Ecologist defends wetland delineation and says mitigation will yield a net functional gain
Loading...
Summary
Senior ecologist Ryan Kahlo testified that October delineations followed Corps guidance using primary and secondary hydrology indicators, that disputed data points do not meet wetland criteria, and that the mitigation plan (including converting low‑functioning lawn to native plantings and open‑graded docks) yields a net functional gain exceeding impacts.
Ryan Kahlo, a senior ecologist testifying for the project, told the hearing that the wetland delineation and rating work complied with Corps of Engineers methodology and used primary and secondary hydrology indicators appropriate for late‑October fieldwork.
Kahlo said reliance on secondary indicators is standard where surface evidence is limited: "We applied secondary indicators consistently throughout the site," he testified. He said a WETS three‑month wetness index classified October 2023 as "normal" for the region and that October delineations are allowable under federal guidance.
On contested field data points, Kahlo disputed claims that DP9 or DP13 should be reclassified as wetlands. He noted that while DP9 shows a Sandy Redox soil indicator, it lacked hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology indicators and therefore cannot be treated as wetland. For DP13 he pointed to a nearby geotechnical boring collected 09/03/2024 that encountered groundwater about three feet below ground surface on that date and noted that lake elevation at that time was approximately 20.86 ft; he argued those measurements do not indicate wetland hydrology in the upper 12 inches where hydrology indicators are evaluated.
Kahlo also addressed the wetland rating and the Department of Ecology 303(d) polygon question: he said he verified with Ecology staff that the project wetlands do not directly discharge to a 303(d) polygon in a way that would alter the rating, and therefore the wetlands remain Category 3 and are subject to the buffer applied in the staff recommendation.
On mitigation, Kahlo walked the examiner through Exhibit 10's mitigation table and said temporary construction impacts to existing low‑functioning lawn areas would be restored and enhanced with native tree, shrub and herbaceous planting. He testified the plan shows a net mitigation surplus: "When we look holistically ... the mitigation areas exceed the impact areas by 5,243 square feet," Kahlo said. He also argued replacing existing docks with a consolidated dock using 62% open‑graded decking and steel piles reduces effective overwater cover and water‑quality threats; he gave a ballpark net reduction in true overwater cover of about 909 sq ft after accounting for open grading.
Kahlo described mitigation sequencing as avoidance, minimization and compensatory restoration and said a five‑year monitoring and maintenance program with performance standards proposed in the mitigation plan will verify native survival, cover objectives and invasive species control. He recommended fencing and signage around particularly sensitive zones (wetlands A and C) while using signs/logs and targeted fences to protect restoration areas without entirely blocking public shoreline access.
On biological evaluation and Endangered Species Act procedure, Kahlo cautioned that a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" finding in a BE is not the same determiner as a SEPA significant‑adverse impact; federal agencies prepare biological opinions that determine whether a project would jeopardize listed species or habitat.
The hearing recessed to continue the record on subsequent days.
