D R A F T

3/25/2011 1

PugetSoundPartnership–SettingTargetsforPressureReductions TechnicalMemorandumPressure: LandDevelopmentAuthors: JudithLeckroneLee,PSPStaffLeadDougPeters,WADepartmentofCommerceKenPierce,WADepartmentofFishandWildlife StephenStanley,WADepartmentofEcologyKariStiles,JonesandJonesContributorsandReviewers: NormanAbbott,PSRC

LeonardBauer,WADeptofCommerce JaclynFord,WADeptofAg

JenniferKnauer,JonesandJonesKristaMendelman,USEPAScottRedman,PSPMichaelRylko,USEPANakiStevens,WADNR

Version:March25,2011

1.IntroductionToguiderecoveryeffortsandtoassessprogresstowardrecovery,thePartnershipwilladoptecosystemrecoverytargetsforitsDashboardofecosystemindicatorsandforreductionsinkeyecosystempressuresasakeyelementofthe2011revisionoftheActionAgenda.Thesetargetswilldescribedesiredconditionsfortheyear2020forspecificaspectsofthePugetSoundecosystem.ThePartnership’secosystemrecoverytargetswillbepolicystatementsthatreflectscientificunderstandingsoftheecosystemandtheregion’scommitmentstoandexpectationsforrecovery,oratrajectorytowardrecovery,by2020.Inearly2011,Partnershipstaffconvenedteamstoassessthescientificknowledge,availabledata,assumptions,anduncertaintiesanddeveloptechnicalbackgroundinformationtoguidethePartnership’spolicydiscussionsanddecisionsaboutdesiredfutureconditionsforthePugetSoundecosystem.TheteamconvenedtodevelopthisdocumentwascommissionedtodevelopapackageofinformationonpossibleobjectivesandindicatorsrelatedtothePartnership’sconcernsaboutandinterestsin(1)LandUse/LandCover(oneofthePartnership'sDashboardindicators)and(2)LandDevelopmentpressuresonterrestrialandfreshwaterecosystems.ThePartnershipstaff‐convenedteamswereaskedtobuildfrompriorwork,especiallythatdevelopedin“UsingResultsChainstoDevelopObjectivesandPerformanceMeasuresforthe2008ActionAgenda”(Neumanetal.,2009),thecommentsontheobjectivesandresultschainspresentedinthe2009ResultsChainstechnicalmemorandum,andthePugetSoundScienceUpdate.Othermaterialsthatservedasthebasisfortheinformationpresentedinthisdocumentareintroducedinthemethodsandapproachsectionbelow.

D R A F T

3/25/2011 2

Inaddition,totheworkdescribedinthistechnicalmemorandum,relatedpressuresidentifiedinthe2009StateoftheSoundworkonresidentialandcommercialdevelopmentarecoveredinthecompaniontechnicalmemorandaaddressingcurrenttarget‐settingeffortsrelatedtoRunofffromtheBuiltEnvironment,Wastewater,andNearshoreRestorationandShorelineAlteration.ImportanceofLandCoverandLandDevelopmentLandcoverisanessentialindicatorofecosystemhealthbecauseofitsimportanceforbothterrestrialandaquaticecosystemprocessesandhabitats.Basedonwellestablishedscientificunderstanding,thisindicatorcategorywillaffectmostoftheDashboardindicatorspeciesaswellasmostofthephysicalandchemicalprocessesaffectingbothwaterqualityandwaterquantitythroughoutPugetSound.Inarecent10‐yearperiod,almostfourpercentoftheforestcoverofPugetSound’slowlandswasconvertedtootherlanduses(2009StateoftheSound).By2001,morethansevenpercentofthelandareaofPugetSoundbelow1,000feetelevationwascoveredbyroadways,parkinglots,rooftopsandothertypesofimpervioussurface–anindicatoroftheextenttowhichhumanactivitieshavechangedPuget’sSound’slandscape(2009StateoftheSound)Duetolandconversionfromgrowthanddevelopmentpressures,manyPugetSoundhabitatshavebeenreducedinsize,diminishedinquality,beenfragmentedandtheecosystemprocesses(e.g.,waterquality,flowandretention)thatformandsustainthesehabitatshavebeendegradedanddisrupted.Duringthepast50years,PugetSoundlostatleasttwothirdsofitsremainingoldgrowthforest,morethan90percentofitsnativeprairiesand80percentofitssaltwaterandfreshwatermarshes(PSPTopicForumDiscussionPaper,HabitatandLandUse,2008)Developmentinruralareaspresentsaparticularlyconcerningpressureontheecosystembecauseitisinthoseruralareas(includingbothforestedandagriculturallands)wherehigh‐qualityhabitatandsignificantecologicalprocessesremainpartiallyorlargelyintact.Ruralareaforestcoverandagriculturallandisbeingconvertedtohousingandotherusesin5‐acreandsmallerpatchworkpatterns.Thenetworkofinfrastructure(primarilyroads,butalsootherutilities)constructedtoservesuchdevelopmentfurtherfragmentsthelandscape,andinterruptsormodifiesthedelivery,movementandstorageofwater,sediment,woodydebrisandnutrientsandimpairsfunctionsofwildlifehabitatsforfeeding,breeding,rearing,migrating,fornumerousspecies.Also,thelocationandmannerinwhichdevelopmentoccurswithinGMAdesignatedUrbanGrowthAreasisanimportantdeterminantofPugetSoundecosystemhealth.ManylowlandareasofPugetSoundhavebeensignificantlyalteredbyhumanactivitiesandlandusesyettherearesignificantopportunitiestorestorestructureandfunctionassociatedwithaquatichabitats.WatershedbasedapproachestolocatingwheredevelopmentoccursandhowitoccurswithinUGAsareessentialtominimizingpressurestoecologicalprocesses,habitatstructures,andecosystemfunctions.

2.Methods/ApproachProcessandScope:Aninterdisciplinaryteam(seeTable1)oftechnicalandpolicyexpertsintheareaofgrowthmanagementandlanddevelopment,terrestrialhabitatsandfreshwaterresourceswasconvenedtoassistwiththedevelopmentofaportfolioofpossibleLandUse/LandCoverObjectivesandLandDevelopmentPressure

