This document serves as final summation of the Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation’s opposition to the Hills’ Reasonable Use Exemption. Per the Board’s request at the hearing on December 8, 1999, we are providing no additional information or expert testimony to the public record.  

Executive Summary

Section 16.18.080 of the LFP Municipal Code states five criteria, all of which must be met, before a Reasonable Use Exemption may be granted. The LFP Stewardship Foundation maintains that the following four of these criteria have not been met.

1. Application of sensitive area requirements would deny all reasonable use of the property.  
   

2. There is no other reasonable use with less impact on the property.  
   

3. The proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, on or off the proposed site, and is consistent with the general purposes of this chapter and the comprehensive plan.  
   

4. Any alteration to the sensitive area or associated buffer shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property.

Criteria 1, 2, and 4 largely hinge on the legal definition of “reasonable use”, and are addressed in Section A of this document.  Section B reviews portions of the public record describing the various threats to the public health, safety, and welfare posed by the Hills’ proposal, per Criterion 3 of 16.18.010.  Section C specifically addresses alterations to the sensitive area or associated buffer, including wetlands delineation, mitigation and mapping discrepancies.   Finally, Section D discusses what we believe to be significant procedural errors which occurred during the City’s review of the Hill materials and in the conduct of the public hearings thereon.

A.  Criteria 1&2:  Denial of Reasonable Use  (LFPMC 16.18.080)

Exhibit # 40 is a letter from Claudia M. Newman, an attorney with Bricklin and Gendler, LLP. Ms. Newman was retained by the Stewardship Foundation to investigate the legal aspects of the Hill application. One of the more significant findings in this exhibit was the fact that the Washington Court of Appeals ruled, in Guimont v. Seattle, 1995, that the concept of “reasonable use” does not apply to each individual tax parcel in a property. Instead, the Court ruled that reasonable use applies to the entire property as a whole.  

The Hills are claiming that reasonable use applies to each individual lot in their parcel, and that the construction of four houses – one per tax parcel – is the minimum “reasonable” use of the property. This is clearly contrary to the decision rendered in Guimont v. Seattle. In fact, reasonable use of the Hills’ property would be one single-family residence.  

Note that when this issue was presented to the Board of Adjustments on December 8, 1999, Vice Chair Galvin interjected his opinion that this decision had been reversed in Supreme Court. This is not true. The Supreme Court denied a request for appeal and never heard this case. See the attached letter from C. M. Newman, dated December 21, 1999, for additional legal information on this matter.

Given that the concept of “reasonable use” applies to the entire Hill parcel, it is clear that Criteria 1, 2, and 4 of LFPMC 16.18.080 are not met by the applicants, since:   

1. Application of the sensitive areas ordinance would not deny the applicant all reasonable use of their property;  
   

2. There is in fact reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area – to wit, one house, and;  
   

3. The proposed alteration to the sensitive area buffers is not the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use, since reasonable use could be obtained by not encroaching on buffers at all, i,.e,. by building one house on Lot 3 and no houses on Lots 1, 2 and 4.   

Please note that the denial of the current Reasonable Use Exemption would not represent a denial of all use of the Hill's property. It is merely a delay until acceptable plans can be negotiated between the applicants and the City.

B. Criterion 3:  The proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, on or off the proposed site, and is consistent with the general purposes of this chapter and the comprehensive plan  (LFPMC 16.18.080)

Storm Water Pollution and Flooding

The proposed development would severely alter the water quality and hydrology of the wetland and stream.  The water of this system is a common asset of the citizens of Lake Forest Park, and demands protection in the interest of public welfare.

In the conceptual mitigation scheme accepted by the Planning Director (see page 3, Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Report, B&A Inc.), the applicant’s consultant, A.J. Bredberg, asserts “Roof runoff can be discharged directly into the wetland, or outside the wetland and allowed to sheet flow into the wetland.”  However, Erik Stockdale, Senior Wetlands Specialist at the Washington Department of Ecology writes (Exhibit #15) “The Rob Hill project cannot locate its storm water system in the wetlands on Brookside Creek, tributary to McAleer Creek, without an approved wetland mitigation plan from the Dept. of Ecology.  The developer should place the storm water system outside the wetland and its buffer.  It is highly unlikely that I will approve the use of this wetland for storm water control and treatment.”

