HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996.07.25 - Site Assessment for Wetland Conditions at 35th Street ParkCC: Pesha Klein, Sheldon & Associates
,: Raulalvfaclagq CHnMI{ill ':Page 1
. .The hydrqphytic species were observed in depressions and bn u cornpucted access road.crosiing '
the clqarqut, We examined the roots of several Douglas-fir an{ did observe thpt,they are quite ,
sfallow.,HowOver, this glowth habitisvery'common'in'Forttgwnsenddueto'sqqrg ofthq mo.re
common soils haviag a shallow glacial till surface. Tci'differenfiatebetween,a'truty butqgssed
root:sys&m (shalloriduelo a hith,*ut.r table) ana a shalfo* root qysteb (shbllowttue,,to:hard,
impgrrrreable substrata) ii very difficuit under these distur-bed condiiions: ,We"did.tibsewe' ':
tt oaioglnr an adjacenl unclearea.area, and did not sge a"V itraractiristics that aiif.'.entiuted '
- ttrese tribs froiir many we:h4ve observed in shallow soii, rrpland,hpbitat throirghout'Fort:'' ' .
,Townsend. . : .--':;-.,,., ,,1 . .'l l','.' ,
:,'lDougilas-fir have notoriougly shallow root systems wtrethq gro.wrng in upland or wetland . '
l,: conditions. Typically, whenwg have observe{ Douglasifir in wetlands in the pas-! the fir are
growing,ondistinct hummocks inthewet area sulroundd,b.ycomplexweb,{ike; interconnected
wetland/drai-dge qystems, with the wetl4nd pqrtfon cornprisihg at{eiast 507o,of the landscape
surface. fnaiis not the case here. :Th€,surface is'slightlyhummocky - typical of a,fores!
; certainljr of orr. that has been clearcut a,couple of tii"r iti'the past But ihe firs (and ottrei
upland vegetation) do not follow the distinct pattern of always riding the high'points with
hydrophytic vegetation surrounding. Finatty, we'have never observed Pacific madrone in a
*"tf*a i"Port Townsend or *y{hrr. els. ln the Facific Northwest. They appear to be very
sensitive to root rot fungi, always prefening well-drained, rocky soils. The madrone on this site
appear to be relatively healthy, despite the recent clearcut. We have found other upland species
inPort Townsend wetlands however, including species such as red elderberry (Sa4bucus
raeemosa), snowberry (Symphocarpus albus), and grand fir (Abies grandis).
Page2
t:
q$ i:
To evaluate the soils, we were fortqnate to have use of a small backhoe, a real advantage when "
needing to evaluate the difficult to;dig soil profiles in Port,Townsend (semi-cemented substrata).
Soil pits were dug in several areas across the site to determine whether hydric soils were present
and/or common in areas vegetated by upland as well as wetland plants.
The site is mapped as Clallam gravelly sandy loam, one of the most common Port Townsend
soils. The Clallam is described as being moderately deep and well-drained. It forms in glacial
till, usually found on uplands. The surface soils are generally graflsh-brown to darkgrayish-
brown gravelly sandy loams that grade quickly to a chroma 2 or 3 subsoil. They have a weakly
cemented glacial till layer at2040 inches depth that will restrict vertical soil percolation to
varying degrees. But they are described as noi having a longduration winter water table within
6 feet of the soil surface. This not typical of a soil with a glacial till substrata but the till below
the Clallamappears to be more permeable than the average, and the Clallam is mapped in areas
with relatively low annual rainfall.
The greatest problem,with field. interpretation of Clallam,soil?s hydrology lies thb fact that the
Clallam soils generally have soil matrii colors very close to chroma 2 oi less, and will often be
mottled within a few inches of the soil surface gven in distinctly upland settings.' However,'as
described above, during "typical" winters, they will not have longduration walter'tables in ihose
zones of low-chroma colors and mottling. This appears to be a result of a combination of
factors. Some scientists have described these features as relict (i.e., developed during an earlier
time period.under different hydrologic conditions); others have suggested that reduced iron I'
(which accumulates under conditions of long-duration saturation in the soil profile), being more
soluble, fnoves with fluctuating soil water tables, so can be canied up and deposited in '
moderately welldrained layers above the long'term water table. The second theory seems to
meet chanacteristics we observed on this site.
We excavated a total of six soil pits across the site. Four were dug with the small backhoe , two
were handdug. The general pattern showed about 2-3 inches ofdark surface soil overlying soil
matrix with 2.5Y5l3 color, and faint mottles. We did not find any soils with chromas
convincingJy 2 or less within 12 inches of the surface in the clearcut area (although some were
intergrade between the chroma 2 and 3 color chip). In one pit (4) w excavated down almost 30
inches and were able to observe a distinctly grey (2.5Y512)layer at 26 inches. With these
characteristics, it appears that longduration saturation ocours at about 26 inches, periodically
fluctuating up to the surface during periods of extended rainfall, then draining offlaterally in
relatively short periods of time. (It takes at least 8-10 days under ideal conditions for reduced
iron -. an indicator of anaerobic conditions - to form in the soil.)
l.
