FILED 


SEPTEMBER 23,2014 


In the Office ofthe Clerk of Court 


W A State Court of Appeals, Division III 


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 


DIVISION THREE 


FERRY COUNTY, ) 

) No. 31331-0-III 

Respondent, ) 

) 

V. ) 

) 

GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

BOARD; ENVIRONMENTAL AND ) 

LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICE; ) 

CONCERNED FRIENDS OF FERRY ) 

COUNTY; DAVID L. ROBINSON; ) 

FUTUREWISE; SCOTT L. SIMMONS; ) 

RIPARIAN OWNERS OF FERRY ) 

COUNTY and FERRY COUNTY ) 

CATTLEMAN'S ASSOCIATION, INC., ) 

) 

Appellants. ) 

FEARING, J. - We review for the second time the issue ofwhether, under the 

Growth Management Act (GMA), Ferry County included best available science (BAS) 

when failing to identify any important local habitats and species as part ofits critical 

areas ordinance. We also ask whether any departure from best available science by Ferry 

County was reasonably justified. 
No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

In December 2011, the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) found 

Ferry County noncompliant again with the GMA, while ruling that the county enacted a 

critical areas ordinance that, without reasonable justification, departed from best available 

science. Ferry County appealed the GMHB's decision to the superior court, arguing it 

included best available science in its decision not to designate any species or habitats of 

local importance, and, if and when it departed from BAS, it did so through a reasoned 

legislative process. The superior court agreed and reversed the GMHB. Futurewise and 

Concerned Friends of Ferry County, parties to the GMHB hearing, appeal the superior 

court decision to this appeals court. 

This reviewing court sits in the same position as the superior court and, under the 

GMA, must bestow limited deference to the GMHB's findings. We hold that the GMHB 

did not abuse its discretion when ruling Ferry County noncompliant with the GMA. 

Therefore, we reverse the superior court and affirm the decision of the GMHB. 

FACTS 

Ferry County lies in northeastern Washington, bordered on the west by Okanogan 

County, the east by Stevens County, the south by Lincoln County, and the north by 

British Columbia. The county was created in 1899 from the western end of Stevens 

County and is named for Washington's last territorial and first state governor, Elisha P. 

Ferry. 

2 

No. 31331-0-II1 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

As of the 2010 census, Ferry County's population was 7,551. 16.7 percent of the 

county citizens are Native American. The city of Republic, the county's only 

incorporated community, serves as county seat. The city's population is 1,073. The 

county comprises 2,257 square miles. Ferry County is the fourth smallest in population 

of Washington's 39 counties but ranks eighth amongst counties in territory. The county's 

population density is 3.43 persons per square mile. Only Garfield County, with 3.19 

persons per square mile, has a lower population density. By contrast, King County 

contains 953.3 persons per square mile. 

The rugged Kettle River Range covers most of Ferry County and runs from the 

Canadian Border to the Columbia River, the county's southern edge. Lake Roosevelt, the 

reservoir created in 1941 by the impoundment of the Columbia River by the Grand 

Coulee Dam, sits mostly in Ferry County. The Okanogan Highland extends north to 

south along the western edge of the county. Ferry County boasts the tallest year-round 

travelable pass in the state-Sherman Pass at 5,575 feet. The south half of Ferry County 

lies within the boundaries of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Nation (Colville 

Tribes) and the north half is Jargely occupied by the Colville National Forest, leaving 

only 18 percent ofthe county's land as taxable. 

Ferry County's principal industries are logging and mining, although tourism and 

recreation are increasing in economic importance. Republic sustains the last operational 

goldmine in the state. The median income for a household in Ferry County is $36,921. 

3 

No. 31331-0-111 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Only Okanogan County, with a median income of$35,161, has a lower income rate. 

Twenty and one-half percent of the Ferry County population lives below the poverty line. 

We outline some of the provisions of the GMA so that the underlying facts may be 

better understood. The GMA requires counties to compose plans to responsibly manage 

their growth and to enact regulations to effectuate those plans. As part of those plans and 

regulations, local governments by ordinance must designate and protect the habitat of 

endangered, threatened, and sensitive species (ETS) of fish and wildlife and species of 

local importance. RCW 36.70A.020(9), (10); RCW 36.70A.060(2); RCW 

36.70A.l70(1 )(d); WAC 365-190-130(2). When designating and protecting these 

environmentally critical areas, a local government entity must "include the best available 

science." RCW 36.70A.172. The meaning of this statutory clause is the subject of this 

appeaL 

The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (DFW) aids local government 

entities in identifYing critical habitats for priority species. The DFW develops lists, 

categorized by region, ofpriority fish and wildlife species requiring protective measures 

and management guidelines. Priority species include species designated as endangered, 

threatened, or sensitive (state listed species); species that will be reviewed by DFW for 

possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive (state candidate species); species 

or groups of animals susceptible to significant population declines within a specific area 

or statewide by virtue of their inclination to aggregate (vulnerable aggregations); and 

4 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

species of recreational, commercial, and/or tribal importance that are vulnerable. The 

DFW regional lists are called PHS lists, short for priority habitat and species lists, and are 

the primary means used by DFW to provide fish, wildlife, and habitat information to 

local governments, state and federal agencies, landowners, consultants, and tribes for 

land use planning purposes. DFW produces and distributes over 4,000 copies of the PHS 

lists annually. DFW's listings include maps of known locations of priority habitats and 

species. The DFW complies its PHS data through field observations, scientific survey 

mapping projects, and geographic information system technology. The DFW data is 

"extensive[ly] peer-review[ed]." Administrative Record (AR) at 658,690. A county 

should consult current information on priority habitats and species identified by DFW. 

WAC 365-190-130(4)(a). 

In 1993, pursuant to the GMA, Ferry County adopted its first interim critical areas 

ordinance, which read, in relevant part, '''The Washington Department of Wildlife 

Priority Habitats and Species quad overlay maps will be used to identify [areas with 

which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association].'" Ferry 

County v. Concerned Friends o/Ferry County (CFFC), 155 Wn.2d 824, 828, 123 P.3d 

102 (2005). In 1997, Ferry County adopted its first amendments to the ordinance. 

The legislature created a GMHB to review a county's compliance with the GMA. 

Under the GMA, a party appearing at a county's GMA proceedings may file a petition 

with the GMHB to obtain a ruling that the county failed to comply with the law. On 

5 

I 

j 
No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

August 29, 1997, Concerned Friends ofFerry County (CFFC), in GMHB Case No. 97-1­

0019, petitioned the GMHB for review of Ferry County's critical areas ordinance and 

amendments. In an order dated July 31, 1998, the GMHB found that Ferry County failed 

to include best available science when evaluating critical areas and thus the county was 

noncompliant with RCW 36.70A.172. Under the GMA, the Washington governor holds 

power to fine a county in violation of the GMA, but typically the only remedy for 

noncompliance is a GMHB order directing the county to amend its ordinances and plans 

to become compliant by a deadline date. The GMHB imposed the latter remedy with its 

July 31, 1998, order. 

On December 7, 1998, Ferry County adopted more amendments to its 

comprehensive plan and critical areas ordinance. The 1998 version listed four ETS 

species in its designation of critical areas: 

Bald Eagle 


Ferruginous Hawk 


Lynx 


Peregrine Falcon 


In response, Kevin Robinette, a DFW habitat biologist, sent a December 16, 1998 

letter to Ferry County and others. Robinette wrote that Ferry County's amendments 

remained weak in several areas. He opined that the county's list of four ETS species was 

incomplete and omitted at least the bull trout. Based on the PHS list, DFW, through 

Robinette, recommended that Ferry County list twelve species, in its critical areas 

6 

No. 31331-0-II1 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

ordinance, as ETS: 

American White Pelican 


Bald Eagle 


Bull Trout 


Ferruginous Hawk 


Gray Wolf 


Grizzly Bear 


Lynx 


Peregrine Falcon 


Pygmy Rabbit 


Sandhill Crane 


. Upland Sandpiper 


Woodland Caribou 


The GMHB conducted a hearing to determine if Ferry County had complied with 

the GMA and its July 31, 1998, order. During the hearing, Ferry County agreed it 

rejected DFW's recommendations. The county contended: 

"[O]ur scientist states that [the peregrine falcon] is not in the county 

and doesn't have a primary association meaning it doesn't have nesting 

habitat in the county. So then we say we have to balance that with what the 

petitioner has given us. They haven't given us anything to let us think that 

the Peregrine Falcon is in the county. All that Mr. Robinette states is that 

the Peregrine Falcon is among a whole slew of species that are in Region 1 

and Ferry County is in Region 1. End of story. That is not what the law 

states. We have our local discretion." 

