The Growth Management Act and Salmon

 

Dave Iverson, Hillary Lauder, Randy Scott, Christine Winkelman

Summary

 

The Growth Management Act is among the most significant pieces of legislation affecting fish and wildlife in Washington this century. It requires cities and counties across the state to address land use issues that directly and indirectly impact fish and wildlife habitat. The Act can become a critical tool to bring wild salmon back from the edge of extinction by improving their habitat if it is amended to require that all cities and counties:

 

 

The incompatible approaches and variations applied by Washington’s cities and counties in land use planning and development have immense impacts on fish and wildlife habitat. These differences make it difficult to manage critical areas on a statewide basis. Establishing specific, minimum standards that cities and counties must follow would lead to statewide consistency and protect salmon habitat.

Fish and wildlife concerns have been considered only as an afterthought in land use planning for too long. The recommendations made above will ensure planning policies are consistent across political boundaries and will reduce further fragmentation of important habitats.

 

 

 

Background of the Problem

 

The salmon is the defining cultural symbol for many that live in the Pacific Northwest. The abundance of fish in the environment is a key indicator in determining the health of our watersheds. The health of the habitat then becomes an important indicator in measuring our quality of life. Currently in Washington State, the salmon and the habitats necessary for their support is in danger.

 

Changes in the salmon populations are a result of the cumulative effects of many factors, including but not limited to, over harvest, changes in freshwater habitats, changes in estuary habitats, and changes in ocean conditions. It is impossible to isolate the effects of any one of these factors. Because salmon require high quality freshwater spawning, rearing, and migratory habitats, it is clear that loss and degradation of these habitats is a significant factor in the declines of many salmon populations.

 

In our watersheds, human activities associated with habitat alteration and loss from urban development, agricultural and forestry practices pose the greatest threats to habitat essential for pacific salmon. In the Pacific Northwest, as in many areas of North America, urban development is rapidly expanding into areas containing much of the remaining natural aquatic ecosystems. These ecosystems are critical spawning and rearing habitat for several species of native salmonids. Because these ecosystems have an extremely high influence on aquatic habitat, they are of significant importance to the health of anadromous fish, which populate the aquatic systems of Washington State.

 

Riparian Zones

 

These ecosystems, also called riparian corridors or zones, are responsible for many aquatic system functions including water temperature control, control of sedimentation, food production and protection from pollutants. A stream with a healthy buffer will experience a summer temperature increase of 1-2° C, whereas a stream with a buffer that has been logged will elevate the water temperature 10 to 27° C and severely damage both salmon and salmon egg populations. Further, the vegetation in a healthy stream buffer effectively absorbs and/or breaks down stream pollutants like nitrates, phosphates, herbicides and insecticides into harmless components. A riparian area that has experienced a loss of vegetation allows pollutants to pass directly into the stream, thereby causing damage to the aquatic system.

 

Another vital function of riparian areas is control of sedimentation entering the streams. Heavy sedimentation destroys spawning grounds by reducing oxygen flow and suffocating both salmon eggs and developing fry. Sedimentation also causes growth, feeding and migratory problems for fish. In severe cases of sedimentation, salmon will discontinue use of the stream. According to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife "riparian vegetation mechanically filters and stores sediments borne in surface flows before they enter the stream channel…riparian vegetation inhibits sedimentation from entering streams by…suppressing the erosional processes that move sediment."

 

Healthy riparian areas are also a major component to the aquatic food chain. Fungi, bacteria and aquatic invertebrates are dependent on the nutrients that a healthy riparian habitat produces. The fresh water diet of salmon consists mainly of aquatic invertebrates. When the vegetation is destroyed or degraded, a riparian area can no longer provide the food that aquatic life, including salmon, need in order to survive.

 

Finally, functional riparian areas provide large woody debris, which is essential to healthy salmon populations. Logs greater than 51cm. In diameter greatly enhance the stream habitat by creating pools which salmon need for spawning, rearing and migration. The debris also helps to provide cover for salmon hiding from predators as well as protection in storms and high stream flows. The falls and riffles created by the debris mixes oxygen and water, aerating the water.

