BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROCEEDINGS
August 29, 2000
Chairperson John A. Bolender called the public hearing to order at 11 a.m. It was noted the hearing is a continuation from the August 22, 2000 hearing to consider adoption of a Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Ordinance.
B U S I N E S S
HEARING FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREA ORDINANCE
Bob Fink, Planner, presented the staff report dated August 29, 2000. He again explained that the County adopted regulations designating and protecting fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in Ordinance 118-99. The regulations were reviewed and remanded by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board on March 22, 2000. In their order they directed that the County act in response to the order no later than September 1, 2000.
The Board held a public hearing on August 22, 2000 and continued it to August 29, 2000. The comments received at the original hearing were incorporated into a revised draft of the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Ordinance.
The Board questioned about adding the Dolly Varden and the Roosevelt Elk to Table 1 Species of Importance Listed by State and Federal Agencies that May occur in Mason County. These two species do not qualify under this title, but they do qualify under the Table 2 Priority Species not Federally or State listed and not governed by this ordinance, but they are species of importance in Mason County.
Mr. Fink referred to page 2 of the August 23rd draft. Number 9 addresses areas that contain habitats and species of local importance as listed in Table 1. Local importance May include, but not be limited to state candidate and monitor species. Table 1 as revised with the inclusion of the Roosevelt Elk and the Dolly Varden would include species that are not currently listed. He suggested the consultants might want to elaborate on how they develop this table.
If they were added to Table 1 as currently written, they would be designated as species of local importance, although they would not be as noted designated by any other state list as a sensitive species. They could be put in Table 2 with several other species that are some interest, but not currently designated or protected. If they did that they would be removing the protections of the ordinance from those species.
The justification for the original designation had to do with the calving grounds in Mason County for the Roosevelt Elk. For the Dolly Varden, the high similarity between that species and the listed Bull Trout species as well as they May be pending review.
It was suggested that the title of Table 1 be "Species of Local Importance that May occur in Mason County."
Wayne Wright interjected that it is his view that adding two more species to the list is not a great issue. He suggested relabeling Table 1 as "Mason County Species of Local Importance."
The Board discussed the basis for affording some protection to the elk might be giving added protection to their calving grounds.
Bill Wells voiced that he is convinced the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Ordinance proposal is the wrong approach to protecting the fish and wildlife. He proposed an alternate approach where incentives and tax credits are used instead of government mandates. Under the current proposal, a property owner would have to furnish a habitat management plan (HMP) when they wanted to build a house, if wildlife is present on their property. The new ordinance claims to protect fish and wildlife and has setbacks from creeks, streams, lakes, and salt waterfront. Proposed are buffer zones up to 150 plus setbacks of additional 15. The problem with the new ordinance is when people find out they have protected wildlife on their property and they will not be able to fully develop their property, they May first seek to remove the wildlife before anyone is sent to study their property and before they are forced to pay the cost of an HMP. Some property owners May not be allowed to build at all. This would be harmful to the public and the very animals they seek to protect. He proposed to change the ordinance keeping the same goals of protecting fish and wildlife but where property owners have a free choice in protecting wildlife with incentives and tax credits, instead of mandates with private property converted to conservation buffer zones against the property owners free will. The public should understand how harmful to their property (private property rights) the growth management plan would be. If fully adopted, it could be very expensive and time consuming to build on their own property. Instead the County should give property owners guidelines with tax credits. He felt this would better preserve the wildlife. If someone had property and the fish and wildlife database showed there was valuable habitat on the property, the owner could receive a five-year property tax credit for setting up a conservation zone. He believed this is a much better incentive, which would achieve the stated goals. He felt the government should avoid the use of mandates. He asked that people have the free choice and preserve property rights while protecting wildlife.
Drew Noble, private citizen, expressed his basic concern has to do with potable wells. Page 13 d Utilities He stated he has no problem if they take "wells" out of this section and create a new section and state that encroachment of more than 100 into the buffer. The purpose behind this is if there is a 150 buffer for Type 1, by leaving it just in 50 with a 100 mandatory radius around the well they are still taking another 50 away from the property they are trying to protect. Rather than go through this process of proving economic requirements, if the well was allowed 100 into the 150 buffer automatically, then that person could build up next to the buffer. If it were only 50 in they would have to go 100 from the well head.
The Board questioned how the County would deal with the Type V stream that has a 75 buffer.
