WEAN’s Substack

Despite Concerns, Island County And Oak Harbor Move Forward With Annexation

Mon, 30 Mar 2026 20:57:38 GMT

Despite Concerns, Island County And Oak Harbor Move Forward With Annexation

On March 19, 2026, the City of Oak Harbor and the Board of Island County Commissioners (BOCC) held a public hearing to discuss an interlocal agreement between the city and the county regarding the annexation of almost 80 acres currently within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) that Oak Harbor has identified as "vacant and underdeveloped" into the city limits. The City has requested annexation of this land to accommodate population growth outlined in the Island County Comprehensive Plan. Both jurisdictions are required to approve the interlocal agreement before continuing with annexation.

During public testimony, WEAN Executive Director Marnie Jackson urged Island County and the City of Oak Harbor to reconsider the terms of the proposed interlocal agreement before it is finalized and to follow the sequencing outlined by the Growth Management Act (GMA) by addressing current "donut holes," developed areas of unincorporated Island County surrounded by land incorporated into the City of Oak Harbor, before annexing any additional land. ("Donut holes" on the map above are represented in grey, surrounded by blue.)

"The GMA does not allow a city to manufacture a capacity shortage through declining to upzone and develop infrastructure appropriately, nor to allow that manufactured shortage to justify pushing growth into unincorporated land on the fringes of the city, furthest from urban services, and objectively less suitable for the denser, more affordable housing that the data shows we need," said Jackson.

State law, RCW 36.70A.110 , directs that urban growth first be located in areas already characterized by urban development, rather than on land characterized as "vacant and undeveloped." Island County's own Comprehensive Plan, in accordance with that statute, directs urban development first to areas within municipal boundaries.

"Existing urban areas must be served and incorporated before or concurrent with new land being added at the fringe," stated Jackson. She also reminded both jurisdictions that Whidbey Environmental Action Network reserves the right to challenge this agreement before the Growth Management Hearings Board within the window following adoption, on the grounds that the jurisdictions did not follow the sequencing explicitly outlined by the GMA.

Rose Hughes, Managing Director of affordable housing developer Island Roots Housing, also gave public comment opposing the annexation proposal, arguing that it would put lower-income people on the fringes of the city, if affordable housing could be built in those areas at all. Hughes highlighted that the median hourly wage for working residents of Island County is $17.33, and that a significant portion of Island County workers earn less than 35% of the Area Median Income while working full-time. She also noted that the current proposal wouldn't create competitive conditions for affordable housing developers to receive the grant funding required to build in the annexed areas.

"If the purpose of this proposed annexation is for the farthest reaches of Oak Harbor to be the areas for higher density, low-income housing, you are literally saying that rather than accommodate rental housing within walking distance of where people work, you are going to put them on the edges of town and reserve the core of town for people who are not the residents, who are the backbone of the city's economic activity," said Hughes.

"I want to remind you that jurisdictions have a state-mandated obligation to provide equitable planning and housing opportunities for all income demographics across all areas of their jurisdiction," continued Hughes. "Is this annexation and zoning plan meeting these goals?"

Before public comment, Island County Planner Emily Neff assured the Board that the City and County have committed to working together through a separate interlocal agreement to address the "donut hole" areas that are surrounded by city land but not currently within city limits. The details of that separate agreement, or its current stage of development, were not shared by County staff during the meeting.

After brief deliberation, the City of Oak Harbor and the Board of Island County Commissioners both voted to approve the interlocal agreement as is, allowing the City of Oak Harbor to proceed with the annexation. The annexation process will occur at an upcoming Oak Harbor City Council Meeting, tentatively scheduled for April 7, 2026, at the time of the public hearing.

See the Oak Harbor City Council agenda center here .

Watch the public hearing here .

February 2026 Newsletter

Thu, 19 Mar 2026 00:03:32 GMT

February 2026 Newsletter

Thank you to everyone who participated in the 60-day public comment period for Island County's Comprehensive Plan. View issue here .

January 2026 Newsltter

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 21:36:24 GMT

January 2026 Newsletter

In the January newsletter, we honor the incomparable Nancy Nordhoff and provide an update on Comprehensive Planning in Island County.

Click to view the issue.

Elements Of The Week: Economic Development And The Clinton Subarea Plan

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:31:44 GMT

Elements Of The Week: Economic Development & Clinton Subarea Plan

Island County released draft elements for the Comprehensive Plan on December 10, 2025, and is holding short workshops on each draft element now through the close of the public comment period on February 9, 2026. Each week during the comment period, WEAN will post a blog outlining the workshop topics from the past week, the presentations given by the county, the comments WEAN has officially submitted to Island County, and our key takeaways from the elements reviewed that week.

The public comment deadline is 4:30 pm on February 9, 2026.

This past week, the Board of Island County Commissioners (BOCC) and the Planning Commission both met to discuss the Economic Development element and the Clinton Subarea Plan . The BOCC also took time during their workshop session on February 4 to discuss the Deer Lagoon Management Plan, a community-led management plan written by Whidbey Audubon member Carlos Andersen to protect Deer Lagoon Preserve . We were glad to hear the BOCC discussing options for proceeding with thoughtful management of Deer Lagoon, an Audubon-designated Important Bird Area (IBA), and recognizing the importance of setting a Comprehensive Planning goal to develop a data-informed framework for the management of all County-owned open space classified as preserves.

Participants from WEAN's Finding Your Civic Voice workshop also gave public comment together at the Board of Island County Commissioners' meeting on February 3 on affordable housing, rural character, and slowing down to make our roads safer for wildlife. Congratulations to our participants, including one who spoke in public for the very first time!

Video of Planning Commission Workshop 2/04/26.

WEAN Executive Director Marnie Jackson gives public comment as a private resident.

Meetings and Presentations:

BOCC Workshop 2/4/26 audio
Planning Department Presentation (Planning Commission Agenda 02.04.2026)

Draft elements discussed:

See the Economic Development element
See the Clinton Subarea Plan

WEAN ED Marnie Jackson's comments to the Island County:

WEAN's comments on Economic Development (PDF)
WEAN's comments on the Clinton Subarea Plan (PDF)

You can view all of the draft elements here on the Island County 2045 website .

WEAN's Clinton Subarea Plan Takeaways

Local needs, local knowledge, and known critical areas need to be integrated into this subarea plan. It is imperative that the document correct misnamed creeks, properly characterize road thoroughfares, and accurately assess the presence of critical areas in Clinton, particularly known wetlands, streams, and creeks currently omitted from the draft. The consultant hired to write this plan mischaracterizes Clinton in several places, including misnaming our major arterial roads, calling well-known Old Clinton Creek an “unnamed stream”, and failing completely to identify fish-bearing Orr Creek.
Don’t repeat Freeland’s mistakes. We already have a non-municipal urban growth area (NMUGA) that hasn’t grown as outlined in the decades-old Freeland Subarea Plan. While the Clinton Subarea Plan identifies the need for a sewer and storm drain study (Policy LU 3.3), it states that the study is "anticipated to be complete within 10 years." Where is the septic/septic alternative infrastructure funding in the 6-year CIP? Without a dedicated funding source and a clear 6-year timeline, the proposed densities of this subarea plan are legally "aspirational."
Amend the opening premise to reflect the current reality rather than a dream, and then plan concretely. The subarea plan opens by describing Clinton as a "vibrant, walkable, mixed-use rural community," which is a description of a future vision rather than a factual account of current conditions. We can plan for a vibrant future through more listening and more proactive protection of what is most important to local residents—correctly identifying and protecting the critical areas such as the streams that run through, under, and around Clinton while enhancing natural health and beauty; zoning and budgeting for infrastructure that supports mixed use, denser development where it belongs; incentivizing affordable and mixed-income housing; and lobbying to Washington State to make 525 slower, safer, and more walkable where it passes through this rural “downtown”.

WEAN's Economic Dev Takeaways

Language in the element is dismissive of Indigenous presence. We observe that the opening sentence of the Economic Development element is profoundly dismissive of Indigenous presence on our islands since time immemorial and dismissive of Indigenous economies rooted in relationship and place that long predate settler colonialism.
An economic valuation of ecosystem services is needed. We would like to elevate Commissioner Johnson’s request for an economic study of the ecosystem services provided by Island County's ecosystems.
Give the public a chance to properly review the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy within the context of Comprehensive Planning. We were surprised to learn that the reason the Economic Development element is so sparse (a mere 5 pages) is that the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) will be dropped into the plan. While CEDS had its own public comment process, during its drafting, it was not made clear that one of this document's deliverables would be inclusion in the County's Comprehensive Plan. If included as a key element of the Comp Plan, it should be easily accessible and identifiable on the county's Comprehensive Planning website for public review during this public comment period.
Our agricultural economy needs to be regenerative and resilient. When focusing on agriculture, ensure it is viewed through a regenerative lens for climate resilience.

WEAN's Overarching Takeaways

The County needs more time to refine the current draft, and the public needs more time to further review a refined draft. The County’s public participation plan promised phases for “shaping," “refining," and “finalizing” the Comprehensive Plan. Despite the release of limited material (spreadsheets and the Clinton Sub Area Element) on May 30, 2025, the public had its very first opportunity to view a full preliminary draft on December 10, 2025. The current public comment period and the staff’s integration of the public’s input should culminate in the release of a “refined” draft. That, too, should be followed by a minimum 60-day public comment period so that feedback from the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, and the public can be assessed, integrated, and reflected back to the community through transparent edits and refinements in the next draft. After incorporating those public comments, the county could then appropriately release a “finalized” draft for public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission, before submission to the State of Washington for adoption.

According to planning staff, Island County plans to submit a "final" plan for state adoption in April 2026. The current timeline doesn’t align with the statutory requirements of the process, including the state's mandate for early and continuous public engagement. Island County staff needs time to incorporate feedback received during the public comment period ending today, February 9, and the public needs ample time to review a refined draft and comment on it before holding public hearings on a final draft of the plan. To do all of that properly, it will take more time than we are currently being given.

Submit Your Public Comment

Submit your comments to Island County on the Economic Development element and the Clinton Subarea Plan  by no later than 4:30 pm on February 9, 2026.

Include the following language in your written comments to make sure they are included in the official record:

"Please include these comments in the official public record regarding the [insert element] of the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update. These comments are submitted pursuant to the public participation requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). I request that these comments be included in the final record of adoption and that I be notified of all future hearings, work sessions, and final actions regarding this matter."

Written comments can be submitted:

Via the comment forms on the Island County 2045 website under the "Draft Comprehensive Plan" and "Draft Code" tabs.
Via email: CompPlan@islandcountywa.gov .
Via mail: Planning & Community Development, 1 NE 7th St, Coupeville, WA 98239.

Verbal comments can be submitted:

At any Planning Commission meeting (in person or online)
At Board Tuesday Regular meetings (in person or online)

See the Island County Agenda Center for upcoming meeting information.

Elements Of The Week: Capital Facilities, Transportation, And Parks And Rec

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 23:14:10 GMT

Elements Of The Week:

Capital Facilities, Transportation,

Parks And Recreation

This past week, the Board of Island County Commissioners (BOCC) and the Planning Commission both met to discuss the Capital Facilities and Utilities , Transportation , and Parks and Recreation elements. Island County also held three public in-person meetings in Oak Harbor, Clinton, and Camano Island, which included a presentation from the Island County Planning Department. WEAN's Executive Director, Marnie Jackson, attended both the Oak Harbor and South Whidbey in-person public meetings last week and was surprised to learn that the State Department of Commerce is already reviewing the draft concurrently with the public, who got their first look at the majority of this content on December 10, 2025. She was pleased to hear planner Emily Neff assert that the intention, and the public’s will, is to keep rural areas rural and appreciated discussion of ways in which the current draft aspires to—and in some ways, still falls short—of that objective. There was a robust discussion of water and septic challenges. The meetings included an update from Emily Wildman on the county’s concurrent development of a five-year Homeless Housing Plan .

Meetings and Presentations:

BOCC Workshop 1/21/26 audio
Planning Commission Workshop 1/21/26 video not yet released — WEAN Executive Director Marnie Jackson and Engagement Director Amanda Bullis both gave public comment on behalf of WEAN at the beginning of the Planning Commission workshop; WEAN founder Steve Erickson also gave public comment as a private citizen.
Planning Department Presentation (Planning Commission Agenda 01.21.2026)

Draft elements discussed:

See the Capital Facilities and Utilities element
See the Transportation element
See the Parks and Recreation element

WEAN ED Marnie Jackson's comments to the Island County:

WEAN's comments on Capital Facilities and Utilities (PDF)
WEAN's comments on Transportation (PDF)
WEAN's comments on Parks and Recreation (PDF)

You can view all of the draft elements here on the Island County 2045 website .

WEAN's Capital Facilities Takeaways

Perform Concrete vs. Conceptual Planning: While the need for sewer alternatives in Clinton and Freeland is mentioned, the draft lacks specific, time-bound capital funding plans and a 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) necessary for implementation. The lack of a funded CIP for Large Onsite Sewage Systems (LOSS) or some other group solution(s) in Freeland/Clinton creates a concurrency failure that will legally block the housing targets set in the Housing Element. Make good by planning for funding of Policy CFU 6.1.2: “Utilize large on-site sewage systems (LOSS), community septic systems, or individual on-site sewage systems combined with the installation of dry lines as an interim means to achieve urban densities within the UGA until such time [as] sanitary sewer service is available.”
Incentivize Decentralized Innovation: Promote alternative toilets (composting/incinerating) and gray water diversion to protect the sole-source aquifer and maintain rural character more effectively and affordably than traditional sewer plants.
Prioritize Waste Diversion and Composting: Establish a 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for composting infrastructure to meet state organic management laws, and mandate public reuse/resale centers at county transfer sites.

WEAN's Transportation Takeaways

Mandate Critical Area Protection: Require non-negotiable protections and formal Critical Area Assessments for road widening and pathway projects to prevent the degradation of adjacent wetlands, native species’ habitat, and critical areas.
Restate Goal 4 to be Protective: “Minimize negative environmental impacts” should be “protect the environment”.
Achieve Consistency with Climate Resilience Goals: Ensure the element directly supports the Climate Resilience element by codifying commitments and directly addressing climate hazards.
Adopt active language. For example, in Policy 4.5, “Proactively identify opportunities to replace road culverts to improve fish passage, wildlife habitat, and other aspects of the natural environment” should be “replace road culverts to improve fish passage, wildlife habitat, and other aspects of the natural environment”.

WEAN's Parks And Rec Takeaways

Preserve "Passive Recreation" Categories: Restore the term "passive recreation" to goals and policies to prevent high-impact developments, such as ballfields or motorized use, in sensitive natural areas.
Correct Inaccurate Scientific Standards: Update habitat rating criteria to reflect Best Available Science (BAS), removing arbitrary acreage thresholds that disqualify vital small prairie and wetland remnants.
Prioritize Intrinsic Habitat Value: Decouple habitat protection from recreational capacity to ensure ecological sites are preserved for their biological significance rather than only as amenities for human use, and ensure key habitat such as Deer Lagoon Preserve is stewarded appropriately with a sound management plan.
Avoid Divestment of Public Land (Goal 5): Section 5 suggests divesting park lands that do not conform to the new comp plan or "areas of focus". We strongly oppose this; stewardship of the public interest implies the County should not divest itself of the public's land. Properties like the Hurt property demonstrate the value of "quiescent" land; though it has lacked public access for decades, it remains a vital undeveloped asset for the future. Request: Remove divestment language to prevent the permanent loss of open space to private development.

WEAN's Overarching Takeaways

Please provide supporting documents for public review (lists, plans, etc).
Please make each element consistent with the climate element and with one another , including by using consistent, accurate definitions throughout.
Consultants’ work, on many elements, needs careful local review . Many elements still contain factual and mapping errors, plus information copied from other jurisdictions without consideration of local context.
Convert discretionary language into binding and enforceable requirements throughout.
Give the public an adequate window for reading and commenting upon your next revised draft after the close of this public comment period and integration of feedback.

Submit Your Public Comment

Submit your comments to Island County on the Capital Facilities and Utilities , Transportation , and Parks and Recreation elements.

Include the following language in your written comments to make sure they are included in the official record:

Written comments can be submitted:

Via the comment forms on the Island County 2045 website under the "Draft Comprehensive Plan" and "Draft Code" tabs.
Via email: CompPlan@islandcountywa.gov .
Via mail: Planning & Community Development, 1 NE 7th St, Coupeville, WA 98239.

Verbal comments can be submitted:

At any Planning Commission meeting (in person or online)
At Board Tuesday Regular meetings (in person or online)

See the Island County Agenda Center for upcoming meeting information.

Up Next: Economic Development

And Clinton Subarea Plan

On Wednesday, February 4, both the Board of Island County Commissioners (BOCC) and the Island County Planning Commission will hold their final workshops of this public comment period on the Economic Development element and the Clinton Subarea Plan. The Wednesday BOCC workshop is open to public attendance but not to public comment. The public may comment orally at the start of the Planning Commission meeting that evening.

BOCC Work Session, February 4, 2026, time TBD. See agenda center.
Planning Commission Meeting, February 4, 2026, at 6 pm. See agenda center .

Read the drafts, attend these sessions, and share your comments with Island County.

Elements Of The Week: Natural Resources & Climate

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:24:28 GMT

Elements Of The Week:

Natural Resources & Climate

This past week, the Board of Island County Commissioners (BOCC) and the Planning Commission both met to discuss the Climate and Natural Resources elements, with a focus on planning for climate hazards identified by consultant Parametrix, which worked with Island County planning staff and a citizen advisory committee to shape the county's first Climate Resiliency sub-element. Legislation signed into law in 2023 ( HB1181 ) added a climate goal to the Growth Management Act (GMA) and requires local comprehensive plans to have a climate element.

GMA Climate Goal (RCW 36.70A.020):

"Climate change and resiliency. Ensure that comprehensive plans, development regulations, and regional policies, plans, and strategies adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate."

Going forward, counties are now required to plan for the climate realities that impact our communities now and in the future. The top three climate hazards identified by Parametrix that will impact Island County residents are heat, extreme precipitation, and sea level rise. Notably, wildfire risk and increased storm severity are currently missing from the county's list of priority hazards to be addressed.

Meetings and Presentations:

BOCC Workshop 1/14/26 audio
Planning Commission Workshop 1/14/26 video not yet released — WEAN Executive Director Marnie Jackson gave public comment on behalf of WEAN at the beginning of the Planning Commission workshop
Planning Department Presentation (Planning Commission Agenda 01.14.2026)

Draft elements discussed:

See the Natural Resources Draft Element
See the Climate Draft Element

WEAN ED Marnie Jackson's comments to the Island County:

You can view all of the draft elements here on the Island County 2045 website .

WEAN's Natural Resources Takeaways

Include a policy that mandates robust and transparent application of Best Available Science (BAS) to land-use decisions , including rigorously enforced mitigation sequencing for the purpose of protecting our Natural Resources.
Adopt the Deer Lagoon Preserve Management Plan as proposed by Carlos Andersen and extend specific mapping and protections for specific, named ecosystems and preserves in Island County. For Deer Lagoon, this protection is 22 years overdue for compliance with federal grant requirements.
Amend NL 11.4 to encourage climate-smart forestry. Change from incentivizing timber to “Encourage forestry landowners to practice climate resilient forestry and increase their awareness of tax incentive programs.”
We thank the County for de-emphasizing timber extraction in general and recognizing forests for climate resilience and ecosystem services.
We thank the County for prioritizing green infrastructure , nature-based solutions, and Low Impact Design and Development.

WEAN's Climate Takeaways

Map and plan for managed retreat and concurrent ecosystem restoration.
Remove qualifying language like “where feasible” and weak verbs like “consider.” The scale and impact of the climate crisis deserve greater commitment and action.
Provide the list of climate assets and ensure it includes natural areas , including emerging and future estuarine, marine, and wetland ecosystems.
We thank the County for recognizing and creating a protective policy for coastal habitat by promoting living shorelines. We ask the County to specifically include policy that prioritizes the removal of hard armoring in known fish habitat, and where unpermitted.

WEAN's Overarching Takeaway

In every element, keep protective language that is also reflected in the County code. Don’t remove language on the basis that it already exists in code, and please strengthen language wherever possible to improve health, equity, and climate resilience outcomes. The foreseeable outcome of removing language from the Comp Plan on the basis that “it already exists in the code” is that a future commission or citizen group could pressure the County to strike policies on the grounds that they are not reflective of this Comprehensive Plan.

Welcome To A New Planning Commissioner

Welcome to the newest Island County Planning Commissioner, Michael Clyburn, representing District 1. We thank Commissioner Clyburn for raising concerns about aspects of the Housing Element. His questions at the end of the January 14, 2026 Planning Commission meeting highlight fundamental flaws in the current housing approach for our rural areas.

Our shared concerns are:

The data doesn't justify the policy. The capacity table shows excess supply for market-rate housing. We question the strategic need to increase rural density unless the explicit and primary goal is to create housing for those earning 80% of the Area Median Income and below.
The ADU plan is not an affordable housing solution. The projection that only 10% of the 1,182 forecasted detached ADUs would be affordable confirms this initiative is not focused on our critical affordability needs. It functions instead as a mechanism to increase market-rate density in rural areas.
"Rural Clusters" repeat the same mistake. Introducing new market-rate rural clusters on quartered lot size minimums is illogical when excess market-rate capacity already exists. This approach overlooks the stated need for affordable housing.
The proposals risk our rural character. Fragmentation is a specific and grave side effect that could result from increasing the number of DADU permits due to the State’s new requirement for allowing condoization of detached ADUs. This threatens to chip away at the rural character we aim to preserve.

In summary, we thank Commissioner Clyburn for bringing a common-sense perspective and agree that the current proposals seem misaligned with demonstrated need and pose a tangible threat to our rural landscapes.

Submit Your Public Comment

Submit your comments to Island County on the Climate and Natural Resources Elements.

Include the following language in your written comments to make sure they are included in the official record:

"Please include these comments in the official public record regarding the Climate and Natural Resource Elements of the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update. These comments are submitted pursuant to the public participation requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). I request that these comments be included in the final record of adoption and that I be notified of all future hearings, work sessions, and final actions regarding this matter."

Written comments can be submitted:

Via the comment forms on the Island County 2045 website under the "Draft Comprehensive Plan" and "Draft Code" tabs.
Via email: CompPlan@islandcountywa.gov .
Via mail: Planning & Community Development, 1 NE 7th St, Coupeville, WA 98239.

Verbal comments can be submitted:

At any Planning Commission meeting (in person or online)
At Board Tuesday Regular meetings (in person or online)

See the Island County Agenda Center for upcoming meeting information.

Up Next: Transportation, Parks And Recreation, And Capital Facilities

This Wednesday, January 21, both the Board of Island County Commissioners (BOCC) and the Island County Planning Commission will meet to discuss drafts of the Transportation , Parks and Recreation , and Capital Facilities elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Wednesday BOCC workshop is open to public attendance but not to public comment. The public may comment orally at the start of the Planning Commission meeting that evening.

BOCC Meeting, January 21, 2026, at 10:25 am. See agenda here.
Planning Commission Meeting, January 21, 2026, at 6 pm. See agenda here.

Read the drafts, attend these sessions, and share your comments with Island County.

Elements Of The Week: Housing & Land Use

Mon, 12 Jan 2026 19:34:49 GMT

Elements Of The Week: Land Use & Housing

This past week, the Board of Island County Commissioners and the Planning Commission both met to discuss the Housing and Land Use elements, with a focus on housing affordability mandates and the new rural cluster code introduced in this draft document.

Meetings and Presentations:

BOCC Workshop 1/7/26 audio
Planning Commission Workshop 1/7/26 video — WEAN Executive Director gave public comment on behalf of WEAN during the Planning Commission workshop
Planning Department Presentation (Planning Commission Agenda 01.07.2026)

Draft elements discussed:

See the Housing Draft Element
See the Land Use Draft Element

WEAN ED Marnie Jackson's comments to the Island County:

WEAN's comments on Housing Draft Element (PDF)
WEAN's comments on Land Use Draft Element (PDF)

You can view all of the draft elements here on the Island County 2045 website .

WEAN's Housing Takeaways

ADUs are not affordable housing: Island County lacks the enforcement capacity to enforce deed restrictions and affidavits to create affordability housing, as a policy, through Accessory Dwelling Units (whether attached or detached). The proposed 5-year affordability timeline for these units could create a rental bubble that would burst and worsen housing instability. Additionally, counties are prohibited by state law from stopping land owners from selling Detached ADUS as condominiums, which threatens fragmentation of rural land and violates rural zoning standards, if two ADUs per lot are allowed, as currently proposed.
Rural clusters as defined are illegal: Rural clusters, as currently defined by the Comprehensive Plan draft, challenge established legal standards against urban-scale development in rural zones. RCW 365-196-425 (5) (b)(iii): “ If a county allows bonus densities in a rural cluster, the resulting density after applying the bonus must be a rural density.” They also ignore a hard-won 30-year precedent of compromise between developers and environmentalists by slashing lot size minimums from 20 to 5.
Housing requires infrastructure: The County must concretely plan for infrastructure for sewage treatment and water needs in LAMIRDs, while adding multi-family dwellings and supportive housing in these areas.

WEAN's Land Use Takeaways

Lands valued for ecosystem functions are not identified or protected by mapped land-use designations within this element. Lands valued for ecological and climate resilience are conflated with lands for extractive use and are currently rendered administratively invisible by the mapping in this element.
Language has been altered to be less protective, increasing legal risk. Protective verbs like ”ensure,” “prohibit,” and “achieve” have been replaced with “evaluate,” “consider,” and “review.”
Protective policies have been entirely removed from the plan , due to a claim of redundancy with Island County code; however, the code is required by law to be updated to reflect the plan, effectively eliminating these policies altogether. Instead of redundancy, we have the potential for erasure. The Comprehensive Plan is the foundation upon which Island County must be revised and sustained. Removing policies in this manner is dangerous and potentially unlawful.

Submit Your Public Comment

Submit your comments to Island County on the Housing and Land Use Elements.

Written comments can be submitted:

Via the comment forms on the Island County 2045 website under the "Draft Comprehensive Plan" and "Draft Code" tabs.
Via email: CompPlan@islandcountywa.gov .
Via mail: Planning & Community Development, 1 NE 7th St, Coupeville, WA 98239.

Verbal comments can be submitted:

At any Planning Commission meeting (in person or online)
At Board Tuesday Regular meetings (in person or online)

See the Island County Agenda Center for upcoming meeting information.

Up Next: Climate and Natural Resources

This Wednesday, January 14, both the Board of Island County Commissioners and the Island County Planning Commission will meet to discuss draft Climate and Natural Resources elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Wednesday BOCC workshop is open to public attendance but not to public comment. The public may comment orally at the start of the Planning Commission meeting that evening.

BOCC Meeting, January 14, 2026, at 10:30 am. See agenda here.
Planning Commission Meeting, January 14, 2026, at 6 pm. See agenda here.

Read the drafts, attend these sessions, and share your comments with the county.

December 2025 Newsletter

Fri, 02 Jan 2026 22:21:55 GMT

December 2025 Newsletter

This month, we celebrate this year's accomplishments and honor our 40-year history of activism, policy advocacy, and litigation. See the issue here.

Five Stories: What We Achieved In 2025

Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:58:48 GMT

Five Stories: What We Achieved In 2025

By Marnie Jackson

In 2025, Whidbey Environmental Action Network (WEAN) worked at the intersection of community voice, environmental science, and public accountability. From local land-use decisions to statewide shoreline policy, our focus was clear: ensuring that growth, governance, and stewardship on Whidbey and Camano Islands are guided by transparent government, an engaged public, and the best available ecosystem science.

Here are some highlights from the year, and why they matter for the future of our islands.

Holding The Line On Environmental Review In Oak Harbor

In 2025, WEAN challenged the City of Oak Harbor’s adoption of Ordinance 1999, raising concerns that required environmental review under Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was not conducted for a significant land-use policy change.

Although the case did not succeed at the Island County Superior Court level, WEAN has appealed the decision and is awaiting a hearing in the Court of Appeals.

