HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003.07.00 - CT Pipeline Monitoring Report Year 5City of Port Townsend
CT Pipeline
Monitoring Report
July 2003
Year 5
Prcpared for:
City of Port Townsend
Waterman & Katz Building
181 Quincy Street,2od Floor
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Prepared by:
DixieLlewellin
Olympic Wetland Resources, Inc.
856 50th Street
Port Townsend, WA, 98368
Offipic Wetlond Resources, lnc.
360
dllewell@olyrnpus,net
City of Port Townsend
CT Pipeline
Monitoring Report
July 2fi13
Year 5
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project History
1.1.1 Wetland A
1.1.2 Wetland B
1.1.3 Planting and Maintenance of Wetland A and B
2.0 Methodolory
2.1 Project Goals and Objectives
2.2 Monitoring Methodolory
2.2.1 Determining Survival Rates of Trees, Shrubs- and Emergents
2.2.2 Documenting Wetland Changes with Photographs
3.0 Monitoring Schedule
Table 1. Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule
4.0 Results and Discussion
4.1 Wetland A
4.1.1 Survival Rate For Planted Species
4.1.2 Volunteer SPecies
4.1.3 Weedy Species
4.2 Wetland B
4.2.1 Survival Rate For Planted Species
4.2.2 Volunteer Species
4.2.3 Weedy Species
4.3 Action Items for Wetland A and Wetland B
5.0 Summary
Appendix
Figures
I. Location Map Wetland A and B
tr. Wetland A MonitoringZnnes and Photopoint Locations
m. Wetland B Monitoring Area and Photopoint Locations
Monitoring Forms
lV. Wetland A Zones I and 2
V. Wetland B
Photopoints
VI. Wetland A Photopoints 1-3
VII. WetlandA Photopoints4 & 5
VItr. Wetland B Photopoints 1-4
City of Port Townsend
CT Pipeline
Monitoring Report
July 2003
Year 5
1.0 lntroduction
During the 1998 construction of a water supply pipeline for the City of Port Townsend- five
wetlands were impacted. Mitigation measures were required to compensirte for these impacts.
The construction plan required the revegetation of two wetlands. henceforttr referred to as
Wetland A and Wetland B (City Of Port Townsend Wetland Plan CT Pipeline P.oiecq
Macrow- CH2Mhill. April 1998). The mitigation plan orrlines performance standards and
procedures for the revegetation" maintenance. and monitoring components of the project (City of
Port Townsend CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Plan, Olympic Wetland Resources.Inc
January 1999).
A five-year monitoring period was required to evaluate the overall success of the project and to
determine success rates of planted species. This report summarizes finding from the 2003
monitoring and is the final monitoring report required for this project.
The goal of monitoring is to determine whether the performance standards identified in the plan
have been met. Primary performance standards require survivorship of 80% or more of all
planted species after the five-year monitoring period. Overall plant cover is assessed during the
monitoring process. including planted and all desirable volunteer species and weed species cover
A project is considered successful if the desirable plant cover is greater than 80% and weed
species cover is less than 10% at the end of the five years.
1.1 Project History
1.1.1 Wefland A
Wetland A is located directly west of the commercial businesses Seaport Fabrics and Peninsula
Floor Coverings at the intersection of Sims Way and the undeveloped section of Howard Street.
This wetland was impacted by the filling of approximately 1.500 sqrnre feet of wetland and
disturbing 9.595 square feet of buffer. An additional 14.500 squtre feet in the buffer was also
altered during the 1998 CT pipeline construction. A new wetland was created on the site and the
buffers were enhanced with trees and shrubs. The location of Wetland A is shown on the
Location Map included in the Appendix (Figure I).
Ollmpic Wedand Resources- lnc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report Page 1
Julr'1003
The City has compensated for 1.500 square feet of filled wetland by the creation of 3.300 sqrure
feet of wetland. Buffer averaging includes the enhancement of 12.922 sqrnre feet in exchange
for the 9.595 square feet of buffer impacted from construction. A l0-foot wide gravel pedestrian
path has been installed on the west side of Wetland A-
1.1.2Wetland B
Wetland B is located near Rainier Street at the north end of the CT pipeline project. The location
of Wetland B is shown in the Location Map included in the Appendix (Figure I).
