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 (Continued)

B. WETLANDS PLANNING PROCESS

1. Integrating the Wetlands Planning Components of State Laws

Growth Management Act:
The GMA has a strong mandate regarding critical areas, including wetlands. It states that counties and cities "shall adopt development regulations that protect critical areas." (RCW 36.70A.060). Although the law requires protection of wetlands, the "Minimum Guidelines" implementing the law include only recommendations addressing wetlands classification and designation, and do not provide specific standards that local governments must adopt. To encourage local consistency, the Department of Ecology provided a number of technical assistance documents for use by local governments. As was expected, there is still great variability among local wetland programs. This makes it difficult to inventory and manage wetlands consistently across the state.

Some interim local wetlands programs have been adopted that do not provide effective wetlands protection. If the State of Washington truly wants to achieve effective wetlands protection in a watershed context, there must be greater consistency and predictability in local government programs. Also, if local governments adopted predictable, consistent, and effective programs for wetlands protection, it would help enable the state and federal agencies to delegate more authority to the local level. For wetlands planning, this consistency can only be achieved by developing some minimum standards to which local governments must adhere when developing local wetlands protection programs. Work group members agreed that the wetland information on which decisions are based should be standardized, i.e., inventory and functional assessment. Wetland classification, buffer requirements, and mitigation requirements should be at the discretion of local governments.

Recommendation #17: Standards for wetlands inventory and functional assessment should be jointly developed by local governments, state agencies, and the public. The Growth Management Act should be amended to include authority to adopt these standards by administrative rule. Planning Work Group

Work group members agreed that it will take time and coordinated effort to develop these standards under the Growth Management Act. The group agreed that it may be more palatable and sensible to develop standards in a selected area of the state, before considering them statewide.

Recommendation #18: The standards described in the previous recommendation should initially be developed for a specific area of the state, as a pilot project. Once a successful pilot is completed, regionally-specific standards should then be developed for other regions in the state and adopted as state law. Planning Work Group

State Environmental Policy Act:
There are currently at least two committees in the state, separate from SWIS, that are addressing the integration of SEPA and the GMA. SWIS Planning Work Group members have generally agreed to defer SEPA-related issues to these committees, the "SEPA/GMA Work Group" and a similarly named subcommittee of the Governor's Task Force on Regulatory Reform. However, there is one wetlands issue regarding SEPA ordinances that work group members have decided to address.

Many local governments used their SEPA ordinances as interim critical areas ordinances, under the GMA. Although this made sense given the short timeline for developing interim development regulations, the work group recommends that local governments not use SEPA ordinances as final wetlands ordinances.

Reliance solely on SEPA as an implementing ordinance does not provide adequate opportunity for wetlands protection through the comprehensive planning process, does not adequately address cumulative effects of impacts, and does not provide certainty or predictability for the applicant or reviewing agencies. General impacts and mitigation requirements should be identified in a comprehensive plan and critical area ordinances. Reliance on SEPA review leads to project by project regulation, rather than comprehensive planning.

For the reasons stated above, SEPA ordinances are not appropriate as final development regulations dealing with wetlands. However, some work group members believed that some jurisdictions will not be able to accomplish this recommendation and re-write their ordinances due to staff and funding limitations.

Recommendation #19: Local governments should not use State Environmental Policy Act ordinances as final wetlands critical areas ordinances. Planning Work Group

2. State and Federal Role in Local Wetlands Planning

Technical and Financial Assistance:
For local governments to have technical wetlands expertise, they need money and training. Local governments have a wide variety of topics and issues to address and do not have the luxury of focusing full-time on wetlands issues. Very few local governments currently have staff with wetlands expertise. This makes it difficult for them to manage local wetlands regulatory programs effectively. State and federal agency staff should make it a priority to provide this necessary technical assistance to local governments. In addition, identifying specific funding sources will help ensure that local governments receive adequate funding for wetlands planning needs.

Recommendation #20: State and federal agencies should collaborate with local governments to provide technical assistance and to identify and obtain funds to support local wetlands planning. Planning Work Group

State Input Concerning Local Plans:
Throughout the SWIS process, local government representatives have indicated that state agencies often do not provide useful input into local planning processes. Agencies often provide confusing, and occasionally conflicting, advice regarding wetlands protection. This needs to be remedied if the Growth Management Act is to be successful in protecting wetlands.

State agency staff need a better understanding of local planning processes in order to most effectively provide input to local governments. Granted, this is made difficult by the variety of local processes and laws across the state. However, state agencies should make it a higher priority to provide coordinated and timely input into local planning processes.