155 Wn.2d at 828-29 n.3. 

On September 30, 1999, after the compliance hearing, the GMHB issued another 

noncompliance order. The GMHB found that the record again provided no evidence that 

Ferry County considered BAS in designating fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas 

and identification of priority habitats and species. According to the GMHB, the county 

7 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

provided no rationale for excluding species designated by DFW except vague references 

to constitutional authority and a local legislative authority's discretion. 

In response to the GMHB's September 1999 order, Ferry County obtained two 

letters from its scientist, Dr. Donald McKnight. Dr. McKnight is a retired wildlife 

biologist with 30 years of experience with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. His 

last position with Alaska was Chief Wildlife Planner. He holds a Ph.D in Wildlife 

Ecology from Utah State University. 

Ferry County asked Dr. Donald McKnight to opine regarding the current status 

and distribution in Ferry County of bird and mammal species listed by the DFW, with 

special attention to the potential adverse effects of development in the county upon these 

animals and their habitats. In two 1999 letters, Dr. McKnight concluded that the 

woodland caribou, grizzly bear, timber wolves, pygmy rabbit, ferruginous hawk, 

peregrine falcon, sandhill crane, upland sandpiper, and the American white pelican did 

not require consideration as ETS species in Ferry County. In making his conclusions, 

McKnight consulted a book on bird breeding locations published in 1997 and "'various 

other field guides and wildlife texts.'" 155 Wn.2d at 829. McKnight also spoke to Dana 

Base, a DFW wildlife biologist for Ferry County, regarding distribution of pygmy 

rabbits. McKnight did not cite or discuss Base's research or scientific methods. 

McKnight did not travel to Ferry County. 

Ferry County again amended its ordinance on February 28, 2000. The February 

8 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

28,2000 version ofthe ordinance listed only two ETS species, the bald eagle and the 

lynx. Instead of adding species, the new ordinance removed two species, the ferruginous 

hawk and peregrine falcon, which the county had included in its December 1998 plan. 

Ferry County decided to list only the bald eagle and the lynx based on the 

recommendations contained in the two letters from Dr. Donald McKnight. The county's 

new list was contrary to evidence that both the bull trout and peregrine falcon were 

present in Ferry County. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service manages a bull 

trout recovery area in Ferry County and the Colville Tribes manages peregrine falcons as 

part of its game bird populations. 

At a March 27,2000, compliance hearing before the GMHB, counsel for Ferry 

County remarked, '''Now, there is one species that is endangered, threatened or sensitive 

that was not adopted by the county at this time. I can't concede that it's in the county but 

we are looking at it and it's the bull trout. '" 155 Wn.2d at 829 nA. 

In another order of noncompliance issued on May 23, 2000, the GMHB observed 

that Ferry County could choose to reject the DFW recommendation, as long as that 

decision is based on a sound, reasoned process which includes BAS. However, the 

GMHB concluded that Ferry County's species listing was not based on BAS: 

"The County has consulted with a credentialed biologist, but the 

process he undertook to develop his recommendations is inadequate. There 

is no evidence in the record that that [sic] the consultant coordinated his 

recommendation with any other scientists with expertise in Ferry County, 

such as the Colville [T]ribe, U.S. Forest Service, or the DFW. There is no 

9 

j 

, 


I 
No. 31331-0-II1 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

I 

1 evidence that anyon-site field observations were conducted. With specific 

reference to the Peregrine Falcon, his recommendation seems to conflict 

with activities ofthe Colville Tribe. Regarding Bull Trout, a sensitive 

species documented to exist in Ferry County, he makes no mention at all. I The [GMHB] determines the County has not provided a scientific 

I foundation, evidence of analysis, or a reasoned process to justify their I listing, while rejecting the recommendations of endangered, threatened and I sensitive species and wildlife habitat conservation areas provided by DFW. 

l 

1 Such action was a mistake and is clearly erroneous. 

.... Ferry County is not in compliance with RCW 36.70A.l72 

regarding protection of wildlife habitat." 

155 Wn.2d at 830 (emphasis added). The GMHB directed the county to designate fish 

and wildlife habitat and species utilizing BAS within 120 days. 

Ferry County sought judicial review of the GMHB's May 2000 decision. The 

county argued that the decision was not supported by sufficient evidence. The superior 

court affirmed the GMHB's noncompliance order. In doing so, the trial judge reasoned: 

"The best available science means more than simply submitting the 

opinion of some person to a decision maker, in this instance the [GMHB] of 

County Commissioners .... Under no circumstances can it be argued here 

that the County has submitted any information that would rise to the level 

of best available science. 

And the process that was presented to the [GMHB] here is simply a 

two-page summary letter, two letters by a person identified as a wildlife 

biologist which justified the County's decision to move away from the 

science they had previously adopted in their interim critical area ordinances 

and in the first go rounds of the comprehensive plan, and the basis for that 

change was in no way explained by the conclusory statements of the 

biologist that was hired by the County. 

I understand ... the problems of small counties and small towns in 

meeting this requirement of process. There is no[t] $50,000 that can be 

allocated to prepare a study. But that doesn't mean that the County is 

10 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

without any responsibility at all to show not only to the Growth 

Management Hearings [GMHB] but to its citizens that it is complying with 

the law in considering best available science." 

155 Wn.2d at 831. 

Ferry County appealed the superior court ruling to the Court of Appeals. The 

Court of Appeals also affirmed the GMHB, holding that substantial evidence supported 

the GMHB's finding that Ferry County erred in not basing its species listing on BAS. 

Ferry County v. Concerned Friends ofFerry County, 121 Wn. App. 850, 857, 90 P.3d 

698 (2004). The state Supreme Court granted review and also affirmed the GMHB. 

CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 836-37. During argument before the Supreme Court, Ferry 

County's counsel conceded that the county was incorrect for failing to designate the bull 

trout as an endangered, threatened or sensitive species. CFFC, 155 Wn.2d 824 at 829 

n.4. 

The CFFC court noted that neither the GMHB nor Washington courts had adopted 

any definition for the "best available science" under RCW 36.70A.172, but instead had 

employed various factors when reviewing whether a county complied with the GMA. 

One reason for rejecting an unbending definition was to afford counties discretion when 

reviewing and applying BAS. CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 834. At the least, however, a local 

government must "'analyze the scientific evidence and other factors in a reasoned 

process.'" CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 835 (citation omitted). A county should produce valid 

scientific information and consider competing scientific information and other factors 

II 

I 

I 

I 

i 

! 

I 

No. 31331-0-111 


Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 


1 

I through analysis constituting a reasoned process. 155 Wn.2d at 835. Ferry County need 

t 

not develop the scientific information through its own means, but "[b ]ecause it chose to I disagree with or ignore scientific recommendations and resources provided by the state 

i 

I 

1 agencies and the Colville Tribes, which it could do, the county necessarily had to 

unilaterally develop and obtain valid scientific information." 155 Wn.2d at 836. BAS 

does not require the use of a particular methodology, but at a minimum BAS requires the 

1 

j use of a scientific methodology. 155 Wn.2d at 837. The steps taken by Ferry County in 

I analyzing the information did not constitute a reasoned process. The record showed no 

evaluation of the science produced by Dr. McKnight, nor any comparing of the science 1 

] provided by Dr. McKnight to any other resources, such as science available from state or 

federal agencies or the Colville Tribe. A "'[c]ounty cannot choose its own science over 

all other science and cannot use outdated science to support its choice.'" 155 Wn.2d 837­

38. 


i The Supreme Court, in CFFC, 155 Wn.2d 824, even refused to accept Dr. 