 

 

Effects of Land Use

 

Forest Practices - Logging and building of logging roads have a tremendous impact on salmon and their aquatic ecosystems. The major effects of logging are increases in sedimentation, changes in hydrology, losses of large woody debris and temperature increases.

 

Agriculture - 40 to 50 percent of the sediment in streams comes from eroded croplands. Herbicides, pesticides and toxic metals attach to sediments, which increase the pollution levels in waterways. Pesticides and fertilizers have been found to lower survival rates in fry, cause birth defects and reproduction problems and kill non-target insects thereby lowering species diversity in the aquatic food chain. Agriculture also contributes animal waste to streams, which constitutes another source of pollution. The Department of Fish and Wildlife found that "run-off from concentrated manure sources can effectively alter water quality in streams and cause lethal conditions for fish." As manure decomposes, the oxygen demand increases and dissolved oxygen in the stream decreases causing ammonia to be release, which is harmful to salmon.

 

Irrigation is yet another damaging factor to the stream ecosystem. Diverting water for irrigation can cause water levels too low for healthy fish rearing, spawning and migration. Irrigation also decreases the amount of vegetation that a stream can produce thereby changing productivity levels available for salmon and other members of the aquatic food chain.

 

Finally, overgrazing of livestock has been found to be one of the most destructive influences on riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Livestock are drawn to riparian areas because of high quality plant foods, availability of water and protection from elements. When livestock are allowed to graze constantly in the riparian zone, the obvious effect is loss of vegetation. This creates a loss of nutrients that are valuable to the aquatic ecosystem. Grazing also increases run-off thereby raising levels of pollutants and sediments entering streams. Similar to clear cutting, intensive overgrazing will eventually lead to a total destruction of many functions that a healthy riparian ecosystem needs to contribute to the health of aquatic life.

 

Urbanization - Another contributor to the destruction of riparian habitats is urbanization. When houses are landscaped or have lawns that reach to the water’s edge, fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals can drain directly into a stream. When trees are cleared away for aesthetic purposes, parking lots, roads, large buildings, etc., the temperature inevitably will increase and create conditions that can be lethal to salmon. Stream channels are often changes to make way for development. Adding culverts under roads or piping streams underground often makes the passage of migrating fish impossible. Drainage pipes increase flooding and water levels in streams and often dissipates important components of stream hydrology. Impervious surfaces create 100% runoff, which is heavy with pollutants. This water usually flows directly into the streams.

 

 

 

The Growth Management Act

 

The State of Washington adopted a new law in 1990, which requires city and county governments to focus on land use concerns. This law, the Growth Management Act, requires certain city and county governments to use a comprehensive and coordinated approach to land use planning and helps guide the future development of individual city and county areas. A primary intent of the Growth Management Act is to prevent unwise use of natural resource and critical areas in accommodating urban growth. There are five types of critical areas:

 

 

This proposal focuses on critical areas, "critical areas ordinances" and more specifically, fish and wildlife conservation areas with emphasis on salmon habitat.

 

 

Who Must Plan and What They Must Do

 

There are two parts regarding requirements for protecting critical areas under the Growth Management Act. First, all counties, cities and towns in Washington State must classify, designate and regulate their resource lands and critical areas. What does this mean?

 

    1. Classify: define or determine what they are and establish classes or categories for each kind of resource land and critical area. Establishing classes is a process of rating the value or hazard of these areas.
    2. Designate: determine where they are. It should establish the general distribution and location of the different types of resource lands and critical areas.
    3. Each jurisdiction must adopt development regulations for their critical areas. The regulations are to prevent incompatible development in these areas.

The second part of the Growth Management Act applies only to counties and cities that meet one of the following criteria:

    1. County with a population of 50,000 or more and has had its population increase by more than 10% in the previous 10 years; or,
    2. County with a population increase of more than 20% in the previous 10 years; or,
    3. County that voluntarily chooses to abide by the provisions of the GMA.

Counties meeting one of these criteria must also adopt planning policies and comprehensive plans. These policies and plans must address many aspects of anticipated urban growth and development including, but not limited to land use, housing, utilities, and transportation.