D R A F T

3/25/2011 3

ReductionObjectives.Thethreeproposedindicatorsrepresenttheregion’scurrentbestavailableknowledgerelatedtothemeasurementandtrackingoflanddevelopmentpressuresandassociatedecosystemconditions.TheTeam’stopicalchargewaslimitedtosettingobjectivesandtargetsforreducingpressuresfromlandconversionduetocommercialandresidentialdevelopment,withafocusonsettingobjectivesthatwoulddirectgrowthawayfromecologicallysensitiveandworkinglandsintheurban/ruralinterfacewherelandsaremostrapidlybeingconverted,i.e.focusingonwheregrowthoccurs,nothowitoccurs.TheTeam’sassignmentwasnottodevelopobjectivesspecificallyrelatedtoshorelineandfloodplainprotection,managementandrestoration.Otherpressurereductionworkgroupsfocusedontheseareas.TheTeam’sprimarygoalwastodevelopinformationforthistechnicalmemorandumthatdiscussesoptionsforcandidateindicatorsandobjectivesrelatedtolandconversionduetocommercialandresidentialdevelopment.Allobjectivesdevelopedweretohavenumerictargetsassociatedwiththemandhaveatargetdateof2020.Thesuiteofproposedindicatorsandobjectivesdiscussedhereisintendedtoprovideaportfolioofoptionsfor2020target‐settingthatreflectvaryingdegreesoffeasibilityandhavevariouspolicyandmanagementimplications.Boththeindicatorsandtheobjectivesareintendedtoslowcurrenttrendsofdegradinglandcoverandareintendedtobecoupledwithadditionalrestoration‐orientedtargets,thattogether,couldleadtotheprotectionandrestorationofthePugetSoundecosystem.Together,landdevelopmentandrestorationtargetscouldbeadaptedtofutureimprovementsinregionalunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweendevelopmentpressuresandecosystemhealth,aswellasimprovementsinregionalunderstandingofwhatisneeded(e.g.extentandconditionofterrestrialecosystems)torestorethehealthofPugetSound.Overthecourseofseveralweeks,theteamparticipatedinsixin‐personandremoteworksessionsandnumerousone‐on‐oneconversationswithtechnicalexperts.StafffromJonesandJoneshelpedstrategizestepsoftheprojectanddevelopmeetingagendas,participatedinallofthemeetingsandassistedindraftingthistechnicalmemo.AGoogleprojectsitewasdevelopedandPartnershipstaffusedthesitetoshareworkingdocumentswiththeTeam.TheGooglesitecontainsalistofteammembers,aprojecttimelinewithmilestones,meetingagendas,workingdocuments,andbackgrounddocuments.FollowingtheMarch23rdcompletionofthetechnicalrationaleforLandUse/LandCoverandLandDevelopmentobjectives,thePartnershipwillsolicitinputontheproposedobjectivesfromabroadinterdisciplinarystakeholdergroups,thePSPEcosystemCoordinationBoardandthePSPSciencePanel.

3.MaterialsandData PugetSoundPartnershipDocumentsThecurrenttarget‐settingworkdescribedherebuildsonpreviousworkcompletedbythePugetSoundPartnershipanditspartners.In2009,theStateoftheSoundincludedresultschainsaddressingLandProtectionandRiverandFloodplainRestoration.Draftobjectivesidentifiedthroughtheseeffortswereusedasastartingpointtodeveloptheproposedobjectivesincludedhere.Additionalworkconsultedincludestheindicatorsrecommendedforterrestrialhabitatsandworkingresourcelandsinthe2009State

D R A F T

3/25/2011 4

oftheSoundStatusandTrends,aswellasthediscussionofterrestrialecologicalchangesassociatedwiththeResidential,CommercialandIndustrialDevelopmentdriverdiscussedinthe2010PugetSoundScience

Table1.LandDevelopmentTarget‐SettingTeamMembersUpdate.Inaddition,the 2008HabitatLandUseTopicForumPaper(http://www.psp.wa.gov/aa_topic_forums.php)wasalsorelieduponforbothbackgroundandpolicydiscussionsinthistechnicalmemorandum.PugetSoundWatershedCharacterizationWaterFlowAssessment,CoastalChangeandAnalysisProgram(CCAP)andtheGrowthManagementActTheworkpresentedherealsoreliessignificantlyonoverlayingCoastalChangeandAnalysisProgram(CCAP)landcoverdataontheWashingtonDepartmentofEcology’scurrentPugetSoundWatershedCharacterizationdataandmapsandwithUrbanGrowthAreasdesignatedbylocaljurisdictionsundertheGrowthManagementAct(GMA).ThePugetSoundWatershedCharacterizationProjectThehealthofaquaticecosystemsisdependentuponintactwatershedprocesses.Ecosystemprocessesdeliver,move,andtransformwater,sediment,wood,nutrients,pathogens,andorganicmatter.Theseprocessesareresponsibleforcreatingandmaintainingthehabitatsthatweseeandforthefunctionsandecosystemservicesthathabitatsprovide(NaimanandBilby1998;Beechie&Bolton1999,Hobbie2000;Benda2004;Simenstadetal.2006;KingCounty2007).Otherimportantecosystemservicesincludefloodstorageandwaterqualityimprovement.Humanactivitiesoftenalterfactorssuchaslandcover,topographyandsoilsthatcontrolprocessesand,inturn,thestructure,functionandvalueofagivenhabitat.Majorimpairmentsor“pressures” or threats toecosystemprocessesincludeforestclearing,lossofagriculturallands,impervioussurfaces,anddraining/dikingandfillingofwetlandsandfloodplains.ResearchinthePacificNorthwesthasdemonstratedthattheclearingofforestwithin“intact”watershedshasasignificanteffectuponthestabilityofstreamchannelsandtheirassociatedecosystems(Booth2000).Thereisevidencethatthelossofforestinrurallandscapeshasasmuchasormoreimpactonstreamstabilitythanincreasesinimpervioussurface.ThissuggeststhatprotectionofintactwatershedsisahighpriorityformaintainingthehealthofPugetSoundwatersheds(Alberti2006).

TeamLeads InterdisciplinaryTeamMembers (InvitedandConsulted)

PSPStafflead: JudithLeckroneLeeTechnicalAssist:KariStiles(Jones&Jones)JenniferKnauer(Jones&Jones)OtherPSPStaff:ScottRedman

PugetSoundRegionalCouncil:NormanAbbott WADept.ofAgriculture:JaclynFordWADept.ofCommerce:LeonardBauer,DougPetersWADept.ofEcology:StephenStanleyWADept.ofFishandWildlife:KenPierceWADept.ofNaturalResources:NakiStevensUSEPA:MichaelRylko,KristaMendelman