Why this matters: SEPA exists to ensure that environmental impacts are carefully considered before major policy decisions are made. By pursuing this appeal, WEAN is working to reinforce the importance of environmental review and public process—not just in Oak Harbor, but across Washington.

SEPA is often described as the state’s environmental “charter,” and this case underscores why those procedural protections matter when communities face development pressure.

Read Our Opening Brief in the Court of Appeals.

Expanding Public Participation In Comprehensive Planning

Island County is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, which will guide land use, housing, transportation, and environmental protection decisions through 2045. In 2025, WEAN focused on helping ensure that this process meaningfully reflects community input and legal obligations for public participation.

In partnership with Island Roots Housing and the Agricultural Resources Committee—and with funding from Washington’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA)—WEAN conducted multilingual community surveys to gather input on water protection, land use, and environmental justice.

We also hosted three CCA-funded workshops and launched an ongoing series designed to help community members better understand—and confidently participate in—the public comment process.

Why this matters: When more voices are informed and engaged, public plans are more protective, more equitable, and more likely to be implemented. WEAN continues to support a Comprehensive Plan grounded in best available science and community-led conservation priorities.

See Marnie's presentation of the results of our community survey, as presented to the Planning Commission in February 2025.

Register for our upcoming "Finding Your Civic Voice" workshop.

Moving Shoreline Advocacy From Local Action To Statewide Collaboration

In 2025, WEAN expanded its shoreline work beyond individual sites to broader policy advocacy.

We joined a statewide coalition with partners including Futurewise, Sierra Club, Washington Conservation Action, Friends of the San Juans, and Washington Audubon to engage in rulemaking under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Together, we advocated to the Department of Ecology for stronger enforcement tools to address illegal shoreline armoring, such as unpermitted bulkheads.

To make shoreline impacts more visible and understandable, WEAN launched the “State of Our Shorelines” ArcGIS StoryMap, a robust tool that shows how cumulative shoreline armoring affects habitat and provides an overview of the policy landscape affecting this issue in Washington State.

Why this matters: Visual tools and collaborative advocacy help turn complex policy issues into shared understanding—and shared solutions. For a situation as complex as shoreline habitat protection under threat from sea level rise and development, we need a high level of collective engagement. We will continue updating the Storymap with new data and calls to action as opportunities arise.

See WEAN's "State Of Our Shorelines" StoryMap.

Progressing On Forest Protection Through PBRS Reform

After several years of research and collaboration, 2025 marked meaningful progress in WEAN’s work to improve Island County’s Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS)—a tax program that can support landowners who prioritize conservation and stewardship.

Working with County Commissioners and the County Assessor’s Office, WEAN submitted detailed policy recommendations aimed at making PBRS a viable alternative to tax programs that incentivize extractive timber practices.

While the County did not adopt the full scope of our proposed reforms, they are moving forward with some improvements, including:

Lower barriers to entry for landowners
A more incentivizing points system
A clearer path for transitioning land from the “Designated Forest” category into the “Public Benefit” program

Why this matters: These changes make it easier for landowners to choose stewardship over extraction—benefiting forests, wildlife habitat, and water quality. This progress is a step forward, and WEAN remains committed to continuing this work to strengthen stewardship standards, protect additional ecosystems, and improve long-term monitoring.

Read our September 2025 recommendations to Island County on PBRS Forestry reform.

Investing In The Next Generation Of Environmental Leaders

In 2025, WEAN welcomed three young professionals whose work made a lasting impact on our programs and on our organization.

Violet Bleumer, Environmental Data Administrator , compiled and analyzed public records on mitigation variances. Her work will inform a 2026 technical paper, policy recommendations, and a new Storymap focused on mitigation outcomes. In 2026, Violet will help WEAN clarify its data-driven strategies for wetland protection.

Reilly McVay, Environmental Policy Administrator , reviewed and indexed three years’ worth of public meeting recordings, strengthening WEAN’s internal systems and shaping our understanding of how environmental issues feature—for better or for worse—in local government decision-making. In 2026, Reilly will help shape WEAN’s local environmental policy recommendations.

Natalie Estrada, Communications and Social Media Intern , joined us from Seattle University's Communications program. Natalie designed WEAN’s 2025 Pride pins and stickers and brought creativity and clarity to our social media, helping increase community engagement while keeping environmental issues approachable and fact-based. After exploring the island with us in the spring and summer, Natalie finished her internship with WEAN in September of 2025. We wish Natalie all the best and congratulate her on her 2025 graduation!

It has been an honor to watch these young environmental leaders work, learn, and grow with us.

Read our interview with Natalie at the close of her internship.

Looking Ahead

The work of environmental protection is inextricable from the work of community care. By protecting nature, we protect one another. In 2025, thanks to your support, WEAN advanced policies, strengthened partnerships, elevated voices, and invested in a next generation of leaders to continue this work.

As we move into 2026, we remain committed to upholding and improving environmentally protective laws, supporting responsible land stewardship, protecting our forests and shorelines, and helping shape a collective future where nature and community thrive together.

Thank you for being part of this work with us. To ensure this work continues, consider making a donation or becoming a member.

November 2025 Newsletter

Mon, 01 Dec 2025 16:05:17 GMT

November 2025 Newsletter

This month, a focus on Coast Salish stories and environmental impact in the Puget Sound region. See the issue.

October 2025 Newsletter

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 23:33:07 GMT

October 2025 Newsletter

Click here to read the issue.

September 2025 Newsletter

Wed, 01 Oct 2025 22:19:58 GMT

September 2025 Newsletter

In this issue , we say goodbye to Social Media and Communications Intern, Natalie Estrada, report on the current status of forestry reform within the Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS), and follow up on Upthegrove's "Forest Forward" order.

View the issue here .

Farewell To Our Intern, Natalie!

Mon, 29 Sep 2025 16:55:17 GMT

Farewell To Our Intern, Natalie!

Communications and Social Media Intern Natalie Estrada graduated from Seattle University this summer and completed her internship with WEAN in September.

"I think that the work you guys do is super important. I'm glad that somebody is doing it. Being a part of it was so special for me."

WEAN Engagement Director Amanda Bullis chats with Communications and Social Media Intern Natalie Estrada about her time interning with WEAN in the spring and summer of 2025 for course credit. Natalie graduated from Seattle University with a degree in Communications in June.

Bullis: I am really excited for you. I'm sad that you're leaving. But it's also part of the process, right? You're gonna be doing awesome things in your life and for the world. Before you go, I want to understand from you what you learned while working with us.

Estrada: I learned so much about the island itself. I took my mom [to Whidbey] recently, and I was telling her about the stinging nettle and the plants that are the antidote to it. Working on different assignments for you guys, like the queerness in nature [blog] , I learned so much. I didn't know any of those animals were queer. Now I see a banana slug and [I know about them].

I really enjoyed learning about what you do. I didn't know any of it before, how you guys advocate for Whidbey Island. Whenever I tell anybody I work for an environmental action group, they usually don't really know what that means. So [I tell them] whenever anyone's doing anything they shouldn't be doing, they figure out what law they're violating, and take them to court.

Oh! Another thing I learned really well with you guys, and I talk about this in [job] interviews, is fact-checking everything and citing my sources. [When] they're like, “What's something you've learned from your past jobs?” I bring that up every time.

Bullis: Do you feel like you have more tools to be an advocate or activist yourself, after working with us?

Estrada: Yeah, definitely. I feel like [this internship] made me love Washington a lot more because I got to explore so much more because of our outings. And it made me learn so much more about what's going on with different laws and things that are happening around me, near me, and things that shouldn't be happening. So I definitely look out for that stuff.

Bullis: What is your favorite fact that you learned about nature or ecosystems while working with us?

Estrada: I loved hearing about [Bruiser the Elk]. I took my mom to Whidbey, and I was telling her the whole story about him, and she was like, ”He's the only one?!” I think it's just such a cool and crazy story. I love that [his story] is passed down , and now whenever anyone else hears about it, I feel like it's unconscious, you wanna look for him.

Bullis: Is there anything else you want people to know about your experience with us?

I loved working with you guys, and I think that the work you guys do is super important. I'm glad that somebody is doing it. Being a part of it was so special for me. [I’m happy] that somebody is taking care of the island, because I love it there so much. Getting to help out, in exchange, was really important to me.

Bullis: Well, we loved having you, Natalie. I'm going to miss you, and I truly appreciate the time and effort you put into your internship. I use your templates for everything, and I'm so appreciative of them. Communications are integral to messaging for any organization, and the work you did was really important to me, and it was valuable to the mission. Thank you so much.

Natalie moved back to California after graduation to run social media for her father's collectibles business while seeking post-grad employment. We wish her the best of luck in all of her future endeavors!

August 2025 Newsletter

Wed, 10 Sep 2025 19:09:30 GMT

August 2025 Newsletter

Click here to get an update on WEAN's Summer Benefit fundraiser, the Island County's current plan to lower population projections, and more.

View the issue here .

WEAN Urges County To Stick To Original Population Projections

Wed, 27 Aug 2025 21:44:20 GMT

WEAN Urges County To Stick To Original Population Projections

Oak Harbor needs to responsibly rezone and plan for infrastructure to support population growth within the current UGA boundaries.

Aerial image of Oak Harbor in 2008 by J Brew from Wikimedia

On August 20, 2025, the Island County Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss whether Island County should lower population projections for Oak Harbor in the current Comprehensive Planning cycle, following stalled negotiations between the City and County planning staff. In July, the Board of County Commissioners was presented with three options by Island County planners in the face of an uncooperative City. The Board chose to pursue lowering Oak Harbor's population projections over moving forward with the City in the planning process or expanding the City's Urban Growth Area without any data to support the City's request for that expansion.

WEAN Executive Director Marnie Jackson submitted a public comment ahead of the public hearing, stating WEAN's position on the matter: adhere to the original projections and request that Oak Harbor responsibly rezone and plan for infrastructure to support population growth within the current UGA boundaries.

The Planning Commission, which provides recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners but lacks legislative authority, was split 5 to 3 in favor of allowing the County to lower Oak Harbor's population projections. The Planning Commission's recommendation will go back to the Board of Island County Commissioners for consideration.

See Marnie's comment below.

August 20, 2025

To: Planning Commission, Board Of County Commissioners, Island County Planner Emily Neff

From: Marnie Jackson, WEAN Executive Director

Dear Planners, Commissioners, and Planning Staff,

I urge you to adhere to your original population projections and allocations and ask the City of Oak Harbor to responsibly rezone and plan for infrastructure improvements to accommodate the necessary growth within the city limits. We know that the city favors developer-led annexations as a primary way to add capacity, and we agree with Island County's view of these annexations as inappropriate to meet the needs of city residents. City-led infrastructure improvements within the city limits are necessary, should be expected, and could do a great deal to address the buildable lands capacity shortfall. The September 17th, 2024, Land Capacity Analysis Memorandum from Kimley Horn indicates that among the 1594 parcels removed from analysis, some were “parcels identified by staff as being low probability for development (infrastructure constraints)”. This indicates that addressing infrastructure constraints is at least a partial solution, and one which Oak Harbor should be asked to address.

We know there are already areas in the city that lack sidewalks and basic urban amenities. This is evidence that Oak Harbor should not be allowed to continue planning in the ways it has always done. Instead, it should be held accountable to plan for responsibly improving zoning and infrastructure within the city. The question of whether the UGA needs to expand can only be accurately answered when we can see, some years down the road, whether the city has maximized its capacity within the city by responsibly providing the necessary infrastructure and zoning.

The GMA requires cities and counties to plan for anticipated population increase and the necessary infrastructure to support it. The original population target was the result of a rational process and is more likely to reflect future reality than the reduction now being considered, as was acknowledged by planning commissioners, planners, and county commissioners during your July 16 discussions. The public was even told that the new, reduced targets will likely exacerbate the already present housing shortage. While we understand and share Island County’s concerns about Oak Harbor's apparent unwillingness to act as a good-faith partner in this process, we believe that setting an unrealistic population projection is not the answer. The GMA's purpose is to change growth patterns for the better, and we explicitly reject the argument that Oak Harbor’s past shortcomings should mean they get a pass now.

Oak Harbor’s reliance on developer-provided infrastructure as a de facto policy has been shown to be ineffective in providing the necessary support for affordable housing projects to succeed. This approach is contrary to the purpose of the GMA. We believe that by allowing this reduction, the County would be joining Oak Harbor in avoiding the new housing requirements of the GMA.

Sticking with the original population forecast is not just good planning: it is consistent with the GMA’s new housing requirements, which aim to provide sufficient housing for people of all incomes. It’s fair to Coupeville and Langley, who planned in good faith. It’s fair to the residents and wildlife of the rural areas, who rely on urban density as a counterpoint to the agricultural, recreational, and ecological assets of the surrounding areas. Most of all, it’s fair to the residents of Island County who need and deserve livable cities and affordable homes and apartments. We commend you for your resistance to expanding the UGA, and we urge you to stand firm on the original population projections. Don’t allow the planning process to be undermined by Oak Harbor’s resistance to change.

Thank you,

Marnie Jackson

July 2025 Newsletter

Wed, 13 Aug 2025 22:30:21 GMT

July 2025 Newsletter

Click here to get an update on the Comprehensive Planning process in Island County, learn how WEAN is becoming a voice for islands in Washington State, and more.

View the issue here .

Respond To Commissioner St. Clair

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Thu, 10 Jul 2025 19:30:12 GMT

Call To Action: Respond To Commissioner St. Clair's Comments

So far, almost 200 community members have participated in the Whidbey Environmental Action Network & Whidbey Climate Action Action Network letter campaign, "Tell Island County Ecosystems Are Resources For Climate Resilience," asking for Island County to consider our ecosystems as "ecosystem and climate resilience resources" in the Natural Resources element of the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update. Thank you so much to everyone who has participated so far!

If you would like to join the letter writing campaign, you can do so here . We will close this campaign at the close of the public comment period on July 14, 2025.

Island County Commissioner Janet St. Clair responded directly to WEAN regarding this letter writing campaign and has given permission to share her responses with the WEAN community, which include questions directed to WEAN and WCA membership.

We encourage our community to respond directly to any of Commissioner St. Clair's questions or comments with your point of view at district3@islandcountywa.gov . Please also include the Comp Plan public comment email address, compplan@islandcountywa.gov , so the planning department is looped into the conversation.

Please cc engage@whidbeyenvironment.org on your response, so we are aware of your dialogue regarding this campaign.

Below is a transcript of Commissioner St. Clair's responses to the WEAN/WCA letter, as well as Engagement Director Amanda Bullis's responses to the Commissioner.

Commissioner's General Response

From Janet St. Clair

Mon, Jun 30, 10:21 AM

To Amanda Bullis, Layla Tromble

Dear Amanda,

Thank you for sharing your concerns. Ecosystems can be as large as an ocean and as small as a backyard, such as our well-managed backyard habitat program. Ecosystem components range from molecular elements to plant life, from small to large living creatures, including people. As a social worker and as a Board Member for the Puget Sound Partnership Ecosystem Recovery Board where I have served for the last 4-5 years, I share the strong commitment to protecting ecosystems in the Puget Sound region, our state, and more globally and protecting the well-being of people who live here. Unfortunately, your email and the subsequent chain emails we are receiving are less than helpful in their lack of definitional clarity about what you mean be “ecosystem” and recommendations that do not appear to recognize that our Comprehensive Plan must be cohesive with all elements working together. It also fails to struggle with the mandates of housing equity and human well-being. Please see my comments below. I invite you and others to enter into the struggle to align legal GMA mandates, human well-being, and the environmental protections we share.

Janet

Amanda's General Response

From Amanda Bullis

Jul 1, 2025

To Janet St. Clair, Layla Tromble

Dear Janet,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful feedback. I appreciate that you called out the lack of clarity around the definition of “ecosystem” in our letter and appreciate the challenge to define ecosystems in a way that acknowledges the goal of balancing required by the GMA. As you rightly point out, the concept of an ecosystem can be scaled widely from macro to micro, and human beings are members of a variety of ecosystems.

For the purposes of Comprehensive Planning, we are working off the definitions of “ecosystem functions” and “ecosystem values” in the WAC. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC), which provides rules for implementing the GMA, explicitly defines "ecosystem functions" and "ecosystem values” in WAC 365-196-210.

Ecosystem functions are described as "the products, physical and biological conditions, and environmental qualities of an ecosystem that result from interactions among ecosystem processes and ecosystem structures." Examples given include sequestered carbon, attenuated peak streamflows, aquifer water level, reduced pollutant concentrations, cool summer in-stream water temperatures, and fish and wildlife habitats.

Ecosystem values are the "cultural, social, economic, and ecological benefits attributed to ecosystem functions."

The GMA's planning goals also emphasize the importance of ecosystems by aiming to “Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water,” “Conserve fish and wildlife habitat," and "retain open space.”

We recognize that these values and functions must be balanced with other goals in the GMA, including public health and affordable housing, as well as the constitutional rights of private property owners. What we are ultimately asking for is for ecosystem functions to be explicitly considered resources for climate resilience in the Comp Plan, and for ecosystem values to be outlined in the plan's goals.

We hope that the County will be willing to engage in a dialogue with community groups and the public at large about how we can create actionable policies for both “ecosystems/ecosystem functioning” and innovative land use zoning, such as “rural clusters.” We would love to see our land use practices work in favor of our most vulnerable residents and our most vulnerable habitats. We don’t claim to have all of the answers, but we would love to participate in a meaningful, open dialogue while the Comp Plan is still under review. WEAN would be happy to co-sponsor both a roundtable with community groups and a Town Hall with the general public on the topics of natural resources and rural clusters.

Below, some responses to your thoughtful comments and questions in purple.

Amanda Bullis

Point-By-Point Responses From Both Parties

Please improve the Natural Resources element to do the following:

1. Treat ecosystem functions as natural resources that provide climate resilience, enabling us to keep pace with modern societal needs and evolving state laws.

St. Clair: Yes. I agree but need to note that if it is defined and codified in state law, we do not include in our comprehensive plan. That redundancy would require a voluminous document that would be difficult for both staff and the public. As Counties are subject to all state laws, it is unnecessary.

Bullis: There seems to be a strategy to remove anything assumed to already be in state law or the code, which, from WEAN's point of view, leaves the Plan vulnerable to litigation in the future. WEAN is very concerned about this overall.

2. Get clear about definitions. For the sake of clarity and consistency, natural lands should not be separate from resource lands. Consider open space, small-scale agriculture, and ecosystems as “natural resources” that require management and protection on par with GMA-designated “resource” lands.

St. Clair: I agree with you and would ask WEAN to enter into the challenges of defining ecosystems in a manner consistent with the intent of Comprehensive Planning which requires all elements to work cohesively to support character, assets and resources, and protect both plant/animal life and human well-being. As human well-being is a critical ecosystem component AND we must meet the housing mandates of GMA, I invite you and your members to offer cogent ideas that balance both.

Bullis: Definitions from the WAC provided above. We would love to workshop definitions in the Natural Resources element with the County and our community to come up with definitions that are consistent with the WAC, the rest of the Comp Plan, and fit the needs of our community.

If we had a roundtable and town hall with the community, the below graphic would be hugely helpful for framing the conversation. Thank you for sharing it.

3. Make a clear distinction between “natural resources” to be used as practical tools for climate resilience (forests, wetlands, shorelines, wildlife corridors) and natural resources considered for extractive commercial purposes (mineral lands).

St. Clair: Again, I agree and some of this is defined in state code. Also, recognize that extractive or “consumable” (my word) resources also include agricultural and forest practices. In promoting green energy, I have a question for your membership…What is our responsibility re Island County v. State or global extraction of resources? Do we owe a responsibility for our choices to be protective of our places?

Bullis: Great question. We think that we are treating our resources on a commercial scale in the language of the Comp Plan which is incompatible with the resources that our county has to offer regionally. As far as I understand, we don’t provide timber on a scale that is impactful to the region, but we talk about our forests as if that is their primary purpose. Regionally, we do have forage fish habitat that is vital to the entire food web of Puget Sound and forests that are critical for our aquifer recharge capacity.

We aren’t saying that consumable resources aren’t essential and necessary, or trying to push off the burden of extraction onto other counties. We are saying that Island County isn’t providing consumable resources to the region on a commercial scale, except perhaps in some agricultural situations. As it pertains to agriculture (and forestry), we can ask our commercial consumable community to hold ecosystem functioning as a value.

4. Prioritize the preservation and restoration of natural resources over the extraction of natural resources, to ensure our children have a livable climate future. Include strong goals for this element that prioritize climate resilience and policies that explicitly outline “how” ecosystems, open space, and organic/regenerative agriculture can be preserved and protected on a high level. Emergency preparedness relies on our ability to access these resources as a community, and our long-term community success depends on a livable climate future.

St. Clair: Agree.

Bullis: :)

5. Use language that prioritizes resource protection, conservation, and restoration over extraction.

St. Clair: Again, if Islanders continue as consumers of products such as timber, steel, energy…what is the county’s relationship to those products and their “extraction” elsewhere?

Bullis: See number 3.

6. Include a new category of natural resources called “ecosystem and climate resiliency resources” that prioritizes the protection of the islands’ forests, wetlands, open space, wildlife corridors, forage fish habitat, shorelines, and organic/regenerative agriculture.

Specifically include the following goals in the Natural Resources element:

1. Protect our natural resources to secure a livable climate future now and for future generations.

St. Clair: How? What specific recommendations do you have that are not currently in state or federal law?

Bullis: This is a high-level commitment to figuring out "how." Would love to discuss further.

2. Prioritize the conservation of natural resources for climate resilience purposes (i.e., “ecosystem and climate resilience resource lands”) over extractive commercial purposes.

St. Clair: I agree and I think about this a lot in my role as a Commissioner and on State Boards. How do you and your membership struggle with these concepts?

Bullis: Our membership believes in circular economies and having a reciprocal relationship with the land: if you take something, you have to give back in kind. An issue with commercial extraction is that there isn't any meaningful process or mechanism of giving back in a way that restores natural processes. We see this a lot in forest practices that do not prioritize thinning, do not replant in a meaningful way, convert clear-cuts for development, etc. As a person whose family land is in the DFL program, I think about this a lot. I do not want to be in a position where I'm forced to clear-cut 20 acres of legacy forest.

Re: circular economies and county departments. King County, for example, has a division within its waste management department dedicated to salvaging construction materials for reuse. I think many of our extractive practices could be mitigated by focusing on creating and promoting programs that create a circular economy for resources whenever possible. What materials can we reuse before we start extracting more? Could we have a municipal composting system in Island County?

3. Realize the economic benefits of ecosystem protection for long-term community wellbeing and climate resilience.

St. Clair: Now, how do you reconcile the constitutionally protected rights of property owners and the importance of “making a living” and economic development.

Bullis: We’re asking for the economic benefits of conservation-oriented land use to be acknowledged and for there to be an effort to analyze these economic benefits. We need data in order to understand the impact of our land use policies on the short- and long-term economic wellbeing and livelihoods of constituents, and our hypothesis is that this data will hold up an assumption that ecosystem functions, when protected, are quantifiably valuable.

Specifically include the following policies that treat each of our “ecosystem and climate resiliency” natural resources as vital to our County’s climate resilience strategy:

1. Prioritize forests as an ecosystem resource for carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, wildfire resilience, stormwater management, and aquifer recharge over commercial timber.
2. Outline how our streams, lakes, and sole source aquifer will be protected as crucial water resources for our climate future.
3. Prioritize the protection of wetlands as a natural resource for groundwater filtration and drainage.
4. Prioritize the preservation of our food system by promoting sustainable, climate-resilient agricultural practices.
5. Prioritize the preservation of open spaces and wildlife corridors for wildfire resilience.
6. Prioritize the preservation and restoration of forage fish and salmon habitats, which are critical to the resiliency of our regional food web.
7. Prioritize the protection, conservation, and restoration of native vegetation, shore habitats, and natural dunes on our shorelines to minimize unsustainable beach erosion and ensure the thriving of marine ecosystems for future generations.

St. Clair: Agree.

Bullis: Let's make it happen!

Please remove the following:

1. “Encourage forestry landowners to retain their lands in timber production” [13.4] and replace with “Protect forest land and encourage participation in conservation tax incentive programs.” Island County has no timberlands of long-term commercial significance. Treating our forests as a timber resource is not the best or highest use of this valuable resource.

St. Clair: No. We can encourage and require sustainable forest practices, but I disagree with this recommendation. You may know my brother was a world-renowned forestry and climate scientist. He would not agree with this recommendation in my opinion and it is violation of personal property rights that will only end in expensive litigation.

Bullis: I'm curious why not? Encouraging people to participate in conservation programs doesn't seem like a violation of property rights from my perspective. We're not saying they *have* to do it. The purpose of this recommendation is to make it easier for people to participate. That said, I would love to hear more from your brother's perspective, what his take is on the topic, and what he might consider as an alternative to this language.

What Are Your Thoughts?

Share your thoughts directly with Commissioner St. Clair and WEAN. Consider the following questions or take off in your own direction:

From your point of view, how can ecosystems as climate resiliency resources align with legal GMA mandates, human well-being, and the environmental protections in this Comprehensive Planning update?
How can we define ecosystems (beyond WAC definitions) in a way that aligns with the intention of Comprehensive Planning, with consideration of both critical environmental protections and affordable housing mandates that promote human well-being?
If Islanders continue as consumers of products such as timber, steel, energy…what is the county’s relationship to those products and their “extraction” elsewhere?
How do you reconcile the need to prioritize our natural resources for preservation over extraction in our current economy?

Please send your responses directly to Commissioner St. Clair at district3@islandcountywa.gov as well as the Comp Plan comment email at compplan@islandcountywa.gov . Please cc WEAN at engage@whidbeyenvironment.org so we know you've followed up on this issue!

The public comment period for this round of feedback on the Comprehensive Plan ends Monday, July 14 at 5 pm.

June 2025 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 19:22:08 GMT

June 2025 Newsletter

Click here to tell Island County to consider ecosystems climate resiliency resources.

View the issue here .

Queerness In Nature

Thu, 26 Jun 2025 22:39:36 GMT

Queerness In Nature Is All Around Us

By Natalie Estrada

Queerness is around us, every day, all the time. Whether we notice it or not, nature doesn’t follow rules about what’s “normal” or expected. It doesn’t discriminate. From animals to plants to humans, queerness is just part of life. According to Nature , over 1,500 animal species have exhibited some form of queer behavior.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, a region rich in biodiversity, queerness in nature is all around us.

Orca Whales

Let’s take a closer look at orcas. These beautiful creatures are commonly seen in the waters around Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands, especially during the summer and fall months. Most people don’t usually think of orcas when talking about queerness but they absolutely are a part of the conversation. As Niche Canada explains, orcas often form strong social bonds with others of the same age and sex. They show affection through physical touch and companionship, and these relationships can even include same-sex sexual behavior. Orcas don’t seem to choose partners based on sex. They choose based on connection and proximity.

Banana Slugs

If you've ever found yourself roaming the many forests Washington has to offer, there's a pretty good chance you've encountered a banana slug. These fascinating slimy creatures exhibit their queerness in their sex! Banana slugs are biologically hermaphrodites, which means each one has both male and female reproductive organs. When two slugs mate , they can each fertilize the other’s eggs, so either one or both may become pregnant after the encounter. These colorful little animals serve as a powerful reminder that nature doesn’t limit itself to binary roles or heteronormative structures but instead embraces fluidity.

Gray Wolf

Our final native queer animal is the gray wolf. As of recent counts by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington is home to around 230 gray wolves and 43 established packs. These wolves are most commonly found in northeastern and north-central Washington, where the landscape is full of forests, mountains, and remote wilderness, thus matching their natural preference for space, cover, and prey. Wolves are long known for their strong social bonds and monogamous partnerships. Typically, a wolf will choose a mate and stay with them for life, but that lifelong mate doesn’t have to be of the opposite sex. Same-sex pairings, especially between males, have been observed in the wild . These relationships involve behaviors like bonding, co-parenting, and even mounting.

