External Email Hi Tate: Thanks for sending this out to the group. Unfortunately I got looped into another meeting that I had to attend over this. Apologies and I'm bummed to miss seeing everyone. My comments are relatively minimal of these new edits. I had some questions around some of the new forestry content, but I was pleased to see inclusion of NR 1.9 Forest land designation and retention support climate resilience priorities of forest stewardship and wildfire risk reduction, and support greenhouse gas emission reductions through carbon sequestration. That seems quite appropriate to add, and alleviates some of my concerns of this section. I'd also like a bit of clarity from perhaps planning or others in this group related to NR mineral resource lands, such as critieria e) in NR 1.11, mainly what does mitigation actually look like, and is that rigorously done via state agencies, etc? "NR.1.11 Mineral Resource Lands should meet all of the following criteria e) Mineral Resource Land designations shall not occur on lands with critical areas unless impacts can be adequately mitigated to maintain value and function. Additionally, I was curious about the group's thoughts on adding specific criteria in NR 1.12 "amending NRL designations", specifically on section d) below adding content of priority habitat species, or state listed species I've proposed in bold: d) New information on natural resource land or critical area status including Best Available Science, updated designation or listing of species as state or federally threatened, endangered, or sensitive; identification or updates to Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; adoption or revision of species recovery plans; and other ecological data relevant to habitat function, connectivity, or climate resilience (e.g., wildfire risk, drought projections, flood risk). And lastly, I'd like to flag NR.3.25 for the group's continued discussion, particularly that last section around renewable energy development. Perhaps there needs to be an addition or amendment to this point to ensure that Data Center development are explicitly mentioned as an activity that the county will NOT encourage given the impacts to Critical areas, etc?: NR..3.25 The County should encourage creative, compatible, and beneficial use of resource lands other than agriculture to supplement the income of farm families. Such uses may include: tourism, mining, quarrying, boating, hunting/fishing, recreation, nursery, and renewable energy development, which can support the diversification of the County’s energy supply while reducing emissions. Thanks all and chat soon, Brian Brian Antonio Muegge (Pronounced "MEG-e") Gonzaga University 16' - Go Zags! Cell: 509-508-1563

Hello NRL TAC members, Based on the poll results, our next meeting will be Monday, 4/27 from 1pm-2pm in the Spokane County planning studio (with virtual option). Attached is the updated natural resource chapter based off feedback from our latest rural outreach. Additions were minor and are highlighted in yellow. Additional items will include CAO timeline updates, as well as maps and discussion on the updated wildlife corridor established in the BAS and how that may impact land use changes. ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/222089899918979?p=t7BSApwDnzLMZUJMOp Meeting ID: 222 089 899 918 979 Passcode: tF6CJ94C Need help? | System reference For organizers: Meeting options Org help | Privacy and security