PART ONE

Chapter 365-190 WAC

MINIMUM GUIDELINES TO CLASSIFY AGRICULTURE, FOREST, MINERAL LANDS AND CRITICAL AREAS

PART ONE

PURPOSE/AUTHORITY

365-190-010 Authority

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

365-190-020 Purpose

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

PART TWO

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

365-190-030 Definitions

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

PART THREE

GUIDELINES

365-190-040 Process

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

365-190-050 Agricultural lands

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

365-190-060 Forest land resources

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

365-190-070 Mineral resource lands

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

365-190-80 Critical Areas

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

Frequently Flooded Areas

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

Geologically Hazardous Areas

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas

Proposed Changes

Survey Results and Comments

365-190-010

Sets legislative authority only.

Not Surveyed. No Changes Proposed.

365-190-020 Purpose.

Comments Only on Survey

Purpose should spell out where uses are in conflict with current GMA. Also, needs a section on coordination with Partnership for Puget Sound efforts and how coordination will be accomplished.	Survey Comment
none	Survey Comment
Historic preservation	Survey Comment
Explain the "shall" nature of the WACs. The WACs themselves use "should" and "may" sometimes, but it is clear that they must be considered.	Survey Comment
Explain the "shall" nature of the WACs. The WACs themselves use "should" and "may" sometimes, but it is clear that they must be considered.	Survey Comment
Guidelines should not strive to be a "minimum" standard, but a standard that provides for consistent and predictable statewide development and planning goals. Critical areas should be balanced and natural resource lands and other assets of the state. The analysis of the long term importance of all of these lands must be considered as population growth will render all related natural resource lands, critical areas etc extinct. Restate that a primary objective is to prevent incompatible land uses to natural resource areas as well as critical areas. as a guidance document, the purpose section should emphasize balance of uses, be prescriptive in its nature as to how LG's should use them, require a comprehensive overlay of planning elements, transportation elements, housing elements, and the natural resources used and anticipated for future use. Clearly no one planning aspiration should have priority over others	Survey Comment

365-190-030 Definitions.

