HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015.03.05 - Water Treatment Plant & Offsite Utilities Critical Areas Investigation - Landau AssociatesI
I
Water Treatment Plant and Offsite Utilities
Gritical Areas lnvestigation
Port Townsend, Wash i ngton
March 5,2015
Prepared for
HDR Engineering and
City of Port Townsend
I
I
i
I
II
il
l,
i*i
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515
Tacoma, WA 98402
(253) 926-24e3
A
\
-l
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The city of Port Townsend (City) is proposing construction of a new water treatment facility
located on the southwest corner of 12 acres of City-owned property, which is currently undeveloped and
mostly wooded, within Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington. Wetlands in the study area were
previously delineated by Landau Associates in 2009, as documented in the l4/etland Delineation Report,
Markley and Gunstone-White Wetlands (Landau Associates 2010).
Wetlands, surface waters, and/or their buffers can fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Washington State
Department of Ecolory @cology) under the State Water Pollution Control Act, and the City under the
Critical Areas regulations of the Port Townsend Municipal Code.
The USACE typically recognizes wetland delineations for a period of 5 years following an
approved jurisdictional determination. An applicable regional supplement to USACE wetland delineation
procedures was issued in 2010; resulting in the re-evaluation of the previous wetland delineations. At the
request of the City, Landau Associates conducted field verification of wetland boundaries in the study
area (per the 2009 delineation) to the extent that property access was granted. The results of the field
investigation are summarized in this report.
The field investigation was completed in accordance with federal, state, and City regulations.
The field verification determined that the boundaries of previously delineated wetlands have remained
consistent with the 2006 and 2009 delineations.
This report provides results of the critical areas study, including wetlands delineation; evaluation
of mitigation sequencing; assessment of unavoidable project-related impacts; and a description of the
proposed compensatory mitigation for those impacts in order to satisfy the City's critical areas
regulations.
Unavoidable project impacts consist of temporary and permanent impacts to wetland buffers.
Buffer restoration is proposed to account for unavoidable temporary buffer impacts. Compensation for
permanent buffer impacts is proposed through buffer averaging associated with the Howard Street
Extension Project, Phase I mitigation.
I
I
l
ll
3/5/'15 Y:\122\033.01o\R\PT WatsrTreatmont CritA€as-fi nal.docx Lnruonu Assocnres
MITIGATION FACT SHEET
I
I
Site lnformation
Location Wetland lmpact & Mitigatlon Sites (same)
Sito Names Port Townsend Water Treatment Facility lmprovements
County Jefferson
City Port Townsend
Section, Townshlp, Range Section 9, Township 30 North, Ranqe 01 West
Latitude, Longitude (GlS verlf led)48. 1 1 06320 N, -122.80891 2" W
Watershed Quilcene-Snow
WRIA 17
!s the mltigation site(s) off of the prolect
development site?
Yes, mitigation for permanent buffer impacts is proposed through buffer averaging
associated with the Howard Street Extension Project, Phase I mitigation
site. ln situ restoralion of lemoorarv buffer imoacts is also proposed.
adjacent to the
Construction schedule (development slte and compensation site[sl): Site preparation and off-site utilities: April 2015.
Facility conshuction: Fall 20't6.
Summary ol proiect, including proposed type and location of work, discusslon of avoidancs and minimlzation measures, goals
and objectlves, wetland functions, lmpacted and mitigated (note assessmsnt method used), and the general deslgn concopt
(includo where It has been done before).
ttte city Ot eort Townsend (City) is proposing conshuction of a new water treatment facility located on the southvvest corner of 12 acres
of City Utility Department-owned property, which is currently undeveloped and mostly wooded, within Port Townsend, Washington. The
sanitdry sewer for this project will consist of a minimum 8-inch pipe, which will run approximately 3,000 feet (ft) south along the current
Rainiei Street right-of-way to Discovery Road. Rainier Street, a gravel road/path entering the site from the south that will also be graded
and graveled tobe used for construction access. A 1O-ft recreational trail will lay on top of utilities along Rainier Street separate from the
gravel road. Water mains for this project will consist of approximately 160 ft of 18-inch pipe in the immediate vicinity of the lreatment
flcifity and approximately 3,000 ft of 12-inch pipe south to Discovery Road. Stormwater runoff will be treated with rain gardens, swales,
and detenlion ponds. The project will also include improvements to 20' Street from Howard Street to the facility access road. The
proiect has been designed to avoid impacts to wetlands and their buffers to the extent fercihlF
Wetland/Waterway lmpact Sites
Feature
Name
lmpacts
(acros)Type
Ratlng
(Total
Score )
Water
Quality
Score
Hydrologlc
Score
Habitat
Score
Landscape
Posltlon HGM Class
None, impacts associated with the proposed project are limited to wetland buffers (see below).
Total acres of wetlandrwaterway lmpact:0
Acres of wetland impacts and mitigatlon
Wetland Type (Cowardln, HGM
classlfl cation, Ecology Rating)
Acres lmpacted
(Temporary only)Restoration (acres)
Not applicable.
Describe other lmpacts and/or other mitigatlon actlvities.
along a portion
2,3and4and the project viciniiy are proposed for preservation
lmpacts to the buffer preservation area by the proposed
12,121 square feet (sD of permanent and 654 sf of temporary buffer impac{s will occur in the vicinity of 20th Street associated with
of Rainier Street, respectively. Mitigation proposed includes bufferroadway and stormwater improvements and
averaging and restoration. Markley Wetland
associated with the mitigation of the Howard
project are avoided.
associated buffer in
Street Extension Project, Phase 1
Describe the buffers being provided tor the mltigation site, lncluding minimum and maximum width, total buffer area, and
descrlption of surroundlng land uses.
Restoration of temporary
Extension Project, Phase
permanent buffer impacts
the vicinity of 2Oe Street,
buffer impacts following construction is pioposed. Buffer averaging associated with the Howard Street
I mitigation has increased the standard buffer area by 16,852 sf, which overcompensates for the 9,503 sf of
proposed along 20s Street, 1,733 sf of permanent buffer impacts proposed with stormwater improvements in
and the 885 sf of permanent buffer impacts associated \,vith Wetland J.
Describe the watsr reglme at the mitigation slte(s), lncluding source of water, expected wator depth, average outflow (winter,
spring, summer), and ownership of water rlghts.
Not applicable, proposed mitigation is restoration of buffer impacted during construction and buffer averaging.
Provide a list of performance standards and the estimated time to reach sach.
At the end of Year 1 , there will be 100 percent survival of installed vegetation (not including salvaged plant material). There will be
80 percent survival of installed woody species (exclusive of salvaged plants) in Year 2. Appropriate volunteer species will be counted for
each dead or missinq olant.
'l
i
1
L)
3/5/1 5 Y:\122\033.01o\R\PT WaterTroatm€nt_CritArsas-fi nal.docx
lll
Lnruonu Assocnres
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.O INTRODUCTIONI.1 SITEDESCRIPTION
1.2 REGULATORYBACKGROUND
2.0 METHODOLOGY2.1 WETLANDTNVESTIGATION
2.1.1 Background Information Review
2.1.2 WetlandDelineation
2.2 WETLAND CLASSIFICATION, RATING, AND BUFFER WIDTH
2,3 MITIGATION SEQTIENCING AND DESIGN
2.3.1 ImpactAssessment
2.3.2 MitigationPlan
3.0 CRITICAL AREAS INVESTIGATION RESULTS
3.I BACKGROLTND INFORMATIONREVIEW
3.1.1 Wetlands and WaterwaYs
3.1.1.1 Previous studies
3.1.2 Soils
3.1.3 Floodplain and Critical Drainage Conidors
3.1.4 Land Use
3.1.5 Precipitation
3.2 FIELDINVESTIGATION
3.2.1 Upland Characterization
3.2.2 Buffer Evaluation
4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT4.1 IMPACTS BY AREA AND TYPE
5.0 MITIGATIONs.l MTTIGATIONSEQUENCING5.l.l.l Avoidance
5.1.2 Minimization
5.1.3 Unavoidablelmpacts
5.1.4 MitigationRequirements5.2 MITIGATION PLAN
5.2.1 Buffer Averaging
5.2.2 Restoration Plan
5.2.3 Proposed(Restored) Functions
5.3 MITIGATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
6.0 GRADING AND PLANTING PLANS
6.1 GRADING PLAN
6.2 PLANTING PLAN
6.3 PHASING AND SPECIFICATIONS
7.0 MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND CONTINGENCY PLANS
7.1 MONITORING PLAN
7.1.1 Construction Quality Control Oversight
7.1.2 Annual Monitoring
Page
I
2-l
2-l
2-l
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-3
2-3
l-l
t-2
t-2
6-l
6-l
6-l
6-l
7-l
7-l
7-l
7-l
3-l
3-l
3-l
3-l
J-J
J-J
J-J
J-J
J-J
3-4
3-4
4-1
4-l
5-1
5-1
5-t
5-l
5-2
5-2
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-4
5-4
I
I
I
!l
r
".1
l
.l
l
",1
3/5/15 Y:U22\033.01o\R\PT WatsrTreatm€nl-CrilAreas-fi nal.docx
lv
Lnruonu Assocnres
7.2 MAINTENANCE PLAN7.3 CONTINGENCYPLANS
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND ASSESMENT OF NONET LOSS
9.0 USE OF THIS REPORT
IO.O REFERENCES
FIGURES
Fisure Title
7-2
7-3
8-l
9-l
l0-l
a--l
.t
I
2
J
4a-4c
Vicinity Map
Study Area Map
Wetland Location Map
Impact Map
Title
Methods for Wetland Determination
'i
:--:!
Table
1
Anpendix Title
TABLE
APPENDICES
Background Information Review Figures
Soil Profile Reports
Precipitation Data
Wetland Determination Data Forms
Selected Site Photographs
Planting Plan and Notes
A
B
C
D
E
F
3/5/15 Yll22\033.010\R\PT WatsiTreatmont CritArsas final.du
v
LeHoeu Assocnres
I
I
I BGS
City
cwA
Ecolory
FAC
FACU
FEMA
ft
HGM
NRCS
NWI
PEM
PFO
PSS
PTMC
ROW
sf
TESC
USACE
USDA
USFWS
WRIA
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Below Ground Surface
City of Port Townsend
Clean Water Act
Washington State Department of Ecology
Facultative
Facultative Upland
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Feet/Foot
Hydrogeomorphic
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Wetlands Inventory
Palustrine Emergent
Palustrine Forested
Palustrine Scrub-shrub
Port Townsend Municipal Code
ROW
Square Foot
Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Water Resource Inventory Area
I
I
II
I
I
l
I
J
I
l
l
I
-)
vlI
-)
3/5/15 Yll22\033.01o\R\PT watorTrsatm€nt CritAreas,fi nal.docx Lnruo,ru AssocrRtes
This page intentionally left blank.
3/5/15 Y:\'122\033.01o\R\PT WaterTreatmsnt CritAreas fi nal.docx
vll
LnruoRu Assocrnres
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The city of Port Townsend (City) is proposing a new water treatment facility located on the
southwest corner of l2 acres of City-owned property, which is currently undeveloped and mostly wooded,
within Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington (Figure 1). Approximately 5.2 acres will be
cleared for construction and a total of approximately 1 acre will be impervious surface (building plus
asphalt). The site will include an approximately 6,600 square (sf) treatment building housing all
treatment process equipment, and associated electricalo mechanical, operation, and control works.
Vehicle access will be a 2O-foot (ft)-wide paved road off of 20th Street, which will continue around the
treatment building to provide access for all vehicles and delivery trucks. The parking area will be
adjacent to the access road and will be approximately 25 ftby 60 ft. An existing multi-use trail across the
site will be removed and approximately 500 ft of lS-feet-wide trail will be reconstructed along the eastem
portion of the site. The sanitary sewer for this project will consist of a minimum 8-inch pipe, which will
run approximately 3,000 ft south along the current Rainier Street right-of-way (ROW) to Discovery Road.
