commentary on the draft shoreline analysis report -dupont washington

Commentary on the Draft Shoreline Analysis Report for the City of DuPont’sShoreline: Puget Sound

August 27, 2010

Preface

This paper offers commentary on the contents of The Watershed Company and ICFInternational July 2010 DRAFT Shoreline Analysis Report for the City of DuPont’sShoreline: Puget Sound, prepared for the City of DuPont Planning Department, DuPont,WA. It does so by citing excerpts from the Report in italics and commentary in this font.

Background and Purpose

One of the first steps of the update process is to inventory and characterize the City’sshoreline as defined by the state’s Shoreline Management Act (SMA) (RCW 90.58).

As defined by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, shorelines include certain watersof the state plus their associated shorelands. At a minimum, the waterbodiesdesignated as shorelines of the state are streams whose mean annual flow is 20 cubic feetper second (cfs) or greater, lakes whose area is greater than 20 acres, and all marinewaters.

All marine shorelines throughout Puget Sound are included under shorelinejurisdiction.

…the wetland [Brackish Marsh] is considered part of the marineshoreline waterbody (rather than an associated wetland), and the 200-foot shorelandjurisdiction extends outward from the wetland edge.

No other streams, lakes, or wetlands within the City of DuPont are considered part ofshoreline jurisdiction. [Underline of this sentence by author]

In regard to the above assertion the author of this paper disagrees for reasons cited below.

Geographic and Ecosystem Context (WRIA 11)

Sequalitchew Creek is an independent tributary to Puget Sound. Previouslythought to originate at Kinsey Marsh as Murray Creek, and flow into AmericanLake, Sequalitchew Lake and through Edmond Marsh, more recent evidenceindicates that the headwaters of Sequalitchew Creek are actually near the easternedge of Edmond Marsh near Center Drive.

This statement is incorrect. The headwater of Sequalitchew Creek has been recognizedfor many years as Kinsey Marsh. See: Williams, Laramie, Ames 1975 A Catalog ofWashington Streams and Salmon Utilization: Volume I Puget Sound Region Report.Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA. See section titled: Sequalitchew

Commentary on the Draft Shoreline Analysis Report for the City of DuPont’sShoreline: Puget Sound, by Don Russell

August 27, 2010 of 7

Creek Drainage, Tacoma Basin –WRIA 12. In this Report Kinsey Marsh is identified asthe headwater of Sequalitchew Creek. The Report cites Kinsey Marsh as being located9.6 miles above Sequalitchew Creek’s discharge into Puget Sound. [See map copiedfrom this Report in the second attachment]

Kinsey Marsh is recognized as the headwaters of Sequalitchew Creek in PierceConservation District’s June 2003 Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis,Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed WRIA 12 Report compiled by Runge, Marcantonio,Mahan.

Also see Pierce County, 1997, Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed Characterization:Report prepared by Pierce County Public Works and Utilities for Chambers-Clover CreekWatershed Management Committee.

The notion that the headwaters of Sequalitchew Creek “… are actually near the easternedge of Edmond Marsh near Center Drive.” was promulgated by consultants employedby Glacier Northwest/ CalPortland who also claim that the water in Edmond Marsh isfrom surface water runoff (another false notion, the water in Edmond Marsh is a mixtureof water from Sequalitchew Lake, groundwater discharge and precipitation).

APPENDIX A: Assessment of Shoreline Jurisdiction

In a 17 December 2009 letter to Bill Kingman, Senior Planner for the City of DuPont TheWatershed Company makes the following statement:

Ecology guidance states that the entire wetland is associated if any part of it lies withinthe area 200 feet from the OHWM (or floodway in riverine environments) of a stateshoreline. Further guidance states that wetlands that are hydraulically connected to ashoreline also would be considered associated, as well as wetlands within the 100-yearfloodplain.

