Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SDP2015-00014
JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TYPE I LAND USE PERMIT APPLICANT: SCOTT KASEBURG 5443 PLEASURE PT LN SE BELLEVUE WA 98006-2637 DATE ISSUED:August 07,2015 DATE EXPIRES:August 07,2017 MLA NUMBER: MLA15-00052 PROJECT PLANNER: David Wayne Johnson PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REMOVAL OF SEVEN DISEASED DOUGLAS FIR TREES IN SHORELINE JURISDICITON AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel 601063001 in Section 6, Township 26N, Range 01W located on Quilcene Bay , East Jefferson County. CONDITIONS: 1.) The applicant shall comply with the recommedations of the Arborist's Report prepared by Richard Hefley dated June 22, 2015 on page 16 of 21. 2.) The applicant shall submit to DCD a list of native vegetation to replace the removal of Douglas Fir trees along with a site plan of the number of plantings and where the plantings will be located. We recommend that the Arborist produce a list of plants from which the applicant may choose. 3.) The project shall adhere to the Best Management Practices(BMPs)to control stormwater, erosion and sediment during removal and replanting. BMPs shall address permanent measures to stabilize soil exposed during removal, and in the design and operation of stormwater and drainage control systems. FINDINGS: 1.) The Administrator finds that this application complies with applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code,all other applicable ordinances and regulations,and is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use map. 2.) The application was reviewed by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff on August 6, 2015 for the potential presence of Environmentally Sensitive Areas(ESAs) under the provisions of the Unifiec Development Code (UDC). After an initial Geographic Information Systems mapping review and an investigative site inspection, the following ESAs were confirmed to be present on the subject property: Natural Shoreline Designation; Ustable-Recent Landslide Area. 3.) A Geotechnical Report prepared by Stratum Group dated March 30, 2015 and Arborist's Report prepared by Richard Hefley dated June 22, 2015 were submitted and accepted by DCD. 4.) The site plan as submitted with the Zoning Vegetation Management application on August 5, 2015 has been reviewed for consistency under the UDC, and has been approved by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Any modifications, changes, and/or additions to the stamped, approved site plan dated August 6, 2015 shall be resubmitted for review and approval by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 5.) This approval is for Removal of Seven Diseased Douglas Fir Trees to be Replanted with Native Vegetation only. Any future permits on this site are subject to review for consistency with applicable codes and ordinances and does not preclude review and conditions which may be placed on future permits. APPEALS: Pursuant to RCW 36.70C,the applicant or any aggrieved party may appeal this final decision to Jefferson County Superior Court within twenty-one(21)calendar days of the date of issuance of this land use decision. For more information related to judical appeals see JCC 18.40.340. 072404)--- UDC Administrator MLA15-00052 S • A fi nL N . F�\ N F 1Fh I I . %-I O^Q, �0, _ 3: N 113 Ln m a •- E,..1 A .,_, C -a tie rsi ♦ CC °N mill O N c Y m L Q O Q u M ai v L O v-.1 -0 a, v 0 I..r) v m O o O v u a w N " v N Z‘-I i •OM OO �c CL QC 4 N x e).TJ\\ 1 '040.. 1 1 I\ OJ 76 CO � `i .. o • Co w x= y► O v p O •bA CC c U `P m �O u o t- u N s c o_ W d l'r'S v tea, a E o r� N v / r G% p9P aci °QU c ° � � J ~ y 0 .5) p••o � � av X U-1 jilic o c- cr)/d� S'Jyo L a c v lii /J v_ O Av1\ Y 0 VI 1' <11:1 Z O d ti C ;�`"� . .V M 2 ul .--VA ,\C‘..c'`,-1-1-1 N . David W. Johnson From: David W. Johnson Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 3:20 PM To: Scott& Kathy Kaseburg Cc: David W. Johnson Subject: Tree Removal Permit Attachments: MLA15-00052.pdf Scott, Attached is your permit to remove the fir trees. Thanks! David Wayne Johnson - LEED AP- Neighborhood Development Associate Planner- Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 360.379.4465 z eAI&.P.6�Kxv^i ND Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. ` SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary All e-mail may be considered subject to the Public Records Act and as such may be disclosed to a third-party requester. ;etierson County Department of Community Development S UAR Setter Bonding Starts Here. 621Stawielarn5t.PO.++bwwwhX WA 9978 1 MO ?V AA W,1! 6rdMA rath4van L. 1 I aft (‘? 0 ) Arboricultural Assessment Scott Kaseburg : Quilcene WA ti ` Richard R Hefley— Consulting Arborist iiniECEOvE0 AUG - 5 215 JEFFERSON COUNIY ` _DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 2of21 • Arboricultural Assessment Arboricultural Assessment Client: Scott Kaseburg 5443 Pleasure Point Lane SE Bellevue WA 98006 Re: Quilcene Bay Property Author: Richard R Hefley Consulting Arborist Site Visit Date : 03/21/2015 Report Date : 06/22/2015 • OBJECTIVES: Assess trees on the eastern edge bluff of the Kaseburg property near Quilcene WA.for health and risk. Provide a report of findings and recommendations. BACKGROUND I was contacted by Scott Kaseburg by phone in early March of 2015. He reported a large tree had fallen on his Quilcene property,obliterating a rustic cabin that existed in this area. He was concerned for the health and stability of the remaining trees. I visited the site accompanied by Mr. Kaseburg on 03/21/2015. 