Rainier Street, a gravel road/path entering the site from the south, will also be graded and graveled to be
used for construction access. A l0-ft recreational trail will lay on top of utilities along Rainier Street,
separate from the gravel road. Water mains for this project will consist of approximately 160 ft of l8-inch
pipe in the immediate vicinity of the treatment facility and approximately 3,000 ft of l2-inch pipe south to
Discovery Road. Stormwater runoff will be treated with rain gardens, swales, and detention ponds.
Electrical service for this project will run underground approximately 3,000 ft from the south.
Improvements will also be made to 20fi Street (from Rainier Street to the access road entrance).
Landau Associates, under contract to HDR, conducted an investigation to identify wetlands and
other "waters of the U.S.," and other critical areas regulated by the City in the project area. Wetlands in
the project area and study area were previously delineated by Loggy Soil and Wetland Consulting in2006
(Loggy 2006); by Alkai Consultants in2007 (Alkai 2007); and by Landau Associates, as described in the
2008 and 2010 reports (Landau Associates 2008, 2010). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
typically recognizes wetland delineations for a period of 5 years following an approved jurisdictional
determination. An applicable regional supplement to USACE wetland delineation procedures was issued
in 2010. The purpose of the investigation was to verif previously delineated wetland boundaries and, as
needed, delineate wetland boundaries in additional areas ofthe project corridor.
As a result of the proposed project, unavoidable temporary and permanent impacts will occur to
wetland buffers. Because of project impacts to critical areas, Landau Associates completed this report in
support of mitigation sequencing for wetlands and their associated buffers within the proposed project
area. The mitigation sequence described in this report includes discussion of avoidance, minimization,
restoration, and of unavoidable temporary and permanent buffer impacts. The results of Landau
Associates' investigation are presented in this report, along with a wetland buffer restoration plan.
1
"J
--J
3/5/15 Y:\122\033.01o\R\PT WaterTreatment CritAreas-fi nal.docx
1-l
LANDAU AssoctATES
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located in Township 30 North, Range I Westo Sections 09 and 10, and
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) l7 - Quilcene-Snow). Current land use in the project vicinity is
primarily forested. The topography in the vicinity of the project is relatively flat to rolling.
The project area is approximately 13.4 acres and includes the proposed water treatment facility,
access road, recreational trail, and utility corridor. The study area consists ofareas within 300 ft ofthe
project area (Figure 2). Wetland delineation was limited to accessible areas within the vicinity of
existing/proposed ROW and City propeffy. Review of remaining areas in the study area was limited to
observations from public ROWs and review of public data sources.
I.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires authorization for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into the "waters of the U.S." under Section 404. The City of Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC)
contains requirements for establishing wetland buffer widths and building setbacks, and for any alteration,
including fill, of wetlands and their buffers. Washington State Department of Ecolory (Ecology) has
administrative oversight of Section 401 of the CWA for water quality ceftification in the case of impacts
to USACE jurisdictional "waters of the U.S." Wetlands are regulated by federal, state, and local
governmental agencies and compliance with one agency does not necessarily fulfill permitting
requirements of any other agencies.
All delineated wetlands described in this report are subject to verification by the USACE. The
USACE determines the jurisdiction of a wetland based on the connection, more commonly referred to as
adjacency, to other "waters of the U.S." Those wetlands determined to be "isolated" do not fall under the
jurisdiction of the USACE (EPA, USACE 2003). If delineated wetlands are determined to be adjacent
rather than isolated, any filling or dredging of onsite wetlands would require compliance with Section 404
and 401 of the CWA and the Endangered Species Act. Only the USACE can make the determination if a
wetland is adjacent or isolated. If the wetlands are determined to be isolated, they may still be subject to
regulation by Ecology under the State Water Pollution Control Act (Revised Code of Washington 90.48).
In addition, the City has requirements for establishing wetland buffer widths and building
setbacks, as well as for any alteration, including fill, of wetlands and their buffers. PTMC 19.05.110 -
Critical area 5 - wetlands, Section E.7, allows for averaging of the buffer width. The averaging of a
buffer width is on a case-by-case basis and in no instance shall a buffer be reduced by more than 50
percent of the standard buffer or be less thar*S ft, unless this requirement would deny all reasonable use
of the affected property as determined by the director.
3/5/1 5 Y;\1 22\033.0 1 o\R\PT WatsrTreatmant CritAr€as fi nat.docx
1-2
LRlronu Assoctnres
l
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Landau Associates conducted a background information review and wetland boundary
verification of critical areas within the study area according to the methods described below.
2.I WETLANDINVESTIGATION
Landau Associates conducted wetland boundary verification of wetlands in the study area.
Chapter 19.05.020 of the PTMC defines the "wetland edge" based on the Washington State Wetland
Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecolory 1997); however, as of March l, 2011, Ecolory has
adopted the USACE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(Regional Supplement; USACE 2010). Therefore, Landau Associates conducted the wetland verification
in accordance with the methodology contained in the Regional Supplement (USACE 2010). All wetlands
were rated according to the Ecolory wetland rating system (Hruby 2004), which is accepted practice by
the City. USACE and Ecolory recommend preliminary data gathering and a synthesis of available
background information, followed by a field investigation.
2.1.1 Ba.cxcnouND INFoRMATIoN Rpvrnw
Landau Associates reviewed the following public domain resources to determine existing
conditions, potential wetlands, other "waters of the U.S.", and any critical areas within the study area:
o U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Map (Appendix A, Figure A-1)
o Aerial imagery (Appendix A, Figure 2)
o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map
(Appendix A, Figure A-2)
o U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Web Soil Survey (Appendix A, Figure A-3)
o USDA NRCS Official Soil Series Descriptions (USDA, NRCS website 2004; Appendix B)
o Landslide and Erosion Hazard Areas (Port Townsend website 2014a\
r National Hydric Soils List (USDA NRCS website 2014;
o Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood data (Appendix A, Figure A-4)
o Precipitation data (USDANRCS website 2014a; Appendix C)
o ll/etland Critical Area Study (Loggy 2006)
o Howard Street Wetland Delineation and Analysis Report (Alkai 2007)
o Sims Way Howard Road Wetland Report (Landau Associates 2008)
o Wetland Delineation Report, Markley and Gunstone-White Wetlands (Landau Associates
2010)
I
I
I
J
l
I
.l
' -J
3/5/15 Y:u22\033.01o\R\PT WaterTreatment CitAr€as-fi nal.docx
2-l
Leruonu Assoctnres
a Agency Review Draft Wetland Mitigation Report Howard Street Extension Project, Phase I
(Landau Associates 2014b).
'I
2.1.2 WnrlaNo Drr,rNnlrroN
Both USACE and Ecolory outline a three-parameter approach to determine the presence or
absence of wetlands that requires evaluating vegetation, soil, and hydrology. Landau Associates
biologists completed the wetland boundary verification and delineation, as necessary, using the routine
onsite method where data are collected at locations representative of typical wetlands and/or uplands of
the study area. Following this method, an area is determined to be wetland if each of the following three
criteria are met (also see Table l):
o The dominant vegetation is hydrophytic
o Soils are hydric
o Wetland hydrolory is present.
Sampling points were recorded in areas suspected to meet the mandatory wetland criteria and
nearby upland to determine conesponding wetland/upland boundaries. Sample point locations were
recorded with a GPS system capable of sub-meter accuracy. Detailed information on soils, vegetation,
and hydrology was recorded at sampling points.
2.2 WETLAND CLASSIFICATION, RATING, AND BUFFER WIDTH
Wetlands identified as part of this project were classified according to the USFWS Cowardin
classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the USACE hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification
system (Brinson 1993).
Wetlands were rated according to the Ecolory wetland rating system (Hruby 2004), which is
accepted practice by the City. This system categorizes wetlands based on their existing functions,
including water quality, hydrology, and habitat, as well as the wetland's rarity and sensitivity to
disturbance. The wetland categories range from I to IV, and are defined in the PTMC Section
19.05. 1 l0(BX4) as follows:
t Categor! I wetlancls are those that are (1) Relatfuely undisturbed estuarine wetlands
Iarger than one acre; (2) wetlands that are identified by scientists of the Washington
Natural heritage Program/DNR as high quality wetlands; (3) bogs larger than one-
half acre; (3) mature and old growth forested wetlands larger than one acre; (5)
wetlands in coastal lagoons; and (6) wetlands that perform manyfunctions well.
o Categor! II wetlands are (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre, or disturbed
estuarine wetlands larger than one acre (2) wetlands identified by the l4tSDNR as
containing "sensitive" plant species (3) bogs between one-quarter and one-half acrein size; (6) interdunal wetlands larger than one acre; or (4) wetlands with a
moderately high I evel of functions.
3/5/1 5 Y:\1 22\033.01 o\R\PT WaterTreatm€nt CritA€as fi nat.docx
2-2
Lnruonu AssoctATEs
I
i
I
I
. Cqtegory III wetlands are (I) wetlands with a moderate level of functions and (2)
interdunal wetlands between one-tenth of an acre and one acre in size.
c Categor! IV wetlands have the lowest levels offunctions (scores less than 30 points)
and are ofien hewily disturbed. These are wetlands that are capable of being
replaced, and in some cases improved.
Wetland buffers were determined according to Section 19.05.110 of the PTMC, which assigns buffer
widths based on wetland rating category, intensity of impacts, and wetland functions or special
characteristics as further specified in PTMC 19.05.110(E)(3). Unless otherwise specified inthis report,
buffer widths were determined assuming a "high intensity" land use [defined in PTMC 19.05.001E(3Xb)],
based on projected future land use and as requested by the City.
Wetland buffer conditions were evaluated in the study area and were modified as necessary
using project survey data and GPS data recorded by Landau Associates.
2.3 MITIGATION SEQUENCING AND DESIGN
This project was designed in accordance with City, USACE, and Ecology guidance and
requirements for mitigation sequencing, which allow for impacts to wetlands and/or other critical habitat
when impacts are unavoidable and necessary and where project design efforts have been made to reduce
and or minimize impacts.
2.3.1 lvrplcr Assrssvrnxr
. Estimated proposed limits of clearing and grading and fill slopes were overlaid on the wetland
and buffer boundaries using AutoCAD@ software. The areas of wetland and buffer impacts (including
both temporary and permanent impacts) were calculated using AutoCAD software. The buffer average
areas were also determined using AutoCAD.
Existing buffer functions were assessed in a narrative evaluation using Ecology's Update on Wetland
Buffers: The State of Science Final Report (Ecology 2013), Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part
1: A Synthesis of the Science (Ecology 2006a) and best professional judgment given specific indicators.
2.3.2 MrrrcarroNPLAN
The mitigation plan was developed using the sequence provided in Chapter 19.05.110(F) of the
PTMC, which outlines requirements for mitigation associated with alterations to wetlands and buffers.
Landau Associates developed the onsite restoration plan using the joint guidance Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation P/ans issued by Ecology, USACE, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Ecology et al. 2006). Landau Associates compared pre- and post-
Ij
._i
-,J
3/5/15 Y:\122\033.01o\R\PT Wat€rTraatmenlcritAFas-fi nal.docx
2-3
Lnruonu Assocrntes
mitigation buffer functions using best professional judgment and incorporated this into the functional
assessment for the mitigation project.
3/5/15 Y:\122\033.01o\R\PT WaterTreatm€nt_CritAreas_f nat.docx
2-4
Lnruonu Assocrntes
-t
I
-1
1
I
i
3.0 CRITICAL AREAS INVESTIGATION RESULTS
This section provides a summary of the background information review and previous
investigations of wetlands within the study area.
3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW
The following provides a summary of information derived from topographic mapping, City
mapping, soil survey information, NWI mapping, and other sources documenting conditions in and
adjacent to the site.
3.1.1 Wnrr,lNos AND WATERwAYS
The topographic map (Appendix A, Figure A-1) and USFWS NWI map (Appendix A,
Figure A-2) do not identify any wetlands or waterways in the study area. The City's Environmentally
Sensitive Area mapping identifies wetland areas within the study area east of Rainier Street and adjacent
to the south of 20'h Street (Port Townsend website 2014b). The City's Environmentally Sensitive Area
mapping also identifies wetland areas in the study area north of 20th Street, which are separated from the
project by existing improvements (i.e., paved roadways).