Comments Only on Survey

Agriculture section and long-term significance should reference regional and national food security and also include land which may be in other uses at present, but should may be used for ag in the future.	Survey Comment
None	Survey Comment
Historic preservation	Survey Comment
Habitats of local importance: after "primary association" add "or area important for biodiversity." Add "prairies" "mature forests" and "nearshore habitats" to the list of habitats of limited availability. Species of local importance: add "vulnerability" and replace "game species" with "species providing economic benefits (e.g., game species, birds popular with birdwatchers")	Survey Comment
Habitats of local importance: after "primary association" add "or area important for biodiversity." Add "prairies" "mature forests" and "nearshore habitats" to the list of habitats of limited availability. Species of local importance: add "vulnerability" and replace "game species" with "species providing economic benefits (e.g., game species, birds popular with birdwatchers")	Survey Comment
Use conflicts are threatening the continued viability of Washington's shellfish farmers. While shellfish farming is a historic, resource based use of the tidelands, GMA does not specifically include productive shellfish growing areas as GMA protected resource lands. Pacific County, in its GMA comprehensive plan, has designated commercially significant shellfish growing areas as GMA agricultural resource lands and protected those areas against conflicting uses. CTED should incorporate this level of protection in its Guidelines for Designating Agricultural Resource Lands. The Definition of agricultural resource lands should therefore be amended to include commercially significant shellfish growing areas.	Survey Comment
Shellfish farming is a historic use of tidelands in Washington, and oysters from Willapa Bay were the first agricultural export from the state in November of 1849. Today Willapa Bay in SW Washington is the largest single producer of oysters in the United States, and there is also a growing number of manila clams farmed here. The shellfish industry is the single largest employer in Pacific County and has provided a stable employment opportunity practically since the industry was formalized with the 1895 Bush and Callow acts that were put in place by our legislature to encourage the development of shellfish farms. Our family farm has been farming shellfish here for 3 generations, and now my children are becoming part of this legacy. With the increasing pressure to develop closer and closer to tidelands where shellfish are grown, it is critical that protections are in place to assure these productive and historic agricultural lands are protected from conflicting uses. Pacific County has taken the proactive step to protect shellfish lands under its GMA policies, and I hope CTED will take the step to protect these lands as GMA Resource Lands. I would like the definition of agricultural resource lands to include commercially significant shellfish growing areas.	Survey Comment
The definition for agricultural land should also include areas used for the production of shellfish. Shellfish farming has traditionally been a significant source of food in the Northwest and population growth and conflicting uses often threaten its viability. GMA should be protecting these sensitive lands from upland degradation by not allowing contamination of the resource. Protection of these areas should be provided against conflicting uses. Please amend the definition of agricultural resource lands to include commercial shellfish growing areas.	Survey Comment
The definition of agricultural resource lands should include existing and potential shellfish growing areas (recreational and commercial). Shellfish farming is a historic resource based use of the tidelands, however GMA does not call these lands out like it does timber, ag and mineral lands for protection. Shoreline development and re-development around the Puget Sound is causing water quality degradation in shellfish growing areas. Also the expanded shoreline development is resulting in use conflicts in areas where commercial shellfish culture has occurred in some cases for over 100 years. Future growth of the shellfish industry is also being inhibited as shorelines are developed and ideal shellfish tidelands get built beside. Homeowners are not put on notice of the adjacent resource tideland and as such complain when shellfish growers attempt to work there. CTED should amend the ag resource lands definition to include shellfish tidelands and provide them with similar protections as they do ag lands.	Survey Comment
Shellfish growing areas in the state of Washington should be included as GMA protected resource lands. I would like to see the definition amended to include shellfish growing areas and potential shellfish growing areas. Washington State recognizes the importance of protecting farmlands from development, thus preserving the farmer’s ability to grow good local food. Shellfish farming is in need of these protections, especially since the most desirable land for development happens to be nearshore. The current efforts to "save Puget Sound" became necessary when poorly controlled nearshore growth contributed to pollution of the waters. Rejuvenation of shellfish beds has been used as a tool to reverse the downward spiral of pollution, most notable in Chesapeake Bay. A great benefit would be afforded the residents of Washington if shellfish growing areas were protected by the GMA.	Survey Comment
