The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007.08.31 - Email from Richard Mraz of Ecology'Wetland 3rd Parry review Suzanne Wassmer From: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY) [rmra461@ECY.WA.GOVI Sent: Friday, August 31,20A7 9:21 AM To: Suzanne Wassmer :Cc: Judy Surber; Lund, FenY {ECY) Subject: RE: Wetland 3rd Party review Page I of4 {," / Suzanne The primary issues on which the rating hinges are the extent and durltign of ponding within the wetland. The supplemental work by Loggy cites rainfall values and infers ponding characteristics within the wetland. The report notes that rainfall levels in recent years cannot be cited as having caused increases in the wetland hydrology. The suggested cause is recent ditch mainteluulce, which is purported to have introduced additional water into the subject wetland. Also,.the possibility,of a Ltoikage of outflow was mentioned. The presence of a recently maintained ditch provides an interesting aspect io this situation. It could be arguedthat when'the ditch was regularly maintained, the subject witland was larger in size. Onoe ditch maintenance lapsed, the wetland hydrology diminished' However, soils in the areas of the most landward extent of the mats also evinced hydric charabter. These features are less temporal and suggest that such ponding as was observed during my visit is a normal circurnstance. Given the information provided it is not possibte to conclusively assert thatthe 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 rating. I acknowledge that Mr. Loggy did not encounter the conspicuous algal mats during his visit. However, this does not change my conclusion that the wetland atthe time of my inspection was larger than the delineation. I make this assertion based not only on the presen€e of algae mat_s but the presonce of hydric soils. The algal mats and amphibian populatioru which indicate larger.areal and longer duration inundation may reflect the new normal circumstances. If legal ditch maintenanoe. has re-established a certain level of hydrology to this system, then this can be considered the new normal circumstance. One option to confirm this possibility would be to rnonitor the wetland and collect hydrology data over the next several years- While the wetland is a Category [II, it is a very low function III {32 pointl to-tal, w{ t habitat points). [t coutd benefrt significantly from enhancement. I note that Port Townsend's Critical Areas Ordinance allows for buffei 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 lv{raz Wetlands/S horelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Southwest Regional Ofiice (360)407-6221 rmra46l@ecy.wa.gov 9/18/2407 Wetland 3rd Party review Page2 of4 From : Suza nne Wassmer [mailto : s,wassmer@cltyofpt.us] Sent: Tuesday, August 28,2007 9:30 AM To: Mraz, Rldrard A. (ECY) Subject; RE: Wefland 3rd Party review OK, thank you! Please see attached. ln addition to the Loggy report I have included a couple of pages from owner CarolWise, and a letter frorn the former resident of the proper$ who apparently livbd there 60+ years. Suzanne -*-Original Message*- From: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY) [mailto:rmra461@ECY.WA.GOV]Sent Tuesday, August 28,20A7 9:15 AM To: Suzanne Wassmer; Judy Surber Gc Lund, Perry (ECY) Subject; RE: Wetland 3rd Pafty review Hi Suzanne) . I will be glaA ro review the additional materials prepared by Loggy Soil and Wetland Consulting. Sending the information by e-mail would be best and would allow me to provide the quickest reply. Rick Mraz WetlandslShorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental :Assistance Program Southwest Regional Offi ce G60D4A7-622r rwa46I@ecy.wa.gov Fro m : Suzan ne Wassmer [mailto : swassmer@cityofpt.us] Sent: Tuesday, August 28,2007 9:09 AM To: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY); Judy Surber Cc Lund. Perry (ECY) Subject: RE: WeHand 3rd Party review HiRick, This email is in regards to the Gammage Estate site that you visited with us June 20, 2007. Aftached is a recent letter sent to the owner of the property that gives some explanation about what hashappened since the site visit. The owners of the property are questioning the Category lll rating. t.V.e're wo.n{.ering if you are available to review materials prepared by Loggy Soil and Wetland Consulting. His report discusses how the neighboring property could have affected the Gammage Estate and wefiaid rating. lf y4ou areavailable, please let me know your schedule and the best way to forward materials to you (email, fax, mail?) Thank you! Suzanne 9/18nAA7 'Wetland 3rd Party review Page 3 of4 ----Original Message---- From: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY) [mailto:rmra461@ECY.WA.GOV] Senh Monday, July A2,2W7 B:41 AM To: Judy Surber Cg Suzanne Wassmer; Lund, Perry (ECY) Subject: Wetland 3rd PartY review Hello Judy, I write to iummarizn my review of the wetland delineation and rating for the Gammage Estate site. 'i.