Mr. Noble stated they still need to site the well properly and deal with the 100 radius around the well. It wouldnt affect it at all. He is looking at the extreme setbacks looking at a lot of properties around even small water systems will have to redevelop new sources. He did not see any real difference between the two. He believed there should be an HMP. He stated he is looking for a different threshold for potable water wells.
The Board asked if Mr. Noble would be comfortable if the last sentence in Section ii said "Encroachment of more than 100 into the buffer."
Mr. Noble stated he wanted a separate section, because he believes wastewater systems, either sewer or septic should be kept as far back as possible. Wells would have their own, even utility lines would remain up there. Stating that they could go within 100 of the well. If the wellhead were too close to the water source they would run into a problem in siting for the well. He felt this would eliminate one more piece of paperwork for a person trying to build a house, which is the object of the regulations.
Bart Robbins stated his daughter lives across the river from him and has four lots next to a little creek that currently happens to be dry and is listed as Type 2 water. None of the lots are 150 wide. There are three houses and only one is livable. They would need to be torn down and rebuilt for any value. He checked in with the manager of the West Coast Bank and asked if they knew how much throughout the County the banks are at risk for people realizing their property is worthless and dropping a worthless mortgage. The bank manager was with the understanding it is a compensated taking. He felt there is a lot of ignorance about how this will affect the property. He felt people should be aware of what is happening and where the taxes will be going.
The Board interjected there is a relief from the requirement section that talks about a variance for reasonable use exception.
Michelle Stevie, Squaxin Island Tribe, referred to the August 3rd draft. The Tribe is generally supportive of the new ordinances and specifically supportive of the new stream buffers, Type 1 5 streams. They also recognize that these buffers May not bring all functions for streams into them, but they are willing to accept them. It is also essential that the buffers continue to be measured from the Channel Migration Zone (CMZ).
Also, the buffer widths on Type 4 & 5 streams only provide minimally for wildlife needs and in some cases those need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Primarily, they continue to have concerns with the saltwater shoreline protection, Page 7 and the Type 1 lakes.
The buffers for these areas and especially in the urban and rural areas are not adequate to meet water quality needs. Shade is a very important concern for these aquatic areas as well as sediment input. It is essential to protect these buffer areas, especially within urban boundaries where they contribute to a large portion of impact. Also, some of the larger lakes in the area are temperature sensitive and contribute to water quality degradation downstream. One example is Lake Isabella and Mill Creek. Mill Creek system is a 23-degree system and the stream is typically out of range. It does not meet water quality standards, which is 18 degrees. They would recommend that the standards for both these rural and urban areas should be no less than at least the conservation areas. In Section B of page 1 of the draft, she believed the WDF&W priority habitat inventory list is incomplete. The list needs to be a completed comprehensive list of all the species within the PHS program. One example, some of the species to occur and that are a concern of the area is the Mud Minnow and also the Pacific Lamprey. Also, the Bandtail Pigeon May be a candidate species for the state.
The Board responded they could make sure the table is upgraded to contain whatever comes on the list as it comes on.
Ms. Stevie stated a larger concern is that the PHS database is incomplete. It is incomplete in upgrading maps for fish use and streams. She understood the State DNR maps and WDF&W maps are at least five years behind in their updating of fish use. She stated the tribes have done a lot of work and to date they have had a hard time having the County accept the work and updates.
The Tribe believes there needs to be a method to rely on the state, tribes, WDF&W for the update. The Tribe is willing to work on it.
She referred to Page 9 - F2 & 3; Pg 14 - 16- They felt the use of pesticides and storage within the Conservation Areas and the buffers should be prohibited as well as the use of fertilizers. If they are trying to have a buffer and preserve buffer and all the qualities and functions that a buffer provides to the stream, then fertilizers and chemicals should not be allowed to be used.
Pg 9 - F (4) Buffer alterations should only be done if they meet shade requirements which would meet the state temperature requirements for water.
Pg 10 4 a Stream crossings need to provide not only migration for both adult and juvenile salmon, but also restore lost habitat functions.
Pg 10 - 4 b The Tribe does not consider the WDF& W standards to be adequate for this passage or the preservation for habitat and would prefer that all new stream crossings not alter habitat functions. In many cases, a full spanning bridge structure May be required to meet those protection requirements, especially in new cases.