May 2025 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Mon, 23 Jun 2025 18:10:11 GMT

May 2025 Newsletter

Click here to learn about the current public comment period for the Island County Comprehensive Plan, learn about drinking water and water systems, and more.

View the issue here.

A New Civic Voice For Prairie Ecosystems

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Wed, 21 May 2025 18:39:27 GMT

A New Civic Voice

For Prairie Ecosystems

How Lana Rasmussen found her voice to speak for the prairies through WEAN's Finding Your Civic Voice workshop.

“This workshop taught me that I do have a voice and that my opinions and values for the environment matter.”

A quick interview with Pacific Rim Institute restoration technician Lana Rasmussen on why she took WEAN's Finding Your Civic Voice workshop , her first time giving public comment, and what she learned from the experience.

Bullis: What inspired you to take our Finding Your Civic Voice workshop?

Rasmussen: I was told about this workshop through my internship program [at Pacific Rim Institute] and at the time I didn’t know what a civic voice workshop would entail or what a public comment was. I was excited and curious about what this opportunity would lead to. So I signed up for this workshop to see what I could learn from it.

Bullis: What did the workshop teach you about yourself? What did the workshop teach you about environmental advocacy?

Rasmussen: This workshop taught me that I do have a voice and that my opinions and values for the environment matter. There are many ways in which you can advocate for the environment, and it taught me that public comment is one way I could do that.

Bullis: Why did you choose to write about prairie ecosystems?

Rasmussen: I chose to write about prairie ecosystems because I closely work with this type of ecosystem through my internship and now job. I never really was a plant or prairie person and by working at the Pacific Rim Institute I was able to find love and passion for prairie ecosystems.

Bullis: What was the hardest part about giving comments to the BOCC? Was anything easier than you thought it would be?

Rasmussen: The hardest part about commenting [to] the BOCC for me was the aspect of public speaking. That was something that I have always struggled with. Participating in the workshop and speaking to our small group helped [me] to understand what I needed to improve on in terms of my skills for public speaking, and therefore helped make it easier to do it in person.

Bullis: Why do you think it’s important to be involved in local government?

Rasmussen: I think it’s important to be involved in local government because [it is] the closest thing you can get to help create a change within your community at a smaller scale and maybe help to create a change at a larger scale

Bullis: Any encouraging words for people who want to get involved in advocacy but might be afraid to speak up?

Rasmussen: I didn’t think I had a voice in environmental matters, but being able to take the Finding Your Civic Voice workshop helped me to understand that our voices do matter. Being able to speak with the commissioners and tell them about what I had advocated for helped them to see issues in a different perspective and light. That made me feel good about my comment because it felt like I was heard and seen and they wanted to help create that change.

Bullis: How will you continue your advocacy for prairie ecosystems in Island County?

Rasmussen: One of my main ways of advocating for ecosystems is by working in these types of ecosystems because they are so rare and becoming rare, especially in Island County.

Lana's public comment, as presented to the Island County BOCC on April 8, 2025

Hi, I’m Lana Rasmussen. I live in Coupeville.

I am a recent undergrad with a bachelor's in environmental science and am currently an intern at the Pacific Rim Institute for Environmental Stewardship. I am here today to advocate for prairies in the PBRS reform and their importance for a more sustainable future.

What is a prairie ecosystem and what are its functions? These are some of the questions that I found difficult to answer myself working as a prairie restoration intern. Grasslands have been one of the most threatened ecosystems. Less than 10% of prairies in Washington remain now, and an even smaller percentage of those are dominated by native plant species.

In my research, I have found that prairies offer several direct and indirect benefits for climate resilience. These benefits include biodiversity, pollinator habitats, soil enrichment, and food security. Biodiversity is essential for maintaining balance and resilience in the face of climate change. Pollinators represent a key advantage of prairies, as they contribute to biodiversity by promoting genetic diversity among plant species. Additionally, they indirectly support food security by pollinating agricultural lands, which is necessary for plants to produce fruits and vegetables.

The work I do at PRI has contributed to mitigating some of the negative impacts on declining prairie ecosystems, which in turn benefits the surrounding areas. One of our success stories involves the golden paintbrush plant species, which was previously listed as threatened on the endangered species list. Through our efforts in cultivating golden paintbrush seeds at PRI, we increased the number of plants in the field from only a few hundred to over 20,000 by 2019. As a result of these actions, we were able to delist the golden paintbrush in 2023.

You may be wondering how this relates to you. Prairies are not receiving the attention they deserve. Grasslands have very little federal or international conservation protection compared to the significant loss of their habitat. I recently learned that Island County has a program called the Public Benefit Rating System, which encourages private landowners to preserve open spaces. However, this program mainly focuses on a few ecosystems and includes minimal representation of prairie ecosystems.

Given the reasons why prairies are important, I urge Island County to reconsider the Public Benefit Rating System to better include prairie ecosystems. Prairies cannot be contained within a perfect square; therefore, it is essential to collaborate with private landowners to maintain these vital areas. By making this change, we can better recognize and benefit from the advantages that prairie ecosystems provide, helping sustain us for the future.

Thank you for your time.

Watch Lana and Dulcie give public comment at the Island County Board of Commissioner's meeting on April 8, 2025.

The first three sessions of Finding Your Civic Voice was supported with funding from Washington’s Climate Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.

April 2025 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Tue, 06 May 2025 22:11:37 GMT

April 2025 Newsletter

Click here to learn about the activist roots of Earth Day, get an update on county planning, and learn how to make positive change in this world.

View the issue here .

How To Effectively Get Rid Of Scotch Broom

Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:36:36 GMT

How To Effectively Get Rid

Of Scotch Broom

By Steve Erickson

Ah, spring, when the golden blossoms of Scotch broom make people's heads turn, noticing how it's all over the place and seems to be still spreading. Yes, it is still spreading. And now, when the ground is still wet, is the time to rip it out of the ground using that miraculous phenomenon of the lever!

Which brings up a long-recurring discussion: is it better to pull, cut, or burn Scotch broom? Just why is this plant so hard to get rid of?

Cutting Scotch broom may not kill it.

Cutting Scotch broom is reported to be variably effective, with mortality rates ranging from less than 10% to about 90%. Generally, cutting is most effective when 1) done late in the summer during maximum drought stress, not necessarily when everyone is fired up because the plants are in bloom; and 2) the stem is cut at or below at or below the root crown, in other words, ground level.

So, if you are going to seriously attack a stand of Scotch Broom by cutting, you are going to destroy loppers, saws, and brush cutter blades by using them in the dirt. If you cut the main stem higher up, it is probably going to resprout with multiple stems and make the regrowing stand that much denser. So, while most mowing and cutting efforts may prevent seed production for a few years, the results are primarily cosmetic.

Next time you're driving up the highway north of Coupeville by the Kettles, look to the east towards the gravel pit. Notice the young bushy Scotch broom. Mowing has created a treadmill requiring repeated mowing. It hasn't eliminated the Scotch broom, but it has killed off the native Lupines that also used to occur there.

Scotch broom creates an amazingly dense and long-lived soil seed bank.

When you look at a stand of Scotch broom you are not looking at all of the plants. Most are present as seeds in the soil. Scotch broom can begin producing seed when 2-3 years old. Mature plants can typically produce 7,000-10,000 seeds per year. Scotch broom soil seed banks have been measured with up to about 700 seeds per square foot. Like many other members of the Fabaceae family, Scotch broom has seed pods that "explode" as they dry, shooting the seed many feet away. I've measured native Lupines shooting their seed over 25 feet and I expect that Scotch broom is similar.

So, when you see a stand of Scotch broom imagine it being at least 25 feet larger all the way around. And the seeds are long-lived. Nobody really knows how long they can remain viable, but there are published estimates of 80 years. "Scarification" encourages seed germination; that is, the hard seed coat must become permeable to water for the other germination processes to occur. Seeds have remained viable when heated to 270°F for one minute. This suggests some adaptation to fire-dependent ecosystems.

So, what do we do? A programmatic, multi-year approach is required.

Every year, spring comes, Scotch broom's flowers make it obvious, and people get determined to do something. But given the long-lived seed bank, a programmatic multi-year approach is needed. That's a fancy way of saying that if you and your friends take on controlling Scotch broom somewhere, be prepared to come back to that site every year for a very long time.

Now, a real county-wide program mapping Scotch broom, locating new infestations, tracking and coordinating control efforts, and monitoring treated sites would be great , but would require dedicated long-term funding.

So, how to proceed if you want to "adopt" a Scotch broom patch?

Be prepared to come back every year for 5 years, then every other year for the rest of your life. Remember: Many hands make light(er) work and keep it going over the long term.
Time your chosen method for maximum effectiveness. If you are going to have an Scotch broom "pull" with weed wrenches, or a tractor or backhoe with a thumb (recommended for large infestations), do it in the winter or spring when the ground is wet. They come out way easier. If you are going to cut Scotch broom, whether with hand tools or brush cutters, do it in late summer. Yes, I know no one notices Scotch broom then, but make the most out of your effort. And if you want to be maximally effective, cut at or below ground level, even though you'll be destroying tool blades.
Address the seed bank. This is where most of the plants are. There are two philosophies about this. One is that disturbance should be minimized to minimize the germination of new seedlings. The other is to encourage germination so the maximum number of seedlings can be eliminated and the soil seed bank can be reduced as rapidly as possible, while people are still paying attention. I fall into the latter philosophical camp. Some seeds will germinate even without disturbance, so repeated follow-up treatment will still be needed every year. Germination can be encouraged by mechanical disturbance, such as light surface tilling, or a "cool" burn when the summer burn ban is lifted after the first fall rain, or in spring before the burn ban comes back into effect.
If you want to use fire, use common sense and educate yourself about it. Don't burn near forests, shrub patches, or structures. Mow and lay a "wet line" down around the edge of the proposed burn area. Only burn where water is available, such as where a hose can reach. Only burn small patches at a time. Dress appropriately, wearing leather gloves and boots. Coordinate with the local fire department. They may be interested in using the burn for training, though, if everything goes right, it will be boring with a lot of standing around. Early fall and spring field fires have low fuel loads and move slowly. Be aware that using fire is not part of our culture, and we have to learn how to do this. It will be essential for inhabiting western Washington as climate change accelerates.
Monitor and perform follow-up. The small first-year Scotch broom seedlings can be pulled, cut, mowed, or burned. Expect to repeat the "encouraging germination" step and follow-up treatment of pulling, cutting, mowing, or burning every year until the seed bank is no longer producing new seedlings every year. Then continue monitoring so new plants don't get established, start producing seeds, and you're back where you started.

"Green Broom" performed by The Norfolk Broads

Borrow A Weed Wrench From Us

WEAN has weed wrenches made for pulling up Scotch broom and other woody weeds. If you'd like to borrow a weed wrench, please email us at engage@whidbeyenvironment.org to fill out a rental form and schedule a pickup from our office at the Bayview Cash Store.

Note: If you borrow ed a weed wrench in the past and it's still sitting in the shed corner, we'd love to have it back. Email us to arrange a drop-off.

Learn More

Glistening Patches of Gold: The Environmental History of Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) On Southern Vancouver Island, 1848-1950 by Troy V Lee

Cytisus Scoparius, C. Striatus. In: Fire Effects Information System from US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory

March 2025 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:44:06 GMT

March 2025 Newsletter

Click here to learn about conservation easements, conserving land through the PBRS program, how to report toad sightings and violations to WEAN, and more.

View the issue here .

So Long, But Not Goodbye

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Wed, 26 Mar 2025 17:59:51 GMT

So Long, But Not Goodbye

We bid a very fond adieu to board members Bob Gunn, Katie Shapiro, and Nathaniel Talbot who completed their board service early this year.

All three were instrumental in our transition to “WEAN 2.0”, helping to build a pathway to our founders’ transition, hire both Executive Director Marnie Jackson and Engagement Director Amanda Bullis, and sustain the organization through its first two years of new leadership.

Among his contributions, Bob created financial modeling and budget monitoring tools and systems and partnered with our ED to develop a foresightful and adaptive budgeting process for this new chapter. Katie led us through a period of expanding and deepening our relationships—coordinating and managing our first-of-its-kind Campfire Friendraiser, partnering with WCLT in fundraising for habitat protection, and connecting WEAN with local businesses. Nathaniel brought land-based expertise as a farmer and nature educator, leading our Trillium tour and providing valuable perspectives on the intersection of habitat conservation and regenerative agriculture. Nathaniel, a talented musician, also provided our intro-and outro-music for the Action Hour Podcast!

We anticipate ongoing friendship and collaboration with Katie, Nathaniel, and Bob—all of whom play significant roles in our community and remain involved in environmental and community-building projects. In the meantime, we wholeheartedly thank them for giving of their time and energy at such a transformational time in the life of our organization.

Register For Our Final Civic Voice Workshop, May 3

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Mon, 24 Mar 2025 17:47:04 GMT

Register For Final Civic Voice Workshop, May 3

Join Whidbey Environmental Action Network in the process of finding your own, unique voice as an environmental and civic advocate at our final Finding Your Civic Voice workshop at the Oak Harbor Library on May 3, 2025, at 10 am.

Gain the skills to speak up on behalf of future generations — and all of the people, plants, animals, and organisms who aren’t invited into our committee meetings, legislature, or board rooms.

When: May 3, 2025 from 10 am to 5 pm

Where: Oak Harbor Library, 1000 SE Regatta Dr, Oak Harbor, WA 98277

This is an all-day workshop focused on crafting public comments and speaking them aloud.

Tuition is waived through grant support from the Washington State Department of Commerce and the Climate Commitment Act.

Space is limited. Registration is required.

Linda’s Journey To Protect Forested Wetlands Through PBRS

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:11:36 GMT

Linda’s Journey To Protect Forested Wetlands Through PBRS

Linda LaMar and her pup Josie in front of a pond formed by a glacier on the property Linda stewards in Freeland, Washington. The property features undisturbed forested wetlands, a rare ecosystem on Whidbey Island. Image by Amanda Bullis.

Engagement Director Amanda Bullis interviews WEAN Board Member Linda LaMar about conservation stewardship, her collaboration with Whidbey Camano Land Trust on a conservation easement for 20 acres in Freeland, and her journey to apply to Island County’s Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS), a program designed to provide a tax benefit to landowners who conserve their land for public benefit.

Bullis: How did you end up on Whidbey Island?

LaMar: We were drawn to the island from the Bay Area by an article in Bark Magazine that described Whidbey as the county with the most off-leash dog parks per capita! We came up to look at properties and were immediately hooked!

Bullis: What drew you to conservation stewardship?

LaMar: A few years back, there was a spate of clearcutting that took place on the island; it seemed that everywhere you looked, large sections of forest were being mowed down. There were foggy explanations for what was happening, why, and whether or not the property owners were following best practices. When we had the opportunity to purchase a tract of land that was untouched for 40 years, it felt like a way to help.

Bullis: What do you love about your land? What makes it worth conserving?

LaMar: When we purchased the property, it was in the Designated Forest Land Program (DFL). If we didn’t keep it in the program we would have had to pay several years back taxes on the property. With the excellent help of the Whidbey Island Conservation District , I put together a Forest Management plan that was required for closing escrow. As part of this process, the late forester, Elliott Menashe , toured the land with us and described it as having “near old growth" status. At the time, I was confused by this because there was only one truly old-growth tree (and we are lucky to have it!). He pointed out the maturity of the understory, the forested wetlands, and the extent of the fern beds. That, combined with the lack of invasive species and the fact that 20-acre tracts of land are increasingly rare, made it clear we should save it. There is also a beautiful pond on the property that supports lots of bird life.

Our forest management plan does require us to harvest trees as they mature along with underplanting and keeping invasive species out of the land. We hope to move out of the DFL and into PBRS long before the tree harvesting is required per the plan.

Bullis: When did you first discover the Public Benefit Rating System program?

LaMar: I was listening in on a Commissioners' meeting that had a PBRS application on the agenda. There was confusion and anger over the various interpretations of the PBRS program, ranging from one commissioner who defined it as an elitist program for rich people to another who saw it as a way to incentivize conservation. I was dismayed and intrigued.

Bullis: Why did you choose to apply to PBRS?

LaMar: I haven’t yet applied. Our application will coincide with gaining a conservation easement on the property, which will add points on the PBRS application and show our intent to keep the land in conservation permanently. Our land has been approved by the Whidbey Camano Land Trust and we are at the beginning of that process now. With the help of the Whidbey Camano Land trust, we plan to apply to transition out of the Designated Forest program and into the PBRS program. This can be done without having to pay the back taxes required when you exit the DFL program.

We want to be in the PBRS program as it is the best way to preserve the land in its natural state. Conservation is a public benefit and the PBRS program was formed to honor that. The program offers flexibility for land use, allows DFL land to be transferred in without back tax penalty, and can still provide a tax break—although not anywhere close to the break that landowners are given in the DFL land.

Bullis: What are the benefits and challenges of the program as it is currently administered?

LaMar: It is largely unheard of. I’ve talked to a few landowners on the island who own hundreds of acres and were unaware of the program. It’s also been politicized incorrectly as a program that takes land away from development to satisfy the whims of others who can already afford to pay the best-use taxes. One big issue with the program is that it is set up in such a way that the commissioners can deny an application for any reason, and the landowner has no ability to appeal the decision. A landowner can meet all the stated requirements of the program, and still be denied PBRS status. That makes decisions potentially inconsistent as they could be subject to personalities. This Commissioner veto power is unique to PBRS and doesn’t apply to [Designated Forest Land] or Ag land.

Bullis: What changes would you like to see in the program?

LaMar: I would like to see the program structured in such a way as to serve as an incentive to move property from DFL to the PBRS program. A structure that still rewards cutting mature carbon rich trees over one that conserves those trees is woefully out of touch with the times. I think many owners would be willing to pay more in taxes over what they pay in the DFL program knowing that the land will be preserved. When a landowner gets a tax break from any of these programs (Ag, DFL, PBRS) the tax burden is shifted to the rest of the community to make up the difference. The DFL program hurts the community because it takes away mature forest land in a time of climate crisis and costs them more in shifted tax burden than the PBRS program which has direct public benefit built into the program. In PBRS, points are awarded for allowing public access to the property, in addition to points for conservation easements, and protection of critical areas. The financial analysis between DFL and PBRS needs to be done by the county.*

The decision whether or not to approve a property into the program should be based on consistent criteria, with enough flexibility to consider the unique aspects of each property. The ability to deny a property at the complete discretion of each commissioner should be changed. The application form needs to account for whether the landowner is donating a conservation easement or if they are being compensated by the WCLT or any other entity. That would help clear up the existing confusion about how much compensation an owner is getting for putting their property into the program.

The program should be advertised and information provided to realtors selling land so that they can make new buyers aware of an option that doesn’t require cutting the trees.

Bullis: Why are programs like PBRS important?

LaMar: Without an alternative to the Designated Forest program, lands that could be saved for the future are being clear-cut. These forests will not recover for 50-100 years. The county still has an opportunity to save hundreds of acres of forest on Whidbey and Camano Islands, while also providing the public with additional environmental protection and recreational opportunities.

Bullis: What would you say to other landowners interested in applying to the Public Benefit Rating System in Island County?

LaMar: Look back at the history of properties that have been approved and denied so that you can be educated and prepared for the county’s decision. Familiarize yourself with the point system and the tax benefits and consequences of all the options. Know that the PBRS program does not exclude your ability to harvest trees on the property if you so desire. Consult with the Whidbey Camano Land Trust and the Whidbey Island Conservation District to make the best choice for your property.

*Update from Marnie Jackson: Since this interview, WEAN brought the need for an economic analysis of these land use programs and tax shift implications to Island County for consideration. The Assessor's Office and WEAN are engaging in collaborative grant-seeking to meet this need. We'll share more news when we have it!

Learn More

Island County's Public Benefit Rating System

Island County Public Benefit Rating System Application Packet (2023)
Basis for Assessment for Island County Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS)
Listen to Action Hour episode, "The Need For Public Benefit Rating Reform" , to hear how WEAN founders Marianne Edain and Steve Erickson imagine the forestry aspects of PBRS could be reformed to better serve our ecosystems and communities.

Conservation Easements

Conservation Easements Q&A , From Whidbey Camano Land Trust
Listen to Action Hour episode: "Talking Conservation Easements And Contiguous Habitat With WCLT's Ryan Elting " to learn more about conservation easements.

February 2025 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Thu, 06 Mar 2025 02:57:40 GMT

February 2025 Newsletter

Click here to read about the comprehensive planning process, the Clinton Subarea Plan, a joint meeting between Oak Harbor and Island County, and more.

View issue here .

What Is The Comprehensive Plan?

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:48:09 GMT

What Is The Comprehensive Plan, Exactly?

A Quick Overview

In 1990, the Washington State legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA), a law designed to slow development sprawl in the state. The comprehensive planning process is mandated by the Growth Management Act , requiring all qualifying jurisdictions in Washington to plan strategically for population growth in areas that already have density while protecting rural areas and natural resources. Every county that qualifies must submit a guideline called a Comprehensive Plan to the Washington Department of Commerce every ten years, planning for population growth for the next 20 years.

Island County is a qualifying county, and is currently planning through 2045 . This process is led by our Long Range Planners in the Department of Planning and Community Development . Our plan is due to the state in December 2025.

"The Planning Department’s overarching goal is to deliver a plan on schedule that meets the statutory requirements," Emily Neff told us in an interview via email last September. "The Board of Island County Commissioners have set three priorities for the comprehensive plan update: Equity, Health, and Climate Resilience."

What Are The Goals Of The Plan?

The Growth Management Act outlines 15 planning goals that it seeks to achieve through Comprehensive Planning on a local level. To the frustration of many, the goals outlined by the Act are not ranked in order of priority, which makes the GMA a "goal-balancing" piece of legislation. This can create issues when jurisdictions are trying to determine which of these goals, which often conflict, should take precedent in the planning process.

The 15 goals are related to the following:

Urban growth
Reduce sprawl
Transportation
Housing
Economic development
Property rights
Permits
Natural resource industries
Open space and recreation
Environment
Citizen participation and coordination
Public facilities and services
Historic preservation
Climate change and resiliency
Shorelines of the state

You can read the specific requirements for each goal in RCW 36.70A.020 .

Who Has To Plan?

“Each county that has both a population of fifty thousand or more and, until May 16, 1995, has had its population increase by more than ten percent in the previous ten years or, on or after May 16, 1995, has had its population increase by more than seventeen percent in the previous ten years, and the cities located within such county, and any other county regardless of its population that has had its population increase by more than twenty percent in the previous ten years, and the cities located within such county, shall conform with all of the requirements of this chapter.”

RCW 36.70A.040

According to Futurewise , 29 counties in Washington State are currently required to participate in the comprehensive planning process. The parameters for qualifying for participation are outlined in RCW 36.70A.040 . To sum it up, if a county has had a population increase by more than 17% within the last ten years and their cities have had an increase of 20% or more within the last decade, that county is mandated to plan under the Growth Management Act.

Qualifying counties currently are: Benton County, Chelan County, Clallam County, Clark County, Columbia County, Douglas County, Ferry County, Franklin County, Garfield County, Grant County, Island County , Jefferson County, King County, Kitsap County, Kittitas County, Lewis County, Mason County, Pacific County, Pend Oreille County, Pierce County, San Juan County, Skagit County, Snohomish County, Spokane County, Stevens County, Thurston County, Walla Walla County, Whatcom County, and Yakima County.

What Are The Roles In Local Government In This Process?

In Island County, the Board of Island County Commissioners (BOCC) holds the decision-making authority for the Comprehensive Plan and will ultimately approve the final Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC relies on the guidance of the Planning Commission , a volunteer commission of nine residents representing three districts in the county. Planning Commission members are appointed by the Board and their role in this process is to advise the Board on the Comprehensive Plan by making policy recommendations that reflect the values of the community. Planning department staff support the Planning Commission by framing topics and conversations to help prepare the Planning Commission to make policy recommendations to the Board. Hired consultants support Planning Department staff in collecting and integrating data and public input, to a greater or lesser extent by element. Each county gets financial support from the state to pay for such assistance.

Planning Department staff then provides draft language for each element of the plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, commented on by the public (including community organizations and special interest groups), and ultimately approved by the Board of County Commissioners before being submitted to the Department of Commerce for adoption.

The public has an opportunity to provide feedback along the way, including mandatory public comment periods before adoption of the plan.

What Are Our Population Projections?

“Counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall ensure that, taken collectively, adoption of and amendments to their comprehensive plans and/or development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and employment growth, including the accommodation of, as appropriate, the medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to such growth, as adopted in the applicable countywide planning policies and consistent with the twenty-year population forecast from the office of financial management. "

RCW 36.70A.115

Before a county begins planning for growth, it must determine exactly how many people the county is planning to accommodate within the next twenty years through a process called Land Capacity Analysis . At the beginning of the Comp Plan process, each county begins with population data from the Washington State Office for Financial Management (OFM) and must choose a population projection the county will plan for during the planning period. Each municipality within the county must accept the projected numbers for their individual city or township, and the county must accept projected numbers overall. In Island County, the process for land capacity analysis is directed by Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) led by a Countywide Planning Group (CPG) comprised of representatives from the planning departments of Oak Harbor, Coupeville, Langley, Island County, and a representative for NAS Whidbey.

Based on a land capacity analysis completed through a Countywide Planning Policies update in 2024, Island County has chosen to plan for a projected 102,639 residents by 2045, an increase of 15,000 new residents countywide.*

*Update: Since the original publication of this blog, Island County decreased population projections for the City of Oak Harbor. See WEAN's position on this in our blog post "WEAN Urges County To Stick To Original Population Projections."

What Are The Plan Elements?

In RCW 36.70A.070 , the Growth Management Act outlines the categories related to growth and development that each county must plan for. There are nine core elements required in a Comprehensive Plan by the State of Washington:

Land Use
Housing
Transportation
Economic Development*
Parks and Recreation*
Capital Facilities
Utilities
Rural
Climate Change and Resiliency

In addition to the nine core elements, Island County plans for the following elements:

Shorelines (through the Shoreline Master Program )
Historic Preservation
Natural Resources

The Shoreline element is mandated through the Shoreline Management Act . Historic Preservation and Natural Resources are optional elements Island County chooses to plan for.

*According to MRSC , these elements are listed as mandatory in RCW 36.70A.070 but are actually optional because funds have not be appropriated to help prepare for them.

What's New This Time?

"Ensure that comprehensive plans, development regulations, and regional policies, plans, and strategies under RCW 36.70A.210 and chapter 47.80 RCW adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled; prepare for climate impact scenarios; foster resiliency to climate impacts and natural hazards; protect and enhance environmental, economic, and human health and safety; and advance environmental justice."

RCW 36.70A.020

As a result of the passing of House Bill 1220 in 2021 this comprehensive planning update must include an affordability amendment to the housing element and as a result of House Bill 1181 passed in 2023 there is a new Climate Resiliency sub element also mandated by the state.

As a result of this legislation, going forward, Island County must also plan for:

Climate Resiliency through a new sub element. See more about these changes here .
Affordable Housing that plans for a spectrum of income bands through an amendment to the Housing element. See a presentation from our consortium partner Island Roots Housing or this guidance from the Department of Commerc e to learn more about the updated requirements for housing.

"In my opinion, the biggest lesson learned from the last process is that we didn’t adequately plan for housing for all our residents," Island County Planner Emily Neff shared with us via email in September 2024."This is not unique to Island County, this issue is playing out at a national scale right now, but we are feeling it intensely in Island County. The repercussions of not planning for housing at all income levels has started to become apparent in our daily lives. We see businesses shortening their hours due to staff constraints, many of them choosing to close their doors rather than struggle to stay open, and more and more staff traveling long distances to work here - it’s not sustainable. We need to focus on increasing access to housing for the hard-working people who are building our houses, staffing our restaurants, and providing care at our hospital so they can afford to live and work here."

To prepare for the Climate Resiliency subelement, Island County held a series of community workshops in Fall 2024 on the topics of groundwater, heat, and sea level rise. WEAN's ED Marnie Jackson participated in these workshops and outlines her takeaways in Workshopping Climate Resiliency With Island County Stakeholders .

