HomeMy WebLinkAbout69- Appellant Ex 10 Diane Brewster Report1
Pomona Woods Proposal Evaluation Touchstone EcoServices
September 23, 2022
To: Bricklin and Newman September 23, 2022
From: Diane Brewster, Wetland Biologist
Subject: Pomona Woods MLA21-00066—ZON21-00040
At the request of Bricklin & Newman LLP, Touchstone EcoServices (TES) reviewed the following exhibits as they
pertain to critical areas:
EXH. 48 SEPA Checklist, revised August 22, 2002
EXH. 49 Critical Areas Report for Pomona Woods LLC, by Wet.land LLC, July 22, 2022
EXH. 50 Upland Restoration Memo for Pomona Woods, by Wet.land LLC, July 22, 2022
EXH. 53 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Staff Report Addendum, August 31,
2022
Documented wetland characteristics and conditions were reviewed in accordance with:
2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual; Western Mountains,
Valleys, and Coastal Region (version 2)
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, 2014 Update, publication #14-06-029
(2015)
Comments in this letter address the critical area reports, wetland rating forms, and the proposed Pomona Woods
development.
Wetland A rating used the wrong hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class rating form
The way a wetland functions depends largely on its hydrologic and geomorphic conditions. As a result, wetlands
have been grouped into categories based on its geomorphic (position in the landscape) and hydrologic (how water
moves through the wetland) characteristics that control many functions performed a wetland. In the Washington
State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, a classification key was created to help identity which
hydrogeomorphic class a wetland falls in. Wetlands may be Tidal Fringe, Lake Fringe, Slope, Riverine, Slope, or
Depressional.
All wetland in and adjacent to the proposed development are either depressional or slope. Slope wetlands occur
on hill or valley slopes where water runs on or immediately below the ground surface. Waters in slope wetlands
flow only in one directions – downslope, lack any signs of a defined streambed with banks, lacks surface flows
coming into the wetland via channels, have only a few very small and very shallow depressions, and water exits
the wetland without being impounded in any way.
Depressional wetlands occur in topographic depressions where the elevation of the ground within the wetland is
lower than the surrounding landscape. The movement of surface water and shallow subsurface water is always
toward the lowest point in the depression. A depressional wetland may have an outlet, but the lowest point in the
wetland is somewhere within the boundary, and not at the outlet. If a wetland has surface ponding, even if only
for a short time, and it is not immediately adjacent to a lake or river, it can be classified as depressional.
Page 8 of Exh. 49 Critical Areas Report (Section 3.3.2 Wetlands) states that Wetland A is located within a surface
depression. This is different from the other three evaluated wetlands that were described as being located on
sloped topography. Figure 5 in Appendix B of the Critical Areas Report shows that Wetland A may have two HGM
classes: 1) Depressional class as described in Section 3.3.2 in the report Critical Areas Report and 2) Slope class as
Exhibit 69 Page 0877
Exhibit 69
2
Pomona Woods Proposal Evaluation Touchstone EcoServices
September 23, 2022
shown by the Figure 5 topography map. It should be noted that unless the topography shown in Figure 5 was
done by a qualified land surveyor, it is likely that the topography map is not exact and that Wetland A may be
simply a Depressional wetland.
In any case, Wet.land did not correctly fill out the HGM classification pages (pp. 3-4 in the rating form in Appendix
F in Exh. 49) for the Wetland A rating form. They indicate that slope wetland criteria is met, but do not continue
through the rest of the listed hydrogeomorphic classes as required in Ecology’s methodology. If they had
completed this section, they would have also included the depressional class based on their written description in
Section 3.3.2 of their report. For wetlands that have multiple HGM classifications, Ecology’s rating instructions
state that wetlands with both slope and depressional features should be rated using the depressional rating forms
(see the table in page 4 of the Wetland A rating form in Exh. 49 Appendix F).
Wetland A was erroneously rated using the same ‘Slope’ rating form as the other three wetlands. Based on
Wet.land’s description, Wetland A should have been rated using the ‘Depressional’ rating form.