The Board questioned if that isnt already addressed in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). It speaks to the width of bridges, how wide the channel is.
Ms. Stevie responded it speaks to that, but it is only for minimal migration passage. It does not speak to the allowance of a stream to perform naturally so it maintains its habitat. If someone puts in a bridge with an open bottom and there is a 40 wide stream. It does not allow the stream to naturally migrate. They start using function of the stream. She felt the applicant should not do just the minimal WDF & W requirements. She felt the requirements should be exceeded so it is more proactive. In the near future, they could see it coming back and would need to be required to those change and upgrade. The concern is to keep the habitat in tact. Any time there is a structure it limits the habitat, because it confines it.
Pg 11 (5) - Stream Relocation They would like to see the Tribes consulted at the beginning of the proposals. Also, the inclusion of a down wood component needs to be included in the restoration or reclamation of those areas.
Pg 11 (7) - Agricultural Restrictions It is essential that the new agricultural proposals be required to retain that mandatory buffer.
Pg 10 - Bank Stabilization Wanted to reiterate the bioengineering solutions needs to be the standard for the bank stabilization instead of bank hardening.
Pg 11 - Gravel Mining Have not seen a case where gravel mining does not cause environmental impacts and would require that gravel mining not be allowed in the Conservation Areas or buffers. They have quite a severe impact even reclaiming them. She understood right now gravel mining is falling in an area that is not being addressed.
The Board stated if the gravel mining is occurring within the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, primarily the stream or river, it is the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) jurisdiction. It was questioned if there are any ordinances in Washington that restrict or prohibit gravel mining.
Ms. Stevie responded she would have to research that.
The Board stated they are required to base the ordinance on best available science. They all have specific opinions and emotions about things, but they need to know what the scientific basis of prohibition would be. GMA and ESA all recognize there will be impacts. They do not prohibit impacts. It was questioned what basis in the scientific literature there is for that kind of prohibition or the County is likely to be subject to a challenge.
Ms. Stevie replied the County would need to have the least amount of impact, the same as what is requiring for any other type of development.
Pg 16 - Boundaries - It was suggested underneath the boundaries for the aquatic management areas instead of OHWM change to bank full width. This is more scientifically defendable.
The state is mixed on their use of OHWM and she understood that bank full width is scientifically more defendable and definable.
The Board questioned where they could look to find that.
Ms. Stevie stated through the ambient monitoring program with Indian Fish Commission that they could give references of where they obtained their definitions.
She concluded that the affected tribes and appropriate natural resources should be able to review the conservation areas.
Marty Ereth, Habitat Biologist for Skokomish Tribe, the Tribes Department of Natural Resources has undertaken a technical review of the August 23 draft document.
Overall they commend the County on the progress it is making towards compliance with the Growth Management Act in relation to the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area section.
He stated that technical staff from the Tribe met with Bob Fink and Jim Fraser, Department of Fish & Wildlife, late last week to address some of the outstanding concerns.
He commented that Roosevelt Elk should continue to be included in the Table of species of local importance in Mason County. Dolly Varden was placed back into the draft. The Buffers for stream types 1 3, which are fish bearing are considered the minimum necessary supported by the best available science. They are default buffers for all Type 1 3 streams, but May not be adequate for watersheds containing listed species. The Tribe still is concerned regarding the Type 4 & 5 buffers of 175. They understand that some neighboring counties May have similar or lesser buffers for Type 4 & 5 waters. The Tribe feels it is not supported by the science. Buffer width is 75 100 provided by 40 58% of the cumulative functions to aquatic resources from a natural riparian forest. In some studies as much as 50% of the large woody debris was a term to come from upstream sources, notably headwater non-fish streams. In addition, they provide minimum wildlife benefits. In an analysis of the Knutson Naef document done by Applied Environmental Services the mean and median widths reported for wildlife were 287 and 200 respectively, regardless of stream type or size. Applied Environmental Services also performed an analysis that discussed vegetated buffer on the coastal zone and presented it in a table in 1998. Of the 12 studies focused on wildlife habitat, four supported 100 buffers and eight supported larger buffers of 180 600. One of the most significant relevant studies reported widths of 180 to protect general wildlife habitat. Buffers identified in Table 4 are the development standards identified in the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. These buffers arent adequate and are not supported by best available science; however they understand that the shoreline management guidelines are being developed by the Washington Department of Ecology through consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish & Wildlife Service. Which will require counties and other jurisdictions to address their shoreline maser programs with the goal of making them ESA compliant. The Tribe intends to work closely with Mason County in the future when the Shoreline Master Program is revised to address these issues for protection of critical marine and lake shorelines. The definition section on the back should include the definition for danger trees. They understand it is included in the resource ordinance. They thought it might be good to also include it in the definition section of the Fish & Wildlife ordinance as well.
