HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO Comment - Steve Mader 3612 Lawrence Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
December 31, 2025
Planning Commission and
Greg Ballard, Development Code Administrator
Department of Community Development
JeƯerson County
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Comments on Changes Proposed by DCD StaƯ to Sections 18.22.600-660 (Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas); ZON2025-00012
Dear Planning Commission and Greg Ballard,
1. Please restore the definition of FWHCA in JCC 18.22.610 to include, “FWHCAs are
areas that serve a critical role in sustaining needed habitats and species for the
functional integrity of the ecosystem, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood
that the species will persist over the long term.” The text restoration would be
consistent with the FWHCA definition in WAC 365-190-030(6)(a), and this clarifying text
is critically important to the rationale for determining riparian buƯer widths. It says that
riparian buƯers must serve to protect designated listed species from extinction. It is
insuƯicient justification to set buƯer width merely by whether some buƯer configuration
might have a theoretical eƯect (e.g., shade, microclimate, sediment transport, wood
recruitment, etc.) on some critical area condition. Regulation should consider
whether the eƯect would be important to the persistence of the listed species in
the critical area, whether the eƯect is within the historical range or annual
variation of conditions, whether the eƯect could be transmitted downstream, and
the risk of a negative outcome to ecological receptors.
2. Riparian areas are not critical areas in and of themselves; they must satisfy WAC 365-
190-030 to be critical areas and most riparian areas do not. This is why JCC 18.22.610
must be consistent with WAC 365-190-030(6)(a).
3. WDFW’s BAS guidance on riparian buƯer width (Quinn et al. 2020) is based on the
“FEMAT Curves.” The FEMAT Curves are “generalized conceptual models describing
some riparian ecosystem functions and processes as the distance from a stream
channel increases” and measured by site-potential tree height (FEMAT 1993). The
function-distance relationships are unsurprising because riparian areas are
ecologically transitional by definition. Not only is the scientific basis for the FEMAT
Curves over 30 years old, but they are based on some sketchy data extrapolations. They
were formulated for very conservative federal land management and considered by
many to be “dumb buƯers” whose greatest appeal was simplicity of administration.
Despite their conceptual utility, the FEMAT riparian process relationships have
significant limitations for use in prescribing riparian buƯer widths along streams.
The limitations arise because some or all the FEMAT Curves:
Ignore ecological and site variability;
Are subjectively derived and lack a rigorous data base;
Were extrapolated from non-riparian areas; and
Have not been validated through empirical studies.
Noteworthy is that there is no FEMAT Curve for sediment filtration, which is startling
because WDFW BAS reports that sediment filtration is the most limiting factor for
recommending buƯer width.
4. JeƯerson County may exercise great discretion on regulating Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas (FWHCA) and their riparian buƯers, while adhering to the state
mandate that they be based on “best available science” (BAS) (i.e., WAC 365-195-
900(2)). This is because the functions and values of ecological communities vary by
geography and over time, and because the scientific community lacks consensus on
needed or desired characteristics. For example, WDFW’s most recent best available
scientific synthesis on riparian ecosystems states, “Despite the large quantity of
research and number of literature reviews, no widely accepted recommendations have
emerged on minimum buƯer widths needed to protect water quality. The lack of
agreement amongst scientists is due, in part, to the surprising complexity of the
mechanisms that remove pollutants from surface and subsurface flows in riparian
areas, to the variety of research methods used to study pollutant removal by riparian
buƯers, and to the many diƯerent environmental conditions at research sites” (Quinn et
al. 2020). For example, WDFW found that buƯer width alone only explains 28-37% of
the variance in sediment removal rates (Quinn et al. 2020). Despite the low correlation
of sediment removal rate with buƯer width, the agency bases its buƯer width
recommendations largely on this poor relationship. Contrary to the agency’s buƯer
width recommendations, best available science infers that sediment removal eƯiciency
depends on site-specific conditions such as sediment loading, concentration of flows,
obstruction density, infiltration rates, etc., several of which are controllable by JeƯerson
County during development permitting. Thomas O’Brien/WDFW is on record for opining
that “the recommended RMZ width is SPTH200 because WDFW wants to maintain every
site’s full potential for future habitat restoration, regardless of the site’s current habitat
conditions. SPTH200 is the approximate width of a fully functional riparian ecosystem,
and WDFW wants fully functional riparian ecosystems everywhere” (Summe 2025). This
agency perspective is opinion, not BAS for protecting critical areas. These
documentation limitations suggest that JeƯerson County can formulate rules for
narrower riparian buƯers than WDFW recommendations, based on BAS.