1 • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 3 of 21 CONTENTS: Page 1 Title Page Page 2 Client,Author,Objectives Page 3 Contents Page 4 Executive Summary Page 5 Summary continued Page 6 Aerial Photo— Marina to Kaseburg Property Page 7 Aerial Photo—Trees on Kaseburg Property Page 8 Photo—Cabin-Site Viewed from Water Page 9 Slide Area . Page 10-11 .... Views Along Slide Area Page 12-13 .... Upper Canopies of Trees Page 14 Fallen Tree on Property w/ Rot Page 15-16 ... Discussion Page 17 ...Photo of Trees that Require Mitigation Pages 18-19 ... Methods of Observation Page 20 Waiver of Liability, Contact information Page 21 ... WSU Notes on Laminated Root Rot 1 Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist b. Page 4 of 21 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: I was contacted by Scott Kaseburg by phone in early March of 2015. He reported a large tree had fallen on his Quilcene property,obliterating a rustic cabin that existed in this area. He was concerned for the health and stability of the remaining trees. I visited the site accompanied by Mr. Kaseburg on 03/21/2015. I first examined the area from the beach.A large Douglas Fir had fallen, causing a slide of vegetation approximately 20' high (the height of the bluff)and thirty feet in diameter. Seven mature Douglas Firs located within 20' of the crown of the bluff appeared to be in a state of decline or standing dead (snags). Mature Western Red Cedars on the site appear to be in good to excellent condition and unaffected by any pathogen. I took root tissue samples from the fallen Douglas Fir and the Douglas Firs on the northern and southern edge of the slide zone. I sent these samples to the WSU Puyallup Lab to determine what if any pathogen was present. At this time I have not received a final report from the WSU Lab. • An older fallen Douglas Fir on top of the bluff indicated the clear presence of a heart and root rotting pathogen, as did the pattern of the affected trees. My initial indication is that the pathogen Phellinus weirii, Laminated Root Rot (LRR) is present in this grove of Douglas Firs,though there are other possible pathogens. These root rotting pathogens destroy the root and lower trunk tissue of certain trees, particularly Douglas Firs.The result of this tends to be the catastrophic loss of entire trees in high wind events,and increased erosion due to the reduction of anchoring root structures in the soils along the bluff. These trees are located immediately west and south of the Kaseburg cabin site. Given the size of these trees (up to 150' high) and the predominance of high winds from these directions,especially in the winter months,there is a high likelihood of any failure of these trees to result in the loss of property, bank stability,and harm to persons present. Because LRR survives on site for up to 50 years and spreads primarily through root contact of same- species trees, I recommend the removal of this small stand of Douglas Firs located along the crown of the bluff, seven trees, and the replanting with native trees and shrubs resistant to this pathogen. My reasons for making this recommendation are as follows: 1. LRR survives for decades and spreads through roots in contact underground, meaning all of these trees are in some degree in contact with LRR. 2. The signs of root strength loss are often not apparent until the tree fails in a high wind event, which is too late to mitigate possible damages or injury. • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 5 of 21 3. This stand of trees is located on the south and western sides of the Kaseburg cabin-site, and the • vast majority of high winds in this area emanate from these directions, making any tree failure likely to cause property or environmental damage, or personal injury. 4. The trees are of a size (height and weight)to cause catastrophic damage to property or persons. 5. The Douglas Fir trees in this stand are in poor condition due to the presence of a root rotting pathogen. Laminated Root Rot is a normal part of the forest ecosystem and cycle. In its natural state, it is an important part of diversifying our vegetation stands. The almost monoculture we currently experience of Douglas Firs is an anomaly caused by human intervention,specifically the suppression of wildfires which,with various pathogens,was critical to the creation of a botanically diverse and healthy ecosystem. In summary,this is not a healthy stand,and as these trees inevitably fail,they are very likely to cause damage to property and possibly injury to persons. For more detailed information on LRR, please read the following publication. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr349/gtr349a.pdf Additional notes on Laminated Root Rot from WSU are provided at the end of this report. • • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 6 of 21 • Observations: o •. Herb Beck M i,f: Beach k,. t • if f e t.• u y s; e Siteof Failed Tree that Destroyed Cabin Cabin Site Grove of dead and dying Douglas Firs se s. � w Goo$le earth AA... mage 1 12ui O] Go00 ,P.I. tt ,, ' u iw Y, ," J a . 5 211'.1 47°46'5,.∎2'"i 122-51'39.72"W ee. -1Q't eye a■ 146.7 ft O The Kaseburg cabin-site is located at the bottom of the photo above. This is approximately 2.5 miles south of the Herb Beck Marina in Quilcene WA. There is an extensive clearcut located approximately 600'to the west of the cabin-site. Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist ■ Page 7 of 21 It - mg.; ,-.. -_T_• Z- t - 4E� , yet `.. •.yam,, +` .�. 'ti r?' „11 0 • D� OU as Firs +_,.N t^' r,• rove of deadtiand c J. 9 , • ��.. • x C ; ,1 �.4 Site F rhe, �i3that Destroyed Cabin t. , -" CVs' Tv.,/,•:-11`.!:,s1."7:.Ni Z., 4 t •,y•%.... y, 1 • r k. w..h Y .' .. cery De.r. ;fell 47°46'0045+U I22;_14341 i'',E, - -• ".O A closer view of the Kaseburg cabin-site. The site extends from the base of the bluff and onto the beach. Please note the"silvered" trees above the cabin-site; these are standing dead Douglas Firs limited to a small geographic area, an indication of a localized root-rotting pathogen • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 8 of 21 • •,..,, , _ „.. , _ . ,, : .- 1'.f.4• M1 4 1. • J',A• r 41 °t.4 Alt,....*: 1, by '4 I,I M {.... N }•1di' A10*.r lg,• i4 g - ,. c _ �� .� Vv �i a� , , old -., .„- , x 1 -, +i {� el f^ ' , 1;;;;,41r.,i '7 . I iiiiii I c '' y;t.' if . ., ' . 4{ ry e _ , . , , . . ,, ., ,,, i " .." ^ * 1 ,rte'„ n ..`p sr e.. l'\ , .. • ..