Recommendation #21: State agencies should make it a higher priority to provide coordinated and timely input into local planning processes. When assistance is appropriate, it should be provided promptly and presented in a clear format. Planning Work Group

3. Economics and Wetlands

The Need for Economics:
Traditionally, wetlands have been managed and regulated with minimal consideration of economics. Quantification of the costs and benefits of wetland functions has not usually been a fundamental part of natural resource management.

Many citizens want economics to play a larger role in wetlands management. Many people believe that more wetlands will be protected if we understand the full costs that are incurred by developing them. Others agree that economics should be considered, but for a different reason: they believe that laws requiring wetlands protection unacceptably impair the economy. Measures to protect wetlands are accused of causing a number of economic problems including company relocations, job losses, inflation of housing prices, and a host of other problems directly related to the regulatory process. This has led to a cry that economics should be considered in balance with the environment.

However, others are concerned that economics will skew the debate in favor of development interests by emphasizing "dollar measurable" values. It can be politically difficult to balance the economic value of a private landowner's interest in wetlands against the public interest in the functions of those wetlands. Also, although some wetlands functions can be quantified relatively easily, others are much harder to measure in terms of dollars. Many significant intangible characteristics of wetlands, such as aesthetic and cultural amenities, are hard to measure and are frequently overlooked in traditional economic analyses and yet are an integral part of the value of the wetland system.

Accurate information concerning the economics of wetland functions and the costs of wetland regulations will allow a more informed discussion. Economic analysis, properly utilized, can and should enhance decision-making by providing more complete and accurate information for all players involved. As such, economics is as likely to support wetlands protection as development.

Law Requires that Economics be Considered
The Corps permit regulations state that all Corps districts must perform a public interest review when making a permit decision. This public interest review acknowledges that society has many competing goals including, "conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people." (33 CFR 320.4(a); emphasis added)

The Next Step
Although it is not always easy, we need to bring economics into wetland management to quantitatively measure and, as appropriate, protect this important resource. There is considerable challenge to both economic methodology and traditional science to provide increased measurement of subtle and intangible factors. This will require education of land managers, private landowners, governments, and society at large. It will also demand that society consider the economics of wetlands in a more holistic way which incorporates both traditional and pioneering economic methods. Economics is more than just consideration of the flow of dollars. It also has a body of methodologies to estimate the value of a natural resource in the future and to encourage effective management and protection of that resource in the present.

Defining the "Value" of Wetlands:
As one considers the economics of wetlands, it becomes necessary to assign values to wetland resources. This enables the comparison of various wetlands and specific wetland attributes using a common denominator. Work group members identified a number of wetland functions that could be assigned values. Once the functions were identified, the group reviewed several approaches to assigning value to those individual functions.

Some wetland functions may be assigned values in conventional, monetary terms. For example, it is possible to determine the costs associated with construction and maintenance of a stormwater retention/detention facility and compare that sum to the costs associated with maintaining a wetland for natural stormwater storage and filtration. Other attributes, particularly the aesthetic and cultural significance of wetlands, cannot be easily measured or quantified using a traditional money-based approach, yet those features need to be considered when one assigns value to wetlands.

Work group members discussed the apparent conflict between the use of the term "value" in conventional economic terms and current scientific terms. Typically, the word "value" applies to something of use or worth to humans. In ecological parlance, the word is commonly used to describe the relative importance of different functional processes, such as primary production or water quality enhancement. As we attempt to assign values to wetlands, both economic and ecological characteristics must be contemplated. For more discussion on the economic "value" of wetlands, please see the separate report of the SWIS Economics Work Group.

Assigning Economic Value to Wetlands:
When we determine the economic value of any given wetland site, we must ask ourselves two questions:

  1. What are the benefits and costs of preserving this site?
  2. What are the benefits and costs of developing this site?
In other words, if a site is developed, what benefits do the landowner/public gain? Likewise, if the site is developed, what are the costs that the landowner/public must pay? To answer these questions, we must compare the values of a site before and after development and ask ourselves, "who's better off (and who's worse off) and by how much?" We must also estimate what the benefits and costs will be over time - not all impacts of developing or protecting wetlands will be experienced in the short-term.

By answering these questions, we can compare the economic value of developing a site against the economic value of protecting it. We must remember that there is a cost and a benefit to every action. For example, while filling a wetland to build a house may impose a cost on the public, it will provide a benefit to the landowner. Every wetlands permit situation can be examined from both sides.

The work group divided the costs and benefits of wetlands into two general categories. These are described below, with an explanation of possible elements of each.

Category #1: Benefits of Developing Wetlands (and Costs of Protecting Them)

  1. Avoidance of wetlands. (Occurs when wetland is developed.) The cost to the landowner to not develop a site containing wetlands. The unrealized profits that development of the site would have provided.