Please include tidelands in GMA regulations as protected resource lands. Grays Harbor(GH) county is not a GMA county but will be so in the future. GH has had a productive shellfish industry since the 1930s. An active shellfish industry not only produces valuable agricultural products but protects all marine resources by providing a tripwire warning for unwise land use onshore and a valuable addition to the Shorelines Management Act. "Farming the Edge of the Sea" is a natural extension to land agriculture and is recognized by federal as well as state governments as a growing and important food source.	Survey Comment
I own and operate a shellfish farm in Thurston County; we produce high-quality clams without using chemicals, hormones or feed. In your review of GMA definitions, I think the definition of agricultural resource lands should include productive shellfish growing areas. Washington's shellfish farmers are fighting to stay in business; we are up against downgrades in water quality, new regulatory and permit regimes and use conflicts. The GMA does not currently include shellfish growing areas or protect commercial shellfish farming, a resource-based use of the tidelands with a long history in Washington. The CTED should incorporate protections for shellfish growing areas, as was done in Pacific County where their GMA comprehensive plan designated shellfish growing areas as agricultural resource lands and protected those areas against conflicting uses. I urge the GMA administrative committee to amend the definition of agricultural resource lands to include commercially significant shellfish growing areas.	Survey Comment
I am aware that the Federal Government considers managed aquatic and marine areas for food production as farming - agricultural practices. It is important to ensure that these areas are wisely used to supply the nutritional needs of our nation and the world while protecting and enhancing the environment. Commercial shellfish farming is a major part of this local and global effort. It is important that Washington State be consistent with the Federal mandate and be proactive in establishing and ensuring long-term and wise use of our marine resources for shellfish production.	Survey Comment
Although shellfish was the first agricultural commodity to be exported out of the state of Washington, and the shellfish farming industry has been in existence since before statehood, shellfish growing areas are not protected as GMA protected resource lands. Given the historic nature of the shellfish farming community in the state, this is an egregious oversight, and with use conflicts increasingly impacting the ability of farmers to stay in business, we recommend strongly that CTED incorporate protection of commercially significant, productive shellfish growing areas under the GMA agricultural resource lands.	Survey Comment
GMA does not identify tidelands as being necessary for productive Shellfish farming and anybody that does not like how Shellfish are raised can complain to to officials and Shellfish farmers can end up in court and there is no protection for the Shellfish farmers do to the present WAC'S.	Survey Comment
Use conflicts are threatening the continued viability of Washington's shellfish farmers. While shellfish farming is a historic, resource based use of the tidelands, GMA does not specifically include productive shellfish growing areas as GMA protected resource lands. Pacific County, in its GMA comprehensive plan, has designated commercially significant shellfish growing areas as GMA agricultural resource lands and protected those areas against conflicting uses. CTED should incorporate this level of protection in its Guidelines for Designating Agricultural Resource Lands. The definition of agricultural resource lands should therefore be amended to include commercially significant shellfish growing areas.	Survey Comment
Agricultural resource lands definition should include traditional areas of aquaculture including productive tidelands and nearshore for shellfish and areas of potential future production. These areas should be included in the GMA to gain protection now and from any future conflicting uses.	Survey Comment
(12) Mineral resource lands: should include sand gravel, rock, etc. should be the same as DNR definitions in RCW 78.44. (11) & (14) Long term commercial significance should be amended with regard to natural resource lands to include geologic value and significance. Too many LG's place an economic threshold on a MRL and ignore the construction grade quality, geological value, or placement of resources in proximity to intended markets. and defined based on geologic mapping by the DNR, once identified by DNR designated, priorities of MRL shopuld be based on construction grade quality, viability of use as a construction material sufficent to meet WSDOT and National construction standards	Survey Comment