{ ,:- r- T:T +: ""'1 t, -A-,-:i t y:�� 1�a.4•• 4 j M'�"Y'n.,,,p',41 tii,�I,1i The cabin-site from the water, looking west (pile of rocks at the base of the bluff...the cabin has been flattened). Again,take note of the paucity of vegetation in the Douglas Fir trees on top of the bank. The bright green trees are the Western Red Cedars (Thuja plicata), a different genus of tree and therefore resistant to some pathogens which can severely impact Douglas Firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii). • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist • Page 9 of 21 5 114 a, a. `'`, a? �,1 ems,.. ,` �'. i �, „y ,, .' .' ifs Y '14_,'_:,,',62;%`.,•`. ktrtit +. z .t-."1 1 ' ''r-'-‘::::::' J: _ ,�r w „- :Yy + t \ \1 ' r_ tr + � � h , • •t " • r 5 �w..::•. ._ I�i F i t �11t 1 - .L -'' t`'•., rT' , '1.. 5� is r ° ~ VI P 4t� =• T K 1 " 1#, >> ', - •f( \ '',.'-'11,-.4,'- `'.4- " .'" . ♦ '-Rl ` \ 'W,a .: I' pt - , � 1 y G.. aay 4t {,y4YV.r ,�t,,,♦YlE F n\ ,:A � \ a� .ti " " y } T y `‘•'•'''...',. j ,74.i air } "fir 'f. r� ;v7.,',, I'I +' r�?"it tiy A 4,, �`+ • o'r� y 4 1 �1}� 91t? k •K w. .w .•i �T�4jt /1 y 1' 7 Fd_ :ii."-, �l'Y 4••C --cv / ♦ � ae1 ypq 4` °«.yS. ':r i.`°. i+i `rn � wYt Ata r ��`q�,.`Y�+y,r v* �. •_ The slide above the cabin-site.The Douglas Fir that fell is at the bottom of this photo. • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 10 of 21 .. -,,,,e;ir 1 _ 4" -- . - -- ,-,. ,-,.-- -- -_ . 1 vt- J ..gyp "f � .v* 'F4. '; -1'wt...-.4..,- , ,,,e - c.-- �:h. AA "1 sl ,RZ 1 • _l q. 1 yx 9 �_ t TT ,.Jr ` . �SSh s '.�' � mss::-k-.$,,,,„fj iii���I l • i,...,;,114, t '12.44.4,,.. • S'� 1 [{ 1 • � . t } fir „e � �y ” dpi. J� it, '' ‘,,it...,-5,7 'k � h� - S,'. r � ' �,,`� cr '!` :6' �9,1'4'Y.- � �,t - '� \j) c ow >r� �j�{� ( C� )r '.. _ e- x 1,Y }u y.4 X 1\ .' .44. 1]7 LC '' Y I. °' , A t M " 11"j j != .�' r ='VT..'. � VV ',1' .,1 i'W �i,•I :•;,, A� i.Nr 1�4 .R.�Y2-.A1,,., TA CT '` 4 "��\ it � � 5: F't r�' �,-� �Y^° Y��' 1 ��t � /.» �� �� � ` v •;; '+ `Y. . k: R J� ::-`G` .. i°�'R iv.:.,,,,,,4.f { ''� ! i f."t ' L\ , y"M1 'Y k ■ i1= .1 •�,4+.. 5 sP�} iA� � F 'l. . : '�. � .Fr'F� e� '���1 ��. A 'a. Photo taken along the crown of the bluff from the slide area looking north. One tree at a 45 degree angle, in the upper right quadrant of the photo. The primary groundcover vegetation here is Evergreen Huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) and Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum). • Richard R. Hefley--- Consulting Arborist Page 11 of 21 s •+ A, '� a rrp x 1. it '.z *' ,A ,,, ��., 1 _ ^^"Illrfrfrf } '14� '! .` ^ M 4 r gip, y 4t .. ...,y1 a ,'V�y_r � • - kt. + 1 s GYM! . . • Another view from the cabin-site looking north-west above the slide (visible in the lower-left quadrant of the photo). 1 • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 12 of 21 S ��Y ♦ ♦ 1 ' -. t. 4 ''�` •r i{' .J' .h-_ ''� '.' ♦ms's A '4:,4� ,T. ey t- . i' • 0 Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 13 of 21 ,� :,a` x ,r;< The upper canopies of ' "' :1' the Douglas Firs as seen ---. y t '' , ., '# from underneath. {� ' W:;<,: The Douglas Firs still h. r �� ', alive have a canopy in {,i. ;'Er.".' , r' s, extremely poor condition ,v-i. N4 with little live foliage. tra, r •�l N �� _ I' l' 4 I /may. 4.4 \ .wk`s;.•' ^ `. , A i I, ' 44 • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 14 of 21 is y .y +: 1 p x.. 413.--,70.*;.t.> ,? '^-" i°�p '' IA - `.'s h-x,• if t.. - '^l - ' .r F y c - ?fit nk v .. ---..,24. s ),. i -;tea ,,, .�-.,`:tw {. JCL { ,+ ' "- J . _R `e , t 4 ilk. r 4 C \ \ - • -- Z •• t j - S , ` s' ' The base and trunk of a Douglas Fir which fell a year prior to the slide. Note the extensive decay and hollow lower trunk. This is an indicator of a rotting pathogen. • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 15 of 21 • Discussion— After observing the mature Douglas Firs in the area of the Kaseburg cabin-site; their relative age,state of decline, previous complete failures and standing dead snags,there is little doubt that a root rotting pathogen is currently active in this area. Root, soil and trunk samples taken from the base of the tree that had fallen on the cabin-site,as well as samples from living Douglas Firs on the northern and southern edges of the slide,were sent to the WSU Plant Lab in Puyallup. Due to staffing shortages at the lab, results of the specific pathogen causing the decline have not been determined. In an e-mail exchange I did ask if Phellinus weirrii was detected and was told that the microscopic signs associated with that particular pathogen were not apparent at that time. I must note that there is no guarantee that the particular samples taken from any site will produce a positive result. This does not alter my opinion of the health of the Douglas Firs in this area. There is no doubt that the mature Douglas Firs of this area are diseased, dying, and standing dead. It is important to understand that disease is a natural part of the ecosystem. Disease, along with wildfire and slides caused by tidal and wind erosion or excessive rains, naturally clear vast areas. These areas are then populated by pioneer trees and plants such as Red Alder, a short-lived tree that rebuilds poor soils and provides cover for seedlings of the conifers that will replace them. • The Douglas Firs on the Kaseburg property cabin-site are being actively replaced by Western Red Cedars. In an uninhabited area,this process could and should be allowed to proceed unaltered, but in an inhabited area (as this has been since the 1950s)the dangers posed by these large and failing trees require mitigation. In easily accessible areas,the removal of trees containing pathogens requires removal of the upper tree as well as the stump and as many roots as possible. This is not practical or necessary in this situation. All Douglas Firs in the vicinity of the cabin-site are clearly impacted by the disease, and there is no evidence that it has or will spread to the other large trees on site,the Western Red Cedars. It would be beneficial to know the exact pathogen involved because of differing methods for treatment to control (they can only be "controlled", not"cured")the pathogen, as well as knowing what plants to replace the area with. It is best to replant the areas with saplings of native plants that are resistant to the disease. In this particular area,given the prevalence of other healthy native vegetation present, I would recommend these plants; Western Red Cedars,Western White