There are 18 Washington counties that are required to plan under the Growth Management Act because of their population size and/or rate of increase. In addition, 11 counties have voluntarily chosen to plan under the Act. These 29 counties encompass more than 80% of the citizens of the state.

 

Table 1. Counties Planning under the Growth Management Act

Benton

Chelan

Clallam

Clark

Columbia

Douglas

Ferry

Franklin

Garfield

Grant

Island

Jefferson

King

Kitsap

Kittitas

Lewis

Mason

Pacific

Pend Oreille

Pierce

San Juan

Skagit

Snohomish

Spokane

Stevens

Thurston

Walla Walla

Whatcom

Yakima

 

 

Critical Area Ordinances

Exactly what constitutes a fish and wildlife conservation area was not specifically spelled out by the legislature in the Growth Management Act. However, the legislature did allow the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development to establish minimum guidelines to help cities and counties in protecting critical areas. The Act says that these guidelines "shall be considered" by cities and counties when dealing with these critical areas. However, these guidelines are not requirements. There currently are no specific standards that local governments must adopt when protecting critical areas from land uses incompatible with fish and wildlife. The statute and rules also provide that any changes to critical areas made after 1995 are required to use best available science and give special consideration to the protection and enhancement of wild salmon and steelhead.

To date, there are 26 of 39 counties and 182 of 278 cities in Washington State that have adopted at least some type of critical area ordinance. A recent study conducted by the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development illustrates the vast differences inherent in existing critical area ordinances in Washington State and why specific, minimum standards must be adopted to guide local governments. For example, Thurston County has one of the best critical area ordinances and has adopted the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s management recommendations in its entirety. On the other end of the scale is Wahkiakum County where no critical area ordinance, wetland or stream buffers have been established. See Attachment 1.

 

Elements of our Policy Recommendations

    1. The Science of Protecting Riparian - Salmon Habitat:

A common method of reducing or eliminating impacts to streams from nearby land uses is to establish and maintain riparian habitat areas adjacent to the streams. Riparian habitat areas are defined by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as being ‘the area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water (e.g., rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, seeps, springs) that contain elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other." Because riparian areas have an extremely high influence on aquatic habitat they are of significant importance to the health of anadromous fish, which populate the aquatic systems of Washington State.

 

Generally buffer widths for streams may be established using two methods: a fixed width or a variable width that considers specific site conditions. Fixed- or variable-width buffers each have advantages and disadvantages. Fixed-width buffers are more easily established, do not require regulatory personnel with specialized knowledge of ecological principles, and require smaller expenditures of both time and money to administer. This option, however, may result in arbitrary buffer distances that sometimes may not be appropriate.

 

Variable-width buffers allow greater flexibility for varying site conditions and land management practices for landowners. This option may require that professional judgment be employed in the decision-making process, and thus, may not be feasible if experienced personnel are not available. Because of the variability of sites requiring buffers, individual site visits and detailed information are prerequisites for a buffer-width decision. While this is a more costly and time-consuming process, it may protect the environment more completely without causing undue losses to landowners.

 

Under past land-use practices, increased development has led to a decrease in the width of the riparian buffer zone, fragmentation of the riparian corridor, and an overall degradation in riparian quality. Critical area ordinances typically require riparian buffers of 100-150 ft. and are frequently modified due to specific site conditions and land management practices. These recently adopted regulations had little influence on the urbanized streams in the Puget Sound region. In general, wide riparian buffers were found only in undeveloped or rural watersheds

 

In December 1997, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife released their publication entitled "Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats." Over 1,500 scientific sources were used in the development of the Department’s land use recommendations. The recommendations consolidate existing scientific literature and have been subject to numerous review processes. These guidelines are designed to protect and enhance both healthy and declining populations of fish including anadromous salmon and steelhead through the maintenance and enhancement of riparian habitat.

 

 

Table 2 Standard Recommended RHA Widths for Areas with Typed and Non-Typed Streams

Stream Type

Recommended RHA Widths In Feet

Type 1 and 2 Streams: Shorelines of the State, shorelines of Statewide Significance

250 ft.

Type 3 Streams: Perennial or Fish Bearing Streams 5-20 ft. wide

200 ft.