365-190-040 Process.

Survey Comments Only

Section needed on sustainability, cumulative effects of designation or de-designation on the economy, rural character and other variables related to sustainability. Require the definition and classification to be maintained and not change use even when cities may annex lands into UGAs or cities. In other words make the ag designation go with the science and the function of the land and protect it, even if it is being used for open space or uses other than active farming at present. Reserve for future uses should also be a part of the process. Prediction of population increase needs should include amount of ag land needed to supply food to the number of people in the future.	Survey Comment
Every county does this differently - and often inconsistently with described process. Mineral extraction within long-term forestry zoning would be an outright permitted use - meaning, mining is allowed in forestry zoning but a clearing and grading permit subject to CAO is allowed	Survey Comment
none	Survey Comment
Agricultural lands criteria are confusing, and focused too heavily on alternate uses of the land and current economic return for agricultural activity, rather than the long-term significance of the land to agriculture.	Survey Comment
historic preservation	Survey Comment
Need more emphasis that resource lands and critical areas designation should be done first and guide other land use decisions. Also, that these should be integrated with open space corridor planning required under 36.70A.	Survey Comment
I don't get a good feel in the public participation section that an interactive process can occur. Is there a reason surveys are not included in the listing? Most people understand that if one approach doesn't gather public comments, another tool should be used. But the weakest part of the GMA plans that I review is the documentation of public process. Planning commission meetings and public hearings are not where you will get broad public response; these types of meetings occur near the end of the process. Is there a way to encourage innovative or efficient public process techniques that gets results? Perhaps listing every step of the process in WAC doesn't allow for people thinking outside the box...they go with just what is required. Perhaps some of this content would be more appropriate in the excellent technical assistance materials CTED prepares.	Survey Comment
Presuming shellfish tidelands are added to the ag resource lands definitions as suggested in my response to question #4, then WAC 365-190-040 would need to be modified to include criteria for classifying and designating productive shellfish growing areas. Those areas include all tidelands in the state that can be productively used to cultivate at the very least commercial shellfish. CTED should work with shellfish growers to develop designation criteria. These might include lands that were transferred under the Bush and Callow Acts from the state, specifically for the purpose of commercial shellfish culture. These criteria might also consider water quality, adjacent shoreline use, substrate type, existing use of the tidelands etc.. State or county parks and other significant areas for recreational harvest of shellfish (and perhaps subtidal commercial geoduck beds managed by DNR and WDFW)perhaps should be considered as well.	Survey Comment
The WAC should be amended to include shellfish growing areas. As mentioned above shellfish growing areas provide both historical and current benefits to the public. This has been demonstrated through the recognition of Bush/Callow Act lands also included in GH county. Because both federal and state governments recognize aquaculture as an extension of terrestrial agriculture and promote as well as subsidize this form of activity it is important that criteria be developed to include this in GMA. The criteria should include substrate types, water quality parameters, current uses and a formal note that their may be new and important aquaculture crops not yet farmed on current tidelands but will be available in the future.	Survey Comment
We need to designate productive shellfish growing areas, and develop specific criteria to do so. At a minimum they should include Washington tidelands that are productive for commercial shellfish culture. The CTED should work with the shellfish industry to develop specific designation criteria. Washington State sold, into private ownership, many tidelands for the purpose of cultivating shellfish (under the Bush and/or Callow Acts); these lands should be included. There are many considerations, so I would recommend consulting with the industry to make the process inclusive.	Survey Comment
We recommend that the WAC be revised to include the designation of shellfish growing areas as agricultural resource lands. These growing areas should include those tidelands and bedlands used for commercial farming of shellfish. Included in this designation would be consideration of the classification of tidelands, some of which were designated specifically as areas set aside for the express purpose of farming shellfish early in statehood (Bush and Callow Act tidelands). Other considerations should include water quality, substrate type, adjacent land uses and other issues that would determine the potential viability of the area for commercial cultivation of shellfish.	Survey Comment
The WAC needs to be updated to better protect the Shellfish farmers. These areas include intertidal areas in the state that are used for commercial raising and harvesting Shellfish.	Survey Comment
The WAC should be modified to include criteria for classifying and designating productive shellfish growing areas. Those areas include intertidal areas in the state that can be productively used to cultivate commercial species of shellfish. CTED should work with shellfish growers to adopt specific designation criteria, which would include consideration of whether the tidelands were transferred from the state into private ownership for the purpose of cultivating shellfish (under the Bush and/or callow Acts); water quality parameters; consideration of adjacent development; substrate type; current use of the tidelands; and other considerations relevant to the productivity of the tidelands for shellfish cultivation.	Survey Comment
This WAC must be modified to include productive shellfish growing areas of the state. The lack of any direct reference to the oldest agricultural endeavor in Washington is a glaring oversight to all shellfish farmers. With shellfish farming being the largest employer in some counties any and all protection would seem both essential and appropriate. Inclusion of productive shellfish growing areas in this WAC would seem to be a good start for that protection.	Survey Comment
LG's development of interim regulations should not be inconsistent with prescribed EIS, or SEPA requirements. Too often in order to get a designation, LG's are applying EIS or SEPA "lite" thresholds to the designation process. The suggestion of interim regulations is simply serving to apply a new threshold of environmental analysis which can be inconsistent with other governing environmental analysis. Finite and non renewable resource lands should be given elevated consideration. Mapping element should be required based on geological resource evaluation by the DNR. Maps developed shall be used. Recognition that geology transcends local jurisdictional boundaries should be considered. Planning horizons and designation of Mineral resource lands should be a stated goal of 50 years instead of a 20 year horizon. MRL's are a non renewable and finite resource and 20 years does not meet the current 16 year of transportation projects already on the books. it takes approx 10 years to get a MRL permit. Public participation is important, BUT GMA should also be used by LG's as a required planning element and provide protection from the emotional public discourse associated with mineral or natural resource lands. Designations should also contemplate the compatibility of mineral resource lands on agricultural and forestry lands as in both instances reclamation of MRL:'s can lead to greater productivity on other natural resource lands. DE-designation practices should not be encouraged or allowed unless a property owner requests. Encroachment of natural resource lands should be prevented thru zoning, buffers or perimeters. Non compatible adjacent uses only serve to disrupt a "balance of other land uses". Poor zoning practices impair the use of existing natural resource lands. Prior existence of natural resource lands shall have priority over any future adjacent use, right to exist, access and process natural resources should be preserved.	Survey Comment
It is overly permissive. There is language indicating that the WAC is a "guideline", but that it "shall be considered". What does that mean? If I'm a planning jurisdiction subject to WAC 365-190 do I have to comply with it or not? WAC 365-190-040 states, "People are asked to take the first steps, designation and classification of natural resource lands and critical areas, before the goals, objectives, and implementing policies of the comprehensive plan are finalized." So CTED is telling planning jurisdictions that this should be the first step, but only "asking" them to follow it. The language needs to be less permissive, in my opinion. A more mandated approach benefits the local jurisdictions. Typically, they understand that they need to designate natural resource areas, but politically it is difficult for them. This puts them in a bad situation, which leads to bad results and bad planning.	Survey Comment