and Shore Pines, any"hardwood"tree such as Vine and Bigleaf Maple and Red Alder. • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 16 of 21 . Low shrubs such as Evergreen Huckleberry and the best of all groundcovers,Western Sword Fern, are excellent selections for covering exposed soils and limiting erosion. These trees and shrubs are also generally resistant to the most likely root-rotting pathogens that may be present. Recommendations- I recommend the Douglas Firs marked on the following page be removed and replaced with more suitable vegetation. Newly exposed ground should be planted with appropriate native seedlings. This should be done in Oct/Nov, and I recommend the use of Tree Protection Cones to limit possible damage by browsing animals as well as to collect moisture for the seedlings survival. • SRichard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 17 of 21 • 1, 1 ti v r ,! I�1 PIr S 4 t '. '. "y " r : 4 . ♦ t 11•r ` • :•- • ;.,- 7' Ly.,- %•• w , It 14 0 - / 4 4 0, iitti O., . i • 7 I r: F ,1 :`� 1. '� a ', A t .r, Tel, F /, 1 3i t 1, r 1f, i ' % * IA r r� • �! ! ;gyp' 1 . pr�y� rr ( I 1 '� +,yv.,��, "'4r +s.�.+ir�r�p'\�•r • .- l' ^I r J , • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 18 of 21 • METHODS of OBSERVATION I assess trees for risk by first visually examining the foliage of the tree's crown. I will note: Foliage density or Crown Density(CD)—Wherever possible, I compare the density of the foliage of the examined tree with the density of the same species in the same, or similar,environments. If local examples are not available, I use my best judgment as to what the optimal density of the foliage of a particular species should be. I express the results as a percentage, using 100%as the optimal foliage density. In the case of deciduous trees examined during their dormancy, I will note the density and health of the past season's growth of twigs. Trees exhibiting signs of stress are typically less dense than healthy trees. Foliage color—Where possible, I compare the foliage color of the examined tree with the color of the same species in similar environments. If local examples are not available, I will use my best judgment of what the optimal color of a particular species should be at that particular time and location. Color is expressed as Good, Fair, or Poor. Trees under stress often exhibit Poor color, usually lighter than healthy trees. Live Crown Ratio(LCR)—The Live Crown Ratio is a measurement of the amount of living foliage of a tree expressed as a percentage of the tree's height. For example, if a tree is 100' high, and the first branches with live foliage begin at 75' high in the tree,the tree has a 25% Live Crown Ratio.Trees with 25%or less • of a LCR(the ones that look like Q-Tips)are considered potential hazardous trees. Cones—Cones are the seed-bearing structures of conifers. A stressed tree will sometimes produce an inordinately large crop of cones (seeds). I will compare the amount of cones with similar species where available,or use my best judgment where the same species trees are not available. Deciduous trees may produce extraordinarily large amounts of seeds in response to stresses. Epicormic Growth—This is foliage which sprouts from dormant buds located along a trunk or limb, and is often a sign of stress in trees.The tree is attempting to increase the amount of foliage to counteract another stress, often damage to a root or vascular system that prohibits the tree from producing the optimal amount of nutrients it requires for survival. In conifers, epicormic growth is often manifested as needles sprouting on the trunk of the tree,giving the tree an almost "furry" appearance. Structurally Unsound Wood—Examples include multiple tops, multiple branches emanating from a single point, limbs growing at a tight angle to the trunk(typically less than a 45 degree angle),cracked or broken branches, and included bark(bark wedged between two trunks or limbs growing tightly together). Rot—I look for signs of rot such as fungal growths,cracks, holes, swelling and excessive bleeding sap. This may extend to the excavation of soil around the roots, or examining beneath bark for signs of disease. I may strike the trunk with a mallet to listen for the sounds of hollow or pithy wood. • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 19 of 21 • 1 may drill into the trunk of a tree if a significant hollow space is suspected,to confirm the amount of solid and unsound wood. I may take a core sample of the tree's wood using a 1/8" increment borer. I will visually examine the Critical Root Zone (CRZ)of the tree.This is generally defined as a circle around the trunk of the tree,the radius in feet being equal to the diameter of the trunk in inches (a 10" diameter tree will have a CRZ with a radius of 10', or a 20'diameter). The history of actions performed within this area, as well as actions planned for this area, is critical to the health and viability of trees. Field observations are limited by the tools at hand. I may request that samples be taken and sent to a plant pathology laboratory for a more complete analysis. I measure the trees diameter at approximately 4.5' above the ground level using a caliper measuring tape. I measure the trees approximate height using a clinometer where practical, or a visual approximation if necessary. I prefer to interview the owner or responsible person in charge of the project to ascertain the construction history of the site. I will look for the evidence of other tree failures in the immediate vicinity.This can sometimes help in confirming the presence of root rotting pathogens. I may mark examined trees with a numbered aluminum tags,or flagging tape. • History of the site is often the most important information gleaned from a field observation.To know when a site was developed,when and where trenching or subsequent construction has taken place, and to learn of potential new uses for the property is crucial to forming a long-term plan to retain and improve the health of trees and shrubs on the site. Note—When working with native stands dominated by mature conifers, it is useful to note the crown classification of individual