The Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan: Is the Cure Worse Than the Problem?

Wendy Harris is a retired citizen who comments on development, mitigation and environmental impacts.

There is widespread agreement that the ecological health of Puget Sound is becoming increasingly impaired by development and that most mitigation efforts fail. The problem is created, in part, when mitigation is addressed at the project level without consideration of larger ecosystem processes and watershed conditions. Better outcomes can be achieved when decisions are made about how and where development impacts should be allowed, and mitigation should be required, based on an understanding of ecosystem processes within the greater landscape.

Watershed-based management strategies are based upon a detailed analysis, also referred to as a watershed characterization. Characterization evaluates three elements:

1. water processes,

2. local species and habitat connectivity and

3. land use build out-patterns.

This information is used to identify areas within a watershed for restoration, protection and development. Tailored land use plans can then be developed that site mitigation where it is most likely to be successful and site development where harmful impacts are minimized.

On April 24, 2012, the Whatcom County Council introduced the Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan, (the “Action Plan”) with a public hearing anticipated two weeks later. The Action Plan is supposedly based on the Birch Bay Watershed Characterization and Watershed Planning Pilot Study (the “Pilot Study”). The Pilot Study was a collaborative effort by local, state and federal agencies, which identified 32 sub-basins in Birch Bay, each of which was characterized for restoration, protection or development.

The Action Plan attempts to combine development incentives with environmental protection through an “In Lieu of Fee” off-site habitat mitigation plan. Although it sounds great on paper, it suffers in execution. Unless important flaws in the Action Plan are corrected, the final proposal is likely to benefit developers at the expense of fish and wildlife.

Developers who incorporate stormwater “Low Impact Development” (LID) into their design are allowed a wetland/stream habitat buffer reduction of up to 35 percent. (The Planning Department is authorized under certain situations to allow up to a 25 percent buffer reduction.) Habitat buffers are currently protected under the County Critical Areas Ordinance as “Habitat Conservation Areas,” and are a Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) requirement.

Qualifying developers obtain the right to pay a one-time fee and enroll in the Habitat Mitigation Fund. Thereafter, the developer is relieved of any responsibility for habitat mitigation and the county remains solely liable. Other development impacts are mitigated on-site but are generally deemed met through the LID design.

The county will accumulate Habitat Mitigation Fund fees until it has adequate funding to secure alternative habitat sites in the Birch Bay watershed. A permitted three-year gap between development and mitigation has raised a number of concerns. The Whatcom Conservation District will administer the Habitat Mitigation Fund on behalf of the county, negotiating with private property owners for the, as of yet, undisclosed “receiving sites.”

In theory, off-site habitat mitigation is supposed to result in a “win-win” by making habitat mitigation easier and less expensive for developers while improving the conservation value of habitat. In reality, members of the Planning Commission and a citizen ad hoc committee were focused on the size and extent of the developer incentives (as in, “we want more”), requiring proposed Action Plan revisions. Based on my service as an ad hoc committee member, and on my attendance at Planning Commission meetings, I saw little overall concern for buffer impacts or the functionality of the Habitat Mitigation Fund. (Audio of Planning Commission meetings is available on the county website.)

A fundamental flaw in the Action Plan is that LID design is being encouraged and, therefore, habitat buffers are being reduced in all Birch Bay sub-basins, including those classified for protection or restoration. Buffer reductions are based on the wetland and stream ratings. These, however, are not a proper measurement for buffer impacts because they do not account for local fish and wildlife species, nor account for habitat corridors necessary to protect biodiversity. Allowing buffer reductions in all areas of the watershed actually encourages development in sensitive areas, which is contrary to the basic goals of the Pilot Study.

It is true that sub-basin characterization is used to determine Habitat Mitigation Fund fees, with a 20 percent surcharge in protection and restoration sub-basins and an additional 20 percent surcharge for tree removal. However, sub-basin characterization is being incorporated only after development impacts are authorized. A watershed management plan should use characterization information to determine appropriate limits on growth before impacts occur. Moreover, using different standards of measurement for buffer impacts and buffer mitigation makes it difficult to determine, quantify and replace lost ecological functions, and makes it difficult, therefore, to meet the “no net loss” mitigation standards applicable under the Action Plan.

Allowing buffer impacts in every sub-basin ignores a basic principle in watershed planning, which is to prevent impacts to habitat before they occur. This concept is reflected in federal and state policy recommendations. Scientific studies have established that recreated wetlands rarely succeed in replacing all lost ecological functions. The most effective method of protecting habitat is simply leaving wetlands intact and undisturbed. This is not achieved through the Action Plan.

The fish and wildlife assessment, one of three essential elements in the Pilot Study, was never completed. Appendix E of the Pilot Study reflects gaps in important metric-based information that should have been considered when determining habitat buffer reductions. This indicates that the Action Plan, which will be adopted as part of the Critical Area Ordinance, was not based on best available science, as required under the Growth Management Act. It is noteworthy that Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which participated in the Pilot Study, did not participate in the Action Plan.

The most important fish and wildlife information gap pertains to habitat corridors and connective linkages. The Lake Terrell Wildlife Area was identified as an important connectivity center, but corridors to the south, north and west were not well defined. This information is not otherwise available because the county lacks a comprehensive countywide wildlife management plan that addresses habitat connectivity and species diversity.

Habitat connectivity corridors should be identified before the county enacts any off-site mitigation proposal. A connectivity plan ensures that habitat mitigation is properly sited to protect biodiversity. Without an understanding of how habitat is linked within and outside the watershed, off-site mitigation could create habitat islands with little functional value, leading to a decline in the number and diversity of fish and wildlife species. This is an important concern in a watershed with 230 terrestrial and avian species, including many species of state concern.

As a result of these deficiencies, the Action Plan does not meet the legal requirements in the Critical Area Ordinance for an alternative mitigation plan. It has not been demonstrated that the Action Plan will result in equal or greater protection and conservation of habitat than would be achieved under existing mitigation provisions. Moreover, the Whatcom County Planning and Development Services Department is forwarding this proposal without providing a “fully funded contingency plan” in the event that the Action Plan is not successful.

Watershed based management planning is a wonderful concept, but the Action Plan should not be enacted until these concerns are resolved. Please tell the Whatcom County Council that you do not want the Action Plan adopted until it adequately protects our local fish and wildlife.