D R A F T

3/25/2011 5

ThePugetSoundWatershedCharacterizationProjectcreatedGISlayersandmapsacrossall19ofPugetSoundWaterResourceInventoryAreas(WRIAs)thatcharacterizeandidentifyareasthatarethemostsuitableforprotection,restoration,conservationordevelopmentbasedonboththeimportanceoftheanalysisunitforthesecriticalwatershedprocessesandthecurrentextentoftheimpairmentofthesewaterflowfunctions.EachWRIAisdividedintothreelandscapegroups:coastal,lowlandandmountainous.Eachlandscapegroupisdividedintoindividualwatershedanalysisunits.Colorscalesonamapshowtherelativeimportanceorimpairmentofeachoftheindividualanalysisunitscomparedtoallotheranalysisunitswithintheirlandscapegroup.Impairmentisdeterminedforeachanalysisunitbyevaluatingimpactstotheseprocessesbyassessinglandusedataonimperviouscover,forestloss,thepresenceofdams,impactstowetlandsandfloodplains,developmentintensityandroadandwelldensity.Theimportanceofeachanalysisunitisdeterminedbyevaluatingdataonprecipitation,snowandrainonsnow,thepresenceofwetlands,lakesandfloodplainsandpermeability.Bycombiningdatafromimportanceandimpairmentmodels,individualanalysisunitswithinalandscapegroupcanbecharacterized.Resultsaredisplayedonamap,withcolorgradientstoillustratedifferentcombinationsofimportanceandimpairmentandwhatthosecombinationsmayimplyformanagementactions.(SeeFigure1.)Thoseareaswithrelativelyhighimportanceandrelativelylowimpairmentarecharacterizedasmostimportantforprotection.Areaswithhighimportanceandhighimpairmentshouldbeconsideredforrestoration,andareaswithlowimportanceandhighimpairmentarethemostappropriatelocationsforfurtherdevelopment,sinceadditionallandusechangeswillhavetheleastimpactonwaterflowprocesses.Theresultingmapsanddataareintendedtoinformlocalandregionaldecision‐makersandplannersaboutecologicallysensitiveareasandallowandencouragethemtoconsiderprotectingtheseareasastheyreviseandupdatelocalplans,policies,andordinancesincludingdesignationofurbangrowthareasresourcelands,andcriticalareasandimplementpoliciesandincentivestoencourageusingthebestpracticesforsustainableandlowimpactlanddevelopment.Theyalsocanbeusedtoidentifythepotentialadversechangesinwatershedprocessesresultingfromdifferentpatternsandtypesoflanduseactivities.Theyareintendedtoassistinsettingprioritiesforlocalprotectionandrestorationworkbasedonascientificunderstandingofecosystemprocessesandfunctions.TheproductionanduseofthePugetSoundWatershedCharacterizationdataandmapsareakeyNearTermActioninthePugetSoundPartnership’sActionAgendaasameanstoassistlocalplannerstoidentifythoseareaswithinPugetSoundthatshouldbeprotectedorrestoredandthosethatarebestsuitedfordevelopment.ThePugetSoundPartnershipandtheDepartmentofEcologyareworkingtofurtherdevelopanddistributethisinformationandencouragingandassistingpolicyandresourcemanagersandplannersthroughoutPugetSoundtousethisinformationtoassessandavoidpotentialimpactsoffuturedevelopmentpatternsonwatershedprocesses.Thewatershedcharacterizationprojecthastwophases.Thefirstphase,theassessmentofwaterflowprocesses,hasbeencompletedfortheentirePugetSound.ThewaterflowassessmentproducedinformationandGISmapsthatarecreatedforeachelementofthewaterflowprocess:waterdelivery,storage,recharge,anddischarge.Thesecondphase,thatwillevaluatethewatershedanalysisunitsforimportanceandimpairmentforwaterquality,terrestrialandaquaticwildlifehabitat,isscheduledtobecompletedin2011orearly2012.

D R A F T

3/25/2011 6

(See:PugetSoundWatershedCharacterization:IntroductiontotheWaterFlowAssessmentforthePugetSoundandPugetSoundWatershedCharacterization:DescriptionofMethods,ModelsandAnalysis.)

Figure1:Exampleillustrationofwatershedanalysisunitsandtheircharacterization.CoastalChangeandAnalysisProgramTheCoastalChangeandAnalysisproject(CCAP)isaNOAAprogramthatuses30‐mLandsatremotesensingdatatomapmajorlandcovertypes.Theintentistoprovidenationallyconsistentcoastalland‐coverandchange‐detectionforregionalplanningandmonitoring.Modelingiscurrentlyperformedona5‐yearrecurringschedulewiththenextimagedateoccurringin2011.Modelingisperformedusingtrainingdataderivedfromfieldvisitsandaerialphotography.Amongthe22classesofland‐covermodeledtherearethreeclassesfordevelopment(low,mediumandhigh),anopendevelopedclass,classesforcultivated,pasture/hay,grassland,scrub/shrub,threeforesttypes(evergreen,deciduousandmixed),eighttypesof

D R A F T

3/25/2011 7

wetlands,openwater,snow/ice,tundraandunconsolidatedshore.Theassessmentofchangeinvolvescalculatingthedifferencebetweentwomodeleddatalayersandassigningnewvaluestolocationsthatappeartohavevaluesdifferingbeyondascenedependentthreshold.UrbanGrowthAreas(UGAs)UrbanGrowthAreasareintendedforcompact,higherdensityurbandevelopmenttoenablemorecost‐effectiveurbanservicesandinfrastructure,whilecomprehensiveplanshelptoconserveopenspace,rural,agricultural,andnaturalresourcelandsbyprohibitingurbandevelopmentoutsideoftheUGA.TheGrowthManagementActrequirescountiesandcitieschoosingorrequiredtoplanundertheGMAtoestablishurbangrowthareasasacentralcomponentofthe“bottomup”orlocallycontrolledgrowthmanagementstrategy,withlimitedoversightbyregionalappealboardsandthestateDepartmentofCommerce.ThenecessarycorollarytocontainingurbangrowthwithintheUGAisrestrictingurbandensitiesanddevelopmentontheruralsideoftheboundary.ThisworkrecognizesthatwhilecurrentlydefinedUGAsarenotalwaysappropriatelylocatedtoprotecttheregion’smostvaluableecologicalresources,theyrepresentareaswithsignificantpublicandprivatecapitalinvestmentthatwilllikelypersistovertime.Whiletheindicatorsandobjectivesreferto“existingUGAs,”UGAboundariesmightchangeinthefuture.

3.ResultsMeasuringgrowth,landdevelopmenteffectsofgrowthandmanagementactionsispossibleacrossvariousdimensionsandparametersincludingpopulationgrowthanddensity,imperviouscover,landconversion,landuses,forestcover,impactstospecificresources(e.g.,wetlandsorstreamhydrology),compliancewithvariouslandusemanagementplansandregulationsamongothers.However,mostimportantarethecumulativeeffectsofthesevariouschangesoccurringwithinlocalwatersheds.Thisisthereasonforemphasizinglandcoveranddevelopmenttargetsatthelocalwatershedscale–orwatershedanalyticalunit(WAU)inthecaseoftheproposedindicatorsandtargets.Thepressurereductionworkgroupconsideredallofthesepossibleparametersandsettledonacombinationofthemasthebasisoftheirrecommendedindicatorsandobjectivesinordertogetamorecompletepictureasnosingleoneisadequatetomeasureanddrivethedesiredoutcomes.PopulationgrowthandresidentialandcommercialdevelopmentaregenerallyunavoidableaspartofahealthyeconomyandarenotpersewhatthreatensPugetSoundhealthandrecovery,butratherwhereandhowthegrowthanddevelopmentoccurdoesresultinpressuresonecosystemfunctions.Consequently,thepressurereductionworkgroupfocusedonsettingobjectivesandtargetsthatcouldaffectwheregrowthoccursasconsistentwithA.1.oftheActionAgenda:Focusgrowthawayfromecologicallyimportantandsensitiveareasbyencouragingdensecompactcities,vitalruralcommunities,andprotectedareasthatsupporttheecosystemSoundwide.Thegroupsoughttoidentifyasetofmeasuresthattogethercouldbeusedtoprotectsensitivelandsandecosystemsbothinsideandoutsideofurbangrowthareas(UGAs)andalsotoencouragecompactdevelopmentinmoreecologicallyresilientlocationswithinUGAs.ThelatterbecauseboundariesofUGAsareusuallynotdeterminedbasedonanunderstandinganddesiretoprotectecosystemsandsensitive

D R A F T

3/25/2011 8

areasandthereforetheremaybelandswithintheUGAsthatareecologicallyvaluableandmeritprotectionaswell.

