Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000.11.30 - Blach Property Wetland Delineation ReportCoorn ScrnrurrFlc Sunvrcns INc 919 NE TLsr Srnpnr PHoNs: (206) 525-5105 SnrrrrE, WA 98115 Fax: (206) 525-5351 cooxsss@Aoi..coM November 30,2000 Larcy Crockett Port of Port Townsend 333 Benedict Street P.O. Box 1180 Port Townsend, WA 98368 RECEIVED DEC 0 5 2000 P()RT OF PORITOVlINSEND ADMINISTRATION OFFICE ,, Po.+(olra u.Vi\p"ndttlBalch Property Wetland Delineation Report SW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 30N, Range 1W Port Townsend, Washington Dear Mr. Crockett: At your request, on November t6,2000, Cooke Scientific Services,Inc. (CSS) and Landau Associates staff investigated this L.44-acre site. The property is bounded by the Port's shipyard to the east, by Simms Road to the northwest, and by undeveloped meadow and shrubland to the south and west (see Figure 1). One wetland was found on the site. It is over 0.5 acres insize, as shown on Figure 2. Please note that this figure shows the approximate wetland boundaries. A survey by a qualified surveyor will be necessary to determine the exactsize and location of the wetland on the site. Port Townsend uses the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (October 1991) and would rate this as a Category III wetland. The Cify requires a SO-foot buffer for Category III wetlands. The City does allow buffer width averaging or buffer width reductions in some cases. Details on methodology, findings, results, and regulatory requirements follow. Methods Before the site visit, CSS used all available sources to obtain information about the site, including aerial photographs provided by the Port, the Soil Survey of jefferson County Area, Washington (McCreary 1975), and the previous wetland delineation report (Pacific Rim Soil & Water 1993). This information was then compared to CSS findings during our site visit. The wetland found was delineated using the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (WSDOE 1997), hereinafter called The Manual. Its methodology calls for examining vegetation, soils, and hydrology throughout the site. See attached Wetland Determination forms for details. .\ ${d Vegetation The wetland is dominated by palustrine emergent habitat with some palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine forested areas along the wetland edge. The eastern lobe of the wetland vegetation is dominated by oeeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera, FAC), red fescue (Festuca rubra, FAC+), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), with less frequently-occurring creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW), curly dock (Rumex crispus, FAC+), velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus, FAC), Watson willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum, FACW-), and patches of marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris, OBL). The western lobe of the wetland is dominated by densely-growing hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus, OBL) with scattered patches of common cattail (TyphalatifuIia,OBL) and yellow iris (/rls pseudacorus, OBL). A narrow band of palustrine scrub-shrub habitat occurs along the west, north, and east edges of the wetland. Dominant vegetation in this habitat is Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana, FAC) with less frequently-occurring black cottonwood saplings (Populus balsamifera spp. trichocarph FAC), and scattered patches of spirea (Spirea douglasii, FACW). The groundlayer in the scrub-shrub habitat is mostly bare with small areas of field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC) located in the northwest edge of the wetland. A small, narrow band of white willow trees (Salix alba,FACW) also occur along the north edge of the wetland. The forested habitat comprises less than 20 percent of the wetland. The wetland was dominated by vegetation that meets the Manual's criteria for hydrophytic (wet-lothg) plants.' Soil SoiI maps for ]efferson County (McCreary 1975) indicate that soils on-site have been mapped as'Cut and Fill Lands'and'Rough Broken Lands.' A previous soil pit indicates that there is 5 to 5.5 feet of fill soils over L to 3 feet of peat and peary muck over about 0.5 feet of black organic shell-containing muck (Pacific Rim Soil & Water 1993). The peat is assumed to the original soil surface of the mud flat estuary that was present prior to filling. The fill soils are primarily loamy sand or sand texture. The soil found in the eastern lobe of the wetland ranges from a black (7.5YR 2.5/1) sandy loam, to a black (10YR 3/1) silt loam. No mottles were found in the soils. Soil observation in the western lobe of the wetland was not possible due to inundation of this area from a few inches to several feet deep. Adjacent upland soils were composed of a dry black (7.5YR 2.5/1) sandy loam to a dark grey (10YR4/1.5) sandy silt. The soil in the wetland meets the Manual's criteria for hydric soils. 