Type 4 and 5 Streams: Intermittent Streams and Washes with Low Mass Wasting Potential

150 ft

Type 4 and 5 Streams: Intermittent Streams and Washes with High Mass Wasting Potential

225 ft

 

Because of the direct and significant influence of riparian areas on the stream ecosystem these riparian areas must be property maintained and protected in order for wild salmonids to have an ecosystem that supports strong healthy populations. Our main objective is the alteration of the language in the Growth Management Act and the Washington Administrative Code. The adoption of the Department of Fish and Wildlife Riparian Habitat Area Width recommendations by the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development as an element of the Washington Administrative Code rule for implementing the Growth Management Act provides that riparian zones and therefore salmon receive the protection needed to develop and maintain ecological soundness throughout their whole range watersheds. The Growth Management Act and the Washington Administrative Code are statewide ensuring that despite jurisdictional boundaries, all watersheds receive the same level of protection and management, regardless of how many counties and cities they pass through.

The language changes proposed will bring about the improvement of salmonid habitat in the following way:

The ultimate goal that will be achieved by the implementation of this proposal is to bring all species of wild salmon in the State of Washington back to healthy, viable populations. This proposal will bring about important changes needed to improve salmonid habitat. The protection and enhancement of habitat is of paramount importance in the fight to save the wild salmon.

    1. State Agency Coordination for Minimum Guidelines:
    2. The state agencies that have an interest and responsibility in establishing the program for state and local protection of salmon habitat for the benefit of salmon recovery need to coordinate those interests into a single state guideline for local governments. The Department of Community Trade and Economic Development will be the lead agency for the revision of the guidelines for Critical Area Ordinance development. The Department will convene the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture and Department of Transportation to comprehensively revise the guidelines for local governments. The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team would be a member of the state agency group for the Puget Sound area local governments.

    3. Technical Assistance to Local Governments

 

 

The state agencies with an interest in the success of the local governments efforts to meet or exceed the elements of the guidelines for designating, protecting and restoring salmon habitat should on a regional basis coordinate with the Federally Recognized Indian Tribes to provide technical assistance to counties and cities. The agencies would assist the counties and cities in meeting the state goals in providing assistance for locals in adopting revised critical area ordinances, with an emphasis on salmon habitat. The technical assistance can be utilization of the best available science for the designation, management and protection of critical areas, on the ground designation and classification of priority salmon habitat, providing the biological guidance in protecting salmon habitat specific to the jurisdiction.

 

The technical assistance would provide for information exchange between the state agencies with responsibilities in the salmon recovery plan, local government land use planning and regulation, and Tribal interests in the protection and management of the resource. This will assist in needed coordination for the benefit of all levels of government and salmon resources.

 

The technical assistance to local governments would include, but not be limited to:

 

 

 

This information will provide local governments with adequate information to meet or exceed minimum guidelines for the designation, protection and enhancement of salmon habitat in the revision process of Critical Area Ordinances as required by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A).

 

The Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development based on the above criteria and incorporating all of the requirements of the new guidelines for Critical Area ordinances shall develop a model Critical Area Ordinance fro use and guidance to the counties and cities.

 

    1. Critical Area Ordinance Revision:

 

Critical Area Ordinance Guidelines will provide at a minimum the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

As local governments revise their critical area ordinances per the five-year schedule established by the requirements of RCW 36.70A, they will need to incorporate the basic elements of such an ordinance.

 

 

    1. Funding:

 

 

Historically, the Legislature has provided funding for local governments to implement the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Beginning in 1990 and each biennium thereafter the Legislature has provided dollars to the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development for the purpose of paying for a portion of the costs that cities and counties would incur in implementing the minimum requirements of the Act. Those counties and cities required to plan or those that chose to plan under the act would receive funding on an ongoing basis to fully implement the act. Those entities received funding that was estimated to be approximately half of the costs for implementing the Act. The remainder of the counties, not required to plan under the Act, would receive a one-time grant for $50,000.00 to implement the requirements of designating agriculture, forest, and mineral resource lands as well as a requirement to designate and protect critical areas.

