HomeMy WebLinkAboutEcology Letters 1999 - PLN General - 4/16/1999 $TATRFCEIVFn
o �
STATE OF WASHINGTON APR 2
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 1 1999
P.O. Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300 MASON CO.PLANNING DFPT
April 16, 1999
Pam Bennett-Cumming
Courthouse Building 1
411 N. 5th
P.O.Box 578
Shelton,WA 98584
Subject: Grapeview Wetland/Stream Restoration
Dear Ms.Bennett-Cumming:
As promised,here is a summary of my findings from our field visit to the Richard Scott property located near
Grapeview. We visited the site on Monday, 12 April 1999 with the Corps of Engineers as well as with Mr. Scott
and his associates. You asked me to evaluate the restoration work that has been implemented on the site in response
to previous unpermitted work,and the wetland analysis that was conducted by the consultant for Mr. Scott,B&A
Inc.,for the remainder of the site.
The species composition of the plantings for the restoration work appear appropriate for the region and planting
densities are adequate to ensure coverage as the individual plants mature. However,the absolute lack of
groundcover and topsoil on the site raise serious concerns about the short-term survival of these plants. The surface
temperature will be raised significantly in the hot sun of summer. Without intensive and constant irrigation,I would
expect many of these planted trees and shrubs to die.
The Wetland Report(BA#3016,November 10, 1998)indicated that annual monitoring reports would be sent to the
County. However,criteria for determining the success or failure of the restoration effort were not provided,nor
were contingency measures to implement in the case of project failure. These requirements are essential in order for
the County to be able to determine the immediate and long-term success of this project. A five-year monitoring plan
is generally required with plant survival(e.g.,90%survival of all planted individuals after the first growing season)
as the success criterion for the first year and area coverage as the ultimate measure of success(e.g., 80%coverage
from native trees and shrubs after five years).
Please let me know if you would like my help in developing appropriate monitoring,and contingency requirements
for this project. As was noted in the field,the Corps of Engineer's requirements to correct the violation extended
only to the implementation of the restoration plan(which was determined to be successful). The review and follow-
up to the monitoring reports provided by Mr. Scott or his consultant will be the responsibility of Mason County.
The Wetland Report does state that"monitoring plans on a yearly basis will be provided to Mason County."Also,
"performance/maintenance assurance devices will be provided per the requirements of Mason County."
(B&A#3016,page 6). Again,no specific criteria were offered. Rather,I would view this as a request by Mr. Scott
for the County to set the goals and requirements for him to meet. There are performance goals that are used
frequently for wetland and buffer restoration project monitoring;I can provide you with this information if you need
it.
As pointed out in the B&A Wetland Report,the standard buffer for a Category 1I wetland in Mason County is 85
feet. The standard buffer for a Type 5 stream is 25 feet. "Wetland D"is where the buffer restoration was
implemented. Wetland D was given a rating of Category 1I using the Washington State Wetlands Rating System
(pub.#93-74). The site map in the Report(Figure 4)indicates an 85-foot buffer,as does the planting plan(Figure
5). However,our site investigation showed that a buffer of approximately 45 feet was planted. The text of the
Report(page 6,par.2)indicates that only a 40-foot buffer was expected. If the intent of the restoration effort was to
bring this�roiect into compliance with County requirements(i.e., an 85-foot buffer),then it is my opinion that this
- n1lished.
� +y
00 Four wetlands were identified on the site and rated using the Rating System,Wetland A,B,C,and D. They were
rated as follows:Wetlands A,Category III, 13 points;Wetland B,Category 111, 14 points;Wetland C,Category III,
14 points;Wetland D,Category II,30 points. The primary reason for the low scores for wetlands A,B,and C was
that they were shown to be small, isolated wetlands with little or no species and habitat diversity. My site review
showed me that wetlands B and C were,in fact,an extension of wetland D. They should share the Category II rating
and the 85-foot buffers. Even though it does not change the rating of Category II,I also found evidence of greater
plant species richness and habitat diversity than was indicated in the B&A Report;this would result in a higher point
score.
The stated purpose of the on-site work is to restore the altered buffers and mitigate the crossing of wetland areas
(B&A#3016,page 5). Mr. Scott stated that some fill had already been placed in wetland A because he was told it
was too small for the County to regulate. This may be correct,it may also be correct that the fill in wetland A would
qualify for a Nationwide Permit from the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology. However, all wetland
impacts must be identified prior to project approval so we can address them with a comprehensive review. So,while
the impact to wetland A might be small, it should be added to the"pot"when considering the total project impacts
and subsequent mitigation requirements.