Storm Water Alters Water Chemistry 

Residential storm-water carries with it roof-treatment chemicals for moss control that contain large amounts of zinc, copper and other metals, highly toxic to fish.  Storm water allowed to flow across lawns carries with it insecticides toxic to aquatic life, and nutrients that speed up algae bloom and eutrophication. Consultant Bredberg acknowledges this problem (Page 3, B&A Inc. Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Report) but says that a vegetated buffer between the homes and wetlands will ameliorate the effect.  Note, however, that this is the same buffer which the applicant wishes to eliminate, and asks for an exemption from the City’s ordinances in order to do so.

Planning Director, Ty Peterson, also anticipates this pollution problem (Tape 4, Dec.8^th hearing) and acknowledges “I don’t have an answer for that"…."All these things require some expectation that people will be good stewards.”

At the same time, Ty Peterson and Dr. Percy Washington (Tapes 3 and 4, Dec.8^th hearing), contend that the Brookside Creek drainage has been so badly abused by its residential neighbors that (they claim, although contradicted by fisheries experts) it will no longer support salmon. They wish to cite the historical abuse of the watershed as reason to ignore the likely presence of salmon; they wish at the same time to depend on “good stewardship” and to “rely heavily on the neighbors” to obviate concern over future chemical, oil and detergent pollution from surface runoff and subsurface flow.

The hydrology of the wetland has not been modeled.  Without a basic understanding of how the wetland currently functions, there is no way to assess whether any proposed mitigation restores or maintains the current functions of the wetland and its buffers.  Without this information, the downstream impact of development cannot be assessed.

The change in hydrology by roof runoff and driveway sheet flow is likely to alter the hydroperiod of the wetland and directly impact the plant and animal species able to survive in and around the wetland.

The applicant’s attorney, Richard Stephens (Tape 3, Dec.8^th hearing) also acknowledges the problem: “There have been some comments about lawn chemicals. There will be protected covenants on the buffers…Without these you could have encroachment on the buffers and that would impact the wetlands.”

To be effective, however, such covenants would have to be placed on the homeowners’ lawns.  The buffers Mr. Stephens refers to are eliminated with the granting of the exemption, and the Planning Director does not propose to place covenants against the future residents’ own lawns (see above, reliance on “good stewards.”)

Storm Water Increases Flooding

Please review the testimony (Tape 2, side B), and documentation (Exhibit #59) of Dr. David Peterson, an expert witness with a Ph.D. dissertation in wetland forestry, and broad experience in hydrology and hydraulic research for federal agencies and the University of Washington. He warns that a 10 to 20 % increase in impervious surface doubles the rate of surface runoff (from Stream Corridor Restoration, by the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998).  Surface runoff increases peak flow and decreases the shallow infiltration and deep absorption capabilities that a wetland provides. Thus the proposed four-home development would increase surface runoff by approximately 1.2 million gallons per year into the McAleer watershed, already marked by increasingly serious flood problems during recent winters.  The building proposal argument that only 7% impervious surface is generated is grossly misleading, as the change in the impervious surface adjacent to the wetland will change from 0% to greater than 20%.

See also the observations of Mr. Al Zehni (Exhibit #39), a professional engineer with background in hydrology, commenting on the Drainage Feasibility Plan by Erich O. Tietze.  Mr.Zehni warns that additional impervious surface could create flooding within the proposed development, as well as downstream on other properties.  No site-specific flood plain study has been prepared; such a study could dictate that storm water detention facilities be located outside the basin.  (See the Department of Ecology letter from Erik Stockdale, Exhibit #15).

Septic Pollution Exceeds DOE Levels

The entire McAleer Creek watershed is listed by the Washington Dept of Ecology (DOE) under Section 303 (d) of the U.S. Clean Water Act, as exceeding tolerable limits for fecal coliform, a seepage and leachate product of septic tanks and septic fields.  (See written summary of testimony by Bob Simmons, filed Nov. 17^th, with copy of the DOE sampling report.  Sixty-three percent of the McAleer Creek samplings from 1991 to 1997 were over the legal limits.)