PressureReductionSubtopicAreasandDesiredPressureReductionResultsThepressurereductionindicatorsandobjectivesdiscussedbelowfallintothreetopicareas:SubtopicArea1:Avoidingdevelopmentinecologicallysensitiveareas.DesiredPressureReductionResult:Landconversionduetodevelopmentisdirectedawayfromthemostecologicallyvaluablelands.SubtopicArea2:ProportionofpopulationgrowthoccurringinsideandoutsideofUGAs.DesiredPressureReductionResult:PopulationgrowthwithinthePugetSoundBasinisdirectedtowardUrbanGrowthAreas.Subtopic3:Ratioofpopulationgrowthtolandconversion.DesiredPressureReductionResult:Undevelopedlandisnotconvertedtodevelopedlandinordertoaccommodatepopulationgrowth.Table2.OverviewofLandUse/LandCoverandLandDevelopmentIndicatorsandObjectives

Indicators‐EcosystemCondition RecommendedObjectives(relatedto“verygood”conditions)

ForestedLandsnotinFederalOwnership (LandUse/LandCoverDashboardIndicator)

By2020,averageannualconversionofforestedlandcovertodevelopedlandcoveris0%

Indicators‐PressureReduction RecommendedObjectives(relatedto“verygood”conditions)

1.Percentageoflandareawithin“Protection”and“Restoration”watershedanalysisunitsthatisconvertedtoadevelopedlandcover.

By2020,nomorethan1%oflandareawithin“Protection”watershedanalysisunitsandnomorethan2%in“Restoration”watershedanalysisunitsisconvertedtoadevelopedlandcover.

2.Proportionofbasin‐widepopulationincreaseoccurringwithinUGAs.

By2020,90%ofSound‐widepopulationgrowthoccurswithinUGAs.(80%,77,<77%)

3.RatioofLandConversiontoPopulationGrowth.

By2020,theratiooflandconversiontopopulationgrowthisnotmorethan0.1%.

D R A F T

3/25/2011 9

LandUse/LandCoverDashboardIndicatorandRecommendedObjectiveBelowisabriefsummaryofarelatedland‐use/land‐covertargetcurrentlybeingdevelopedasoneofthePartnership’sDashboardofindicators.FormoreinformationontheLandUse/LandCoverDashboardIndicator,pleaseseethecompanionDashboardIndicatorbriefingdocument.Indicator:ForestedLandCovernotinFederalOwnership

Objective:By2020,averageannualconversionofforestlandcovertodevelopedlandcoveris0%Rangeofpossibleobjectives:

● VeryGood=0%changeinforestlandcover● Good=<0.08%conversion/year● Fair=0.08–0.13%conversion/year● Poor=>0.13%conversion/year

Description:Anindicatorforland‐use/land‐covercouldtakedozensofformsconsideringthewidearrayofecosystemservicesandland‐usesweenjoyasmembersofthePugetSoundecosystem.ThedrivingfactorbehindalmostallecosystempressuresinPugetSoundistheexpansionofhumanuseofnaturalresources;where,howmuchandhowresourcesareusedallcontributetopressuresonPugetSoundecosystems.WhilethepopulationofWashingtonwillcontinuetoincreaseatarapidratefortheforeseeablefuture,theregioncanstillaspiretorestoreandmaintainahealthyBasin‐wideecosystemthroughcarefuldirectionofwhere,how,andhowmuchgrowthhappenswithregardstocriticallyimportantecosystemcomponents,thelargestofwhichisforestedland.

Rationaleforselection:Forestcoverrepresentsoneofthemostimportantland‐covertypesformyriadecosystemfunctionsandisoneoftheeasiestcover‐typestotrackthroughremotesensing.Easeoftrackingmakesforestedlandextentarobustindicatorofecosystemchange.Monitoring:ChangeinforestlandcovernotinfederalownershipwillbemonitoredusingCCAPdataona5‐yearbasis.ProgramorPolicyRelevance:Thefuturedistributionofforestedlandsislargelyinfluencedbylegislationandmarketforces.Strategiesandactionsaddressingthelocation,densityandtypeofdevelopment,aswellaseconomicincentivessupportingecologically‐sensitivedevelopmentwithinandoutsideofUGAswilldirectlyaffectthehealthandextentofforestedlands.FormoreinformationontheLandUse/LandCoverDashboardIndicator,pleaseseethecompanionDashboardIndicatorbriefingdocument.

D R A F T

3/25/2011 10

LandDevelopmentPressureReductionIndicatorsandObjectivesSubtopic1:Avoiddevelopmentinecologicallysensitiveareas.DesiredPressureReductionResult:GrowthisdirectedawayfromthemostecologicallyvaluableportionsofthePugetSoundbasin.Indicator1:Percentageoflandareawithin“Protection”and“Restoration”watershedanalysisunitsthatisconvertedduetodevelopment.Objective1:By2020,nomorethan1%oflandareawithin“Protection”watershedanalysisunitsandnomorethan2%in“Restoration”watershedanalysisunitsisconvertedtoadevelopedlandcover.

RangeofPossibleTargetsfor2020:VeryGood=Nomorethan1%oflandareawithin“Protection”watershedsisconvertedduetodevelopment.Nomorethan2%oflandareawithin“restoration”watershedsisconvertedduedevelopment.Good=TBDFair=TBDPoor=TBD

Description:Thiswouldbeameasureofhowmuchdevelopment(byarea)occurswithinthewatershedunitscharacterizedas“protection”and“restoration”byoverlayinglandcoverchangedatafromtheCoastalChangeAnalysisProgramovertheWatershedCharacterizationmapsandcalculatingthepercentchangeonaSound‐widebasis(notunitbyunit).Themethodfordeterminingchangewillconsistofoverlayingtheboundariesof“protection”and“restoration”polygonsovertheCCAPchangelayerandsummarizingtheamountoflandbeingconvertedfromnon‐Developedlandcoverstooneofthefour“Developed”landcovers.Thepercentageofdevelopmentwithinthe“protection”and“restoration”polygonswillthenbecalculated.Thiswilloccurevery5years.Watershedanalysisunitsthathavebothhighimportanceandalowdegreeofdegradationforanyoftheseprocessesareidentifiedandmappedaspriorityareasfor“protection.”Thosehavinghighimportanceandsomeimpairmentarecharacterizedashighpriorityforrestoration.ThePressureReductionteamrecommendsthatboth“Protection”and“Restoration”analysisbeusedasameasureastheRestorationunits(especiallythoseunitsoutsideoftheUGAsinthelowlandandcoastalgroups)tendtostillbeofrelativelyhighvalue,thoughsomewhatimpaired.Rationaleforselection:Thisindicatorwillsupportbasin‐wideandwatershed‐scaleassessmentoftheamountofdevelopmentinthebasin’smostecologicallyvaluableareasinandoutsideofUGAs.UseofCCAPlandcoverdatacombinedwithwatershedcharacterizationresultsprovidesaframeworkforoverlayingcurrentdatarelatedtolandcoverchange(CCAPdata)onourbestavailableunderstandingofthecurrentandpotentialvalueofindividualwatershedsbasedonthewatershedcharacterizationresults.