Another issue I would like to clarify is the discussion on page 5 regarding the creation of additional wetland along
wetland D adjacent to Ninth Street. The Wetland Report states that"for all practical purposes, 5,000 square feet of
wetlands will be created"and that an additional 12,000 square feet is available. What the report fails to mention,
however, is that this area is already part of the buffer that is being restored. If it is in fact wetland,the location of
the buffed`should move accordingly. If additional wetlands were created here for the purpose of mitigation,the
present location of Ninth Street would prohibit the placement of buffers. It is not likely that we would approve a
mitigation plan under those conditions.
I hope this information is helpful to you. Please let me know if I can be of any more assistance.
S' cere��
Perry J �.
WOIAA ds/Shorelands Specialist
Shorelands and Environmental
Assistance Program
cc: Mr.Richard Scott
• DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
8 1 P.O. BOX 3755 0 F C 17 1 VF:n
SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98124-3755
REPLY TO APR 2 8 1999
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch APR 2 7 1999 IViHSCN��.
PLANMNG DEPT
Mr. Richard Scott
Mr. Craig Eldridge
Post Office 587
Grapeview, Washington 98546
Reference: 1997-4-02125
Eldgridge, Craig & Richard Scott
Dear Messrs. Scott and Eldridge:
On April 12, 1999, members of my staff inspected your property off Grapeview
Loop Road at Grapeview, Washington. Members of my staff observed that you have
restored the stream and wetlands and are also allowing the wetlands to naturally
revegetate. We appreciate your voluntary compliance in this matter. We will officially
resolve the violation at this time.
Nothing in this letter shall be construed as excusing you from compliance with
other Federal, State, and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations which may pertain
to this work. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Joelle DonTigny at
telephone (206) 764-5528.
Sincerely,
Thomas F. Mueller
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copy Furnished:
MS Pam Bennett-Cummina/
Mason County Department of Community Development
Post Office Box 578
Shelton, Washington 98584
1
G dp�
Howard D. Noyd
1756 Bellevue Way N. E.
Bellevue,WA 98004
June 24, 1999
U. S Army Corps of Engineers
P O Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
Re; As Built Restoration Plan
97-4 -02125
Eldridge and Scott
Attention of Ms Joelle DonTigny:
The reinspection of this property comes up in July.
To help up date this file please refer to the Hamidi Sketch and the topography of the
1953' Vaughn Quadrangle map depicting the elevations and the lay of the watershed
drainage on the sea level wetlands Northeast entering Case Inlet.
For ownership background enclosed is a copy of Detroit#2 plat of the failed
railroad promotion showing the lots owned by Eldridge and the two frontal wetland
lots owned by Robert Pastore who bought the land to preserve it from other use. On
the east side of Grapeview Loop road are several owners of wetlands that are preserved.
My parcel has been damaged by the Eldridge clearing project causing the water table to
rise and large fir trees to be uprooted. This requires considerable expense to restore.
Although we protested to the county for allowing this project for a RV/Mobile Home
venture as being wrong use of a critical natural resource,the bulldozer went on its
way damaging the wetlands as indicated in the northeast area of the inspector'9`sketch.
When the wetlands over the hill and down to the cr eek were impacted, the Corps
stepped in to direct restoration. But the bulldozer came back to the northeast area to
regrade the sites and to construct a road opening to the Loop road instead of opening
to a planned county road running east and west on the south side of the property.
The enclosed photos show the extent of regrading, shaving off from the upland
elevation and leveling the area for the sites and providing a road going south . The
material filled and covered the wetland including the culvert which handled the
drainage under the thirty foot gravel road to wetlands and m to the creek into Case
Inlet. The gravel road was then widened to 60 ft. to Loop Road and a drainage ditch
was graded along side taking the material from Pastore's wed" . I am told that he
knew nothing about it until he saw sometime later that his cable gate had been removed
and large rocks placed to prevent entry from Loop road.
The elevation of the area graded in our estimation is barely above the water table . This
exposes the quality of surface water and ground water to pollution from human and
mechanical waste. The photos show how the soil sediments have eroded leaving no soil
for restoration of natural growth.
In evaluating the outcome of this project one can only say that the proposed use of this
land completely denuded a natural water shed to the detriment of preserving of forest
and wild life habitat and the degradation of the ecosytem so essential to human kind
and the quality of life.
We would appreciate this information be kept confidential .and no reply is expected .
We respect the responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers .
Sincerely Yours,
Enc.: Hamidi Sketch
Vaughn Quadrangle Map
Detroit# 2
V _ 1 /
,k hocks R O C
1/ 16
r /,n �1 !/ o � e I
/ _
JO * ''s;; /•
i, :
a it }
api/ iewj) g 1
I IF
it
IF N
817
lot
j- — �; t � �rl j � --- ;.r'��� it // '• 1
/u ri /OPT \\ n I•\ l` __f "> �J�/r%�` //
ri N f1 , (Ij
Oir
/A /43
It
ly
'l�cLane�;: t
i
S o
4 Dougall Point
'%/ 1 Rr°k /
s'CATF 0
�I��'FA�rED
1889 OCT 15 1999
STATE OF WASHINGTON
MASON CO,PLANNING KEPT
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.O. Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300
October 13, 1999
.Ms.Pam Bennett-Cumming
Courthouse Building 1
411 N. 5 h
P.O.Box 578
Shelton,WA 98584
Subject: Grapeview Wetland and Stream Restoration.