Protection of this public asset dictates that no more septic systems be introduced into this 303 (d) watershed until the City has requested the DOE to perform a study of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), as directed by a court settlement agreed to in 1998 by the Washington DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as part of a consent decree resulting from a U.S. District court suit brought by Northwest Environmental Advocates.  The settlement agreement has yet to be honored by the City of Lake Forest Park.

Until TMDL levels are established, no permits for additional discharges may legally be authorized, because the certification required under Section 301(b)(1)(c) of the U.S. Clean Water Act cannot be provided.  Yet the Planning Director consents to the placing of 2000 gallons per day of septic waste into highly erosive soil, on a 17% grade, directly up-slope from the wetland ponds.  (See Drainage Plan and map submitted by Erich Tietze & Associates).

The Planning Director (Tape 4, Dec.8^th) cites approval by the King County Health Department as sufficient evidence that the septic fields will do no harm.  However, that Department’s concerns do not extend to the contamination of fish habitat (see letter from Sid Foreman, Exhibit #57).  Nor do their investigations determine if the septic field site is underlain by the water-resistant clay underlying nearby hillsides (see Exhibit #29, letter from soil scientist, Dr. James McCalpin). Such a clay layer would prevent vertical leaching of septic waste and force the waste down-slope to pollute and fertilize the wetland ponds. This flowing water destabilizes the overlying soil, causing shifts and eventual landslides and leads to an increase of waterborne weeds and algae, and deterioration of salmon habitat.

Mapping Concerns

Even though the D.R. Strong On-Site Sewage Disposal map does not represent a detailed topographic survey, it does indicate the location of the septic tank, pump chamber, sand filter and 10 foot transport line easement between Wetland B and the proposed houses. The installation of such will require significant excavation especially when a 7-ft tank is buried near the water table. Specifically the encroachment is entirely within the buffered areas in 3 of the 4 sites when compared to the B&A. Inc. map (Please see copy of map attached to this document).  A detailed representation is in order to properly demonstrate the feasible locations of the septic system and how it would relate to the wetlands and their buffers.

There is no geologic cross-section in the American Engineering report of the slope where the stability analysis was performed. The hill-slope was assumed to be homogenous sand. Existing geological maps that cover the area were not mentioned or displayed by the applicant. The maps indicate the contact of Esperance Sand overlying Lawton Clay. This contact is associated with landslides in the region and can flaw the geometry of the slope stability model. The evidence of clay on these maps at the water table can suggest effluent from the proposed 1800 gallon per day septic field to eventually permeate the sand layer to the impermeable clay layer.  When water flow accumulates over the slippery clay layer, the overlying sand will slide downhill, causing slope failure. This would result in damaging the integrity of the rigid septic lines and compromising the septic drain field installation, dumping septic effluent into Wetland B and the out-flowing stream (Exhibit #29)

When the wetland has been appropriately delineated, much of the septic system, including tanks and lines, will be located in the wetlands.  As pointed out in previous testimony, the D. R. Strong map, not drawn to scale, gives the erroneous impression that there is adequate room to place septic tanks and related accessories.  The more detailed B. & A. Inc. maps clearly show that there is no room outside the building envelope for septic lines and points out the unfeasibility of the D.R Strong proposal.  The D. R. Strong map shows that the septic system and four houses have been placed in the wetland.  These discrepancies highlight the overall implausibility of development of this site (see attached maps referenced above).

We believe that the threat to public health, safety, and welfare has been more than adequately demonstrated. In addition, there is now federal legislation which should caution the City against further contamination risk to human, plant, and animal life.

References:

Sarah Spear Cooke Ph.D – Cook Scientific Services (Exhibit # 35)

Elizabeth J MacWhinney – Professional Wetland Scientist #1024 (Exhibit # 33)

James P. McCalpin – GEO-HAZ Consulting, Inc. (Exhibit #29)

Is Brookside Creek Salmon Habitat?