In the following narrative of their Report The Watershed Company then proceeds toexclude Edmond Marsh as a wetland associated with 60 acre Sequalitchew Lake on thebasis of input from Kim Van Zwalenburg of the Department of Ecology as follows:

“In order for a wetland to be an associated wetland, it must meet the test of bothproximity and influence, meaning it must be near the shoreline waterbody and mustinfluence, or be influenced by, that waterbody (WAC 173-22). Sequalitchew CreekMarsh is clearly located within 200 feet of the lake so it meets the proximity test. It alsoappears that despite the various fills bisecting the marshes, Sequalitchew Creek Marshand Edmond Marsh are likely still connected via the peat lens which underlies the area(see [attached] Aspect Consulting Upper Sequalitchew Creek Basin Cross Section…).

The peat lens does not, however, appear to extend from Sequalitchew Creek Marsh toSequalitchew Lake. We looked at additional information in the Aspect ConsultingTechnical Memorandum: Surface and Groundwater System, dated July 21, 2004. After



reviewing the report in more detail, and in particular looking at soil logs [see attached

Aspect Consulting exhibit titled Geologic & Monitoring Well Construction Log]associated with the monitoring wells, it appears there is no peat layer at SL-1 which isadjacent to the diversion canal and the outlet weir to the lake. Thus it appears there is nodiscernable groundwater connection via undrained hydric soils. It also appears thatthere is no direct surface water connection because of the presence of the diversioncanal. [See the third attachment ] According to the report, any water coming fromEdmond Marsh and flowing toward Sequalitchew Lake is captured by the diversioncanal. Conversely, it appears all water released from the lake also flows down thediversion canal. Absent evidence of a hydrologic connection, the test of “influence” isnot met.

Lacking evidence that there is both proximity and influence shown between the marshsystem and Sequalitchew Lake, we believe these systems are currently not associated.”

In a January 16, 2010 e-mail sent to Kim Van Falkenburg of DOE, Amy J. Summe,Environmental Planner for The Watershed Company and Bill Kingmen, Senior Plannerfor the City of DuPont. I stated that I did not agree with Kim Van Zwalenburg’sassessment that Edmond Marsh is not a wetland associated with 60 acre SequalitchewLake for reasons cited in the below excerpt from my 1/16/10 e-mail attachment:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KIM VAN ZWALENBURG’S (DOE) ASSESSMENT OF EDMOND MARSH

Preface

This paper challenges Kim Van Zwalenburg’s assessment that Edmond Marsh fails tomeet the test of “influence” and therefore is not a wetland associated with 60 acreSequalitchew Lake.

Zwalenburg’s Assessment

The essence of Zwalenburg’s assessment that there is an absence of a hydrologicconnection between Edmond Marsh and Sequalitchew Lake is captured in the followingexcerpts: “It…appears that despite the various fills bisecting the marshes, SequalitchewCreek Marsh and Edmonds Marsh are likely still connected via the peat lens whichunderlies the area. The peat lens does not, however, appear to extend from SequalitchewCreek Marsh to Sequalitchew Lake.” This conclusion was apparently based upon areference to the soil logs of monitoring well SL-1 and EM-3. Zwalenburg goes on toconclude that: “…it appears there is no peat layer at SL-1 which is adjacent to thediversion canal and the outlet weir to the lake. Thus it appears there is no discernablegroundwater connection via undrained hydric soils. According to the report, any watercoming from Edmond Marsh and flowing toward Sequalitchew Lake is captured by the



diversion canal. Conversely, it appears all water released from the lake also flows downthe diversion canal. Absent evidence of a hydrologic connection, the test of “influence”is not meet.”

