The Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW) released draft guidance that will update the Priority Habitats and Species guidance for riparian ecosystems. We need your help to understand whether this is of concern, because some elements in the guidance may be problematic for some cities. However, guidance documents are not binding to local governments and the guidance language expressly allows for local decisions and flexibility.

This guidance is a manual that local governments and other stakeholders can use for the best available science in policies, plans, and regulations designed to conserve riparian ecosystems and surrounding watersheds to protect fish and wildlife, particularly salmon species. The science in the updated Volume 2 is based on Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science Synthesis and Management Implications.

We have heard from DFW other parties that the scientific review in Volume 1 of this process did not arrive at substantially new science from the last version (1997). Essentially, there are no major changes in terms of the best available science. However, within the management recommendations in this new Volume 2, it appears that they may be making some significantly new recommendations based on that science. In particular, you should review:

• The recommendations around the use of the “Site Potential Tree Height” conceptual model to establish the appropriate scope of the area to be regulated (Riparian Management Zone) (RMZ) and potentially implying recommended appropriate buffer widths for the protection of the riparian zone. For instance, “we recommend moving structures and roads out of the RMZ” (Line 1139);
• The draft report downplays the concerns about the applicability of this approach in an urban setting by saying that concerns about the applicability of this approach in urban areas are “largely unfounded” (Line 1612); and
• The recommendations for urban riparian ecosystems (starting on line 1642) and key conclusions form Volume 1 (starting on line 509).

Some argue that this approach significantly increases the recommended buffer sizes and is counter to the previous approach in the last guidance that referred to a range of appropriate buffers and the characteristics that might lend to their use. This is complicated by the fact that local governments and Ecology have approved Shoreline Management Plans and local governments have adopted Critical Areas Ordinances that were informed and utilized this same basic science, but took a narrower regulatory approach. In some areas of the state, those decisions have been litigated and upheld.

There is concern that they are using “riparian ecosystem” synonymously with “RMZ.” However, there is language that distinguishes the two: “Riparian Management Zone: A delineable area defined in a land use regulation. RMZs are often used to protect riparian ecosystems and can be subdivided (e.g., core/inner/outer RMZ) to provide varying levels of protection” (line 319). However, it also states: “Riparian Management Zones (RMZ), rather than buffers, as the area within which to achieve No Net Loss. The RMZ provides a framework for assessing, planning and managing for the full range of riparian functions” (starting on line 440). Importantly, the guidance states “RMZ protections can be adapted to meet local needs, reflect current conditions and can address multiple goals . . .” (starting on line 442).

The document does clarify in numerous places that this information is for guidance purposes and does not need to be followed.

But, importantly, should we be concerned that this apparently significant change in approach could spawn a new round of challenges to local decision-making or re-open the “buffer wars”?

We would greatly appreciate your input! Please provide feedback to us by July 9 in advance of our comments to the agency. We also encourage you to make independent comments.