Washington State Department of Ecology

Ecology home > Shorelands home > Wetlands home > Washington State Wetlands Integration Strategy home > Project Development

SWIS Recommendations: The Pieces of a State Wetlands Programs

A. STATE WETLANDS POLICY

1. Single Policy Statement

Throughout the State Wetlands Integration Strategy (SWIS) process, governmental representatives and members of the public have recognized the need for integration of state laws and policies regarding wetlands. Several state agencies have specific mandates and legal authorities to manage and protect wetlands, and local governments also have responsibility to plan for and protect wetlands.

Although different agencies and levels of government have different mandates for managing wetlands, there is an overarching, statewide goal addressing wetlands protection. State agencies reporting to the Governor were directed to implement this goal through specific tasks, and other agencies and local governments were encouraged to make their actions consistent with the goal. This goal, established by Governor's Executive Order, states that: "It is the interim goal...to achieve no overall net loss in acreage and function of Washington's remaining wetlands base. It is further the long-term goal to increase the quantity and quality of Washington's wetlands resource base." (E.O. 89-10).

In spite of this goal, there is still a lack of consistency in how wetlands are managed statewide. One reason for this inconsistency is that the goal statement is very general, and subject to interpretation. Another reason is that state agencies have diverse mandates and policies which they must meet, while still providing regulatory consistency.

Work group members agreed that state agencies must better coordinate their diverse policies and actions to ensure consistent, predictable regulation. Once these agencies have outlined their mandates and policies, they must work with local governments and the general public to develop standards for integrating these policies into wetlands planning and permitting processes and implementing them at the local level.

Recommendation #1: The state agencies should develop a comprehensive and consistent statement of the state's interests in wetlands. This statement should be based on the wetlands mandates and policies of the Departments of Agriculture; Community, Trade and Economic Development; Ecology; Fish and Wildlife; Natural Resources; Transportation; and the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Planning Work Group

Improved coordination at the state level should begin with an evaluation of existing agency policies, priorities, and legal authorities:

  1. What are the state's policies and interests regarding wetlands?
  2. After identifying and evaluating these policies and interests, what are the conflicts?
  3. How do we reconcile conflicting policies and interests? (i.e., how do we reconcile wetlands permitting regulations with the goals of the GMA?)
  4. Finally, how do we set priorities and protect those interests that we identify?
The most direct way to achieve consistency and predictability in wetlands regulation in Washington would involve adopting a single, comprehensive wetlands protection law. Although a single wetlands law is certainly attractive to some interested parties, two previous attempts to pass such a law in Washington have failed. Given this difficulty, SWIS work group members have acknowledged that SWIS should focus on resolving conflicts and inconsistencies among existing laws and programs.

2. Watershed Approach

In Washington, several state resource agencies have begun managing resources in a "watershed context." Both the state agencies and the Clinton administration encourage local governments to do the same. The federal administration has also embraced the watershed approach for resource management at a federal level. "Watershed planning" involves identifying a specific geographic area for review. It also implies the concept of considering all resources, uses and constraints within an area when developing and implementing a plan.

Recommendation #2: In the long-term, wetlands planning should be conducted within a watershed context. When local governments amend their comprehensive plans and development regulations, they should work to integrate the different plan elements by using a watershed approach. Planning Work Group

State and federal agencies must assist local governments in using a watershed approach. To do this effectively, some agency programs are organized on a regional, or watershed basis. For example, Ecology's Shorelands program recently reorganized to enhance their ability to provide environmental services on a geographic or regional basis. Members of the Shorelands program at Ecology headquarters were moved to regional offices throughout the state and will work in interdisciplinary teams. This reorganization is expected to improve public service and offer more timely and effective permit review.

Recommendation #3: State and federal wetland programs should be organized by geographic regions, comprised of watersheds, to provide better assistance to the public and improve resource protection. Staff from different state and federal agencies should form interagency teams within each geographic region to facilitate interagency coordination and to work more effectively with the public. Planning Work Group

To ensure effective watershed planning, state and federal agencies must also recognize and adhere to the same watershed boundaries. These watershed boundaries should then be used by local governments as they develop local watershed plans which reflect the uses and constraints within individual jurisdictions. In assisting local governments, state and federal agencies must be cognizant of these local constraints.