  2. Replacement mitigation. (Occurs when wetland is protected.) The cost of mitigating for wetlands loss caused by development. Includes costs such as mitigation design, construction, and monitoring.

  3. Displaced development. (Occurs when wetland is protected.) If a wetland site is not developed, there will be costs to the landowner and, possibly, to the public. These costs are the difference in profit between building on the original wetland site and having to build elsewhere.

To determine this cost, you must: (a) determine the benefits and costs of the original proposal; (b) determine the benefits and costs of the proposal the landowner must select, given that he/she can't build as originally planned; and (c) compare the two to determine the net difference between them.

Category #2: Benefits of Protecting Wetlands (and Costs of Developing Them)

This category addresses costs of losing wetlands (and the benefits of preserving them). Placing a dollar estimate on these values can be very difficult. The work group agreed that it is possible to place a dollar amount on some of these wetland functions (#1 - #7 below). However, for other functions, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to assign an economic value (#8 - #11).

Costs of the Wetlands Permitting Process:
Regardless of whether a wetland is filled or protected, the permitting process costs money. It costs money for an applicant to apply for a permit to impact a wetland, whether the wetland is ultimately filled or preserved. Often, these "transaction costs" associated with a permit application are greater than they need to be and are not commensurate with the values of the wetland under review. The following is a list of some reasons that the costs of a permit application can be high.

  1. The permit process is often inefficient. There is duplication among the requirements imposed by different agencies and the process can take longer than it should.

  2. The permit process is often unpredictable. Different permit reviewers may reach different decisions, using the same information. Also, given the separate mandates of the various agencies, different agencies may reach different conclusions unless the process is coordinated.

  3. The applicant is often required to provide unnecessary data. Data is often required in stages, when it would be more efficient to require all of it at the beginning of the process. Also, data is sometimes required that agency staff later admits was unnecessary or extraneous.

  4. Property owners occasionally do not apply for permits, because the permit costs can be so high. This can lead to illegal filling of wetlands and to frustration on the part of the general public.

  5. Wetlands "planning" is being conducted on a permit-by-permit basis.

  6. Applicants occasionally do not submit complete information as required by the permit application. This can lengthen the permit process.

There are some additional points to keep in mind, when discussing the costs of the permitting process. Performing an economic analysis on the costs of different permit options can be very costly, itself. It is the hope of work group members that the recommendation in this section, once implemented, will provide some of the groundwork for performing an economic analysis of wetlands, thereby reducing the cost of the process.

Valuation Mechanisms:
Once the values of wetlands have been determined, we must find ways to measure, or quantify, those values. We need a common "unit" that we can apply to all wetlands and development benefits that will enable us to conduct "balancing" of different options. Since goods are defined in economic terms, we need to use techniques for establishing an economic value, whenever possible.

Some people fear putting a dollar value on the intangible functions of wetlands (e.g., cultural or aesthetic values). They are concerned that it is impossible to quantify these values, and that attempting to do so will somehow diminish or misrepresent the true "value" of these functions. However, most functions of wetlands are simply not considered in the economic analysis of projects, because these functions are not quantified economically. If an economic cost for these benefits could be estimated, this could actually increase, rather than decrease the perceived value of these benefits, given that they are currently often ignored and their value will only increase as wetlands habitats become more scarce.

Recommendation #22: A study should be funded to analyze and provide mechanisms for estimating the economic value of preserving and losing wetlands in the State of Washington. It should specify techniques for determining the economic value of each of the following wetlands benefits: flood and stormwater control, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality maintenance, groundwater recharge, prevention of soil erosion, commercial production in wetlands, and recreation. The study should also specify techniques for estimating a monetary value for these wetlands benefits that are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify: cultural and spiritual values, aesthetics, education and research, and endangered species. Economics Work Group

4. Guidance for Local Governments

Overall, it is recommended that local protection programs include: 1) comprehensive land use planning, 2) regulation, 3) non-regulatory actions (including preservation, restoration, acquisition, and education), and 4) program evaluation (as also outlined in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan). For further information on the non-regulatory elements, see the discussion on non-regulatory incentives.

Several SWIS recommendations will directly impact local governments. Some recommendations can be implemented immediately, while others may be long-term. As explained in this report, additional work needs to be done by local, state, tribal, and federal governments before many of the recommendations can be fully implemented. For instance, examples of "watershed planning" need to be developed so that local governments will have models to use as they develop and refine their local wetlands programs.

Listed below is a summary of recommendations that will require action by local government, with suggestions as to which could be implemented immediately and which will require more time.

Near-term:

Long-term:

Continue to the next section of this document

Return to the Table of Contents