Expert says wetland ratings and mitigation fall short; warns project risks 'no net loss'

Rachel Hyland, an associate principal and managing senior environmental scientist at Soundview Consultants (part of Trinity Consultants), told the hearing examiner she found multiple technical problems in the project's wetland and critical-area documentation that, taken together, mean the record does not demonstrate compliance with the shoreline master program's no-net-loss standard.

Hyland said she identified scoring errors in the wetland ratings used in the project's delineation report, including an undercount of water-quality function because Lake Washington is listed as an impaired water on the state Water Quality Atlas. "When you bump that score up," she said, "you move a wetland from a category 3 to a category 2 and that typically increases the buffer from 75 feet to 100 feet." She said similar adjustments to the habitat score would increase some buffers further.

Hyland testified she also found inconsistencies on data forms and a site visit conducted in a dry part of the year. Several data points recorded hydric soils or wetland vegetation without concurrently documenting hydrology. "Those two indicators commonly trigger a follow-up growing-season visit," Hyland said, adding that a spring revisit and deeper soil pits (about 24 inches) are routine when hydrology is uncertain. She pointed to an image showing wetland species near a flagged data plot and said secondary indicators (geomorphic position and the facultative-neutral test) were enough to justify further field work.

On mitigation accounting, Hyland said the project's combined critical-area table improperly aggregated different resource types (shoreline, stream, wetland and buffers) and double-counted mitigation in multiple rows. Hyland said the plans show 3,895 square feet of proposed new overwater impact while restoring about 2,200 square feet from removal of existing overwater structures, leaving roughly 1,695 square feet of net impact below ordinary high water that was not specifically mitigated in a like-for-like way. She added that the applicant took credit for restoration or enhancement in places that are not directly compensatory for those impacts and assumed 1:1 crediting where higher replacement ratios are commonly required.

"In my professional opinion," Hyland testified, "I cannot come to a calculation that says that they have no net loss." She recommended specific revisions before the hearing examiner approves permits: revise the wetland ratings where the Water Quality Atlas and habitat interspersion indicate higher scores; perform a growing-season field revisit and deeper soil tests at questionable data plots; re-quantify impacts without combining nonlike resources; and recalculate mitigation using appropriate replacement ratios and clear, enforceable performance standards and monitoring plans.

Hyland also criticized the proposed buffer protection measures. She said plan sheets show lawn immediately landward of Wetland B and no continuous split-rail fence or dense vegetated buffer. "Lawns do not provide an effective barrier to trampling or runoff," she said, recommending fence along the path edge and native plantings across the buffer. She warned that frequent use of a lawn area for staging or beach access would degrade wetland vegetation, reduce water-quality and habitat functions, and could ultimately require off-site mitigation or higher replacement ratios to achieve statutory goals.

Public commenters at the hearing raised related concerns. Residents cited neighborhood safety and parking overflow onto one-lane Beach Drive and urged stronger avoidance and minimization. The hearing examiner accepted Hyland's exhibit summary and marked her supplemental mitigation-accounting chart for the record. The hearing was recessed for scheduling; Hyland's cross-examination and related testimony continued in the afternoon session.