McKnight's letter as constituting science because McKnight used no scientific methods 
 1 

I in gaining the information and did not discuss the methods used by the sources he cited. I 

McKnight engaged in no site observations. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that 

j substantial evidence supported the GMHB's decision that Ferry County failed to include 

1 

1 BAS in its 2000 designation of critical areas. CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 838-39. 

1 

I 12 
No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

After the 2005 Supreme Court decision, the legislature provided rulemaking 

authority to the Department of Commerce. Pursuant to the legislature's direction, the 

Department of Commerce promulgated criteria for determining which information is 

BAS. WAC 365-195-900-905. 

Since the 2005 Supreme Court decision, Ferry County has amended its 

comprehensive plan and critical area ordinance many times. On May 18, 2006, 

Futurewise filed a petition for review in GMHB Case No. 06-1-0003. Futurewise, like 

Concerned Friends of Ferry County before it, alleged Ferry County failed to comply with 

the GMA relating to designating critical areas and protecting fish and wildlife habitat 

conservation areas. On October 6, 2006, the GMHB, in Futurewise's challenge, issued 

an order finding Ferry County in noncompliance. The GMHB has since found Ferry 

County noncompliant in one or both of the proceedings on June 9, 2008, February 13, 

2009, March 17,2009, February 23, 2010, and March 3, 2010. Each time, the GMHB 

found the County failed to comply with the GMA because it refused to include BAS in 

designating and protecting critical areas, in particular, fish and wildlife critical habitat 

areas. 

In 2010, DFW provided Ferry County an updated list of 31 priority species with 

federal or state listing status known to inhabit the county. DFW encouraged the county to 

review the list when amending its critical areas ordinance. The species are: 

Bald Eagle 

13 

No. 31331-0-II1 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Black-Backed Woodpecker 


Bull Trout 


California Floater 


Columbia Spotted Frog 


Common Loon 


Fisher 


Flammulated Owl 


Golden Eagle 


Gray Wolf 


Grizzly Bear 


Ferruginous Hawk 


Juniper Hairstreak 


Lewis Woodpecker 


Loggerhead Shrike 


Lynx 


Merlin 


Merriam's Shrew 


Northern Goshawk 


Pileated Woodpecker 


Peregrine Falcon 


Preble's Shrew 


Shepard's Parnassian 


Silver-Bordered Fritillary 


Spotted Frog 


Townsend's Big-Eared Bat 


Vaux's Swift 


Western Grebe 


Western Toad 


White-Headed Woodpecker 


Wolverine 


Yellow-Billed Cuckoo 


AR at 1484-87. The 2010 DFW list removed from its 1998 DFW list, the American 

white pelican, pygmy rabbit, upland sandpiper, and woodland caribou. Presumably, the 

"hawk" included on the 20 I 0 list is the ferruginous hawk. 

On July 5, 20 I 0, Karin Divens of DFW sent a letter to Irene Whipple, Planning 

14 

No. 31331-0-III 


Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 


Director of Ferry County. The letter discussed an amended critical areas ordinance and 

read, in part: 

"We are disappointed to see changes to the latest version ... , 

especially when the latest revisions remove much of the previous 

protections to priority habitats and species. We document our concerns 

with these changes and offer the following recommendations. 

In the draft CAO, we do not find that endangered, threatened and 

sensitive species are designated or protected. WAC 365-190-080(2) 

defines fish and wildlife habitat critical areas to include "areas with which 

endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association." 

Although, the draft code supports habitat protection for these 

species, there are not sufficient development regulations to protect these 

species. Critical areas ordinances play an important role in ensuring the 

long-term survival of fish and wildlife species in Ferry County .... If 

FWHCAs are designated for upland habitat, projects occurring in these 

areas can be conditioned to avoid nest disturbance, avoid activities in 

certain times of year during breeding season, and employ other 

management or incentive strategies to accommodate fish and wildlife in the 

developing landscape. 

WDFW appreciates the inclusion of Habitats and Species of Local 

Importance under Section 9.00 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation 

Areas.... However, the ordinance fails to designate the majority of locally 

vulnerable species and their associated habitats found in Ferry County. The 

classification of "Habitats and species of local importance" appears to defer 

entirely to a nomination process. Reliance on a future, potential 

nomination of local habitats or species does not provide protection to those 

habitats and species currently known to exist in Ferry County, based on 

BAS. 

j As stated in a previous comment letter ... , WDFW would like to 

reiterate that these sections fail to designate the majority of locally I 

i vulnerable species and their associated habitats found in Ferry County .... 1 We strongly encourage the county to revisit its BAS on record and t 

I designate habitats and species of local importance pro-actively. 

I 

J 

J 15 

I 

·f 
No.31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

WDFW strongly recommends that consultation with agency 

information be a requirementfor applicants seeking development permits 

for sites with known PHS species . ... Furthermore, WDFW strongly 

encourages that the CAO requires WDFWapprovalfor habitat 

management plans created for sites with state-listed endangered, 

threatened, or sensitive species." 

AR at 1127-28. 

Karin Divens's letter then listed habitats and species that should be identified and 

protected as priority habitats and species in the Ferry County critical areas ordinance. 

The species have already been listed herein. The letter proceeded further and read 

towards its end: 

WDFW strongly recommends the strike out language in Section 

7.4.18 be retained as follows: "Fish and wildlife habitat conservation 

areas shall be protected by buffers as set forth in the Critical Areas Ordinance." 

AR at 1132. 

On September 10,2010, and April 4, 2011, the GMHB found Ferry County to 

continue to be noncompliant with its earlier orders and the GMA. 

In 2011, Ferry County conducted a review of 22 of the 31 species identified by 

DFW for possible local importance designation. The county documented the review in a 

four-page document. The review noted the protected status of each species. The review 

designated priority areas for each species, which areas included the entire county, the 

species' breeding area, the species' foraging areas, or migratory stopovers. The review 

16 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

identified the habitats in which each species could be found. Examples of habitats 

included wetlands, streams, ponds, riparian areas, meadows, forests, snags, shrub-steppe, 

grasslands, cliffs, old growth forest, aspen groves, logs, caves, open water, freshwater 

lakes, and the eastside steppe. The review concluded that the loggerhead shrike, juniper 

hairstreak, Shepard's parnassian, and ferruginous hawk did not inhabit Ferry County. 

The 20 II Ferry County review designated no species as important and did not 

refer to any science or a scientific methodology. The Ferry County review recommended 

to exclude the golden eagle as a species of local importance solely upon economic 

impact. For the justification of omitting several other species, the review reasoned that 

logging or grazing is "under other jurisdictions." Presumably, the other jurisdictions are 

the National Forest Service and the Colville Tribes. 

In April 2011, Ferry County presented a draft of a new critical area ordinance to 

DFW biologist Karin Divens. The county based its drafts on the completed review of the 

22 species. The proposed ordinance read: 

2. Ferry County has reviewed the Washington State Department of 

Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitat and Species list. There are currently no 

candidate species or species of concern that have been identified as species 

of local importance. 

AR at 336. The proposed ordinance, however, created a process by which the public 

could nominate a species or area for inclusion in a critical area as a species or habitat of 

local importance. 

17 
No. 31331-0-II1 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Karin Divens urged Ferry County to reconsider its decision to not designate any 

species. Divens explained in a letter to the Ferry County GMHB of County 

Commissioners: 

The presence of State, Federal and Tribal land in a County does not 

diminish the importance ofprotection of a species and associated habitats 

on private lands. Local governments should provide clear process for 

designating and protecting Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation by 

utilizing BAS and developing protective policies and regulations. 

Unfortunately, wildlife species do not adhere to property boundaries. 