trees. Dominant and Co-Dominant trees have crowns that extend above all other vegetation.These are often, but not always, the strongest trees in a stand. Intermediate trees have crowns which extend into the Dominant crown category, but are still lower and so receive less light. Suppressed trees are overtopped by adjacent trees. Unless these suppressed trees are young and actively growing trees accustomed to shady conditions, such as Western Hemlock, Red Cedar or Vine Maple,these trees typically have short life spans. • Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 20 of 21 • WAIVER OF LIABILITY: Many factors affect a tree's health and stability that are not discernible in the course of a visual examination. These conclusions represent an opinion of a tree's health and stability at this particular point in time. This report does not guarantee the future safety of or predict future events that may affect this tree. A second opinion by a qualified assessor is always recommended. The property owner is responsible for scheduling future examinations and/or recommended maintenance. The property owner is responsible for obtaining required permits from all concerned governing bodies from federal to state,county, city,and home owner associations. The property owner is responsible for obtaining and providing all applicable codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs)that apply. The client shall hold the evaluator harmless for injuries or damages incurred if recommendations are not Deeded or for acts of nature beyond reasonable expectations such as severe winds, excessive rain, heavy snow loads, ice,earthquakes etc. • This report and all attachments, enclosures and references are confidential and intended for the use of the client referenced above.They may not be reproduced, used in any way or disseminated in any form without the consent of the client and Richard Hefley–Consulting Arborist. Richard R. Hefley OO`/�/_ �7 — Consulting Arborist 360-385-2921 rkhefley@olypen.com PO Box 177 101 Renier Road Nordland WA 98358 411 Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist Page 21 of 21 1 NSHINC 1r.LV S Ut IVE sr1Y EXTENSION r oalluu f neri:k mil Cr ergs-('sniff WSU Puvallun Diannostic Laboratory Report Plant Clinic Number: 0015 Date. 02)1912015 ctlanc Richard Hefley Submmer: Gardens by Design P.O.Box 177 101 Renter Rd. Nord land.WA 98358 county- Jefferson Agent: raster Habitat: Douglas-fir Paymem: Extension ataktY Excellent Information Quality Excellent . Enclosers*. Diagnosis by: Jenny Glass.Plant Diagnostician . Il/A Diagnosis and Recommendations: � 1, K¢i /• f Cai-s ol The Douglas fir proem appears to be associated with the disea4 lammed root rot.which is caused by the fungus, Phefknus wain. In the windblown tree that crashed into the dents garage(Douglas-fir sample M1).symptoms typical of the disease were observed on the tissue. Microscopic observation of this tistwe revealed abundant red seta)hyphae Ise.page 23 Sri oil Common Tree Diseases of British Columbia).characteristic of growth by the Limnated root rot pathogen The symptoms and signs on sample 1 compare favorably to the sample of laminated root rot in our codect,on. 'Waal microscopic observations on samples 02(closest tree to Ml I and ff5 at the furthest edge of the grove have not shown the laminated wood symptoms,nor signs of the red selal hyphae but if they are fairly close to the windblown bee.they too have a great likelihood of being infected by t is pathogen I have samples from 02 and 55 in moist chamber and wit continue to watch them to see if any evidence of the pathogen can be detected_ Refer to the PNW Plant Disease Management Handbook hiip:l.tnw'iarx)t*oolk5 errs Dlanldiseasn fir.(lx)rflac-:Vxfa,yl?_ am:nalod-roul•rot and WSU Nonsense hhp-nonsense cahres.wsu edu'Search'MamMenuW dbFacISheel asps? Ca!egorvld=18Su,CatId=38Pia'tD'efld=l 1&Problem1d=793 factsheels for more information about this disease. See also WSU Website on Laminated Root rot:htip:Next nrs.wsu edufwestryes foeesthedllh'noteslaminatedrootrot htm Laminated root rot deseased trees with advanced decay are frequently wnd thrown.Douglas fir we highly suscephbie to the disease. Laminated root rot spreads as infected roots come in contact wan healthy roots. As a result,the disease typically affects multiple trees- Disease centers develop around infected stumps and expand radiaty such that dead and downed trees occur near the center.sick and dying trees'exhibiting symptoms such as reduced height.thinning crowns,and excessive cone crops)occur further out,and trees get progressively heal t ter towards the outside of UN cede.Trees within 50 feat of the apparent edge of a disease center are very probably infected as well.but MS not show crown symptoms unto hall to 75%of the roots are infected. The fungus can remain viable in stumps and roots for many decades. ,xar,,i_.i.`„.a1cveso11r1-ss, A! 4 5,'i'i•lea!-as}�S• PwCIY.r WV'I.Rn 4.1 naf:'v'f Yit a-r! aturn'P(S-'w-'n lto-VY wYw innune%•Y w•• ru n.••■.'.Wu.nrr•••••■• 4.,ii'1• I•*'.+.-rl.is ibt.Yrh••M.•.44'• r.. ---I Nei.+. Richard R. Hefley---Consulting Arborist • • STRATUM GROUP P.O. Box 2546, Bellingham, WA 98227 Phone(360)714-9409 March 30, 2015 Scott Kaseburg 5443 Pleasant Point Lane SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: Geology Hazard Assessment Tax Parcel 601063001 Jefferson County, Washington Dear Mr. Kaseburg: It is my understanding that you plan to replace the shelter structure on the property that was crushed and destroyed by a large tree that fell on the structure. This geology hazard assessment was conducted to asses: 1)the stability of the steep slope above the proposed shelter replacement site, 2) if removing potential hazard trees will impact the stability of the slopes on or off the site, and 3) if the tree that crushed the existing shelter fell as part of a slope failure. Based on my assessment of the bluff slope, it is my opinion that risk of landslides at the site is low, but some periodic minor raveling and sloughing of surface soil should be expected along this steep shoreline bluff. Removal of the hazard trees will not impact the stability of the bluff and based on my observations is