In 1990, the Washington State legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA), a law requiring cities and counties to create land use plans that manage development and protect natural resources. The GMA requires specific protections for five critical areas: wetlands; fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; critical aquifer recharge areas; geologically hazardous areas; and frequently flooded areas.
The state does not mandate a single approach to critical areas protection; instead, the GMA allows each county or city to develop protections that meet their unique needs. Counties may protect identified critical areas and their buffer zones by non-regulatory means (conservation easements, public education, etc.) and regulatory means (subdivision codes, clearing and grading ordinances, zoning, critical areas regulations, etc.). However, to meet the goal of the GMA, critical areas must be managed in such a way that their values are preserved with no net loss of ecological function.
To ensure that a CAO will achieve no net loss, local jurisdictions must employ the best available science. In other words, critical areas regulations must be formulated in light of documented research. In the absence of existing scientific data, counties must either limit development or use adaptive management--regulating the critical area and evaluating results scientifically in an ongoing experiment to determine the possible negative effects of development.
Where are we now?
In January 2013, FRIENDS filed an appeal of the County’s CAO to the Growth Management Hearings Board (Board). On September 6, 2013, the Board issued a decision that agreed with FRIENDS on several meaningful issues. They concluded that the CAO’s buffers, which could have been as narrow as 30 feet, did not protect water quality or wildlife habitat. The Board also rejected exemptions that authorized septic systems, new agriculture, and utility transmission lines in or near wetlands, streams, and marine shorelines.
Although the Board decision addressed many of FRIENDS’ concerns, it failed to redress several others, compelling FRIENDS to appeal those issues to San Juan County Superior Court in October, 2013. That appeal seeks to eliminate the CAO’s authorized impacts to important, smaller wetlands and to bolster the shoreline “tree protection zone” so that it protects shrubs and other vegetation necessary for habitat, erosion control, and scenic shoreline views. The appeal is scheduled for hearing in February 2014. Stay tuned to learn the outcome.
You can read the ruling here.
What You Can Do:
Stay informed. Stand up for clean water, fish, wildlife and safe and responsible development.
FRIENDS Comment Letters, Reports and Presentations that relate to the CAO update:
Fish & Wildlife Conservation Area Comment Letter
General Section Comment Letter
Geologically Hazardous and Frequently Flooded Areas Comment Letter
Wetlands and You Presentations
Best Available Science White Paper