3.1.1.1 Previous studies
A portion of the project area adjacent to the north-south segment of Rainier Street was previously
investigated by Landau Associates and other consultants; the results ofthese previous investigations are
described in their respective reports: (Loggy 2006); (Alkai 2007); and (Landau Associates 2008, 2010,
2074a,b). Wetlands previously identified in the study areaare noted below.
'l
I
l
I
)
3/5/15 YIl22\033.01o\R\PT WaterTreatment-CritAreas-fi nal.docx
3-l
Llruonu AssoctRres
Wetland
Name
Total
Wetland
Area (s0 Reference
Rating
(Total
Score)
Water
Quality
Score
Hydrologlc
Score
Habitat
Score
Buffer
wldth (ft) (")
Wetland
Classificatlon
Markley 1 (") 47,370 LAI 2o1o PFO-PSS/
Depressional il (54)24 7 23 150
Markley 2 29,341 LAI 2010
LAt 2014b
PFO/
Depressional il(s7)24 7 26 150 (d)
Markley 3 2,962 LAI 2010
LAt 2014b
PFO-PEM/
Depressional ilr(40)12 21 150 (d)
Markley 4 6,097 LAI 2010
l-Al 2014b
PFO.PSS/
Depressional il(55)24 7 24 150 (d)
Gunstone-
white (u)8,456 LAt 2010 PFO-PSS/
Depressional ilr (49)20 7 22 150
Roberts(") 29,953 Loggy 2006 PEM-PSS/
Depressional ilr (41)22 11 80
I (b)9,029
Alkai 2007
LAt 2008
LAI 2014a
PSS/
Depressional ilr (39)22 12 805
J (b)3,846
Alkai 2007
LAt 2008
lAl2O14a
PFO/
Depressional ilr (43)22 I 13 80
6 (u)1,742
Alkai20O7
LAI 2008
lAl2O14a
PFO/
Depressional ilr (43)22 I 13 80
12 80
LAI = Landau Associates
PFO = Palustrine forested
PEM = Palustrine Emergent
PSS = Palustrine scrub-shrub
Notes:
c)Wetland located on private property and access was not provided at time of 2014 lield investigation (Landau Associates 2014a).*'Wetland located partially on private property; only partial access was provided at time of 2014 field investigation (Landau
.. Associates 2014a).(")Standard buffers identified; however, per PTMC 19.05.110, buffer applications may be waived for improvements landward of
,,. existing substantial developments and roadways that have effectively eliminated buffer functions1"'Buffer averaged and will be gqgq as preservation mitigation for the Howard Street Extension project (Landau Associates 2O14b').(e)Wetland L was not rated in 2008 and was not invesligated in 2014 due to lack of access; size, rating information, and buffer width
are based on 2OO7 investigation (Alkai 2007).
Boundaries of wetlands identified above are shown on Figure 3; detailed information regarding
delineation of these wetlands (i.e., sampling point data forms, rating forms, etc.) is included in the
references noted.
As part of mitigation planning associated with the Howard Street Extension, Phase l,
preservation of the Markley Wetland 2 (in addition to Markley Wetland 3 and Markley Wetland 4, which
occur outside ofthe proposed water treatment facility study area) and associated buffers are proposed for
use as mitigation for unavoidable wetland/buffer impacts associated with the Howard Street
improvements (approval pending; refer to Landau Associates 2014a).
L (a,e) 6,000
Alkai 2007
LAt 2008
lAl2014a
PFOI
Depressional ilr (31)14 5
3/5/1 5 Y:\1 22\033.01 o\R\PT WaterTreatment CritAGas f nat.docx
3-2
Lenonu AssocrnrEs
)
I
-.i
3.1.2 Sott s
The Soil Survey Geographic Database for Jefferson County, Washington (USDA, NCRS website
2004) identifies one soil series within the study area (Appendix A, Figure A-3; complete soil profile
reports are provided in Appendix B):
Clallam gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes (Jefferson Co. unit symbol: CmC)
consists of moderately deep to densic materials, moderately well drained soils formed in
glacial till over very compact glacial till (USDA, NRCS website 2004). The Clallam soil
series within the project area is not classified as hydric on the National Hydric Soils List
(USDA, NRCS website 2014b).
3.1.3 Fr,ooopr,alN AND CnIrrcar, DRLrNacn Connroons
The FEMA Geographic Information System Flood Map (Appendix A, Figure A-4) does not
identify flood hazard zones or 100-year floodplains within the study area.
The City's Environmentally Sensitive Area map identifies potential critical drainage conidors
and/or frequently flooded areas within the study area to the west of Howard Street and in the proposed
mitigation area (Port Townsend 2014b); however, further evaluation has determined that the study area
does not contain critical drainage corridors (Gibboney 2008).
3.1.4 Lmu UsB
Current land use in the study area is primarily undeveloped forested land, with the existing water
facility in the northwest portion of the study area (see Figure 2).
3.1.5 PnncptutloN
Precipitation data for the 3-month period prior to the field investigations indicate recorded
precipitation levels were wetter than the normal ranges listed in the NRCS WETS table (USDA NRCS
website 2014a; Appendix C).
3.2 FIELDINVESTIGATION
The field investigation for the part of the study arca that includes the east-west portion of the
existing access road and the proposed water treatment facility and access road to the north was conducted
on December 23, 2014 by Landau Associates' biologists Steven Quarterman and Rosemary Trimmer.
An additional investigation of the area south of 20m Street (where a small wetland was identified on the
City Sensitive Areas Map) was conducted by Landau Associates' biologist Brittany Gordon on January
20,2015. The sampling points described below are shown on Figure 3. The completed data sheets
describing the sampling points are provided in Appendix D. Selected site photographs are provided in
Appendix E.
3/5/15 Y:\'122\033.01o\R\PT WaterTroatm€nt-CritAreas-f nal.docx
J-J
LnHonu Assocnres
3.2.1 UpleNo Cru,nacrnRrzATroN
Sample Point SP-WFI was recorded in the project area to characterize the east-west portion of
the existing access road and area of the proposed water treatment facility and access road to the north.
This area is forested and slopes from the east to west.
Sample Point SP-WFI is located in a depression, and does not satisfy any of the three mandatory
wetland criteria. Vegetation in Sample Plot SP-WFI is dominated by red alder f,Atnus rubra, Facultative
(FACI), Douglas-fir fPseudotsuga menziesii, Facultative Upland (FACU)], salal (Gaultheria shallon,
FACU), and sword fem (Polystichum munitun, FACU). Soils in the sample plot consist of a coarse
organic layer (i.e., duff/roots) from 0 to 3 inches below ground surface (BGS), a very dark grayish brown
(l0YR 312) loam from 3 to 7 inches BGS, and a brown (l0YR 4/3) loam with brown (7.5YR 4/4) and
very dark brown (l0YR 2/2) redoximorphic features from 7 to 24 inches BGS. Soils were moist but not
saturated at the time of the field investigation and no wetland hydrology indicators were observed.
Sample Point SP-WF2 was recorded in the study area to characterize the area adjacent to the
south of 20th Street, where the City Sensitive Areas Map identifies a potential wetland. A shallow
depression was observed in this area with a trail running through the center. Evidence of heavy trail use
was observed.
Sample Point SP-WF2 does not satisfr mandatory wetland criteria for vegetation or soils,
although wetland hydrology was observed Vegetation in Sample Plot SP-WF2 is dominated by red alder
(FAC), salal (FACU), and trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus, FACU). Soils in the sample plot consist of
black (10 YR 2/1) sandy loam from 0 to 8 inches BGS, and black (10 YR 2/l) loamy sand with prominent
brown (7.5 YR %) redoximorphic features from 8 to 12 inches BGS. Standing water, a high water table,
and saturation were observed at SP-WF2; however precipitation levels had been wetter than normal
leading up to the field investigation.
3.2.2 BurrpnEvalulrroN
The existing conditions of the buffers associated with Markley Wetlands I 2,3, and 4 adjacent to
Rainier Street were evaluated to determine the extent of "existing and substantial structural development"
pursuant to PTMC 19.05.1l0(EX8).
Existing development in the study area includes Rainier Street and utilities (i.e.,24 inch CT pipe)
that parallel the street. The extent of the roadway and associated utility was determined to include the
gravel roadway surface and roadway prism/utility corridor which appeared to consist of gravel fill
overlain with a relatively thin layer of soil. The fill area associated with the existing road/utility corridor
was observed to be sparsely vegetated with grasses such as orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata, FACU)
and fescue (Festuca sp.). The underlying gravel/soil conditions are not considered conducive to
supporting vegetation that provide significant buffer functions (i.e., habitat and water quality functions),
3/5/15 Y:\'122\033.01o\R\PT WaterTroatment CritAreas f nat.docx
3-4
LnNonu AssooRres
I
-1'I
I
-t
I
and are considered non-functioning buffer area associated with existing development in the project
corridor. Additional areas adjacent to the roadway/utility conidor were observed to support rose (Rosa
sp.) and salal, and these areas are considered capable of supporting buffer functions. Buffers in the
project area, as modified to identify constraints of existing development in the project area, af,e identified
on Figure 3.
l
.J
II
l
J
IJ
I
IJ
iJ
3/5/15 Yl122\033.01o\R\PT Wal6rTroatmonlcritAreas-fi nal.docx
3-5
LnuoRu Assocnres
I
4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Wetland buffer impacts are described by area, type, and functions below. Avoidance of impacts
is also summarized in this section.
4.I IMPACTS BY AREA AND TYPE
The following table provides a summary of unavoidable wetland buffer impacts:
Critical Area
Regulating
Aoencv
lmpacts
Temporary
lmpacts
Permanent
I
I
Markley Wetland 1 Buffer City 654 sf 0sf
Markley Wetland 3 Buffer City 0sf 1,733 sf
Wetland J Buffer (")City 0sf 885 sf
Markley Wetland 4 Buffer City 0sf 9,503 sf
TOTAL: 654sf 12,121 s]
(a) Buffer impacts occur, but are within impact limits of the Howard Street Extension Project, Phase 1
Impact areas are also shown on Figure 4. Temporary impacts consist of areas within the buffer of
Markley Wetland L All areas that are temporarily impacted will be restored to existing grades/conditions
and/or enhanced with native vegetation following construction. Permanent impacts consist of 9,503 sf of
impacts to the buffer of Markley Wetland 4 along 20th Street, 1,733 sf of impact to the buffer of the
Markley Wetland 3 in the vicinity of 20'h Street, and 885 sf of impacts to the buffer of Wetland J along
Rainier Street. Compensation for permanent buffer impacts is proposed through buffer averaging
associated with the Howard Street Extension Project, Phase 1 mitigation. Buffer averaging increased the
buffer area by 16,852 sf, which includes 16,228 sf of Markley Wetland 2 that will function as buffer as
part of the Howard Street Extension Project, Phase I mitigation plan.
3/5/15 Y:\122\033.01o\R\ltT WaterTr€atment CritAcas fnal.docx
4-r
LnNoRu Assocrnres
5.0 MITIGATION
This section presents the mitigation sequencing, impact analysis, and mitigation plan for
unavoidable impacts to wetland, buffer, and floodplain area and functions.
s.l MTTTGATTON SEQUENCTNG
Chapter 19.05.110(FX2) of the PTMC outlines requirements for mitigation associated with
alterations to wetlands. Mitigation shall be required in the following order of preference:
a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
b) Minimizing,impacts by timiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its irnplementation,
by using appropriate technologt, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations;
or
e) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
Chapter 19.05.110(E) of the PTMC outlines requirements associated with buffers and setbacks,
including buffer width averaging. The mitigation sequencing details that focus on avoidance and
minimization for the proposed project are described below.
5.1.1.1 Avoidance
The proposed project avoids direct wetland impacts, and avoids the buffers associated with
Markley Wetland 2, Gunstone-White, Roberts/Loggy, and Wetlands I, K, and L.
5.1.2 Mtnrvrzlrrolq
Minimization of impacts includes sensitive site design and placement of construction staging
areas and site access away from wetlands and the innermost portion of buffers to the greatest extent
practicable. Impacts are limited to temporary buffer impacts of 654 sf adjacent to Rainier Street that will
be restored following construction, approximately 9,503 sf of permanent buffer impacts along 20ft Street,
1,733 sf of permanent buffer impacts in the vicinity of 20th Street, and approximately 885 sf of permanent
buffer impacts along Rainier Street. The 885 sf of impact along Rainier Street overlaps the area of
permanent buffer impact associated with the Howard Street project.