Dear Ms. Bennett-Cumming:
The purpose of this letter is to provide a summary of my September 16, 1999 field review of the
above referenced property with you and the property owner,Mr. Glen Jurges. This letter will
also serve as my response to the July 29, 1999 wetland/stream restoration report and conceptual
mitigation plan(hereafter referred to as "the B&A report")and July 29, 1999 cover letter
prepared by Bredburg and Associates,Inc. The B&A report was prepared in response to the
concerns raised by my colleague,Perry Lund, in his April 16, 1999 letter to you.
ill
Mr.Jurges requested a site visit in order to receive feedback from the County and Ecology on the
proposed location and concept for wetland mitigation. Since I recently took over this project
from Perry Lund,a secondary objective of mine was to become oriented to the site. We walked
along the wetland and stream restoration areas and wetland A impact area within the southern
tracts and walked the areas of proposed wetland mitigation and of a proposed access road in the
northern tracts.
Observations in Southern Tracts
Area A.
Figure 4 of the B&A report shows area A as having an 85-foot buffer. In Perry's letter to the
County,he observed that this buffer had only been replanted to a width of approximately 45 feet.
No additional plants had been placed by the time of our September 16, 1999 site visit. While this
is an 85-foot buffer, it is not being treated as such. The entire buffer area needs to be planted to
restore this area from the previous disturbance.
Additionally,as Pent'forewarned,much of the plantings that were placed within this buffer area
did not survive the summer. In surveying this area,I noted that approximately 40%of the planted
firs had died. A layer of mulch or topsoil and irrigation would likely have been helpful in
preventing this mortality. On the positive side, some red alder saplings(I did not count them)
have volunteered in this area.
Complete performance standards for restoration of this buffer area have yet to be agreed upon, let
along proposed. However,Perry's letter suggested 90% survival of all planted species after the
�� 0
Ms. Bennett-Cumming
October 13, 1999
Page 2
first growing season. And,this suggestion was incorporated into the B&A report(page 9). I
would add the additional condition that if planted species did not survive but were replaced, in
.equal or greater numbers,by naturally colonized,native woody species,that would be acceptable.
Given this,I recommend that the area be surveyed for survival of plantings and naturally-
colonized native saplings. If additional plantings are needed to reach the 90%survival standard,
those should be put in place this fall, along with the plantings still required in the outer
approximately 40 feet of this buffer.
Area B
This area had been planted with dogwood and fir. Curiously,most of the fir did not survive,
whereas most of the dogwood did survive. I did not observe naturally colonized plants within
this area. Again,this area was devoid of topsoil or mulch,which,had it been present,may have
improved survival of the fir.
As with Area A,this area needs to be replanted. Plantings should be installed this fall, in order to
allow the winter months for roots to establish.
Stream Corridor
.The stream flows through a wetland corridor approximately 30 feet wide. This area had standing
water during this September site visit and was vegetated with cattail, soft-rush,and sedges. This
area meets the criteria for a Category III wetland, in addition to a Type 5 stream.
While on site,I suggested that the buffer may need to be increased to 50 feet(as required by the
County for a Category III wetland). In speaking with Perry Lund and upon receiving input from
A.J. Bredburg,via Mr. Jurges, it seems that this wetland area may have developed, or at least
expanded, in response to the stream restoration work that was done here. However,you have
informed me that the Corps of Engineers did identify this area as a"disturbed riparian wetland".
I do not have the benefit of having seen the site prior to the disturbance,and historical aerial
photographs do not provide the detail that would be needed to discern riparian wetland areas from
non-wetland areas. I can only respond to historical accounts others have provided me and to my
observations of current conditions.
If in fact,the wetland area expanded in response to the stream buffer restoration, it would be
unfair to require that the restored area now be afforded greater buffers. However, if this wetland
area expanded in response to the unauthorized stream clearing activities,that should be
considered a consequence for which the landowner would now be responsible. Generally,
Ecology recommends that wetlands unintentionally created from other land uses should be
regulated as wetlands. This guidance may apply in this situation.
Given the uncertainty over this issue,I would recommend that the County accept the 25-ft. buffer
for restoration purposes. However for future land use actions,this area should be recognized as
the type 5 stream and category III wetland that it is,and buffered accordingly. That is,all land
uses should respect the 50-ft.wetland buffer for category III wetlands.