The Stewardship Foundation has provided reliable eye-witnesses to past sightings of spawning salmon in Brookside Creek.  (Letter from Dr. Donald Keith, letters and testimony from Dr. Jack Nicholls and Mr. Bruce Froemming, November 17, 1999).  In addition there has been ample testimony as to the possibility and probability of Coho salmon using this as spawning habitat for adult salmon and wintering habitat for juveniles (Exhibits #21, 30, 31, 36, 37, 48, 50).  Though Dr. Percy Washington claimed to have drawn some rather extensive conclusions regarding the gradient and quality of habitat by observing this stream in a very deep ravine from his car, there were several witnesses who walked the length of the stream and came to quite different conclusions.  Those witnesses were Doug Hennick, Cleveland Steward III, and Chris Wilson, as well as four members of the Stewardship Foundation. It is quite probable that Coho salmon would again make use of this stream when man-made barriers are removed downstream, and if by employing responsible land use, degradation can be prevented.

Degradation would be caused by too much water introduced into the stream habitat system during storm runoff.

An added quantity of water during our unusually heavy storm events will cause scouring of the streambed, destroying fish habitat; undercutting of the stream edges, releasing silt and sand, destabilizing the steep, high stream banks, thus increasing likelihood of landslides (Exhibit #14).  The fine sand and silt released by washing and landslides will be deposited in Brookside and McCleer Creek, covering gravel spawning beds and smothering fish eggs (Exhibit #59, Peterson).

Degradation would be caused by inadequate buffers to wetlands and streams.

Why are buffers important?  Elizabeth MacWhinney, wetlands biologist, addresses this fully (Exhibit #33).

It is unclear why reference was made to "buffer averaging" by the City Planner and on the developer's schematic plans.  This could only occur if wider buffers were to be added in one place to compensate for lost buffer width in another.  On this plan, there is no opportunity to add buffers.

The applicants have failed to show under what auspices they can:

1.       deeply encroach upon the wetland and stream buffers,

2.       greatly increase impervious surface area,

3.       deliver runoff directly into the open water, wetland, and reduced wetland buffer,

4.       add 1600 to 2000 gallons of septic water daily to a slope which has springs at its base,

and not increase the quantity of runoff to the fragile stream which has its headlands and major flow generated on this property.  The burden of proof of how this is to be accomplished is upon the property owner/developer.

C.  Criterion  4:  Any alteration to the sensitive area or associated buffer shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property.  (LFPMC 16.18.080)

Wetland Delineation is Inaccurate

It is not possible to assess the impact of this development on these wetlands until an accurate delineation is performed.  Therefore, Criterion #4 of the LFPMC 16.18.080 is not met. The Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation and Dr. David L. Peterson have submitted compelling scientific evidence (see references below) to support the claim that the wetland delineation is inaccurate.

Estimates of wetlands and wetland acreage are inaccurate; they include only the wetlands on the Hill property, do not encompass the surrounding landscape and contribute to misrepresented buffered areas.

Appropriate delineation of the entire wetland system (including the addition of more acreage to the wetland on site) will likely result in a change in the overall classification. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (March, 1997), published by the Department of Ecology, states on page 71 that if it is a disturbed soil site, only 1 criterion, not all 3, needs to be met (Simmons, Dec. 8^th hearing).

A large stream on the western edge of Wetland B in Lot 4 (Exhibit #35, Map) was omitted from the B&A Inc. report. Wetland functions are greatly enhanced if there is an associated stream along the wetland boundary. This  is a sinuous wetland system associated with several streams, making buffer encroachment all the more critical in this area.

The drainage area (“CLD”) just under the footprint of the building envelope for Lot 4 is draining an undelineated area of wetland on the southern region of the site (Exhibit #35, Wetland Map & Exhibit #49).

Wetland A is currently situated on fill. This entire area was wetland prior to selective filling. It is highly likely that this wetland was connected to Wetland B prior to filling at this site, which was ultimately connected to wetlands on the adjacent Petrie site (south of Lot 4), (Exhibits #33 & #35, Wetland Map).

The wetland to the south of Lot 4 (part of the Petrie property) is not an additional wetland as stated in the B&A  Inc. report. It is the continuance of area B, the roadside stream, drainage from Lot 4, and the confluence of several seepage streams on Lot 4 that were flagged but neither mapped nor referenced in the B&A Inc. report.  A wetland delineation for the Petrie property shows wetlands extending onto the Hill property. However, the buffer on the Hill proposal has been shown in much of the area as if the property edge were the boundary of the wetland. 