2Coorn ScnNtrtc Srnvtcrs, Ittc.L2/01/00 Hydrology The western lobe of the wetland was inundated at the time of the site visit. The eastern lobe had soils saturated to within L2 inches of the soil surface and soil saturation ranged from 9 to 14 inches below ground surface. The hydrology in the wetland meets the Manual's criteria for this parameter. Results Wetland A meets the Manual's criteria for vegetation, soils, and hydrology. It is approximately 0.S-acre or greater in size. A professional survey of the wetland flagging will determine its exact size and location on the site. The wetland is dominated by palustrine emergent habitat with a narrow band of palustrine scrub- shrub habitat along most of its boundaries and palustrine forested habitat along the north edge. The wetland and surrounding upland have been disturbed by grading and filling in the past. Regulatory lnformation City of Port Townsend 1-) Critical Areas Ordinance - The City's Municipal Code includes Title 19 governing Environmental Protection, including wetlands. The Cify code would rate the on site wetland as a Category 3 wetland because it is dominated by one habitat class with moderate habitat interspersion, has few habitat features, degraded buffers, and has minimal connection to other habitat areas. Typically, the Cify of Port Townsend requires a S0-foot buffer for Category III wetlands. Buffers shall be retained in their natural condition, unless otherwise specified and any buffers disturbed during construction must be restored to the same or better condition using native vegetation. The City does allow for buffer width reductions on a case-by-case basis and requires that no impacts to the wetland will result from reducing the buffer width, the buffer width is not reduced to less than 25 feet, the site is extensively vegetated and has less than 1,5 percent slopes, and the project includes provisions to enhance buffers using native vegetation to provide additional protection for the wetland. Buffer width averaging is also allowed if the wetland will not be adversely affected, the total area after averaging is no less than the standard buffer required, and the buffer is no less than 25 feet wide unless it would deny reasonable use of the property. In additiory the City does allow Category III wetlands to be altered for use as a regional stormwater management facility provided that qualify pretreatment of water and all surface water design manual requirements are met. Retention/ detention facilities must serve regional or neighborhood uses and will not be allowed for individual property use. 3CooKE ScIeNtIrtc Srnvtcns, INc.t2/0t/00 City code requires mitigation for impacts to Category III wetlands. Thus, a wetland mitigation plan will be required for any impacts to the wetland or its buffer. Typicallp a ratio of 1.25:1is required for impacts to emergent wetland and 2:1, for impacts to scrub-shrub habitat. The City prefers that the wetland mitigation be in-kind and on-site (although other options will be considered), and that the mitigation is timed prior to or concurrent with alteration. The City will likely want to see the mitigation plan as part of the SEPA process and before permits are granted. A mitigation plan report must be submitted to the City, detailing the plan and how wetland functions and values will be preserved, including detailed planting and grading plans and contingency plans in case the mitigation fails within 5 years of installation. A performance bond in the amount of 1.2}percent of the expected cost of compensation is required prior to site alteration. Typically, up to 5 years of monitoring conducted by a qualified wetland consultant is required to ensure that the mitigation is successful and to provide contingency measures in the case that any portion of the mitigation plan fails. 2) SEPA - This process is required by the City as part of the State Environmental Policy Act. The City reviews the project's environmental impact and proposed mitigation measures, usually with public review. If a determination of non- significance is given, meaning that the project will have no substantial environmental impact, no further environmental review is needed. With a mitigated determination of non-significance, the City would require certain mitigation measures for environmental impacts and no EIS would be required. A determination of significance requires an EIS. This process can take up to 5 months, and longer if the decision is appealed. 3) Shoreline Management Act - The City is required to address any development within 200 feet of sensitive shoreline areas. Any projects within 200 of the Sound is also subject to approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology. US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 1) Wetland Boundarli Verification - The on-site wetland boundary must be verified by the COE prior to development if the project will affect greater than 0.L acre of wetland. 