HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008.07.09 - Email from Richard Mraz of EcologyWetland 3rd Party revtew
Pat lolavera
Page I of7
From: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY) [rmra461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, JulY 09, 2008 3:36 PM
To: Pat lolavera
Subject: RE: Wetland 3rd Party review for Hastings Road site
Pat,
The wetland and its buffer are vegetated primarily with reedcanarygrass (RCG). RCG in monoculture
provides limited habitat for wildiife and in generally considered an undesirable invasive in wetlands. The
iystem would benefit from adding some vegetative structure in the form of shrub and tree planting. These
addecl vegetative classes would increase habitat niches, add shading to the aquatic areas (when they are
present), and generally increase diversity in the system. The challenge will be to ensure survival of the
plantings since the RCG will aggressively compete fbr space and shade out new growth.
Regulut, carefirl mowing around the new plantings will allow the trees and shrubs to create a canopy that
will eventually shade ont ,o-" of the RCG. RCG is not very shade tolerant, but it may take up to ten
years to effectively reduce its coverage. I would look to the adjacent offsite wetland for examples of plants
io t y itt the enhancement effort. I noted Scouler's willow, Pacific Willow, Dogwood, Spiraea and Alder
were present in nearby wetlands. Quaking aspen might also be worth a try.
I can provide some more detailed examples of these approaches if you wish.
Rick Mtaz
Wetlands,/Shorelaods Specialist
Shorelands and Euviroumeutal
Assistance Pro{tram
Southwest ReSional O{{ice
(560)407-OCr2l
rmra4Ol@eca.wa.{Jov
From : Pat Iolavera [mailto: piolavera@cityofpt.us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:12 PM
To: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY)
Subject: FW: Wetland 3rd Party review for Hastings Road site
Dear Rick:
Here is the e-mail I referenced. lt's your initial e-mail that mentions "enhancement". lf you could be so kind as to
identify some potential enhancemenis, I'll see what I can do to implement them as project conditions.
Thanks much,
Pat
From: John McDonagh
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:05 PM
7/912008
Wetland 3rd Party review
To: Pat Iolavera
Subject: FW: Wetland 3rd Pafi review for Hastings Road site
Earub
Page2 of7
From: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY) [mailto:rmra461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 12:59 PM
To: John McDonagh
Cc: Judy Surber; westech@westechcompany.com; wdploggy@olypen.com; Lund, Perry (ECY)
Subject: FW: Wetland 3rd Party review for Hastings Road site
Hello John,
I attach my previous e-mail to provide context for this further discussion. I first became involved with
this site in August 2007 as 3rd party reviewer of a delineation and rating by Mr. David Loggy. You
recently provided me with another field review, conducted by Westech Co., of the site in question on
Hastings Road. This latest investigation occurred in February and March of this year and found none of
the overt hydrologic evidence described in the e-mail below. As a result, Westech's rating was a
Category IV (similar to Mr. Loggy's conclusion) since the wetland did not score as high for hydrologic
storage, water qualrty or habitat functions.
As I discussed in the earlier e-mail, when one visits a wetland, it must be rated based on the conditions
present at the time of rating. As noted below, when I visited the site, there was sufficient evidence of
long-term inundation to reach certain conclusions about depth and duration of inundation. Extensive
algal mats were present. Algal deposits are most often seen in seasonally ponded depressions,
interdunal swales, tidal areas, lake fringes, and low-gradient stream margins. They reflect prolonged wet
conditions sufficient for algal growth and development, generally 2to 3 months.
In his revised report, it was suggested by Mr. Loggy that the hydrology for the site was atypical.
Rainfall data for the previous 5 years do not appear to indicate that the unusual hydrology was
precipitation driven. It was also suggested that recent ditch maintenance may have recently introduced a
large volume of water into the site. Based on the recent series of investigations, including a brief visit
that I conducted on April4, 2008, the hydrology I observed back in2007 may, in fact, be atypical.
It does appear that a large volume of water (the evidence of which I noted) may occasionally enter and
reside in this wetland. It certainly happened some time in2007. Whether this was a unique event or
will occur with some regularity is difficult to say. As I suggested below, "one option to confirm this
possibility would be to monitor the wetland and collect hydrology data over the next several years".
However,I acknowledge that this may not be practical and may work contrary to both the property
owner's and the City's interests.
The source of the seasonal ponding in this wetland is likely a large "slug" of water that enters the
depression after moving through a series of ditches that connect with other wetlands. The timing and
frequency of such an occurrence is difficult to predict and may (as Mr. Loggy suggested) be a result of
upstream maintenance activities. During my most recent observation I noted that the upstream, offsite
drainage ditch was holding a large volume of water (almost bankful) while the onsite ditch had only 2-
4" of water and the ditch in the wetland was only saturated at the surface.
