This Tuesday, the Whatcom County Council Natural Resource Committee will be discussing whether and how to revise the proposed Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan.  The Action Plan was removed from introduction when it was placed on the Council agenda due to unresolved public concerns.  Council members will make a decision on how to handle the proposal after the Planning Department briefing. This means that public comments submitted before the Tuesday meeting can impact the process.  I hope you will send County Council an email supporting greater protection for Birch Bay fish and wildlife.  Specific talking points are provided below.

The proposal provides incentive for new Birch Bay development to adopt low impact development standards by allowing habitat buffer reductions.  The buffer reductions are mitigated through an In-Lieu-of Fee fund that creates off-site habitat.  Concerns center on whether the proposal adequately protects fish and wildlife, particularly along Terrell Creek.  The Terrell Creek sub-basins were among those identified as having the greatest habitat value.  

The Action Plan is based on the Birch Bay Watershed Pilot Study, which delineated and characterized 32 sub-basins for protection, restoration or development.  The Pilot Project was premised on the belief that we can protect sensitive areas of the Birch Bay watershed by determining the most appropriate places to site development.  

Watershed-based planning holds the promise of protecting ecological functions in the face of increasing development. However, to work effectively, a tailored and targeted approach to land use management is required. Regulations and incentives need to be adjusted for each sub-basin to protect and restore ecological function in protection and restoration sub-basins, and provide incentives for growth in development sub-basins.  While the Pilot Study made a number of specific sub-basin management recommendations, they were not adopted into an Action Plan.

Instead, the proposed Action Plan permits habitat buffer reductions in all Birch Bay sub-basins, regardless of characterization or sensitivity, based on wetland and stream ratings.  Wetland and streams ratings are not based on the same considerations as the watershed-wide characterization developed from the Pilot Study. For example, a wetland I, entitled to the greatest protection, may exist in a development sub-basin, while a wetland III may exist in a protection sub-basin. Habitat impacts and buffer widths should be based on the Pilot Project results and sub-basin characterization, not an unrelated wetland rating system.

Habitat buffers reductions are allowed in every Birch Bay sub-basin to provide LID incentive. Because this provides incentive to develop in development, restoration and protection sub-basins, it does not protect sensitive areas of the watershed or high value habitat. A better solution is to separate the LID and off-site mitigation provisions.   

Specifically, I believe the following suggestions will more fully implement the Pilot Project goals of a watershed based management plan: 

1. Separate the LID program from the off-site habitat mitigation program.  The LID and off-site mitigation provisions amend different sections of the County Code.  Combining both endeavors into one project creates a high level of complexity and compromise.  Regulations and/or incentives for LID should be developed independently to avoid problems like reducing habitat buffers in inappropriate sub-basins.
2. Consult a wildlife agency or wildlife biologist before moving forward. WDFW and Nakeeta NW Wildlife Services were involved in development of the Pilot Project, but the Action Plan was developed without the assistance of wildlife experts.  Because this is a habitat proposal, the expertise of wildlife professionals is required in developing an off-site mitigation plan.  The Conservation District will likely require wildlife management assistance after it assumes responsibility for the off-site habitat fund.
3. Complete the Birch Bay wildlife and habitat assessment.   The watershed analysis was based on 4 elements, including a wildlife and habitat assessment. This assessment, Exhibit E of the Pilot Project, was never completed.  (This information came to light recently and therefore, was not raised earlier.)  In particular, the Mid-scale analysis was not fully developed.  Information gaps need to be closed in order to develop an off-site mitigation program that meets no net loss standards. The Action Plan currently relies on too many assumptions.
4. Habitat Buffers (Pilot Project Table 7-1 recommendations): Buffer widths should reflect the sensitivity of the species or habitat present and the type and intensity of adjacent human use or activity.
   1. Protection sub-basins: require maximum CAO buffers or increase buffers if necessary.  Require LID for new development.  Prohibit filling of wetlands. Revise zoning to reduce future impacts.
   2. Restoration sub-basins:  allow developers to “buy down” buffers through restoration above and beyond project mitigation.  Remove fill to restore wetlands.  Enhance riparian vegetation, including CREP plantings.
   3. Development sub-basins: Increase density, encourage development to avoid growth in sensitive sub-basins.
5. Current CAO restrictions on off-site mitigation should be retained. Off-site habitat mitigation in all 3 types of sub-basin should be allowed only where it is established to have greater benefit and greater likelihood of success than on-site mitigation. While an approach that requires mitigation to always be on-site (or off-site) is not optimal, avoiding impacts to existing wetlands and streams should be the highest priority, particularly with regard to rare or important habitat.
6. Close the 3 year temporal gap between development and mitigation. Temporal gaps can create irreparable loss of species number and diversity.  The CAO currently requires that mitigation be completed before  new development can be used.
7. Identify and protect habitat connectivity, minimum habitat patch size and habitat mosiacs.
8. Provide a fully funded contingency plan and amend the CAO to permit adoption of watershed based management plans.
9. Identify Mitigation Receiving Sites:  Better results are achieved when mitigation sites are identified in advance.  This ensures that receiving sites with increased conservation value are available.  It is preferable to pre-capitalize mitigation fund expenses.
10. Develop a Comprehensive Wildlife Management and Conservation Plan. A County comprehensive conservation plan ensures that habitat connectivity and biodiversity are protected.  Without a comprehensive conservation plan, off-site mitigation for this proposal, or any other, is likely to result in habitat islands with little conservation value. This is the foundational basis for any off-site mitigation plan and it needs to be developed to satisfy no net loss requirements. 

 You may contact County Council at council@co.whatcom.wa.us.  It would also be helpful to send your comments to the Planning Department at PDS@co.whatcom.wa.us.