Island County commissioners responded to a state board’s order to improve regulations meant to protect fish and wildlife late last month, but the environmental group that originally objected to the county’s rules says the proposed fix still isn’t enough.

Under the Growth Management Act, or GMA, counties are required to protect “critical areas,” such as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, through a consistent comprehensive plan and conservation regulations.

The act also requires counties to periodically review and update these regulations.

THE ORDINANCE, adopted June 23 by the commissioners, is meant to complete a review of Island County’s Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area regulations, now 11 years overdue. It also served to remedy issues identified by a hearings board following the county’s previous attempt to complete the same review of the conservation regulations two years ago.

“The effort to update our fish and wildlife critical areas was something that we all wanted to do in an appropriate and timely manner,” Commissioner Helen Price Johnson said.

The state Growth Management Hearings Board remanded several issues to the county for further consideration in June 2015 after advocacy group Whidbey Environmental Action Network, or WEAN, raised concerns and the ordinance was appealed to the Hearings Board.

SEVERAL OF the hearings board’s findings took issue with “the lack of best available science in the administrative record,” as stated in the ordinance. That board also ordered the county to ensure the protection of its only Natural Area Preserve and the habitats of rare plants, prairies and the Western Toad, according WEAN spokesman Steve Erickson.

The ordinance addresses the issue of best available science and introduces new restrictions on land use. In fact, all three commissioners expressed dislike for the extent of regulations within the ordinance, though each felt it a necessary compromise.

“I feel very strongly that (the ordinance) is a quality product and I think it meets and exceeds the requirements that we have in front of us,” Commissioner Rick Hannold said.

MEMBERS OF WEAN, however, hotly contested whether the latest ordinance is in compliance with the Hearings Board’s orders, voicing their dissatisfaction during a public hearing last week and in written comments submitted to the board.

The new ordinance considered whether an extended buffer area outside the county’s Natural Area Preserve boundaries was necessary to protect fish and wildlife habitat within the preserve. The county determined that adjacent roads, developments and cultivated fields made additional buffering unnecessary when there is “sufficient land within these areas to ensure no net loss of habitat functions or values.”

“The County learned that the (Department of Natural Resources) had intentionally established the preserve borders to include sufficient buffering,” the ordinance states.

However, buffers may be necessary based on habitat sensitivity and the type of development activity proposed when there is not sufficient land, according to the ordinance.

ERICKSON, HOWEVER, claimed that the ordinance’s exclusion of a buffer ultimately puts the “heritage forest” within the preserve at risk. He said the heritage forest could threaten a structure if it is developed too close to the tree line. This is due to blowdown susceptibility.

“What happens is there’s pressure on the property managers to cut down those trees because they can damage structures if they are blown over,” Erickson said. “Because they have intertwined ‘pancake’ roots, once one tree is cut others are at risk too.”

Erickson says a buffer will ensure development near the preserve occurs a sufficient distance from the heritage forest.

When it comes to the Western Toad, the county opted out of designating the toad’s upland habitat when protecting it from development. Additionally, the ordinance did not find best available science indicating a threat to the species or justifying its designation as a species of local importance or special consideration.

Instead, the ordinance protects only known breeding grounds, noting that protection without science to support further regulation could ultimately put the species at risk.

“THERE’S NOT sufficient best available science that’s Island County-specific with regard to the toad,” Meredith Penny, the county’s long range planner, said. “Establishing regulations without having that knowledge could do more harm than good.”

Erickson, and fellow WEAN member Marianne Edain, said they disagreed, noting that the county should designate upland habitat, where both say the toad spends significant time.

“Designating protects that habitat in restricting the degree of development that can happen there,” Erickson said. “This ensures connectivity between the toad’s wetland habitat and upland habitat.”

That the county based its decision on the toad’s lack of threatened or endangered status is unacceptable, Erickson said.

“They’re not listed yet, but why wait for the train wreck?” he said. “We shouldn’t wait until these critters are on their last leg.”

THE HEARINGS Board also determined that the county also “failed to include best available science in its consideration of westside prairies, oak woodlands, and herbaceous balds as habitats of local importance” in its original review.

In response, the ordinance identified 13 prairies, herbaceous balds and oak woodlands areas within unincorporated Island County based on further scientific analysis; five are protected under existing regulations while the remaining eight are “potentially or partially” protected.

To ensure full protection, the ordinance designated all areas as habitats of local importance. The county opted out of individual plant species protections, instead choosing to protect ecosystems.

ACCORDING TO WEAN, the ordinance failed to provide a clear definition of “prairie” that would serve to consistently protect such areas not included in the 13 identified.

However, Penny said, the methodology used to identify the 13 prairies is outlined in a technical scientific memorandum provided by the county’s consultants.

“Although it’s not in this ordinance, if in the future this becomes an issue they can use that methodology in the memorandum,” she said.

Erickson, who has worked with WEAN on Island County’s GMA compliance for almost 20 years, said that he doesn’t anticipate the Hearings Board being satisfied with this ordinance.