Recommendation #4: To ensure better wetlands protection through watershed-based planning, state, federal, tribal and local governments, in coordination with the public, should establish the boundaries of watershed units to be used consistently across the state. Planning Work Group

Before watershed planning can be coordinated effectively across the state, we must first define (1) "watershed" and (2) "watershed planning." We must remember that watershed planning is not an "overnight" cure for our wetland woes. It will take money and staff to develop and then implement watershed-based planning. Perhaps most notably, it will take time. Time to define the elements of watershed planning, and time to implement this approach across the state.

As the concept of "watershed planning" evolves, it should become more clear what standards are best used, and how the various elements of different laws can relate within a watershed context. The transition from the current, often piecemeal, regulatory approach to a more integrated watershed approach may be difficult for some local jurisdictions. However, it is necessary for local governments to make this transition if we are to plan for wetlands (and other resources and uses) within a larger scheme.

Also, when watersheds extend beyond a single political boundary, adjacent jurisdictions should coordinate with each other to ensure consistent watershed planning. In fact, to facilitate consistency among local jurisdictions, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 5038 in March of 1994. This bill requires that local governments develop "service agreements" with other jurisdictions to better coordinate activities that affect adjacent jurisdictions.

To help develop models for conducting wetlands planning within a watershed context, SWIS grants have been awarded to four local governments to assist them in developing comprehensive local wetlands programs. These local governments are the cities of Camas and Everett, Clallam County and Whatcom Counties. One of the key purposes of the local grant projects is to develop approaches for conducting wetlands planning within a watershed context. Each of the four governments has designed and is using a slightly different approach to this task, as appropriate to the unique circumstances of each jurisdiction. The grant projects will be completed by the end of 1994. Project results will then be published and distributed early in 1995 so that local governments around the state can use these projects as examples of wetlands planning, if they so choose.

3. Standards

Single Wetlands Definition:
In order to achieve integration of state agency policies regarding wetlands, a single, consistent definition of wetlands must be adopted by all state agencies managing wetlands. Consistency in the way agencies define "wetlands" is critical for effective management of Washington's wetlands resources.

Recommendation #5: All laws and levels of government in Washington should adopt and use a single regulatory definition of wetlands. Planning Work Group

For example, the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) contains a definition of "wetlands" that is different from the definition in the GMA. The SMA defines wetlands in terms of their distance from other water bodies while the GMA definition is based on three biological parameters: water, plants, and soils. Although work group members recognized the different intent of the two definitions, there was still agreement that the different language of the two provides a perception of agency conflict and creates confusion for local governments and the public.

Recommendation #6: The Shoreline Management Act definition of "wetlands" should be amended to be the same as the definition in the Growth Management Act. Planning Work Group

Even though the Planning Work Group wanted the SMA definition of wetlands to be amended to duplicate the definition found in the GMA, work group members still wanted to maintain the protection of shorelands provided by the SMA. They believed that the areas currently designated in the SMA definition of wetlands should still be addressed, but should be titled something more appropriate, such as "shoreline area" or "shorelines and associated wetland areas."

The Growth Management Act allows local governments to adopt a definition of "wetlands" that is different from that in the act, if they so choose. This can lead to confusion and inconsistency between local jurisdictions. To provide better consistency between local governments and among local, state and federal governments, a single definition of "wetlands" should be used by all local governments.

Recommendation #7: When local governments adopt a definition of "wetlands," they should be required to adopt the definition contained in the Growth Management Act. Planning Work Group

The reader should be aware that, at the federal level, there are two definitions of wetlands: The Clean Water Act definition (identical to the GMA definition) is used for regulatory purposes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife definition, on the other hand, is used for inventory purposes. Nearly identical, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife definition also includes mudflats and the shallow waters of lakes and rivers (less than six feet deep). Work group members recommend that local governments use the GMA/Clean Water Act definition in their local plans and regulations. If local governments want to be as inclusive as possible when producing watershed plans, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife definition may be used when developing inventories.

Wetlands Delineation Manual:
There is no question that having one delineation manual which all agencies use would help to make decisions regarding wetlands consistent at the local, state and federal levels. However, despite widespread agreement that we need ONE delineation manual, there is no consensus on WHICH ONE it should be. We can only hope that the National Academy of Sciences will recommend a scientifically valid method which the federal agencies can adopt. If this occurs, it should be a relatively straightforward process for federal, state, and local agencies, and tribal governments to follow suit.

