The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007.07.02 - Email from Suzanne Wassmer to Carol and AnnWeJland 3rd Party review Suzanne Wassmer J s.*d "', Page 1 of3:' *t From: Suzanne Wassmer Sent: MondaY, JulY 02, 2007 1:18 PM To: 'cwise@olypen.com'; 'annem@olypen.com' Cc: Jan Hopfenbeck; John McDonagh; Judy Surber; Alex Angud; Francesca Franklin, Leonard Yarberry; Penny Westerfield; Scottie Foster; Kenneth Clow Subject: FW: Wetland 3rd Party review Hi Caroland Ann, I am forwarding Rick Mraz's Third Party review comments received this morning. I also took Figure 2 from.the Loggy report, ind from Rick's commenis made a rough sketch of his findings (attached) as he mentioned the wetland was more "rounded" than Mr. Loggy depicted' Bottom tine is: his Third party review putJlt-into a Category lll wetland. According to the Buffer Wdth Table in PTMC Section 1g.0S.1 10, the weflanil does not meet the "moderate level of function for habitat score" so buffer widths are 60 feet for "moderate" residential use (1 dwelling unit per acre or less) and an B0 feet for "high" residential use (more than 1 dwelling unit per acre). I didn't sketch the new wetland buffers, but obviously an 80 foot buffer (if you're proposing half-atre lois) is twice the boundary size that.Mr. Loggy drew as a 40 foot buffer. According tb juOy Sirrbbr, it ii tifery that the sewer line would be considered "moderate" but it isn't specified in the Code, sdwe first need to review your proposal for the sewer line. Please provide elevations and tell us if the sewei line is going under the ditcir or through the ditch, and what type oj vegetation would be disturbed. We'll check the cod]_g tddetermine if what you propose would be allowed within the buffer area, and if a critical area permit would be required. We understand you are under time pressure as the house a|1733 Hastings has partially failed septic and needs to be connected to sewer. But it would be more cost effective if you submitted a proposal for the future subdivision (starting with a free Customer Assistance Meeting) as soon as possible so staff could see how the entire development could affect the wetland. Foryour infoimation, the pTMC Section 19.05.060.D.3 regarding building pads for new developments, states, "a. The following requirements pertain to short plats, subdivisions, PUDs, binding site plans, and lot line revisions onty. in" applicint shall provide at least one suitable area outside of critical area and buffer boundaries to place a itrricturelsl on each lot oi a subdivision or short plat. All buildings proposed in a binding site plan shall be OeiigneOt6 be outside of critical areas and their'buffer boundaries. These requirements may be waived only by the director. i. ldentify for each lot a building pad equal to 2,160 square feet or 30 percent of the minimum lot size required by the zond in which a subdivision is proposed, whichever is less. ii. Determine the location of a building pad by considering vegetation, topography, critical areas, and the relationship of the proposed building-piO to existing/propbseO homes. Building pads should be located outside of critical area and buffer boundaries. iii. ldentifu approved building pads and critical areas on final mylars. iv. lf insufficient land area exists outside of critical areas and their buffers for all building sites, the proposed short flat, subdivision, or binding site plan may be required to develop at less than the maximum permissible density in order to avoid negative impacts to critical areas.". lf you have questions, please let us know. Thank you. Suzanne Suzanne Wassmer Land Use Development SPecialist 71212007 Wptland 3rd Party review Page 2 of3i'-) I City of Port Townsend 250 Madison Stregt, Suite 3 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: 360) 385-0644 Fax: (360) 3444619 [Suzanne Wassmer] ----Original Message---- From : Mraz, Richard A. (ECY) [mailto: rmra461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 B:41AM To: Judy Surber Cc: Suzanne Wassmer; Lund, Perry (ECY) Subject: Wetland 3rd Pafi review Hello Judy, 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 on June 20,2007 and an office review of a wetland delineation and rating report made 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 location/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 identihed 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 outsideif the delineated wetlarid, met the three wetland parameters, which are: presence of hydrology, hydric soils and a dominant hydrophytic vegetation community. Specific areas where the wetland is underrepresented are as follows: West-northwest of test hole #6 - this area displayed hydric soils: 10YR 212 with2-20% distinct redoximorphic features (7.5YR 314). The soil was saturated at a depth of 8" at the time of investigatibn. Algat -ai. *"t" present on the surface and suspended in the vegetation at a height of 8- 10" above the surface. This arei was vegetated primarily with reedcanarygrass (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 saturated at a depth of 8',. Algal mats were pres'ent on the surface and suspended in the vegetation at a height of 1' above thJsurface. 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 wetland. There is little if any change in contour and elevation from this area to the reedcanarygrass-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: Test hole #12 is accurate. Test hole #10 is accurate. 7/2/2007 Wgtland 3rd Party review Page 3 of3 ;\ J Regarding the consultant's rating of the wetland, several changes are necessarylhat affect the rating score. Tlie evidence of pondingis 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 itrat sifnincant ponding occurs within the wetland. In consideration of the extent of the algal mats, it is apparint that atleast Il4 of the total area of the wetland is seasonally ponded (Question D 1.4 on rating fo^rm;. The height of the mats demonstrates that the wetland stores water at depths between 0.5 feet to iZ fe"f (euestion D 3.2 onrating form). In addition, 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 iequires approximately three months of ponding (avg.37 days for egg laying and hatch + 2-2.5 month larval stage). In consideration of the above indicators, another hydroperiod exists (Question H I.2) that is seasonally flooded or inundated. The habitat score is also increased in consideration of questionHZ,4. Based on analysis of NWI and GIS mapping, combined with our exploration of adjacent properties, there are three wetlands within all2mile but the cormection between them are disturbed. Regarding the habitat score, I noted effors in the addition in that section. Explanation of these errors is coipticaled and I have provided details in a phone conversation with you. The result of these errors is that, with the addition oianother 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 water 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 conclusion is useful-for your purposes. If you have any questions or require clarification of these statements, please contact me. Rick Mraz Wetlands/Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Southwest Regional Offi ce (360)407-6221 rmra46l@ecy.wa.gov 71212007