3/5/'15 Y:U22\033.0'1o\R\PT WaterTreatment CritA€as-fi nal.docx
5-l
LnruoRu AssocrATEs
5.1.3 UNnvorunlnlmplcrs
The proposed project will result in unavoidable temporary impacts to the Markley Wetland I
buffer and permanent impacts to the Markley Wetland 3, Markley Wetland 4 and Wetland J buffers. The
Wetland J buffer impact is within limits of impact associated with the Howard Street Extension Project,
Phase l.
The impacts to the Markley Wetland I buffer are limited to temporary impacts associated with
trenching. The Markley Wetland 4 and Wetland J buffer impacts consist of roadway improvements to
20th Street and Rainier Street, respectively. The Markley Wetland 3 buffer impacts are associated with
proposed stormwater facilities. In the area of impact, the utilities will be located on opposite side of road,
but construction will extend to both sides of the existing access roadway. Compensation for permanent
buffer impacts along 20'h Street and Rainier Street is proposed through buffer averaging associated with
the Howard Street Extension Project, Phase I mitigation. Buffer averaging increased the buffer area by
16,852 sf which includes 16,228 sf of Markley Wetland 2 that will function as buffer as part of the
Howard Street Extension Project, Phase I mitigation plan.
5.1.4 MrrrclrroNREeuIREMENTS
Buffer impacts are not regulated by the USACE but are regulated by the City. The PTMC does
not provide specific mitigation ratios for permanent buffer impacts, and buffer averaging is proposed.
The City has requirements for buffer averaging as described in the PTMC [Chapter 19.05.110(EX7)],
which include the following key provisions, which will be met by the mitigation plan:
i. That width averagingwill not adversely impact thefunctions and values; and
ii. That the total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that contained
within the standard buffir prior to averaging;
iii. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than 50 percent of the standard
buffer or be less than 25 feet unless it would deny reasonable use of the affected property.
Because impacts to the Wetland J and Markley Wetland 4 buffers are accounted for as part of the
Howard Street Extension Project, Phase l, no additional mitigation for the Wetland J and Markley
Wetland 4 buffers is proposed as part of this Water Treatment Facility and Offsite Utilities project.
5.2 MITIGATION PLAN
The mitigation plan consists of buffer averaging and restoration to compensate for functions
impacted as a result of project construction. A key goal of the mitigation plan is to equal or exceed the
functions of the existing critical areas. The mitigation will restore functions and maintain buffer area
within the existing project site.
3/5/1 5 Y:\'122\033.0 1o\R\PT WaterTrsatm€nt_CritA€as_fi nat.docx
5-2
LeHonu Assocrlrrs
I
I
Ll
I
J
5.2.1 BuruR AvnRq,crxc
Compensation for permanent buffer impacts along and in the vicinity of 20ft Street and Rainier
Street is accommodated through buffer averaging associated with the Howard Street Extension Project,
Phase 1 mitigation. Buffer averaging for this project is summarized in the table below and meets the
buffer averaging requirements described in the PTMC [Chapter 19.05.1l0(EX7)] as follows:
o Averaging the buffers of Markley Wetlands 2, 3, and 4 will not adversely impact the
functions and values of the wetland buffers:
- The averaged buffer consists of mature native forest that is consistent in character with
the existing buffers
- The averaged buffer maintains wildlife habitat and connectivity to other wetlands and
wetland buffers.
o The averaged buffer of Markley Wetlands 2, 3, and 4 is larger than the standard buffers,
resulting in a net gain ofbuffer area. Buffer averaging increased the buffer area by 16,852 sf
which includes 16,228 sf of Markley Wetland 2 that will function as buffer as part of the
Howard Street Extension Project, Phase I mitigation plan.
o Through buffer averaging, the 150-ft Markley Wetland 4 buffer was reduced by
upp.o*irnut"ly 50 ft, or 36 percent, leaving a 90-ft buffer remaining (based on existing
functioning buffer of approximately 140 ft); this meets the buffer averaging requirements
described in the PTMC [Chapter I 9.05.1 l0(E)].
o Through buffer averaging, the 150 ft Markley Wetland 3 buffer was reduced by
approximately 19 ft, or 13 percent, leaving a 131 ft buffer remaining; this meets the buffer
averaging requirements described in the PTMC [Chapter 19.05.110(E)].
o In its entirety, the mitigation buffer width ranges from a minimum of approximately 85 ft (as
limited by existing substantial improvements pursuant to PTMC 19'05.1l0[E][8])to
maximum of approximately 200 ft, and is on average greater than 100 ft.
.l
.)
"_ ,)
Buffers PreservedWetland Area
Preserved
Existing
Wetland
Area
Existing
Buffer
Area
Wetla nds Preserved (Category)
10,366 sf (35% of a
10 sf29,410 sfMarkley Wetland 2 (Category ll)
2,962sf2,962 sfMarkley Wetland 3 (Category lll)
271,800 sf of upland buffer
and 16,228 sf of Markley
Wetland 2 area to perform
as buffer (total of 288,028 s0
271,'l76sl
(a)
6,097 sf6,097 sfMarkley Wetland 4 (Category ll)
19,425 sf See aboveTotal
8.5:111:1 (b)Mitigation to lmpact Ratio
(a) Buffer area on existing City property. Overlapping buffers are combined. Standa
iunctional buffer area may be less pursuant to PTMC 19'05.110(EXB).
(b) Water Treatment Facility project does not have wetland impacts. Approximately
Howard Street Extension Project, Phase 1.
rd buffer for wetland complex is 150 ft, and
'1,790 sf of wetland impacts are associated with the
3/5/15 Y:\122\033.01o\R\PT WaterTreatment-CritAr€as-fi nal.docx
5-3
Lnruonu Assocnres
5.2.2 RBsroRarroN PraN
The proposed plan will maintain the habitat value and functional performance of the wetland
buffer by restoring vegetative structure within the buffer. The proposed restoration includes replanting of
654 sf of Markley Wetland I buffer area with three native species (see Appendix F), in addition to
placement of salvaged native plant material/soils, as appropriate, removed as part of excavation. The
areas of impact and proposed restoration are summarized in the table belowo including mitigation ratios.
Feature lmpact
Area
Mitigation
Type
Required Mitigation
(Citv)Proposed Mltigation
Ratio Area Ratio Area
Buffer 654 sf Restoration 1:1 654 sf 654 sf
5.2.3 PRoposro (Rosronro) FuNcrroNs
Existing buffer functions were assessed in a narrative evaluation using the Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State Part l: A Synthesis of the Science (Ecolory 2005) and best professional judgment given
specific indicators. Functions typically associated with wetland buffers include water quality (removing
sediment, nutrients, toxics and pathogens, and maintaining microclimate) and habitat (species richness,
structural diversity/cover classes, visual screening from adjacent human development, and habitat
connectivity). The restoration plan includes restoring the impacted functions of wetland buffer,
specifically the water quality and habitat functions. The planting plan includes a diverse assemblage of
vegetation including ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor, FACU), salal (FACU), and sword fem
(Polystichum munitum, FACU), in addition to placement of salvaged native plant material/soils, as
appropriate, removed as part of excavation.
5.3 MITTGATTON GOALS, OBJECTTVES, AND PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
Goals are broad statements that generally define the intent or purpose of the proposed mitigation.
Objectives specify the direct actions necessary to achieve the stated goals. Perfonnance standards are the
measurable values of specific variables that ensure objectives have been met. They provide the basis for
determining if mitigation is a regulatory success. One main goal has been outlined for this effort:
o Goal #1: Compensate for impacts to wetland buffer function by replanting areas disturbed
during construction in the buffer of Markley Wetland l.
- Objective A: Restore vegetated community within wetland buffer area adjacent to
Markley Wetland l.
' Performance Standard 1A: Plant Survival: At the end of Year l, there will be
100 percent survival of installed vegetation (not including salvaged plant material).
3/5/'15 Y:\122\033.01o\R\PT WaterTroatment_CritArEas_f nat.docx
5-4
LnuoRu Assocrnres
There will be 80 percent survival of installed woody species (exclusive of salvaged
plants) in Year 2. Appropriate volunteer species will be counted for each dead or
missing plant.
3/5/1 5 Y:\122\033.01o\R\PT WaterTreatment-CritAreas-fi nal.docx
5-5
Lnruonu Assocrnres
"t
I
I
l..t
6.0 GRADING AND PLANTING PLANS
To compensate for spatial and temporal loss of wetland buffer functions that will occur as a result
of proposed impacts associated with the proposed project, a planting plan has been designed that will
restore the wetland /buffer complex on site. The planting plans, as well as project phasing, is presented in
this section.
6.I GRADING PLAN
Construction of the proposed utilities in the area of temporary buffer impacts will require
excavation to a maximum depth of approximately 4 ft BGS. Open cut portions of the utility installation
will be backfilled with native and select material. Final topography will allow for planting within wetland
buffer area.
6.2 PLANTING PLAN
The planting plan (see Appendix F) is designed to restore wetland buffer habitat functions, and
provide enough shade to control the spread of invasive species. The plan is based on replacement with
salvaged plant material and an average planting density ofadditional plants per 4 ft on center, in order to
account for vegetation damaged as a result of project construction.
For the additional plantings, we have selected three native species that naturally occur on the
subject property and that will supplement the existing native species present on the site (refer to Appendix
F for a list and quantity ofselected species). These species have been chosen not only for their ability to
tolerate site-specific soil and moisture conditions, but also for their ability to provide wildlife forage,
habitat, and erosion control functions.
The layout of the plant communities was designed to maximize interspersion of species. The
layout of plants will include informal and irregular groupings of a variety of species to resemble naturally
occurring plant communities. Because of the complexity in site topography, existing soils, and work
within wetland buffer areas, as well as the importance of retaining existing native vegetation and woody
features (snags, stumps, etc.), the actual layout of plants will be determined by a biologist contracted by
the City.
6.3 PHASING AND SPECIFICATIONS
The detailed mitigation specifications will be provided in project specification with explicit
instructions regarding the construction phasing. A summary of the construction sequencing for the
mitigation project is as follows:
3/5/1 5 Y1122\033.0'1o\R\PT WaterTroatmant critAGas-fi nal.docx
6-l
LRruoeu Assoctnres
l. Development of plans and conservation measures to prevent impacts to water quality during
construction. These conservation measures will be incorporated in a Temporary Erosion and
Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan; Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; and
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan.
2. Pre-construction meetings with the City, the contractor, and other agencies, which will
include discussion of environmental commitments that have been made for the project,
contract provisions, and specifications regarding environmental requirements and permits.
3. Establishment of contractor staging areas. Erosion control and spill control measures will be
applied to all staging areas.
4. Mobilization of construction equipment and materials to the project site, as needed.
5. Implementation of the TESC Plan to protect the areas cleared.
6. Prior to gtound clearing, clearly identify and flag/fence the limits of clearing and grading, as
well as the wetland buffer boundaries within 50 ft the project area.
7. Salvage all existing native shrubs and fems in the impact areas by excavating into the upper
12 inches of soil so as to preserve the integrity of the soil structure and rooted vegetation.
Any noxious weeds listed on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list (NWCB
website 2015) within the salvaged soils should be removed.
8. Stockpile the soils including the vegetation rooted within it in discrete locations in the shade.
The salvaged vegetation will be kept in an upright manner and stockpiled in a manner to
prevent the salvaged vegetation from becoming buried by the stockpiled soil.
9. Water stockpiled soils/vegetation and cover exposed roots with mulch or compost.
10. Conduct earthwork for creation of grade.
I l. Replace salvaged soils/vegetation.
12. Plant additional native plants with fertilizer tablets as specified in the planting plan and
specifications.
13. Water all plants thoroughly - trucking in water if necessary.
14. Cover all exposed soils and areas around the base of plants with a 4-inch-thick layer of
mulch.
15. Remove grading limits and buffer boundary flags/fencing.
16. Document the final locations of plants and topography of graded areas (as-built map or
planting plan).