Recommendation #8: All federal, state, and local agencies, and tribal governments should use a single wetland delineation manual, based on valid scientific methodology. Regulatory Reform Work Group

Functional Assessment:
Accurate assessment of wetland functions is critical for managing wetlands on a watershed basis. As wetland acreage and functions change, so can the overall value of the wetland within a watershed. For example, if a particular type of wetland function is severely reduced due to development impacts within a watershed, wetland managers and local citizens may elect to make restoration of those particular functions a high priority within their watershed. In order to evaluate the functions of a specific wetland within a watershed context, however, we need a scientifically-based technique for assessing wetland functions.

Several wetland assessment methods exist in both regulatory and academic arenas, but no method has been adopted for application on a statewide basis. Wetland mitigation requirements should be based on an assessment of wetland functions. Accordingly, wetland functional assessment methods are extremely important in the wetlands regulatory process. Research should be funded in federal and state agencies as well as universities to develop and test a quantitative wetlands functional assessment protocol that incorporates the regional variability of wetlands in the northwest.

Recommendation #9: The state should establish a permanent interagency wetlands technical committee. This committee should include representatives from the public; tribal and local governments; federal agencies as appropriate; and the state departments of Ecology; Fish and Wildlife; Natural Resources; Transportation; and Community, Trade, and Economic Development Technical Work Group

Recommendation #10: The wetlands technical committee should adopt uniform methods for functional assessments. These assessment methods should be calibrated to reflect regional variability among watersheds within the state. These methods should then be adopted as standards under the Growth Management Act as described in Recommendations #17 and #18. Technical Work Group

Cumulative Impacts:
To more fully understand and manage the wetlands within a natural system, we must add together the individual impacts to that system. Cumulative impact thresholds for wetlands should be established on a watershed basis. This is consistent with the approach being recommended throughout the SWIS process, and a watershed approach makes both technical and practical sense. Development within a watershed results in cumulative impacts on both the quantity and quality of water that support wetlands systems in that watershed. Such cumulative impacts on wetlands typically result in cumulative impacts on streams associated with the impacted wetlands within the watershed as well.

The Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program, underway since 1987, has conducted extensive research and has developed some management recommendations related to wetlands. Some of this information may be useful for establishing cumulative impact thresholds for wetlands on a watershed basis.

For instance, research has indicated that amphibian distribution in wetlands, wetland bird communities, wetland hydrology, wetland invertebrates, sensitive wetland plant communities, effects of urban stormwater runoff upon wetland vegetation, flooding tolerances of wetland species, and wetland water quality is directly or indirectly related to the level of development within watersheds. Usually, this research has shown that measurable degradation of wetland resources can be attributed to changes in wetland hydrology caused by development activity within the watershed.

This data could be combined with information about the classification of the wetland and its position in the landscape and other site specific information. It would then be possible to know before evaluating individual projects whether or not the cumulative impact threshold for wetlands or streams had been exceeded in a particular watershed. Permit decisions, including the determination of compensatory mitigation needs, could then be based on the likely impact of a project upon the watershed as a whole.

Recommendation #11: The wetlands technical committee should establish a specific protocol for determining minimum thresholds for cumulative impacts on wetlands. These minimum thresholds should be developed and applied on a watershed basis. Technical Work Group

When establishing this protocol, the technical committee should take immediate advantage of existing information and examine the state's Watershed Analysis Manual under the Forest Practices Act (WAC 222-22), as well as other existing watershed based environmental assessment methods. Within the Puget Sound region, the analysis for establishing threshold levels should also incorporate the data collected by the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program. The committee should also consider the work currently being undertaken by the Puget Sound Wetland Restoration Technical Work Team. This effort is in response to element W-8 of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan and is designed to develop a protocol for conducting voluntary wetland restoration at the watershed scale.

4. Data Management

Information Management System:
Despite the perceived abundance of information about wetlands, and the public's growing awareness of the ecological significance of these resources, substantial data gaps remain. Additional scientific studies of wetland functions, the effects of land use on wetland function and acreage, and the importance of wetlands in overall watershed management are clearly needed.