In addition to these elements, Island County is also submitting a Subarea Plan for Clinton as a part of this comprehensive plan periodic update. According to the county website, a subarea plan is a focused long-range plan to further analyze and address the needs of a specific area within a larger jurisdiction like a city or county. During the last periodic update in 2016, the county submitted a subarea plan for Freeland, which outlined a roadmap for the area to become a Non-Municipal Urban Growth Area (NMUGA). This plan has yet to come to fruition, in part because of the significant challenges related to septic accommodating the anticipated growth.

A draft of the Clinton Subarea Plan is currently open for public comment now through March 21, 2025. You can read the draft and comment here .

Where Are We Now?

Infographic of plan phases from the Island County Planning Department

At the beginning of 2025, the County began transitioning out of the “Shaping The Plan” phase into the “Refining The Plan” phase. The County will provide new draft language for each of the elements for review by the Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners, and the public in the first week of May 2025.

A draft of the Clinton Subarea Plan was just released to the public on February 14 and was discussed at a Clinton Community meeting on February 24, 2025. The public has an opportunity to comment on this plan draft through March 21, 2025. The final draft of the plan will be presented along with element drafts in May.

WEAN will be providing comments on the Clinton Subarea Plan draft, as well as each plan element draft as they are released. We are also working with equity consultant Diana Sandoval, in partnership with our CBO Consortium and with funding from the Climate Commitment Act, to do a comprehensive analysis of the previous Comprehensive Plan and new draft elements from an equity lens.

This is the time to really get into the policy change needed and make sure our County’s plan reflects the values of our community.

How Can You Participate?

"Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process, including the participation of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities, and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts."

RCW 36.70A.020

Public engagement is an important part of the comprehensive planning process. In fact, citizen participation is mandated by the Growth Management Act in the goals of the act in RCW 36.70A.020 and requires a public participation program per RCW 36.70A.140 .

Here are some ways you can participate:

Take the Island Roots Housing community housing survey
Take WEAN's community environmental survey
Comment on Island County’s public engagement website
Sign up for notifications from Island County
Answer calls to action to attend community meetings as dates are announced
Attend upcoming civic workshop sessions

Why Does It Matter?

This process outlines how our communities will evolve in the next 20 years. This plan demonstrates our values as a community and determines where our local government will put time, money, and resources over the next two decades.

We hope that our community will participate early and often to advocate for our ecosystems, agricultural economy, and communities in need of affordable housing solutions.

Guidance Leads To Policy

The Comprehensive Plan is a guidance document, not policy. Actual policy and implementation happen when Island County codifies the values and visions of the Comp Plan into our county code through the update of our Development Code.

The Island County Planning Department has chosen to start the code update after our plan has been submitted in December 2025.

Code And Plan Must Be Consistent

"Each comprehensive plan should provide mechanisms for ongoing review of its implementation and adjustment of its terms whenever internal conflicts become apparent. At a minimum, any amendment to the comprehensive plan or development regulations must be reviewed for consistency."

WAC 365-196-500

Every Comprehensive Plan must be consistent within itself and with state law, and county development regulations must reflect the goals outlined in the plan The development regulations of a county must be internally consistent and be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan.

What Happens After?

After our Comprehensive Plan is accepted by the state, Island County must make sure that the county code is consistent with the plan and state law.

"Once the Comp Plan is adopted, planning staff will shift gears to updating development regulations to make sure our County Code is consistent with the new policies in the Comp Plan," Island County Planner Emily Neff told us via email. "We have another year after the comp plan is adopted to update codes like our Critical Areas Ordinance."

Our Island County commissioners and the Island County planning department are responsible for ensuring that our plan is consistent and that policy is adopted to match the guideline and state law.

The public has an opportunity and an imperative to hold them accountable to this.

Historically, WEAN has filed successful appeals to the Growth Management Hearings Board to ensure Island County's environmental protections outlined in the county's development code are internally consistent, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and consistent with state law.

January 2025 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Wed, 05 Feb 2025 17:18:54 GMT

January 2025 Newsletter

Click here to read about our winter appeal, the current Comp Plan timeline, and our community's civic engagement in the process.

View issue here .

December 2024 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:27:29 GMT

December 2024 Newsletter

Click here to read about our year in review, COER's complaint to the Public Health Accreditation Board, the latest episode of Action Hour and more.

View the issue .

Five Stories: What We Achieved In 2024

Fri, 20 Dec 2024 23:34:23 GMT

Five Stories:

What WEAN Achieved In 2024

As the year comes to a close, we are reflecting on what we have achieved as an organization over the last year. We are proud of the work we've done — and are preparing for the long road ahead as we continue to work to enhance biodiversity, protect drinking water for generations to come, and improve the overall health of our forests on Whidbey and Camano Islands.

These five stories are just the beginning — and each will be a continued priority in the years to come.

Protecting Forests For Public Benefit

After a year of recurring 1:1 and small group meetings with local leaders, WEAN was gratified when Island County Commissioners and staff placed Public Benefit Ratings System forestry reform on the 2025 work plan. Thanks to our advocacy, local leaders now recognize the importance of making this program better and are taking positive action.

The Public Benefit Rating System is a tax program designed to incentivize people to steward forests and other land for collective wellbeing. In its current form in Island County, it is neither inclusive enough nor incentivizing enough to compete with commercial timber interests. The program currently fails to protect the amount of forest cover we need to sustain our aquifer, our clean air, or our way of life.

We are looking forward to being a stakeholder in the conversation around PBRS in the upcoming year as a part of the BOCC's work plan.

Engaging Community In Local Comprehensive Planning

In consortium with Island Roots Housing and the Agricultural Resource Committee of Island County with fiscal sponsor Goosefoot Community Fund , WEAN designed an initiative to bring more community voices to the table during the comprehensive planning process. The Comprehensive Plan will directly impact codes, ordinances, and budget allocations for projects over the next 20 years. Making changes here will impact our ability to advocate for environmental rights over the next decades.

With funding from the Washington State Department of Commerce and donors in our community, we are evolving our outreach styles and strategies to engage community members in Oak Harbor, Camano, Coupeville, and South Whidbey in the civic process, with a focus on reaching those who have been historically marginalized and un- or under-represented in comprehensive planning. We also have representation on Coupeville’s climate resilience committee and advocate in Langley, Coupeville, and Oak Harbor for responsible Comprehensive Planning.

Together with our community, we’re bringing more voices to the work of ensuring ecosystem protection, climate resilience, economic justice, housing access, farmland protection, and food security are treated as interconnected and vital aspects of our collective future as Island County writes the plan that will shape our next 20 years of Island life.

Building Partnerships And Collaborations For Greater Impact

Representatives from Whidbey Camano Land Trust, Pacific Rim Institute, and Whidbey Environmental Action Network tour the Pacific Rim prairie and forest.

With a new generation of WEAN leaders at the helm, we’re taking a larger role as collaborative local leaders in environmental education, activism, and advocacy to better protect ecosystems at home and beyond.

We’re taking a proactive approach to advancing environmental protections by collaborating with local elected leaders on both sides of the aisle, with city and county staff, with citizen scientists, with nonprofit organizers, and with the broader public while remaining ready to litigate when needed to protect this place we all love.

WEAN's partnerships are amplifying our impact with local jurisdictions and a network of values-aligned nonprofits. This year alone, we have partnered formally and informally with Whidbey Camano Land Trust , Whidbey Climate Action , Oak Harbor Garry Oak Society , Oak Harbor Garden Club , Pacific Rim Institute , Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve , Sound Defense Alliance , Futurewise , and others and we expect this trend to continue.

When we work together, our collective power grows.

With this multi-track approach, we are building broad support for solutions that increase biodiversity, enhance ecosystem function, and protect beloved wild places while expanding understanding of a fundamental truth: functional ecosystems are vital to support human health, resilient societies, and sustainable economies. Protecting them now matters deeply to us all.

Growing Our Capacity To Advocate, Educate, And Protect

WEAN Board and staff at a retreat at the Pacific Rim Institute in April 2024.

Our team now includes seven board members and two staff members, Executive Director Marnie Jackson and Engagement Director Amanda Bullis, with part time assistance from founder/consultants Marianne Edain and Steve Erickson. We look forward to continuing to sustainably increase our capacity and impact with the addition of Research Assistant, Program Director, and Development Director roles in the coming years as funds and capacity allow, and 2025 we hope to bring more energy into the system through a Skilled Internship program we’re developing with institutions of higher education.

On the public engagement front, we have transformed our program with the addition of the Act Now page on the WEAN website, 22 episodes of the Action Hour podcast , and a new newsletter format with more local and regional environmental news. We also hosted walks in the woods and on the prairie to give our community some direct contact with the lands we love. In December, we launched our newest civic engagement program funded by the Climate Commitment Act through the Department of Commerce, Finding Your Civic Voice , which will extended into the first quarter of 2025.

Strengthening and Upholding Environmentally Protective Laws

Oak Harbor community members advocating to keep their right to vote on the disposition of public parkland.

WEAN works to strengthen the laws and ordinances that protect the environment as well as to hold those who break the law accountable. Whether illegal or unethical action threatens a single parcel or an entire community, WEAN acts.

We respond 1:1 to community members’ arising environmental protection concerns, provide expert advice, and coach people on taking effective action when they see environmental harm in their own neighborhoods. We also take note when behaviors escalate to trends—maintaining a database of Forest Practices Applications, sounding the alarm at State Environmental Protection Act violations, and advocating against illegal and short sighted installation of concrete bulkheads where they would damage habitat without affording long term protection against rising seas.

In addition to monitoring arising issues and trends, we closely follow key cases where we believe laws have been broken and are poised to act if or when they become legally actionable. In August 2024, we filed suit against the City of Oak Harbor in Island County Superior Court for adopting Ordinance 1999 in a process which we believed violated the state’s code of ethics for municipal officers and the State Environmental Policy Act. The decision, which removes some rights of the public to vote on disposal of public parkland, directly threatens Hal Ramaley Memorial Park and Imagine Permaculture Forest with development for a hotel parking lot and indirectly threatens all city park land.

Moving Into 2025

As we move into 2025, we will continue to focus on forest protection through the reform of the county's PBRS program and community engagement around the Comprehensive Plan, which is due to the state in December of 2025. In addition to continuing to advocate for ecosystems and grow our capacity in the areas of focus in 2024, we will also work towards:

Creating an ambitious county-wide Biodiversity Plan
Galvanizing public action by developing Visual Data Storytelling skills
Engaging a Scientific And TEK Advisory Committee (STAC)
Relaunching our membership program to expand our reach and impact

We hope that you will continue to support our work, become a WEAN member in the new year, and maybe even consider applying for our Scientific and Traditional Ecological Knowledge Advisory Committee.

See you in the new year!

If you are curious about membership, please reach out to Amanda at engage@whidbeyenvironment.org.

November 2024 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:14:15 GMT

November 2024 Newsletter

Click here to learn Lushootseed, read an update from Marnie on the county Climate Resiliency element, and more.

View the issue here .

Workshopping Climate Resiliency With Island County Stakeholders

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Tue, 26 Nov 2024 21:34:58 GMT

Workshopping Climate Resiliency With Island County Stakeholders

By Marnie Jackson

Island County is developing a Climate Resiliency sub-element* of the comprehensive plan.

To that end, this October and November, Island County planning staff and team members from consulting firm Parametrix convened stakeholders from sectors including regenerative agriculture, environmental advocacy, marine science, water systems, economic development, and construction. I participated on behalf of WEAN to bring an ecosystems perspective. Through a series of three workshops, we explored climate predictions and the implications of changing sea level, precipitation, and heat. The goal of the workshop series was to gather community input and shape the county's new Climate Resilience Sub-Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Participants discussed the relevancy and uses of various climate models and projections, raised present and impending risks and challenges, and shared strategies to increase resilience for Whidbey and Camano Islands.

Sea Level Rise

The first workshop, held on October 21, 2024, focused on the issue of sea-level rise (SLR). Participants discussed Parametrix’s assumption of a 3-foot SLR by 2100—projected as 5 feet by the UW Climate Group, according to one participant—compounded by an additional 3 feet from king tides and storm surges. Either scenario will lead to widespread coastal erosion, increased flooding of homes and infrastructure, and more saltwater intrusion into groundwater.

The group discussed the need for strategic relocation of coastal homes and septic systems, balanced with the value of preserving and protecting homes when doing so doesn’t exacerbate habitat loss. There was some discussion of potential County acquisition of waterfront property or incentive programs to encourage relocation away from the shore. The workshop highlighted the urgent need to protect critical ecosystems like tidal estuaries, lagoons, and salt marshes, which are essential for biodiversity and coastal resilience, as well as the need to apply an equity lens to the challenge of SLR. We raised the question of how to plan now in order to protect community members and taxpayers from bearing the financial, public health, and environmental health burdens of impending disasters related to coastal flooding.

The widespread practice of shoreline armoring, as documented in an Island County Marine Resources Committee report , arose as a key concern. This practice harms marine ecosystems, exacerbates coastal erosion, and has become a hot topic in our community. To address this issue, participants called for increased data collection and analysis to better understand the impacts of shoreline armoring and other human activities on coastal ecosystems and on the resiliency of homes and infrastructure, hypothesizing that the proponents of hard armoring may not fully understand the threats bulkheads pose and the relative little reassurance they provide against the effects of SLR. There was some discussion of the need to identify interim interventions in the face of SLR, to protect homes and ecosystems for five or ten years, as well as long-lasting interventions that strengthen our resilience on a timeline of twenty, fifty, and one hundred or more years.

The stakeholder discussion called for a comprehensive approach to sea-level rise adaptation, including:

Strategic Relocation: Identifying and implementing strategies for relocating homes and infrastructure away from vulnerable coastal areas.

Coastal Restoration: Investing in projects to restore and protect coastal ecosystems, such as shoreline softening, dune and forage fish habitat restoration, and restoration of native vegetation on shorelines.

Land Use Planning: Developing policies and financial mechanisms to limit development in high-risk areas and promote more sustainable home and infrastructure siting and construction.

Community Education And Outreach: Raising awareness about the science behind threats to coastal homes and ecosystems to inform and engage more community members in envisioning and co-creating the future of our island communities.

Groundwater and Precipitation

The second workshop, held on October 29th, focused on the issues of changing precipitation patterns, groundwater levels, and aquifer recharge capacity. Participants discussed climate projections including more intense and infrequent rainfall events, longer dry periods, and more frequent and intense droughts. These changes will have significant impacts on water supply, agriculture, and ecosystems.

The vulnerability of Island County's groundwater, particularly the potential for saltwater intrusion, was raised as a key concern. Participants emphasized the need for better data collection and monitoring to understand the complex interplay between precipitation, groundwater, and surface water. Island County’s lack of dedicated monitoring wells was identified as a significant vulnerability, and stakeholders pointed to the possibility of partnering with the United States Geological Service or others for collaboration on monitoring and assessment. There was a general sense that outside expertise is needed to fully survey our groundwater resources. The discussion highlighted the importance of collaboration among government agencies, academic institutions, and community members to ensure a sustainable water future for Island County.

The workshop also delved into the issue of land use planning and the need to protect critical recharge areas. Participants discussed the potential impacts of logging and development on groundwater levels and the importance of implementing measures to reduce water consumption and conserve water resources. There was discussion of what establishing a county-wide Critical Drainage Area would make possible, in terms of incentivizing Low Impact Development and on-site runoff management, and the general conflict between a stormwater management approach that prioritizes moving water away from homes and out to sea versus an aquifer recharge approach which focuses on slowing and sinking water back into the earth.

There was extensive discussion of failing water infrastructure and vulnerabilities in the physical and social systems for managing small-group water systems, and many participants feel the establishment of a Public Utility District (or Districts) is a necessary intervention to prevent catastrophe.

Ultimately, the workshop underscored the need for a comprehensive approach to water resource analysis and management, including:

Improved Data Collection And Monitoring: Gathering accurate data on watershed performance, groundwater levels, groundwater availability, recharge rates, and water quality.

Water Systems Interventions: Developing options and incentives to support owners of private wells and members of small group systems with necessary monitoring, testing, and infrastructure upgrades.

Water Catchment And Greywater Reuse: Incentivizing greywater diversion and/or water catchment where appropriate for residential, agricultural, or ornamental garden use.

Land use planning: Protecting critical recharge areas and reforming the Public Benefit Rating System and Conservation Futures Funding programs to incentivize forest protection on large and small parcels and promoting sustainable development practices for built environments.

Heat

The third and final workshop, held on November 1st, focused on the threat of extreme heat. Participants discussed the potential for increased heat-related illnesses, wildfires, and power outages as well as the threat of ocean acidification and seawater warming for aquaculture and marine ecosystems and inhabitants. The conversation highlighted the need to protect and expand tree canopy, improve green infrastructure, and improve building energy efficiency without discounting the financial and practical limitations of rapid adaptation in the building sector. The workshop also underscored the importance of regenerative agriculture and agroforestry practices to mitigate the impacts of climate change and enhance soil health while increasing our local food resilience.

The discussion highlighted the need to protect vulnerable populations, including elderly, unhoused, and low-income community members as well as children and individuals with chronic health conditions. This protection might include expanding access to cooling centers and hydration stations, providing public education on heat safety, taking more active measures to reduce heat exposure for employees and workers, and increasing access to public green spaces.

The workshop highlighted the urgent need for a comprehensive heat action plan, including:

Cooling Centers: Establishing accessible cooling centers in public buildings and keeping them open as climate resilience hubs even outside emergencies.

Nurturing Urban Green Spaces: Planting trees, expanding parkland, and increasing access to urban green spaces to reduce heat island effects.

Building Energy Efficiency: Encouraging energy-efficient building practices and green roofs to reduce heat-related energy consumption, increase shade, and improve insulation.

Worker Protection: Implementing measures to protect outdoor workers from extreme heat, such as flexible work schedules, increased work breaks, and hourly versus volume-based compensation formulas to incentivize self-care.

Regenerative Agriculture and Agroforestry: Incentivize farmers and ranchers to use regenerative practices with foci on tree canopy retention, soil building, biodiversity, and local food resiliency.

Public Education and Outreach: Raising awareness about the risks of extreme heat and providing tips and resources for staying safe during heat waves.

Native Vegetation Restoration and Invasive Plant Eradication: maintaining roadways and parks in a manner that increases native, wildfire-wise vegetation; more aggressively eradicating invasive plant species with holistic interventions; and offering resources and incentive programs to landowners to incentivize native revegetation.

Recommendations for Improvement

All three Climate Resilience Sub-Element workshops highlighted serious issues and potential solutions while also shedding light on community members’ concerns about the county's capacity and commitment to implement meaningful climate action. Notably, there were no participants from Camano Island, nor were all Island County departments represented. The County was encouraged to take decisive action now, even before the adoption of the comprehensive plan update, to increase resources and reduce siloing for this vital work.

Three critical next steps highlighted during the discussion include:

Establish A Dedicated Climate Action Office: Create a dedicated office with adequate staffing and funding to oversee climate initiatives, including through the appointment of a Climate Action Director with authority equal to or greater than other director-level roles.

Add A Staff Grant Writer To Access Additional Funding: Add a full time grant writer to the staff and explore funding opportunities from state, federal, and private sources to support climate projects.

Engage Partners In Resilience Planning: Tribal nations, academic and research institutions, and state and federal agencies and departments can be allies in the work of planning, implementing, and monitoring climate resilience strategies.

The workshop series closed with many expressions of gratitude from participants and the public for a good example of public engagement in comprehensive planning. As next steps, Parametrix will summarize input received, meet with Island County’s internal Climate Action Team for staff input, and transition to drafting goals and policies for the new Climate Element. The public can expect to see those draft goals and policies by March 2025, and will be asked to provide feedback at that time.

* Climate Resilience is one of two climate sub-elements mandated in Washington State’s recent updates to the Growth Management Act, and the only one required for counties of our size. When questioned, planning staff said they have not been directed to develop a Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GGE) Reductions sub-element at this time due to constraints on time and funding. It was noted by workshop participants that without addressing GGE, Island County continues to exacerbate the very problems it seeks to address.

Get Involved

Check out the Island County Climate Resiliency Explorer , a StoryMap outlining the Comprehensive Plan element and considerations such as overall climate vulnerability, sea level rise, changing precipitation patterns, and heat.
Share your comments on Climate Change with the county on the Comp Plan website , under the "climate" tab.

Join WEAN's Bookclub

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:29:49 GMT

Join WEAN's Book Club: WEAN Reads

The Whidbey Environmental Action Network will be hosting a quarterly book club beginning December 3, 2024 from 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm, with a discussion of Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants by Robin Wall Kimmerer. Registration has closed for this session, but if you would like to join please reach out directly to Amanda Bullis at engage@whidbeyenvironment.org.

Upcoming WEAN Reads book club discussions:

Crossings: How Road Ecology Is Shaping The Future Of Our Planet by Ben Goldfarb

March 4, 2025 from 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm via Zoom

The Death and Life of the Great Lakes by Dan Egan

June 3, 2025 from 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm via Zoom

Register Here

We will be discussing the whole text during a 90-minute Zoom meeting. Questions to ponder will be sent to those who RVSP to attend. B ook club discussions will be facilitated by WEAN board member Linda LaMar.

Register For Workshop: Finding Your Civic Voice

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Thu, 21 Nov 2024 20:15:04 GMT

Register For Finding Your Civic Voice Workshop, December 8

Find your unique voice as an environmental and civic advocate at WEAN's first Finding Your Civic Voice workshop.

Learn about the public comment process, craft your own public comments, and workshop them in front of a supportive audience of your peers.

Gain the skills to speak up on behalf of future generations — and all of the people, plants, animals, and organisms who aren’t invited into our committee meetings, legislature, or board rooms.

When: December 8 from 9 am to 4 pm

Where: Bayview Cash Store Front Room & Bayview Hall

What: Learning to craft public comment and speaking it aloud in a safe space

This program is free and open to the public, however, space is limited.

We will accept up to 30 participants for this workshop on a first-come, first serve basis.

REGISTER HERE

Finding Your Civic Voice is supported with funding from Washington’s Climate Commitment Act. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving public health. Information about the CCA is available at www.climate.wa.gov.

October 2024 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:33:30 GMT

October 2024 Newsletter

Click here to learn about the Northwest Straits kelp monitoring program, register for the Finding Your Civic Voice workshop and WEAN's bookclub, and learn about becoming a board member with WEAN.

View the issue here .

It Takes a Village: Collaborating With Community In Comprehensive Planning

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:47:18 GMT

It Takes A Village: Collaborating With Community In Comprehensive Planning

Consortium members from left to right: Marian Myszkowski (ARCIC), Marnie Jackson (WEAN),

and Bristol Carter (IRH) at the Island Roots Housing office

By Marnie Jackson

With Island County’s Comprehensive Planning in full swing, WEAN is working as part of a grant-funded Consortium to ensure that as many voices as possible reach our county commissioners, planning advisors, and staff members.

The Consortium includes Island Roots Housing (IRH) and Agricultural Resources Committee of Island County (ARCIC) , under the fiscal sponsorship of Goosefoot . The Consortium meets weekly to synchronize efforts and learn from one another, and in October we added consultants Mary Elizabeth Himes and Diana Sandoval to our team to support us in accessing more voices and perspectives and in shaping our next comprehensive plan to better advance equity and environmental justice.

ARCIC’s focus in Comprehensive Planning is agriculture and farming. To advance their aims, they’re using grant funds to contract with American Farmland Trust to advise on the Land Use element. They’ll also host a Farmer’s Town Hall to bring people from all sectors of the agriculture community together to engage in the comprehensive planning process.

IRH is focused on affordable housing and is offering input into the Housing element and associated elements for both Island County and the City of Langley. They have also taken a lead on coordinating Consortium efforts as well as recruiting and retaining consultant support for connecting with BIPOC community members about needs and opportunities related to Comprehensive Planning. IRH is participating in Island County’s focus group meetings to shape the Housing Element.

WEAN’s focus is on the foundational role of ecosystem function in supporting economies, human health, and community resilience. We’re reviewing the Comprehensive Plan with an eye to State Environmental Policy Act compliance and protection of our shorelines, forests, wetlands, prairies, wildlife, and drinking water. We’re also designing and facilitating “Find Your Civic Voice” workshops on South Whidbey, North Whidbey, and Camano to support community members in developing and delivering impactful public comments at future Board of County Commissioner meetings. We’re participating in Island County’s focus group meetings to shape the Climate Resilience Element and in Coupeville’s Climate Element and Coastal Adaptation Advisory Team .

Partnering with IRH and ARCIC gives us an opportunity to view, from several perspectives, a fundamental truth: the essentials of food, shelter, and a liveable planet are inextricably linked. Affordable housing, farming, and environmental concerns can be advanced in concert when we center the wellbeing of life—human and otherwise—in our planning process. WEAN is fortunate to have such inspiring and dedicated collaborators with which to do this vital work.

Want To Get Involved?

The county and all local jurisdictions within the county are engaged in the Comprehensive Planning process until December 2025.

Attend the Island County Climate Resiliency workshop on Heat, Friday November 1, 10 am to 12:30 pm at the Coupeville Rec Hall. Address: 901 NW Alexander St, Coupeville, WA
Contribute your questions, comments, and survey responses on the Island County 2045 – Planning for Our Future website. There’s currently a prompt on the County’s website to, “tell us your priorities for climate resiliency,” as well as an opportunity to comment on the Clinton Sub Area plan . Please comment at every opportunity, as this website is being uplifted by planning staff as a key way for them to understand community needs and perspectives.
Check out WEAN's Act Now page or join our newsletter for opportunities to participate in town halls, open houses, workshops and additional surveys related to the Comprehensive Plan.

All About Kelp With Jeff Whitty

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:10:08 GMT

All About Kelp

Q&A With Northwest Straits Commission

Kelp Program Manager Jeff Whitty

"In a way kelp can talk, we just need to learn how to listen. Like plants and terrestrial forests, kelp and kelp forests can exhibit changes in their size, density, color, and condition in response to changes in their environment. It is up to us to understand how these changes are linked."

— Jeff Whitty, Kelp Program Manager, Northwest Straits Commission

Aquatic ecologist and Kelp Program Manager Jeff Whitty answers WEAN Engagement Director Amanda Bullis's questions about monitoring kelp in the Puget Sound Region with the Northwest Straits Commission and the importance of kelp conservation and recovery efforts statewide.

Bullis: Why is it important to study and monitor kelp?

Whitty: Kelp forests are an important provider of life in Puget Sound.

Kelp forests are the marine counterpart to terrestrial forests, made up of many different species of tall, floating ‘canopy’ kelp and shorter, submerged ‘understory’ kelp, which provide many important services to life in Puget Sound. For example, kelp forests act as important habitat (feeding grounds, nursery areas, sanctuaries) for an array of wildlife, many of which we and our economy depend upon, like salmon and rockfish. Kelp is also a key component in the Puget Sound food web and is of great importance to the lifeways of many Northwest Tribes.

Research into areas such as kelp ecosystem value, stressors, restoration and distribution, and trends are needed to fully understand the value of kelp, what is happening with kelp, and what can be done to ensure the survival of kelp forests and their services.

Monitoring kelp forests helps us to better understand the distribution and trends of kelp (where kelp is found and how it is changing) and has shown beds to be highly variable across time and location. Monitoring kelp also helps us to determine the stressors, such as temperature, sedimentation, herbivores, that influence these changes and can provide insight into the effectiveness of kelp restoration and protective management practices.

Bullis: How did you get into studying kelp?

Whitty: I have worked with species that depend on marine vegetation, like rockfish, for years. I started directly working with kelp when I joined Northwest Straits Commission, where I coordinate the Northwest Straits Initiative Kelp Monitoring Program as well as the Puget Sound Kelp Conservation and Recovery Plan . In this position I work closely with many kelp researchers, community groups, and policy makers on the Kelp Plan to advance kelp conservation and recovery in Puget Sound.

Bullis: What is the Northwest Straits Initiative Kelp monitoring program? Why did this program start?