They are concerned with Department of Natural Resources stream types. The County has adopted the stream typing system by reference. He understood that Michelle Stevie was pointing out the upgrades and downgrades, which are submitted by DNR, arent often times mapped right away. So a lot of times there is a lag time. It happened recently that a stream that was upgraded in 1996 was not on the DNR base layer and when it went through SEPA he commented it was upgraded four years previously. Unfortunately, DNR did not get anything back to the County before the SEPA period was over, so the stream was treated like a Type 4 stream.
The Board stated he understood that issue was included in the intent of the ordinance that allows site by site analysis and expansion or contraction of the buffers. The way the ordinance is currently written, buffers can be expanded beyond the minimum, if it is determined to be necessary. Or they can be shrunk if that also based on habitat management plan or some other scientific basis. It was questioned if the ordinance already includes the need to look at these on a case by case basis.
There is a situation with a stream in which DNR had listed as a non-fish-bearing stream but was. The ordinance would capture that at the time a development was proposed in the area, because there would be an on the ground assessment. That should enable the Planning Department to take that into consideration and expand the buffer under the buffer expansion provision.
Mr. Ereth stated that is not true because generally the planners are not fish biologists and they dont have the opportunity to go out and see a stream when there might be a fish in there.
If someone was going to apply for a building permit and it is on a Type 5 stream that is actually a fish bearing stream that is mistyped as a 5 and they will leave out a 100 buffer. There really is no reason for anyone to look at it to see whether it is a fish-bearing stream. DNR doesnt go through the process of quarterly sending out a list of all the stream upgrades and downgrades of the various counties. It would be helpful.
In closing, he explained that Skokomish Indian Tribe DNR still has concerns regarding some of the protections outlined in the ordinance. They appreciate the improvements made to the document, based on the best available science. They encourage the Commissioners to approve the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas in its current form with some minor modifications referred to.
The Board questioned why the Tribe feels it is significant to list Roosevelt Elk on Table 1 rather than Table 2.
Mr. Ereth replied that most of the wildlife comments they generated came through the Point No Point Treaty Council. They were primarily concerned about the calving grounds. In the Skokomish herds some of the calving grounds were in the Valley and up into the Browns Creek area.
Drew Noble commented that as a private citizen and taxpayer he provides documentation for the County to act on his request for a permit. It doesnt take county resources to do that. If other agencies would like to have the County incorporate things within their plans they should have at least the same responsibility, at their expense, to provide that information. For example updated streams, if they want information in the system it should be provided in a logical method that will mesh with the system, just as a private citizen does.
Wes Johnson noted at the hearing on August 22 there was discussion relative to the CMZ that it would include the entire Skokomish Valley. He questioned how this would be handled.
The Board responded the intent is to address that specific issue as an ongoing reiteration of ordinance. It would come following the adoption of the ordinance. It is not something that the Board felt they could develop a specific category like they did in the Flood Management Ordinance for the Skokomish Valley. It is their intent to address it similarly.
Mr. Johnson referred to Page 9 and commended the County for including the words "existing and ongoing agriculture."
He was concerned that on Page 9 (5) when the danger tree falls in a buffer zone this is land that belongs to the property owner and that person could not cut that tree up into firewood. Now where the word "request" has been replaced by "require" it just tightens the screws down a lot tighter.
The Board stated this is optional with the word "May."
Mr. Johnson stated he would like to see the verbiage go back to the word "request."
He referred to the buffer zones and suggested whenever they conduct a study as the Corps of Engineers has done in the Skokomish Valley there is a cost benefit factor. The end result of the studies reflects that the cost to correct or overcome the flooding situation is not justified in cost benefit factors. When it comes to buffers there is no cost benefit factor. It was brought out in the last hearing that as the buffer gets wider there is a diminishing return with respect to its improvement on the habitat in the stream and the wildlife. There is no cost involved. It is simply a matter of drawing the line and the property owner pays for it by loss of use of the property. He felt if there was some cost associated with the buffer they could come up with a realistic assessment of what is required, based on the cost that it would take to draw the line at a particular point. He understood as the buffer gets wider there is a diminishing return with respect to its improvement on the habitat in the stream and the wildlife. There is no cost involved. It is simply a matter of drawing the line.