Page 3
If the stormwater detention facility is located upslope from the drainage,'a wetland delineatiori
and rating will be necessary (as required rn thePortTownsend Crifical Areas Ordinrince) to :
ciearly identiff the wetland edge onthe iandscape'and so, to elsure that.the pond does,r'roi
eqcroac4 u.pgn thewetlpnd, and to deteimine wetland buffer widths and locations BCIed upon
preliminary field observations, the wetland would likely merit a low Category II rating due io
'higlr species diversity and adjacency to an extensive upland forest habitat.
I hope the above information is sufficient ftir you to proceed with project planning and
implementation. Please feel free to call with any questions.
ARCPACS certified soil specialist
Page 4
PERMIT PROCESS IN SUMMARY
All development permit applications are classified as one of the following: Type l/l-A, Type ll,
Type lll orType lV. The information below provides a brief overviewof each process. For
details, including notification and appeals, see PTMC IO.OL for land use permits and PTMC
Lg.O4for review under the State Environmental Review Process (SEPA).
h ttps ://www. cod e p u b I i s h i n g. co m/WA/Po nTown se n d /
For all Land Use Applications - A final decision is issued within 120 calendar days from the date
of the determination of completeness.l Applications may be delayed if additional information
is required, or plans revised. ln most cases, we can issue permits in less time - much of it
depends on the quality of the information you have submitted.
All applications are reviewed for compliance with adopted regulations including the "approval
criteria" for the applicable land use permit.
OTvpe I and Tvpe lA Permits
1) Review for Complete Application 28 days
lf deemed incomplete, we will send you a letter detailing the information required. The
application will be placed on hold pending receipt of the requested information.
2) Staff review and draft decision
3) Decision lssued by the Director
4) Appeals:
o Type I - No administrative appeal.
. Type l-A - Administrative appeal by the applicant only
3Tvpe ll Permits
1) Review for Complete Application 28 days
lf deemed incomplete, we will send you a letter detailing the information required. The
application will be placed on hold pending receipt of the requested information.
2) Notice of Application (public notice and comment period) 20-30 days
Staffwill prepare the notice, place the notice in the newspaper (if required) and provide posting
signs, but the applicant is responsible for placing the signs at the site. Staff is also responsible
for mailing the Notice to adjoining property owners (APO) within 300 feet of the subject site;
however, the applicant is responsible for obtaining the APO list from a locgl title company.
l See PTMC 2O.0t.28O for periods excluded from 120 days
Hearing Examiner decisions on Type lll applications are final, subject to appeal rights to Superior Court.
tl Type lV - Final Plats
Upon approvat of a preliminary plat or PUD (Type ll or Type lll process) you are required to
submit for final plat approval.
1f Review for Complete Application 28 days
lf deemed incomplete, we will send you a letter detailing the information required. The
application will be placed on hold pending receipt of the requested information.
2) Staff drafts recommendation
3) Director approves short plats3 I CitV council approves full plats/euOs4
C Tvpe V - Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezones
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan/Rezones are bundled and processed concurrently
once a year. The process takes approximately 8-12 months to complete. All suggested or
formal amendments must be submitted to the department by February 1st of the current year
to be considered during that year's amendment process. Suggested amendments are subject
to a docketing process involving notice and public hearings before both the Planning
Commission and Council. Once the docket is set, SEPA review is conducted. Next, Planning
Commission holds a noticed public hearing on the merits of any proposed amendments.
Planning commission formulates a recommendation to city council. City council also provides
notice and public hearing before making final a legislative decision. Appeals are heard by the
Growth Management Hearings Board.
3 SEPA Review
lf requi.red, review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.27C RCW, shall
occur concurrently with project review. The SEPA review process, including all public comment
procedures, is set forth in Chapter L9.04 PTMC. ln short:
1) Review for Complete Application 28 days
3 PTMc 18.12.130
4 PTMC 2o.o1,o4o
For circumstances where a project requires different permit Types (e.9., a Type ll and a Type lll
permit), a finaldecision on the lowertype of permit is stayed untilsuccessful completion of the
higher numbered permit.6
The submittal of building permit and/or street development applications may occur at any time
- at the applicant's own risk - during the land use review process. Any associated permits may
not be issued untilthe land use decision has been made.
JudicialAppeals
ln Washington, the Land Use Petition Act (RCW 36J0C, "LUPA") governs judicial review of all
"land use decisions." LUPA provides a strict, uniform process of procedure to appeal land use
decisions on a variety of grounds. Appeals of the localjurisdictions final decision (subject to
timely exhaustion of all administrative remedies) shall be made to Jefferson County superior
court within 2L calendar days of the date the decision or action became final, as defined in
PTMC 20.01.280(B), unless another time period is established by state law or local ordinance.
All appeals must conform with procedures set forth in Chapter 36.70C RCW'
6 PTMc 2o.o1.o3oB