Whitty: The Northwest Straits Initiative Floating Kelp Monitoring Program is a community science-based effort led by Marine Resources Committees (MRCs) which monitor the extent and trends of select floating kelp beds (i.e., bull kelp and giant kelp) within Northwest Washington. The MRCs began monitoring kelp in 2015 to answer a question from an Island County Marine Resources Committee member: "What is happening with bull kelp in our local waters?”

The program’s main purpose is to collect data that MRCs can use to better understand their local kelp forests and inform their local government and communities about this critical habitat. However, the data is also made available for public use on Sound IQ , and is used by partners like Washington Department of Natural Resources who integrate it with other efforts in the Washington State Floating Kelp Indicator to monitor trends of select floating kelp beds throughout Washington.

Together the program consists of 50 plus volunteers that annually monitor floating kelp beds at sites in six counties one to four times in June through September, the primary period when floating kelp is at the surface.

Bullis: How many kelp sites does the program monitor? Where?

Whitty: Collectively, the Marine Resources Committees monitor kelp beds at over 20 sites each year. Individually, each MRC monitors one to five sites. The monitored sites extend throughout the Northwest Straits region located as far south as Edmonds in Snohomish County, as far north as Pt. Whitehorn in Whatcom County, and as far west as Clallam Bay in Clallam County.

Bullis: How many monitoring sites are located in Island County?

Island County monitored five sites last year. These sites are well spread out across Island County and cover an array of environmental conditions, which is important as it helps us to understand how varying environmental factors can influence kelp beds.

Bullis: What is a Marine Resources Committee? What is the role of the MRCs in the kelp monitoring program?

Whitty: There are seven Marine Resources Committees within the Northwest Straits Initiative. The MRCs are county based advisory groups comprised of volunteers with an interest in protecting their local marine waters. MRCs receive base funding through grant agreements with the Northwest Straits Commission to accomplish priority restoration and protection work in their local areas. The Northwest Straits Commission receives Climate Commitment Act funding for partner work with the kelp program and funds from the EPA through the Puget Sound Partnership for kelp monitoring and administration.

The Northwest Straits Commission , Northwest Straits Foundation , and six MRCs participate in the Northwest Straits Initiative Floating Kelp Monitoring Program. The MRCs lead their own kelp monitoring projects. Each MRC decides if they will take on the monitoring, where, and with whom. The MRCs select site leads that manage and conduct each survey with a team of local volunteers. Northwest Straits Commission coordinates the program, providing the protocol, training, and support to MRCs as needed. Northwest Straits Commission also processes and analyzes the collected data. Northwest Straits Foundation provides support through insurance and guidance on program safety.

Bullis: What is the program’s kelp monitoring protocol?

Whitty: A protocol was developed for the Northwest Straits Initiative Kelp Kayak Monitoring Program in 2014 by Emily Bishop, a NOAA Hollings Scholar, to provide a standardized method to safely conduct kelp kayak surveys. Each Marine Resources Committee follows the protocol to ensure that their data is collected using the same methods as other MRCs. This protocol is also used by other Puget Sound organizations which allows for comparisons between groups.

The protocol is for kayakers to visit the same stretch of shoreline for each survey under optimal conditions for viewing floating kelp — low tide, slack current, limited wind — and create a perimeter of all kelp beds in the survey area using their GPS and kayak. Kayakers also record water temperature, depth, and general observations of the bed and wildlife at points along the bed perimeter. Once a survey is completed, the kayakers submit the data to Northwest Straits Commission for processing.

After processing, Northwest Straist Commission uploads the bed perimeters and reported data to Sound IQ for MRCs and the public to view and use.

Bullis: What trends are you seeing during kelp monitoring?

Whitty: The extent of floating kelp beds can change year to year and site to site. This can occur naturally or be influenced by human or climate induced factors. In the nine to ten years the MRCs have been monitoring floating kelp beds, we have seen most of these beds fluctuate between years but have no general trend overall. Unfortunately, a few of the monitored beds have been observed to decrease or disappear. Snohomish MRC began monitoring floating kelp beds in Meadowdale and Mukilteo in 2015 and documented their disappearance in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Conversely, four of the monitored beds located in Skagit and Island counties have shown an increase in bed size over the monitored period.

Further information on these trends can be viewed on the program’s StoryMap .

It is also important to understand more long term trends of kelp beds, but this is not always possible due to a paucity of data that cover extended periods of time. Washington Department of Natural Resource’s Washington State Floating Kelp Indicator has used long term aerial monitoring collected since 1989 and historical information, including Traditional Ecological Knowledge from partners including Samish Indian Nation , to demonstrate the decline and disappearance of kelp beds in Central and South Puget Sound and generally relatively stable kelp beds on the coast or Straits of Juan de Fuca. Long term trends in the North Puget Sound are less clear due to limited historical information, although Traditional Ecological Knowledge suggests a cause for concern in some areas.

Further information on these trends can be viewed on the project’s interactive map .

Bullis: What is the Kelp Plan? Why is it important?

Whitty: Kelp forests are a vital component to the Puget Sound ecosystem. However, floating kelp is declining or has disappeared in regions including Central and South Puget Sound and we are uncertain of trends in understory kelp due to limited knowledge. There is a critical and immediate need to better understand and protect these forests and the services they provide.

The Puget Sound Kelp Conservation and Recovery Plan provides a research and policy framework consisting of goals and actions aimed at protecting and recovering Puget Sound kelp species and the ecosystem services they provide. Published in 2020, the Kelp Plan has guided the development and funding of projects, served as a summary of the state of the knowledge, and inspired regional initiatives and conservation plans. The Kelp Plan’s call-to-action created a wave of momentum within the kelp community which resulted in advancements in support of the conservation and recovery of Puget Sound’s kelp forests.

The NWSI Floating Kelp Monitoring Program is one of many programs and projects that are helping to advance the Kelp Plan actions.

Bullis: Anything else you would like people to know about kelp or the monitoring program?

Whitty: Regarding kelp, kelp are not plants but are large brown algae. Kelp can be perennial or annual depending on the species. There are 17 species of kelp in Puget Sound (one of which is considered a floating canopy kelp) and 22 species in Washington (two of which are considered floating canopy kelp). Unfortunately, we know very little about the understory kelp hidden below the surface and we need to greatly expand our efforts to understand and protect these species as well.

While we have made many advances with the conservation and recovery of Puget Sound kelp over the last few years, we need all hands on deck to continue to support and expand these efforts to achieve the vision of the Kelp Plan: revitalized Puget Sound kelp forests stretching from Olympia to Vancouver, B.C. providing economic, recreational, and ecological benefits to all living things that call these shores and waters home.

We encourage anyone interested in learning more about or getting involved in the Kelp Plan, including those involved in related fields such as salmon, water quality, upland management, to please visit the Kelp Plan webpage or email me to learn more. You can also follow ‘The Under Story’, our social media campaign for kelp and the Kelp Plan, on Facebook, Instagram, or on the Kelp Plan webpage.

Regarding Northwest Straits Initiative Floating Kelp Monitoring Program, if you are interested in participating in one of the MRC kelp monitoring projects, please reach out to your local MRC.

Bullis: If kelp could talk, what do you think it might say to us?

Whitty: In a way kelp can talk, we just need to learn how to listen. Like plants and terrestrial forests, kelp and kelp forests can exhibit changes in their size, density, color, condition, etc. in response to changes in their environment. It is up to us to understand how these changes are linked. We have amazing researchers working on this, but they will need continued and expanded support, funding, and capacity to speak kelp fluently.

Jeff Whitty is an aquatic ecologist and the Kelp Program Manager for Northwest Straits Commission. Jeff coordinates the Northwest Straits Initiative Floating Kelp Monitoring Program and the Puget Sound Kelp Conservation and Recovery Plan (Kelp Plan). In these roles Jeff works closely with volunteers, agencies, community groups, non-profits, tribes, and universities to monitor, conserve, and recover Puget Sound kelp forests and their services. Jeff earned his master’s degree in marine science from Murdoch University, Western Australia and his undergrad degree in biology from the University of San Diego. Email Jeff at whitty@nwstraits.org .

The Northwest Straits Commission provides funding, training and support to seven county-based Marine Resources Committees (MRCs). It facilitates regional coordination among the MRCs and connects the MRC work to regional planning processes such as the Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda and Puget Sound Nearshore Estuary Restoration Program. The Northwest Straits Commission also takes on and manages regional projects that are of interest to all MRCs such as training volunteers to identify forage fish spawning sites.

Want to learn more?

Follow Northwest Straits On Social Media

Facebook: @northweststraitsinitiative | Instagram: @nwstraits | LinkedIn: @nwstraits | Vimeo: Northwest Straits

Watch 'The Under Story' On Vimeo

"The Under Story," is a social media series all about kelp! Join the Northwest Straits Commission on this exciting journey as we explore kelp, its vital role in our ecosystem, and efforts to protect Puget Sound kelp forests.

Learn About Bull Kelp Monitoring In Island County From Citizen Scientist Linda Rhodes

On the Action Hour podcast, Amanda chats with Linda Rhodes about what she has learned as a citizen scientist monitoring bull kelp in the nearshore marine environment off the coast of Whidbey and Camano Islands with the Island County Marine Resources Committee.

Listen on Spotify , Apple Music , iHeart Radio , and the WEAN website .

Get Involved With Your MRC

There are seven Marine Resources Committees in the Puget Sound region:

To learn more about the Island County Marine Resources Committee and ways to get involved, email Island County MRC coordinator Kelly Zupich at k.zupich@islandcountywa.gov .

The Island County MRC generally recruits citizen scientists that have gone through the Sound Water Stewards training program for projects.

More Resources

Visit the Kelp Plan website to learn more about the larger policy frame work for kelp conservation and recovery statewide.
Check out the Northwest Straits Initiative Floating Kelp Monitoring StoryMap to see interactive data from each of the six participating Marine Resources Committees.
Take a dive into the data collected across the sound in the SoundIQ database .
Learn about the disappearance of kelp on the San Juan Islands through the Samish Indian Nation StoryMap, "A Decade of Disappearance: Bull Kelp in the San Juan Islands" .

Ever Green Screening, October 18

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:59:15 GMT

Attend Ever Green Screening On Camano Island, October 18

Camano Action for a Rural Environment (CARE) is hosting a screening of the short film EVER GREEN: A Community Conservation Story by filmmakers Melissa Young and Mark Dworkin at the Camano Island Library from 6 to 8 pm on October 18.

EVER GREEN chronicles how Whidbey Environmental Action Network founders Marianne Edain and Steve Erickson mobilized their island community to protect forests, farmlands, and shorelines from development in order to preserve a healthy rural way of life.

WEAN staff and filmmaker Melissa Young will be in attendance.

Run time 30 mins.

Q&A and time to chat after the screening of the film.

This event is free and open to the public.

When: October 18, 2024 from 6 pm to 8 pm

Where: Camano Island Library, 848 N Sunrise Blvd STE D, Camano, WA 98282

September 2024 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Tue, 01 Oct 2024 21:31:43 GMT

September 2024 Newsletter

Click here to learn ways you can engage in the Comp Plan process, learn Comp Plan history from WEAN founders Marianne Edain and Steve Erickson, get a brief update on the new Climate Resiliency element, and more.

View the issue here.

August 2024 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Fri, 30 Aug 2024 15:53:51 GMT

August 2024 Newsletter

Click here to share your dreams for Clinton's future, read our blog honoring Oak Harbor public comments, and learn about upcoming community events.

View the issue here .

Honoring Your Public Comments

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Thu, 29 Aug 2024 20:34:06 GMT

Honoring Your Public Comments,

Even If City Council Didn't

Community members who attended and gave public comment in support of the election provision at the Oak Harbor City Council meeting on August 13. The crowd holds signs that read "THE PUBLIC SAYS: DON'T TAKE OUR VOTE!"

By Amanda Bullis

"There have been two widely publicized hearings on Ordinance No. 1999, and an overwhelming majority of the comments, in writing and in person, have opposed this ordinance. I attended one of those meetings, and having witnessed first-hand the opposition that was expressed, I think the matter should have been dropped by the City Council. Consequently, it is hard to believe that any future 'public hearings,' as opposed to a public election, on crucial matters such as this one, would hold much sway with the City Council."

—Marshall F. Goldberg in his written public comment on August 11, 2024

On August 13, 2024 the Oak Harbor city council voted against the will of the people to pass changes to Ordinance 1999, which greatly impacts an election provision in the city code that previously gave the people the right to vote any time the city council disposes of parkland. City council choose to pass amendments to the code language which create significant caveats that allow the city to dispose of parkland without a vote to the people.

For those of you who may not have been following this issue, here's a brief rundown of events:

Ordinance 1999, which gave the public the right to vote on the disposal of any and all public parkland, was originally passed in 1997 by the Oak Harbor city council to stop a private developer from building a hotel on Flintstone Park.

Earlier this year, the city of Oak Harbor received a pre-application from a local developer for a development project on a private parcel adjacent to Hal Ramaley Park, a public park. Initially, the developer put forth a plan for 15 to 17 units of full-time housing with a brewpub underneath, which fit the footprint of the owned parcel and did not require any additional space.

However, in his presentation to council on July 24, city planner Ray Lindenberg told council that he told the developer his original project was "technically up to our standards" but the city "would like to see more" in that location. The city "went back and forth a little bit with emails and conversations" and the developer came back with a plan for a hotel, the first draft of which also fit into the footprint of the owned parcel.

According to Lindenberg, the developer came back with a second draft of the hotel that just happened to include a conference center desired by the city council, which would require an additional 2,700 square feet of public park land to build. The only thing standing in their way? The election provision requirement in municipal code 01.30.010 requiring the city to put the disposition of parkland to a public vote.

In response, the city proposed the complete removal of the election provision in the municipal code, calling the election requirement and the people's voting right "an impediment to development of city-owned properties."

Since that initial May 21 meeting, the Oak Harbor city council has received at least one hundred written and oral public comments asking the council to keep the election provision as it was and keep the people's voting right intact. In opposition with overwhelming public sentiment, the city council voted to change the code on August 13 to accommodate this single hotel project with language that they considered a "compromise" with public comment.

The amended code language passed by council on August 13 allows the council to circumvent the election requirement if, among other things, "the city council reviews a development agreement between the city and private entity and determines that; the property exchange is calculated at a one to-one ratio of land area or greater in benefit to the city" or "the city council reviews a development agreement between the city and private entity and determines that the value of physical infrastructure to city park land or improvements to city park land provided by the private entity is at least 150% of the market value of the land granted by the city to the private entity."

Despite comments made by city council members during the August 13 meeting and to members of the public directly about having a "10,000 square foot limit" on the one-to-one property exchange, the actual ordinance voted on by the council on August 13 makes no mention of such a limit.

WEAN has concerns regarding the lawfulness of the Oak Harbor city council's actions on August 13 and throughout this process. WEAN is also concerned by the city's failure to provide all of the necessary facts to the public throughout this process and the council's overall lack of respect for public opinion. During a Parks and Rec Advisory Commission meeting on June 4, public officials called citizenry engaged in the public comment process "reactionary," "uninformed," "not trustworthy to vote intelligently," "out-of-towners," and "grandstanders".

As seen below, the public comments received by the city council since the first meeting on this topic on May 21 are thoughtful, respectful, articulate, passionate and well informed viewpoints formulated with the information provided by the city at the time. The overwhelming majority of comments are in favor of keeping the election provision in the city code as it was originally adopted in 1997, which would have kept the people's voting right intact.

The Oak Harbor city council voted against the will of the people, but that does not take away from the extraordinary outpouring from the community in support of the people's right to vote on the future of public parkland. It's clear that our community cares deeply about each other, our voting rights, and our parks.

The city council may not have heard you, but we have.

Stay loud.

Written Public Comments Related to Ordinance 1999 from May 21-August 13, 2024

These carousels do not include oral comments given during city council meetings, private email correspondence between council members and the public, or voicemails left at City Hall related to Ordinance 1999. All public comments are included, regardless of their position.

If you would like to listen to oral comments, you can view the city council meetings on Youtube. Links below.

Note: city staff chose to represent public comments from community members with Oak Harbor addresses outside of city limits as "Island County" rather than "Oak Harbor" and chose to represent comments from business owners who operate businesses within the city but may reside and vote outside of city limits as "Oak Harbor" comments.

Interested in learning more about

Ordinance 1999?

Below are some additional resources if you would like to become better informed on Ordinance 1999 and it's potential impacts on the Oak harbor community. Thank you to Sam Fletcher, from the Whidbey News-Times, for following and reporting on this issue.

Whidbey News-Times Coverage of Ordinance 1999

June 4, 2024 — "Garden Club questions future of Hal Ramaley park" by Sam Fletcher

July 2, 2024 — "Whidbey groups ask Oak Harbor to defend parks" by Sam Fletcher

July 12, 2024 — "Debate continues on whether park sale, swap should require a public vote" by Sam Fletcher

July 30, 2024 — "City looks at options for changing park ownership" by Sam Fletcher

August 16, 2024 — "City loosens restrictions on trading parkland" by Sam Fletcher

WEAN Coverage of Ordinance 1999

May 31, 2024 — "Oak Harbor's Public Parks In Jeopardy" in WEAN May 2024 Newsletter

June 28, 2024 — "Imagine A City Without Parks " in WEAN June 2024 Newsletter

July 18, 2024 — "Oak Harbor Parks Update: The People Want To Keep Their Vote" in Call To Action

August 9, 2024 — "Protect Oak Harbor's Parks: Comment Now To Keep The Vote" in Call To Action

Oak Harbor City Council Meetings & Agendas

May 21, 2024 — Meeting & Agenda

[discussion of Ordinance 1999 begins at 29:57]

July 9, 2024 — Meeting & Agenda

[community presentation by Kyle Renninger begins at 27:22 and discussion of Ordinance 1999 begins at 01:20:29]

August, 13, 2024 — Meeting & Agenda

[discussion of Ordinance 1999 begins at 20:15]

July 2024 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:24:10 GMT

July 2024 Newsletter

Click here to learn about the benefits of composting, WEAN's grant funding through the Department of Commerce, where to spot endangered western toads this summer, and more.

View the issue here .

June 2024 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:01:52 GMT

June 2024 Newsletter

Click here to learn about WEAN's involvement in saving the prairie at PRI, Island County's current concerns about water and more.

View the issue here .

For Love Of The Vanishing Prairie

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 23:43:04 GMT

For Love Of The Vanishing Prairie: How WEAN Saved Smith Prairie At Pacific Rim Institute

By Amanda Bullis

As we celebrate summer here on Whidbey Island, the prairie lands at Pacific Rim Institute are in full bloom, a spectacular sight to see — and burgeoning with real ecological significance. Before becoming home to the Au Sable Institute, this special grassland was up for sale for residential development by the Department of Fish and Wildlife in 1999 to make up for a shortfall in the state budget. Our founders Steve Erickson and Marianne Edain, recognizing this glacial outwash prairie remnant as a vanishing ecosystem, stepped in to save it. Today, the Pacific Rim Institute stewards this exceedingly rare ecosystem.

“This is like stuffing the last salmon and selling it as a wall ornament to raise money for fish conservation. A budget shortfall is not a good reason to toy with the extinction of a vanishingly rare native ecosystem."

— Steve Erickson, in WEAN’s letter to former WA Governor Gary Locke in 1999

Smith Prairie, A Glacial Remnant Prairie Of Great Significance

WEAN founder Steve Erickson was first drawn to Smith Prairie in Coupeville on Whidbey Island in 1997, where he discovered a particular species with “shooting star” flowers, Primula hendersonii , previously unknown on the island. The prairie is a “glacial outwash prairie remnant,” which means that it was formed by the moving of the Pleistocene glaciation that created Puget Sound 11,000 years ago, leaving gravely, well-draining soil in its wake. There are only a few of its kind left in the region and only one on Whidbey Island, the Smith Prairie in Coupeville on the Pacific Rim Institute campus.

Steve and Marianne, along with Chris Chappell, who was working as a Vegetation Ecologist for the Washington Department of Natural Heritage at the time, identified a myriad of plants on the prairie in 1998, then owned by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

“For me, the most exciting species was Brodiea howellii , now renamed Triteleia grandiflora , common name fool’s onion,” recalls WEAN co-founder Marianne Edain. The group had been walking along a fence line on the prairie when Marianne spotted a single light blue flower among the conifers. They barely ID-ed the flower before a neighboring horse bowed its head and chomped it up. Several more ecologists visited the property in 1998 and during a field visit on May 22 of that year, Chris Chappell officially evaluated the prairie for significant native plant communities. Upon the discovery of Festuca idahoensis , also known as Idaho fescue , Chappell determined approximately 4 acres of Smith Prairie to be a true “remnant prairie.” Idaho fescue is listed in the Washington Natural Heritage Plan (1997) as a Priority 3 species for protection. The presence of Idaho fescue, found specifically on prairies with a history of maintenance through controlled burning by indigenous tribes, confirmed that this prairie is a remnant of grassland wholly unaffected by European settlers. As grasslands disappear across the world, remnant prairies have become exceedingly rare.

“The presence at this site of many native species in abundance on this environmental setting make it important to consider as a site for conversation of biological diversity,” writes Chris Chappell in his 1998 field report. “Well over 99% of the northern Puget Lowland outwash prairie has been converted to other uses or severely degraded by past disturbances.”

In 1999 the Department of Fish and Wildlife, who owned and operated Smith Prairie as a pheasant game farm, put the 175-acre property up for sale for residential development as a part of the state’s strategy to make up for a budget shortfall. The Fish and Wildlife proposal would have divided the property into twelve 10-acre parcels zoned for between 23-46 homes. Despite the critical discovery of Idaho fescue on the property, the Department conducted a SEPA review of the property and issued itself a “Determination of Non-significance,” claiming there would be no significant environmental impact in converting the land to residential use.

With this rare ecosystem in jeopardy, WEAN filed a civil lawsuit against the Department of Fish and Wildlife and launched a public campaign to save the prairie.

Why Do Prairies Matter?

Grasslands make up over one-quarter of the earth’s land. Vast swaths of homogenous fields or ornamental wildflowers to the naked eye, in reality, grasslands are complex, biodiverse communities that inhabit an array of creatures, from large mammals to microscopic communities of insects enriching the deep, fertile soil. In addition to being hotspots of biodiversity, grassland ecosystems are thought to be vital carbon sinks that have the potential to mitigate rising temperatures due to climate change.

Grasslands are also the most threatened and least protected biome on the planet with a conversion rate that, surprisingly, far surpasses deforestation. The big, human-generated tension with grassland is balancing agricultural and residential development with critical ecosystem preservation. Temperate grasslands — known in North America as prairies — often have rich, deep soil that is excellent for farming. Over-cultivating the land for agriculture, however, disrupts the natural ecosystem of these wild places to disastrous effect .

The rapid conversion of prairie land to farmland in the Great Plains region, galvanized by the Homestead Act of 1862, greatly contributed to the catastrophic ecological conditions resulting in the Dust Bowl in the 1930s . The Act, which offered up to 160 acres of “free” land to settlers who agreed to cultivate the land for agricultural production, encouraged settlers to move into the Great Plains and begin farming the land.

What happened to the Great Plains? The rapid conversion of prairie to farmland degraded the ecosystem. In very simplistic terms, if you remove too much grass, the whole thing begins to fall apart. An unsung hero of the planet biome, grass does tremendous work . Grass provides food and habitat for wildlife and grassroots help build soil and create food stores for plants during winter and drought. As a result of the decimation of the prairie ecosystems in the Great Plains region, the soil degraded, and there was nothing for grass to hold on to. Subsequently, the whole prairie, including the animals and organisms that subsist off the grass, dried up. Lack of vegetation across the plains created high wind conditions, in conjunction with a prolonged period of drought, resulting in “black blizzard” dust storms that plagued the region for over a decade. It took the region years to recover economically from this environmental disaster and the biodiversity of the landscape has never recovered.

In the U.S. only 4% of tallgrass prairie habitat remains. In the State of Washington, prairie habitat covered 180,000 acres before European settlement. According to the Department of Fish and Wildlife , only 3% of prairie habitat remains in the Puget Sound region, and on Whidbey Island, only 1% .

Public Outcry Protects Prairie, PRI Takes Up Stewardship

"Quite frankly, we do not want to have to engage in litigation against a state agency with which we usually work cooperatively with. I hope a solution can be found that guarantees the dedication of the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife's land on Smith Prairie to the long term conservation and restoration of the native prairie."

— Steve Erickson, in WEAN’s letter to former WA Governor Gary Locke in 1999

After WEAN filed the lawsuit against the Department of Fish and Wildlife to save the Smith Prairie in 1999, local environmentalists rallied the community to protest the sale of the rare ecosystem for residential development. As a result of wide public outcry state Representative Kelly Barlean, the Republican representative from Langley at the time, sponsored a state bill that directed the property to be sold to a buyer that would preserve the prairie in its natural state.

The bill, which would give one year for environmentalists to find a conservation buyer for the property, passed state legislature in 1999. As a part of the bill, remarkably, WEAN was given the right to screen and approve potential buyers of the land. Once Michigan-based environmental non-profit Au Sable Institute was approved to buy the land, WEAN dropped its lawsuit and began working with Au Sable to protect the property.

Au Sable purchased the property in 1999 and stewarded the land for a decade. Then in 2009, under the leadership of then Executive Director Robert Pelant, the newly formed Pacific Rim Institute took up the mantle of prairie preservation. For the last number of years, PRI has not only preserved this rare landscape but has actively engaged in prairie restoration efforts that have had an impact on the return of native plant species in the region, including the iconic native perennial Castilleja levisecta , known as golden paintbrush. In 1997, golden paintbrush was listed as an endangered species, with only 10 known populations in the Pacific Northwest. Propagation of golden paintbrush at PRI contributed significantly to the restoration of this native perennial to ecosystems across the region, ultimately resulting in Castilleja levisecta being de-listed from the endangered plant species list in 2023 . In addition to prairie maintenance and restoration, PRI planted a field of Garry oak trees on the property in 2002 to restore another critical, vanishing ecosystem, the oak savanna.

Prairies in the Pacific Northwest are anthropogenic, which means the ecosystem has been shaped by humans. Prior to European settlement, prairies were maintained for thousands of years by indigenous communities in the region through the practice of controlled burning with fire. Controlled burns are still a big part of prairie maintenance at PRI, as burning the prairie with fire provides specific benefits that can only be achieved through burning.

“You get so much thatch build up and can’t get the seed to the soil without a burn,” says Mosa Neis, PRI’s lead restoration technician. “It also breaks dormancy on some seeds and soil nutrients get reintroduced. The native species respond positively to the burn, but invasives don’t.”

PRI tries to burn “as much as possible,” says Mosa. However, the process is complicated and requires firefighters with specific training. Plus the weather needs to cooperate. The last burn on the prairie was in 2020, but Mosa says they are hoping to burn more regularly now that the Central Whidbey Fire Department has more members who are certified for this special kind of work.

One native plant that thrives under controlled burns is C amassia quamash , known as common camas, whose edible bulbs have been a source of starch central to the diet of local indigenous communities for centuries. For the last seven years, Pacific Rim has hosted an annual camas bake coordinated by the Coast Salish Youth Coalition . All 11 tribes in the area are invited to participate in this private event on the land.

“The first five years we only had about 15 people,” says Mosa. “But this last year we had over 130 participants.” In a new ongoing project, also coordinated by the Coast Salish Youth Coalition, Pacific Rim has sectioned off a part of the prairie, completely free of herbicides, for a Sovereignty Food Bed for local tribes.

In addition to the community of native plants that bloom and seed on the Smith prairie, there are a variety of animal wildlife that call this ecosystem home. The Institute is currently flagging parts of the prairie as a part of a five-year monitoring program to test the viability of the prairie for a release site for the critically endangered Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly .

“You never know what to expect. Every year is different. Every bloom is different. It’s amazing to watch the process year after year,” remarks Mosa. “I love watching the raptors interact with the prairie.”