Evidence from three wetland experts materially disagrees with the delineation paid for by the developer.  A.J. Bredberg has stated that hydrology, vegetation and hydric soils must all be present to define a wetland.  This is not the case in a disrupted wetland; only one condition is required in grossly disrupted areas.  Mr. Bredburg and Hill and Associates agree that extensive disruption has occurred on this site, as is amply demonstrated in the photographic evidence submitted.  Therefore, wetland plants and algal rings representing wetland hydrology constitute evidence of wetland indicators, even in the absence of hydric soils.  Both of these indicators extend well beyond the wetland delineated by B&A.

Independent wetland delineation is mandatory to confirm or correct the existing wetland delineation proposed by the applicant. Additionally, the Washington Department of Ecology is recommended to make the final call regarding the wetland boundaries (Exhibit #33).  

References:

Sarah Spear Cooke Ph.D. - Cook Scientific Services, Inc. (Exhibit #35)

Elizabeth J. MacWhinney - Professional Wetland Scientist #1024 (Exhibit #33)

Cleveland R. Steward III - Steward & Associates (Exhibit #53)

Theodore Muller - Department of Fish and Wildlife (Exhibit # 30 and 30A)

Mitigation Proposal is Inadequate

A mitigation plan is required at this point of a development proposal such that the potential developer can convincingly demonstrate that mitigation sufficient to compensate for the detrimental environmental impact of the development can be accomplished and furthermore, will be accomplished on this site. The onus is on the developer to demonstrate this beyond a reasonable doubt to the Board.  The plan submitted by Hill and Associates contains several significant errors and fails to compensate for the damage to streams and wetlands.  There is a history of City code violations on this property by the current owner and, by the City’s own admission, the City lacks the resources to confirm compliance with such plans, relying heavily if not solely on the neighbors (see above, Ty Peterson, Tape 4, December 8, 199 hearing). This situation may only worsen with the implementation of I-695.  The Board could and should reject this application solely on the basis of the inadequacies of the mitigation proposal submitted.

Specifically:  

• The mitigation proposal is based on an erroneous wetland assessment which significantly underestimates the wetland acreage. 
  

• The mitigation proposed assumes no encroachment on actual wetlands, which is not the case.  
  

• There is no mitigation planned for the impact of three driveways crossing the potentially salmonid-bearing roadside stream along 30^th Avenue.  
  

• The hydrology of the wetland has not been modeled.  Without a basic understanding of how the wetland currently functions, there is no way to assess whether any proposed mitigation restores or maintains the current function of the wetland and its buffers.  Without this information, the downstream impact of development cannot be assessed.
  

• The change in hydrology by roof runoff and driveway sheet flow is likely to change the hydroperiod of the wetland and directly impact the plant and animal species able to survive in and around the wetland.
  

• The mitigation plan addresses only vegetation, with no specific consideration of fish or other wildlife, which will also clearly be impacted by the development.

Even if we were to accept the wetlands as delineated by B&A, Inc. the building proposal calls for reducing wetland buffers to zero in one spot, and less than 10 feet in another.  Castelle, et.al. (1992) (Exhibit # 33) clearly demonstrated that wetland buffers of less than 50 feet are generally ineffective in protecting wetlands. This building proposal calls for 24,726 square feet of buffer and building setbacks to be converted to houses, lawns and driveways.  This is necessary in order to accommodate the planned three bedroom homes with lawns and private driveways, not the minimum that would be required to grant “reasonable” use of the property, even if we assume that single family homes for each of the platted lots is reasonable use.  The best mitigation for damage to wetlands is to not encroach upon them or their buffers in the first place.  Building fewer or smaller-sized homes, possibly with a single shared driveway outside of the buffers and building setbacks may be a possibility depending on examination of an accurate wetland delineation.  Reducing a buffer with lawn should not be considered an option based on the poor performance of lawn as a buffer, and the ongoing risk of lawn chemical applications associated with lawn propagation.

Much of the proposed enhancement area is already forested, and may actually be damaged by the additional plantings proposed for “mitigation.”  A "laundry list" of 50 possible plants, some of which are not native to North America, and are extremely rare in Lake Forest Park, or may pose a biological threat to existing native species (Exhibit #59) has been provided as a mitigation “conceptual plan.” There is no description of what species would be planted, in what numbers or grouping, nor location and distribution. There is no proposed monitoring plan for the mitigation.  Performance standards have not been established.  There are no maintenance or contingency plans. Without this basic information, it is not possible for the Board to evaluate the adequacy of the mitigation proposal (Exhibit # 33). 