Bill Wells referred to Michelle Stevies list of suggestions from Squaxin Island Tribe and questioned if they will be decided on at this public hearing. He questioned if they will be adopted in automatically. They are looking at a proposed ordinance that has been advertised to the public. There were a lot of comments listed, which he felt, could substantially change the ordinance and he would request another public hearing.
The Board noted that the biologist from the Squaxin Island Tribe pointed out some opinions that she had relative to some of the science. They have gone through an inordinate, time consuming process to enlist the consultant to review the science. It was questioned if the consultant has any comments relative to the input from Ms. Stevie.
Wayne Wright stated that he does have a fairly good sense from where Ms. Stevie was heading. He respectfully requested that she re-read the ordinance and think about what it states in context of what she requested. He offered to sit down with her.
The main concern is the "bank full width" issue. The draft environmental impact statement on alternatives for forest practices rules done by the Washington Forest Practices Board addresses "bank full width." It is the assumption by the Forest Practices Board that "bank full width" and "OHWM" are synonymous. In his experience, nine times out of 10 the terms are synonymous.
To introduce a new term would be injecting a lot of fear for possibly 3 4 feet. Mr. Wright stated it is not a significant difference for most cases. He suggested that 90% of the concerns with respect to the involvement with reviewing these things, if it is a stream crossing that ordinance is first rate. It is right in line with what the federal registry says about 100-year flood crossings.
The Board questioned if there is anything that will automatically adopt the 4-d rules as part of this document whenever they are complete.
Mr. Wright stated they have tried to integrate the tribes in the process. There is a key issue that is a problem in the whole process when they talk about best available science. What is best and what is available? He felt it is important to note the distinction.
The Board stated the Growth Management Hearings Board identified that they clearly consider WDF&W to be the experts in this arena. However, there was testimony that the standards are inadequate and their listings are incomplete. Science is unfolding and changing on a daily basis. An HMP will change the best available science that is available to a decision-maker, because that is new information that has to be considered. You will never have a list for standards that are ever in any realm 100% complete. It was questioned if the deficiencies identified in the testimony are substantial and significant to cause them to step back and reconsider. To the greatest degree possible, it was questioned if those deficiencies were considered and analyzed in the proposal.
Mr. Wright responded that it is his opinion that the buffers, which have been recommended they have acknowledged as the minimum, recommended buffers to preserve and protect the basic functions of streams.
The overall components of involvement of Tribes, it will not protect the functions and values of the riparian corridor complete for all species.
They took into context landform, land shape, watershed development options, how much is forest land long term and how much is developable. He felt these are important when considering the ultimate decisions. The species list was intended to be one that mimicked what WDF&W brought to the Growth Management Hearings Board. They have no problem adding the Roosevelt Elk and the Dolly Varden back on to the table. The Mud Minnow they will need to check as it is unclear if it shows up on the list of Mason County species.
The Board asked if the buffers and regulations in the ordinance would work to restore any of the habitat that is of concern to people.
Mr. Wright stated the ordinance is written for new development. It wont restore problems for existing development. It will raise awareness and shed new light on problems in Mason County. It will give ideas on how better to approach new projects. It May not necessarily go out and physically restore degraded areas. It was not the intent of the ordinance to do that. It is their position that active management of bad zones, bad areas falls with the state and tribes as co-managers. It is the Boards job to make sure that land use actions that are permitted give them the best tools necessary to perform the job. He stated this is why he wants to be cooperative with all the agencies and careful not to put any animosity toward them.
The Board questioned if he is comfortable with the discussion regarding the wells.
Mr. Wright stated his first thought was why be specific about the well head. The ordinance under utilities - iv discusses utility corridor construction and maintenance.
It is not specific to potable water wells or any utility corridor or any length. It is basically if the applicant needs to do this they would need to show with an HMP why it would need to be there and make a decision. An HMP triggers the need to make sure they talk to people. He is not necessarily comfortable with picking so many feet allowance. He would like to limit it to the maximum extent possible. It is important that there isnt just a blanket approval and do it properly with an HMP.
The Board questioned if this should be allowed up to 100 encroachment.