Wetland B was impacted by the CT pipeline construction with the temporary disnrbance of
g.750 sqrnre feet of the buffer and permanent disturbance of 4.500 square feet of the buffer.
Measures to mitigate the impacts include enhancing approximately 6.700 square feet of the
disturbed right of way. Boliards were installed at the end of Rainier and 20s Streets to prevent
motorized access into the mitigation area.
1.1.3 Planting and Maintenance of Wedand A and B
The majoriry of plants were installed on December 14 and 15. 1998 and in January of 1999 by
Matia Contractors of Ferndale. WA. Matia Contractors retumed in November 2000 and replaced
many plants that did not survive the initial planting. Many of the shrubs were bare-rooted or
installed as live stakes and were seasonally dormant at the time of planting. Survival rates from
both plantings were poor. No maintenance was conducted at any time after planting: the first
year the Contractors were required to do the maintenance and the Ciqv was responsible beyond
that date. Fornrnately the low areas within the landscape of Wetland A have a regular source of
water and wetland species (both planted and native volunteers) are thriving without anv
inigation.
2.0 Methodology
Olympic Wetland Resources. lnc. has been retained to collect the data and report on the
mitigation monitoring for the CT pipeline. Monitoring was completed on July 15- 1003.
2.1 Proj*t Goals and Obiectives
The primary goal for ttris project is to compensate for unavoidable impacts from the constnrction
of the CT Pipeline. Wetland loss is to be compensated at a replacement ratio of 2:1 and the
function and values of disturbed buffers are to be increased with native plantings. Environmental
objectives are to enhance the structural and biological diversity of the site and to further protect
the water quahqv of the wetland by upgrading the buffers through a revegetation plan.
2.2 Monitoring Methodology
Monitoring methodology includes counting individual fiees. shrubs. and emergents to determine
plant survivorship. habitat density. and general condition of planted species. Trees- shrubs. and
herbaceous plants were planted in well-defined plant communities and zones. Planting areas in
both Wetlands A and B are small enough in size that all individual plants were counted. Actual
Ollmpic Wetland Resotrces- lnc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report Page 2
Juil 1003
survival percentages were calculated by comparing numbers of plants observed agrinst lstal
numbers planted. Percentages do not include species that did not survive the initial planting.
Survival rates are listed on the monitoring forms; totals are averaged as total percent survival for
each plant commturity. Monitoring forms for each of the plant communities are included in the
Appendix (Figres IV and V).
2.2.1 Determining Survival Rates of Trees, Shrubs, and Emergents
Survival rates are determined by a physical count of trees or shrubs observed during the field
sgrvey and recorded on the monitoring forms. Information presented on monitoring forms
includes plant names (common and scientific). numbers planted- plant community (mixed upland
foresl scrubishrub wetland- scrubishrub upland), and percent survival rare. Also recorded is the
presence of natives that are naturalizing from adjacent populations and invasive non-native weed
species.
2.2.2 Documenting Wedand Changes wiffi Photographs
Photographic monitoring provides a method for documenting vegetative changes over time. Five
pemunent photopoints at Wetland A and four photopoints in Wetland B have been established.
Photopoint locations and photogaphs are included in the Appendix (Figures II. m- VL VII- and
utr).
3.0 Monitoring Schedule
This report represents the fiffh and final year of monitoring following initial plant insallation in
December 1998 (with firther installations in January 1999 and November 2000).
The Monitoring and Maintenance Schedule is outlined in Table I
Table 1. Monito and Maintenance Schedule
Olympic Wetland Resources- lnc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Report
Fall
1998
Spring FaU
1999 1999
Spring
2000
Fall Spring
2000 2001
Fall
2001
Spring Fall
200: 2002
Spring Fall
1003 1003Maintenance
Jm
None lNo". lNo"" lNonelNone luone lNone lNone
Mry'- lo" l*r. lNonelNone lNone lNone
no ft*plants as needed
Monitoring
7'03B'ee fe/oo lt,ot
-7'02 7',30B,se fn,oo fz'ot
-7'02s'ss !e'oo Ie/01 l7'or 7'03
egetation and Habitat
Report
Page 3
Juh'1003
4.0 Results and Discussion
Total survival rates of trees and shrubs introduced to Wetland A is 59%. This figure does not
include planc that did not survive the initial planting. This number is consistent with last year's
findings. This is an indication that the population has stabilized: plants that have survived are
healthy.