A.J. Bredberg testified at the December 8^th hearing that studies citing the short and long-term failures of mitigation plans applied only to wetland mitigation, not buffer enhancements.  This is not the case.  He states that, “we are not altering the hydrology of the area,” while offering no evidence to support this statement.  He describes the mitigation plan as, “We are not doing anything particularly difficult here.  We are going out to plant some tress and shrubs…what we are doing is not a complicated planting - just a routine planting of trees and shrubs.  Most anybody does that on their homes and lawns.”  We believe this clearly underestimates the scope of the project.

The Board has not been provided with adequate information to assure a reasonable person that mitigation is likely to offset the damage to the wetlands.  The impact assessment and mitigation plans submitted are too generic even for a conceptual plan and raise serious questions about the entire application.   All of these components are necessary to assess impact on the sensitive area before mitigation can take place.

D.  Procedural Issues

A neutral assessment by an independent consultant, hired by the City, to support or negate the data submitted by the applicant’s consultants has not occurred.  The absence of this data raises questions as to the validity of the delineation and presumes that the data submitted by the applicant is complete, factual and objective.  As a result of our investigation, the City’s presumption has proven to be incorrect. 

The Board of Adjustment placed the burden of proof on opponents rather than the applicant when requesting those opposed to provide the best science to support their data and to provide studies and expert information in writing.  This request was made despite overwhelming community opposition to the proposed Reasonable Use Exemption.  Further, the LFPMC specifies, "It is the responsibility of the applicant to prove all criteria are met in order for the Board of Adjustment to consider approval of the application."

Access to the Hill property was unavailable to the Lake Forest Park Stewardship Foundation.  On November 20^th, 1999, the Foundation mailed a certified letter to Rob and Debbie Hill requesting permission to access the property (copy attached).  Receipt of this request was confirmed, however, no response to this request was received.  The fact that the Foundation had no access to the proposed development site does not invalidate the experts' testimony. 

The City of Lake Forest Park's lack of effective oversight to enforce mitigation violations has been raised during this process.  Mr. Ty Peterson stated in testimony given on December 8, 1999 that "the City does not have funds to monitor mitigations."  He further remarked that "all these require some expectation that people will be good stewards" and identified that the City can require signs to be posted and fencing or physical barriers to be put in place.  He added "…in this community we rely heavily on the neighbor issue." 

In light of the recent listing of Chinook Salmon as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the interpretation of habitat degradation as harming (Exhibit 42), and that the Hill property is part of the headwaters of a major tributary of McAleer Creek, a documented habitat of Chinook Salmon, it is incumbent upon the City to consider the possible impact of the proposed development on the downstream Chinook habitat. Specifically, on September 21, 1999, a Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon entitled Extinction is Not An Option (ENAO) was published[1]. As a member of the Association of Washington Cities, which in turn is a member of the Washington State Government Council on Natural Resources[2], the City of Lake Forest Park is a part of the agreement between the state and the federal government in their effort to implement federal environmental law, following the guidelines set forth by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in March of 1997 between Washington State, and a number of federal agencies.

For example, Section IV of ENAO states that several of the federal laws:

“establish a shared responsibility between various local governments, between the state and local governments, and with tribal governments,” “In some instances, more restrictive regulations and/or economic incentives must be enacted to protect, preserve and restore salmon habitat. In many other cases, more effective implementation, mitigation, enforcement and rigorous monitoring of current regulations are required”, in order to “ensure implementation of land use practices that protect habitat and/or have no detrimental impacts on salmon habitat.” It also recommends “focus[ing] state and local land use and salmon recovery efforts first in areas with Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings and areas with potential for high quality habitat.”

Furthermore, ENAO states:

“Local governments that fail to implement programs and regulations that include best available science and give special consideration for salmon protection and restoration will not be eligible to receive certain protections granted under the Endangered Species Act.”

We urge the Board of Adjustment to give careful consideration to this and all other issues raised during the Sensitive Areas Reasonable Use Exemption Hearing process.