-hese cornments are offered in consideration of oirr site visit, conduoted on fune 20,2007 and an office review of a wetland delineation and rating report made by Loggy Soil and Wetland Consulting. The report is daled September 25,2006. I will address the delineation fust and in doing so I will refer to Figure 2, the locatiorldescription map in the delineation report. pryl$ our site visit, I located rnany of the teit 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 thiibecause several of the areas where I dug tests holes outside of the delineated wetland, met the three wetland parameters, which are: pfesence of hydrology, hydric soils irnd a dominant hydrophytic vegetation community. Specific areas where the wetland is underrepresented are as follows: West-northwest of test hole #6 - this area displayed hydrib soils: 10YR 212 with z-4}%distinct redoximorphic features (?.5YR 3/a). The soil was satulated at a depth of 8" at the time of investigation. Algal mats were present on the surface and suspended in the vegetation ut utteight of g-tO" above the.surface. This area was vegetated primarily with reedcanarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), but also coitaitted areas ofNootka rose (Rosi nutkana, FAC). The wetland extends further west and northwest at least 15-20 feet. Easr of test hole #3 - This area displayed hydric soils: 10YR 2ll. The soil was saturaled at a depth of 8". Algal mats were present on the surface and suspended in the vegetation af a height of l' above the surface. 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 testhole #8 may also be primarily wetland. There is little if any change in contour and elevation from this area to the reedcanarygrass-domianted wetlands west of test hole #6. Thearea is so densely vegetated with this thorny rose that we could not investigate the soils without signihcantly more time' Areas where I concur with the delineation are as follows: Test hole #l2is accurate, Test hole #10 is accurate. 9/1812007 Wetland 3rd Party review Page 4 of4 Regarding the consultant's rating of the wetland, several changes are necessary that affect the rating score. The evidence of ponding is greatef than represented in the rating. This factor af,fects the water quality, hydrologic and habitat functions scores. The presence of algal mats at 8-12" above the surface indicates that significant ponding occurs within the wetland. In consideration of the extent of the algal mats, it is apparent that at least ll4 of the totzl areaof 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). tn additiorq during our visit at least a dozen very small pacific chorus frogs were seen in the lowest area of the wetland. These frogs have a life history that requires approximately three months of ponding (avg.17 days for egg laying and hatch + 2-2.5 month larval 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 incieased in consideration of questiontI2.4. Based on analysis of NWI and GIS mapping, combined with our exploration of adjacent properties, there are three wetlands within all2 mile but the connection between them are disturbed. Regarding thp habitat score, I noted errors in the addition in tlrat section. Explanation of these errors is complicated 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 wetlands 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 wat,er quality and hydrologic function, in combination with the correction of scores for habitat function, is that the wetland scores 32 points and is a Category III. Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City of Port Townsend. I trust that this review and oonclusion is useful for your purposes. If you have any questions or require clarifrcation of these statements, please contact me. Rick Mraz Wetlands/Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Southwest Regional Office (360)407-622t rmra46l@ecy.wa.gov 9/t8/2007 Page 1 of2f]l."\l Suzanne Wassmer From: Suzanne Wassmer Senfi Wednesday, August 22,200710:01 AM To: Judy Surber; Leonard Yarberry; Kenneth Clow; John Wattsi Pat lolavera Subiect: FW: Class 4 wetland FYl. \ /lrat are your thoughts? Thanks, Suzanne *--Original Message---- From: Carol Wlse fmailto:cwise@olypen.com] Sentr Tueday, August 21,2A07 6:21 PM To: Suzanne Wassmer Cc: Mike Biggs; Anne Mclaughlin; CarolWise Subject: Class 4 wetland Good Moming! Ok, new developments occurring as we speak. We now have a major issue about the class 4 wetlands. I:r talking with Mike Bigg+ and with the Loggy report, we are at a 50'buffer on a class 4 wetland. With that acknowledgement, we are able to remove the manhole and have a direct line for the sewer, a better layout and more efficient system. I need to know that we are in agreement that the official report is the LogW report and the drawing will reflect the buffer for the wetland at 50'. There is no reason for us to be categorized so harshly jusi because no one wants to be wrong. We have a binding, licensed and bonded report and the reputation of Mr. LogW of over 30 years experience and no guess- work and fully accountable for his report. We have come to realize that we carurot just go along here with the idea that maybe-perhaps someone will decide, to be safe, that this should be a class 3 wetland. The development of that sewer line is dramatically different and we are not willing to just 81ve up that land use on a perhaps. Mike went out today, .Aug21,, to view the marking and survey of the sewer line and 80' marking for a proposed buffer and realized that the line was an average of 50' away from that extreme point and thatwould mean the correct, 50'buffer would eliminate that manhole and that is what the report reflects is 50', So, please help us get through this the best you can. There is no intention of being offeruive herg we just have to have the correct call on this classification based on the proper format and documentation, which we have provided, and a point of agreement that is binding for us to proceed Thank yoq so much for all *re assistance and patience tfuough this. We didn't cause this problem and it wasn't a problem to start with and never was until outside factors changed it. Most Sincerely, 8122/2007 Carol Wise r\- a _s d><d Page2 of2 iS c'tt{J )y bR* U a"! ol( a r l^rOft'2) oak*a"f rj fppi*-rr?a o€14Y- 8122/2007