4.1 Wetland A
4.1.1 Survival Rate For Planted Species
The sgrvival rates for trees are high. Red alders. cedars. and Douglas' firs are well adapted to
site conditions and have had a high survival rates. Shore pines ordinarily have a very high
success rate on restoration projects btrt have had poor success at this site. These trees blew over
after the initial planting (due to improper installation) and were staked in January 2001 and did
not survive the following year. Mortality rates are also due to poor quahty nursery stock still
lvrapped in nylon twine after planting. Seasonally saturated swales willows (Pacific- Scouler's.
and Hooker's) and cottonwoods. planted as live stakes. are thriving and robust. The willows
have formed a thick hedge below the parking area-
tn the wetland community. the shrub layer. which consists of ninebark dogwood- salmonberry.
and twinberry. is well established and ottr competing the weeds. Survival rates are consistent
wittr last year's shrub count. lndividuals that are present are healthy. forming a dense shrub layer
over time. In the dryer portions of the site. snowberry and rose populations are spreading. Signs
of grazing by local populations of deer were observed- mostly on the wetland species.
The survival rate for plants installed on the exposed hillside behind Peninsula Floor Coverings is
extremely poor. Over 200 shrubs and trees were planted at this location and only a small fraction
of the plants have strrvived. The slope is dfu and dominated by a dense grass cover. Several
large shore pines and fus are standing dead on this hillside.
4.1.2 Volunteer SPecies
Sunounding native vegetation was left intact during alteration and installation of the pipeline.
These native species on the perimeter of the planted areas are helping to reestablish the tree and
shrub layers. Volunteer native plant species that were not on the original planting plan brn were
identified during the field assessment include thimbleberry. red-flowering currant trailing
blackberry- canail. horsetail. rushes. and bulrushes. Volurteer species also include spreading
populations of salal. oceanspray. snowberry. and rose.
4.1.3 Weedy Species
Weedy species identified at Wetland A include Himalayan blackberry. Canadian thistle. and
Scot's broom (one plant). The thistle is spreading on the d4v hillside and will dominate the area
unless it is controlled. The best method of controlling thistle is persistent mowing. Weedy
species represent far less than 10% of the overall cover: this meets compliance with performance
standards and project goals.
Ollmpic Wetland Resources. lnc.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigarion Repon Page 4
Juh 1003
4.2 Wetland B
Wetland B has been re-vegetated along the access road to the water tower and adjacent corridor
roads. which consist of narrow strips surrounded by forests. The edges of the triangular shaped
restoration area are surounded by desirable native vegetation. This dense tree and shrub hedge
has been a great asset in reestablishing native species throughout the disturbed area. Presently-
volunteer alders. snowberry. and salal far exceed the numbers planted. The overall survival rate
rs 63oh for planted species. This number does not include species that did not survive the
original planting in 1998: it is consistent with figures from the 2002 statistics. This indicates a
stabilized population: plants ttrat are now surviving will most likely withstand our dry summers
and be able to out compete gr:rss and weeds.
4.2.1 Survival Rate For Planted Species
Survival rate within the tree layer at Wetland B is moderate. The planted species of pine and
aspen are not healthy and may not survive. None of the cottonwoods planted survived the
original planting. Fornrnately. populations of alders and firs are filling in the open spaces and are
out-competing non-native species.
In the shrub layer ninebark hawthom. lndian plum. and snowberry were generally health,"- and
thriving. Elderberry. serviceberD,. and sword fern did not survive the initial planting. Native
populations of alder are forming a grove in the southeast comer with salal and trailing blackbenl.
forrning a dense carpet.
4.2.2 Volunteer SPecies
Volunteer species include salal. snowberry. Douglas fir. trailing blackberry. alder. Nootka rose
and Madrona. Over time the edges of the impacted area will readily retum to a native
populations.
4.2.3 Weedy Species
Weedy species identified include Himalayan blackberry. Canadian thistle. curly doclc and tansy'
rag;wort. Grass is the dominant ground cover along the access road: weedy species are not a
major problem at this time.
4.3 Action ltems For Wetland A and Wetland B
Establish an annual maintenance schedule to remove thistles. blackberry- and Scot's
broom (especially rnZone 1 of Wetland A)
_Weed/mow invasive weeds. especially around plants (fall)
_Remove dead pine trees
_Re-evaluate goals and the re-vegetation plan based on this final monitoring report
Ollmpic Wetland Resources- lnc.