Protecting habitats with which species have association is very important as 

wildlife species are extremely mobile and move readily about the 

landscape. Protecting the habitat will not only benefit state and federally 

listed species, but will also prevent future listings, while protecting species 

that are important to the local area and local economy through the influx of 

consumptive and non-consumptive dollars. 

While the greater proportion of land within Ferry County is held in 

public ownership, these lands are generally higher in elevation and tend to 

be less ecologically productive compared to areas predominately in private 

ownership at lower elevation. These low elevation, private lands are 

characterized by a juxtaposition of agriculture, woodlands, and riparian 

zones, which are higher in productivity than high elevation forests and are 

important to wildlife in a variety of ways including providing movement 

corridors and winter and spring range to migrating deer .... 

These lowland areas in private ownership also have important 

riverine and open water habitats and wetlands. There are documented 

nesting sites for bald eagle and golden eagle in the valley bottoms, as well 

as documented nesting sites for state listed woodpecker species. These 

habitats provide for close association of other priority species such as Great 

Blue Heron and many waterfowl species. 

AR at 1134. 

18 

No.3l33l-0-II1 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

On July 25,2011, the Ferry County Board of Commissioners enacted Ordinance 

2011-02, which updated the critical area ordinance and was consistent with the proposed 

ordinance given to Karin Divens. Critical Areas Ordinance 2011-02 is the ordinance at 

issue on appeal and reads, in pertinent part: 

An ordinance adopting development regulations as required by 

RCW 36.70A.030(7). 

WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.172 states "In designating and protecting 

critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best 

available science in developing policies and development regulations to 

protect the functions and values of critical areas .... 

WHEREAS, in order to come into compliance with the Growth 

Management Act per the Growth Management Hearings Board Order, 

Sections 2.00,3.00,4.00,4.01, 8.03, 9.00, 9.01, 9.02, 9.03, 9.04 were 

amended.... 

WHEREAS, the measures adopted through this ordinance are 

designed to meet these requirements. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Ferry 

County Commissioners, as follows: 

Section 9.00 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT 


CONSERVATION AREAS 


Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are defined as land 

management areas for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their 

natural geographic distribution so that isolated sUbpopulations are not 

created.... 

To maintain viable populations of wildlife species, there must be 

adequate environmental conditions for reproduction, foraging, resting, 

cover, and dispersal of animals at a variety of scales across the landscape. 

Key factors affecting habitat quality include the presence of essential 

resources such as food, water, and nest building materials, the complexity 

of the environment, and the presence or absense [sic] of predator species 

and diseases. Ferry County protects habitat for fish and wildlife species 

using this ordinance and associated protection measures described below. 

19 

I 

t 

No. 31331-0-111 

1 Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

i 

Ferry County has a very high proportion of federal, state and other 

publicly and tribally owned land. These lands are generally managed for 

the conservation of wildlife habitat. Consequently, one of Ferry County's 

approaches to protecting all wildlife habitat types is to depend on the 

management of these lands by the responsible agency; i.e. Colville 

Confederated Tribes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington Department ofFish and 

Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, etc. 

Section 9.01 CLASSIFICATION 

I 

The following six habitat areas shall be classified fish and wildlife 

habitat conservation areas. 

1) Areas with which endangered, threatened and sensitive 

species have a primary association. 

a) Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those 

I 

fish and wildlife species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service that are in danger of extinction 

or threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service should be consulted for current 

listing status. 

b) State designated endangered. threatened, and sensitive species are 

those fish and wildlife species native to Ferry County identified by the 

Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, that are in danger of 

extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and 

are likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of 

their range within the county without cooperative management or removal 

of threats.... 

2) Habitats and species of local importance. There are habitats or 

species that due to their declining population, sensitivity to habitat 

manipulation or other values make them important on a local level. 

Habitats of local importance may include a seasonal range or habitat 

element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if 

altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and 

reproduce over the long term. These habitats and species may be identified 

and nominated for inclusion or removal as Habitats and Species of Local 

Importance by state agencies, Ferry County, and local individuals, 

organizations or tribes. Review ofa Habitat and Species of Local 

Importance application is a legislative action, and shall be processed during 

20 
No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. Upon adoption of a compliant 

Critical Areas Ordinance, the County upon receipt of a completed 

nominating or removal form for each species, habitat and/or area will 

review the application using the following process. 

a) Petition to nominate or remove an area or a species to this 

category shall contain all of the following for each species or habitat: 

Final approval by the Board of County Commissioners of 

nominations will become designated "Habitats and Species of Local 

Importance," and will be subject to the provisions ofthis ordinance. 

Habitats and species nominated and afforded protection under the category 

"Habitats and Species ofLocal Importance" shall then be subject to review 

under this ordinance. 

Section 9.02 

Habitat areas that meet the above classification criteria [Section 

9.01] are designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and are 

subject to the provisions ofthis ordinance and shall be managed with the 

Best Available Science on a [ case] by [case] basis. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The following documents are referred to in this ordinance and are 

included by reference for use or guidance. Changes to these documents by 

the author or authoring agency require review by Ferry County for effect on 

this ordinance and possible need for other adjustments to the ordinance I

l 

before being approved for inclusion in the ordinance by act of the Board of 

County Commissioners: 

Section 3.00: 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Office 

Technical Guide 

• 

• WAC 232-12-014, Wildlife Classified as Endangered 

Species, 01-30-06; 

• WAC 232-12-297, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive 

Wildlife Species Classification, 01-28-02; 

21 
1 

j 


No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

• Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Classification 

System for Priority Habitat, updated 2/4/98; 

• Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Priority Habitat 

and Species Program, initiated 1989; 

Section 4.02: 

• WAC 365-195-905, Criteria for Determining Which 


Information is the Best Available Science, 08-27-00; 


Classification of Risk to Structural Development; 

Section 9.00: 

• WAC 365-190-080(5), Minimum guidelines to classify 

agriculture, forest, mineral lands, and critical areas,-Critical Areas, Fish 

and wildlife conservation areas, 04-15-91 ; 

Section 9.01: 

• RCW 90.58. Shoreline Management Act, 1971; 

• WAC 222-16.031, Interim water type system, 07-01-05; 

• WAC 232-12-011, Wildlife classified as protected shall not 

be hunted or fished, 01-30-06; 

• WAC 232-12-014, Wildlife classified as endangered species, 

01-30-06; 

• WAC 365-190-080 (5) (c)(ii), Minimum guidelines to 

classify agriculture, forest, mineral lands and critical areas,-Critical Areas, 

Sources and methods-species of local importance; 04-15-91; 

• Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Maps (Fish 

Planting); 

Section 9.04 

• Divens, Karin, Department ofFish and Wildlife Priority 

Habitats and Species Biologist, letter to Irene Whipple, 3-25-10 

• Transcription of discussion with Karin Divens at the Planning 

Commission regular meeting; 4-14-10; 

• Divens, Karin, Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority 

Habitats and Species Biologist, letter to Honorable Joe Bond, 4-26-10 

The Ferry County Board of Commissioners attached to Ordinance Nos. 2011-02 

22 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

findings of fact, which read: 

Findings of Fact: 

(Exhibit A) 

In designating and protecting the functions and values of critical 

areas, Ferry County has included Best Available Science (BAS) per RCW 

36.70A.172 and WAC 365-195 in developing policies and development 

regulations. 

In considering BAS, Ferry County has consulted numerous times 

with WDFW .... 

Ferry County's land base is predominately State and federal owned. 

The Board finds that the economic base is hampered and in decline due to 

the lack of private ownership of the land. In RCW 36.70A.OIO, "the 

legislature finds that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a 

lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation 

and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable 

economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life 

enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, 

communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and 

coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. Further, 

the legislature finds that it is in the public interest that economic 

development programs be shared· with communities experiencing 

insufficient economic growth." The Board finds that human health and 

safety concerns and sustainable economic development is of the utmost 

importance to Ferry County. 

Ferry County has reviewed the changes and finds that CAO is 

consistent and implements the goals and policy of the comprehensive plan. 