D R A F T

3/25/2011 11

Specifically,theindicatorprovidesameasureofthesuccessoflocalgovernmentsinidentifyingandprotectingecologicallysignificantandintactlandswithinandoutsideofUrbanGrowthAreas.Thisindicatoralsoprovidesameasureofwhetherlocalgovernmentsareusingwatershedcharacterizationinformationorotherecologically‐basedinformationtomanagenewdevelopmenttominimizeimpairmenttoecologicallysignificantresources.Evaluation:DataCollectionandAnalysis:Forthisindicator,monitoringofresultswillbeaccomplishedthroughuseoflandcoverdatafromtheCoastalChangeAnalysisProgramandtheresultsoftheassessmentofwaterflowprocessesforthePugetSoundCharacterizationProject.The2011resultsofthePugetSoundWatershedCharacterizationProjectwillprovidethe“baseline”formeasuringfuturechangesinlandcover.ThedataforidentifyinganyfuturechangesinlandcoverwillbeacquiredfromtheCoastalChangeAnalysisProgram(CCAP).CCAPupdateslandcoverdatafromsatellitedigitalimagery(30mresolution)everyfiveyears.Thenextupdateisscheduledfor2011.1992‐2006CCAPdatawillbeusedasabaselinerateofchangeforsettingprovisionaltargetsfor2020.When2011CCAPdataareavailable(expecteddateofavailabilityis2012),landcoverchangeanalysesandwatershedscharacterizationswillbererun,and2020targetsmightberevisitedbasedonthe2006‐2011rateoflandcoverchange.SeeFigure2foranexampleofCCAPdatashowingchangeovertheperiod1992‐2006asitrelatestoecologicallyvaluable“protection”and”restoration”watersheds. ProgramorPolicyRelevance:Thisindicatorwouldprovideameasureoftheeffectivenessoflocaljurisdictionalapproachestodirectinggrowthtomoreecologicallyresilientareas,whilelesseningtheeffectsofdevelopmenttovaluableecologicalareas.Itcanalsobeusedanindicatorastohowmuchoreffectivelylocaljurisdictionsareusingorincorporatingwatershedcharacterizationdataandmethods,orotherecologically‐basedinformation,intotheirlandusedecision‐making,aprioritystrategyfortheActionAgenda.

TheGrowthManagementAct(GMA)isatoolwithwidespreadapplicability,bothgeographicallyandfunctionally,incontrollingtheimpactsofgrowthanddevelopmentwithinPugetSound.GMAmandatesthatlocaljurisdictionscomplete,update,orreviseComprehensivePlans,ShorelineManagementPlans,CriticalAreasOrdinancesandotherdevelopmentregulationsandfunctionalplanstoprotectruralcharacterandtheenvironment.UsingwatershedcharacterizationinformationtoidentifywheretheimportantandintactecologicalresourcesarelocatedprovidestheneededsciencetoencouragelocaljurisdictionstoincorporateandconsiderthelocationandfunctionsofintactandimportantwatershedswhentheyreviseandupdateGMAmandatedplansandprograms.LocaljurisdictionsdonotcurrentlyhaveuniformaccesstowatershedcharacterizationresultstomakeuseofthisinformationtosupportimplementationofWashingtonStateGMAmandatesassociatedwithgrowthanddevelopment.Asmentionedabove,however,thePugetSoundPartnership'sActionAgendahasidentifiedthedevelopmentanduseofwatershedcharacterizationdataandmethodsasakeyneartermActionforthelongtermprotectionofthePugetSoundfromthepressuresofgrowthanddevelopment.Usingthisindicatorcould

D R A F T

3/25/2011 12

encouragetheuseofthesedataandasciencedrivenapproachtolocallanduseplanninganddecision‐making. SincetheproposedmetricisSoundwide,itdoesnotmeanthateveryjurisdictionwouldneedtotrytolimiteveryprotectionandrestorationunittothesetargets.SincethereislesslandareawithintheUGAsrelativetotherestoration/protectionunitsoutsideoftheUGA,soaslongaslessconversionoccursintheruralareas(andthiscouldencouragecooperationbetweencountiesandcitiesintermsoftransferofdevelopmentrights,forexample)moredevelopmentcanoccurintheUGAunitsandstillmeetourtargets.

WithinUrbanGrowthAreas

UrbanGrowthAreasareintendedforhighdensityurbanizationandasmuchgrowthaspossibleshouldbedirectedtotheseareastosupportregionalandlocaleconomies,residentialneedsandbeconcurrentwithinfrastructureavailability.Todate,however,urbangrowthareas(UGAs)havebeenestablishedwithoutbeinginformedbywatershedcharacterizationsorotherregional‐scale,ecologicalmodelingefforts.Consequently,growthischanneledintoUGAswithoutacomprehensiveunderstandingofwherethesemoreintensivelandusesshouldbelocatedtominimizedeleteriouseffectstoimportantecologicalareaswithinandaroundUGA.Anoutcomeisgrowthbeingdirectedtospecificgeographieswithoutalwaysunderstandingthelong‐termimplicationsofthoseplanningchoices.ThisindicatoraddressestheneedtoreducelanddevelopmentpressuresonthoseareaswithinUGAsthatarebothimportanttosupportingcriticalecosystemprocessesandarecurrentlyintactwithminimalimpairment.LocaljurisdictionalaccessanduseofwatershedcharacterizationresultswithinUGAscouldalsoadvancelocalprogramsintendedtopromotesmartgrowthstrategies,lowimpactdevelopment,andlow‐intensitylandusesfortheseimportanturbanecologicalareas,suchasforpassiverecreationandopenspacecorridors.Additionally,futureboundarymodificationstoexistingUGAscouldbealignedwiththeresultsfromwatershedcharacterizations,toensurethatnewlycreatedUGAsoradjustmentstopre‐existingUGAscouldphysicallyandfunctionallysupportincreasedgrowthanddensitieswhileavoidingareasdesignedforprotectionorrestoration.Mostlocalgovernmentshaverelieduponplanningandregulatorymeasurestoprotectcriticalhabitats,wetlands,frequentlyfloodedareas,andcriticalaquiferrechargeareas.However,theyhavenotsystematicallyenactedmeasurestoprotectwatershedprocessesthatsupporttheseaquaticresources.AsaresultmanycompensatorymitigationprojectsandhabitatrestorationprojectswithinUGAsarenotfullysuccessfulinachievingnonetlossinecologicalfunctionandvalue.Thisindicatorwillbegintomeasuretheshiftinregionalandlocalplanningandcouldencouragethatsitespecificprojectsandprogrammaticoutcomesaredefinedwithinaholisticwatershedbasedplanningframework.