The primary hydrologic inputs into this system are manipulated and unpredictable. The current
prevailing evidence appears to indicate that seasonal ponding is less frequent than the conditions
observed in August 2007. To know for certain, the site would have to be monitored for evidence of
seasonal ponding in 5 out of 10 years (question D 1.4 on the rating form). However, I will concur that
7/9/2008
Wetland 3rd Party review Page3 of7
the "normal" conditions that exist in this wetland are accurately represented by the Category IV rating
provided by Dr. Shea and Mr. Loggy. I agree that the soils on the fringe of the wetland do not exhibit
characteristics of seasonal ponding. I would note that it is likely the wetland will continue to
occasionally contain wateiof sufficient depth and duration as that which caused algal mat
formation. itt. City should consider this p-ossible condition is reviewingarly "downstream" proposals or
proposals to alter this wetland.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require clarification of these statements.
Rick Mraz
Wetlaodr,/Shorelaods Specialist
SLorelands and Enwironmental
Assistance Prottram
Southwest Re5,ional Office
(500)407-6nt
rmra461@eca.wa.{lov
From: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY)
Sent: Friday, August 3I,2007 9:21AM
To: 'suzanne Wassmer'
Cc: Judy Surber; Lund, Perry (ECY)
Subject: RE: Wetland 3rd Party review
Suzanne
The primary issues on whigh the rating hinges are.the extent and duration of pondingwithin the wetland.
The supplemental work by Loggy cites rainfall values and infers ponding characteristics within the
*"tland.- The report notes thai rainf-all levels in recent years'carurot be cited as having caused increases in
the wetland hydrtlogy. The suggested cause is recent ditch maintenance, which is purported to have
introrluced additional water into the subject wetland. Also, the possibility of a blockage of oudlow was
mentioned. The presence of a recently maintained ditch provides an interesting aspect to this situation. It
could be ar-gued that when the ditch was regularly maintained, the subject wetland was larger in size. Once
ditch mailtenance lapsed, the wetland hydrology diminished. However, soils in the areas of the most
lanclward extent of the mats also evinced. hydric character. These features irre less temporal and suggest
that such ponding as was observed during my visit is a normal circumstance.
Given the infbrmation provided, it is not possible to conclusively assert that the hydrology that I observed
is atypical. When one visits a wetland, it must be rated it based on the conditions present at the time of
ra5ng. I acknowle{ge that Mr. Loggy did not encotutter the conspicuous algal mats during his visif
However, this <loes not change my conclusion that the wetland at the time of my inspection was larger than
the delineation. I make this assertion based not only on the presence of algae mats but the presence of
hydric soils. The algal mats and amphibian population, which indicate larger areal and longer duration
inundation may reflect the new normal circumstances.
If legal ditch maintenance has re-established a certain level of hydrology to this system, then this can be
consiclered the new normal circumstance. One option to confirm this possibility would be to monitor the
r,vetland and collect hydrology data over the next several years.
719/2008
Wetland 3rd Party review Page 4 of7
While the wetland is a Category III, it is a very low function III (32 points total,wf t habitat points). It
could benefit significantly from enhancement. I note that Port Townsend's Critical Areas Ordinance
allows for buffer reduction when enhancement is implemented. This wetland seems to be a candidate for
that approach.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require clarification of these statements.
Rick Mraz
Wetlands,/Shorelands Specialist
Shorelands and Environmental
Assistance Pro6lram
Southwest Re6lional O{f ice
(500)407-612r
r-ra4Ol@ecu.wa.{tov
From : Suza n ne Wassmer [mailto : swassmer@cityofpt, us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, Z0O7 9:30 AM
To: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY)
Subject: RE: Wetland 3rd Pafi review
OK, thank you!
Please see attached. ln addition to the Loggy report I have included a couple of pages from owner Carol Wise,
and a letter from the former resident of the property who apparently lived there 60+ years.
Suzanne
---Original Message----- .
From : Mraz, Richard A. (ECY) fmaifto: rmra461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28,2007 9:15 AM
To: Suzanne Wassmer; Judy Surber
Ccr Lund, Perry (ECY)
Subject: RE: Wetland 3rd Pafi review
Hi Suzarrne,
I will be glad to review the additional materi.als prepared by l,trggy Soil and Wetland Consulting.
Sending the information by e-mail would be best and would allow me to provide the quickest reply.
Rick Mraz
Wetlaods,/Shorelaudt Specialist
Shorelands and Enwironmental
Assistance Pro6lram
Southwesi Re6ional O{{ice
(560)4W-Onr
rotra4Ol@ecu.wa.{tov
71912008
Wetland 3rd Party review Page 5 of7
From: Suzanne Wassmer [mailto:swassmer@cityofpt.us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28,2A07 9:09 AM
To: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY); Judy Surber
Cc: Lund, Perry (ECY)
Subject: RE: Wetland 3rd Pafi review
HiRick,
This email is in regards to the Gammage Estate site that you visited with us June 20, 2007.