advisable as trees as clearly"poised"above the shelter location. Based on the observations I made while visiting the site,the existing shelter was destroyed by a tree that fell over. The bare ground on the slope just above the shelter appears to have been the result of soil pulled up with the roots as the tree broke free and rotated. This soil was not associated with a landslide event. GENERAL GEOLOGY The Geologic Map of the Quilcene 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Jefferson County, Washington (Conteras and others, 2014) indicates that Vashon age ice contact deposits underlie the area where the subject property is located. This unit was deposited by the Puget Ice Lobe during the last glacial period between approximately 20,000 and 14,000 years ago. The unit was deposited h contact of the glacial ice and varies from very compact to loose. Site observations are consistent with the above referenced mapping. The subject pro.- • •� J P underlain by very compact silty, sandy gravel and cobbles consistent with t - �i: t - sediments deposited beneath the glacial ice possibly as sub ice flue' G •; s. T+ unit is consistently very dense and compact at the site and in the • : •. ome older glac U FE45�N��UvEEC)P�ENj • March 30,2015 Parcel 601063001,Jefferson County,WA Geology Hazard Assessment related sediments may be present as well and are well exposed to the south. Very hard glacial till mantles the mountain side slopes above the subject property. SPECIFIC SITE OBSERVATIONS The property is located on the west shore of Dabob Bay near the entrance to Quilcene Bay north of Whitney Point. The shelter site is located on a building pad created along the shore at the base of the shoreline bluff by the placement of boulders creating a very small peninsula at the base of the shore line bluff. Access to the site is via either water or by walking along the shoreline from Whitney Point. The building area appears to be fully protected by erosion by the very large boulders that line the building area. The beach is a gravel beach with a few areas of sand and extensive oyster beds growing on the gravel substrate. The shore is in a fairly protected location from wave action. Based on site observations at the base of the shoreline slopes in the vicinity water just reaches the shoreline bluff slope on a periodic basis, but based on trees on the slopes and good resolution aerial photographs dating back to the 1970s, the shoreline bluff along this reach has a very slow retreat rate that is likely less than 1 inch per year for an overall average. A steep shoreline bluff slope is located immediately west of the shelter building area. This slope is approximately 25 feet high in total from the upper beach level and has an overall slope of approximately 75 degrees with some nearly vertical sections. The slope is underlain by very compact silty sandy gravel and cobbles. The slope just above the shelter site is presently most bare of vegetation as a result of a tree than fell from the upper edge of the slope and the roots having torn the upper soil layer away. Outside the area of bare soil the slope is covered with brush and trees with thick mats of salal in many areas. At least three trees are growing on the very upper slope of the bluff that have obtained masses such that they are likely to topple and pose a threat to the building site. There are several downed trees of various ages along the bluff in the area demonstrating that this is a common event with larger trees along this reach of shore. None of the large downed trees appear to be associated with landslides, but are simply the result of the tree becoming too large for the slope it is located on. The slope above the shoreline bluff is fairly level and is forested with a stand of fully mature second growth evergreens. Soils are well drained but very thin and underlain by very compact silty sand and gravel. Stratum Group File:3.15.15 • • March 30,2015 Parcel 601063001,Jefferson County,WA Geology Hazard Assessment CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on my visual inspection of the subject property and vicinity, I conclude that the shelter can be replaced and will not be located in a location that will be at a high risk of landslides. Some surface soil failures and soil raveling should be expected particularly during or shortly after hard freezes that will peal some soil off the bluff face. The shelter that previously was located on the site was destroyed by a falling tree. I found no evidence that the tree fell as part of a landslide. The bare ground exposed on the slope above the shelter site appears to have been the result of the tree pulling soil off the slope when it fell. As observed on the bluff slope, there are large trees that are growing on the upper slope that have obtained enough mass that they are subject to toppling and pose a threat to the proposed shelter replacement. These trees should be removed. Removal of the trees will not increase the risk of slope failures on the site or off the site. There are also a few other trees that are on the upland area above the shelter site that pose a risk to the shelter site as they are leaning, and in one case one of the trees is dead, and these trees have a lean that would likely direct a fall towards the shelter site. Removal of these trees will not impact the stability of the shoreline bluff slope. Based on my observations it would be prudent prior to reconstruction of the shelter to remove these trees. Stratum Group appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you. If conditions appear different than those described in this report, or other concerns arise, we request that we be notified so we can review those areas and modify our recommendations as required. Should you have any questions please contact our office at (360) 714-9409. Sincerely yours, ; turn Group ,1110 t$ �� k b Cam\ Digo,tl)� _ r Dan McShane, M.Sc., L.E.G. �� 1376 g;,e: Licensed Engineering Geologist / > `�' s _ DenkA MoSheree Stratum Group File:3.15.1 5 (1,soiv � CC�� JEFFERSON COUNTY iyj }-� W ' V� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �� �J in ` ••C 621 Sheridan Street • Port Townsend • Washington .