidal zone (CoBI 2004).
Approximately the first 18 feet along the shoreline is an area designated as a FEMA Floodplain (“AE -
SFHAS with high Flood Risk”) and the upland area is comprised of slopes of <40% (Figure 6).
2.3 Local Species & Habitats
No streams, wetlands, liquefaction zones were identified near the action area (City of Bainbridge Island
Critical Areas Web Application, 2017). The Washington Shorezone Inventory shows that patchy eelgrass
has been documented along the shoreline near the project site, but no surfgrass, kelp, or salt marsh (WA
DNR Shorezone 2001).
Commercial shellfish growing is prohibited along the shoreline adjacent to the project location and the
Shellfish Harvest Area is classified as “prohibited” due to a nearby Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall
(WA DOH 2017).
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 5
The Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) and Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) are identified on
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) range maps for
Threatened bird species occurring within the Puget Sound watershed, and the Northern Alligator Lizard
(Elgaria coerulea) for Threatened reptile species (NOAA 2016).
2.4 State Species & Habitats
Surf smelt spawning activity has been identified on a number of beaches along Bainbridge Island,
including just north of the project site (ERMA 2017, CoBI 2003). Forage Fish surveys have been
conducted by WDFW along the shoreline near the project site, but no evidence of spawning has been
documented. The shoreline is highly developed and armored with a seawall and is not suitable spawning
habitat for surf smelt or sand lance. No herring spawning has been identified offshore. The WDFW
Priority Habitats and Species web mapping application was queried for the site; no sensitive species or
habitats were identified at the site or in the immediate area. Geoduck presence is indicated offshore of the
site (WDFW 2017b).
2.5 Federal Species & Habitats
The marine area adjacent to the shoreline buffer is designated NMFS Marine Critical Habitat for the
following Endangered Species Act federally- listed species:
Final Nearshore Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014)
Marine Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (NMFS, 2005)
Southern Resident killer whales (J, K, and L pods) (NOAA 2006).
Marine Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon also includes the upland areas of Bainbridge
Island (ERMA 2017). Impacts analyses are included for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, juvenile rockfish,
and Killer Whale and are included in the following sections. No ESA listed species are indicated in the
upland portion of the site or surrounding upland area.
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) Boundaries (NOAA 2016) show that the upland area of the
Bainbridge Island, including the project footprint, is considered accessible habitat for:
Puget Sound\Strait of Georgia Fall and Winter Chum Salmon (Protection Status: Not Warranted)
Puget Sound\Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon (Protection Status: Species of Concern)
Odd Year Pink Salmon (Protection Status: Not Warranted)
Puget Sound Steelhead (Protection Status: Threatened)
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 6
However, no steelhead or other salmonid streams are documented in the area according to WDFW’s
Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) (NOAA 2016).
According to USFWS, threatened bird species that may occur in the general area of the project location
that could potentially be affected by activities in this location include the species below (USFWS 2016):
Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata)
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
Threatened Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) may also occur in the marine environment of this area, but
the project is not located within the final designated critical habitat for this species. Several migratory bird
species (protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) may
occur in the area (USFWS 2016). A full report of USFWS’ Information from Planning and Conservation
(IPaC) Trust Resources Report can be found in Appendix B.
3. Impact Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Mitigation Sequencing
Mitigation sequencing includes the steps taken during project planning and implementation that are meant
to find the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative to achieve a project need. Demonstrate
the application of required mitigation sequencing with a table or bulleted list of each mitigation action and
how the proposal addresses it:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
Considering the project goals and restrictions of placement, completely avoiding the impact to
vegetation and surface permeability within the shoreline jurisdiction was not considered feasible.
2. 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;
The applicant has consulted with CoBI about the proposed building location and potential impacts
and determined there is no alternative location to place a Single Family Residence due to site
restrictions including the topography, shoreline restrictions, and site accessibility. As previously
stated, the driveway will be paved with a permeable material or pavers, reducing the amount of new
impervious area within the shoreline jurisdiction. Additionally, the total footprint of the structure has
essentially been reduced by half by designing it as a 2-story building. The BMP’s described in the
project description also contribute towards minimizing the temporary impacts from construction.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 7
The impact area of the Single Family Residence will not be able to be restored; however, any areas
affected by temporary impacts due to construction or grading can be returned to their previous state or
better.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations;
A reduction of impacts over time within the footprint of the Single Family Residence and driveway
will not occur.
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments;
Compensatory mitigation is proposed for this project in the form of riparian planting with a ratio of
over 1:1. The planting plan is included in Appendix A (Figure A-2).
6. Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate corrective measures.
Monitoring and corrective measures are outlined in detail in the planting plan (Appendix A).
4. Impacts of Project
Potential impacts are presented and evaluated here in the context of the City of Bainbridge Island
Shoreline Master Program, Federal and State listed species, and Priority Habitats. While permanent
impacts to ecological function will be addressed by measures developed through mitigation sequencing
described in previous sections, some minor temporary impacts are likely to occur but will be minimized
through BMP’s.
Permanent Impacts – Vegetation Removal and Impervious Surfaces: The total new impervious
surface from the construction of the Single Family Residence and driveway will be 1,536 square feet.
Approximately 1,680 square feet of vegetation will be removed in the development of the site. Based on a
site visit by MSA, most of the vegetation is non-native invasive species.
Impervious surfaces alter the flow rate, volume, and path that precipitation takes to the water, contributing
to damage caused by increased volume and flow rates in stormwater run-off events. Stormwater runoff
carries larger loads of fertilizers, pesticides and other pollutants to the marine environment than water that
is allowed to drain naturally through soil and vegetation.