2) Nationwide Permit 39 - This permit allows wetland fills up to 0.5 acre for the construction of commercial, institutional, and residential building foundations and attendant features that are necessary for the use and maintenance of the structures. These features may include, but are not limited to, roads, parking lots, garages, yards, utility lines, stormwater management facilities, and recreational facilities such as playgrounds and playing fields. Activities authorized under NWP 39 must meet the following criteria: a. The discharge does not cause the loss of greater than 0.5 acre of non-tidal waters of the United States; Coors ScrENTrFrc SrRvrcns, INc. 4 t2/0t/00 b. The permittee must notify the COE if the discharge causes the lose of greater than 0.1 acre of non-tidal waters of the US (General Cor-rdition 13);c. For discharges in wetlands, the notification must include a delineation repor! d. The discharge is part of a single and complete projec! e. The permittee must avoid and minimize discharges into waters of the US to the maximum extent practicable, and notification, when required, must include a statement explaining how avoidance and minimization of losses were achieved. Compensatory mitigation will normatly be required to offset wetland losses (General Condition 19);f. Any work authorized under this NWP must not cause more than minimal degradation of water quality (General Conditions 9 and 21).g. For wetland fills less than 0.L acre, a letter of notification must be sent to the COE prior to commencement of work informing them of the project. The COE will require mitigation in at least the same ratios required by the Cify for any wetland fill. In additiory the COE requires 5 to L0 years of monitoring of the wetland mitigation conducted by a professional wetland consultant with reports sent to the COE each year monitoring is required. 3) hrdividual Permit - Projects proposing to fill greater than'J./2 acre of wetlands under NWP 39 will require an lrdividual permit. Part of the requirement for this permit is to do an alternatives analysis that justifies that the proposed use cannot be constructed elsewhere in the region. An Lrdividual permit can take up to 2 years for agency review and there is no guarantee that it will be awarded. 4) Biological Assessment - Several species of salmon and critical salmon habitat is now listed under the Endangered Species Act. The National Marine Fisheries Service has jurisdiction on projects that lie within 300 feet of salmon habitat. Thus, this project falls under their jurisdiction. The COE has the discretion to require a biological assessment (BA) for any project that applies for a Nationwide Permit. Because this project has no surface water connection to Puget Sound, they may not require a BA. However, if they believe that the project may affect salmonid habitat they do have the authority to ask for this study. If no Nationwide Permit is needed, the COE has no authority to ask for a biological assessment. A biological assessment would require an exacting and indepth study of project impacts on salmon and critical salmon habitat in an action area that could exceed the 300 foot limit from the project. They are usually quite expensive and take many months for the agencies to process. The BA gives the COE and NMFS another avenue to ask for specific mitigation measures addressing impacts to listed species and critical salmon habitat. 5CooKE SCIENTIFIC Srnucrs, INc.12/aL/00 Thank you for the opportunify to investigate this site. If you have any questions, please call me at (206\ 525-5105. Sincerely, I\*.- B.*,8* Diane Brewster, Senior Wetland Ecologist Attachments:Figure 1: Site Map Figure 2: Wetland Map Wetland Determination data forms Wetlands Rating Field Data Form References: Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. gO-ga. Olympia, WA. McCreary, Fred R. L975. Soil Survey Of Jefferson CountyArea, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service. Pacific Rim Soil & Water. 1993. Wetland Report for the Port of Port Townsend, Report File Number M93-0091. 6Coorr ScmNrmtc SrRvlcns, INc.t2/0t/00 2 27TH ST llJlnp Fu)CEM. 6'Ei'il UJU)oE Fu) 26TH ST RD STz T 21ST ST Fa1gTH Fa) =J-MTN, Fa arUoz.5sTH ST )a() Fa LUa(5ST JJ =2TH F.a THFU) ST BTH:<oo Fa 2oaJ9= FU) UJg.(5 JLrl IIJJO FaFq @ IIE f,{i aa alE BotI aH;trt HIEII t I I HI E II SI(f,oo =oUJE q:)'? MUNICIPAI- GOLF COURSE Figure L: Site M"p Balch Property Port Townsend Coorr ScnNrnrc SsRvrces r(J IJJ TUac N4\ INc. * 2000 *525-5105 z aFU) l-z t<, s)Eo GnANrSSI:r ELEM O t--v) F-z. E.(5 13THFF12IH(, A I q, Jo-aIIJz. T SITE ST I z. o GUJ:tra Fz E(5 z =E.t"LlTa i. Note: Wetland and drainage boundaries are approximate (not for jurisdictional use). Landau Associates Figure 2Balch Wetland and Drainage Swale Port of Port Townsend Port Townsend, Washington