OutsideofUrbanGrowthAreasTheGMA,SEPA,andotherenvironmentalprotectionregulationsthatareintendedtoguidegrowthawayfromecologicallyimportantareashaveproveneffectiveatmanaginggrowthoutsideofUGAs,butnotpreventingit.GiventhescaleandscopeofecologicallyimportantruralareaswithinPugetSound,localjurisdictionsandotherentitiestypicallydeployamixoftoolssuchaspropertyacquisition,regulations,andvoluntaryincentive(stewardship,etc)programstogain

D R A F T

3/25/2011 13

protectionforvulnerableecologicalareaslocatedoutsideofdesignatedUGAs.Thisindicatorwillprovideameasureoftheeffectivenessofthecumulativeeffectsoftheseapproachestodirectinggrowthtomoreecologicallyresilientportionsofthebasin,whilelesseningtheeffectsofdevelopmenttoecologicallyimportantareaswithintherurallandscape.Landuseplanningoccursonajurisdictionbyjurisdictionbasis,withsomecoordinationacrosscitiesandcountiesthroughcountywideplanningpoliciesandoccasionallyonamulti‐countyscalethroughbroaderregionalinitiatives.Thenumberofjurisdictionsinvolvedinmakinglanduseanddevelopmentdecisionsthataffectasingleecosystemorwatershedremainsasignificantissue.SincetheproposedobjectiveisaSound‐wideobjective(andnotunit‐by‐unit)thisobjectivecouldencouragelocaljurisdictionstocooperativelymanagelanduseanddevelopmentplansacrossjurisdictions,asinformedbywatershedscaleinformation,suchasthatproducedthroughthewatershedcharacterizations.Forexample,thismeasurecouldcreateincentivesforlocalgovernmentstoworktogether,suchascountiesandcitiestotransferdevelopmentrightsacrossjurisdictionallines.

D R A F T

3/25/2011 14

D R A F T

3/25/2011 15

SubtopicArea2:PopulationgrowthwithinUGAsinthePugetSoundBasinDesiredPressureReductionResult:PopulationgrowthwithinthePugetSoundBasinisdirectedtowardUrbanGrowthAreas.Indicator2:Proportionofbasin‐widepopulationincreasesthatoccurwithinexistingUGAs.Objective2:By2020,90%ofpopulationgrowthoccurswithinexistingUGAs.

Rangeofpossibleobjectives:• VeryGood=90%ofpopulationgrowthoccurswithinUGAs(orsignificantincreasein

relativeamountofgrowthoccurringwithinUGAs)• Good=80%(orslighttomoderateincreaseinrelativeamountofgrowthoccurringwithin

UGAs)• Fair=77%(orminimaltonochangeinrelativeamountofgrowthoccurringwithinUGAs)• Poor=Anydecreasefromthe2000‐2010figureof77%oftheproportionofgrowth

occurringwithinUGAs.

Description:ThisindicatorisintendedtocapturestateandregionalgoalstofocuspopulationgrowthintocurrentUrbanGrowthAreas(UGAs),whichareexistingareasidentifiedfordevelopment,bytrackingtheproportionofincreasedpopulationoccurringwithinUGAs,relativetobasin‐widepopulationgrowth.

Rationaleforselection:Thisindicatordescribestheeffectivenessoflandusepolicies,programsanddevelopmentpracticesinbothdirectingnewdevelopmentactivitieswithinexistingurbanizedareasaswellasreducinglanddevelopmentpressuresonruralandresourcelandsoutsideofurbanizedareas.Thisindicatorusespopulationasasurrogatefordevelopmentactivities,asitisanavailablenumberthatiscomparableacrossthePugetSound.Itislimitedtobeingupdatedonlyevery10years,asitisbasedontheU.S.Census,soitmaynotservewellasanincrementalindicator. Evaluation:Monitoring/DataSources.RecentlyreleasedWashingtonpopulationdata,basedon2010U.S.Censusdata,allowsforacomparisonofpopulationsbetween2000and2010forbothUGAsandruralareas.However,thisdataisonlycompiledevery10years.TheWashingtonOfficeofFinancialManagementconductsdemographicanalysisandpopulationprojectionsbasedonU.S.Censusdata,buthasnottrackedpopulationbyUGA;onlybycountyandcity.ThislimitspotentialdatasourcestoPugetSoundCountiesandotherregionalentities,whichmaytrackpopulationbyUGAs. Theproposedmeasureforpopulationgrowthisonlymonitoredona10‐yeartimeframebythestate.Localcountiesmaytrackthisdata,especiallythosewithinthePSRC(King,Kitsap,Snohomish,andPierce)astheyaresupposedtotrackbuildablelandsona5‐yearbasis.Their2007reporttracked2000‐2005,andiftheydoa2012report(asstatefundingdisappearedforthis)itwouldcover2005‐2010.TheThurstonRegionalPlanningCouncilmayalsodothisforThurstonCounty.OthercountyorregionalCouncilsofGovernmentsmayhavethisdataalso. AsimilarmeasuretothisproposedobjectiveisusedbyCommerceforGMAPreportingwherebytheyreportonthepercentofnewdevelopmentpermitsthatoccurinsideUGAsforfiveofthemostpopulatedPugetSoundcounties,plusClarkCounty.Historically,thisdatahasshown

D R A F T

3/25/2011 16

abouta0.85%averageannualincreaseinthosesixcounties.Whilepermitactivitydoesnotcorrelateexactlytopopulationincrease,itseemssomewhatreasonabletoprojectapproximately1%annualincreaseinthepercentofpopulationgrowthoccurringwithinUGAsthatwouldmeananincreasefrom77%in2010(seeTable3)to87%in2020.Basedonthisanalysis,theteamrecommendsa“VeryGood”targetof90%.

Table3.ChangeandDifferencesinPopulationNumbersandDensityWithinandOutsideUGAsfrom2000‐2010*

UGA nonUGA Basin 2000Population 2,960,897 972,636 3,933,533 2010Population 3,355,229 1,089,441 4,444,670 PopulationDifference 394,332 116,805 511,137 PercentDifference 13% 12% 13%

Percentoftotalbasin‐widegrowth (2000to2010)occurringwithinUGAs

77%

Area(acres),minusfederallands 941,947 4,023,947 4,965,894 2000density(people/acre) 3.14 0.24 0.79 2010density(people/acre) 3.56 0.27 0.90 Densitychange 0.42 0.03 0.10 *PreliminaryAnalysisOnly;ProvidedbyWDFW,March212011

ProgramorPolicyRelevance:ThisindicatorwouldenableanevaluationofprogresstowardstwooftheGMAgoals:“(1)UrbanGrowth:Encouragedevelopmentinurbanareaswhereadequatepublicfacilitiesandservicesexistorcanbeprovidedinanefficientmanner.(2)Reducesprawl:Reducetheinappropriateconversionofundevelopedlandintosprawling,low‐densitydevelopment.”Notalljurisdictionshavethephysicalcapacitytoreceivefutureforecastpopulationgrowthand/orincreaseddensitiesandsometimesthephysicallocationoftheseurbangrowthareaswithinthewatershedcontextdoesnotlenditselftoexpansiongivenproximityofhighecologicalvalueareasproximatetotheUGA.OtherThisobjectiveacknowledgesthatwhilecurrentlydefinedUGAsarenotalwaysappropriatelylocatedtoprotecttheregion’smostvaluableecologicalresources,theyrepresentareaswithsignificantpublicandprivatecapitalinvestmentforcapturinggrowththatwilllikelypersistovertime.Whiletheobjectivestates“existingUGAs,”UGAboundariesmightchangeinthefuture.