Mr. Wright replied this could cause problems for the Type 4 & 5 streams. There would be people putting the well right on a stream bank. A habitat management plan issue does not have to be a huge document. It could be very simple.
He addressed the danger tree issue and cutting it. If the tree is within the buffer you cant cut it anyway. It is not the owners tree to cut. If leaving it within the buffer is the proper thing to do, the applicant to look at their work and determine if it is acceptable. They are not loosing any firewood because they didnt have it to begin with.
He concluded he liked the ordinance and what it does. It is more restrictive than what is currently in place and he felt it is necessary and will be putting the best foot forward for co-management with the county, tribes and states.
Mr. Wright was not aware of any major issues that Ms. Stevie brought up. He believed the ordinance, as it is meets and addresses the issues of the GMA board with the exception of the shoreline buffers, which were discussed. He appreciated the Skokomish Tribes position, because that is best left for another forum.
Bill Wells referred to Page 17 J Habitat Management Plan Requirements and asked that the Board make provision for the landowner or developer to prepare the HMP.
The Board asked how a non-biologist type person would be able to develop a scientific base plan. GMA requires best available science. The purpose of the qualified professional is to seek an attorney to represent the applicant in a court of law or to have someone who has some background in habitat environmental issues.
Mr. Wells stated that if the document is prepared properly and meets the proposed guidelines the owner should not be limited from developing the document.
Mr. Wright stated the document states the applicant shall consult with the State Department of Fish & Wildlife and the Tribes. The applicant can approach a qualified fish and wildlife professional to look at the document as well as the State and Tribes. There is enough intent and latitude that if a homeowner has a simple HMP and can get endorsement from the state or the tribe or both, Mason County could approve it and not get hung up on the "prepared by."
Drew Noble stated the Habitat Management Plan does not need a biological assessment and it does not take the place of JARPA. He asked if this would be reviewed by the County biologist. He questioned the necessity of the homeowner hiring someone to prepare a HMP.
The Board responded the HMP would be reviewed by the County biologist.
Cmmr. Cady/Olsen moved and seconded to close the public comment and continue this hearing to 4:10 p.m. to prepare a motion. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
This will allow Squaxin Tribe, if they chose, to bring in their written comments.
The Board recessed at 12:39 p.m. until 4:10 p.m. at which time they came back into regular session.
The Board noted they have had an opportunity to review and discuss some of the testimony, which was provided at the hearing in the morning.
Cmmr. Cady commented that the Board did receive written comments from Michelle Stevie's from the Squaxin Tribe; however, there was no scientific documentation with them. They did look at and consider her testimony and in the future if the Tribe wants to present more testimony and the science behind it they would be glad to consider the recommendations further.
The issue about the channel migration zones (CMZ). It is the Boards intent to have a future work product that will look at the Skokomish River and larger river systems relative to CMZ. It is apparently not appropriate to put a comment into the purpose statement so the County will be sending a letter thanking the tribes and the agencies for their participation. Also, the County will be requesting that they all look at their own ordinances and documents that they work with and try to come up to the same standard as this ordinance.
Cmmr. Cady expressed that the science changes and best available at any given time can be different. They still have real concerns about Channel Migration Zones and waiting to do the larger river systems in the Skokomish Valley. She stated she was not comfortable with the buffers and she felt like as soon as a 4 D rule comes into effect, it would change this document.
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded to adopt the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Ordinance date August 23, 2000 draft B with the following changes:
Table 1 - strike "listed by state and federal agencies" and make Table 1 "Species of importance that May occur in Mason County." It would include the Dolly Varden and the Roosevelt Elk that are not listed with state or federal standards at this time.
On Page 17 J Add the language "Prior to submittal to the County the Habitat Management Plan shall be reviewed by a qualified fish and wildlife professional and approved for adequacy." at the beginning of the last sentence before 1. There would be a completed application that has already been through some type of biologist review.
Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye. Ordinance No. 89-00 (Exhibit A)
Cmmr. Olsen/Cady moved and seconded to adopt the Findings of Fact to reflect their decision and authorize the Chairs signature. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-aye.
The meeting adjourned at 4:24 p.m. due to no further business.
Rebecca S. Rogers
Clerk of the Board
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
John A. Bolender, Chairperson
Mary Jo Cady, Commissioner
Cynthia D. Olsen, Commissioner