3/5/1 5 Y1122\033.010\R\PT WaterTreatment CritAcas f nat.docx
6-2
LnHonu Assocrlrps
l
)
7.0 MONTTORTNG' MATNTENANCE, AND CONTTNGENCY PLANS
Monitoring, maintenance, and contingency plans are important elements for the success of the
mitigation project The proposed mitigation site will be monitored during and following installation of
the mitigation project. Maintenance will be conducted throughout the monitoring period and contingency
plans will be provided and implemented as needed during the monitoring period. Specific discussion of
each of these elements is provided below.
7.I MONITORING PLAN
PTMC 19.05.110(G) requires that mitigation areas be monitored on a long-term basis to
determine whetherthe goals and objectives of the project have been met. Monitoringtasks will begin
prior to any site work for the proposed mitigation project and continue after project installation.
7.1.1 CoNsrRucrIoN QUALITY CoNTRoL OvERSIGHT
A biologist or project engineer will coordinate with the construction contractor to ensure that the
specifications are understood and achievable given onsite conditions. Prior to any grading work, and
periodically during construction, a monitoring effort will veriff that sediment and erosion control
specifications are met. Specifically, a qualified biologist or project engineer will verify that the
mitigation area has been clearly marked with sediment fencing to prevent grading outside of the
construction area limits.
During plant installation, a qualified biologist will verify that plant materials are healthy and
consist ofthe correct species and sizes as designated on the planting plan and that they are placed in the
correct growing environments. When the plant installation is complete, the biologist will conduct an
inspection within I month and will provide detailed notes on any changes to the final mitigation plan.
This as-built plan will serve as the baseline for monitoring.
7.1.2 ANNuaLMoNtronrxc
After constructiono the mitigation areas will be monitored for a2-year period to make certain that
performance standards which specify quantified criteria for the monitoring, and ultimately the mitigation
goal, are met. Since the proposed mitigation is limited to restoration of wetland buffer, the 5-year
monitoring for wetland mitigation/compensation in accordance with PTMC 19.05.110(GXg) does not
apply, and that the timeline for buffer monitoring is commensurate with the minimum 2-yeat maintenance
bond or security requirements described in PTMC 19.05.103(8)(l). Monitoring will occur once between
June and September to collect data on plant mortality.
)
3/5/15 Y:\122\033.0'1o\R\PT WaierTreatment-CritAroas-f nal docx
7-1
LnruoRu Assocnres
Monitoring will include data collected from permanent data collection stations or transects and
will assess conditions in the mitigation area established in the mitigation area. Two permanent
photographic stations will be established and mapped in the mitigation area. This will be placed to
provide a comprehensive visual documentation of the mitigation site as it changes over the 3-year period.
The monitoring station will be monitored during surnmer (June to September) by the biologist in order to
conduct an annual vegetation evaluation that involves documentation of all woody plant mortality; aerial
coverage ofshrub and herb layers; invasive species coverage; and documentation ofany colonization by
native species.
Monitoring reports will be prepared once a year for 2 years. These reports will document site
conditions and evaluate the collected data to determine if performance standards are being met.
If a performance standard is not being met, the monitoring report will discuss the possible reasons
and recommend appropriate contingency plans. Any corrective measures will be submitted in accordance
with City regulations and/or permit conditions.
During Year 2 of the monitoring, the functional performance of the mitigated buffer areas will be
evaluated to determine if the goal, objective, and performance standards have been met. If it is
determined at that time that the goal was not met, the monitoring and maintenance program shall either be
extended or the contingency plans (described in Section 7.3) will be enacted, at the discretion of the City.
7.2 MAINTENANCE PLAN
Landscape maintenance will be conducted as needed to successfully establish the planted
communities. While species chosen for this mitigation plan are adapted to conditions in western
Washington, supplemental irrigation will likely be needed during the first two growing seasons following
installation to ensure long-term survival of the planted communities. See the maintenance specifications
in Appendix D for the amount and duration during each year of irrigation.
The primary maintenance required within the buffer mitigation area is removing invasive and
weedy species and maintaining inigation. Any exotic and invasive species included on the Washington
State Noxious Weed Control Board list should be hand-weeded and properly disposed from the planted
areas for the duration of the 2-year monitoring period.
Allowance should be made for native volunteer species, which may colonize the site over time.
No mowing or weed trimming should be done within the planted areas to prevent damage to the
plantings. Some natural mortality is expected to occur during the monitoring period. Plants will be
replaced, as needed, to meet performance standards.
3/5/l 5 Y:\1 22\033.01 o\R\PT WaterTreatment CritAEas f nal.docx
7-2
LRruonu Assocreres
-t
I
7.3 CONTINGENCY PLANS
A contingency plan may be necessary if monitoring determines that the mitigation is not
successful as stated in PTMC 19.05.1l0(G). In this case, the monitoring report will include a discussion
of potential causes for failure to meet performance standards and will recommend appropriate actions to
address the problem. The proposed contingency actions will depend on the problem being addressed. For
example, if all plants of a single species die, a more appropriate replacement species will be determined
for the site conditions. If invasive species out-compete the native vegetation, additional control efforts
may be warranted. Under certain conditions, irrigation may be necessary. If contingency plans are
determined to be necessary, all proposed actions will be designed and submitted to the City for approval
before they are implemented.
IIt,
Ij
l
_i
..)
"--,1
3/5/15 Yt122\033.01o\R\PT WaterTreatment CritAr€as-fi nal.docx
7-3
LRr,roRu Assocnres
I
I
=I I
-l
-I
I
I
-t
l
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND ASSESMENT OF NO NET LOSS
The mitigation plan presented in this report meets City requirementso as outlined in the PTMC
and meets state and federal agency guidance. The plans presented in this report will mitigate for impacts
to wetland buffer areas; the proposed project will provide no net loss of wetland or buffer functions. The
mitigation plan includes monitoring and maintenance plans to ensure success of the proposed
enhancements.I
l
J
IJ
lJ
!
lJ
3/5/15 Y:u22\033.01o\R\PT WaterTrealmeril-CrilAr€as-fi nal.docx
8-1
LRNoau Assocnres
l
9.0 USE OF THIS REPORT
The findings presented herein are based on our understanding of the PTMC, the USACE wetland
delineation methodology, and on our interpretation of the vegetative, soil, and hydrological conditions
observed during the field investigations on December 23, 2014. Within the limitations of scope,
schedule, and budget, the findings presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally
accepted sensitive area investigation principles and practices in this locality at the time the report was
prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.
This report was prepared for the use of HDR, the City of Port Townsend, and applicable
regulatory agencies. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and
recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of Landau Associates.
Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of
the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at
the useros sole risk.
Wetland and waterway areas delineated by Landau Associates are considered preliminary until
the USACE and/or local jurisdictional agencies validate the boundaries. Because wetlands and streams
are dynamic communities, boundaries may change over time. The agencies typically recognize wetland
delineations for a period of 5 years following an approved jurisdictional determination. In addition,
changes in government code, regulations, and,/or laws may occur.
This document has been prepared under the supervision and direction of the following key staff.
LANDAU TES,INC.
Gordon
Senior Staff
Steven J
Associate Ecologist
BNG/SJQ/jrc
3/5/15 Y:\122\033.01 o\R\PT WaterTrealment CritAr€as,fi nal.docx
9-1
LRruoRu AssocrATEs
,l
1O.O REFERENCES
Alkai. 2007. Wettand Delineation and Analysis Report, Howard Street Wetland Delineation. Alkai
Consultants,LLC. Prepared for City of Port Townsend, Department of Public Works. July 3l'
Brinson, M. 1993. Final Report: A Hydrogeomorphic ClassiJication for Wetlands. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. East Carolina University, Biology Department. Greenville,
North Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. August.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the lJnited States. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
Ecolory. 2006a. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance.
Washington State Department of Ecolory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, Environmental
Protection Agency Region 10. March.
Ecolory et al. 2006b. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans.
Washington State Department of Ecolory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, Environmental
Protection Agency Region 10. March.
Ecology. 1997. Wsshington State Wetland ldentification and Delineation Manual. Washington State
Department of Ecolory. March.
EPA, USACE. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in
Rapanos v. tlnited States & Carabell v. United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. June 5.
Gibboney, S. 2008. Critical Drainage Conidor Designation Memo to Judy Surber, City of Port
Townsend, from Sam Gibboney, ISE Consultants' November 17.
Greytag Macbeth. 7994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York'
Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for ll'estern Washington - Revised.
Publication No. 04-06-025. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
Landau Associates. 2014a. Wetland Report, Howard Street Extension, Port Townsend, Washington.
Prepared for City of Port Townsend under contract to BergerABAM. November 26.
Landau Associates. 2014b. Agency Review Draft Wetland Mitigation Report, Howard Street Extension
Project, Phase I, Port Townsend, Washington. Prepared for City of Port Townsend under contract to
Berger ABAM. December 4.
Landau Associates. 201A. Wetland Delineation Report, Markley and Gunstone-White lletlands, Port
Townsend, Washington. Prepared for City of Port Townsend' February 23.
Landau Associates. 2008. .Srms Way Howard Road l4/etland Report, Port Townsend, Washington.
Prepared for WHPacific. October 8.
Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List:
2}l4lJpdate of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41: l-42
-.,l 3/5/15 Yll22\033.01o\R\PT Wat€rTreatmenlcritAras-f nal.docx
l0-r
LRuonu AssoctArEs
Loggy. 2006. l{etland Critical Area Study. Loggy Soil and Wetland Consulting. Prepared for properties
owned by William and Mary Roberts. December 16.
NWCB website. 2015.Ihashington State Noxious Weed Control Board. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/.
Port Townsend website. 2014a. Landslide and Erosion Hazard Areas. http://cityofpt.
us/user/image/esa.pdf. City of Port Townsend. Accessed August 18.
Port Townsend website. 2014b. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map. Available at:
http://www.cit),ofpt.us/user/imase/esa.pdf . City of Port Townsend. Accessed June 12.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: lVesternMountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, Mississippi. MuV.
USACE' 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. March.
USDA, NRCS website. 2014a. Climate Information - Wetlands Retrieval for Washington.
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/wets_doc.html . Accessed June 2014.
USDA, NRCS website. 2014b. National Hydric Soils List. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NaturalResources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/oortal/nrcs/main/soils/uselhlzdric/
March.
USDA, NRCS. 2011. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. Version 7.0. Available at
http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/. G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas, eds. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for
Hydric Soils.
USDA, NRCS website. 2004. Clallam Series. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.asp
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources conservation Service. February.
u.s.
3/5/15 Y:\122\033.01o\R\PT WaterTroatmont CritAEas fnat.dod
lo-2
LnruoRu Assocnres
Port
o
a!
:
Cove
6
oz
oaRN
c
etiEFog
0.50N
Miles
Data Source: Esri 2012
TANDAU
Area
Was.hington
Tomsend
Everelt oSpokane
):
1
Hastin s Ave
en
lk'
Figure
IVicinity Map
\A/ater Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, Washington
I
l
I
@o
o
z
0N
N
N€
E
oE't6oFo;€
E
aetoI
Legend
l-l ProiectArea
l-l Study Area
Note
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to inconect interpretation.
0 500 1,000
l
Datra Source: Esri World
IANDAU
AssocIAf,ES
Figure
2Study Area Map
Water Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, \Ahshington
-l
Scale in Feet
l
1
I
t
Er
o@
Etoz
oFtoFo
E
o Sample Plol El \A/etland
Ef Projeanrea LLl \Ahtland Buffer
E StudyRre6 r- Howard Streetl-l Mitigation Area
5800 1,160
1. Per PTMC 19.05.110(EX8), the director
may waive standard bufierwidths where
existing roadways or other substanlial
developments have eliminated buffer
funclions. Therefore, only the efiective
functioning buffers are shown.
2. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
Scale in Feet
Data Source: Esri World
.)LANDAU
"-t
Figure
3
\A/ater Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, lAhshington
Wetland Location Map
ASSoCI-ATES
I
1
l
I
I
I
@coEod6
6o
o
2o
oNa
l
j
Legend
! ProjedArea
Notes
1. Per PTMC 19.05.11o(EXg), the director
may waive standard buffer widths trvhere
existing roadways or other substantial
developments have eliminated buffer
functions. Therefore, only the effective
functioning buffers are shown.
