EXH0173018438

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

met with Jim Kelley (Parametrix) on Tuesday, Feb. 15 at NWRO. Jim asked me to meet with him to discuss some of the public comments received on my favorite horizontal landing surface project. I thought I would summarize the meeting for you. The issues we spoke about were raised in comment letters by Sarah Cooke and Andy Castelle. Both raised the question of how wetland mitigation ratios were being calculated. Jim anclI spoke about how Ecology defines enhancement, creation and restoration as elements of mitigation. We spoke about how Ecology does not give full Credit for enhancement because enhancement takes place in existing wetlands were some wetland functions are already being provided, albeit at much depressed levels. Enhancement often comes at the expense of other wetland functions. The discounted ratio also accounts for the net loss in wetland acreage. _"_j I asked Jim what definitions he based his report on; he said he looked at the Paine Fieldwetland mitigation banking agreement. .... agreed with Sarah and Andy's claim that the Port was not calculating the ratios •correctly, at least at the in-basin sites. I believe the Port is claiming lower credit at the Auburn site, consistent with the way Ecology does. At first Jim said perhaps they needed to change the ratios at the Auburn site. I told ]im I thought the document needed to be corrected to be consistent with the way Ecology has addressed the matter all along. We looked at the Ecology document titled "How Ecology Regulates…
V V