CT Pipeiine Wetland Mirigation Repon Page 5
Jull 2003
5.0 Summary
This report represents the last year of the five-year monitoring period for the CT pipeline as
required by the City of Port Townsend Building and Commwrity Development Department.
Performance standards are evaluated after five years and require survivorship of 80% or greater
ofall planted species. an overall plant cover of80% or greater ofplanted and desirable volunteer
species. and less than a 10% weed cover.
The 2003 monitoring statistics indicate a below standard survivorship of planted species
(Wetland A average 59%. Wetland B average 63%). This number does not include species that
did not survive initial planting: if the plants were counted- averages would be mrrch lower. This
does not meet the performance standard requirements of 80oh survivorship. However- due to the
re-establishment of nearby native populations of trees and shrubs the overall aerial cover is
greater than 80% desirable species. Weedy species constitttr€ far less than 10% aerial cover at
either Wetland A or Wetland B. Scot's broom and Himalayan blackberry. observed at both sites.
should be eliminated (not just cut back) since they often overcome planted species over time.
Original environmental goals were to increase structural and biological diversitv of the site.
These goals have been met and the project can be considered successful. Over time a dense
shrub layer will include a greater diversity of species than were originaUy identified on the site.
The locations with the highest plant mortalrty are Zone *7 in Wetland A and along the access
road of Wetland B. Bottr sites are dry and exposed. Most planted species were overtaken with a
grass or weed cover even though appropriate upland natives were planted. Due to lack of any
irrigation or maintenance. very few plants survived. Native plants do require irrigation for at
least two years to become established- especially in dry environments. Fornrnately in Wetland B
the adjacent vegetation is healthy and spreading to the impacted area. Zone #1 of Wetland A is
larger in size and will not develop a native vegetated layer without replanting. Populations of
Canadian thistle are advancing and will eventually dominate the dry hillside if not controlled.
Additional reasons for plant mortality include planting during inappropriate seasons. using
unhealthy nursery stoclc inappropriate plant choices for the specific location. and lack of even
minimal maintenance or irrigation. Ongoing maintenance. although minimal. should be included
in firture budgets plans. At both restoration sites volunteer and planted species are thriving
where natually moist soils exist or in shady areas. Standing water was present in Wetland A
during this monitoring period.
I would be happy to discuss the final results of the monitoring project or help with ongoing
maintenance planning.
Ollmpic Wetiand Resources- lnc.
CT Pipeiine Wetland Mitigarion Repon Page 6
Julr 1003
a
Appendix
Figures
f. Location Map Wetland A and B
IL Wetland A Monitoring Zones and Photopoint Locations
Tlf. Wetland B Monitoring Area and Photopoint Locations
Monitoring Forms
ry. Wetland A Zones 1 and 2
V. Wetland B
PhotopointsVI. 'iVetland A Photopoints 1-3uI. wetlandAPhotopoints 4 & 5
VIII. Wetland B Photopoints t,2,3, & 4
U
Figure II.
Wetland A Monitoring Zones
and
Photopoint Locations
Photopoint # 3Photopoint # 4
iiJE
Photopoint # 2
€t ats -\:__E'H
I:o
'4.:l'
I. 7HCKiKMS ,/xlci.*rcf @z
rcrut
I
I
I
'qa
tt,a
Ct
l
d
I
DETMS
PLAN
'-##otopoint# I
--+ photopoints
t-
L
YL
{!.!Ili .':
lrllz flPipeline
Zoner
!rol<llpd
0lympir llellcJ Reourrer, lnc
856 50lh iheet
Porl bv'nreril, llA 98168
160 3816432
lle+lond A tllonitoring ond Photopoinh Figure tr.
0olc
Ci+y of Porllounuend, IlA
52]0 Kuhn
tlial:
Porl '{a 98368
,hb r:
t+tmbcr 2001
Figure III.
Wetland B Monitoring Area
and
Photopoint Locations
Monitoring Area
Photopoint
Photopoint # 3
Photopoint # I
4
WETI'T\TD B g,.'FFER MITIGATIOI\I
PLAA/
f.d
tSotopoint # 2
)r
-.....