Ferry County finds that it must balance the goals of the GMA while 

giving a high degree of weight to local conditions. 

Ferry County has removed most RCW and WAC citations and 

replaced this with language consistent with current law and rule as to create 

an opportunity for local public participation and local deference as laws and 

rules change in the future. 

Changes to the Critical Areas Ordinance: (findings) 

23 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

1. In accordance with WAC 232-12-014 and WAC 232-12-011, 

Ferry County adopted the Washington State Fish and Wildlife 

recommendations pertaining to the Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive 

species list. Ferry County recognizes that the Endangered, Threatened, and 

Sensitive species list changes periodically, therefore Ferry County chose 

not to list the species individually. Ferry County will consult with and use 

the most current Department ofFish and Wildlife Endangered, Threatened, 

and Sensitive species list. 

2. Ferry County has reviewed the Washington State Department of 

Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitat and Species list. There are currently no 

candidate species or species of concern that have been identified as species 

of local importance. 

8. For organizational purposes, in section 4.01, language was 

removed to emphasize Ferry County's use of Best Available Science and 

for consistency and accuracy of current law and regulation, as well as 

consistency internally within revised CAO. 

I L Section 9.01(2), new language was added to illustrate Ferry 

County's extensive efforts to protect Fish and Wildlife conservation areas. 

WAC references were removed to reflect current rules and to eliminate 

inconsistent language. Language was deleted to reflect a review of all 29 

species associated with Ferry County being reviewed utilizing BAS and 

giving justification for any deviation from BAS. Language was added and 

organizational changes were made to simplifY the CAO for use and 

understanding in protecting species and habitat. ... 

14. In Section 9.02 ofthe Critical Areas Ordinance, language was 

added to include and utilize Best Available Science to properly designate 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat. 

16. In Section 9.04 of the Critical Areas Ordinance, Ferry County 

removed language and added a map to define and specifY the location of 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas. Ferry County removed inaccurate 

information and added relevant information to show that the Priority 

Habitats and Species program will be used to better determine the mapped 

polygon areas for Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive species. Language 

was added to clarifY for the general public the Habitat and Management 

plan process. 

24 

No. 31331·0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

DFW Biologist Karin Divens had recommended to Ferry County that the critical 

areas ordinance refer explicitly to the habitats primarily associated with the ETS species 

so that review of a development application is triggered not just by the occurrence of an 

individual species, some of which are highly mobile, but by considering development 

impacts to primary habitat for that species. Section 9.01 of Ordinance 2011-02 merely 

refers to species listings maintained by named federal and state agencies but does not 

provide any methodology for locating habitat areas. In reading Section 9.01 (1), one 

cannot discern what habitat areas or locations are designated. Section 9.01 also contains 

no list of priority species with endangered, threatened or sensitive status. 

Critical Areas Ordinance 2011·02, section 9.04 refers to a map, titled Fish and 

Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas of Ferry County, as showing the approximate 

location and extent of fish and wildlife habitat areas for endangered, threatened and 

sensitive species, but the map is not contained in the record. On March 2, 2011, the 

Colville Tribes commented on the critical areas ordinance, stating that section 9.04 needs 

to have the Tribal Critical Habitat maps. Although the ordinance contains these habitat 

maps, the record does not renect Ferry County's consideration ofthe tribal critical habitat 

maps. 

Ferry County, by Resolution 2011-41, entered additional findings of fact in I

, support of Ordinance 2011-02. The findings read, in part: 

WHEREAS, based on public input, review and analysis of best I 

25 I 

I 

r 
1 


1 

I 

No. 31331-0-III 


Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 


, 

I available science (BAS) pertinent to Ferry County and other relevant 

J information, the Planning Department developed the Critical Areas 

Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan proposal tailored to address the J compliance orders; 

1 

4. The planning Commission reviewed the BAS as provided by the 

WDFW, the Nature Serve [sic], and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Bull Trout 

Recovery plan in consideration of the "Species of Concern' and 'Candidate 

Species' on the WDRW Priority Habitat and Species List (PHS list) for 

Ferry County. The Review and findings of this BAS is in the Record as a 

document titled "2011 Ferry County Review of Washington Fish and 

Wildlife PHS Candidate Species for Possible Habitats and Species of Local 

Importance Designation." 

AR at 1539. 

I 
 In the resolution, the Ferry County GMHB of Commissioners declared: 


In review of the BAS in the Record: 

a. It was found that there was NO specific mapped area in Ferry 

County for 12 of the State candidate species to the PHS list for Ferry 

County. 

I 

b. It was found that specific mapped area was unknown for 2 of the 

State candidate species on the PHS list for Ferry County. 

c. It was found that current breeding habitat status is unknown for 10 

of the State candidate species on the PHS list for Ferry County. 

d. It was found that there are Riparian and Wetland buffers in place 

concerning 6 of the State candidate species on the PHS list for Ferry 

County. 

e. It was found that there are no buffer recommendations for six of 

the State candidate species on the PHS list for Ferry County. 

f. It was found that protection of 5 of the State candidate species on 

the PHS list for Ferry County would have negative impact to the 

recreational and tourism economy or the entire economy of Ferry County. 

g. It was found that 2 of the State candidate species on the PHS list 

for Ferry County are extirpated. 

h. It was found that BAS did not provide specific protection 

measures or management plans for 7 of the State candidate species on the 

PHS list for Ferry County. 

26 1 

1 

j 
No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

i. It was found that in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife documents that 

there is no designated critical habitat for bull trout in Ferry County even 

though bull trout is a State candidate species on the PHS list for Ferry 

County. 

k. It was found that the breeding habitat for 1 of the State candidate 

species on the PHS list for Ferry County is actually in the Okanogan 

County portion ofthe Colville Confederated Tribes Reservation. 

1. It was found that species distribution does not include Ferry 


County for 2 of the State Candidate species on the PHS list for Ferry 


County. 


AR at 1539. 

According to the Ferry County Board of County Commissioners, BAS reflected 

that none of the 22 "State Candidate Species" warrant designation as "Species of Local 

Importance." AR at 1539-40. The record, however, does not address why the county 

analyzed only 22 of the 31 species the DFW listed on its PHS list as occurring in Ferry 

County. The county's review did not include the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, 

flammulated owl, common loon, fisher, gray wolf, grizzly bear, or lynx. 

Ferry County asserted the July 2011 ordinance and resolution brought it into 

compliance with the GMA's critical areas provision. Thus, Ferry County moved the 

GMHB in both the Futurewise and the Concerned Friends of Ferry County cases to find it 

compliant with the GMA. Both petitioners objected to Ferry County's motion, arguing 

that the county's refusal to follow DFW's recommendations was not supported by BAS 

or a reasoned process. 

On October 7,2011, the GMHB conducted a compliance hearing in the 

consolidated Futurewise and Concerned Friends of Ferry County cases. By written 

27 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

decision on December 1, 2011, the GMHB agreed with Futurewise and Concerned 

Friends and held the July 2011 critical area ordinance noncompliant with the GMA. The 

December 1 decision is what this court reviews. Portions of the decision read: 

II. BURDEN OF PROOF 

For purposes of Board review ofthe comprehensive plans and 

development regulations adopted by local governments in response to a 

noncompliance finding, the presumption of validity applies and the burden 

is on the challenger to establish that the new adoption is clearly erroneous 

in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the goals and 

requirements ofthe chapter. 

In order to find the County's action clearly erroneous, the Board 

must be "left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been 

made." 

Within the framework of state goals and requirements, the Board 

must grant deference to local governments in how they plan for growth .... 

IV. DISCUSSION 

If a county chooses to disagree with or ignore scientific 

recommendations and resources provided by state agencies or Indian tribes, 

which a county could do, the county must unilaterally develop and obtain 

valid scientific information. The GMA does not require a county to follow 

BAS; rather it is required to "include" BAS in the record. A county may 

depart from BAS if it provides a reasoned justification for such departure. 

