The proposed Birch Bay Low Impact Development (LID) and Habitat Mitigation Fund (HMF) are good ideas - they just need a bit more work.

The good intention of the Birch Bay LID and HMF is to create real habitat gains in sensitive areas in a fast-developing part of our county. These habitat gains would occur as a result of off-site mitigation, when the on-site option is likely to fail, resulting in fragmented habitat and ineffective restoration and protection.

These programs offer landowners options to employ off-site mitigation for habitat impacts (not for stormwater, however, which will still be treated on-site), and off-site mitigation monies can then be pooled to restore and protect larger tracts of land and water in the most sensitive areas.  These critical areas in turn create habitat connectivity, which is essential for many species, and improve the quality of our environment.

The biggest drawback of the code, as written, is that there are too few specifics for the program to really work as intended. Here are some concrete suggestions for making the code better and making the program a net gain for habitat:

1) Do not include industrial projects in this program.
This program was created for residential and commercial use where on-site mitigation cannot be easily employed because of space constraints. Industrial projects should not qualify because they are not hampered by the same constraints and because on-site mitigation is preferred whenever it can be used successfully.

To guard against the ability to use this program for industrial lands, we recommend the following code changes:
      a) Strike the sentence in 16.16.920E: "Projects within the Cherry Point Industrial District that impacts stream and/or wetland buffers may utilize the HMF for off site buffer habitat mitigation with the approval of the Director of Planning and Development Services," as recommended by Perter Gill in a memo to the Planning Commission on December 2 2011.
      b) Amend the sentence in section 20.50.030 (3) from" “The benefits are available to residential and commercial development, as well as short subdivisions and long subdivisions, and binding site plans.” to: The benefits are available to residential and commercial development, as well as short subdivisions and long subdivisions, and binding site plans for residential and commercial development.”  

2) Secure habitat mitigation sites prior to the enactment of this program.
At present there are ideas of which sub-basins are the best to restore, but no secured lands. Without secured lands, Whatcom County has no assurance that high value habitat lands will be available or will offer connectivity. The cost to buy into the HMF could also be a gross under-estimate if the cost of the land is more than anticipated.
 
To ensure that habitat mitigation sites are secured, ask that a prerequisite of code adoption be the identification of lands for easement or purchase and the acquisition of those lands. This is pre-capitalization and would be paid back by the fees collected by this program.

3) Ensure that mitigation occurs in a timely manner.
When mitigation occurs after land disturbance, habitat and animals suffer in the interim. Because there is so little habitat left, some animals may not be able to find other locations and their populations may not rebound.

To ensure that mitigation occurs in a timely manner, request that Section 10.3 of the Habitat Mitigation Fund Management Plan (Appendix F) be amended such that restoration activities begin within 1 year of obtaining the impact fees (presently it is 3 years).

4) Ensure that adequate funds are available to provide mitigation.
At present, the cost of buying into the HMF has a base fee of $2.90 per square foot. The County has not been able to provide an analysis of whether this is sufficient, although the management plan states that various costs have been factored into the base fee. There is no real assurance, however, that this is the case.

To ensure that adequate funds are available, Section 16.16.980 should require an annual assessment of the fee structure, not per 5 years as currently written. An annual assessment should be frequent enough to allow for adjustment of the fee if it were found to be insufficient.