Island County’s obligation to protect some ecologically sensitive areas under the state’s Growth Management Act remains unclear after the county appealed last month a recent and adverse decision by the Growth Management Hearings Board.

The county appealed the decision in Island County Superior Court July 24, attacking multiple conclusions in a June 24 board ruling that favored advocacy group Whidbey Environmental Action Network (WEAN).

“The board’s findings are not based on substantial evidence, rely on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law, and are arbitrary and capricious,” the county wrote in its appeal.

In its June 24 ruling, the Olympia-based board ordered Island County to protect its only Natural Area Preserve and to follow the Growth Management Act by protecting critical areas using the best available science, WEAN said. Specifically, it ordered the county to safeguard the habitat of rare plants, prairies and the Western toad, WEAN said. The ruling ordered the county to regulate the removal of beaver dams and to clarify under what circumstances farmland can be abandoned for more than five years and still remain exempt from critical-area regulations, according to WEAN.

During the appeal, the county must nonetheless obey the board’s ruling, WEAN said. The county was originally required to update its fish and wildlife habitat conservation regulations in 2005, but it failed to act until WEAN obtained an order from the hearings board in 2013, according to WEAN.

Now, “it is unfortunate that the county commissioners have decided to waste taxpayer dollars on this appeal, rather than simply protecting the rare species and habitats as they’re supposed to,” WEAN’s Steve Erickson said Thursday in a prepared statement.

The Washington Native Plant Society filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting WEAN.

The Growth Management Act requires counties to designate and protect “critical areas,” including fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The board found the county’s regulations comply with the law on seven of 14 issues raised by WEAN but are noncompliant as to the remaining seven.

The board wrongly placed the burden of proof on the county, necessitating the appeal, Commissioner Helen Price Johnson said Thursday.

“The county can resolve some if not all the disputed issues during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Review,” she said.

Beaver dams were a hot topic last year as business owners and farmers affected by flooding, particularly in Maxwelton, clamored for flexibility in dealing with the dam-building critters during the regulation update approval process.

Karen Krug, of Spoiled Dog Winery on Maxwelton Road, said in early July that the county should comply with the hearings board’s ruling, but that the issue remains — beavers and the flooding they cause can result in property damage.

“It costs people a lot of money for something they can’t control,” she said.

She likened beaver dams to noxious weeds. If people have a problem on their land, they should be responsible for addressing it before it affects neighboring property owners, she said.

WEAN’s Erickson responded at that time that sometimes beavers should be controlled but that the county’s regulations largely exempt dam removal. That is unacceptable, he said, adding that the hearings board agreed.

“We’ve never said a beaver dam should never be removed, but an outright exemption goes too far,” he said.