The Department of Commerce Minimum Guidelines also state that 

counties and cities should identify and classify seasonal ranges and habitat 

elements where federal and state listed endangered, threatened and sensitive 

species have a primary association and which, if altered, may reduce the 

likelihood that the species will persist over the long term. Counties and 

cities should consult current information on priority habitats and species 

identified by the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW). 

The goal of fish and wildlife habitat conservation is to manage land so as to 

maintain species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic 

distribution so that isolated subpopulations are not created. 

28 


i 
No.31331-0-III 


Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 


3. Recent Legislative Action by Ferry County 

On July 25,2011, Ferry County passed Critical Areas Ordinance 

#2011-02 amending Critical Areas Ordinance # 2009-05, Sections 9.00, 

9.01,9.02,9.03, and 9.04, relating to Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas. 

On July 25, 2011, Ferry County adopted Resolution No. 2011-41 

entitled "Findings of Fact for the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas 

Ordinance Relating to Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas." 

5. Board Analysis-Designation of Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Conservation Areas 

The GMA requires counties to both Designate and Protect Fish and 

Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHC Areas). Designation is a 

fundamental first step that informs County decision makers and the public 

on determining the location ofFWHC Areas. The GMA's mandate to 

protect FWHC Areas cannot be fulfilled unless people can figure out where 

FWHC Areas are located. 

When designating Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, 

Best Available Science (BAS) must be included in the record-the County 

must rely on scientific information and must analyze that information using 

a reasoned process, i.e., a scientific methodology. Ferry County v. 

Concerned Friends ofFerry County, 155 Wn.2d. 824, 836-837 (2005). 

In the present case, Ferry County made the following Finding of 

Fact: 

WHEREAS, based on public input, review and analysis of best 

available science (BAS) pertinent to Ferry County and other relevant 

information, the Planning Department developed the Critical Areas 

Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan proposal tailored to address the 

compliance orders; 

i 

But the Board must examine the entire record in this case to 

determine ifPetitioners have satisfied their burden to demonstrate that the 

County failed to include Best Available Science as to FWHC Area 

designations and policy development. 

Critical Areas Ordinance # 2011-02, Section 9.01 states that six 

I habitat types shall be classified fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: i 1) Areas with which endangered, threatened and sensitive species l have a primary association. 

j 

1 2) Habitat and species of local Importance. i 

29 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Ordinance 2011-02, Section 9.02 entitled "DESIGNATION" 

provides: 

Habitat areas that meet the above classification criteria [Section 

9.01] are designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and are 

subject to the provisions of this ordinance and shall be managed with the 

Best Available Science on a site by site basis. 

Thus, Section 9.02 "DESIGNATION" appears to be the main 

operative provision designating FWHC Areas in Ferry County and works in 

tandem with Section 9.01 "Classification." 

Designation-Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species 

However, the Section 9.01 habitat classification "Areas with which 

endangered, threatened and sensitive species have a primary association," 

and explanatory language contains no reference to "habitats" but refers 

only to "species." WDFW Biologist Karin Divens had recommended 

"referring explicitly to the habitats primarily associated with the E/T/S 

species" so that "review of a development application is triggered not just 

by the occurrence of an individual species (some of which are highly 

mobile), but by considering development impact to primary habitat for that 

species." There is no evidence in the record of any scientific information 

that refutes the science provided by the WDFW Biologist on designating 

EITIS habitats. 

Ferry County has departed from or ignored the scientific 

recommendation by WDFW to designate E/T/S habitats not just species, 

without any reasoned justification. This ordinance language in Section 

9.01(1) also contains no indication that BAS was included or analyzed with 

a reasoned process. 

Section 9.01(1) merely refers to E/T/S species "listings" maintained 

by named federal and state agencies but does not provide any methodology 

for locating habitat areas. In reading the current language of Section 

9.01(1), one cannot discern what habitat areas or locations would meet the 

classification criteria for an "Area with which endangered, threatened and 

sensitive species have a primary association." Also, there are no maps 

showing the locations of such designated areas. Thus, contrary to WAC 

365-190-080(4), the County did not use any maps and did not use 

performance standards to designate Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation 

Areas. 

30 

No. 31331-0-111 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Moreover, WAC 365-190-130(4)(a) states that counties should 

identifY and classifY seasonal ranges and habitat elements where federal 

and state listed endangered, threatened and sensitive (ETS) species have a 

primary association and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that 

the species will persist over the long term. But the ordinance language In 

Section 9.01 does not identifY any seasonal ranges or habitat elements. 

CAO Section 9.01 also contains no list of Priority Species with 

Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive status although such a list had been 

provided by WDFW to Ferry County. 

Designation-Habitats and Species of Local Importance 

Regarding the classification "Habitats and species of local 

importance," CAO Section 9.01(2) provides: 

These habitats and species may be identified and 

nominated for inclusion or removal as Habitats and Species of 

Local Importance by state agencies, Ferry County and local 

individuals, organizations or tribes. Review of a Habitat and 

Species ofLocal Importance application is a legislative 

action, and shall be processed during the Comprehensive Plan 

amendment cycle. 

Section 9.0 1(2)(a) requires submission of a petition to nominate or 

remove an area or a species, containing a number of items. 

WAC 365-190-130(4)(b) states that counties and cities should 

identifY, classifY and designate locally important habitats and species. 

Further, counties "shou.ld consult current information on priority habitats 

and species identified by the Washington state department of fish and 

wildlife." 

WDFW Biologist Karin Divens had recommended in pertinent part 

as follows: 

WDFW is concerned that the process for nominating 

Habitats and Species of Local Importance is overly 

burdensome. As written, the nomination process is onerous 

because it would require applicants to propose specific and 

relevant protection regulations, propose management 

strategies, provide specific habitat locations, and requires an 

agency or qualified professional to prepare the information. 

The only appropriate requirement for designation is that the 

designation be based on Best Available Science. WDFW has 

31 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

not developed management strategies for all priority species 

and habitats and therefore, strongly suggests elimination of 

the management strategy requirement. The term is not 

defined, and keeping this as a precondition will likely result 

in the loss of many critical fish and wildlife resources ... 

Limiting designation to mapped species and habitats is an 

overly burdensome expectation to include in a nomination 

process ... not all habitats and species are mapped, and maps 

cannot account for the movement of species seasonally and 

over time. Therefore, we always recommend local 

governments designate species that are vulnerable to future 

listing, such as Candidate species, and include a site-specific 

review to verify the presence of a designated FWHCA. This 

should be the same process for a listed species. 

The ordinance language in Section 9.01 contains no indication that 

BAS was included or analyzed with a reasoned process. The management 

strategy requirement in Section 9.0 1 (2) is contrary to the strong scientific 

recommendation that (1) management strategies do not exist for some 

species and habitats and (2) keeping this requirement will likely result in 

the loss of many critical fish and wildlife resources. Furthermore, limiting 

designation to mapped species and habitats is a departure from BAS since 

maps alone cannot account for the movement of species seasonally and 

over time. 

Moreover, as to the CAO's designation of Habitats and Species of 

Local Importance, WDFW stated: 

WDFW would like to reiterate that these sections fail 

to designate the majority of locally vulnerable species and 

their associated habitats found in Ferry County. The 

classification of "Habitats and species of local importance 

and habitats for species of local importance" appears to defer 

entirely to a nomination process. Reliance on a future, 

potential nomination of local habitats or species does not 

provide protection to the habitats and species currently known 

to exist in Ferry County, based on best available science. We 

strongly encourage the county to revisit its BAS on record 

and designate habitats and species of local importance proactively. 

32 

I 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

In 20 I 0, WDFW provided the County with a list of 31 Priority 

Species known to occur in Ferry County with Federal and/or State listing 

Status (ETS). In 2011, the County completed a review of 22 species for 

possible local importance designation. None of those species were 

designated, and the County's reasoning did not include a reference to 

identifiable BAS or to a scientific methodology. For example, as to the 

decision not to list the Golden Eagle, the reasoning was solely economic 

impact, with no reference to science. For several other species the 

reasoning was that logging or grazing is "under other Jurisdictions," with 

no reference to science. Under the GMA, Ferry County can list whatever 

species it deems appropriate if it supports its decision by BAS. 