2. Areas of temporary bufier impacts to be
restored following construction.
3. lAbtland J bufier impacts are within area of
permanent impact associated with Howard
Street Extension Project, Phase 1, and thel ,btland J bufier and Markley 3 and 4 buffer
impacts are mitigated by bufier averaging of
the preservalion area associated with the
Howard Street Extension Project mitigation
plan; no additional mitigation is proposed as
part of this Water Treatment Facility and
Offsite Utilities project.
4. Gained buffer area is a result of buffer
averaging.
5. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorred interpretation.
I
StudyArea
\A/etland Buffer
Wetland
Howard Street
Mitigalion Area
500
Scale in Feet
TANDAU
ASSoCLATES
t,tf .l
Temporary Buffer lmpacts
(TotalArea = 654 sq lt)
Permanent Bufier lmpacts
(IotalArea - '12,121 sq ft)
Gained BufferArea
(Total Area = 1 1 ,862 sq fi)
1,000
Esri World
EI
..1
Galned Buffer
Pormanent Bufler
Buffer
6
Gained Buffer
Gained Buffer
708
cained Buffor
lcSoe
for Markloy {
J Permanent
Buffer
Figure
4almpact Map
Water Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, \A/bsh ington
I
0
oror
coc
o
EF
og
qcoc
=ts
5c
ooo6o
NN
Notes
1. Per PTMC 19.05.110(EX8), the director
may waive standard buffer widths where
existing roadways or other substantial
developments have eliminated buffer
functions. Therefore, only the effective
functioning buffers are shown.
2. Areas of temporary buffer impacts to be
restored following construction.
3. Wetland J bufier impacts are within area of
permanent impact associated with Howard
Street Extension Project, Phase 1, and the
\Arbtland J bufier and Markley 3 and 4 buffer
impacts are mitigated by buffer averaging of
the preservation area associated with the
Howard Street Extension Project mitigation
plan; no additional mitigation is proposed as
part of this Water Treatment Facility and
Offsite Utilities project.
4. Gained buffer area is a result of buffer
averaging.
5. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead lo incorrec{ interpretation.
Leoend
Projed Area
StudyArea
[],1 Wetland Buffer
f3 wettanc
, Permanent Buffer lmpacts
0 100 200
Scale in Feet
Data Source: Esri
I,ANDAU
ASSOCIATES
Wetland J
Figure
4blmpact Map
Water Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, \ /bshington
c€oz
:l
I
Notes
1. Per PTMC 19.05.11O(EX8), the director
may waive standard buffer widths where
existing roadways or other substantial
developments have eliminated buffer
functions. Therefore, only the efiective
functioning bufiers are shown.
2. Areas of temporary bufier impac{s to be
restored followi ng construction.
3. Vlbtland J bufier impacls are within area of
permanent impact associated with Howard
Street Extension Project, Phase 1, and the
\Arbtland J bufier and Markley 3 and 4 bufier
impacts are mitigated by bufier averaging of
the preservation area associated with the
Horvard Street Extension Project mitigalion
plan; no additional mitigation is proposed as
part of this Water Treatment Facili$ and
Offsite Utilities prolect.
4. Gained buffer area is a result of buffer
averaging.
5. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorred interpretalion.
Legend
E
t=
E
ff|",lff' rFilifiH:91$1i""
wetand Buffer 1.;"1 &T,T,T:J 3!f{jT!ii;
l btlandr*.. n,*, r 3t:'r:ilEf-'if3& * or
Mitigation Area
250 500
II
J
i Scale in Feet
Data Esri World
\
.,1
l
L,l
LANDAU
ASSOCIAIES
BuflerGalned Buffer
43
6
Galned Bufler
Galnod Buflel
illarkloy I Tomporary
Figure
4clmpact Map
Water Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, \A/bshington
0
l
ilrl,i
!-i
'-iI
I
(a) USACE 1987,2010; USDA, NRCS2011.(b) usAcE 1987,2010.(c) The growing season is the time during which two or more noi
growth. Growing season can also be determined by soil teml
Page 1 of 1
Parameter Field Assessment
Wetland Vegetation Wetland vegetation is adapted to satuf Plants and their wetland indicator status are evaluated
(USACE) has assigned a wetland indiilots and visually throughout the study area. lf the test for
occurrence within wetlands (Lichvar sptors of wetland soils and hydrology are present, the Prevalence
r Obligate (OBL) wetland plants oq
(more than 99 percent of the
Facultative wetland (FACW)
but are occasionally found in
Facultative (FAC) plants are
66 percent of the time).
average of the percent cover of each indicator status is
in Appendix D). An index of 3 or less is considered meeting the
lf the Prevalence lndex is not met, then consideration is
and/or non-vascular plants.
Facultative upland (FACU)
in wetlands (1 to 33 percent of Plants: Some plants develop recognizable
Obligate upland (UPL) plants
time).
when occurring in wetland areas. These features must be
the individuals of an FACU species living in an area where
wetland hydrology are present. Wetland non-vascular plants
osses, liverworts, hormworts). The cover of wetland bryophytes
Washington forestede total bryophyte cover in a plot in coastal
a
a
o
o
Wetland Soils (a)Soils are classified as hydric, or they Jat least 20 inches below ground surface (BGS) at multiple
soil conditions. A hydric soil is forme@irect observation of the soil is made at multiple locations in both
enough durlng the growing season to plicable. Soil organic content is determined visually and
termined using the Munsell soil color chart (Greytag Macbeth
Ition and/or inundation is also observed (see Wetland Hydrology)
are compared to the hydric soil indicators for "all soils," "sandy
s," as described in the USACE Regional Supplement (USACE
Wetland Hydrology (b)The area is inundated either permanesoil pits are allowed to stand for up to 20 minutes to allow
equal to 6.6 ft, ler into the pit to determine groundwater level in the soil profile.
ito 24 inches BGS during the dry season to investigateor on, the extent ofsoil saturation and presence/absence of
The soil is inundated or saturated to ,fe soils removed as part of the soils investigation (see Wetland
growing season (c). -btland hydrology are observed at ground surface.
3/5/15 Yj122\033.010\R\Tables\Crilical Arsas lnves Tb 1.docx LANDAU AssocIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rl
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
II
3 tst
ililtr I
I
Note
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorrect interpretation.
0 500 1,000
Scale in Feet
coEooF
og
oco
c;P
Eo
oo
o
o
NN
I
Legend
! ProjectArea
l-l Study Area
!p--f
Data Source: USDA NRCS.
a
LANDAU
#*
u
**
\t
I
t;
H
fi
$
$
x
A-1
FigureWater Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, Washington
Topographic Map
Assoct.ArEs
-l
1l
1
1
t*trl
iltE
If
\r
l; o
g
$
$
Figure
N2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands lnventory MaP
Water Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, Washington
ooI
oeogIEtso2
llI@o
o
z s
rrrntilG
I
{ls
Legend
l-l Study Area
I I Proiect Area
ll_.1 peUCpEMF - Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Data Sources: USFW 2010; USDA NRCS
LANDAU
ASSoCIATES
Note
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorrect interpretation.
0 500 1,000
Scale in Feet
N *
*
*,lli bcooL
o@
octrcEoz
CmC
Legend
fJ study Area
l-'l Proiect Area
I I PEMC/PEMF - Freshwater Emergent Wetland
i I CmC - Clallam Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0-15% Slopes
Data Sources: USDA NRCS
LnNoeu
ASSoCIATES
ta
*
*
p
a a
*
*t.n *i
o@o
o
zooNb
':
l
{s_
t#
',{
t
i.
rt
r
*'
tI :''ti II
tre
Note
1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorrect interpretation.
5000
Figure
A-3Soils Map
Water Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, Washington
Scale in Feet
1,000
I
I
l
i
rl:i
-1
oou
o@
cEz
I
ft
Leqend
l-l Study Area
l-I ProiectArea
f- o-s Flood Hazard
Note
'1. Black and white reproduction of this color
original may reduce its effectiveness and
lead to incorrect interpretation.
0 1,000 2,000
Scale in FeetData Sources: FEMA; USDA NRCS.
LANDAU
aa
a
a
a
a
a
sI
I
,
T3
$.q
t:
H
e
$
sr
I
I
I
aaatIaita aa
a
II
II
I
a
l!!q
I
a
I
ta
1l
rt
aa
sI$srI
a
alIr
,at,l
I
J
Figure
A-4
Water Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, Washington
FEMA Floodplain Map
Assocrerrs
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vlllwl4l pwlrwD vvJwlrl/LrvrL vut --'Q- - ---
"'l
LOCATION CLALLAM
Established Series
Rev. LJH/RJE/MPR/SBC
0212004
CLALLAM SERIES
The Clallam series consists of moderately deep to densic materials, moderately well drained soils
formed in glacial till over very compact glacial till. These soils are on glaciated hills and have slopes of
0 to 30 percent. The average annual precipitation is about 23 inches and the mean annual temperature is
about 48 degrees F.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, isotic, mesic Oxyaquic Vitrandic Haploxerepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Clallam gravelly ashy sandy loam - forested. (Colors are for moist soil unless
otherwise noted. All textures are apparent field textures.)
Oi--O to 1 inch; slightly decomposed needles, leaves, and twigs.
Oe--l to 2 inches; moderately decomposed needles, leaves, and twigs.
A--2to 3 inches; brown (1OYR 413) gravelly ashy sandy loam, light brownish gray (1OYR 612) dty;
weak fine and very fine granular structure parting to weak very fine subangular blocky; slightly hard,
friable, slightly sticky and nonplastic; many fine and very fine roots; many fine and very fine irregular
and tubulai pores; 15 percent gravel; strongly acid (pH 5.2); abrupt smooth boundary. (1 to 4 inches
thick)
Bw1--3 to 12 inches; brown (l0YR 5/3) gravelly ashy sandy loam, light gray (2.5Y 712) dry; common
medium distinct dark yellowish brown (l0YR 414) redox concentrations, very pale brown (10YR 7/4)
dry; weak fine and very fine subangular blocky structure; hard, friable, nonsticky and nonplastic; many
fine and very fine and common medium roots; many fine and very fine irregular and tubular pores; 20
percent gravel and 5 percent cobbles; strongly acid (pH 5.4); clear smooth boundary. (3 to 14 inches
thick)
Bw2--12 to 30 inches; brown (1OYR 5/3) very gravelly ashy sandy loam, light gray (2.5Y 712); common
medium distinct dark yellowish brown (l0YR 414) redox concentrations, very pale brown (10YR 7/4)
dry; weak fine and very fine subangular blocky structure; hard, firm, nonsticky and nonplastic; common
fine and very fine, and few medium roots; many very fine irregular and common very fine tubular pores;
35 percent gravel and 10 percent cobbles; strongly acid (pH 5.4); clear wavy boundary. (7 to 18 inches
thick)
Cdl--30 to 39 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 612) dense glacial till that crushed to very gravelly
sandy loam, light gray (2.5Y 712) dry; common medium distinct strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) redox
concentrations, reddish yellow (7.5YR 616) dry; massive; very hard, very firm, slightly sticky and
nonplastic; few very fine irregular and common very fine tubular pores; 30 percent gravel and 5 percent
cob6les; strongly acid (pH 5.4); clear wavy boundary' Q to 19 inches thick)
WA
1
I
1
l
)
I
)
1
l-++--.//-^il-^*:^- -^ ^^^-' '.-,{^ -^.'/r\aT\ f\^^^lC/fI AT T A]\f l^+*l A t11 t.rnl A
\_rrrlulal Derlcs .Lgsunptrull - \-r-.f\LlAlvr Dgr.res raBY z 0L J
Cd2--39 to 62 inches; grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) dense glacial till that crushes to very gravelly loam,
light gray (2.5Y 712) dry; massive; very hard, very firm, slightly sticky and slightly pl-stic; few very fine
irregular pores; 30 percent gravel and 10 percent cobbles; moderately acid (pH 6.0).