D R A F T

3/25/2011 17

Subtopic3:Ratioofpopulationgrowthtolandconversion.DesiredPressureReductionResult:Undevelopedlandisnotconvertedtodevelopedlandinordertoaccommodatepopulationgrowth.Indicator3:RatioofLandConversiontoPopulationGrowth.Objective3:By2020,theratiooflandconversiontopopulationgrowthisnotmorethan0.1%.RangeofPossibleTargetsfor2020:VeryGood=Ratiois0.1%orsmaller.Good=Ratiois0.5%orsmaller.Fair=Ratiois1%orsmaller.Poor=Morethan1%Description:Thisindicatorisintendedtocapturetherelationshipbetweenpopulationgrowthandlanduseconversionsfromundevelopedtodevelopedland.Itisintendedtorevealtheabilityforthepopulationtogrowwithverysmallincreasesinlandconversion.Changesinpopulationrelativetotheportionoflandbeingdevelopedsignalsourabilitytoaccommodatethejobs,housing,shopping,parking,transportation,andotherbuiltusesthatcomewithpopulationgrowthwhiledevelopingaslittlelandaspossibleandindicateshowefficientlyweareusingouravailablelands.

Rationaleforselection:Thisindicatordescribestheeffectivenessoflandusepolicies,programsanddevelopmentpracticesinbothdirectingnewdevelopmentactivitieswithinexistingurbanizedareasaswellasreducinglanddevelopmentpressuresonruralandresourcelandsoutsideofurbanizedareas.Thisindicatorusespopulationasasurrogatefordevelopmentactivities,asitisanavailablenumberthatiscomparableacrossthePugetSound.Itislimitedtobeingupdatedonlyevery10years,asitisbasedontheU.S.Census,soitmaynotservewellasanincrementalindicator.

Theproposed2020targetofaratioof0.1%orsmallerprovidesforasignificantlylessthanequalrelationshipbetweenpopulationgrowthandlandconversion,whichimpliesanincreasingpopulationdensityperacreoflandusedfordevelopmentpurposes.Thisisnecessaryasthereisafiniteamountoflandavailable,andagrowingnumberofpeople.Forreferencepurposes,between1996and2004,KingCounty’surbanlandwasconsumedatonlyhalftherateofpopulationgrowth.AnEPAwebsite(citingotherdatasources),putstheratioofU.S.populationgrowthratetotherateoflanddevelopmentat1%popgrowth:2.3%landdevelopment(1982‐1997).Evaluation:

Datasource/availability:

a. Populationdatafromseveralsourcesarepossible,butaremainlyfromtheU.S.Census.OthersourcescouldincludetheAmericanCommunitySurvey,WashingtonStateOFMprojections,regionalplanningentities,countiesandcities.

b. PercentagelandcoverchangefromCCAPdataandanalyses.AnotherpotentialsourceisNAIPdata,butthatanalysisworkbyWDFWiscurrentlyunfunded.

D R A F T

3/25/2011 18

Caveats:

PopulationdataattheCountylevelfromOFMisproducedonlybyestimates,basedonthelatestU.S.Censusdataandprojectionalgorithms.ItispossiblethattheAmericanCommunitySurveydatacouldhelpprovideimprovedannualdata.

Thereisaneedforabaselinetrend–usingavailablehistoricallandcoverchangedatatoestablishthis.Moreaccuratedatawouldhelprefinetheproposedtarget.

CommerceisproposinganRFPtoobtainlocalpermittingandplanningdataover2‐6yearsaspartofitsNEPgrantaward.

4.DiscussionTheteampreferredtonotidentifyoneindicatorasapriorityformeasuringtheregion’sprogressinreducingpressuresfromlanddevelopmentandfeltthatthedecisionwasbestleftuptothedecision‐makersafterinputfromstakeholders.Tothatend,wehaveprovidedaninitialanalysisofthestrengthsandweaknessesforeachoftheproposedindicators.Initial,becausewearecertainthatduringstakeholderreview,thatotherstrengthsandweaknesseswillbeidentified.Itisveryimportanttorememberthatindicatorsareintendedtoactasjustthat‐indicators‐ofprogress(ornot)towardourecosystemrecoverygoalsandcannotmeasureallthecomplexaspectsandparametersassociatedwithapressure.Muchlikewhenwegotothedoctorforaphysical,thedoctorstartswithtakingapulseorperformingasimplelabtest‐notanMRIorsurgery‐asabroadindicationofthepatient’shealth.Thedoctorknowsthatthepulseandthelabtestcannottellthewholestorybutareimportanttoconsiderasgoodindicatorsofwhethernotadditionaltestsordataareneeded.Likewise,eachoftheproposedindicatorscanonlymeasureoneortwosignsofprogressand,dependingontheirtrajectory,mayindicateaneedtoanalyzeotherdataandinformationtoprovideafullerunderstandingofthepressures.Table4.StrengthsandWeaknessesofProposedLandDevelopmentIndicatorsandObjectives

Indicators‐PressureReduction Strengths Weaknesses

1.Percentageoflandareawithin“Protection”and“Restoration”watershedanalysisunitsthatisconvertedtoadevelopedlandcover.

‐Measures,onabroadscale,theeffectsofdevelopmentonecosystemprocesseslikelytobethemostecologicallyimportantandintact. ‐Measureswheredevelopmentisoccurring.‐Indicateswhetherjurisdictionsmaybeconsideringscience‐basedinfoforlandplanning,aPSPAApriority.‐NextCCAPdataanalysisisin2011

‐Doesnotindicatedevelopmenttrendsinotheranalysisunitsthatcouldalsoincludevaluablelands. ‐Characterizationsarebasedonrelativevaluewithineachlandscapegroup.‐Cannotestablishadefinitivebaselineuntillate2011orearly2012.

D R A F T

3/25/2011 19

Indicators‐PressureReduction Strengths Weaknesses

‐Dataavailableevery5years.‐Sincethetargetissoundwide(ratherthanbyunit)itcouldencouragecross‐jurisdictionalplanning.

2.Proportionofbasin‐widepopulationincreaseoccurringwithinUGAs.

‐MeasureswhetherpopulationgrowthanddensityisbeingdirectedintoUGAs. ‐Canuseproxypermitdatafor4fastestgrowingcountiesevery5yearstotrack.‐AlignswithGMAPreporting.

‐CanonlybedirectlycalculatedforallofPSbasinevery10yearswithCensusdata.

3.RatioofLandConversiontoPopulationGrowth.

‐Ameasureofbothwhereandhowdevelopmentisoccurring.

‐Canonlybedirectlycalculatedforalljurisdictionsevery10years.

CaveatsandCautionsforPolicyMakingLimitationsandAssumptionsoftheWatershedCharacterizationModel

● Itisimportanttorememberthatwatershedcharacterizationisarelativeanalysisofeachof

theanalysisunitswithineachlandscapegroupwithineachWRIA.Consequently,ananalysisunitcharacterizedasa“protection”unitwithinacoastallandscapegroupcouldbeinverydifferentconditionthanananalysisunitcharacterizedfor“protection”inamountainouslandscapegroup.

Figure3–ExampleoflandscapegroupsusedinPScharacterization.Greenrepresentsthemountainousgroup,yellowthelowlandandredcoastal.