Ferry County asserts in briefing that the "reasoned justification" for 

departing from BAS does not need to be based on science itself, and the 

County cites to Swinomish Indian Tribal Community et al. v. WWGMHB, 

161 Wn.2d 415,431, [166 P.3d 1198] (2007). In the Swinomish, the 

Washington Supreme Court held that the GMA' s requirement to protect 

critical areas does not impose a requirement to enhance critical areas by, 

for example, requiring farmers to replant areas adjacent to streams that 

were lawfully cleared in the past. The omission ofmandatory stream 

buffers from Skagit County's critical areas ordinance was a justified 

departure from Best Available Science because the mandatory buffers 

would impose an obligation to enhance that goes above and beyond the 

GMA's duty to protect. In other words, BAS needs to be included in the 

decision-making process, but science cannot create new duties not imposed 

by law. 

In the present case, the record contains BAS relating to the 

designation and protection ofFish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation 

Areas. But nothing in the record suggests that this BAS would create any 

new duties not already imposed by law. 

In 2005, the Washington Supreme Court held in a case arising out of 

Ferry County that BAS requires the use of a scientific methodology and a 

reasoned process. A county may depart from BAS if it provides a 

reasoned justification for such departure. In the 2005 Supreme Court 

decision, the court noted: 

The fact that the county's listing omits both the 

peregrine falcon and the bull trout, both ofwhich are ETS 

species known to be present in Ferry County, further supports 

that the listing was not generated using BAS. 

33 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

These holdings ofthe Supreme Court are mandatory authority, and 

this Board must adhere to and apply the Supreme Court's ruling. In the 

present case, Ferry County failed to provide a reasoned justification for 

departing from the Best Available Science in designating habitats and 

species known to be present in Ferry County. As in the earlier Ferry 

County Supreme Court case, the omission here of all 22 species of possible 

local importance supports a finding that the ordinance was not generated 

using BAS. 

. . . . There is no substantial evidence in the record to support a 

County finding that BAS was included in designating Ferry County's Fish 

and Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas. 

Ferry County failed to include the Best Available Science in 

designated (1) Areas where ETS species have a Primary Association, and 

(2) Habitats and Species of Local Importance. Ordinance 2011-02 

designations of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (relating to 

ETS Habitats and Species, and Species of Local Importance) were clearly 

erroneous in view of the entire record before the [GMHB] and in light of 

the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act. 

On remand, Ferry County should provide a reasoned justification for 

departing from Best Available Science in designating Fish and Wildlife 

Habitat Conservation Areas. 

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 13-28. 

By this new lawsuit, Ferry County seeks review ofthe GMHB's Compliance 

Order, entered December 1, 2011. The superior court granted Ferry County partial 

summary judgment and ruled that the county had included BAS or departed from that 

science for a justified reason when designating critical habitats. Accordingly, the court 

reversed the GMHB. Futurewise and Concerned Friends ofFerry County appeal. 

34 

No.31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

LAW AND ANALYSIS 

Assignments ofError 

Futurewise raises a procedural argument, that, if accepted, would end our review 

and require a ruling in its favor. Futurewise contends that the GMHB's factual findings 

are verities on appeal because Ferry County failed to assign error to any of the Board's 

findings. The GMHB entered a finding of fact that "no substantial evidence in the record 

... support[ ed] a County finding that BAS was included in designating Ferry County's 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas." CP at 28. Ferry County does not 

specifically assign error to the finding. 

RAP IO.3(h) applies to appeals from a superior court's review of administrative 

agency rulings and reads: 

(b) Assignments of Error on Review of Certain Administrative 

Orders. In addition to the assignments of error required by rule IO.3(a)(3) 

and 1 O.3(g), the brief of an appellant or respondent who is challenging an 

administrative adjudicative order under RCW 34.05 or a final order under 

RCW 41.64 shall set forth a separate concise statement of each error which 

a party contends was made by the agency issuing the order, together with 

the issues pertaining to each assignment of error. 

RAP IO.3(h) applies to a party contending that the administrative agency decision was in 

error, regardless of the party's designation as appellant or respondent before the appellate 

court. 3 KARL B. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: RULES PRACTICE RAP 10.3 

drafters' cmt. 1994 amends. at 54 (7th ed. 2011). In turn, RAP IO.3(g) demands a 

separate assignment of error for each finding of fact a party contends was improperly 

35 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

made must be included with reference to the finding by number. Unchallenged agency 

factual findings are verities on appeal. Hilltop Terrace Homeowner's Ass 'n v. Island 

County, 126 Wn.2d 22,30,891 P.2d 29 (1995). Ifwe strictly followed RAP 10.3, we 

would affirm the GMHB's finding that the 2011 ordinance did not include BAS and 

thereby affirm the Board. 

Other court rules apply. RAP 10.3(g) permits review when the claimed error is 

clearly disclosed in a related issue. RAP 1.2 directs this court to liberally interpret these 

rules. These RAPs allow appellate review of administrative decisions in spite of 

technical violations when a proper assignment of error is lacking but the nature of the 

challenge is clear and the challenged finding is set forth in the party's brief. Fuller v. 

Emp'tSec. Dep't, 52 Wn. App. 603,605-06,762 P.2d 367 (1988). 

In a section labeled assignment of errors in its brief, Ferry County asked whether 

"BAS regarding habitats and species of local importance [was] included in the record or 

was there any BAS that was not included in the record?" Br. ofResp't at 2. In the 

argument section of the brief, the county "clearly discloses" the error it alleges when it 

argued it complied with the GMA mandate to include BAS in the record. Futurewise 

thoroughly addressed the issue in its brief and shows no prejudice by Ferry County's 

failure to strictly follow the rules. Therefore, we reject Futurewise's argument and 

address the merits of the appeal. 

36 

No. 31331-0-111 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Overview of Growth Management Act 

Ferry County contends the GMHB committed at least four errors. First, the Board 

concluded that the GMA requires counties to designate and protect habitats or species of 

local importance, when the law contains no such requirement. Second, the GNIHB 

impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the county and it relieved Futurewise from 

establishing that the county omitted any BAS from the record. Third, contrary to the 

GMHB's finding, the county included BAS in the record. Fourth, the county engaged in 

a reasoned legislative process when it departed from the protections BAS recommended. 

Before addressing Ferry County's four discrete assignments of error, we review 

more of Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, which 

controls our decision. The Washington legislature adopted the GMA in two installments, 

during 1990 and 1991, in response to public concerns about rapid population growth and 

increasing development pressures in the state, especially in the Central Puget Sound 

region. Alan D. Copsey, Including Best Available Science in the Designation and 

Protection o/Critical Areas Under the Growth Management Act, 23 SEATTLE U. L. REv. 

97,97 (1999). Passage of the Act demanded political compromises that create internal 

inconsistencies, vague language, and gaps in the Act. Richard L. Settle, The Growth 

Management Revolution in Washington: Past, Present, and Future, 16 U. PUGET SOUND 

L. REV. 867, 872 (1993). The Act contains awkward sentences and murky words. 

The central purpose of the GMA is to coordinate land use, zoning, subdivision, 

37 

No. 31331-0-II1 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

planning, development, natural resources, public facilities, and environmental laws into 

one scheme in order to concentrate new development in compact urban growth areas, 

while conserving environmentally critical land and valuable natural resources. Richard 

L. Settle, supra at 872-73. As part of this planning system, "local governments also must 

designate urban growth areas, forest lands, agricultural lands, mineral resource lands and 

critical areas, and develop regulations to assure their conservation." 24 TIMOTHY 

BUTLER AND MATTHEW KING, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: ENVIRONMENTAL LAWAND 

PRACTICE § 18.1 (2nd ed. 2007) (emphasis added). Our appeal concerns critical areas. 

Since the GMA was directed at congestion in King, Pierce, and Snohomish 

counties, application ofthe Act to rural eastern Washington has created controversy. 