Avid birder and former WEAN board member Gary Piazzon regularly walks the trails on PRI with his binoculars at the ready. There are all kinds of birds out on the prairie waiting to be spotted, including a pair of American kestrels that nest in the prairie in nesting boxes built for them. They hunt insects and small rodents like Townsend voles living in the grasses. There is also a pair of red tailed hawks that nest on the forest edge. Occasionally, western bluebirds have been sighted visiting the prairie, but they don’t stick around for long.

"If someone could figure out how to get the bluebirds to stick around, I would love that," remarks Gary, wistfully. "They're lovely birds."

With acres of prairie habitat, a budding oak savanna, and 2.2 miles of public trails running throughout the property, the prairie at PRI is a place for the entire Whidbey Island community — human, animal, plant, and insect. A place that exists in no small part because of the critical work to protect this vital ecosystem by WEAN founders Marianne Edain and Steve Erickson, ecologist Chris Chappell, and a whole host of other environmental activists who came together to save this property in 1999.

Seeding For The Future

On any given day at Pacific Rim Institute, lead prairie technician Mosa Neis can be found out in the field harvesting seeds or in the laboratory drying, sorting, and packing them for various prairie conservation and restoration projects in the Pacific Northwest. In addition to the seeds harvested directly from the prairie, as of 2022 , Pacific Rim has grown nearly 50 species of rare native plants in their nursery beds.

On the day of our interview, Mosa is sorting camas and balsamroot by hand for the 5 acres located on the 216-acre Keystone Farm and Forest Preserve stewarded by the Whidbey Camano Land Trust that is currently being restored to prairie conditions . Seed harvesting is the bulk of the work currently being done at Pacific Rim Institute, which provides native plant seeds critical for prairie restoration and conservation in the region, including golden paintbrush and camas. Currently, PRI provides seeds for Whidbey Island prairie sites maintained by Whidbey Camano Land Trust, NAS Whidbey, and Ebey's Landing. PRI also provides seeds regionally to the US Department of Fish and Wildlife for their prairie sites at Dungeness Spit and Protection Island Wildlife Refuges , as well as smaller conservation projects in the San Juan Islands.

On the Pacific Rim property, Mosa and her team just finished seeding a larger portion of the prairie on both sides of Parker Road so people driving by on the highway can see the beauty of the prairie from the road. This part of the prairie should bloom over the next 3-5 years.

On the prairie and in life: all good things take time. Hopefully, the continued stewardship of this land by Pacific Rim Institute will allow all manner of plants, animals, and organisms to benefit from this critical prairie ecosystem for centuries to come.

Learn more about Pacific Rim Institute by visiting their website .

Going birding at Pacific Rim? Here are some species to look out for.

Warblers (woods area) - summer migrants
Savanna sparrows (open areas, oak savannas and the prairies) - one of the few places to see and hear them on the island during the summer.
Blackheaded grossbeak (forest)
Mountain bluebird
Bushtits - one of our smallest birds that make a hanging nest. In the winter they travel in flocks of 20-50 looking for insects and insect eggs.
Brown creepers (fir trees) - this little birds start at a bottom of a tree and work their way up the trunk.
Red-breasted nuthatchers (woods area) - they sound like a little tin horn!
Bandtail pigeon - a very regal pigeon with iridescent feathers, a rare find.

May 2024 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 19:01:47 GMT

May 2024 Newsletter

Click here to learn more about the current threat to Oak Harbor's parks, the gaps in organic waste management in Island County, and more.

View the issue here .

April 2024 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:49:38 GMT

April 2024 Newsletter

Click here to read reflections from ED Marnie Jackson, an honorarium for WEAN community member Elliott Menashe, update on the Natural Resources element of the Comprehensive Plan, and more.

View the issue here .

From the Director: Reflections on One Year with WEAN

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:25:44 GMT

Letter from the Director: Reflections on One Year with WEAN

I thought I knew nature. As a lifelong outdoor enthusiast, organic gardener, wildlife lover, and environmental advocate, I know and treasure the beautiful and biodiverse ecosystems that surround and support my Island home. That said, my first twelve months in this Executive Director role have been a crash course in environmental science and policy. I’m getting to know nature better, and I’m getting to know her legal rights. The more I learn about the functions of and threats to ecosystems, the more I recognize the imperative to advocate when possible and litigate when necessary to defend them from irreparable harm.

This work is about building relationships—with partner organizations, with whom we defend and protect forests, prairies, shorelines, and farms; with government staff, volunteers, and elected officials, with whom we shape public policy for the health and wellbeing of all; with members and donors, whose energy and generosity are the lifeblood of our work; and with a phenomenal, growing team of founders, board members, consultants, and staff.

This work is also about building relationships with land; with the deep history and indigenous cultures of this place; with diverse and sometimes competing land use needs and practices; and with the other-than-human life with whom we make our home and whose rights we work to defend and expand.

GiveBig, a regional giving event, runs through May 8 ! This is your opportunity to have your donation to WEAN doubled by a $25,000 matching fund. Your support funds our work in three priority areas:

Creating and promoting a model for ambitious county-wide conservation. This means reforming how landowners are incentivized to protect forests, prairies, shorelines, and critical aquifer recharge areas and ensuring that more land can be permanently protected.

Educating, engaging, and activating community members from all Island County areas and generations . This means nurturing connections on Camano Island and North Whidbey and helping more people of all ages to get to know nature and get to know her rights .

Building capacity to hold Island County accountable on current and arising priority issues. This means assessing the threats to our ecosystems, understanding where environmentally protective policies are ineffectual or un-enforced, and holding our government accountable to follow the law.

When we protect functioning ecosystems, we protect what is most fundamental to our own survival and that of other species. Thank you for giving now, when your gift will be doubled for greater impact . It’s no stretch to say this work saves lives.

With gratitude,

Marnie Jackson

Executive Director

March 2024 Newsletter

engage@whidbeyenvironment.org (Amanda Bullis) — Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:36:53 GMT

March 2024 Newsletter

Click here for updates on Island County's Shoreline Master Program, the Countywide Planning process, the Town of Coupeville's new study on sea level rise, and more.

View the issue here .

February Newsletter

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Wed, 06 Mar 2024 21:07:25 GMT

February 2024 Newsletter

Click here to read an interview with our new Engagement Director Amanda Bullis, learn about Island County's comprehensive planning and shoreline issues, and more.

View the issue here .

Hello to the Mosses: Getting to know Amanda Bullis

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:58:34 GMT

Hello to the Mosses: Getting to Know Amanda Bullis

Above, Amanda on the Sol Duc Falls Trail in Olympic National Park. Photo by Christopher Bullis.

I recently had the pleasure of sitting down for an interview with Amanda Bullis, who joined the WEAN team as Engagement Director on February 7. Amanda is WEAN's second full-time staff member and will lead member engagement, external communications, and education programs. The following is an excerpt from our conversation.

—Marnie Jackson

Marnie: What drew you to a career in environmental advocacy and action?

Amanda: This is a great question that I have been thinking about for a while, especially as I embark on this journey with you all. My favorite children’s book as a child was The Wump World, published in 1970 by Bill Peet, which is fundamentally a story from the point of view of a fictitious animal species about how pollution can have a massive impact on the natural world. The final frame of the book is a baby wump—kind of a cross between a capybara and a sheep—watching a sprout grow through the concrete after experiencing the complete annihilation of their planet through industrialization, and that image has always stuck with me as a sign of hope for us as a species.

I believe that we can learn to be better and heal the earth through thoughtful action.

From a citizen standpoint, I believe that environmental issues—effects from climate change, shrinking biodiversity, pollution, development—are the major issues of our lifetime, and I am so honored to be in a position to discuss these issues with my community, gain greater awareness and understanding, and find constructive solutions that benefit people and the ecosystems we interact with and inhabit.

We have impact, there are unintended consequences to all human action, and it is our responsibility to educate ourselves and each other on how we can be better neighbors to the plants, animals, and organisms with whom we share our home.

Above, Amanda Bullis. Photo by Nara Gaisina.

Marnie: What are you excited about working on with WEAN?

Amanda: So many things! I am excited to start telling stories highlighting the unique ecosystems of the island through a variety of modalities, to amplify the activism and science happening in our communities, to share Marianne and Steve’s wealth of knowledge and experience with the public, and to gain a deeper understanding of the environmental/policy issues that impact Island County. Stay tuned!

Marnie: Can you share some past experiences that got you ready for this opportunity?

Amanda: I had the privilege of working on a documentary, aired on PBS, as a student at Rutgers University following ocean scientists working with glider robots to measure ocean temperature and altimetry across the Atlantic Ocean. It was through this project that I fell in love with telling science stories. I was also so curious about the science that I joined the biological research team tracking the growth of goose barnacles on the glider. A few years later, I went back to work at Rutgers with my mentor, Dena Seidel, as she worked to build a filmmaking program utilizing narrative storytelling to amplify scientific research. More recently, I have worked as a writer for tech and science-related companies. I love simplifying complex concepts, and I’m looking forward to utilizing this skill to help WEAN communicate with people around some very important issues.

Marnie: What excites you most about communication or storytelling?

Amanda: Connecting people with large concepts, sharing and amplifying lived experiences, and the limitless potential of the imagination.

Marnie: What has it been like to work with the WEAN founders, Steve and Marianne? What will you do together?

Amanda: I love working with Steve, Marianne and Marnie because I enjoy being in rooms with people who are smarter than me. They are all incredible people with so much knowledge, ingenuity, and passion — which I find deeply inspiring. Steve and Marianne have graciously agreed to podcast with me about their activism, ecology, and the policies that are impacting the island, so we’re going to start there. We also discussed finding ways to tell stories about the history of different plant species on the island, including how some invasive species have found their way here, some species that Steve and Marianne have discovered, and how the community can participate in data collection (more on that soon, hopefully!).

Marnie: Can you tell me about one of your most beloved wild places?

Amanda: The Hoh Rainforest. I go every year to say hello to the mosses, trees, elk and, most of all, the Hoh river. Before I moved to the Pacific Northwest (from New Jersey, please forgive me), I had no idea that the PNW was home to the largest temperate rainforest region in the world, and I’m still not over it. The intense majesty of the rainforest humbles me; I am constantly in awe of the Spruce trail, a place teeming with the drama of the cycle of life in all stages of birth, growth, death and decay.

Marnie: How do you see the future of WEAN being different from its past? How do you see it being the same?

Amanda: WEAN has been a bedrock of environmental activism in Island County for almost four decades, and I see the future of WEAN building on the solid foundation that Steve and Marianne have built with an eye toward participating in the creation of a more sustainable, ecologically conscious island community committed to lowering human impact on the environment.

Marnie: What's something surprising about yourself that readers might not know?

Amanda: I modeled for Montreal photographer François Brunelle and the Museum of Civilization in Quebec City as a representation of the Etruscan goddess Turan for a very cool exhibition called “My 2,000 Year Old Double” in 2018. My facial features matched more than 95% with a tiny balsamarium from the 3rd century B.C through facial recognition software and I was one of 25 people chosen out of 108,000 people to be a part of this very cool project connecting modern humanity to the relics of antiquity. So, I have an ancient twin!

Amanda and her 2,000 Year Old Double on exhibition at the Museum of Civilization in Quebec City, October, 2018. Photo by Amanda Bullis.

Tell your legislators NO to sprawl

Thu, 01 Feb 2024 01:03:28 GMT

Stop Doubling of Rural Density and Rural Property Tax Increase

by Steve Erickson, WEAN founder

Contact Your state legislators & senator today. Tell them to oppose HB 2126 and SB 6029.

These bills:

Allow construction of an entirely new separate structure on every rural parcel in the entire state
Prohibit counties from planning for that doubled density
Will result in drastic increase of the property tax burden on rural land owners
Will allow road building through wetlands and buffers to access the new houses
Don't deliver affordable housing

These bills are being pushed by builders' and real estate associations. They misleadingly say they are for Accessory Dwelling Units to provide affordable housing, but there is nothing accessory or affordable about them. These new houses can be placed anywhere on a parcel, as long as they share the same driveway off the county road. There is no requirement that they be rented at below-market affordable rates and they can be used for Airbnbs and other short term rentals. They can be located so roadbuilding through wetlands and across streams and their buffers is needed for access. Counties won't even be allowed to plan for the increased traffic and other impacts—and because they double the allowable development on every rural parcel, property taxes will rise accordingly. Since they can be built as speculative development, even rural property owners who don't build these additional houses will see their taxes sky rocket. For that reason, these bills will actually make rural housing less affordable. The only real limitation is that the new houses can't be more than 1296 square feet.

Contact:

In the 10th Legislative District:

Rep. Dave Paul https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/paul/contact/

Rep. Clyde Shavers https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/shavers/contact/

Sen. Ron Muzzall https://ronmuzzall.src.wastateleg.org/contact-me/

In other Legislative Districts:

https://leg.wa.gov/LIC/Pages/hotline.aspx

Tell them to oppose these rural sprawl bills masquerading as housing solutions.

January Newsletter

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:25:10 GMT

In this issue: Sound Waters University, Victory for Wolves, and more

Click here to view our January 2023 WEAN Newsletter.

December Newsletter

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Sun, 31 Dec 2023 18:48:30 GMT

Happy New Year from WEAN

Click here to read our December 2023 WEAN Newsletter.

November Newsletter

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Thu, 30 Nov 2023 18:55:47 GMT

News from Deer Lagoon Advocates, Whidbey Community Foundation, Pacific Rim Institute, and More

Click here to read our November 2023 Newsletter.

October Newsletter

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Wed, 01 Nov 2023 17:02:58 GMT

October 2023 Newsletter

Click here to view our October 2023 newsletter, with updates about recent events, an invitation to our upcoming member meeting, and more!

Garry Oak – An Incredible Native Tree of Our Island

Tue, 31 Oct 2023 01:25:01 GMT

Garry Oak – An Incredible Native Tree of Our Island

Images and article courtesy the Oak Harbor Garry Oak Society

Did you know that Washington State has only one native oak tree? Up and down Whidbey Island, the Oak Harbor Garry Oak Society, an all-volunteer nonprofit established in 2016, is busy planting, protecting, and educating about Garry oak trees so they will continue to thrive on our island for future generations.

Garry oak, Quercus garryana , is a beautiful, white oak tree native to the Pacific Coast of North America. They can grow to be quite large, with mushroom-shaped canopies of green leaves and sturdy trunks wrapped in bark that is white to grayish in color and distinctly furrowed. You will find them growing from Vancouver Island, British Columbia to Southern California. Garry oak is the only native oak in Washington and British Columbia, and the principle native oak of Oregon.

Garry oaks can grow in a variety of soil conditions from dry, rocky slopes or bluffs, to deep-soil meadows. Once established, Garry oaks are naturally drought tolerant, ever more important in the context of a warming climate. They prefer sunny locations that will not be shaded by other trees.

Garry oak ecosystems provide an incredibly rich habitat for wildlife. Intact Garry oak ecosystems with Garry oak trees and associated understory ecosystem plants have become rare, and in some locations are critically imperiled and at risk of extinction. These special trees and their ecosystems are worth planting and preserving for future generations.

The Garry oak ecosystems we see today are of Native American origin, who since time immemorial have tended Garry oak ecosystems and encouraged their growth. Garry oak habitats were historically managed by tribes with frequent low intensity fires, and manually digging. Once the tribes were forced off their land these practices were substantially diminished while widespread logging and farming by settlers began to create huge impacts. Thus began the long decline of these important habitats.

The tree also has its own names in the languages of Native Americans. Garry oaks thrived in the landscape providing acorns for food from the canopies above while wildflowers such as camas and chocolate lily grew below – all providing important carbohydrates to their diets. Beyond food, commonuses for the tree include firewood, tools, medicines, and basketry dyes.

Like many plant species, this tree goes by many names of a range of origins including tribal, common English, and Latin scientific. The Garry oak’s Latin scientific name, Quercus garryana, was bestowed by Botanist David Douglas in the early 1800’s to honor of his friend, Nicholas Garry, an officer in the Hudson Bay Trading Company.

The tree has several common English-language names including Garry oak, Oregon oak, Oregon white oak, and white oak. We have found that it is more typical to hear this species commonly referred to as “Garry oak” in British Columbia and Washington, and “Oregon oak” or “Oregon white oak” in Oregon and California.

A Garry oak can grow to be 60 feet high or more, with a trunk diameter up to 40 inches. Most Garry oaks have a single trunk but can occasionally produce two or more trunks. The crown often appears to have a mushroom shape. Bark on a mature Garry oak is a silver-grey color, rough textured, with thick furrows.

Over time, tree branches will naturally take sharp twists or even corkscrew-like turns as the tree grows. This growing characteristic gives the Garry oak a distinct, contorted look that becomes more noticeable with age. Garry oak leaves are leathery and deeply lobed with shiny, dark green tops and yellowish- green undersides. The tree is deciduous, with the leaves turning brown and falling in the autumn.

Separate male and female flowers are grown on the same tree. Long male flowers, called catkins, hang in strands from branches and are covered in yellow pollen grains. Tiny pink female flowers hold the tree’s eggs. Flowers are wind-pollenated in spring.

Beginning around age 30 years, a Garry oak will produce acorns. Acorns are the fruit of the oak tree. Acorns are usually 2.5-3 cm long, cup (cap) covering 1/5-1/4 of the nut. An olive-green color, acorns first appear mid-summer and continue to increase in size. They are oval to round with a smooth surface. Once fully developed, acorns turn a coffee-brown color and begin to separate from the cap and fall from the tree. Acorns are edible but must first be treated to leach out the bitter tannins from the nut.

When it comes to habitat value, Garry oaks are a species of merit that you can plant in your own yard. The acorns they produce provide food for wildlife such as Western gray squirrels, turkeys, voles, various birds, and deer. Due to their ecosystem plants, plus the lichens and mosses draping an oak’s trunk and branches, they provide a rich environment for insect communities. As a healthy Garry oak can grow to be hundreds of years old, you’ll be planting a legacy tree that will grow for generations to come.

What can you do to get involved?

Learn more, become a member, and donate on the Garry Oak Society’s website: https://ohgarryoaksociety.org/

Explore Oak Harbor’s ancient oak trees on a fun, self-guided tree tour: https://ohgarryoaksociety.org/oak-tree-tour/

Approaches to Affordable Housing

Tue, 31 Oct 2023 01:18:13 GMT

Eleven ideas for alleviating housing shortage from WEAN founder Marianne Edain

There is no single silver bullet to solve all the problems of affordable housing. Following are a number of specific actions which will work in that direction for different groups of people.

1. Hearts & Hammers – This program, as currently constituted, collects funds and materials throughout the year, then recruits volunteers for a one day massive work party at the homes of chosen recipients. At present this is strictly a grass roots local initiative. It is spreading to other areas, but by its nature is limited. It supports only those people who own their homes and are not able to do necessary maintenance to continue in their homes. It organizes annual work days during which teams of volunteers do major (and sometimes minor) work on the homes of people who can’t do it themselves. It serves a critically important function for this particular demographic. It should definitely be supported and expanded.

2. Rental hearts & hammers - There is another fairly large group of homes: rentals, owned by people not able to maintain them properly, which become uninhabitable as a result. Often these are homes inherited when parents die, and are not in such great shape to start with. Often the owners are unfamiliar with the business of renting out a property, which results in problems. Many of these have been destroyed by tenants. The owners simply don’t have the funds to restore/rehab such places so they fall even further into disrepair, becoming uninhabitable health hazards and eyesores.

I propose either a subset of Hearts and Hammers or a new organization set up to deal with this problem. The model would be that the organization repairs/restores the rental, keeping track of its costs. The owner enters into an agreement with the organization, to rent out the restored home at an affordable below-market rate, and to repay the costs of repair out of the rent. It might take several years to repay the repair, but eventually the owner would begin to receive income beyond just covering tax and insurance from the rental, and it would provide a safe and affordable home to a tenant.

It might be reasonable for such an organization to take over management of restored homes, vetting prospective tenants and collecting rent.

With luck there should be relatively small initial cost. As each home is restored and rented, the organization begins to receive reimbursements, which then get rolled over to the next project.

3. foreclosures – Nearly every week there are notices of auctions of foreclosed properties. Some of the outstanding balances are far too high for this, but some are as low as $50k. The object would be to make arrangements with the foreclosed owner and/or the lender to pay off the outstanding balance. The home is then inspected and any problems repaired. There would have to be a housing land trust to do all of this. The trust would retain ownership of the underlying land and sell the house at an affordable rate to a qualified purchaser. The proceeds would then be rolled over for the next purchase. It would be well to create a relationship with a Credit Union to lend the funds to the purchaser, with the land trust expediting the loan.

4. campgrounds – Once South Whidbey State Park had a campground. That was closed because it became hazardous to health and safety as trees began to come down. South Whidbey Parks & Rec purchased land, held public meetings, hired designers, was all set to go – and then nothing. While completion of that campground will not directly provide long term housing, it will provide an alternative to very expensive accommodations for tourists, who in turn spend their money on the island, improving the local economy. It might be reasonable in the less-than-prime season, to set aside a number of campsites for longer term use.

5. long term supported campgrounds – This is focused on people currently sleeping in their cars or in the woods. The idea is to create a campground at which campers are able to sleep safely in their cars, in tents, in campers, travel trailers, school buses, whatever imaginative shelter they can provide themselves. Each campsite would have a lockable storage shed. There would be a commons house which would provide toilets, showers, laundry, cooking facilities, food storage spaces, internet access, “lounge” space, and a site manager who should be able to help campers with at least some problems. Many homeless people actually have jobs. Such a space would allow them to sleep safely, be able to make themselves presentable, focus on their work, and be able to set aside small sums to be able to upgrade their campsite space. From a tent they might upgrade to a camper van. Eventually they might then upgrade to a travel trailer. As they gain security, campers may graduate to the next level.

6. motor home/ trailer park after campground – This would be something like the classic trailer park, but with environmentally designed water, power, and sewage systems, and with social support. Tenants would not own the units, but would rent them at a subsidized rate. The units would not be the typical double wide but rather smaller trailers and/or motor homes. The intent would be for those tenants to save enough to be able to rent in the broader market.

7. large home design for subdivision – People have been building and continue to build ridiculously outsized houses, ranging generally from 3000 to 5000 sq ft. Eventually many of these owners discover that they are not able to maintain such a large space. This proposal is to specify that the design of all such outsized houses be required to incorporate the ability at some future date to subdivide them into 2 or 3 independent units.

8. WISH – +/- 20 years ago I proposed to various parties that this program be instituted. Island County Senior Services took up the challenge, and Whidbey Island Share a Home was created. It required a single paid staff person. Owners (usually widows) of those large homes would come to WISH to ask to be paired with someone(s) willing and able to share the space in exchange for rent, performance of various chores, etc. The program seemed to be going well – until it simply stopped. I heard that at least some of the homeowners had unrealistic expectations of their tenants/home partners. Surely this problem can be addressed and overcome. The staff person did interviews with owners and potential tenants, ran background checks, arranged for the parties to meet and spend time together to decide if they were compatible, and did follow-up check-ins to see all was going well.

9. Upper Langley – This has turned out to be a spectacularly successful model. There are 30 2000 sq ft lots clustered in one corner of 10 acres. All the lots are sold and many of the houses, limited to <1000 sq ft, have been built and are occupied. There are provisions for communal garden space and orchard, among other things. There is a commons house for larger events. There are income qualification requirements to buy in. While houses can be sold, there are limits on how much can be charged, thus keeping the community affordable. Consultation with Cary Peterson, the driver behind Upper Langley, would be time well spent.

10. Habitat for Humanity - a long standing organization, which has finally realized that unless they maintain ownership of the underlying land, the houses they build will simply be sold into the market-rate housing market, losing all that volunteer equity. This argues for having larger housing land trusts to accept ownership and management of the underlying land under many of the models described above.

11. Performance based building code standards. At present the Island County Code makes it illegal to live in anything but a Code Compliant house. The reality on the ground is (and has been for many decades) that people are living in the woods in vans, buses, tipis, yurts, travel trailers, and other imaginative shelters. All of these are illegal, placing huge burdens on the residents and causing problems with Island County. I propose a performance based alternative. All such residents would be required to meet the following:

1. demonstrate right to be on the property in question – either as owner or with permission of owner.

2. demonstrate functional system for safe disposal of solid waste. Not necessarily a septic system, but whatever system, it must be effective.

3. demonstrate source of potable water. This could be a well, a line from a neighbor, or even hauling in. If hauled, there would have to be demonstration of a functional vehicle to do the hauling, and clean containers.

4. demonstrate means to cook food, heat and light the space safely.

5. if there are utilities (electricity/gas) demonstrate that they are safely installed.

6. demonstrate that the structure will not collapse and kill its inhabitant(s).

If these standards were combined with helpful staff rather than inspectors intent on evicting residents, people could be helped to improve their backwoods situations and would lose their fear of discovery. All this one takes is an amendment to Island County Code. In a recent conversation with County Commissioner Melanie Bacon, she informed me that in light of the housing crisis, those rules against alternative housing structures were not being enforced. That is not enough. People need to be able to live openly, without having to skulk about or worry who may come to visit.

There are more potential solutions out there which do not rely on easing regulatory requirements for developers. There needs to be major discussion about introducing and implementing such alternatives.

September Newsletter

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Sat, 30 Sep 2023 17:08:51 GMT

September 2023 Newsletter

Click here to view our September 2023 newsletter, featuring stories on Not In Our Parks and Skamania County conservation wins.

Help with Toad Tracking

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Sat, 30 Sep 2023 00:16:31 GMT

Community Reporting Supports Toad Protection, and You Can Help!

Have you seen Western Toads on Whidbey and Camano Islands? Adults are fist-sized, chunky, short-legged, warty amphibians with distinct knobs (glands) where you might expect ears and sometimes a light-colored stripe running down the middle of the back.

Please use this form to report sightings of Western Toads in Island County.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife designates Western Toads as Priority Species, and in 2020 the Washington State Court of Appeals ruled in WEAN's favor to uphold protections of upland toad habitat in Island County. We're trying to understand where Toad populations are recovering and where further action can be taken to protect their ongoing recovery. Your reports will be used to gain insight into toad population by area and into toad migration routes. Your privacy is protected, and any information submitted will be compiled and anonymized before being shared outside the WEAN team.

Header image courtesy Oregon State University .

Looking Back on Not In Our Parks

Thu, 21 Sep 2023 19:54:06 GMT

Looking Back on Not In Our Parks

Some people hold mortgage burning celebrations. WEAN is celebrating the final payment to our attorneys in the Not In Our Parks case. It is finished.

Back in 2017 we learned quite by accident that the US Navy was asking Washington State Parks for permission to use our shoreline parks for sneak/spy training, using park visitors as subjects. In 2019 the Navy submitted its permit paperwork to State Parks. They were asking to use 28 of our parks. They described the activities: a mother ship would park offshore. Trainees would pilot single person mini-submarines to the shore, climb out, cross the beach and climb any bluff, and hide in the vegetation for up to 72 hours. They would be dressed in full battle gear with realistic looking guns and spy on whoever happened by.

We were rather appalled by the proposal but had serious doubts about jumping in. First, we thought it was a bit off-center for an environmental organization. Second, we thought long and hard about taking on the biggest baddest military organization in the world. We had hopes that some other “more appropriate” organization might take on this issue. Dream on. As the application worked its way farther and farther through the State Parks permitting process it became obvious that it was WEAN or no one. So we took a deep breath and dove in.

We knew this was going to be a tough fight. You simply don’t go up against the US Navy without some serious adverse consequences. Our first move was to discuss the very likely legal case with our attorneys. We asked for a ballpark figure and they gave it to us: $75k - $100k. Gulp.

Starting in 2019, we invited other organizations to join us in a coalition to fight this case. Many stepped in. Some donated money. Some did research. Some attended meetings and hearings. Some submitted comments and documentation. And all of them informed their members and friends. They made a huge difference. We simply could not have done it without all their support.

When we made the proposal public, the nearly uniform response was “They what? That’s crazy. That’s really creepy.” We ended up with well over 7000 public comments objecting to the proposal. One of the loudest objections was to the permit conditions. There was to be no surveillance of members of the public – but observation was ok. We never did get a response to our question about how those two were different.