● Theproposedindicatorsandobjectivesrelyheavilyontheimportanceandimpairmentofthe

waterflowprocesses(delivery,storage,rechargeanddischarge)andraisethequestionasto

D R A F T

3/25/2011 20

whethertheresultsofthisanalysisareadequatetoconsiderandbeprotectiveofotherecosystemcomponents,particularlyterrestrialandaquatichabitats,aswellasworkingandresourcelands.Whilethemodeldoesnotdirectlyconsiderthebiologicalcomponentsofhabitatitdoesassessthephysicalprocessesthatformandsustainthesehabitats.Thus,itcanbeusedasasurrogateofworkinglands,terrestrialhabitats,andaquatichabitatswhichallrelyonintacttractsofundevelopedlandorthehydrologicfunctionsprovidedbythoselands.

● ProposedObjective#1focusesonminimizingdevelopmentinanywatershedanalysisunitthathasbeencharacterizedasProtectionorRestorationbasedonanyonecomponentofthewaterflowprocess(i.e.,delivery,storage,rechargeordischarge)aswellasbasedonacompositeanalysisofallfouroftheprocesses.Eachofthesecomponentsmayhavedifferentprotectionareasthatmaynotshowupinthecompositeindexmap.Toprovideanexample:amapthatdisplaysthecompositeindexforSnohomishCounty,WRIA7,showsalmosttheentire“lowland”areaineitherrestorationordevelopment.However,amapofjusttherechargeanalysisdisplayslargeareasof“protection”inthelowlandareas.Therechargeareas,inessence,arethelimitingfactorinthecountyandshouldbeprotected.

● Asnotedabove,thePugetSoundWatershedCharacterizationhastwophases.Thesecondphase,currentlyunderway,includeswaterqualityandhabitatanalyses.Thewaterqualityanalysis,however,maynotsignificantlyaffecttheresultsofthecompletedwaterflowassessmentbecausethewaterflowassessmentimpairmentmodelweighsimpervioussurfaceheavilyandimpervioussurfaceisalsoasignificantdriverforthewaterqualityanalysis.Thehabitatmodel,however,mayproducedifferentresultsandmaywanttobeconsideredaswellorinsteadofthewaterflowresults,whencompleted.

OtherConsiderations

● Theprimarymonitoringdataforobjectives1and3istheCCAPdataprovidedevery5‐yearsbyNOAA.Thisproductisderivedfrom30‐msatellitedatawhichmeansthatthesmallestunitformodelingisjustundera¼acre.Operationallythismeansthesmallestdiscerniblefeatureorchangewillrequireahomogenousareaofatleast9pixels(~2acres)tomeetthemodelsaccuracydescription.Forregionalestimatesthisisaperfectlysuitableproductbutwillstillmissmanysmallchanges.Theminimumsizeconstraintalsoprecludeslocatingsmallerchangeswithintheproximitycriteriausuallyrequiredforriparianandshorelinedevelopmentregulations.

● InsomecasesexistingcitiesandUGAsarelocatedinareasrecommendedaseitherProtectionorRestorationareas,withsignificantdevelopmentalreadypresent.

● ImplicationsforMonitoring,DataCollectionandAnalysis

● SummaryofCurrentMonitoringandDataCollectionEffortsthatContributetoThis:○ 30‐msatellitedatafromNOAAfortheCCAP.○ 10yearUSCensuspopulationdata○ BuildablelandspermitdatafromKing,Pierce,Kitsap,Snohomish,ThurstonandClark

County.● SummaryofMonitoringandDataCollectionorAnalysisNeeds‐

○ Ananalysisofhowmuchandwhichtypesoflands,withaspecialconcernforworkinglandsandfloodplains,thatarenotcomprisedinProtectionandRestorationanalysis

D R A F T

3/25/2011 21

unitstodetermineifproposedindicator#1metricmightnotbeadequatelyprotectiveoftheseareas.

○ AnnualpopulationdataforinsideandoutsideoftheUrbanGrowthAreas.○ BuildingpermitdatainsideandoutsideUrbanGrowthAreasforallPugetSound

counties

ReferencesAlberti,M.etal.,Theimpactofurbanpatternsonaquaticecosystems:AnempiricalanalysisinPuget

lowlandsub‐basins,LandscapeUrbanPlanning(2006),doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.08.00110.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.08.001Beechie,T.andS.Bolton.1999.Anapproachtorestoringsalmonidhabitat‐formingprocessesinPacificNorthwestwatersheds.FisheriesHabitat24:6‐15.Beechie,T.J.,G.Pess,E.Beamer,G.Lucchetti,andR.E.Bilby.2003.Chap8:Roleofwatershedassessmentinrecoveryplanningforsalmon.In:RestorationofPugetSoundRivers.Eds:D.R.Montgomery,S.Bolton,D.B.Booth,andL.Wall.UniversityofWashingtonPress.194‐225pp.

Benda,L.,N.L.Poff,D.Miller,T.Dunne,G.Reeves,G.Pess,andM.Pollock.2004.Thenewworkdynamicshypothesis:howchannelnetworksstructureriverinehabitats.Bioscience54:412‐427.Hobbie,J.E.(ed).2000.EstuarineScience:ASyntheticapproachtoResearchandPractice.IslandPress,WashingtonD.C.539p.KingCounty.2007.KingCountyShorelineMasterProgram,AppendixE:TechnicalAppendix(ShorelineInventoryandCharacterization:MethodologyandResults).Availableat:http://www.metrokc.gov/shorelines/shoreline‐master‐program‐plan.aspxLeinberger,Christopher.PresentationatNationalGovernor’sAssociation,IntegratingLandUseandTransportationPlanningSymposium,November17,2010,Seattle,WA Naiman,RobertJ.,andRobertE.Bilby,editors.1998.Riverecologyandmanagement:lessonsfromthePacificcoastalecoregion.Springer‐Verlag,NewYork.NWEnvironmentalForum2011Forumplananddiscussiondraft.March2011.SchoolofForestResources,UWCollegeoftheEnvironmentS.Simenstad,C.,M.Logsdon,K.Fresh,H.Shipman,M.Detheir,L.Newton.2006.ConceptualmodelforassessingrestorationofPugetSoundnearshoreecosystems.PugetSoundNearshorePartnershipReportNo.2006‐03.PublishedbytheWashingtonSeaGrantProgram,UniversityofWashington,Seattle,Washington.Availableathttp://pugetsoundnearshore.org.

D R A F T

3/25/2011 22

Stanley,S.,S.Grigsby,T.Hruby,andP.Olson.2009.PugetSoundWatershedCharacterizationProject:DescriptionofMethods,ModelsandAnalysis.WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology.Publication#.Olympia,WA.Stanton,Tracy;Echavarria,Marta;Hamilton,Katherine;andOtt,Caroline.2010.StateofWatershedPayments:AnEmergingMarketplace.EcosystemMarketplace.Availableonline:http://www.foresttrends.org/documents/files/doc_2438.pdfSustainableSeattle,theB‐SustainableInformationCommons.Indicator:RatioofLandConsumptiontoPopulationGrowthhttp://www.b‐sustainable.org/built‐environment/ratio‐of‐land‐consumption‐to‐population‐growthUSEPA,WatershedAcademy.SmartGrowthandWaterResourceProtection,RateofLandDevelopmentvs.RateofPopulationGrowth,http://water.epa.gov/learn/training/wacademy/02set.cfm