• • 360/379-4450 • 360/379-4451 Fax („ C) www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopmen \'�J CV �`s37N9 - Master Permit Application MLA: I� , �2 Project Description(include s parate sheets as necessary): 'R.etM-e2Ve ar tl e '0I/s Mr- D C Tax Parcel Number: • I 0 (A3 00 Property Size: 0d7_, (acre square feet) Site Address and/or Directions to Property: 4('7 b q �D a 2-3 ll t 1ZZ° 5'( i .4 I. •9 9 p vs( ) • _ 4 r Cot tA.t.% l'�S tit lA) -Po%AT (-A Property Owner(s)of Record: SC,OTr Ka_5erto ur �V Telephone:1 25-— Z I, -Z( Co O Fax: email: K CSoS eV) U r^q Mailing Address: 5'1"f Li 3 t?lect .c r•e P • Ltd 5 COwkG0.$f j•St "- Applicant/Agent(if different from owner): F . 11,e u A/e- , W k cz(, .c7©6 Telephone: Fax: email: Mailing Address: What kind of Permit? (Check each box that applies ❑ Lot or Road Segregation OBuilding ❑Critical Areas Stewardship Plan ❑ Demolition Permit 0 Variance(Minor, Major or Rea ••-• • -• • r�a I 0 Single Family 0 Garage Attached I Detached O Conditional Use [C(a Sr• , b ❑ Manufactured Home .❑ Modular - ❑ Discretionary"D" or U ih s�s-�•r-! II I 0 Commercial` ❑Special Use(Essential Pu• i "Facilities)" ! O Change of Use ❑ Boundary Line Adjustrhe t bl ❑ Address ❑ Road Approach_ 0 Short Plat'• I,-.', AUG - 5 2015 0 Home Business ❑ Cottage Industry O Binding Site Plan" 11 ❑Propane ❑ Long Plat" . a `❑'Sign ❑Plarinea Rurai Residential D ; Ce1r �Rlpyhendments ❑Allowed"Yes'Use Consistency Analysis 0 Plat Vacation/Alteration*' t r �INrn 1� • cT O Stormwater Management 0 Shoreline Master ProgramEiernigi Pern1tfRewsions'" ❑Site Plan Approval Advance Determination(SPAAD)* ❑Shoreline Management Substantial Development** ❑Temporary Use 0 Shoreline Management Variance ❑Wireless Telecommunication' El Comprehensive Plan/UDC/Land Use District Map Amendment 17 Forest Practices Act/Release of Six-Year Moratorium ❑,Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Amendment ' May require a Pre-Applrcaflon Conference Tree Vegetation Request "Requires a Pre-Application Conference Please Identify any other local, state or federal permits required for this proposal, if known: DESIGNATION OF AGENT I hereby designate // to act as my agent in matters relating to this application for permit(s). OWNER SIGNATURE ��'/ ! L�_� Date: 1467 S'• By signing this application form, the owner/agent attests that the information provided herein,and in any attachments,is true and correct to the best of j his,her or its knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with respect to this application packet may result in this permit being null and void. I further agree to save,indemnity and hold harmless Jefferson County against all liabilities,judgments,court costs,reasonable attorney's fees and expenses which may in any way accrue against Jefferson County as a result of or in consequence of the granting of this permit. I further agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its employees,representatives or agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required later ins•= tons. Staffs -ccess and right of entry will be assumed unless the applicant informs the County in writing at the time of the application - or ,- wants pri`otice. Signature: i.I, La!1 •i.�■ — Date: /ZOO/t The action or actions Applicant will undertake as a r- ult of the issuance of this permit may negatively impact upon one or more threatened or endangered species and could lead to a potential"take"of an endangered species as those terms are defined in the federal law known as the "Endangered Species Acr or"ESA."Jefferson County makes no assurances to the applicant that the actions trial will be undertaken because this permit has been issued will not violate the ESA Any individual,group or agency can file a lawsuit on behalf of an endangered species regarding your action(s)even if you are in co pli nce with,. Jefferson County development code.The Applicant acknowledges that he,she or it holds individual and non-transferab --•o -i•' ty for ad/ mg to and complying with the ESA. The Applicant has read this disclaii ear and swig and dates it below. ' do.,Signature: . ./ do., ! Z j Z CO 1 T.— • • r ON coo JEFFERSON COUNTY • 2- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Sireet' Port Townsend, WA 98368!Web:www.co.ietterson.wa.uslcommunilydevelopment ff. is , I Tel:360.379.4450IFax:360.379.4451 Email.dcd(dco.jefterson.wa.us 14'1.i/NG.CO Building Permits&Inspections(Development Consistency Re n i Long Range Planning/Watershed Stewardship Resource Center Tree/Vegetation Supplemental Application MLA# /� PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: S [T K.cL5€_to f j'_ Submittal Requirements �V [%taster land use application (MLA) (f,]"Stormwater calculation sheet [ trApplication fee ( $ ase ) (Site plan Z [ ] Photographs of request (two sets) ( Special report submittee(ii geotechnical repor}' rborist report))s --t- " >� , 1<6 ",,,,f— [ ] Home Owners Association request packetlCC&Rs (if applicable) Nature/reason of request: 'Re-wt a V 6-V`e-vl -1:::.aA-t.v vs -TI`+°o S re co W1 hn Din cL (no. °Q c -2 i'7 0 c- r (sT 1`ee o.rT dup. Tb C vTt)P42._ Ula. -Nn t o ,e cu-4 S T r-ut c_TIA. .e..0 q V\' i Pub -- J �J . • • ¢-0N -c JEFFERSON COUNTY �� W �.o A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i.. 621 Sheridan Street • Port Townsend • Washington 98368 ys, cO 360/379-4450 . 