5. Riparian buƯer eƯectiveness is variable and depends on pollutant type, source, and
loading, buƯer condition, etc. BuƯers are most eƯective for managing non-point
sources of pollution, over which JeƯerson County has some control of its sources. The
greatest potential threat to critical area water quality is from point sources of pollution
(e.g., roads, culverts). Point sources do not rely on buƯer width to manage pollution
removal eƯiciency; however, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program (under the federal Clean Water Act) controls water pollution by
regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States (i.e.,
critical areas). This means that JeƯerson County does not need to impose wider
riparian buƯers to filter discharges from point sources.
6. Current Washington forest practice rules are based on BAS. For seasonal non-fish-
bearing streams (Ns), the state requires a stream-adjacent 30-foot-wide Equipment
Limitation Zone. For perennial non-fish streams (Np), the state requires a 50-foot (two-
sided), no-harvest buƯer over 50% of the length (at least 300 feet), with additional
buƯering around sensitive sites. The existing JCC 18.22.630(1) code implements
much more conservative riparian buƯer retention regulations than approved state
forest practices regs.
7. Beginning 2006, Washington natural resources agencies conducted forest practices
and riparian buƯer performance studies to evaluate the adequacy of current forest
practices buƯers. The study evaluated relatively erosion-resistant substrate and more
easily-eroded substrate. They measured temperature, sediment, and other water
quality parameters three years before timber harvest along non-fish-bearing waters that
flow into fish-bearing waters. Then, for twelve years after harvesting entire watershed
basins, the agencies continued to measure the same water quality factors protected by
current Forest Practices Act riparian buƯers. Stream temperatures were measured at
the hottest part of the summer in July and August. The studies found that water
temperature never exceeded 16 degrees Celsiusꟷthe core salmonid summer
threshold temperature established by the Washington Department of
Ecologyꟷfollowing timber harvest (McIntyre et al. 2023). They also found that timber
harvesting may cause a temporary temperature increase of 0.5–1 OC without
exceeding salmon-safe thresholds (WFPA 2025). Forest practices stream buƯers
must satisfy Washington’s Tier II Antidegradation Policy protecting high-quality waters
while allowing responsible development.
8. Ecology seeks to impose a stringent limit of no change in temperature beyond the de
minimis threshold of 0.3 OC in Tier II waters. However, the Tier II Antidegradation
Policy allows for measurable changes if necessary and in the overriding public
interest (WFPA 2025). The disagreement arises from Ecology’s interpretation of the
Antidegradation Policy, treating any temperature change greater than 0.3 OC as
unacceptable. Consequently, numerous landowners and industry groups are legally
challenging the justification for the amended forest practices buƯers over Ecology’s
interpretation of Tier II antidegradation water quality standards (Watts 2025). They claim
that the Tier II antidegradation rule is misinterpreted, that 0.3 OC measurable change is
not an absolute limit but a trigger for further review, that Ecology’s position is not
consistent with water quality rules, that Ecology’s approach does not align with the
adaptive management principles, and that treating the 0.3 OC measurable change
standard as a limit is contrary to federal biological opinions under the ESA.
9. Concern about whether state forest practices comply with the Antidegradation Policy
has led to the following Forest Practices rule amendments, eƯective August 2026
(Franquemont 2025): (1) no change in riparian buƯer protection for Type Ns waters; (2)
for watersheds >30 acres, landowners must leave a two-sided, 75-foot, no-harvest
buƯer along the entire stream reach of Type Np waters; and (3) in all other scenarios,
landowners must first leave a two-sided, 75-foot, no-harvest buƯer for the first 600 feet
upstream from a Type S or F water, and then evaluate further buƯer prescriptions based
on stream width and landowner management strategies. For each Type Np stream >3
feet wide, the landowner must identify either a partial management strategy or a no-cut
strategy. The partial management strategy requires a 75-foot riparian zone, including a
50-foot no-harvest buƯer and a 25-foot managed zone where up to 50% of trees may be
harvested. The no-cut strategy requires a 65-foot no-harvest buƯer along the stream
reach. For all streams <3 feet wide, landowners are required to leave a 50-foot,
continuous no-harvest buƯer along the remainder of the stream reach. There are some
site-specific considerations that may aƯect the amended buƯer width and length but in
all cases JeƯerson County’s proposed riparian buƯers for Type N streams exceed
even the state’s more conservative, amended forest practices riparian buƯers.