This is important because Slope wetlands typically have lower rating scores than do Depressional wetlands due to
the higher number of wetland characteristics that occur in depressional wetlands, but not slope wetlands. For
instance, 11 wetland characteristics pertaining to water quality function are evaluated in the depressional rating
form vs. the 8 characteristics evaluated in the slope rating form. Likewise, 8 wetland characteristics pertaining to
hydrologic function are evaluated in the depressional rating form vs. the 4 characteristics evaluated in the slope
rating form.
It is important to use the correct rating form in order to accurately assess the functions provided by Wetland A
and determine the appropriate buffer width required by Jefferson County code.
For all wetlands, questions in Section S 3.0 (water quality function) in the Ecology rating form were
not answered correctly regarding water quality improvement provided by the wetlands.
This water quality section has three questions that ask:
1.Does the wetland discharge directly (within 1 mile) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the
303(d) water quality list?
2.Is the wetland in a base or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list?
3.Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan for maintaining water quality (answer yes if there
is a TMDL for the basin in which the wetland is found)?
The Ecology rating form (see page 2 of form) also requires the inclusion of two figures that are an integral part of
answering the questions in Section 3.3. Figures required include:
1.screen capture of a map showing 303(d) listed waters in the subbasin in which the wetland is found
2.screen capture of the lists of TMDLs for the WRIA in with the wetland is found
Wet.land answered ‘no’ to all three of the Section S 3.0 questions for all four wetlands they evaluated (see
Appendix F). They did not provide the required figures to support their answers. They did provide a figure (Figure
C in Appendix F) showing a map from the Puget Sound Nutrient Source Reduction Project that indicates the Puget
Sound area immediately downstream of the Pomona Woods site has been identified in a plan for maintaining
water quality. While this figure indicates that question 3 in Section 3.0 requires a ‘yes’ answer for all four
evaluated wetlands, Wet.land answered this question as ‘no’ for all wetlands.
Exhibit 69 Page 0878
3
Pomona Woods Proposal Evaluation Touchstone EcoServices
September 23, 2022
TES did look up the two required screen captures (see Attachment A). These figures show that each of evaluated
wetlands required a ‘yes’ answer for question 2 (shown above). Wetlands D and E also require a ‘yes’ answer for
question 1 because they discharge directly within less than a mile to Puget Sound. All four wetlands require a ‘yes’
answer for question 2.
Correctly evaluating these questions increases the section S 3.0 water quality scores for all the wetlands. The
Ecology rating system first assigns a numeric value for answers to questions, then assigns the numberic total a
value of low, moderate, or high (as in, low functioning, moderate functioning, etc). The values are then used to fill
the chart on page 1 of the rating form.
1. Wetland A went from a score of 0 (low) to 3 (high) for Improving Water Quality Value changing the total
numeric score for Improving Water Quality Value to 6.
2. Wetland B went from a score of 0 (low) to 3 (high) for Improving Water Quality Value changing the total
numeric score for Improving Water Quality Value to 5.
3. Wetland D went from a score of 0 (low) to 4 (high) for Improving Water Quality Value changing the total
numeric score for Improving Water Quality Value to 5.
4. Wetland E went from a score of 0 (low) to 3 (high) for Improving Water Quality Value changing the total
numeric score for Improving Water Quality Value to 5.
For Wetland E, question S 1.3 (water quality function potential) in the Ecology rating form was not
answered correctly.
Figure A in Appendix G of the Critical Areas Report (Exh. 49) clearly states the Wetland E has greater than 90%
cover of dense, uncut, herbaceous plants, but that option was not chosen in the rating form. When the answer to
question S 1.3 in the Wetland E rating form is revised to reflect this the score for Improving Water Quality Site
Potential changes from a score of 2 (low) to 6 (moderate). This change, along with the Improved Water Quality
Value change discussed in the section above, changes Wetland E’s total numeric score for Improving Water
Quality Value to 6.
For Wetland A, question S 4.1 (hydrologic Function potential) in the Ecology rating form was not
answered correctly.
The intent of question S 4.1 is to characterize how much of the wetland is covered with plants that provide a
physical barrier to sheetflow coming down the slope. This question asks for a size estimate of the area where
plants found within the wetland are dense, ungrazed, rigid plants for more than 90% of the area of the
wetland. It can include herbaceous, shrub, and tree species as long as the plants are more than 6 inches tall.