Attached is a rece-nt letter sent to the owner of the property that gives some explanation about what has
happened since the site visit.
The owners of the property are questioning the Category lll rating.
We're wondering if'you ar6 available to review materials prepare-d by Loggy_Soil and Wetland Consulting.
His report discuisei how the neighboring property could have affected the Gammage Estate and wetland
rating.
lf yoJ are available, please let me know your schedule and the best way to forward materials to you (email,
fax, mail?)
Thank you!
Suzanne
----Original Message-----
From: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY) [mailto:rmra461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sentl Monday, July 02, 2007 B:41AM
To: Judy Surber
Cc: Suzanne Wassmer; Lund, Perry (ECY)
Subject: Wetland 3rd Pafi review
HelloJudy,
I write to summarize my review of the wetland delineation and rating for the Gammage
Estate site. These comments are offered in consideration of our site visit, conducted
onJune 20,2007 and anofficereviewof awetlanddelineationandratingreportmade
by Loggy Soil and Wetland Consulting. The report is dated September 25,2006.
I will address the delineation first and in doing so I will refer to Figure 2, the
locatior/description map in the delineation report. During our site visit, I located
many of the test holes reported on Figure 2 and dug additional holes in areas that were
identified as outside the delineated wetland.
In general, I found that the wetland was larger than indicated on Figure 2. I assert this
because several of the areas where I dug tests holes outside of the delineated wefland,
met the three wetland parameters, which are: presence of hydrology, hydric soils and a
dominant hydrophytic vegetation community. Specific areirs where the wetland is
underrepresented are as follows:
West-northwest of test hole #6 - this area displayed hydric soils: 10YR 212 wrth 2'
20% distinct redoximorphic feahrres (7.5YR 3/4). The soil was saturated at a depth of
8" at the time of investigation. Algat mats were present on the surface and suspended
in the vegetation at a height of 8-10" above the surface. This area was vegetated
primarily with reedcana.rygrass (Phalaris arundinacea FACW), but also contained
areas of Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana, FAC). The wetland extends further west and
northwest at least 15-20 feet.
East of test hole #3 - This area displayed hydric soils: 10YR 2ll. The soil was
sahrrated at a depth of 8". Algal mats were present on the surface and suspended in the
71912008
Wetland 3rd Party review Page 6 of7
vegetation at a height of I' above the surfiace. Vegetation was similar to the area
west of test hole #6 but a greater percentage of Nootka rose was present.
The area vegetated primarily with Nootka rose and generally west-northwest of test
hole #8 may also be primarily wedand. There is little if any change in contour and
elevation from this area to the re edcanarygrass-domianted wetlands west of test hole
#6. The area is so densely vegetated with this thorny rose that we could not investigate
the soils without significantly more time.
Areas where I concur with the delineation are as follows:
Testhole #12 is accurate.
Test hole #10 is accurate.
Regarding the consultant's rating of the wetland, several changes are necessary that
affect the rating score. The evidence of ponding is greater than represented in the
rating. This factor affects the water quality, hydrologic and habitat functions scores.
The presence of algal mats at 8-12" above the surface indicates that signilicant ponding
occurs within the wetland. In consideration of the extent of the algal mats, itis
apparent that at leastU4 of the total area of the wetland is seasonally ponded (Question
D 1.4 on rating form). The height of the mats demonstrates that the wetland stores
water at depths between 0.5 feet to ( 2 feet (Question D 3.2 on rating form). In
addition, during our visit at least a dozen very small pacific chorus liogs were seen in
the lowest area of the wetland. These frogs have a life history that requires
approximately three months of ponding{avg. 37 days for egg laying and hatch + 2-2.5
month larvarl stage).
In consideration of the above indicators, another hydroperiod exists (Question H 1.2)
that is seasonally flooded or inundated. The habitat score is also increased in
consideration of question H2.4. Based on analysis of NWI and GIS mapping,
combined with our exploration of adjacent properties, there are three wetlands within a
Il2 mile but the connection between them are dishrrbed.
Regarding the habitat score, I noted errors in the addition in that section. Explanation
of these errors is compllcated and I have provided details in a phone conversation with
you. The result of these errors is that, with the addition of another hydroperiod and
notation of other wedands in the area, the habitat total is 9 points, which is the amount
reported by the consultant.
The ultimate result of the additional points for water quality and hydrologic function, in
combination with the correction of scores for habitat function, is that the wetland scores
32 points aurd is a Category III.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City of PortTownsend. I trust that this
rcview and conclusion is useful for your pu{poses. If you have any questions or require
71912008
Wetland 3rd Party review
clarification of these statements, please contact me.
Rick lvlraz
Wetlandsr/Shorelands Special ist
Shorelauds and Environnental
Assistauce Progran
Southwest Re5ional Ol{ice
(3601407-O?, r
rorra40X@ecg.wa.[tov
PageT of 7
7/912008