-\-
cwa-
s{vac[ PtaTs d -/CO^'S7&C7E!V ZqG-l
- - - .
w.f t ed B.1.;!- "
:ll!
'+"o2Ctmtp
;c^
-)
phoropoints
f{€w oa s tv^G€oF,F IffEs
7
"'.,, flvnpi< kllrJ Rcourca. lrrt-- -.
'1.i ,.i 856 5olh ihrcl' :' hrlbux6i, YA 9S36S: 160 $5{132
lillc
CI Pioeline
Wgtlond B llonitorinj Areo ond Pholopointr
lolr i$.d
hlc
City of Pot lowruend, llA
5210 Kuhn
0iat
Porl I lta 98368
hb t:
tcplmbcr mOl
Figure
Figure lV. Wetland A ZONES # I and#2CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monitoring FormCommon Name Species NanrcMixed Uland Forest12198ll99l2le8t2198ll9912198Scrub/Shrub Wetlandl2le812198I)atc: July l5 ,2001Ea)E6lan.EaasEd a==E=qIFFFNjEEE.=.=9rroootr>>,^ .L r- 'L .l .-:tr<E€)€E6la(lJ+acllAComments12198N/At219812198121981219812198t2le8SalalRed alderRed elderberryDouglas firSword fernShore pineNinebarkAlnus ruhruSunthuctts t'0cennsdPseudolsugu ntenzesiiPollts 1 igPu,n nnmil untPinus cttulot'luP hy,s 1rr'rr,',, tt s c'tt 1t i I ttl usGuultherio shollonil9t44825il9il780l72720l3t3l20230lt2lt27l5l400il0I406l40il052520t445%32%l7o/o100%0%44%OVoAll pines dead otr dt'y slope, hcalthy ttear wetlartdI lealthy and cstatrlishedNative populations spreadingOnc alder ovel30', all healthyNative populatiorrs spleadingVery hcalthy and adapting well to sitcNut prcsetrlWestenr ceclar, redScouler's willowPacific willowWestertr crabappleClhokecherryQuaking aspenCottonwoodBlack twinberryOcean sprayDouglas hawthorttRed-osier dogwood7'httjtr pliculuSulix st'oulerdndSul ix Iucidu tttu'. I us iundt'uP)u'us /itst'uP t' tttt tt s tt it' gi tt tt uPopulus lremuloiclesPopulus hulsumifbruLoniceru inwtI ttcrttIcrHo I odis c' us cl i s ttt kn'(' t'ttl ue gus dougl us i i('ot'tttts sericeu8545488ilil-s6l8il4485454220t0il20520352020t8720I35352065l6l874073554I04ll30t8735854540530l8235100%100%100%t3%0%9o/o45%54%100%l8%80%Mosl lrecs glowing slowlyl'lrriving nutl sprcadingl'hriving and sprcadiugSrrrall hcnlthy tlceNot otrsclvcdOnly one snrall aspen observed('ottonwoods tlu'ivingl'lants llowclirrg and healthy, cxcellent cotrditionOtrscrvecl ou cdgcs, rrative populatiottsOnly two surall plants obscrvcdl'lants hcalthy arrd tlrriving in wetlandFigure lV.