Individual plants must be spaced closely enough that the soil is barely, if at all, visible with at least > 75% of
the ground is obscured by plants. In Figure 42 on page 88 in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington they show a photograph depicting a field a reed canary grass and soft rush as an example of
what this can look like.
Based on information provided in the Critical Areas Report (Exh 49) that includes the photograph of Wetland A in
Appendix D, vegetative data recorded on Sampling Point 1 in Appendix E, and the vegetative signature shown in
the aerial photograph used in Figure 4 (see Appendix B), vegetation in this wetland has greater than 75%
Exhibit 69 Page 0879
4
Pomona Woods Proposal Evaluation Touchstone EcoServices
September 23, 2022
groundcover of dense, rigid, ungrazed emergent and shrub vegetation that covers greater than 90% of the
wetland. This changes the Wetland A question S 4.1 score from 0 (low) to 1 (moderate) and brings the total
numeric score for Hydrologic Functions to 4.
Corrections to Rating Form Scores Results in Changes to Wetland Category Ratings
While all the wetlands have some increase in their function scores, only two of them changed in their category
rating. The Wetland A rating score raised from a total of 13 to a total of 16. The corrected scores are shown in
table below. Highlighted cells show where the score rose.
Corrected Wetland A Rating Scores:
Function Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Site Potential M M L
Landscape Potential L L H
Value H L M Total
Score Based on
Ratings 6 4 6 16
The Wetland E rating score raised from a total of 13 total to a total of 16. The corrected scores are shown in table
below. Highlighted cells show where the score rose.
Corrected Wetland E Rating Scores:
Function Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Site Potential M L L
Landscape Potential L L H
Value H L H Total
Score Based on
Ratings 6 3 7 16
Wetlands A and E require a larger buffer width after ratings correction and buffer impacts due to
proposed site plan.
The buffers for Wetlands A and E are larger than presented in the Critical Areas Report. In Jefferson County Code
(JCC) Chapter 18.22.730.6d the Standard Buffer Width Table (JCC 18.22.730(1)(a)) shows buffer width
requirements for Category III wetlands that have Habitat rating scores of 6 to 7. For high intensity land use, as
proposed for Pomona Woods, the buffer requirement is 150 ft. Thus, both Wetland A and Wetland E are required
to have a 150-ft. buffer, not the 50-ft. buffer provided in the current site plan.
The wider buffer for Wetland E will be affected by the proposed access road and septic field. The wider buffer for
Wetland A will be affected by the parking area.
Wetland A was incorrectly labeled in the Appendix F Rating Forms
Wetland A was incorrectly labeled as Wetland B in Figures A and B.
Exhibit 69 Page 0880
ATTACHMENTMENT A:
Water Quality Maps and Data for Rating Form Questions S3.1 and 3.2
WRIA 17 – Puget Sound, subbasin 17110019200 (includes Puget Sound)
Source: Department of Ecology Water Quality Atlas Map at url: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/waterqualityatlas/wqa/map
Data collected Sept. 19, 2022
Figure 1: Category 5 303(d) Listed Waters in WRIA 17 – subbasin 17110019200
See Figures 2 to 5 on the following pages for details on Category 5 303(d) waters,
TMDL listings in the subbasin, and Western Washington WRIAs
Site Location
Port Townsend
Category 5 Listed
Waters (typ.)
Exhibit 69 Page 0881
Figure 2: 303(d) Listing ID 84150 - Port Townsend (Outer) Kilisut Harbor
Category 5 Listing and TMDL Details
Site Location
Exhibit 69 Page 0882
Figure 3: 303(d) Listing ID 84152 – Admiralty Inlet and Puget Sound (North)
Category 5 Listing and TMDL Details
Site Location
Exhibit 69 Page 0883
Figure 4: 303(d) Listing ID 40319 – Admiralty Inlet and Puget Sound (North)
Category 5 Listing and TMDL Details
Site Location
Exhibit 69 Page 0884
Source:
https://www.eopugetsound.org/articles/water-resource-inventory-areas-puget-sound
Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, from Puget Sound Institute University of Washington
Figure 5: WRIAs in Western Washington
WRIA 17
Exhibit 69 Page 0885