Temporary Impact - Water quality: Short term impacts to water quality may occur during construction
with disturbance of loose soil and, in the event of rain, may include increased turbidity creating erosion
and increased particulates in run off to the marine environment. Increased turbidity can have adverse
effects on salmonids and juvenile rockfish; the impact level depends on duration of exposure,
concentration of turbidity, the life stage during the increased exposure and the options available for the
fish to avoid the plumes. For this project, the impacts are expected to be localized and brief and fish
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 8
would likely avoid any areas of increased turbidity. Juvenile rockfish have a strong association with kelp
and rocky substrate which is not present within the project area and, thus, these fish species are not
expected to be impacted. Potential short-term construction-related water quality impacts will be avoided
and minimized through stormwater BMP’s. Long-term impacts to water quality from run-off related
erosion will be minimized including roof drains that lead to a splash block and then onto the pavement,
reducing risk of erosion on the site during storm events. The footing drains would also discharge on a
splash block on the landward side of the house. Due to the functionally isolated location of the site from
the shoreline, it is highly unlikely that Southern Resident Killer Whales, humpback whales, or leatherback
sea turtles would be affected by water quality impacts related to the project.
Temporary Impact - Noise: Air noise levels will be increased during heavy equipment use and may
have temporary behavioral impacts to birds and other wildlife, primarily avoidance of the area. In-water
noise levels will not be affected. City noise ordinances will be observed.
5. Mitigation Summary and No Net Loss Analysis
The BMP’s described in the project description and the additional minimization measures developed
through mitigation sequencing are intended to prevent temporary and permanent project-related impacts
to shoreline ecological functions and values in order to achieve City of Bainbridge Island No Net Loss
criteria. However, permanent impacts to vegetation and natural drainage will occur.
Although rain gardens are the preferred mitigation approach for an increase to impervious surfaces within
the shoreline jurisdiction, a rain garden was not feasible due to site topography. Other site constraints
also precluded a raingarden to be situated 50’ from steep slope, 50’ from drainfield, property line and
sufficient distance from sideyard setbacks. To reduce impervious surface at the site, Marine Surveys &
Assessments recommended using permeable pavement or pavers for the driveway. To compensate for the
balance of new impervious surface and vegetation impacts, the planting plan (Appendix A) includes
installation of native plants. The proposed single-family residence will add 1,536 square feet of
impervious surface. Approximately 1,680 square feet of mostly-invasive vegetation will be removed in
the development of the site. Compensatory mitigation proposed with the planting plan would cover a
total of 2,496 square feet (880 Sq Ft in zone 1 and 1,616 Sq Ft in zone 2) of with native plantings. The
planting area is 38% larger than the area to be impacted by impervious surface and a multi-layered
canopy of native plants will replace invasive species.
Through the avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation described herein, the proposed
Dufresne Single Family Residence and driveway is expected to achieve No Net Loss for ecological
function along the shoreline within the City of Bainbridge Island.
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 9
References
CoBI 2014. City of Bainbridge Island Shoreline Master Program Update. Ordinance Number 2014-04.
CoBI 2014a. City of Bainbridge Island Official Shoreline Designation Map. November 18, 2014.
CoBI 2003. Bainbridge Island Nearshore Assessment: Summary of Best Available Science. PNWD-3233.
Prepared for the City of Bainbridge Island, Bainbridge Island, WA, by Battelle Marine Sciences
Laboratory, Sequim, WA.
CoBI 2004. Bainbridge Island Nearshore Habitat Characterization & Assessment, Management Strategy
Prioritization, and Monitoring Recommendations. Battelle Memorial Institute Richland, WA. November
2004.
CoBI 2010. Bainbridge Island Current and Historic Coastal Geomorphic/Feeder Bluff Mapping. Prepared
for: City of Bainbridge Island Planning and Community Development. Prepared by: Coastal Geologic
Services Inc. April 22, 2010.
CoBI 2012. Shoreline Restoration Plan - City of Bainbridge Island. Prepared for City of Bainbridge
Island by Herrara. July 2012.
Cooke 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington & Northwestern
Oregon. Sarah S. Cooke (Editor).
Ecology 2013. Department of Ecology: MacLennan., A. Johannessen, J.W., Williams, S.A., Gerstel, W.,
Waggoner, J.F., and Bailey, A., 2013, Feeder Bluff Mapping of Puget Sound, prepared by Coastal
Geologic Services, Bellingham, for Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia WA, 117 pp and map
folio.
ERMA 2017. Environmental Response Management Application: Puget Sound. 2016. Available:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps -and-spatial-data/environmental-response-management-
application-erma/pacific-northwest-erma.html. Accessed February 6-10, 2017.
WDFW 2017. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species report.
Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Olympia, Washington. Accessed 02/06/2017.
WDFW 2017a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Salmonscape Interactive Mapping. Available:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Olympia, WA. Accessed 02/08/2017.
WDFW 2016b. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Salmon Conservation Reporting Engine
(SCoRE). Available: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/. Olympia, WA. Accessed 02/08/2017.
WDNR 2001. The Washington State ShoreZone Inventory. https://erma.noaa.gov/northwest/ Accessed
02/06/2017.
USFWS 2017. IPaC Trust Resources Report. Generated 02/06/2017, IPaC v3.0.8
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 10
Figure 1. Dufresne Single Family Residence Vicinity Map
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 11
Figure 2. Dufresne Site Plan with impact areas
MS&A Dufresne Single Family Residence • Site-Specific Impact Analysis • 12
Figure 3. Profile view of Dufresne property and proposed structure.