A group of local residents who oppose the construction of a micro-home village to serve the chronically homeless near Spanaway Lake are making the case that analysis of wetlands on the property was flawed and that the project could have adverse impacts on protected species.
During a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) hearing on May 6, attorneys for Spanaway Concerned Citizens, a group opposing the proposed Pierce County Village, called upon environmental experts to testify about their concerns with project.
Wetland biologist and consultant Sarah Cooke was brought to testify by the legal team for Spanaway Concerned Citizens. Cooke suggested the wetland analysis done by the organization that is planning the village was incomplete and might have underrepresented the size and complexity of one of the wetlands closest to the village.
Soundview Consultants was hired to do the wetland analysis by Tacoma Rescue Mission, the organization that owns and will run the Pierce County Village. The project promises to house hundreds of chronically homeless individuals in a more than 285-unit housing complex. Preliminary plans include hundreds of units of parking, farming facilities and community gardens and on-site security.
Spanaway Concerned Citizens, a group representing local Spanaway residents, has drawn objections to plans for the 85-acre site over its proximity to several wetlands that connect with Spanaway Lake.
Since April 29, the Pierce County Village has been the subject of a public land-use hearing during which hearing examiner Alex Sidles is taking testimony from both the public and experts. Following the hearing, in which Sidles is considering the proposal’s compliance with the zoning code and environmental regulations, Sidles will make a decision on the project.
Proximity to wetlands in question
Cooke, who does wetland studies and delineations, was critical of Soundview doing its wetland analysis during the winter. She said doing wetland delineation in the winter is against best practice and can be “problematic.”
She testified that doing a wetland delineation in the winter, before the wet season allows the soils to saturate, can give an “incomplete idea” of where the wetland’s boundaries are going to be.
“Any delineation done in the winter would, almost by definition, be underrating the function,” Cooke testified.
Cooke said if a delineation is done in the winter, it is best practice to go back in the spring and “make and sure the boundaries are still accurate.”
The delineated boundary of the wetland is significant to the village project. Regulations require a buffer distance prohibiting construction and development from the boundaries of the wetland. The village as proposed by Tacoma Rescue Mission’s preliminary site plans put the village between multiple wetlands, with some facilities almost directly adjacent to the determined wetland buffers.
Required wetland buffers also are affected by the category of wetland, with wetlands determined to be more sensitive, rare, or having unique functions requiring a greater buffer distance. Habitat diversity is a factor used to determine the category of wetlands.
Cooke, who visited the site and conducted an analysis of the wetland after Soundview, testified that she thought the Soundview analysis did not collect enough information related to habitat types around one specific wetland on the property, which could have impacted its category and required buffer zone.
Cooke also shared her observation that one wetland of a lower category and smaller buffer zone was “hydrologically connected” to a larger wetland of the highest category and required buffer zone. That observation suggested that the smaller wetland might be of a higher category and required a buffer zone that would impede the planned construction of the village.
Cooke was critical of Soundview’s wetland analysis, which she said did not collect enough data from a smaller wetland close to the proposed village to record a “sufficient characterization” of what she alleged was a more sensitive habitat than the Soundview study indicated.
The legal team for Tacoma Rescue Mission called Rachel Hyland, one of the wetland biologists who helped conduct the wetland analysis for Soundview, to defend its methods. Hyland said that she and a team of biologists made more than 17 visits to the site in November and December 2022 as part of their study, as well as additional visits in April 2023.
Hyland testified that the wetland delineation manual that Cooke referred to to suggest that their analysis was limited also says that studies should be done in a “time efficient manner,” a standard she said her team adhered to.
In response to Cooke’s suggestion that the Soundview team did not take enough data points to get a full “snapshot” of the conditions and wetland environment, Hyland testified that their analysis contained additional notes that would not have been “necessary or useful” to determine the true categorization and boundary of the wetland.
Hyland said the wetland in question was a depressional wetland inside a bowl of topography with “distinct boundaries,” arguing that the buffer zone in question was an accurate determination.
According to testimony from an engineer on the project, there are structures on the village planned to be built within 20 feet of the wetland buffer zone in question.
Protected Garry oak trees on the property
The Spanaway Concerned Citizens also brought on witnesses to speak about the ecological importance of the Garry oak tree stands scattered on the property. Also known as Oregon white oaks, the trees are protected as some estimates suggest that the region is down to 3 percent of its remaining Garry oaks.
Ecologist Douglas Tallamy testified that Garry oaks serve important ecological roles by supporting food web viability as one of the best habitat trees for caterpillars; being one of the most efficient carbon-sequestering trees; and by providing an important watershed support — with root systems that are estimated conservatively to stretch hundreds of feet and provide important stormwater buffer and pollutant-filtration benefits.
Hearing examiner Sidles asked Tallamy if his testimony meant that “no one should cut down a [Garry] oak tree anywhere in the state?”
Tallamy answered that if one older Garry oak is cut down, then several younger ones should be planted similar to a 50-to-1 ratio.
Tacoma Rescue Mission has maintained that the Pierce County Village project would have a minimal impact on the Garry oak stands on the property, with recent revisions of the site plan showing certain facilities moved away from specific oak tree clusters.
Concerns over stormwater management
Spanaway Concerned Citizens’ legal team brought in hydrologist Sandy Williamson to speak to concerns about the village’s stormwater infiltration system. He testified that the Tacoma Rescue Mission’s plan to limit surfaces that could obstruct the infiltration of stormwater and runoff into the ground did not account for the limited unsaturated soil that he believes to be between the topography and the water table.
Williamson said he was concerned that a heavy storm event could either over-saturate the ground and have a hydrological impact on the water table and the wetland or could cause erosion of topsoil into the surface water and have an effect on the water chemistry of the surrounding wetlands.
Lawyers for the county, who largely called witnesses to defend their acceptance of the Pierce County Village proposal, called on an engineer for Pierce County, Brandon Smith, who has worked on multiple aspects of the project.
Smith testified that not only was there “sufficient depth” of unsaturated soil between the facilities and the groundwater level but that the village’s bio-filtration garden features would do an adequate job of filtering pollutants out of the groundwater and the wetland. He also said the project included an additional filtering retention trench between the village and the surface water of the wetland that would act as an additional fail safe in the event of a storm.
Ecological economist David Batker was brought in by Spanaway Concerned Citizens to testify about safety concerns. Batker described the site as “complicated,” with unique topography, groundwater features and sensitive wetlands.
He testified that the current floodplain analysis deeming the site to be safe from flooding events was “absurd,” and did not factor in the increasing yearly rainfall. He also said the site, which has limited accessible roads, was in need of a fire analysis to prevent potential wildfire disasters.
Batker urged the hearing examiner to call for a Environmental Impact Statement to fully assess the risks of the site, as the current analysis was “deficient.”
Closing arguments for the hearing are expected to take place on Thursday, May 9.
Editor’s note: One of the dates of a hearing that already occurred was incorrect and the story has been changed to reflect the correct date.
Most Popular
Comments / 0