 

It is anticipated in the "Extinction is Not an Option" strategy that the Governor and the natural resource agencies would seek special funding for certain purposes in the 1999 Legislative Session. One of the priorities will be assistance for local governments to improve the land use planning and regulation programs by cities and counties. This would be accomplished by designating an amount of dollars for each county and city to revise and improve their critical area ordinances. An amount similar to the original Growth Management funding of providing approximately half of the dollars needed to accomplish this would be needed.

 

The program anticipates revision by each county and city and will include requirements to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions, while working with the state agencies and federally recognized Indian tribes within the county to implement comprehensive programs using the best available science.

 

A minimum amount of $50,000.00 per county and $15,000.00 per city would be recommended. Phasing in the eligibility for the funding to coincide with the review and revision cycle for comprehensive plans by local jurisdictions would spread the funding out over a five to six year period. The Critical Area Ordinance update and revision requirement to meet these new goals would coordinate well with the review and revision requirement of the Growth Management Act. Those counties and the cities not planning under the act would receive funding to meet the critical area ordinance in the 1999 - 2001 biennium.

 

Funding under the above scenario would be as follows:

 

39- counties @ $50,000.00 per county $ 1,950,000.00

 

278 cities @ $ 15, 000.00 per city $ 4,170,000.00

 

Total $ 6,120,000.00

 

On a three-biennium schedule appropriations would need to be $2,040,000.00 per biennium. Scheduled in this manner would make it more reasonable as a request to be honored by the legislature.

 

 

Potential Support - Opposition

 

The operative word in this section is potential. All conversations with representatives from the Washington state Association of Counties, Association of Washington Cities, and several Tribes were quite limited in the words as it related to any commitments. First, they understood that this was a class project, second because the caller is a practicing lobbyist they did not want to say anything that might be construed as a position of either themselves or employer and finally all said that the state must show substantial commitment both financially and policy wise to get any support for an effort that changes current Growth Management guidelines.

 

 

Counties - The county representative was real adamant that the efforts in "Extinction is Not an Option" were not anything they could support as yet. They were upset at the lack of an invitation to participate as a player in the project. They could not support any new minimum requirements for implementing land use planning and regulation that the state did not pay for and take the political heat for implementing. But in the same breath the counties would not support opening up the Growth Management statutes for fear they would be further watered down by the development community. Thought several items in the proposal were intriguing, liked the thought behind the state agency coordination and technical assistance. Thought buffer recommendations were too much, would not commit a buffer number for the counties.

 

 

Cities - The city representative was a little kinder. Liked most of what was explained. However, the representative pointed out that currently and by the time land is annexed to cities it is already semi-urban and the buffer have already been enforced at lesser widths. Thought it was a good approach for undeveloped land and maybe even conversions from forestry, agriculture to rural development. Would appreciate any monetary assistance for the revisions to their critical area ordinances.

 

 

Tribes - Talked to a person on the Natural Resource staff of a Puget Sound Tribe and a Pacific Coast tribe. Both thought that the proposal description was an improvement on the current practices. Were quite adamant that they like the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission were upset at the lack of Tribal participation in the "Extinction is not an option" strategy development. They are open to working with the state on a government-to-government basis that gives them a seat at the table in designing programs and efforts to aid in salmon recovery. Would work with the state if this proposal were a tool for assisting local governments in improving land use practices for the protection of fish.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The incompatible approaches and variations applied by Washington’s cities and counties in land use planning and development have immense impacts on fish and wildlife habitat. These differences make it difficult to manage critical areas on a statewide basis. Establishing specific, minimum standards that cities and counties must follow would lead to statewide consistency and protect salmon habitat. The must is related to the voluntary effort that the Governor and the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet is taking in developing "Extinction is not an Option". If counties and cities want to continue to use their land use controls they need to view the above recommendation as a minimum requirements.

Fish and wildlife concerns have been considered only as an afterthought in land use planning for too long. The recommendations made above will ensure planning policies are consistent across political boundaries and will reduce fragmentation of important habitats.

The recommendations of this proposal have been incorporated into the "Linking Land Use Decisions and Salmon Recovery" chapter of "Extinction is Not an Option" strategy document and submitted as input from the team

 

Program Page

Return to
Program Page

Fall Research Page

Return to
Fall Research Page

Research Page

Return to
Research Page