Historic Setting and Background

It is important to recognize that the peat lens that Zwalenburg refers to in the well log ofEM-3 exists immediately adjacent to DuPont Steilacoom Road. Monitoring well SL-1 islocated just south of Sequalitchew Lake’s outlet which historically flowed intoSequalitchew Creek (not a man-made diversion canal), thence into Edmond Marsh anddown Sequalitchew Creek to Puget Sound. It is unlikely that a peat lens would build upat the SL-1 location because historic flows of from 10 to 20 cfs were flowing fromSequalitchew Lake and down Sequalitchew Creek into Edmond Marsh. [A TwentiethCentury History of Sequalitchew Creek, October, 1994, by Andrews and Swint]

The statement that “any water coming from Edmond Marsh and flowing towardSequalitchew Lake is captured by the diversion canal.” is misleading because thisphenomenon is the result of groundwater discharge into and beaver dam obstructionswithin Edmond Marsh, construction of a high surface and ground water level diversioncanal (drainage ditch) and practices by the U.S. Army to control Sequalitchew Lake levelso as to protect Sequalitchew Springs from lake backflow contamination. Exacerbatingthis condition is the City of DuPont’s and the U.S. Army’s practice of disposal of surfacewater runoff from impervious surfaces into Bell, McKay, Hamer and Edmond Marsh.The impervious surface runoff water component now imposed upon the SequalitchewCreek and related wetlands is not a natural condition of this watershed. Yet all theanalyses done by consultants regarding the impact of dewatering the Vashon aquifergroundwater that sustains this lake, stream, wetland complex assume that its presentdegraded condition is its natural condition.

Recommendation

I recommend that those at the Department of Ecology who are involved in assessing theshoreline status of Edmond Marsh refer to two documents that relate to this matter.

One is titled: 2005-2006 WATER RESOURCE MONITORING DATA REPORT NorthSequalitchew Creek Project, Prepared for: Glacier Northwest, Project No. 040001-007-01, Aspect Consulting, LLC and Anchor Environmental, May 2007

In this document you will find Figure 1 referenced by Kim Van Zwalenburg as the basisfor her statement that water flows from Edmond Marsh to the diversion canal and Figure2. Figure 2 has the surface water flow pattern for both dry and wet seasons. You willnotice that when groundwater levels are high (as they used to be before humanintervention) that the flow is from Sequalitchew Lake down Sequalitchew Creek and intoEdmond Marsh. Figure 2 Wet Season Elevation represents the historic and naturalcondition of the Sequalitchew Creek basin and is parenthetically at odds with



Zwalenburg’s assertion that water from Edmond Marsh flows toward the east into thediversion canal.

The other document is titled: PLANTS AND ANIMALS TECHNICAL REPORTPioneer Aggregates Mining Expansion and North Sequalitchew Project, by HerreraEnvironmental Consultants, Inc., October 28, 2005

In the Herrera document on page 9 you will find the following characterization of WestEdmond Marsh: “West Edmond Marsh is considered a Class 1 wetland by the City ofDuPont due to the large area of high quality wetland habitat and its irreplaceable valueto the City (DuPont 2005). This wetland is considered a jurisdictional water of the U.S.and therefore permanent impacts are regulated by the Corps of Engineers as well as theCity of DuPont.” The same language was applied to the characterization of EastEdmond Marsh.

On page 11 of this same document you will find the following characterization of Seepand Riparian Wetland: “These spring-fed wetlands are considered Class 2 by the City ofDuPont (City of DuPont)… These wetlands are also jurisdictional waters of the U.S. andregulated by the Corps of Engineers as well as the City of DuPont.”

Both these documents can be accessed at:

http://www.ci.dupont.wa.us/development/glacier-nw-pioneer/glacier-northwest.html

Concluding Remarks

I believe that Kim Van Zwalenburg has erred in her assessment that Edmond Marsh failsto meet the test of “influence” and therefore is not a wetland associated with 60 acreSequalitchew Lake. The evidence clearly indicates that Edmond Marsh is a wetlandassociated with Sequalitchew Lake.

Don Russell1/16/10

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not mentioned in Kim Van Zwalenburg’s assessment is the fact that there is a directconnection between Sequalitchew Lake and Sequalitchew Creek (this reach identified byZwalenburg as Sequalitchew Creek Marsh). The connection is provided by culverts thatpass over the diversion canal and deliver Sequalitchew Lake water to Sequalitchew Creek(Marsh) which subsequently flows beneath Steilacoom DuPont Road into EdmondMarsh. [See the third attachment for a diagram of this connection. Note the direction offlow]

Another factor to consider is that Sequalitchew Lake, Edmond Marsh and SequalitchewCreek are all located within the boundaries of FEMA’s 100 year flood plain maps. Does



not the below language excerpt from The Watershed Company’s Report apply to anassessment of Edmond Marsh’s status under the Shoreline Management Act?

