Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout821333014 Habitat Assessment Letter of Determination June 8th, 2021 Re: Critical Area Determination Carl Peterson PO Box 643 Chimacum, WA 98325 Parcel # 821333014 Jefferson County To Whom It May Concern, This letter is in reference to a Critical Habitat Area determination conducted by Marine Surveys & Assessments (MSA) on raw land Parcel #821333014 in Port Ludlow, WA. The surveyed parcel is located in Section 33, Township 28N, Range 1E, and is owned by Carl Peterson. This parcel is 3.67 acres in size and is zoned as RR-5 - Rural Residential. On May 26th, 2021 a habitat survey and stream determination was performed by MSA Wetland Specialist and Wildlife Biologist, Jill Cooper. No stream or any other Critical Habitat Areas were found on or near the parcel. The weather conditions during the site visit on May 26th were clear, with a light breeze and a temperature of approximately 55° Fahrenheit. Showers had occurred earlier that morning. Property Description Parcel #821333014 is located north of HW 104 and west of Teal Lake Road in Port Ludlow, WA. The Squamish Harbor, Puget Sound is located approximately 0.15 miles south of the property (Figure 1). In the center of the parcel, the topography is generally flat and has been both historically and recently cleared. A gravel driveway (Figure 2) which gives access from Teal Lake Road into the cleared area existed prior to the purchase of the property by Carl Peterson. Other than the clearing and gravel driveway, the parcel is entirely undeveloped. On the north side of the clearing, the land slopes steeply upwards at an approximate 45% slope and is entirely covered in brush, with a transition to conifer forest at the top of the slope. On the south side of the clearing the land slopes steeply downward through conifer forest to a private drive at an approximately 75% slope. On the western side of the parcel there is a vegetated area with bushes and some trees which slopes gently down to the neighboring residential property. On the eastern side of the clearing there is a steep ravine that runs roughly northeast to southwest along the property border. This ravine then continues south of Teal Lake Road, ending on the north side of highway 104. A thorough search of the entire parcel was conducted, however the majority of the Critical Habitat Area survey was focused on the ravine, since it is where a Type F stream is located based on the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) GIS online maps. Pre and Post Research MSA biologist Jill Cooper conducted pre and post survey research to determine potential critical areas on and off site that could be affected by future development on the parcel. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) online mapping tool did not show any wildlife species of concern on, or near the site, with the closest species of concern being located in the waters of the Squamish Harbor (Figure 5). The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) GIS mapper, and the DNR online stream mapper both showed a Type F stream located just east of the Peterson parcel, running roughly north to south and emptying into the Squamish Harbor (Figures 3 & 4). Project Description Carl Peterson purchased the property earlier in the year and intends to adjust the property lines to create two separate parcels, based on the non-standard shape and topography. A house would be built on each parcel, once divided. A septic company has dug six septic test pits in the cleared area, all of which were observed to be completely dry to the bottom at the time of the survey, even after recent rains. Mr. Peterson has been in touch with Jefferson County regarding the property line adjustment and had walked the property with an official from the county who had advised him to get the property surveyed by a Geotechnical Engineer, as well as have a separate survey done by a Biologist. Both Mr. Peterson and the county official thought the ravine running along the southeastern property line is a good candidate for a stream re-typing because it is currently typed as a fish bearing stream (Type F), and no evidence of an actual stream exists based on their observations. Vegetation Observed During Survey The majority of the vegetation in and around the clearing in the middle of the Peterson parcel consists of Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius), non-native grasses (Poacea sp.), Cat’s Ear (Hypochaeris radicata), Mosses, and hard-pan/gravel substrate. The vegetated area of land to the west of the clearing includes Nootka Rose (Rosa nutkana), Scotch Broom (C. scoparius), Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Trailing Blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Cat’s Ear (H. radicata), non-native grasses (Poacea sp.), and Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum). The slopes above and below the clearing (to the north and south) include Scotch Broom (C. scoparius), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and Pacific Madrona (Arbutus menziesii). The ravine, where the supposed Type F stream is mapped, consists of upland vegetation all the way to its base. These species include Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum) - FACU1, Salal (Gaultheria shallon) - FACU, Evergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) - FACU, Indian Plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) - FACU, Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemose) - FACU, Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) - FAC, Red Huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium) - FACU, Red Alder (Alnus rubra) - FAC, Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica) - FAC, Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) - FACU, Pacific Dogwood (Cornus nuttallii) - FACU, Douglas Fir (P. menziesii) - FACU, Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata) - FAC, and Beaked Hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) - FACU. In the flatter land above the ravine there was Oregon Grape (Mahonia nervosa) - FACU, Herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) - FACU, and Bracken Fern (P. aquilinum) - FACU. On the south side of Teal Lake Road, within the continuation of the ravine and extending down to the area bordering the north side of Highway 104, the vegetation consists of Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) - FACU, Salal (G. shallon) - FACU, Sword Fern (P. munitum) - FACU, Oregon Grape (M. nervosa) - FACU, Beaked Hazelnut (C. cornuta) - FACU, Douglas Fir (P. menziesii) - FACU, Red Alder (A. rubra) - FAC, Himalayan Blackberry (R. armeniacus) - FAC, English Ivy (Hedera helix) - FACU, and Bracken Fern (P. aquilinum) - FACU. 1 OBL – Obligate Wetland Species, FACW – Facultative Wetland Species, FAC – Facultative Species, FACU – Facultative Upland Species, UPL – Obligate Upland Species. (Plants classified according to the Fish and Wildlife Service; 1988, 1993) Survey of Ravine & Stream Investigation The ravine that runs along the southeastern border of the Peterson parcel is approximately 100 feet wide at the shoulder, and 10-20 feet wide at the base. The southeast shoulder of the ravine borders Teal Lake Road, and the northwest shoulder of the ravine roughly follows the southeast property border of the Peterson parcel (Figure 2). The ravine slopes gently upward to the northeast at an approximate ~10% slope, then abruptly slopes up at its terminus (~75% slope) to the neighbor’s driveway located off Teal Lake Road. No culverts were found in this location, and the area north of the neighbor’s driveway was not investigated. Within the ravine several test pits were dug down to 16 inches. Dry soils were found within all test pits. These soils contained an abundance of light fluffy organic material. There was no visible water table and no saturation. The groundcover had a thick layer of fir needles and leaf debris. There were no signs of hydrology at the base of the ravine; no scour marks, no exposed gravel or cobble, no evidence of wrack, no algal matting, and no staining or waterlines were observed. Bankfull width measurements of the channel were not taken because with the lack of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) or bank, there was no discernable place to measure width from. On the other side of the same ravine (the southeast side, just east of the Peterson driveway, still north of Teal Lake Road) a culvert was located and was found to be oriented as if it goes under Teal Lake Road (Figure 2). This culvert was almost entirely buried, with only 7 inches of height left between the top of the soil and the top of the culvert. The width of the exposed portion of the culvert was 18 inches. A sword fern (P. munitum) – FACU grew at the mouth of the culvert, and a soil test pit revealed light fluffy soil without any saturation down to 16 inches. On Teal Lake Road itself, no culverts are marked, however a second culvert was discovered on the south side of the road where the ravine continues (Figure 2). This culvert was located on the northern slope of the ravine continuation. It was 2 feet in diameter, but only 14 inches above the ground remained open, with the bottom portion of the culvert covered in a thick layer of soil. A test pit was dug in front of this culvert and the soil was found to be dry, fluffy, light, brown, with no signs of saturation or hydrology down to 16 inches. Blue flagging tape was found tied to a Red Alder tree above the culvert location. Directly in front of the culvert grew English ivy (H. helix) – FACU, and Oregon Grape (M. nervosa) – FACU, along with Salmonberry (R. spectabilis) – FAC, Evergreen Huckleberry (V. ovatum) – FACU, and Salal (G. Shallon) – FACU growing nearby. On the south side of this ravine, a third culvert is located on the north side of highway 104, and running under the highway to the south (Figure 2). This culvert is 2 feet wide in diameter, unblocked, and made of corrugated metal. The soil and vegetation directly in front of the culvert was similar to the other two described above. No evidence of hydrology or water staining was observed in or around the culvert. The soil types documented in the area by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are CaC — Carlsborg gravelly loamy sand (0-15 percent slopes), and CaD — Carlsborg gravelly loamy sand (15 to 30 percent slopes) with a parent material of alluvium and/or glacial outwash. The drainage class is described as “somewhat excessively drained” and the available water capacity is “very low” (Figure 6). Because no evidence of a Type F stream was discovered, or any stream, MSA Biologists reached out to DNR Forest Practice Forester, Ross Goodwin, for advice regarding the potential for re-typing the stream shown on DNR and NWI maps. Mr. Goodwin responded via email stating that he had observed similar dry conditions south of highway 104 in the same channel and advised that it is likely a good candidate for removal of typing. It is MSA’s opinion that there is ample buildable area available in the dry clearing on the Peterson parcel, and there are no nearby critical areas. A DNR Water Type Modification Form is being submitted to the DNR in tandem with this Critical Area Determination Letter, which has been generated for review by Jefferson County. Sincerely, Jill Cooper Wetland Specialist / Wildlife Biologist Marine Surveys & Assessments Figures and Attachments Figure 1. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 6 Figure 2. Site Map............................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetland Map ............................................ 8 Figure 4. DNR Stream Map ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 5. WDFW Priority Habitat & Species (PHS) Map .................................................. 9 Figure 6. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils Map Data .................... 10 Attachment 1. Site Photos Attachment 2. DNR Stream Modification Form Figure 1. Vicinity Map Hood Canal Bridge Peterson Parcel Figure 2. Site Map Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetland Map Figure 4. DNR Stream Map Figure 5. WDFW Priority Habitat & Species (PHS) Map Figure 6. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils Map Data Attachment 1. Site Photos Photo facing north on Teal Lake Road, Peterson parcel & driveway Same driveway, facing south (towards Teal Lake Road) Peterson cleared lot, facing west Same lot, still facing west, showing closer view of septic test pits Dry septic test pit in cleared lot Slope on north side of Peterson Lot Same lot, facing east, toward ravine where Typed channel is located Upland vegetation at base of ravine Vegetation on slope of ravine Soil test plots at base of ravine (to 16” below surface) Partially buried culvert located in ravine on north side of Teal Lake Rd, just east of Peterson driveway View of Teal Lake Road in between ravine sections (no culvert marked on road) Ravine section south of Teal Lake Road (facing HW 104, in background) Soil test pits at base of ravine, south of Teal Lake Road Ravine bottom with dry test pit, facing HW 104 Partially buried culvert on south side of Teal Lake Road (on north slope of ravine) Blue flagging on Alder, indicating location of same culvert 3-foot diameter culvert under HW 104 Attachment 2. Stream Modification Form February 2021- WTMF WATER TYPE MODIFICATION FORM (For changes to the Water Type Map) Proponent Name and Organization Proponent/Organization Address Telephone Number Email Address Surveyor Name(s) and Organization Surveyor/Organization Address Same as Proponent Telephone Number Email Address Landowner Name Landowner Address Same as Proponent Telephone Number Email Address Landowner Notified: Yes No Check Applicable Boxes: Adding Typed Wates Changing Water Type Removing Typed Waters Changing Location of Typed Waters Other; Describe: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ (1)Water Segment ID (2)Name of Water (3)Tributary To (4)Legal Description (Section, Township, Range E/W) (5)County (6)Water Type Shown on Map (7)Proposed Water Type (8)Date(s) of Field Assessment (9a) Forest Practices Application (9b) Enforcement Document Yes No Number: _____________________ Yes No Number: _____________________________ (10)Change is based on the following (check all that apply): Water type does not meet WAC 222-16-031 definition. Describe: __________________________________________________ Survey Method: Electrofishing Protocol Survey (attach survey information) ID Team (attach Informal Conference Note) Visual Observation Random Measurements Incremental Measurements Physical Characteristics Fish Found Yes No List Species (if known): _________________________________________________ Channel is a Public Water Diversion Distance from Diversion: _______________________________________________ Water Right Reference Number: _________________________________________ Channel is a Fish Hatchery Diversion Hatchery Name: ______________________________________________________ Distance from Hatchery: ________________________________________________ Region Reference Number- DNR Use Only Region WRIA Year Number Received Date February 2021- WTMF (11) Water Levels in the Survey Area were: Above Normal Normal Below Normal YesWas there a drought warning issued by DNR? No If yes, describe how stream flows and fish use determinations were unaffected by drought conditions (attach pictures and other relevant information). (12) Channel Characteristics (Use Stream Tally sheet for multiple stream segments). Per WAC 222-16-031(6)(f), proponents of water typing changes are expected to provide at least 10 evenly spaced measurement points along the stream channel over a representative section of at least 500 feet. Number of Bankfull Width Measurements* _________ Average Bankfull Width ____________ Average Gradient _____________ Average Wetted Width ______________ Number of Protocol Pools _________________ Ponds and Impoundments > 0.5 acre Yes No *If at least 10 evenly spaced BFW measurements were not provided, describe why here: (13) Water Type Break was determined by (check all that apply; use Stream Tally sheet for multiple stream segments): Electrofishing Protocol Survey (attach survey information) Last Fish detected: show on map F/N Type Break: show on map End of Harvest or Property Boundary Uppermost Point of Perennial Flow (describe in Block 16) Last Fish Observed Upper Extent of Fish Habitat Physical Characteristics Other: Provide a description of water type break, and how it was marked in the field: Do Type F physical characteristics occur above surveyed segment? Yes No (14) Are there any fish passage barriers downstream of the surveyed stream segment(s)? No. Continue to Block 15. Unable to Access Yes Natural Barrier Type: Falls Cascades Bedrock Chutes Other: _______________________________________ Length: ______________ Height: _____________ Width:_______________ Gradient: __________________ Temporary Barrier Describe: __________________________________________________________________________ Manmade Barrier Describe: __________________________________________________________________________ Fish Observed Above the Barrier? Yes No Fish Passage Barriers were Identified by: Maps; specify: ___________________________ Field Observations Describe Location of Barrier(s) Downstream: (15) Is there evidence of recent mass wasting (filling in the stream channel) or scouring events? No Yes; estimate when the event occurred: ________________________________________________________________ Describe how this affected current stream channel conditions and fish distribution in the stream: (16) Provide any additional clarifying information and list attachments (survey cards, photos of type break, field notes, expert report, stationing, etc).