sure protection of salmon habitat













Description of the Habitat Dilemma
Solutions to salmon recovery involve the Four Hs: hatcheries,
hydroelectric generation, harvest levels, and habitat restoration. Of
those four factors, local governments are most directly responsible
for habitat protection and restoration.

Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), some local
governments have put into place effective regulatory programs for
critical areas, including wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas, critical aquifer recharge
areas, and frequently flooded areas. Pioneering plans for flood
hazard reduction, nonpoint pollution control, and stormwater
management have been developed. Shoreline master programs
and the Puget Sound Water Quality Plan are being carried out.

Other local governments have found critical areas work challenging.
Early in GMA planning, ordinances were quickly developed to meet
tight growth management deadlines. When GMA development
regulations were adopted, communities may or may not have had
the time and funds to go back and look at critical areas ordinances
to see if they are adequately protecting special, sensitive lands.

Some local governments may have used former ordinances
adopted years before the passage of the GMA to meet the new
requirements. Still other communities have not yet reached
consensus on what to do about wetland buffers, areas that flood
frequently, critical aquifer recharge areas, and fish and wildlife
habitat.

In spite of the considerable amount of work local governments have
undertaken, they are faced with listings under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Salmon, steelhead, and bulltrout fisheries are
hurting. Some local governments may need to do more to meet ESA
requirements.

Background on Critical Areas Requirements

The GMA provides a comprehensive framework for local
governments with a full set of planning requirements to follow in
developing a comprehensive salmon habitat protection program.




www.cted.wa.gov





















While it does not use the word watershed and does not require an
environment chapter as part of comprehensive plans, the act is not
silent on watersheds or the environment. For example, local
governments are instructed to develop comprehensive plans that
provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those
discharges that pollute waters of the state.

The basic architecture of the GMA defines a strategy for watershed
protection and salmon recovery that is consistent with the best
available science. The strategy is to:

Protect all streams and wetlands that are now healthy. First,
keep intact what we have.
Conserve rural and resource lands. Minimize new impervious
surfaces.
Direct most new urban growth to urban areas.
Provide for open space corridors within and between urban
growth areas.

The requirement to protect critical areas, particularly wetlands and
fish and wildlife habitat, means that those ecosystems must be
maintained. While local governments may adopt development
regulations that could result in localized impacts on some critical
areas, such flexibility must be used carefully. In no case should
regulations result in a net loss of the functions of ecosystems within
a watershed.

To meet critical areas requirements, all counties and cities in the
state have been working since 1990 to establish protection for
designated fish and wildlife habitat areas. Most cities and counties
rely on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlifes Priority
Habitat and Species Program. Many jurisdictions are taking a
broader look at protecting biodiversity through the

management of
multiple species of plants and animals.


Critical areas protection was to be completed before comprehensive
plans to ensure these specially sensitive areas would: (a) be
designated so more intense development could occur elsewhere,
and (b) be protected from incompatible development while
comprehensive plans and development regulations were being
adopted.

CTED guidelines for salmon habitat protection
When designating critical areas, local governments are to consider
the states minimum guidelines (WAC 365-190). These guidelines
define fish and wildlife habitat conservation as land management for
maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural
geographic distribution so that isolated sub-populations are not
created. This does not mean maintaining all individuals of all
species at all times, but it does mean cooperative and coordinated
land use planning is critically important among counties and cities in
a region.

The minimum guidelines acknowledge it is less costly to protect
sensitive areas than it is to repair them once damaged.


www.cted.wa.gov















The minimum guidelines lead counties and cities to recognize the
differences among sensitive critical areas and develop appropriate
regulatory and non-regulatory programs. Regulatory programs
should complement non-regulatory landowner incentive programs so
that together they make up a comprehensive critical areas protection
program. This approach is identical to the strategy defined in the
Puget Sound Water Quality Plan.

Recommended non-regulatory strategies include purchase or
transfer of development rights, use of the public benefit rating
system, purchase of priority lands, purchase with leaseback, current
use taxation, buffering, land trades, and recognizing conservation
easements.

The minimum guidelines recognize local governments in a region or
watershed need coordinated, consistent designations, definitions,
and standards. Some counties have excelled in coordinating efforts
by including the environment and watershed management among
topics addressed in county-wide planning policies.


The minimum guidelines considered endangered species when they
were developed in 1990. The minimum guidelines for classification
of fish habitat define that habitat as including: Areas with which
endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary
association; and kelp and eelgrass beds; herring and smelt
spawning areas.

Counties and cities are advised to classify habitat areas with which
endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary
association and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the
species will maintain and reproduce over the long term.

Special consideration is to be given to:

Creating a system of fish and wildlife habitat with connections
between larger habitat blocks and open space.
Protecting riparian ecosystems.
Evaluating land uses surrounding fish habitat areas that may
negatively impact these areas.
Establishing buffer zones around these areas to separate
incompatible uses from habitat areas.
Restoring lost salmonid habitat.

Best available science is required
In 1995 the GMA was amended to require counties and cities to
include the best available science in developing policies and
development regulations to protect the functions and values of
critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special
consideration to conservation and protection measures necessary to
preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries (RCW 36.70A.172).

www.cted.wa.gov














For More Information

Leonard Bauer, Managing Director
Growth Management Services
360.725.3000

www.ocd.wa.gov/growth


The Washington State Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development (CTED) has developed a rule to guide local
governments in including the best available science updates of their
critical areas ordinances. CTED, in cooperation with other state
agencies, has developed a list of sources of information on the best
available science for local governments to use. To get a copy of
Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science for
Designating and Protecting Critical Areas, call (360) 725-3000. You
can also see
www.ocd.wa.gov/growth
. In addition, other
organizations are developing information on the best available
science for fisheries habitat needs.

Whats Next
Here are some suggestions for local communities:

Identify and use the most current scientific information for the
designation and protection of critical areas.
Review current critical area ordinances to determine their
effectiveness in protecting salmon habitat and amend them, if
necessary.
Identify how current regulations can be better carried out and
enforced.
Make sure the permit process affecting erosion and sediment
control, critical areas, and stormwater management is consistent
with habitat management objectives.
Consider using environmental measures in monitoring or
benchmarking programs to reflect critical indexes for salmon
habitat. Then implement an adaptive management program.
Continue to combine non-regulatory programs with strong
regulatory protections. Investments in acquisition of habitat,
volunteer restoration projects, and salmon education programs
deserve the protection that comes from strong regulatory
standards.

All counties and cities in the state are required to review, evaluate,