Ecology guidance states that the entire wetland is associated if any part of it lies withinthe area 200 feet from the OHWM (or floodway in riverine environments) of a stateshoreline. Further guidance states that wetlands that are hydraulically connected to ashoreline also would be considered associated, as well as wetlands within the 100-yearfloodplain. [Underline by author]

Concluding Remarks

The Watershed Company and ICF International’s July 2010 DRAFT Shoreline AnalysisReport for the City of DuPont’s Shoreline: Puget Sound prepared for the City of DuPontPlanning Department, DuPont, WA inadequately identifies and includes all “… waterbodies designated as shorelines of the state as defined as those streams whose meanannual flow is 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater, lakes whose area is greater than20 acres, and all marine waters along with their associated shorelands, wetlands, andfloodplains.” [Underlined italics by author]

The debate over whether or not Sequalitchew Creek can be characterized as a “shorelineof the state” under the SMA continues. Historical evidence indicates that SequalitchewCreek once met this threshold, however as a result of man’s alteration of the behavior ofthe Sequalitchew Creek watershed [groundwater withdrawals to the extent of overharvesting, Sequalitchew Lake level control weir and related plumbing and thedewatering effect that the diversion canal has on groundwater levels and resultantdischarges into Edmond and related marshes] Sequalitchew Creek’s annual flow has beenreduced to approximately 2 cubic feet per second in the Sequalitchew Creek Canyon.

The evidence that Kim Van Zwalenburg (DOE) and Amy Summe (The WatershedCompany) cite to support their contention that Edmond Marsh is not a “shoreline of thestate” governed by the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act is taken from studiesdone by consultants in the employ of Glacier Northwest/CalPortland. These studies, dataand findings are biased (as I have pointed out in many papers on the subject) to supportthe contention that dewatering the Vashon aquifer so that CalPortland can increase itstake of gravel from its existing mine as well as a proposed South Expansion Area, wherethe gravel is saturated by Vashon aquifer groundwater, will have only minor adverseimpact on the function and value of groundwater dependent Sequalitchew Lake, EdmondMarsh, Kettle Wetland, Seep and Riparian Wetland and Sequalitchew Creek. It isinteresting to note that the City of DuPont’s present critical and sensitive area ordinancesprohibit any degradation in the function and value of these identified water bodies.

CalPortland proposes to disposel of a mixture of 6,000,000 gallons per day of discharginggroundwater from a breached Vashon aquifer combined with surface water runoff from177 acres of impervious soil (designated for industrial use) by infiltrating this volume ofpolluted water in to the permeable soils that lie immediately above the groundwatersource for the large spring locate that discharges onto the shoreline of Puget Sound!



I find it rather disturbing that one of the last remaining major (Edmond Marsh at 135acres), and so far restorable, wetlands in the Chambers-Clover [Sequalitchew] Creekwatershed (WRIA 12) is not characterized as being a “shoreline of the state” subject tothe protective provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the City of DuPont’scurrent critical and sensitive area ordinances. Even more disturbing is Kim VanZwalenburg’ and Amy Summe’s reliance on the biased studies of consultants in GlacierNorthwest/CalPortland employ to exclude Edmond Marsh as a “shoreline of the state”.

I urge the Department of Ecology to reassess its position in regard to its characterizationof Edmond Marsh. All the evidence makes it clear that Edmond Marsh is a “shoreline ofthe state” and therefore should be so designated. Such a large, rare and relatively intactwetland ecosystem should be protected by the “no net loss of ecological function”provision of the Shoreline Management Act.

Don Russell8/27/10

commentary on the draft shoreline analysis report -dupont washington

Documents