At the same time that new research is needed, better use of existing information related to wetlands is absolutely necessary. Work group members agreed that more effective management and sharing of existing information is an important first step toward better wetlands management statewide.

Several federal and state agencies, tribal governments, and environmental organizations currently have wetland databases or Geographic Information Systems that include wetlands information. These various sources of wetlands information, however, are not integrated nor are they equally accessible to interested parties. The work group suggested that a coordinated wetlands information clearinghouse is needed at the state level. When developing this, GIS managers from tribal governments, local governments, the State Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources, and Fish and Wildlife as well as federal agencies such as EPA, Soil Conservation Service, Corps, bureau of Land Management Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service should be involved.

It is critical that this system be developed to allow information management on a watershed basis. Both region and site-specific information need to be included in the system. The system should be administered by the state and ultimately needs to be designed to enable information sharing with federal, tribal, and local governments and interest groups.

Recommendation #12: The Governor should establish and fund a coordinated state program to manage natural resource wetland information at appropriate scales of resolution on a watershed basis. This program should include a Geographic Information System (GIS) format that would be compatible among all state agencies, and to the extent possible, applicable federal agencies. Technical Work Group

Recommendation #13: The Governor should appoint an interagency task force to work with the general public and local, state, tribal, and federal governments to develop protocols for collecting, managing, and disseminating technical information in a watershed context. Technical Work Group

The program should be:

Measuring Wetlands Gains and Losses:
Speculation about annual wetland losses through regulated activities and illegal filling abounds, and the state does not have a reliable system in place for recording and monitoring those wetland losses. Similarly, the state does not have a system for recording wetland acreage gains associated with creation, restoration, or mitigation activities.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tracks all federal wetland permits, including related mitigation and monitoring activities. However, this tracking system only addresses acreage of wetland impact and does not include information about impacts on wetland functions.

Work group members agreed that the state should establish and adopt a protocol for tracking permitted impacts on wetlands. This protocol should include a reporting requirement that specifies that local, state, and federal agencies report the location and type of wetland impact authorized, as well as any mitigation and monitoring restrictions that may apply for all wetlands permits they issue.

This tracking protocol would also include a provision allowing the state to put information gathered from local, state, and federal agencies and tribal governments regarding wetland impacts into the information management system described previously. Specifically, wetland impact sites, mitigation sites, and restored wetland areas should be tracked in a spatial database (GIS). By establishing a system for effectively monitoring wetland gains and losses, the state will be able to manage wetlands resources using a watershed approach, rather than just the site-specific approach currently employed.

Recommendation #14: The state should establish and fund a wetlands tracking protocol for tribal, local, state, and federal jurisdictions. This system should include a reporting requirement for permits that are approved. Technical Work Group

Ensuring Successful Mitigation:
When a landowner receives a permit to fill a wetland, he or she is required to compensate for that wetland loss through wetlands mitigation (restoration, creation, or enhancement). While monitoring is generally required, there is, unfortunately, little scientific data regarding the success and failure of wetland mitigation sites in the Northwest. To ensure the success of future mitigation projects, we must compile and assess existing information on both voluntary restoration and compensatory mitigation.

A state database should be established that includes an updated bibliography of wetland literature specific to the Northwest region. This bibliography should be indexed by topic. This information would be useful in designing mitigation projects and evaluating the success or failure of specific mitigation sites.

The technical section of the Department of Ecology Shorelands program should initiate an analysis of existing compensatory wetland mitigation projects to evaluate project successes. Ecology's assessment team should incorporate existing studies into the proposed analysis of projects as appropriate. For example, the team should consider the "Interagency Follow-Through Investigation of Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Sites," jointly developed by EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in May of 1994. As information becomes available from Ecology's assessment, it should be distributed for immediate use.

Recommendation #15: Ecology should compile and evaluate information concerning existing voluntary restoration and compensatory mitigation projects to determine project successes. This information should then be used to direct future practices. Technical Work Group

Recommendation #16: Ecology and EPA should form an interagency committee to develop a proposal for a system of wetland reference sites, monitoring strategies, and mechanisms for funding site acquisition, long-term monitoring, and directed research. Technical Work Group

Continue to the next section of this document

Return to the Table of Contents