360/379-4451 Fax KING http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ Stormwater Calculation Worksheet MLA# PROJECT/APPLICANT NAME: SCOTT KASEBURG DETERMINING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS: This stormwater calculation worksheet should be completed first to classify the proposal as"small," "medium," or"large." The size determines whether a Stormwater Site Plan is required in conjunction with a stand-alone stormwater management permit application, building permit application, or other land use approval application that involves stormwater review. The basic information will also be helpful for completing a Stormwater Site Plan, if required. • PARCEL SIZE (I.E., SITE) Size of parcel _0.12 acres An acre contains 43,560 square feet. Multiply the acreage by this figure. Size of parcel in square feet_5268 sq/ft Land-disturbing activity is any activity that results in movement of earth, or a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to clearing, grading, filling, excavation, and compaction associated with stabilization of structures and road construction. Native vegetation is vegetation comprised on plant species, other than noxious weeds, that are indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Examples include species such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big-leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, salmonberry, and salal: herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed. LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY, CONVERSION OF NATIVE VEGETATION, AND VOLUME OF CUT/FILL Calculate the total area to be cleared, graded,filled, Answer the following two questions related to excavated, and/or compacted for proposed development conversion of native vegetation: project. Include in this calculation the area to be cleared for: Does the project convert%acres or more of Construction site for structures 0_sq/ft native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? Drainfield, septic tank, etc. 0_sq/ft Circle: Yes No Well, utilities,etc. 0_ sq/ft Does the project convert 2 '/2 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Driveway, parking, roads, etc. 0 sq/ft Circle: Yes No Lawn, landscaping, etc. 0_ sq/ft Other compacted surface, etc. 0 sq/ft Indicate Total Volumes of Pr• • • x•10 g\r- ` Total Land Disturbance 0 sq/ft Cut 0 I �Ji (cu/yd)\\. ,r' [over] F L Kaseburg Quilcene--stormwater calc worksheel bac-REV.7/25/2015 - 1 • • Impervious surface is a hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A hard surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. STORMWATER CALULATIONS–IMPERVIOUS SURFACE NEW EXISTING Structures (all roof area) 0 sq/ft Structures (all roof area) 413 sq/ft Sidewalks 0 sq/ft Sidewalks 0 sq/ft Patios 0 sq/ft Patios 0 sq/ft Solid Decks 0 sq/ft Solid Decks 0 sq/ft (without infiltration below) (without infiltration below) Driveway, parking, roads, etc 0 sq/ft Driveway, parking, roads, etc 0 sq/ft Other 0 sq/ft Other 0 sq/ft Total New 0 sq/ft Total Existing 413 sq/ft TOTAL NEW+TOTAL EXISTING* 413 sq/ft 'This amount will be used to check total lot PA,, rOfl The following questions will help determine whether the proposed project is considered development or redevelopment. DEVELOPMENT v. REDEVELOPMENT Divide the total existing impervious surface above by the size of the parcel and convert to a percentage: 8 % Does the site have 35%or more of existing impervious surface? Circle: Yes No FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS: If the answer is yes, the proposal is considered redevelopment and the attached Figure 2 should be used to determine the applicable Minimum Requirements. If the answer is no, the proposal is considered new development and the attached Figure 1 should be used. At this juncture, the applicant should refer to the applicable Flow Chart to determine the Minimum Requirements for stormwater management. DCD staff will help verify the classification of the project and the application requirements. For proponents of "small" projects who must comply only with Minimum Requirement #2—Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention—an additional submittal is not required. The proponent is responsible for employing the 12 Elements to control erosion and prevent sediment and other pollutants from leaving the site during the construction phase of the project. Pick up the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Best Management Practices (BMPs) Packet. Proponents of"medium" projects—those that must meet only Minimum Requirements #1 through #5—and for "large" projects—those that must meet all 10 Minimum Requirements—are required to submit a Stormwater Site Plan. DCD has prepared a submittal template of a Stormwater Site Plan, principally for rural residential projects. Complete the template in the Stormwater Site Plan Instructions and Submittal Template or prepare a Stormwater Site Plan using the step-by-step guidance in the Stormwater Management Manual. APPLICANT SIGNATURE By signing the Stormwater Calculation Worksheet, I as the applicant/owner attest that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowled•-. I also certify that this application is being made with the full knowledge and consent of all owners of the affecte. .roperty. 1 _7/26/15 (LANDOWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESE �• rNATURE) (DATE) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SMALL MEDIUM LARGE REDEVELOPMENT Stormwater Site Plan: Yes No Kaseburg Ouilcere—storrrwaler cat woiksheel.doc—REV 7/25/2015 Parcel Details Page 1 of 2 `4 411"Itk iefferson Cour pit .._^ .z . ,Z, s w ". atabase Tools „' N psi. "' �7ebcam Home County Info Departments Search Parcel Number: 601063001 SEARCH Parcel Number: 601063001 Printer Friendly Owner Mailing Address: SCOTT KASEBURG 5443 PLEASURE PT LN SE j is- ���`Y1SZ BELLEVUE WA98006-2637 l�-! ! �/ /�J�J Site Address: Section: 6 School District: Brinnon (46) Qtr Section: SW1/4 Fire Dist: Brinnon (4) Township: 26N Tax Status: Taxable Range: 1W Tax Code: 0441 Planningarea: Brinnon (11) Sewer: Drainage: Bank: View 1: View 2: Zoning 1: RR-5 - Rural Residential Zoning 2: Zoning 3: Sub Division: Assessor's Land Use Code: 9800 - Garages, Outbuildings, Other Imps Property Description: S6 T26 R1W TAX 1 Tax, A/V, Sales, Photos,and l Permit Data Bldo Data Map Parcel lats&Surve s Info Man Se.tiitorin. Inf Ili Jefferson County °rxp HOME I COUNTY INFO I DEPARTMENTS I SEA SEA12500,�;- Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later Windows - Mac _ 5 L315 RSON COO° e�FNZ 1CFE n41YFV DF`lF1 1 OEP� http://www.co.j efferson.wa.us/assessors/parcel/parceldetail.asp?value°601063001 8/5/2015 • 37 0 x L m a m TI 0 z m co Z. 0 DJ Z o CO O p C Z I- 06 n 17 '-43 3 m n m 1/4).-1 V n Z z .J fn Z { H ^ T D_ O D H z r m O � Cn O) Ur cN n (A) . L P. Z cam ~ r G AdOO toloisn • • 10 • o G Pc IAA LS - OOo Sea E vLc S vt-l� CLPQ ttc—ccTl CA. l o-us ?i °s I ltCv`mc,v l £ (W¢. trn ECEIIVE - i I i fl -AUG = 5 2015—ill • JLFFL LJNUUOUMY OFPT,OF COMMUNITY DPP(IPM[NT