Overall
While onsite,Mr.Jurges inquired into the possibility of removing dead trees and dead and
downed logs from within the wetland buffers. As I.stated at the time,this is strongly discouraged.
Dead and downed trees and other woody vegetation are an essential component of a wetland and
Ms.Bennett-Cumming
October 13, 1999
Page 3
wetland buffer system. They provide nesting, forage,and refuge for all kinds of wetland
organisms, from bacteria and invertebrates,to insectivorous and cavity nesting birds and
mammals. Decaying woody material also serves as an essential source of organic matter to the
wetland ecosystem. Downed woody vegetation within the buffer also increases the opportunity to
limit intrusion by people and pets into the wetland, as well as the opportunity for the wetland
buffer to detain and filter surface water flows prior to discharge into the wetland.
•A revised wetland and buffer mitigation report is needed which identifies that the objective of the
buffer replanting effort is to revegetate the wetland and stream buffer areas,to the width required
by the Mason County Resource Ordinance,with native woody vegetation,with the goal being to
facilitate the redevelopment of a native forest community within this area. The report also needs
to include performance standards that can be measured to ensure achievement of this goal and
objective.
While a planting plan for the wetland buffer restoration areas was provided in the B&A report
(figures 5 and 6), additional elements which should be identified in the buffer restoration plan
include a planting schedule, and vegetation maintenance measures. The application of mulch
should be included as a measure to ensure success of the planting plan. Planting should occur
within the next few months: this is the best time of the year to plant woody vegetation, as it
provides the plantings with several months of wet conditions, in which to establish root systems.
Observations in Northern Tracts
The concept of creating or restoring wetlands in the SE corner of Block 23 in the northern tracts
appears reasonable. The area Mr.Jurges identified is in a recently logged area adjacent to
existing wetlands. It was evident that soil had, in fact,been pushed into wetlands in this area.
Given that,this is an excellent location to create or restore wetlands. Hydric soils are likely to be
found immediately under fill material;wetland hydrology is present;the chance of success is
high.
However, before this site may be used for mitigation it must be verified this wetland fill was
either authorized or exempt from wetland regulation. If this was an illegal wetland fill,the
current landowner may be responsible for this violation,which means that the restoration of this
area would not be available as mitigation.
Also,on-site wetland mitigation is preferred to off-site mitigation in circumstances where there is
an opportunity to provide meaningful,viable on-site mitigation. "On-site" is vaguely defined.
The goal,however,should be to identify compensatory wetland mitigation that is as close as
possible to the wetland disturbance. In all cases,compensatory mitigation should be provided at
least within the same drainage basin. Opportunities to provide mitigation for wetland impacts in
the southern tracts should be sought in the southern tracts before looking in the area of the
northern tracts.
Other Remaining Issues
Perry's April 16 letter discussed the need for performance standards: criteria for determining the
success or failure of the restoration and mitigation efforts. The B&A report identifies some
performance standards(page 9): to achieve 90%survival of plantings by the end of the first
growing season and 80%coverage by native trees and shrubs after five years. These are
Ms. Bennett-Cumming
October 13, 1999
Page 4
acceptable standards, but more is needed. The performance standards need to be expanded in
order to address the goals and objectives of the wetland mitigation plan, as those are fleshed out.
For instance, if a goal of the wetland mitigation is to replace all habitat for wetland dependant
species and an objective is to retain and provide nesting and forage habitat for cavity nesting and
insectivores birds, an appropriate performance standard would be to have 5 retained or artificially
placed snags,or similar habitat,per acre and documented use by those species targeted.
The report needs to include goals and objectives of wetland and stream restoration/mitigation and
performance standards by which achievement of those goals and objectives can be measured. We
would refer Mr. Jurges and his consultant to the Ecology publication(Publication#94-29),
Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation plans and Proposals. The best
examples of wetland mitigation plans are those which have followed these guidelines.
Copies of the National Wetland Inventory(NWI)map section should be included with the
Mitigation report. The NWI map will better reflect landscape surroundings and position of the
subject site than drawings that have been submitted to date. This information is valuable in
identifying appropriate mitigation sites.
The B&A Report needs to be appended. I recognize that the goal of this plan was to present only
a conceptual scheme for wetland mitigation, in order to receive Ecology feedback. Now that this
feedback has been provided, it is now necessary for this report to be completed.
I am happy to provide this technical assistance to the County and must apologize for the time it
has taken to get this to you. Being down one wetland staff person,I am finding more work to be
piling up than usual at this time. Please call me, at(360)407-6221, if you have any questions
with this letter. Of course, I am available to review the final restoration and mitigation plan for
this site.
Sincerely
d )6
Ann Boeholt
Wetland Specialist
Shorelands and Environmental
Assistance Program
cc: Lori Morris,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers