Planning Commission Fails to Remove Cherry Point From Birch Bay Mitigation Plan
Permalink +Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 8:05 am // Wendy Harris
On Thursday, December 8, 2011, the Whatcom County Planning Commission held a well-attended public hearing on the Birch Bay watershed “in lieu of fee” mitigation proposal (“the proposal”). The public record for written comment was left open until January 12, 2012.
The Commission rejected the Planning Department’s recommendation to remove Cherry Point, along with a harmful loophole provision, and sent the proposal back to the Planning Department for other refinements. Commissioner Lesow tried to make a motion to remove the Cherry Point Industrial District, but it died when he failed to receive a second on his motion. These events made a very clear point. The Commission is currently unwilling to approve a mitigation plan that excludes the Cherry Point Industrial Area.
Planning Commissioners stated it was unfair to treat industrial development different than residential and commercial development. They did not consider the higher percentage of impervious surface created by industrial development. Because impervious surface generates stormwater run-off, industrial development poses greater stormwater management challenges than smaller development.
Public comment reflected two strong sentiments. The County should: 1) allow “low impact development” and 2) prohibit reduced wetland and stream buffers for the Cherry Point Industrial Area.
For those unfamiliar with the term “low impact development,” (LID) it is a design method relying upon a development site’s natural hydrologic functions to control stormwater close to the source. Traditional stormwater management transports stormwater off-site through a system of pipes, and requires mitigation that is often unsuccessful. LID standards focus on prevention of ecological harm by infiltrating rainfall water to groundwater, reducing stormwater runoff. The result is a landscape functionally equivalent to predevelopment hydrologic conditions, which protects habitat and causes less water pollution. Common LID practices include bioretention and rain gardens, vegetated swales, native vegetation and tree retention, permeable pavers, soil amendments, rain barrels, rooftop gardens and reduced impervious surface.
We can achieve both goals requested by the public. As currently drafted, the proposal links LID stormwater design to habitat buffers. However, stormwater management and habitat buffers perform different functions, and are not ecologically equivalent. The county should enact LID standards independent of an unworkable off-site habitat mitigation plan.
As drafted, the mitigation plan allows developers in the Birch Bay watershed who use LID standards to opt into a habitat fund, and obtain a reduced habitat buffer. (Other buffer impacts are “assumed” to be mitigated on site through the use of LID standards.) The habitat fund fees are used for subsequent purchase of property and/or easements for off-site habitat mitigation (“receiving areas”) handled by the county. In theory, the off-site habitat provides “environmental enhancement,” or increased ecological function, so that developers and the public equally benefit.
In order to work, LID standards must be adequate and the receiving sites must result in greater conservation value. This requires the ability to objectively measure and monitor a number of complex, technical issues (i.e., current ecological function, including species abundance and diversity; availability, identification, and analysis of receiving sites; adequate habitat fund fees to maintain on-going mitigation; and holistic watershed based LID standards tailored to specific sub-basin conditions, such as ground tables, soil infiltration, zoning, and development levels.) The Planning Department proposal falls short on these goals, failing to protect not only Cherry Point, but the entire Birch Bay watershed.
This is understandable, given the daunting complexity of a combination “off-site habitat enhancement/LID incentive” in lieu of fee mitigation program. Detailed scientific analysis and objective, quantifiable standards are required for both programs, but when conjoined, a new challenge is created. The development incentives and the environmental enhancement must achieve a fair balance. When development incentive is increased, (i.e., greater buffer encroachment, reduced habitat fees, etc.) environmental enhancement is reduced (i.e., less on-site habitat available during 3 year delay between development and establishment of receiving site, less funding available for long term habitat fund management). Thus, a delicate balance between these two goals must be achieved.
As reflected in Thursday’s public hearing, the Planning Commission is not interested in a delicate balance. In addition to rejecting the Planning Department’s recommendations (to remove Cherry Point Industrial Area, including part of the project site for SSA and associated rail tracks, and a loophole allowing waiver of LID requirements), it directed the Planning Staff to incorporate stronger and simpler development incentives. Little concern was voiced for environmental enhancement standards.
I urge the Planning Department to drop its unworkable in lieu of fee mitigation proposal. We do not need a complicated offsite habitat buffer proposal to obtain something that is already a public right. The County has existing authority to impose LID development standards on new development. The nexus between water quality and stormwater runoff is so firmly established by science that it can not be disputed that the County has the legal authority to regulate stormwater design in the interest of public health and safety. Many jurisidictions have done just that.
The problem the Planning Department tried to address was the political practicality of attempting to impose new regulations on a vocal and powerful development lobby. However, I am encouraged by the active community opposition to the SSA Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal. An engaged and informed citizenry will understand the connection between the need to protect fish and wildlife at Cherry Point and within the Birch Bay watershed generally, and our right to demand the most protective standards for stormwater design.
Studies have established that LID standards are actually cost effective, particularly over the long term. How much incentive does a developer need to act in his/her self-interest? Given the greater challenges posed by industrial development, a better case could be made for industrial incentives, although a LID program could be limited to residential and/or small commercial development in conformity with the recommended policies of the EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology.
Please send a written comment to the Planning Commission at PDS_Planning_Commission@co.whatcom.wa.us by January 12, 2012. Tell the Commission:
- You do not support the Birch Bay watershed in lieu of fee mitigation proposal. It is not likely to be successful and will result in public subsidy of private development costs when the public is forced to pay for restoration of degraded waters and lost habitat.
- You strongly support LID stormwater standards and would like to see LID standards enacted, but not as a part of an offsite habitat buffer mitigation proposal.
- You do not want to reduce protection for Habitat Conservation Areas provided for in the County Critical Area Ordinance. Fish and wildlife play an important role in a healthy, functioning ecosystem. The proposal has a number of provisions that are likely to harm habitat and increase fish and wildlife mortality, such as 3 year delay between development and the creation of off-site habitat.
- You do not support reduced habitat buffers in industrial areas such as Cherry Point, and would like to see Cherry Point and the LID waiver loophole eliminated. Best available science indicates industrial development has greater environmental impact, and may require different development standards than residential development.
Send a written comment to Whatcom County Planner Peter Gill, at pgill@co.whatcom.wa.us, thanking him for being responsive to public input. We want to encourage more of this behavior. Maybe it will rub off on the County Planning Commission.
Comments (0)
To add a comment, click here to login or register.
Planning Commission Fails to Remove Cherry Point From Birch Bay Mitigation Plan
Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 8:05 am // Wendy Harris
Claiming it is unfair to treat large property owners different than small property owners, the Commission refuses to remove industrial areas from buffer mitigation proposal.0 comments
Port punts on commercial moorage rates
Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 6:30 pm // Guest writer
Guest writer Doug Karlberg follows up with report from Tuesday's Port Commission meeting7 comments; last on Feb 20, 2011
Village Books
Showdown at the Port of Bellingham
Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 6:35 pm // Guest writer
Why the price of moorage matters to all Whatcom County. A guest article by Doug Karlberg.5 comments; last on Jun 29, 2011
Infill, Sinfill & Sprawl
Thu, Feb 12, 2009, 7:36 pm // Larry Horowitz
Have you ever wondered how truly livable cities become undesirable hell holes? Do the people who run these highly attractive areas into the ground merely fail to comprehend…2 comments; last on Feb 16, 2009
Chuckanut Ridge in a nutshell
Sun, Jan 25, 2009, 8:59 pm // Larry Horowitz
In recent weeks, the Chuckanut Ridge / Greenways 3 mêlée has been blown way out of proportion and has become nothing more than an irritating sideshow. Personally, I…0 comments
To vest or not to vest: Chuckanut Ridge & the CAO
Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 9:13 pm // Larry Horowitz
After an extended hiatus, the battle over Chuckanut Ridge has begun to heat up again. In one corner: landowners Horizon Bank and David Edelstein. In the other corner:…2 comments; last on Feb 19, 2008
New Links
Reconveyance ChallengeSalish Sea Org.
the Oatmeal
Current Interest
Community Wise BellinghamFriends of Whatcom
Lummi Island Quarry
Reconveyance Challenge
Whatcom Elections
Publisher Recommended
GlobalPostLeague of Women Voters
Paul Krugman - economics
Sweeney Politics
the Oatmeal
Local Blogs & News
Bellingham HeraldBham Herald Politics Blog
Bham Politics & Economics
Bob Sanders
Cascadia Weekly
Citizen Ted
Ferndale Record
Friends of Whatcom
Get Whatcom Planning
HamsterTalk
Jack Petree
KGMI
Latte Republic
League of Women Voters
Lynden Tribune
MikeatthePort
Northern Light
Sweeney Politics
Twilight Zoning
Wally Wonders
Western Front - WWU
Whatcom Watch
Local Causes
Bellingham Police ActivityChuckanut Community Forest
Chuckanut Mountains
Citizens of Bellingham
City Club of Bellingham
Community Wise Bellingham
Conservation NW
Cordata & Meridian
Facebook Port Reform
Futurewise - Whatcom
Jail - local mega plans
Lake Whatcom
Lummi Island Quarry
N. Cascades Audubon
NW Holocaust Center
RE Sources
Reconveyance Challenge
Reduce Jet Noise
Salish Sea Org.
Save the Granary Building
Transition Whatcom
WA Conservation Voters
Governments
BellinghamPort of Bellingham
Skagit County
US - The White House
WA State Access
WA State Elections
WA State Legislature
Whatcom Auditor
Whatcom County
Whatcom Elections
Weather & Climate
Cliff Mass Weather BlogClimate Audit
NW Radar
Two day forecast
Watts Up With That? - climate
Leisure
Adventures NWEdge of Sports
Entertainment NNW
Famous Internet Skiers
Sailing Anarchy
Good Links
Al-Jazeera onlineAlaska Dispatch
AlterNet.org
Antiwar.com
Arab News
Asia Times
Atlantic, The
Common Dreams
counterpunch
Crosscut Seattle
Daily Kos
Daily Mirror
Doonesbury
Drudge Report
FiveThirtyEight
Foreign Policy in Focus
GlobalPost
Guardian Unlimited
Gulf News
Haaretz
Huffington Post
Innocence Project, The
Intrnational Herald Tribune
James Fallows
Jerusalem Post
Joel Connelly
Juan Cole
Le Diplo
Media Matters
Michael Moore
Middle East Times
MoveOn.org
Nation, The
New American Century
News Trust
NMFA
numbers
Online Journal
Palestine Daily
Palestine News
Paul Krugman - economics
Personal bio info
Portland Indy Media
Progressive Review
Project Vote Smart
Reuters
Sea Shepherd
Slate
Talking Points Memo
the Oatmeal
Tom Paine.com
truthout
War and Piece
Washington Votes
WikiLeaks.ch
ynetnews.com
NwCitizen 1995 - 2007
Early Northwest CitizenInternet At Its Best
TEDQuiet, Offline or Dead
Bellingham RegisterCarl Weimer
David Hackworth
N. Sound Conservancy
No Leaky Buckets
Northwest Review
Orcinus
Post-Oklahoman Confessions
Protect Bellingham Parks
The American Telegraph
The Crisis Papers