TYPE LOCATION: Clallam County, Washington; 4,000 feet south and 600 feet east of the northwest
corner of sec. 24,T.30 N., R. 5 W. Willamette Meridian.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Depth to densic contact - 20 to 40 inches
Moisture control section - dry 60 to 90 days following the summer solstice
Average annual soil temperature - 49 to 5I degrees F.
Reaction - strongly acid to slightly acid
A horizon -
Value - 3 or 4 moist, 4 to 6 dry
Chroma - 2 to 3 moist and dry
Texture - ashy-Sl, ashy-L
Clay content - 3 to 18 percent
\ock fragments - l5 to 35 percent gravel, 0 to 20 percent cobbles, l5 to 35 percent total
Some pedons have an E horizon
Bw horizons -
Hue - 7.5YR to 2.5 Y
Value - 3 to 5 moist, 4to7 dry
Chroma - 3 or 4 moist, 2 to 4 dry
Texture - ashy-Sl, ashy-L
Clay content - 3 to 18 percent
Rock fragments - 15 to 50 percent gravel, 5 to20 percent cobbles, 35 to 60 percent total
Some pedons have a C horizon
Cd horizons -
Hue - 7.5YR to2.5Y
Value - 5 or 6 moist, 4 to 7 dry
Chroma - 2 or 3 moist and dry
Texture - SL, L, FSL
Clay content - 5 to 25 percent
Rock fragments - 15 to 50 percent gravel, 0 to 10 percent cobbles, I 5 to 60 percent total
COMPETING SERIES: These are the Dehart, Macreeing, Mcguire, Olete, Stutler, and Tuke)' series.
Dehart, Mcguire, and Stutler soils are more than 40 inches deep. Macreeing and Olete soiis hile a lithic
contact at20 to 60 inches. Tukey soils average20 to 30 percent clay in the particle size control section.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Clallam soils are on glaciated hills at elevations of 25 to 1,800 feet.
Slopes are 0 to 30 percent. Clallam soils formed in glacial till over very compact dense glacial till. The
soils are in a mild marine climate and have cool, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Average annual
precipitation is 16 to 30 inches. Average January temperature is about 37 degrees F, average July
temperature is about 59 degrees F, and the mean annual temperature is abouf 48 degrees F. Frosi-free
season is 160 to220 days.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the Asnew, Bellineham , Catla, Elwha,
L++^-.ll^^:1^ -:^- -^ ^-^,,,,-,{^ -^.,/r\qn I\^^-/r.\/rrT AT T A\t L+*l 4.111|.trr1 A
rJlrlural JgrlEs t-rcsgrrptlurl - \-l-Al--l-Alvl Dgrlgs ralBs J ur J
Hoypus, McKenna, Yeary, and Louella soils. Agnew soils have an argillic horizon and are somewhat
poorly drained. Bellingham soils have an aquic moisture regime and a fine particle-size class. Catla soils
are loamy and have a densic contact at 10 to 20 inches. Elwha soils are coarse-loamy. Hoypus soils are
sandy-skeletal. Louella soils are coarse-loamy and have a mollic epipedon. McKenna soils have an aquic
moisture regime. Yeary soils are fine-loamy.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Moderately well drained;moderately rapid permeability above
the very compact glacial till (A and Bw horizons) and very slow permeability in the very compact
glacial till (Cd horizons).
USE AND VEGETATION: Timber production and wildlife are the principal uses. Some areas are used
for cropland and pasture. Native vegetation is predominantly Douglas-fir with some western hemlock,
grand fir, western redcedar, red alder, and Pacific madrone. Understory species include salal, evergreen
huckleberry, red huckleberry, Oregongrape, creambush oceanspray, longtube twinflower, rose,
blackberry, western swordfern, and western brackenfern. Principal crops are alfalfa and grass hay,
barley, oats, strawberries, raspberries, and pasture.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Northeastern Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound Valleys,
Washington; MLRA 2. This series is moderately extensive.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Portland, Oregon
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Western part of Puget Sound Basin, Washington, Reconnaissance Soil
Survey, 1910
REMARI(S: Diagnostic horizons and other features
Ochric epipedon - from 2 to 3 inches
Cambic horizon - from 3 to 30 inches
Densic material - from 30 to 62 inches
Particle size control section - 10 to 30 inches (Bw horizons)
Additional data needed for base saturation and volcanic ash influence to distinguish Clallam series and
Whidbey series.
ADDITIONAL DATA: National Soil Survey Laboratory, Sample numbers--S77WA9-2-2, S77WA 9-
2-3, S77W A 9-2-4, S77WA 9-2-5.I
)
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
L++^-.//-^il-^*:^- .^ ^^^.' '.-l^ ^^-'lr\qT-\ T\^^-/fal,-rT AT T Att l^+*l At't., 11A1 A
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YY!tV r4UlV --E- _ -- '
USDA Field Office Climate Data
WETS Station : PORT TOWNSEND. WA280 Creation Date: 01/16/201'4
Latitude: 4807 Longitude z 12246 Elevation: 00100
State FIPS/County(FIPS): 53031 County Name: Jefferson
Start yr. - 1-911 End yr. - 2000
Temperature
(Degrees F. )
Precipitation
( Inches )
Month avg
daily
max
da
avg
man
ilv avg avg
| 30U chat'rce lavg II will have I # of I
I _________ | days I
I Less I more lw/.IlI than I than I or II I lmore I
Ivg
ota
now
afl
at
f
,l
,I
January
February
MarchApril
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
45.0
41 .4
51.3
56 .2
61, .9
65.1
70.4
7r.L
66.8
51 .4
49.1
44 .6
2? O
20 ?
40.3
at1
46.8
50.1
52.8
53.3
50.7
45 .6
41,.2
37.8
41" .4
43 .1.
45.8
49.5
54 .4
tr,? o
67.6
62.2
58.8
51.5
45.2
4r-z
05
26
13
03
10. f u
6)
.69
.50
.04
.43
.61.
.61
A61
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1,
1,
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
2
.52
.39
t\
.74
OR
.18
.58
.UU
.89
.61
.95q7
AE
2
L
1
1
1
1
1t
t-
1
3
3
oo
trtr
.22
.08
.26
?tr
.09
.11
7
6
5
5
5
4
3
2
3
5
8
8
1" .6
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.5
1,1 .43 21.08
Average 57 .2 44.8 51.1
Average 1,9 .42 57
GROW]NG SEASON DATES
TemperatureI
J
I
II
i
I
I
J
il,-j
,\
't
I
Probabj-lity
50 percent *
70 percent *
_?: _i _?: _l I :i : : _ _ I - 3 : - :- : : - T :i: : - - i - : 3 - :- : : - i I ?: : : - -
Beginning and Ending Dates
Growinq Season Length
I/26 Lo 1.2/24
332 days
L/1"2 to I/ 1
360 days
2/25 to 1,I/30
218 days
2/7'7 Lo 12/ I
294 days
J
h++a, I lonooic rnn-o^io nrc/{?A? 1 /tt.afe/toottlfo 't /1A/1n1 A
rage r ()r r
Statecode Division YearMonth
45 02 2AI40945 02 20L47045 02 201"477
PCP
1.9
.74
.35
PDSI
.02
.88
0
ZNDX
.06
2.6
HDD
145
29A
615
sP03
.36
1.39
.'71
sP09
1-05
2.O'1
7 .2-1
PHDITAVG PMDI
-. 59
.88
.'t 5
SPO
1
CDD
'7
0
0
SPO2
1.48
.63
sP06 P1
.4
.4
.5
60
55
44
a2
88
0
31
L2
42
h+f^.//.'^'^'11 noAo nnqq cn.r/n"lr/nrrlaro/frT)f\T-li.'O? lOAAA<AOAAA +u+11 l'ro/'>n1 L
Chaptar l9 Hydrology Tools for
Wctland Dctermlnatlon
Part f50
Englnccrlng Fleld I talrlbnok
I
I
Figure l9-7 Ralntall documentallon worksheet
-n
I
J
I
I
Ii
I
I
li
t
l,
ll
--r1
!
I
1
'-,1
.,J
orr",tz f ta//{
Ralcfall Docurnentation
(use rvith photographs)
Weather statloni Landorvner;Tract no.:
-
County:I' ft'o'o--'---Sta,-. tt)L
Soll name:
--..-
Crowlng season:
-.
lst prlor rronth'
Znd prlor month'
3rd prlor month'
5um' Contparnd lo photo dat€
Note: lf sum ls
S - l' lhcn prlor Perlod has been
drler than normal
l0 " 14 t}cn pr"lor perlotl hos been
nsrmalti, l8 thcn prlor Perlod has been
wetlar lhan normal
Condltlon valucrDry *l
Normal *2
Wat s3
Concluslons:
W,kt*\'*'-
tb,/*-
Long-term ralnfall records
&lonth
welght
value
Praducl of
orevluus llo' colunrnsRaln
fall
Condltlon
drv. wet.
nbrmal
Condlllon
value3 vrs. lolb less
than Normal
yrs. ln
ll rnore
than
3
I
Month
3 'l*"v fi${1't -b5 2.tt 7.o1tl
z bt-16 tt3(vt.tf,1loa1{l.Y3
1LrdJlIl.ztr t.1.q /)"Ll-g
r9-26 (210'vl.EFll" Au8ust 1907)
Chapter Ig Hydrology Tools for
Wetland Determlnatlon
Part 650
Enginoering Field Hanclbook
Figure l9-7 Rainfall docunrentationworksheetr-
Rainfall Documentation
(use wlth photographs)
nate -1123115 -
weather station: Port Townsend 22 W Landorvner: C itv of Port Townsend Tract no.:
County:Jefferson WA
Soil narne:Growing seasonl
Photn date:
lsl pdor month*
2nd prior month*
3rd prior month+
* Compared to photo date
Note: Ifsunr is
6 - S then priorperiod has been, drier than nornlal
l0 " 14 then prior period has been
Sum 15
Conditlon value:
Dry =l
Normal =2Wet =3
Conclusions:
Source:
USDA, NRCS website' L997. Figure I9-7 Rainfall Documentation Worksheet.Engineering Field Handbook-Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination.http://policy. nrcs.usda.govlOpenNonWebContent.aspx?content= 17556.wba.
Long-term rainfall records
Month
3 yrs, ln
I 0 less
than Normal
3 yrs. inl0 rnore
than
Rain
lall
Condition
dry wet,
nonnal
Condition
value
Month
weight
value
Product of
previous two
colurnns121.78 2.61 3.11 2.15 Normal 2 J 6
11 1.85 2.61 3.09 3.12 Wet 3 z 6
10 0.74 1.43 1.75 2.67 Wet 3 I 3
t5-18 then prior period has been
wetter than normal
l 9*26 (210-vi-EFH, Augusr I 992)
o'* --)1si!+.€ <>-rMonthly Climatological Summary(20141U.S. Department of CommerceNational Oceanic & Atmospheric AdministrationNational Environmental Satellite, Data, and lnformationServiceStation: PORT TOWNSEND 2.2 W WA USNational Climatic Data CenterFederal Building151 Pafton AvenueAsheville, North Carolina 28801www.ncdc.noaa.govGHCND:US1WAJF001'1Elev: 233 ft. Lat:.48.124" N Lon: 122.827' WPrecipitation (in.)DPlONumber Of Days>=.1.00000DPOS>=.502204DPOl>=.10I8622MXSDSnow, Sleet, HailMax DepthTSNWTotal Fall0.00.40.0o.4EMXPGreatestObserved0.80o.710.3E0.80TPCPTotal2.673.122.157.94DTOOMin<=0DT32Min<=32DX32Max<=32DTgOMax>=90EMNTLowestEMXTHighestCLDDCoolingDegreeDaysHTDDHeatingDegreeDaysMNTMMeanMMNTMean Min.MMXTMeanMax.DateElem->Month12345678I101'l12Summar
t
I
:t
-J
-"1
I
l
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
ProjecUsite: Watern Treatment Facilitv and Offsite Utilities City/County:Port Townsend/ Jefferson Sampl i ns Date: 1223!N!-
i ApplicanuOwner:(1ifrr nf Port Tnwnecnd State: WA Sampling Point:SP-WF
lnvestigato(s):Sf cvan Or rerterman/Rosemarv Section, Township, Range:Sq T?NN R1W
Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.):MLocalrelief(concave,conVeX,none):@!]gaE--Slope(%):<1
Subregion (LRR):Lat:Long Datum: _
Soil Map Unit Name:Clallam oravellv lnam O tn 15 nereent slones NW classification tJoland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes fl No E (lf no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation No, Soil No, or Hydrology !s significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes I No E
Are Vegetation No, Soil !g, or Hydrology $ naturally problematic? (lf needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Aftach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
1
I
J
I
ij
-,]
i. ,l
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes E
Yes E
Yes E
NoE
NoE
NoX
ls the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?YesE NoE
Remarks: Climatic conditions were wetter than normal.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: S)
Absolute Dominant lndicator
% Cover Species? Status
50 Yes FAC
50 Yes FACU
1 Alnrrs rrrhra
2. Pseudotsuqa menzteslt
3.