With support from our coalition and the public, we did what WEAN has been doing all these years: we dove in head first. We did tons of research, wrote reams of comments, attended dozens of meetings and hearings, and then watched the State Parks Commission vote 4 -3 in favor of the spy training.

Definitely a bummer, but we didn’t quit. We went to court. We worked with attorneys Zak Griefen and Bryan Telegin to put together a very tight case based on two points: 1) The State Parks Commission overstepped its authority in granting the permit and 2) they had failed to consider the adverse impacts on public recreation. State Parks Commissioner Sophia Danenberg referred to that as “the creep factor.” In opposing the permits she said that people would be so creeped out at the idea of being spied on that they would not visit those parks, even if they didn’t know whether or not someone was spying on them.

Much to our surprise, the Navy did not move to intervene or to move the case to Federal court. The case was heard by Thurston County Superior Court judge James Dixon on April 1, 2022. There was a coalition contingent, complete with signs, outside the courthouse. They were invited into the courtroom, a good sign. The judge heard the matter and then said he was prepared to rule. That scared us because that usually means you’re about to lose. But the more he talked, the more he laid out our case. He said he spent a good deal of time trying to find a more dignified term for “the creep factor” but in the end could find nothing that clear or specific, so he was using that language. He ruled in our favor, 100%. He said some very nice things about WEAN and its attorneys. Deserved, on all counts.

It wasn’t until afterwards that the broader implications of this case began to make themselves clear. We had tons of thanks and congratulations. But we also got thoughtful letters and posts from people working for peace, for public shoreline access, for homeless veterans, for park users, and others telling us that this decision set an important precedent for how our public lands are to be used for the benefit of all of the public and not for one very narrow segment.

We were honored by the organization World Beyond War with the 2022 Organizational War Abolisher award. That felt a little overwhelming but was much appreciated. We’re still trying to understand all of the spreading ripples of our action. We believe they are positive.

Climate Week on Whidbey

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Mon, 11 Sep 2023 23:23:49 GMT

Climate Week on Whidbey

Whidbey Climate Action has rounded up a great list of local climate actions and events related to Climate Week, September 17-24.

Whidbey Climate Action was founded to promote community and sustainability in the the fight against climate change. The group grew out of the work of the Langley City Council's Climate Crisis Action Committee, a citizen's board that advised and proposed projects for the council's declared Climate Emergency ( Resolution 818 , June 2021). There is now a separate Climate Crisis Action Commission that works on climate policy for the city.

WCA works with Whidbey Island neighbors to promote, finance and implement rapid, just, and measurable actions and advocacy that fully meet the scale and urgency of the climate crisis.

Visit https://www.whidbeyclimate.org/events to learn about these and other upcoming events.

August 2023 Newsletter

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Mon, 28 Aug 2023 16:46:53 GMT

August Newsletter: Youth Win Landmark Climate Case

Click here to view our August 2023 Newsletter , featuring this story and more.

On Monday, August 14, in an historic first, Judge Kathy Seeley in the First Judicial District Court of Montana ruled wholly in favor of the 16 youth plaintiffs in Held v. State of Montana, declaring that the state of Montana violated the youth’s constitutional rights including their rights to equal protection, dignity, liberty, health and safety, and public trust—all predicated on their right to a clean and healthful environment.

Mat dos Santos, general counsel and managing attorney for Our Children’s Trust , which represented the young people, said the ruling was a welcome affirmation of the experiences of his clients.

“It's a landmark ruling that finds that these youth plaintiffs have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, and that right underpins all of their other foundational rights,” dos Santos said. “That's really important, not just for Montana, but really for the rest of the world as other courts in states and jurisdictions around the world look at this really critical question of, 'Can youth hold their governments accountable for climate change?'”

In a 103-page decision , Judge Seeley’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order set forth critical evidentiary and legal precedent for the right of youth to a safe climate.

Read the full issue .

Sound Defense Alliance Celebrates 5 Years!

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Mon, 21 Aug 2023 23:59:18 GMT

Celebrate with Sound Defense Alliance on August 30!

Thanks to our community's incredible support, Sound Defense Alliance is celebrating their 5th anniversary!

Join them to celebrate their accomplishments, hear about their goals, and learn ways you can get involved in their mission to protect our NW Washington communities from harmful military impacts such as Growler jet noise.

Please RSVP to let them know you'll be coming and help them prepare accordingly:

https://secure.everyaction.com/Y8AyCnH0tk29PgRlWf3eyw2

We hope to see you there!

Wednesday, August 30th ~ 4:30 – 7:30 p.m.
(Program begins at 6:45)

Whidbey Island Nordic Lodge
63 Jacobs Rd, Coupeville

From Sound Defense Alliance

info@SoundDefenseAlliance.org

July 2023 Newsletter

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:59:21 GMT

July 2023 Newsletter: Moving Forward Together

Click here to read our July 2023 Newsletter.

Four months in to my new role as WEAN Executive Director, I am delighted but not surprised by what I've experienced. I have been warmly welcomed by committed, talented, and values-aligned board and welcoming, skillful, and generous founders, more than willing to share their expertise and accumulated wisdom with me from their new roles as consultants to the organization. Steve, Marianne, and the Board have been nothing but helpful in these early months of my work with WEAN. We're engaging in aquifer protection, forest protection, and environmentally sound housing solutions advocacy, working alongside County staff to inform their Comprehensive Plan update planning process, and working towards bringing our community together in the fall for a celebratory gathering. Watch for a save the date soon.

WEAN would not be able to sustain its 38 years of service to this community, or grow its ability to get out in front of environmental damage by proactively advocating for and defending sound policies and enforcement without the financial means to advocate, educate, and, when needed, litigate. Thank you, members and donors, for the contributions you make to sustain our protection of Whidbey and Camano Island ecosystems and communities.

In September we'll pay the final installment on our attorney's fees for the Not In Our Parks campaign, which culminated in an extraordinary bench ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge James Dixon on April 1, 2022 to reverse and vacate the 4:3 decision made by Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to permit military warfare training in 28 coastal Washington State Parks. In the meantime, we're building collaborative relationships with County and State staff and elected officials in hopes that a more proactive stance on environmental protection can bring the will of the people to bear on policy-making and enforcement, thereby reducing the need for expensive and contentious litigation.

Our revised vision statement points to this intention:

We envision an Island County whose protected environment supports myriad species in harmony, and whose engaged community recognizes the interdependence of all life and actively participates in stewardship of and advocacy for our shared home.

Let's make it happen, together. Thank you for reading, learning, and advocating alongside us for the healthy forests, wetlands, shorelines, and communities we need and deserve.

With appreciation,

Marnie Jackson

Executive Director

Click here for the full issue.

June 2023 Newsletter

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Fri, 30 Jun 2023 22:19:05 GMT

June 2023 Newsletter: Comprehensive planning, salmonberries, and more

Click to read the June issue on Constant Contact

Forest Protectors at DNR Headquarters

Fri, 30 Jun 2023 16:48:38 GMT

Call Commissioner Franz and demand that DNR stop clearcutting legacy forests

From @350_PDX and @PNWFCAlliance :

On June 27, dozens of activists occupied the Washington State DNR headquarters building in Olympia. They demanded Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz stop clearcutting legacy forests and listen to communities, not corporate polluters destroying land and water. #Forestdefenseisclimatedefense.

Watch and share: https://twitter.com/PNWFCAlliance/status/1674127071554195456?s=20

Discover Iverson Spit

Thu, 29 Jun 2023 21:47:12 GMT

Discover Iverson Spit Preserve in this Sound Water Stewards Event

YOU are invited to a FREE, FUN, Family-Friendly Event at Iverson Spit Preserve , 3 Iverson Rd, on Camano Island, one of the few Camano parks with a sandy beach. Sound Water Stewards present multiple interactive displays from 11 am to 2 pm . Come see what nature has to share … beach, sand, driftwood, forest, trails and more.

Discover what makes the holes in the sand .
Learn about native and invasive species (plants, hornets, crabs).
Participate in a beach litter pickup.
Learn to identify and report invasive green crab molts using MyCoast App on a cell phone.
Learn about the birds found at this site.
Be prepared: know the tides and weather forecast for the day.
How to catch more (Dungeness) crab.
Wander the trails, including the Hobbit Trail
Learn about the creation of Iverson Spit Preserve as a waterfront park owned by Island County .
Play the Poop Toss game.
Receive a hand lens, Junior Steward booklet and beach etiquette bookmark. Everyone can play a role in stewardship.

Sound Water Stewards present “Discover Iverson Spit Waterfront Preserve” with interactive displays at Island County’s park known as Iverson Preserve on Camano Island , one of the Camano few parks with a sandy beach. The event showcases what nature has to share: sand shrimp, clams, driftwood, native plants, Madrone trees, eagles and more. Participants can discover what makes the holes in the sand, learn about native and invasive species, participate in a beach litter pickup, or learn to identify and report invasive green crab molts. Come explore Iverson beach and trails.

Download, print and share this PDF . Hosted by nature, presented by Sound Water Stewards.

Salmonberries

Tue, 27 Jun 2023 19:30:51 GMT

Rubus spectabilis and its PNW relatives

Article by Marianne Edain

Salmonberries ( Rubus spectabilis ), like a lot of the fruits we eat, are in the Rose family (Rosaceae). Whether you’re eating apples, pears, plums, peaches, apricots, strawberries, or blackberries, they’re all in the Rose family. One of the most common characteristics of the family is that their flowers and fruits come in multiples of 5. Flowers will have 5 or 10 petals. Fruit will cluster on the tree or bush in 5s.

Within the Rose family is the Genus (think of it as their last name) Rubus. Those are the many blackberries native to our region – and some invaders we all know and love/hate. These are further separated into two groups: the blackberries and the raspberries.

Raspberry group

These all share the characteristic that when you pick the berry the core stays on the bush.

Rubus spectabilis – Salmonberry

“spectabilis” translates to spectacular, which refers to the bright pink/rose/red color of the flowers. The berries are variably salmon colored, hence the common name. They’re ripe right now. Kind of blah flavor, but very welcome because they are the first berry of the season. Lots of fine, small thorns.

Rubus parviflorus – Thimbleberry

“parviflorus” translates to few flowers. The flowers are white. This bush looks a lot more like a maple, with its big leaves, than a blackberry. And it is the only blackberry without any thorns. It is my all-time favorite for flavor. I love the fact that no amount of money will buy you a Thimbleberry. You have to pick it off the bush yourself because it is in the Raspberry group and it comes off as a smudge of bright red which you have to lick off your finger. Delicious.

Rubus leucodermis – Blackcap

“leucodermis” translates as blue skin. That refers to the long stems, which are a pale bluish color. The flowers are white. Berries are dark (not quite black). They have nasty thorns. I like the taste better than Salmonberry, but not nearly as much as Thimbleberry.

Blackberry group

The entire fruit, complete with core, comes off when you pick it.

Rubus ursinus – Trailing blackberry

“ursinus” translates as bear. It is sometimes known as bearberry. Not sure why. This is the blackberry that wraps its long thin thorny ground-covering vines around your ankles. The flowers are white. The berries are that characteristic nearly black. It is definitely good tasting. And if you find a good patch you can pick a lot of them.

The following varieties are invaders.

Rubus armeniacus – Himalayan blackberry

“armeniacus” translates as native to Armenia and neighboring areas. We all know this plant. Most of us have a love/hate relationship with it. It is a serious invader, growing to more than 8 ft if you let it. The thorns are murderous. It spreads faster than you can keep it under control. But then comes summer and the berries ripen. We all soften our purist stance and pick blackberries. Then come the first rains, the berries start to mold, and we all hate blackberry bushes again.

Rubus laciniatus – Cutleaf blackberry

“laciniatus” translates as lace leaved. The common name also refers to the leaf shape. The books claim that it is native in the eastern US. Here in the PNW it is just as bad as the Himalayan blackberry. Same thorns. Same summer berries, so we cut them slack until the rains start again.

Living Near the Edge of the Salish Sea

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Wed, 14 Jun 2023 18:00:10 GMT

Native Plants, Stormwater, Erosion, Slope Stability, and You

Living Near the Edge of the Salish Sea: Native Plants, Stormwater, Erosion, Slope Stability, and You is a self-directed web lecture produced by Elliott Menashe of Greenbelt Consulting and shared here with permission.

Here's Elliott's introduction to the web lecture:

If you are considering building on a shoreline bluff, ravine, low-bank marine or lake-front lot backed by a steep slope in the Puget Sound & Salish Sea region – the least expensive and most effective way to forestall future stormwater, erosion, or shallow landslide problems is to minimize clearing and grading and preserve native soils and plant communities during development.

Preserving natural features can help reduce the need for and expense of complex stormwater runoff management systems, erosion-control measures, or slope-retention structures. You will also improve water quality, reduce establishment of invasive plant species, preserve wildlife and salmon habitat, and maintain the beauty of the region.

If your bluff property has already been developed, you might have an inadequate setback, stormwater runoff and erosion problems, infestations of invasive plants, topped trees, and extensive lawns. You may be inheriting problems from past poor development and management practices. For instance, compacted soils and lawns that extend to the bluff edge can contribute to soil saturation and stormwater runoff, erosion problems, and destabilization of marginal slopes.

A combination of improved management practices, structural drainage measures, and vegetation enhancement could help to improve conditions and reduce the incidence and severity of landslides.

Whether you are developing a new home or improving an existing site, use of native plant species in your landscape design before serious problems occur (creating a distinctively Northwest landscape) can help you to minimize stormwater and erosion impacts, mitigate conditions which may trigger landslides, and give you greater peace of mind.

The web-lecture provided here can perhaps help you to better understand your property’s unique character and show you how to reduce the inherent risks of living along the picturesque shores of the Salish Sea.

View the Full PDF.

May 2023 Newsletter

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Mon, 29 May 2023 22:25:04 GMT

May Newsletter: Meet your growing team

Click here to read the May issue on Constant Contact

Formation of the Salish Sea Landscape

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Fri, 26 May 2023 22:56:51 GMT

Formation of the Salish Sea Landscape: A Brief History for Landowners

Elliott Menashe of Greenbelt Consulting has prepared an informative, self-directed lecture on the processes which shaped and influence our region. Click here to view the slideshow !

From the introductory slide:

Do you want to learn more about the Salish Sea region? Are you curious about the geological forces which formed the region, and the processes which continue to shape and influence the land and shorelines? Have you wondered about the human actions which have influenced and impacted the landscape in the recent past? Then this presentation was created for you. It will help you understand how the landscape which surrounds you came to be, especially if you live on the edge –where the land meets the sea. The author hopes the information will help you understand the dynamic nature of the Salish Sea and provide a basis upon which you may better contemplate how best to manage your beachfront or bluff property.

For more from Elliott, including articles, classes, and web lectures, visit www.greenbeltconsulting.com .

Goodbye Cooke, Hello Recovery

ed@whidbeyenvironment.org (Marnie Jackson) — Wed, 24 May 2023 21:20:10 GMT

After 40 years, the Net Pen Industry is Leaving Puget Sound Forever

Cooke Aquaculture, owners of the multiple Atlantic salmon net pens around the sound, has lost its last appeal and is pulling up its various anchors. WEAN (and a lot of other organizations) worked with lead org Wild Fish Conservancy to make this happen, and now it is finally over and done. We can just hear our local salmon breathing sighs of relief! —Marianne Edain

Here's more of the story from Wild Fish Conservancy Northwest:

The historic moment and enormous victory we've been striving for together since we launched the Our Sound, Our Salmon campaign in 2017 is finally here. Thanks to you and the dedication and hard work of thousands of individuals, hundreds of businesses and organizations, countless Tribal Nations, elected officials, scientists, and so many others working together, the commercial net pen industry is pulling up stakes, hitting the road, and leaving Puget Sound forever.

All week, local residents and members of the public stood on the shores of Bainbridge Island watching workers operating loaders and cranes packing up nets, removing debris, and pulling up anchors and chains that have been holding the industry's net pens in place for over forty years.

Across the Sound, in Kiket Bay, local landowners watched in celebration and awe as the Hope Island net pen was rigged up to a towboat and pulled out of sight and away from the waters it polluted daily at the mouth of the Skagit River. Below is a photo taken on Wednesday immediately after the Hope Island net pen was removed, showcasing the bay's first moments free of commercial net pens.

In November, Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz made clear she heard the voices of the nearly 10,000 individuals and hundreds of organizations and businesses working together under the Our Sound, Our Salmon coalition when she issued her groundbreaking decision that the Department of Natural Resources was taking bold action to protect Puget Sound from commercial net pen aquaculture. Not only did Commissioner Franz deny the industry's request for new decade-long leases to operate in our public waters, but she took an even bolder step by enacting a new policy banning commercial net pen aquaculture in Washington marine waters indefinitely.

This announcement was celebrated throughout the entire Pacific Coast and by communities around the world working to achieve the same end in their public waters. Commissioner Franz gave Cooke until April 14, 2023 to remove their facilities or face a daily fine for every day they fail to vacate their sites.

Since that time, Wild Fish Conservancy has been tracking Cooke's every move and communicating with members of the public and government officials to ensure the company continued to make progress to harvest all remaining fish in compliance with their permits and toward meeting the net pen facility removal deadline.

Now, Puget Sound is only days away from being free of all commercial net pens for the first time in nearly half a century.

Finally, these heavily polluted and degraded sites will have the opportunity to heal as part of the largest passive restoration project in Washington's history. What's more, the complete removal of this industry will restore the public and Tribal access to over 130 acres of Puget Sound that have been restricted and degraded by this industry for over forty years.

Ending this industry will also eliminate many major risk factors that harm the recovery of wild salmon and steelhead. As we say goodbye to Cooke, we're also saying goodbye to rampant pollution, goodbye to parasitic and viral outbreaks, and goodbye to catastrophic escape events that have threatened the recovery of wild salmon and the health of Puget Sound for far too long.

Building on this excitement, last week Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson successfully defended DNR and Washington state against another legal attack by Cooke Aquaculture in a last-ditch attempt to reverse Commissioner Franz's popular and scientifically grounded decision. In a landslide partial summary judgement, the Court ruled in favor of DNR on every count, rejecting Cooke's claims that Washington state violated agreements with forced closure of net pen operations.

Now, we're just days away from completely removing this dangerous and risky industry from our public waters. Together, we did it! This historic event and monumental success was only possible because of the hard work and dedication of so many working together over so long toward this end. It is truly inspiring to what the public can accomplish together by unifying our voices and when public officials put their responsibilities to future generations ahead of short-term economic gains. We hope you'll take time to celebrate all you've accomplished for wild fish, orcas, and Puget Sound.

Learn more about Wild Fish Conservancy on the web: www.wildfishconservancy.org . Cover image from WFC, used with permission.

Evergreen ~ Community Commitment (May 2023 Update)

Mon, 08 May 2023 16:43:54 GMT

EVER GREEN, about community commitment to keep Whidbey Island a special place, and the important role played by Marianne Edain, Steve Erickson and the Whidbey Environmental Action Network [WEAN] to help make that happen.

May 2023 update: We are looking forward to announcing future showings of EVER GREEN in 2023 as well as opportunities to stream the film online. Stay tuned!

Whidbey Environmental Action Network Hires Executive Director Marnie Jackson

Thu, 16 Mar 2023 22:58:18 GMT

The Whidbey Environmental Action Network (WEAN) Board of Directors announced today that Marnie Jackson will be joining the organization as Executive Director, beginning April 10, 2023.

WHIDBEY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK HIRES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARNIE JACKSON Coupeville, Wash., March 16, 2023 — The Whidbey Environmental Action Network (WEAN) Board of Directors announced today that Marnie Jackson will be joining the organization as Executive Director, beginning April 10, 2023. Jackson brings a wide range of relevant experience along with deep passion and personal commitment to conservation, community, and connecting people with nature. She has been an activist and an advocate for animals, people, and planet since her early teens, when she was inspired by WEAN to organize South Whidbey High School students against a proposed McDonalds at Bayview Corner. With a passion for addressing the social, environmental, and systemic injustices affecting all of us, Jackson will nurture connections to the next generation of environmental advocates at a critical time for Island County.

The WEAN Board of Directors is excited to welcome Jackson at this moment, as the organization builds on the exceptional 38 year legacy of founders Steve Erickson and Marianne Edain and historic wins like the protection of what became Trillium Community Forest. “WEAN is thrilled to have a person of Marnie's caliber and commitment to our native ecosystems joining the organization as Executive Director. Strong community ties, cooperative partnerships, and active engagement with residents of Island County will most certainly be forged under Marnie's leadership,” said Andréa Linton, Board Chair.

“We’re glad to have someone who is thoughtful, intelligent, and competent to help us find our way and become familiar with the new terrain,” said Edain. “We welcome Marnie and expect to undergo a whole lot of mutual learning, which will enhance our capacity for action.”

This is the first of several planned hires, part of WEAN’s growth toward being a fully staffed nonprofit with wider reach within and beyond Island County. Jackson’s background equips her to lead in people operations, strategic direction, community engagement, communications, and fundraising. She worked with Whidbey Institute from 2013 to 2022, first as Communications Manager and finally as Executive Director during a campaign to add facilities and expand the educational nonprofit’s conservation forest campus from 76 to 106 protected acres. Prior to working in the nonprofit sector, Marnie worked in organic farming, teaching, and journalism. Most recently, she’s been a donor organizer with Showing Up for Racial Justice. She also serves on the South Whidbey School District (SWSD) Board of Directors, having stepped up in 1 of 2 response to student calls for more relevant, equitable, and climate-responsive education. With a strong interest in law, policy, and legislative advocacy, Jackson currently serves as SWSD’s Legislative Representative.

“This is the opportunity of a lifetime for me,” said Jackson. “With the strong foundation built by Marianne and Steve, a vital mission, and an amazing board of directors, WEAN is poised to continue its tenacious advocacy for our island’s ecosystems while expanding and deepening connections with community members and values-aligned organizations.”

Whidbey Environmental Action Network’s mission is the restoration and preservation of the native biological diversity of Whidbey Island and the Pacific Northwest. They accomplish this through education, activation, preservation, restoration, and, when necessary, litigation. After 38 years of grassroots activism on Whidbey Island, WEAN is growing into a fully staffed organization to continue nurturing thriving native ecosystems in partnership with Whidbey Island’s communities. To learn more and get involved, visit https://www.whidbeyenvironment.org /.

Fun Positive News

Sun, 25 Dec 2022 19:33:05 GMT

You all did it. Your votes made the difference. WEAN won the Peoples’ Favorite grant award of $40,000.00.

Here’s some fun positive news to help celebrate the holidays:

It's been a while since the momentous announcement at the Boeing Employees Credit Union - People Helping People grant awards event. Since 12-15-22, to be exact.

You all did it. Your votes made the difference. WEAN won the Peoples’ Favorite grant award of $40,000.00. Kind of flabbergasting, super keen. Still a little floored. The host mentioned, with a certain degree of awe, that over 9000 people voted. From the way he said it we may conclude that this was an exceptionally large number of votes. That would be you and all your hundreds of best friends, email buddies, family, and friends of friends. A great big giant THANK YOU to all of you who voted, forwarded, reminded, and cheered us on.

That $40k makes it possible for WEAN to begin the transition to WEAN 2.0, with genuine paid staff, just like the grownups do. And we’ve already got a job posting for an Executive Director hitting the social media sites. So if you know anybody who is a hard core visionary environmental super hero, please do direct them our way, specifically to WEAN20ED@gmail.com .

And thanks again for your support. It sure has made a major difference for WEAN and for all of WEAN’s projects and programs.

On behalf of the whole WEAN gang, thanks again & enjoy the holidays.

Marianne

Newletter ~ December

Fri, 02 Dec 2022 17:39:04 GMT

WEAN’s Annual Obnoxious Fundraising Letter – the BIG CHANGES edition

If this image looks familiar, that’s because we’re into recycling. And the message is still very much true. The point, of course, being that Whidbey (and an expanding part of the PNW) really does need WEAN. And WEAN, to do the work it has done all these years, needs a large crowd of friends and supporters. That’s you.

And being the dark cold time of year, its time for another WEAN Annual Obnoxious Fundraising Letter. However, this year we’re under a watchful eye. We have a real genuine fundraiser who knows how to do it right and is showing us how. Different. Less snarky. Still heartfelt.

Part of why we have a genuine fundraiser now on our team is that WEAN is going through some major changes. You may have noticed that your loud and wordy activists have been getting a bit long in the tooth – gray hair, stooped gait, glazed eyes. Yep, we’re getting old. Time to recruit a whole bunch of energetic folks to step up, step in, learn the ropes, and start to pull them. That takes the folding green stuff. It seems people want to be paid for their work, so as new people take over various parts of the WEAN agenda, we need to raise the funds to pay them, to keep it going.

That’s where you come in. Word is we oldsters have outlived our previous reputation for being argumentative and disputatious – let alone irreverent – and that people actually think well of us. WEAN is succeeding in its mission!

No, Steve and Marianne are not going away. We will be right here focusing on passing on WEAN's decades of experience, knowhow, and technical skills to those who choose to take on at least some of this critical and fulfilling work. We keep trying to define our roles and each time we think we have it nailed, a whole other issue, campaign, field of study comes to light. Among other things, by sheer passage of time and our hanging in there, we have become the institutional memory of the Island County Planning Dept. We will be moving into semi-retirement, but we will stay on hand for insights and our inescapable irreverence.

We’ve had some major wins this year – protection of rare native plant habitat; protection of Western toads; requirement to use Best Available Science; and of course, the Not In Our Parks decision to keep our parks free of military spy training. Our EMF project, CLEAR, was able to convince Langley to pass a robust code governing cell towers.

We’ve also had some heartbreakers: serious trashing of Western toad habitat, and DNR demonstrating very clearly that it has no respect whatsoever for critical areas and will allow logging of anything, anywhere, anytime. WEAN will continue to work on that one until we assure our forests and critical areas are safe.

If you want to know more about what WEAN has done over the years, Mark Dworkin & Melissa Young of Moving Images (http://www.movingimages.org/) have made a movie, Ever Green, about us. It premiered at the Clyde Theatre in October. Check out the Moving Images website for future showings.

Back to the message of our recycled image: there will always be the need for WEAN’s efforts to educate, preserve, and restore here in Island County. WEAN gets important work done; WEAN inspires and sets precedent. And now, back to the obnoxity: WEAN needs your support. Please use the enclosed coupon to make your most generous donation. Thank you.

Your appreciative WEAN board

WEAN Big Bux goes live, please vote

info@whidbeyweb.com (Richard Fagan) — Tue, 01 Nov 2022 22:20:05 GMT

I just checked it out, and it lists all 18 contestant organizations in alphabetical order – which means you need to scroll all the way down to the bottom to find WEAN.

Click on the “Vote Now” button. It will ask for first & last name, your age (have to be over 18) and your email address. Its that simple.

You’re allowed 1 vote/email address.

Reminder: With your help WEAN can win a $40,000.00 grant from Boeing Employees Credit Union (BECU). BECU has a program called People Helping People, which invited WEAN to submit a grant application earlier this year. We made the semi-finals, so will receive a $15,000.00 grant.

But now we get to the big time, the $40,000.00. That one is essentially a popularity contest. The organization which gets the most votes in BECU’s on-line election wins the $40k.

The election website went live today, Tuesday, 11-1-22, a bit behind schedule, but happening. Voting will end 11-13-22.

So please:

1. visit the website. www.becu.org/awards !

2. check out the candidates - scroll to the bottom.

3. vote for WEAN, 1 vote/email address. Do it before 11-13-22.

And if you have long lists of friends, please forward to them. We can really use that $40k.

Thanks,

Marianne

Please use the Social Links below to help get the word out!

DNR Ordered to Consider Climate Impacts of State Forest Land Timber Sales

Tue, 01 Nov 2022 00:57:04 GMT

DNR Ordered to Consider Climate Impacts of State Forest Land Timber Sales

In what may be the first legal decision of its kind, Jefferson County Superior Court Judge Keith Harper today ruled that the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) must consider the impacts on climate change of two timber sales on state managed forestland on the Olympic Peninsula. He did not rule on the issue of whether the impacts would be significant, but faulted the state Dept. of Natural Resources for failing to follow the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) when it ignored those impacts.