Figure lV. ContinuedWetlandA ZONES#land#2Common Nnme Species NameScrub/Shrub Uland12198l2le8t2198t2le812198121981219812198Total Overall Survival RateSurvivnl rnte does not inclue species thnt did not survive the initial plantingEl)EGr6tEas- e=!]n=---:ENNNFIE o.EEEE? lEEEEE ELELEI e8888,EEOOOO1r<E€JE6lao+aRA(lomments59%lndian-phrnrOregon asltService-berrySnowberryllookers willowSalrnottberryWild clustered roseNootka roseRosct 1tisot'ttt'TtttRosu ttulkurur( )e m I e r i o c'erus ifin' nr i sFruxitttts lulilblicrA me lu nch ie r sl n it'itl iuSl, tn p h or ic'nt' pos a I h usSulix hookeriunuRuhus speclubilis92465656564ll8465l0l032353l5l3I23526l5l3lI637l60562lI90362l5I09246t3l056l8%100%2o/ot00%0%100%100%23%All plants unhealthy, rnay not sulviveOne trees recordedNot presentNunrerous. spreading l't'otn native populatitxtsl{otrust and healthylurrerging lionr wccds, healthy itr wetland('overed with weedsNativc population spreadingllinralayan blackberry arrd Canadian thistle are growing beneath the retainirrg wall and irr the top cortler of Zone ICanadiatt thistle isIli'onr wetland in Zone IOthel native species tlrat ale appearing orr site inolude thinrbleberry, red-flowerittg currattt, and ocealtspray salal,alder. horsetail, cattail, and tlailirtg blackberly.Figure lV.I{\
Figure V. Wetlantl ll Observer: D.LlewellinCT Pipeline Wetlantl Mitigation Monitoring Forml)ate: July ll 2003crEc!r6l.E;ost?rxNa,ttIoltN-NEEtDta,o5olt:Na,)tIJ6!{t--NEEalta,ah3+!$Ei-EE.t c,TEa<1t {ttt{,E6latU6la(lommentst2leBI199l2l9|tI l^x)t2letlI l/(x)t2letlI199t2letlCommon Name Species NameMixed Und ForestTotalsScrub/Shrub WetlandRed alderRed elderberryDouglas firQuaking aspenCottonwoodSword fernShore pineNinebarkSalalPinus t:onlorluP h1,s 111's1r, us cup i I cr I ttsGuultheriu shulktnAlnus ruhruSumhuuts t'uc'em0seP s e ucktl s ugtt nte nzes i iPopttlus lrenruktidesPopulus holsumiJ'eruP ollts 1 ia' 4r,,n mun il uttrl-s2520l0t045252I624600I2040000440023420072442003l0030026252005SOVo7 5o/o0%ooA100%40%100%l0%0o/oAldcrs are spreadingllealthy and growittgOut cornpeted by alders, plattts snrallNot presenlNot plesentMay nol sutvivellealthyNative populatiott is lilling itttpacted areaNol preserrtDouglas ltawtltorttServiceberry('ruluegus &tuglusiiA nrc I unc'h ie r ul n i/bl iu62625042425083o/o0%Slowly growing rxr roadwayNot prcsentl2le8t2lerTotalsScrub/Shrub Undl2lgtlt2lgtlt2le8Totalsl,ist all invasive n<lrt ttatives: llirnalayan lrlackberl'y, ('attadialtOther natives that are spleading to site: Madrotta, Nutka t'ose,Survival Rate of Species PlantedSurvival rate does not include species that did not(^\63o/"thistle, and tansy ragwott.oceanspray, salal, alder, srtowberrysurvive initial planting.l-lookers willowlndiatt-plunrSrrowberrySl,rnp hot' it'ur pqs o I h u.vSalix fuxtkeriunu( )e nt I er iu ce rus i/br m isl5l0l5t5t0l22l2l5t57l-527l527100%20%47%Snrall but healthyVcry atrundatrl, nalive population spreaditrgl'rL'sctttFigure V.
Figure VI.CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monitoring 2003
Wetland A Photopoints 1-3 July 15, 2003
.)...
Photopoint #l
Photopornl #2
.! , ':..
'i:.' 't
'1iii ". .r:
0lympic Wellond Resources, lnc.
Photopoint #3
i!: *1
Figure VI.
Figure VII.CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monitoring 2003
Wetland A Photopoints 4 and 5 July 15, 2003a
Photopoint/#l
v'i-F
Photopoint #5
Water Leak Near
Photopoint #3
J
Olympk Weilond Resources, Inc Figure VII.
Figure VIII.
CT Pipeline Wetland Mitigation Monltolng 2003
Wetland B Photopoints 1,2,3, and 4 July 15,2003
Photopoint #l
Photopoint #2
'l
Photopoint #3
0 lympic Wetlond Resourtes, lnc.
Photopoint #4
Figure VIIL
,\aaaaaaaaa)iIIiI\I
FHEoII{,Rriot, CaseK +Iifret-i-rirIIL\A,-tt-tt'r'tIt(?)I\c\-(."r,'Y911,.r-+tjIcIta0 -""or.,--. .-.'"'-Jar0|l1'}rtCity of Port TownsendLegend1ft/",v u',,I Wet Areasfyi#,Tiffi,,..'\,./ 10 foot contour,SqyfBasin Boundary,"..' Critical Drainage Corridorgg Basin Number[--l Orynership ParcelsCT PipelineAN1 inch = 400 feetIFtquRr5