4.
100 = Total Cover
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: !ft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Alnrrq rrrhra 5 No FAC
75 Yes FACUGarrltheria shallon
Herb Stratum (Plot size: !ft)
80 = Total Cover
5 Yes FACUPolvstichum munitum
2.
3.
4.
5.
b.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
5 = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size:
-)1
2
ToBare Ground in Herb Stratum 85
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
ThatAre OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B)
Prevalence lndex worksheet:
Tolal o/o r of'Multiplv bv:
OBL species 0
FACW species 0
FAC species 55
FACU species 130
UPL species 0
Column Totals: 185
x1=0
x2= 9-
x3=195-
x4= 520-
x5=q-
(A) 685 (B)
Prevalence lndex = BIA= 3.7
Hydrophytic Vegetation lndicators :
E Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
E Dominance Test is >50%
! Prevalence lndex is <3.01
! Morphological Adaptationsl (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
E Wetland Non-Vascular Plantsl
E Problematic HydrophyticVegetationl (Explain)
llndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?Yes E tto I
Remarks
" j US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
sotL
Sampling Point: SP-WF1
Color (moist)
10 YR 3/2
or Coated Sand Grains.PL=Pore Li
to
RM=Redu M=Matrix.
o/o Typel Loc2 Texture
Features
(Describe to the depth the indicator or confirm
Depth Matrix
1OYR2I2 5 RM
7.5YR 4t4 lORMM
0-3
7-24 1oYR 4/3 85
ndicators.)
Remarks
Loam
Loam
(inches) Color (moist) o/o
3-7 10 YR 3/2 100
Hydric Soil lndicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless othenvise noted.)
I Histosol (A1) E Sandy Redox (S5)
I Histic Epipedon (A2) E Stripped Matrix (56)
E Black Histic (A3) ! Loamy Mucky Minerat (Fl) (except MLRA 1)I Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) E Loamy Gteyed Matrix (F2)
I Depleted Below Dark Surface (A1 1) [ Depleted Matrix (F3)
E Thick Dark Surface (A12) E] Redox Dark Surface (F6)
E Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) [ Depteted Dark Surface (F7)E Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) E Redox Depressions (F8)
lndicators for Problematic Hydric Soi
E 2 cm Muck (A10)
El Red Parent Material (TF2)
El Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
E Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:_
Depth (inches):_Hydric Soil Present? Yes E No X
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology lndicators
Primarrr lnr{inrlare /mini nf nna renr rircd' nhcnk all lhaf annlrrl
El Surface Water (A1)
E Hign Water Table (A2)
! Saturation (A3)
E Water Marks (Bl)
E Sediment Deposits (82)
I Drift Deposits (83)
E Algal Mat or Crust (84)
E lron Deposits (85)
E Surface Soil Cracks (86)
I lnundation Visible on Aerial lmagery (87)
I Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
E Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA
1, 2, 44, and 48)
E Satt Crust (811)
E Aquatic lnvertebrates (813)
I Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
El Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
E Presence of Reduced lron (C4)
E Recent lron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
E Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl) (LRR A)
E Other (Explain in Remarks)
Secondarv lndicators (2 or more required)
E Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 48)
I Drainage Patterns (B10)
! Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
E Saturation Visible on Aerial lmagery (C9)
E Geomorphic Position (D2)
E ShallowAquitard (D3)
E FAc-Neutral Test (D5)
I naised Ant Mounds (DO) (LRR A)
E Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes E No
Yes E No
Yes E No
tr Depth (inches): _
tr Depth (inches):
A Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes E tto X
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
-t
I
l
-)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
ProjecVsite: Water Treatment Facilitv and Offsite Utilities City/County: Port Townsend/ Jefferson Sampling Dale:!lp!2Oi/
ApplicanVOwner:llifrr nf Pnrt Tnrarnqend State:WA Sampling Point:SP-WF2
lnvestigato(s)FING Section, Township, Range:SqT3ONR.lW
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Slidht denressi()n Local relief (concave, convex, none)conceve Slope (%): <1Vo
Subregion (LRR)Lat:Long:Datum: _
Soil Map Unit Name Clallam oravellv loam. 0 to 15 oercent slooes NWI classification:lJoland
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes El trto fl (tt no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Yes, Soil [9, or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes E No E
Are Vegetation No, Soil !c, or Hydrology $ naturally problematic? (lf needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
J
Hyd rophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
YesE NoX
YesE NoE
YesE NoE
ls the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?YesE NoE
Remarks: The trail runs through a shallow depression, and there is some bare grou
have impacted vegetation. Climatic conditions were wetter than normal.
and puddles adjacent to the trail; pedestrian use assumed to
Tree Stratum (Plot size: l!)
Absolute Dominant lndicator
% Cover Species? Status
70 Yes FAC
10 FAC
1 Alnus rrrhra
2.Crntaeorrs mrtnrtdvne
3.
4.
80 = Total Cover
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: l)
Gaultheria Shallon 5 Yes FACU
5 Yes FACU2.Rubus ursinus
3.
4.
5.
10 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: fl
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size:
-)L
2.
= Total Cover
ohBare Ground in Herb Stratum 100
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
ThatAre OBL, FACW or FAC: 33% (A/B)
Prevalence !ndex worksheet:
Total % Cover of:Multiolv bv:
OBLsoecies 0 x1=
FAcwspecies 9_ x2=
FAC soecies 80 x3= 240
FACU species 10 x4= 40
UPLspecies x5=-
Column Totals: 9Q- (A) 280 (B)
Prevalence lndex = B/A = 3.'l
Hydrophytic Vegetation I ndicators :
E Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
E Dominance Test is >50%
E Prevalence lndex is 33.01
! Morphological Adaptationsl (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
El Wetland Non-Vascular Plantsl
E Problematic HydrophyticVegetationl (Explain)
llndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?YesE NoE
Remarks: Vegetation is disturbed as the area includes a pedestrian trail Vegetation surrounding this area includes Gaultheria shallon (FACU),
Rubus ursinus (FACU), Polystichum munitum (FACU), Alnus rubra (FAC),and Spiraea douglasii (FACW; adjacent to the road)
r r US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
sotL
Sampling Point: SP-WF2
Remarks
7.5 YR 3/4
RM=Reduced or Coated Sand Grains.
Color (moist)
M=Matrix.
Prnminent
Features
8-12 10 YR2t1
Loc2 Texture%
Sandv loam Satr rrated
2 C PL Loamv sand
: (Describe to the depth indicator or confirm the absence
98
Depth Matrix(inches) Color (moist) %
0-8 10 YR 2/1 100
Hydric Soil lndicators: (Applicableto all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
! Histosol (A1) E Sandy Redox (S5)
E Histic Epipedon (A2) El Stripped Matrix (56)
E Black Histic (A3) EJ Loamy Mucky Minerat (F1) (except MLRA 1)! Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ! Loamy Gteyed Matrix (F2)
! Depleted Below Dark Surface (A1 1) ! Depteted Matrix (F3)
E Thick Dark Surface (A12) E Redox Dark Surface (F6)
! Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) ! Depteted Dark Surface (F7)
! Sandy Gleyed Makix (S4) ! Redox Depressions (F8)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
fl Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
E Otner (Explain in Remarks)
lndicators for Problematic Hydric
[ 2 cm Muck (A10)
I Red Parent Material (TF2)
Restrictive Layer (if present)
Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? Yes E No EX
Remarks: Below '12 inches BGS, soil was too sandy and wet to obtain a decent ped
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology lndicators:
Primanr lnrlinalnrc /mi m nf nna renr rired' chenk all lhai annlrr\
X Surface Water (Al)
E Hign WaterTable (A2)
E Saturation (A3)
E Water Marks (B1)
D Sediment Deposits (82)
I Drift Deposits (B3)
E Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
E lron Deposits (B5)
E Surface Soil Cracks (86)
! lnundation Visible on Aerial lmagery (B7)
! Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
E Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA
1, 2, 44, and 48)
! SaltCrust(B11)
! Aquatic lnvertebrates (Bl3)
I Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl )
E Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
! Presence of Reduced lron (C4)
E Recent lron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
E Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
E Other (Explain in Remarks)
Secondarv lndicators (2 or more required)
E Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 48)
I Drainage Patterns (B10)
I Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
E Saturation Visible on Aerial lmagery (C9)
E Geomorphic Position (D2)
E Shallow Aquitard (D3)
E FAc-Neutral Test (D5)
I Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
E Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary frinqe)
Yes E No
Yes E No
Yes E No
tr Depth (inches): 0.25 inches
tr Depth (inches):Surface
tr Depth (inches): Surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes E No E
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: The period 3 months prior has been wetter than normal. Hydrology consisted of shallow
also observed under FACU vegetation. lnundation was also observed in other known upland areas
puddles on and adjacent to the trail. Puddles were
in the vicinity.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
I
-t
1
)
I
I
I
il
d-t 8E
u
o
EouJ
ddIc.oodi
o
NN
o
s
rl
J
:
,)
.,J
I
l
1
I
1. Buffer of Markley Wetland 1 facing north, south end along existing Rainier
Street.
2. Buffer of Markley Wetland 2 facing southeast.
LANDAU
ASSOCI,ATES
Figure
E-1Selected Site PhotograPhsWaterTreatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, WashingtonA
l
l
J
oq
$UJ
gr
3. Sample Point SP-WF1
4. Sample Point SP-WF2o
@N
I."ANDAU
ASSOCIATES
Figure
E-2Selected Site PhotographsWater Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, WashingtonA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
t
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
oou
o@
<ncrccoz
ocoEooo
6o
oz6or!@
L.>
og
coFftoF
os3
!co
c'.oF
SITE PROTECTION AND EARTHWORK NOTESAND SEQUENCING
1. lmplementation of the TESC Plan to protect the areas cleared'
2. prior to ground clearing, clearly identifry and flag/fence the limits of clearing and grading, as well as the
wetland buffer boundaries within 50 feet the project area.
3. Salvage all existing shrubs and ferns in the impict areas by excavating into the upper 12 inches of soil
so asio preserve the integrity of the soil structure and rooted vegetation.
4. Stockpile the soils including ihe vegetation rooted within it in discrete locations in the shade'
5. Watei stockpiled soils/vegetation and cover exposed roots with mulch or compost.
6. Conduct earthwork for creation of grade.
7. Replace salvaged soils/vegetation.
g. plant additional native plan-ts with fertilizer tablets as specified in the planting plan and specifications.
9. Water all plants thoroughly - trucking in of water necessary'
10. Cover all exposed soiis and areas around the base of plants with a 4 inch thick layer of mulch.
11. Remove grading limits and buffer boundary flags/fencing,'
12. Document the final locations of plants and-topography of graded areas (as-built map or planting plan)'
BUFFER RESTORATION: 654 sq ft
Species*Specifications
Scientific Name Common Name # of Plants Size / Form Spacing (O.C.)
Shrubs
Holodiscus discolor Ocean spray 13 1 gal 4'
Gaultheia shallon Salal 14 1 gal 4',
Groundcover
Polystichum munitum Sword fem 14 1 gal 4'
*Species to be selected based on availability at time of planting'
Clear mulch
around base
of trunk
Mulch
(at least 4'thick)
Separate roots and
angle downward
and outward
Ground
surface
Planting
bed area
Tamp soil under
roots to minimize
settling
Gontainer Planting Detail
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
Figure
F-1Planting Plan and Notes
Water Treatment Plant
and Offsite Utilities
Port Townsend, Washington