Two Olympic Peninsula based organizations, the Center for a Sustainable Economy (CSE) and Save The Olympic Peninsula (STOP) filed the appeal last February. The two nonprofit groups were represented by Claudia Newman of Bricklin and Newman, the well known Seattle based environmental law firm. The lawsuit named as defendants Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz, the state Board of Natural Resources, and state agency Dept. of Natural Resources. Under Washington's Constitution and laws, the elected Public Lands Commissioner chairs the Board of Natural Resources and administers the DNR. This triumvirate sets policy and oversees logging on over 3 million acres of state forestlands.

DNR completely failed to consider the climate change impacts of the two timber sales. In response to comments by the two appellants, DNR stated that it didn't have to consider climate impacts of the two timber sales approved by the Board of Natural Resources because the SEPA checklist didn't have a specific question about that issue. The SEPA checklist is a generalized list of questions produced by the state Dept. of Ecology for initial evaluation of environmental impacts. If the lead agency reviewing a proposal's environmental impacts believes that there will be a "probable significant adverse environmental impact" an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. DNR, reviewing its own timber sales, decided that there wouldn't be, but failed to consider climate impacts. Climate is one of the numerous elements of the environment that must be considered under SEPA.

The state's attorney representing DNR argued that climate impacts were considered in several planning documents, but those were nowhere referenced in the agency's determination that there would be no significant adverse environmental impact. SEPA allows a two-step review process when an agency moves from a broad plan to projects implementing that plan. But the DNR nowhere disclosed to the public or in its SEPA review that it was using this "phased review" process. That failure prevented the public from being able to determine if these timber sales are consistent with the plans DNR now says it is relying on and whether measures to reduce the climate impacts discussed in the plans will be used for these timber sales.

Judge Harper did not rule on the question of whether the timber sales will have "probable significant adverse environmental impacts." Because DNR did not comply with SEPA's process for phased review he did not reach that issue. Rather, he remanded the issue for DNR to now conduct the legally required consideration of the climate impacts of the timber sales. The State has 30 days to file an appeal with a state Court of Appeals or the decision becomes final.

The ultimate effect of the decision remains to be seen. If not appealed or if upheld on appeal, DNR may simply try to turn the climate review requirement into a box checking exercise. DNR has been required to obey the State Environmental Policy Act since the Classic U legal battle over ancient forest on Whidbey Island in the late 1970s, but in the 40 years since then DNR has rarely required preparation of an EIS, despite major environmental degradation in Washington caused by logging. Environmental watchdogs will likely continue legal efforts to force DNR to comply with the purpose of SEPA, Washington's flagship environmental law:

(1) To declare a state policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment; (2) to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere; (3) and [to] stimulate the health and welfare of human beings; and (4) to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the state and nation.

RCW 43.21C.010

Film Premiere Invitation

info@whidbeyweb.com (Richard Fagan) — Wed, 12 Oct 2022 23:31:21 GMT

Film Premiere Invitation & Press Release

Sunday, October 23, 2 p.m.,

The Clyde Theatre, Langley WA

You are invited to the premiere screening of the film, EVER GREEN, about community commitment to keep Whidbey Island a special place, and the important role played by Marianne Edain, Steve Erickson and the Whidbey Environmental Action Network [WEAN] to help make that happen.

The open fields of Greenbank Farm, forest trails of the Saratoga Woods, re-population of native plants at Pacific Rim Institute, and reduction of toxic roadside spraying are just a few of the results of WEAN’s work and its collaboration with other island groups. These efforts have made a huge difference in retaining the rural character of the island.

On April 1, 2022, a WEAN lawsuit prevailed in a court case that prevents the Navy from training in Washington State Parks.

EVER GREEN, A Community Conservation Story, was produced by Mark Dworkin and Melissa Young of Moving Images in Clinton WA. The filmmakers drew on compositions from Whidbey musicians as part of the background music for the film.

Admission to the October screening is free.

Donations to Whidbey Environmental Action Network will be gratefully accepted.

Trailer for EVER GREEN: https://vimeo.com/758901518

WEAN website: www.whidbeyenvironment.org

PRESS RELEASE

LANGLEY, WASH .—For almost 40 years, partners Marianne Edain and Steve Erickson have worked continually to retain the rural character and ecological diversity of Whidbey Island. Their influence has been profound, and their efforts are now the subject of a new documentary film, EVER GREEN, A Community Conservation Story.

The film premieres on October 23 at 2 pm at The Clyde Theatre, 213 First Street, Langley WA. The public is invited to the free screening and a discussion of this half-hour film.

Edain and Erickson, through their organization Whidbey Environmental Action Network [WEAN], have monitored county applications for development and logging; challenged projects that violate state environmental law and led the way in science-based environmental public policymaking. With citizens of communities up and down Whidbey Island, they have helped keep trees standing and protected sensitive island ecosystems.

The effects of their work have extended statewide as the legal precedents of their campaigns have been applied in other regions of Washington. On April 1, 2022, in response to a WEAN lawsuit, the Thurston County Superior Court ruled Washington State Parks cannot allow military training in state parks.

The lush, open fields of Greenbank Farm, forest trails of the Saratoga Woods, re-population of native plants at Pacific Rim Institute near Coupeville, and reduction of toxic roadside spraying are just a few of the results of WEAN’s work and its collaboration with other island groups. These long-term efforts have made a huge difference in retaining the rural character and intact ecosystems of the island for residents and visitors.

The local film, EVER GREEN, A Community Conservation Story, was produced by Mark Dworkin and Melissa Young of Moving Images in Clinton WA. The filmmakers drew on compositions from Whidbey musicians as part of the background music for the film.

Admission to the October screening is free. Donations to Whidbey Environmental Action Network will be gratefully accepted.

ABOUT THE PRODUCERS:

South Whidbey filmmakers Mark Dworkin and Melissa Young of Moving Images have won prestigious awards from CINE, Houston, Columbus, Prix Leonardo, International Wildlife, Women in Film/Seattle, Chicago, NW Film and Video Festivals. Six documentaries have been broadcast nationwide on PBS, most recently, SHIFT CHANGE [2014]. A 2016 production, “Cultivating Kids,” showcases the unique school farm program in the South Whidbey school system. Their film, “Plane Truths,” [2018] about the impacts of Navy growler planes has screened across the region and in film festivals nationwide.

Trailer for EVER GREEN: https://vimeo.com/758901518

WEAN website: www.whidbeyenvironment.org

WEAN receiving Organizational War Abolisher of 2022 Award!

info@whidbeyweb.com (Richard Fagan) — Fri, 02 Sep 2022 20:56:46 GMT

Organizational War Abolisher of 2022 Award

NOTE: This event occured Setember 5th. To view the presentation, visit this link: https://worldbeyondwar.org/video-2022-war-abolisher-awards/

The Whidbey Environmental Action Network (WEAN), based on Whidbey Island in Puget Sound, that will be awarded the Organizational War Abolisher of 2022 award by World BEYOND War, a global organization that will be presenting four awards at a ceremony on September 5 to organizations and individuals from the U.S., Italy, England, and New Zealand.

An online presentation and acceptance event , with remarks from representatives of all four 2022 award recipients will take place on September 5 at 8 a.m. in Honolulu, 11 a.m. in Seattle, 1 p.m. in Mexico City, 2 p.m. in New York, 7 p.m. in London, 8 p.m. in Rome, 9 p.m. in Moscow, 10:30 p.m. in Tehran, and 6 a.m. the next morning (September 6) in Auckland. The event is open to the public and will include interpretation into Italian and English.

WEAN, an organization with 30 years of accomplishments for the natural environment, won a court case in April 2022 in Thurston County Superior Court, which found that Washington's State Parks and Recreation Commission had been “arbitrary and capricious” in granting the United States Navy use of state parks for military training. Their permission to do so was vacated in an unusual and lengthy ruling from the bench. The case had been filed by WEAN with the support of the Not in Our Parks Coalition to challenge the Commission's approval, given in 2021, for its staff to proceed with permitting the Navy’s plans for war training in state parks.

The public had first learned that the U.S. Navy was using state parks for war rehearsals in 2016 from a report at Truthout.org . There followed years of research, organizing, education, and mobilizing of the public by WEAN and its friends and allies , as well as years of lobbying pressure by the U.S. Navy, which flew in numerous experts from Washington, D.C., California, and Hawaii. While the Navy can be expected to keep pushing, WEAN won its court case on all counts, having persuaded the court that unannounced warlike actions by armed troops in public parks was damaging to the public and the parks.

WEAN impressed people for years with its dedicated efforts to expose what was being done and to put a stop to it, building a case against the environmental destruction of war exercises, the danger to the public, and the harm to resident war veterans suffering PTSD. The state parks are locations for weddings, for the spreading of ashes following funerals, and for seeking quiet and solace.

The Navy’s presence in the Puget Sound region is less than positive. On the one hand, they tried (and will likely try again) to commandeer State Parks for training in how to spy on park visitors. On the other hand, they fly jets so loud that the state’s flagship park, Deception Pass, becomes impossible to visit because jets are screaming overhead. While WEAN took on the spying in state parks, another group, Sound Defense Alliance, addressed the Navy’s making life untenable.

A small number of people on a small island are having an impact on Washington State and developing a model to be emulated elsewhere. World BEYOND War is very pleased to honor them and encourages everyone to hear their story, and ask them questions , on September 5 .

Accepting the award and speaking for WEAN will be Marianne Edain and Larry Morrell.

These are the second annual War Abolisher Awards.

World BEYOND Wa r is a global nonviolent movement, founded in 2014, to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace. The purpose of the awards is to honor and encourage support for those working to abolish the institution of war itself. With the Nobel Peace Prize and other nominally peace-focused institutions so frequently honoring other good causes or, in fact, wagers of war, World BEYOND War intends its awards to go to educators or activists intentionally and effectively advancing the cause of war abolition, accomplishing reductions in war-making, war preparations, or war culture. World BEYOND War received hundreds of impressive nominations. The World BEYOND War Board, with assistance from its Advisory Board, made the selections.

The awardees are honored for their body of work directly supporting one or more of the three segments of World BEYOND War’s strategy for reducing and eliminating war as outlined in the book A Global Security System, An Alternative to War . They are: Demilitarizing Security, Managing Conflict Without Violence, and Building a Culture of Peace.

We Won

Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:11:06 GMT

Not in our Parks ~ We Won!

Tax ID 91-1656410

Judge rules against Washingtong State Parks Commission

Tue, 05 Apr 2022 01:46:36 GMT

WEAN won on all counts...

OLYMPIA—Washington’s State Parks and Recreation Commission was “arbitrary and capricious” in granting the United States Navy use of state parks for military training. Their permission to do so was vacated today by Judge James J. Dixon of Thurston County Superior Court in an unusual and lengthy ruling from the bench.

The lawsuit brought by Whidbey Environmental Action Network with the support of the Not in Our Parks Coalition challenged a January 28, 2021 approval by the commission to allow parks staff to proceed with permitting the Navy’s plans for war training use of state parks in a 4-3 vote.

WEAN won on all counts, including the allegation that the emotional impact on the public of knowing that covert military surveillance by Navy SEALs was being conducted in parks without their knowledge would affect the public use of state parks. Judge Dixon acknowledged the “creep factor” and ruled it to be an environmental factor necessary to address under SEPA.

“We are very pleased that the Superior Court thoughtfully considered the issues and ruled in favor of Whidbey Environmental Action’s argument on all counts,” said the group’s attorney Zachary Griefen. “The court ruled that the State Parks Commission acted beyond the scope of its authority and also violated the State Environmental Policy Act. Parks are for recreation and not for military use.”

The stunning judicial rebuke comes after years of lobbying by the US Navy in pressuring Washington State Parks to open up most of the state’s waterfront parks for covert military operations. For years, the practice was allowed under an administrative permit with no public knowledge or review.

“Washington’s laws are clear and Judge Dixon just enforced them. Parks are not for military use,” said WEAN Litigation Coordinator, Steve Erickson.

“I’ve never heard a judge rule like this,” said Erickson. “In agreeing with all our arguments, he rebuked the Parks Commission’s misinterpretation of their mission.”

Recorded Judges Order

Recording of 'Not in our Parks Coalition' Court Hearing

Mon, 04 Apr 2022 22:40:27 GMT

The Washington’s State Parks and Recreation Commission was “arbitrary and capricious” in granting the United States Navy use of state parks for military training. Their permission to do so was vacated today by Judge James J. Dixon of Thurston County Superior Court in an unusual and lengthy ruling from the bench.

Mr. Toad's Wild Ride

Fri, 25 Feb 2022 19:56:32 GMT

Mr. Toad's Wild Ride

It all started, in 1990, with the Growth Management Act (GMA). That required counties, among other things, to protect critical areas, defined as: wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, and fish & wildlife habitat conservation areas.

GMA also set timelines for “review and update” of the critical area protections. The first Critical Area review and update was supposed to be finished in 2005. Since this is a time consuming process, it would have been reasonable to begin before 2005. Didn’t happen. Nor did it happen in 2006, 7, 8, etc.

By 2013, we were getting just a tad impatient, so we filed a Petition for Review with the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). The Board ordered Island County to get on it, and gave them a deadline. Eventually, the county produced something – very unsatisfactory. Back and forth we went, with the GMHB ruling on separate pieces of the county’s Critical Areas ordinance update, until by 2017 we were down to 2 final issues: protection of rare and endangered plant species and their habitat, and protection of the Western Toad.

Western Toad occurs only in the western US and Canada. Unlike most amphibians it spends most of its life cycle away from the wetlands where it breeds and is known to disperse into uplands as far as 6 miles away. In most of the US states where it occurs it is ranked as being at risk. It is a "species of greatest conservation need" in Washington and a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered by the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Most known populations in the Puget lowlands have disappeared in the last 40 years. There are only six known occurrences historically reported from Whidbey Island, with only three currently known to exist.

Island County came up with a bunch of unworkable and arbitrary rules for, basically, how not to protect the toads. The underlying claim was that since they didn’t know what the toads need, they could just ignore them. We argued that at the very least you need to look for toads, and if you find them, protect the areas they are known to inhabit (duh). The county insisted on protecting only their breeding habitat, which is wetlands, since those were already protected anyway, ignoring the upland habitat where they spend most of their time, and that only populations known to exist when the regulations are adopted should be protected, not any newly discovered populations. And the Planning director could waive even the requirement for a biological assessment to find out what the impacts would be if the development would have only undefined "minor" impacts.

After a number of rounds the GMHB got tired of it all and ruled in favor of Island County. In the process the two issues – rare plants and toads - got separated. We appealed to Thurston County Superior Court, which ruled against us. So we took both cases to the State Court of Appeals – two separate divisions. We won some and lost some on the rare plants case, and after interminable delays Island County amended its code to reflect the court’s ruling.

A separate court of appeals heard the Toads case. The ruling turned out to be a major victory. It set limits on the discretion of the Planning director. It required that all populations, whenever and wherever they were found, be protected. It ruled that lack of information - in this case on the Toad's specific habitat requirements - required the county to pay more, not less, attention to protection. Best of all, it published the decision. That means it sets statewide precedent. We’re already seeing the decision being cited in critical area appeal decisions elsewhere.

In late 2021 Island County and WEAN reached a negotiated settlement on the revised code language to protect rare plant species and their habitat, and to protect the Western Toad. At the final hearing the GMHB Presiding officer complimented both parties for reaching a positive and amicable solution. And it only took 15 years, over 1000 hours of our own legal work, and more than $50,000 in attorneys’ fees.

We think its been worth it.

WEAN’s Annual Obnoxious Fundraising Letter - the techno-peasant edition

info@whidbeyweb.com (Richard Fagan) — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 18:56:28 GMT

WEAN's annual obnoxious fundraising letter

PS - Give now:

• donate online now

• mail your check, made out to WEAN, at PO Box 53, Langley WA. 98260.

Hear the “Unified Theory of Biodiversity Conservation” at the Steady Stater Podcast

Wed, 17 Feb 2021 02:30:00 GMT

"The podcast linked below is the single best explanation I have found for the work we do."

~Marianne Edain

Cooke Aquaculture - Your Action is Needed Now!

info@whidbeyweb.com (Richard Fagan) — Fri, 29 May 2020 17:25:40 GMT

Your Action is Needed Now!

Cooke Aquaculture continues their relentless campaign to expand and extend net pen aquaculture in the Salish Sea and avoid the 2022 phase out of their facilities. Wild Fish Conservancy is leading the effort to end this folly once and for all.

There are real and meaningful actions for you to take.

The Department of Ecology is currently seeking public input on the company’s recent application to modify existing water quality permits, authorization required under the Clean Water Act before Cooke can begin farming a highly-domesticated, partially-sterile form of steelhead in their Puget sound net pens.

Here is your action:

We need your help to ensure the serious pollution and water quality risks posed by this industry are fully considered by Ecology during this permitting process.
The l ink to the comment page, and talking points found here .

Please take 10 minutes to do this. Your input clearly matters.

Comments are due 8 June 2020.

There are *NO* words to express the frustration that we all feel that we are still grappling with this. But as we learned from the Elwha, meaningful positive change often takes *a LOT* longer than it should.

DON'T GIVE UP!

A WEAN shutdown report 5-22-20

info@whidbeyweb.com (Richard Fagan) — Sat, 23 May 2020 02:28:59 GMT

We’re still here, and we’re still working, if in a distanced way. Our case to protect prairie plants has been decided by the state court of appeals, but Island County has asked for reconsideration. The court asked us to brief the issues the county raised, which we did. Now the court will decide whether to reconsider or not. Meanwhile, our case to protect rare Western toads was to have been heard this month, but was first put off, and now the court has asked if we are willing to let them decide the case without a hearing, based on the record. We have agreed to that but have not yet heard from the county as to whether they are willing.

There is still the matter of Wright’s Crossing, the 1500 house proposal on 250 acres of farmland by the drive-in theater south of Oak Harbor. That matter is waiting its turn to be heard by the court of appeals. We get the impression that Island County is not defending itself very vigorously, coming up with some seriously lame arguments and sidestepping the real issues. Meanwhile, as of about 2 weeks ago, someone has been digging huge ditches on the property, one of them 11 ft deep and running the full length of the property. We inquired of Island County whether any permit was in place and they answered ‘no.’ Of course we were also notifying them of this activity. The result to date is pretty seriously disappointing. We have been told they cannot do a site visit without a formal written complaint, on their complaint form, and mailed via US mail. Meanwhile, of course, the ditches remain. We have now filed the complaint and are waiting for a response.

We’re having other problems with Island County, related to the virus shut-down. One of the things we do is review development applications. We are forced to go through the official Public Records Request process. The last time I did that I got a response that people were working from home and it would be a month before they could get those records to me (mind you, they’re all electronic, and get posted via email). But most of those applications have very short review times, usually only 2 weeks. Which means that by the time I finally get the record and review it, its too late to make any comments. That is not how the system is supposed to work. We understand only too well that this is a most peculiar situation and people are for the most part doing the best they can. But if they are able to stretch the response time to a records request, they should also be able to stretch the comment period. I’ve been putting off writing the notice to Island County about this issue.

On a larger scale, we’re trying to work with Island County on its review and update of the Shoreline Master Program to make sure the reality of sea level rise is taken into account in a substantive way. The reality on the ground is that we know its happening, but the county does not have any regulatory authority to deny a permit to someone who wants to build on the shoreline. That’s not the county’s fault. It actually lies with the 5th amendment to the Constitution: “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public purposes without just compensation.” People have a legal right to do some really stupid things, like building million dollar houses right on the shoreline. The problem is that we as a society end up paying to pick up the pieces from such stupid doings. And of course there are literal tons of infrastructure right along the shore which will all too soon be inundated and causing pollution. We want to help the county plan for what is being called “managed retreat”. And we’ve just gotten word that our legal intern has figured out a way to work for us while sheltered at home. We are sharing her with Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve for the summer. She will be working on that Shoreline Master Program review and update. And of course I’m getting no response from Island County as to the status of that review. It was supposed to have been finished by June 30, but then the legislature (or the governor) granted a 1 year extension. The county’s website is not much help and staff is not responding to phone messages or emails.

One not-so-small victory is that as of the 1st of this month the Navy no longer has a valid permit to do clandestine training in our shoreline state parks. The matter was supposed to be on the agenda of the State Parks Commission for its 3-12-20 meeting, but that was cancelled. The decision was to have been made at the commission’s 5-7-20 meeting, but that was cancelled too. The navy wrote to the State Parks director asking that their existing permit be extended. The director wrote back saying ‘no.’ That would not have happened without the 3500 or more petition signatures and comments we generated. All very timely too. Imagine, now that we’re finally able to get into the parks (well distanced), discovering that there was someone in camo with a very realistic looking big gun spying on you from the bushes. No doubt the navy will be back, but for now our parks are safe for people.

And finally, I am delighted and relieved to report that – as you can see if you’re reading this – WEAN’s new website is finally up and running. Still needs lots more information, but its there and live. Many thanks are due to our web master, Richard Fagan (Whidbey Web Design), who is gentle but persistent.

Navy Proposes to use Joseph Whidbey State Park for SEAL Training

info@whidbeyweb.com (Richard Fagan) — Mon, 11 May 2020 14:54:23 GMT

This video conclusively demonstrates that the U.S. Navy has the property that it needs to do the SEAL Team Combat Training instead of Joseph Whidbey State Park which it proposes to use.

WEAN leads opposition to Navy training in parks

info@whidbeyweb.com (Richard Fagan) — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 02:17:06 GMT

WEAN leads opposition to Navy training in parks

"The Navy wants to significantly expand its locations for realistic military exercises in coastal northwestern Washington, and a Whidbey group wants people to know more about the covert activity.

In a plan to be presented to the State Parks Commission, Navy personnel would engage in “Naval Special Operations Training” at up to 29 state parks, four county sites, eight city sites, 17 other public sites and two private marinas.

Whidbey Environmental Action Network, known as WEAN, is leading an effort to notify people about the Navy’s plans."

Dave Felice, South Whidbey Record

Read full artical in theSouth Whidbey Record

WEAN’s First 30 Years: The Highlights

info@whidbeyweb.com (Richard Fagan) — Sun, 02 Feb 2020 03:43:06 GMT

Made the Growth Management Act matter
Closed development loopholes
Won protection for wetlands
Won limit on clearcuts
Created the Conservation Futures Fund
Reduced shoreline development density 95%
Saved Saratoga Woods from development
Saved Pacific Rim Institute from development
Protected Camp Casey forest
Protected Maxwelton Creek
Saved Keystone Spit
Prevented the “Orca Pipeline”
Prevented new shopping mall south of Oak Harbor
Prevented 1050 house development on Fakkema farm
Prevented Wright’s Crossing (1500 houses)
Prevented tidal turbines in Admiralty Inlet
Prevented massive Coupeville gravel pit
Prevented 1000’ “floating road” & subdivision
Protected Critical Areas from agriculture, logging, & development
Cleaned up Oak Harbor School District toxics
Made Island County roads “no spray”
Banned Atlantic salmon net pens
Organized March for Science
Organized local Global Climate Strike marches

WEAN wins again:

info@whidbeyweb.com (Richard Fagan) — Mon, 11 Nov 2019 20:36:11 GMT

This has been going on for years, and each time we thought we had buried that ghoul, it popped up again. Maybe this time it is finally buried. Those on the south end will remember the large and ugly clearcut on Cultus Bay Road. That was the work of J&D, developers out of Snohomish. They worked out a business model which involved logging land under a state DNR permit, which allows for trashing critical areas (wetlands, steep slopes) on the theory that in the 50 years it takes to grow another stand of trees, the critical area will recover. Right. Island County has preventive rules. If you don't trash it, you won't have to fix it later. So J&D gets the DNR permit which allows the trashing – but then says you can't develop for 6 years. Then they come to Island County to say they've changed their minds and want to develop after all. Island County rules (courtesy of WEAN) say that if you have damaged the critical area while logging, you have to fix it before they will lift that development moratorium. J&D insisted that Island County had no right to make such a demand. They went to the Growth Management Hearings Board – and then dropped out the day before the hearing. Then they went to the Island County Hearings Examiner – and we wiped the floor with them. So they went to the Snohomish County Superior Court – which has just tossed their case. What's a poor developer to do?

Well, they could accept reality and put some of the time, money, and energy they're blowing off trying to appeal the county's decision into actually repairing the damage they did. Don't hold your breath.

Wean left its mark in three decades of advocacy, litigation

Sat, 31 Aug 2019 19:39:59 GMT

For 30 years, one group on Whidbey Island has served as a watchdog for the environment.

Steve Erickson and Marianne Edain, founders of Whidbey Environmental Action Network, or WEAN, have left their fingerprints on the Island County development code and the land they worked to protect. Read more...

WEAN’s Substack

Despite Concerns, Island County And Oak Harbor Move Forward With Annexation

Despite Concerns, Island County And Oak Harbor Move Forward With Annexation

February 2026 Newsletter

February 2026 Newsletter

January 2026 Newsltter

January 2026 Newsletter

Elements Of The Week: Economic Development And The Clinton Subarea Plan

Elements Of The Week: Economic Development & Clinton Subarea Plan

WEAN's Clinton Subarea Plan Takeaways

WEAN's Economic Dev Takeaways

WEAN's Overarching Takeaways

Submit Your Public Comment

Elements Of The Week: Capital Facilities, Transportation, And Parks And Rec

Elements Of The Week:

Capital Facilities, Transportation,

﻿ Parks And Recreation

WEAN's Capital Facilities Takeaways

WEAN's Transportation Takeaways

WEAN's Parks And Rec Takeaways

WEAN's Overarching Takeaways

Submit Your Public Comment

Up Next: Economic Development

﻿ And Clinton Subarea Plan

Elements Of The Week: Natural Resources & Climate

Elements Of The Week:

﻿ Natural Resources & Climate

WEAN's Natural Resources Takeaways

WEAN's Climate Takeaways

WEAN's Overarching Takeaway

Welcome To A New Planning Commissioner

Submit Your Public Comment

Up Next: Transportation, Parks And Recreation, And Capital Facilities

Elements Of The Week: Housing & Land Use

Elements Of The Week: Land Use & Housing

WEAN's Housing Takeaways

WEAN's Land Use Takeaways

Submit Your Public Comment

Up Next: Climate and Natural Resources

December 2025 Newsletter

December 2025 Newsletter

Five Stories: What We Achieved In 2025

Five Stories: What We Achieved In 2025

Holding The Line On Environmental Review In Oak Harbor

Expanding Public Participation In Comprehensive Planning

Moving Shoreline Advocacy From Local Action To Statewide Collaboration

Progressing On Forest Protection Through PBRS Reform

Investing In The Next Generation Of Environmental Leaders

Looking Ahead

November 2025 Newsletter

November 2025 Newsletter

October 2025 Newsletter

October 2025 Newsletter

September 2025 Newsletter

September 2025 Newsletter

Farewell To Our Intern, Natalie!

Farewell To Our Intern, Natalie!

Communications and Social Media Intern Natalie Estrada graduated from Seattle University this summer and completed her internship with WEAN in September.

"I think that the work you guys do is super important. I'm glad that somebody is doing it. Being a part of it was so special for me."

August 2025 Newsletter

August 2025 Newsletter

WEAN Urges County To Stick To Original Population Projections

WEAN Urges County To Stick To Original Population Projections

Oak Harbor needs to responsibly rezone and plan for infrastructure to support population growth within the current UGA boundaries.

July 2025 Newsletter

July 2025 Newsletter

Respond To Commissioner St. Clair

Call To Action: Respond To Commissioner St. Clair's Comments

Commissioner's General Response

Amanda's General Response

Point-By-Point Responses From Both Parties

What Are Your Thoughts?

June 2025 Newsletter

June 2025 Newsletter

Queerness In Nature

Queerness In Nature Is All Around Us

Orca Whales

Banana Slugs

Gray Wolf

May 2025 Newsletter

Parks And Recreation

And Clinton Subarea Plan

Natural Resources & Climate

What WEAN Achieved In 2024