10. Widening of regulated riparian buƯers would not be de minimis in terms of the
additional regulated land area, harvestable timber volume, and timber value, especially
for non-fish streams which have high stream mileage in dissected watersheds (NRSIG
2025). NRSIG (2025) estimated the proposed riparian buƯer rule change will result in a
decrease of 4.1 billion board feet of harvestable timber across all private forestland in
western Washington. This represents a 5.1% reduction in on-base standing inventory. At
current prices, this lost inventory is valued at $1.8 billion. In JeƯerson County, the
amended forest practices riparian buƯers would reduce harvestable timber
volume by 123,932 million board feet (4.1%) and reduce harvestable timber value
by $55,172,462. (3.8%) (NRSIG 2025). Additional negative consequences of wider
riparian buƯers include:
Additional loss of acres due to increased operational challenges imposed by the
geometry of wider buƯers in harvest units;
Loss of value in carbon markets because regulatory set asides are not eligible to
participate;
Additional road density anticipated to work around widened buƯers; and
Downstream industry and economic losses from decreased timber supply.
11. In conclusion, I recommend that JeƯerson County withdraw their proposal to
increase the FWHCA buƯer width for non-fish bearing streams from 50 feet and 75
feet to 100 feet no matter the grade. BuƯers under this proposal would be more
conservative than either the current or proposed amended riparian buƯers of
Washington forest practices rules, which are based on BAS and more recently
investigated than the WDFW riparian buƯer recommendations (McIntyre et al.
2023). The riparian buƯer recommendations of WDFW are more aspirational than
founded in known scientific principles, and do not address their importance to the
persistence of the listed species in the critical area. JeƯerson County’s FWHCAs
would be adequately served by adopting 50- or 75-foot-wide riparian buƯers for
non-fish streams during development permitting (even with provisions for buƯer
averaging and buƯer reductions) and these would be far less likely to impose
undue hardship to landowners. I do not understand the JCC 18.22.630(1) justification
for requiring a wider riparian buƯer for streams with steeper gradients (i.e., >20%). (This
seems to be the reverse of standard practice.) I can see a rationale for applying 50-foot
riparian buƯers for all non-fish streams but can also understand how a 75-foot riparian
buƯer might be desired for additional species risk aversion along, say, the lowest 600
feet above a Type F or S stream.
Literature Cited
FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest Ecosystem
Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. U.S. Government Printing
OƯice, Washington, DC. Number 1993-793-071.
Franquemont, Maggie. 2025. Western Washington Type Np BuƯer Rulemaking.
[Memorandum] Forest Practices Division, Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.
October 20, 2025. Chrome-extension:
//efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://dnr.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-
11/bc_fpb_typenp_rm_20251112.pdf.
McIntyre, A., M. Hayes, R. Ojala-Balbour, T. Quinn, B. Ehinger, S. Estrella, W. Bretherton, S.
Nelson, D. Schuett-Hames, and G. Stuart. 2023. Type N Experimental Treatment Studies.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of
Ecology, and CMER StaƯꟷNorthwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA.
NRSIG. 2025. Quantifying Washington's Forest Practices BuƯers. Natural Resource Spatial
Informatics Group, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA. https://www.nrsig.org/projects/washington-forest-practice-
buƯers.
Quinn, T., G.F. Wilhere, and K.L. Krueger (Tech. Eds.). 2020. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1:
Science Synthesis and Management Implications. Habitat Program, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Summe, Amy. 2025. WDFW Best Available Science – Site Potential Tree Height. Shannon &
Wilson, Seattle, WA. PROJ. #113026-002. May 13, 2025.
Watts, Andrea. 2025. Litigation filed in response to expanding buƯers on non-fish streams
in Washington state. The Chronicle. December 8, 2025.
WFPA. 2025. Science Shows Forest BuƯer Rules Are Working. [BLOG] Washington Forest
Protection Association, Olympia, WA. May 14, 2025. https://www.wfpa.org/news-
resources/blog/science-shows-forest-buƯer-rules-are-working.
Sincerely,
Steve Mader, PhD, Certified Forester, Certified Senior Ecologist