Two former members ofthe state high court, Justice J. Johnson and Justice R. Sanders, 

have penned or joined several dissents that question the wisdom of implementing the 

GMA in northeastern counties of the state. See CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 836-37 (Johnson, J., 

dissenting (opinion, pp. 844-56); Kittitas County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Bd., 172 Wn.2d 144,256 PJd 1193 (2011) (Johnson, J., dissenting (opinion, pp. 191­

207). Eastern and western Washington may have a difficult marriage, but we remain one 

state subject to the same law. 

Under the GMA, all Washington counties must adopt development regulations 

that designate and protect critical areas, including fish and wildlife habitat conservation 

areas. RCW 36.70A.060(2). A number of sections within the GMA, beginning with 

38 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

RCW 36.70A.060, address the designation of environmentally "critical areas." RCW 

36.70A.060 reads: 

(2) Each county and city shall adopt development regulations that 

protect critical areas that are required to be designated under RCW 

36.70A.170. For counties and cities that are required or choose to plan 

under RCW 36.70A.040, such development regulations shall be adopted on 

or before September 1, 1991 .... 

(3) Such counties and cities shall review these designations and 

development regulations when adopting their comprehensive plans under 

RCW 36.70A.040 and implementing development regulations under RCW 

36.JOA.120 and may alter such designations and development regulations 

to insure consistency. 

(Emphasis added.) RCW 36.70A.170 repeats the demands ofRCW 36.70A.060. 

RCW 36. 70A.170 provides: 

(1) On or before September 1, 1991, each county, and each city, 

shall designate where appropriate: 

(d) Critical areas. 

(2) In making the designations required by this section, counties and 

cities shall consider the guidelines established pursuant to RCW 

36.70A.050. 

RCW 36.70A.030(5) defines "critical areas" as: 

(5) "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: 

(a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for 

potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; 

(d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas .... 

This appeal concerns only fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. 

The first step required for a county's implementation of the GMA is the 

designation and adoption of interim development regulations to protect natural resource 

39 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

lands and critical areas. RCW 36.70A.060(2); RCW 36.70A.170. This step comes first 

in order to preclude irreversible environmental harm during the lengthy preparation 

process ofGMA comprehensive plans and development regulations. Settle, supra at 908. 

GMHBs are authorized to invalidate noncomplying comprehensive plans and 

development regulations. Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty., 161 Wn.2d at 423. The Board 

presumes the validity of development regulations and related amendments that a county 

adopts under the GMA. RCW 36. 70A.320( 1). The Board must find compliance unless a 

county's action is clearly erroneous. RCW 36.70A.280(l)(a), .320(3). A county's action 

is clearly erroneous if the Board has a firm and definite conviction that the county made a 

mistake. Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 329, 

340-41, 190 P.3d 38 (2008); Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. W. Wash. Growth 

Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 166 Wn. App. 172, 187,274 P.3d 1040, review denied, 174 Wn.2d 

1007 (2012). In 1997, the legislature amended the GMA, requiring the GMHB reviewing 

local government compliance with the GMA to "grant deference to counties and cities in 

how they plan for growth," provided those plans are "consistent with the requirements 

and goals of [the GMA]." RCW 36.70A.3201. 

Before this court, Ferry County emphasizes the need for the GMHB to defer to the 

county's decisions. The county provides no analysis as to the line between according 

deference and ruling there was error, and suggests the Board must grant unlimited 

deference. Nevertheless, counties remain constrained by the goals and requirements 

40 
 I 

f 

f 

l 
No. 31331-0-111 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

of the GMA. King County. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Ed., 142 

Wn.2d 543,561, 14 P.3d 133 (2000). A county may not "point to any evidence and 

demand unbounded deference." Kittitas County, 172 Wn.2d at 157. 

One disappointed with the GMHB' s ruling may seek redress from the superior 

court. This reviewing court reviews decisions of the GMHB under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, which calls for a review of the record created 

before the GMHB-not the decision of the superior court. Buechel v. Dep't ofEcology, 

125 Wn.2d 196,202, 884 P.2d 910 (1994). Ferry County, the party challenging the 

GMHB decision, bears the burden of proving the decision invalid. RCW 

34.05.570(1)(a). The court must grant relief from the decision if, as relevant here: 

(d) The agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; 

(e) The order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when 

viewed in light of the whole record ... ; [or] 

(i) The order is arbitrary or capricious. 

RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)-(e), (i). 

This appeals court reviews the GMHB'sJegal conclusions de novo, giving 

substantial weight to its interpretation of the statute it administers where the agency has 

specialized expertise in dealing with such issues. City ofRedmond v. Cent. Puget Sound 

Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 136 Wn.2d 38,46,959 P.2d 1091 (1998); City ofBurien v. 

Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wn. App. 375, 382, 53 P.3d 1028 

(2002). This court reviews the GMHB's factual determinations for substantial evidence. 

41 

No. 3l33l-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty., 161 Wn.2d at 424. Substantial evidence exists where 

there exists a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth 

or correctness of the order. Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 

176 Wn. App. 555, 564-65, 309 P.3d 673 (2013), review denied, 179 Wn.2d 1015 (2014). 

Finally, courts review challenges that a GMHB order is arbitrary and capricious under 

RCW 34.05.570(3)(i) by determining whether the order represents '''willful and 

unreasoning action, taken without regard to or consideration of the facts and 

circumstances surrounding the action. '" Kittitas County, 172 Wn.2d at 154; City of 

Redmond, 136 Wn.2d at 46-47 (citation omitted). 

Habitat and Species of Local Importance 

We now begin to answer the questions raised by Ferry County's four assignments 

of error. The GMHB faulted Ferry County for failing to designate any habitat or species 

of local importance. Ferry County argues it has no obligation to designate any habitat or 

species of local importance. Futurewise argues that Ferry County must designate species 

and habitats of local importance. We do not defer to the GMHB on this issue, since the 

obligations of counties planning under the GMA is a question of law this court reviews 

de novo. Kittitas County, 172 Wn.2d at 154. 

We find this dispute unimportant. Assuming Ferry County did not have to donate 

any species, it passed a critical area ordinance. That ordinance must comply with the 

GMA, which requires it to include BAS when it decides whether to designate species and 

42 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

habitats of local importance. Honesty in Envtl. Analysis and Legislation (HEAL) v. 

Central Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Ed., 96 Wn. App. 522, 527,979 P.2d 864 

(1999). "RCW 36.70A.172(1) provides that counties and cities 'shall include' best 

available science in developing both policies and regulations regarding critical areas. 

Inclusion of BAS in the development of critical areas policies and regulations is therefore 

a mandate of the GMA." HEAL, 96 Wn. App. at 528. 

The GMHB did not require the county to designate any species or habitat of local 

importance. The GMHB found the county enacted a critical area ordinance. Therefore, 

the GMHB initially ruled that Ferry County must include BAS in the adoption of that 

regulation. In the alternative, the county must provide a reasoned justification for 

departing from BAS. 

Burden of Proof 

Ferry County argues the GMHB improperly shifted the burden of proof. Under 

the GMA, the county's ordinances are presumptively valid upon adoption. RCW 

36.70A.320(1). The burden is on the petitioner before the GMHB to demonstrate that 

any action taken by the county is not in compliance with the GMA. RCW 

36.70A.320(2). 

In its compliance order, the GMHB recited these presumptions, requiring 

Futurewise "establish that the new adoption is clearly erroneous in view of the entire 

record before the Board and in light of the goals and requirements of the chapter." CP at 

43 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

14. Afterward, the GMHB found the county out of compliance with the GMA because 

"no substantial evidence in the record ... support[ ed] a County finding that BAS was 

included in designating Ferry County's Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas." 

CP at 28. 

While the GMHB correctly recited the presumption, its finding evidences a shift in 

the burden ofproduction. The GMA requires a county include BAS in its designation of 

critical areas, but the burden of showing a county failed to comply with this direction 

falls to petitioners like Futurewise. RCW 36.70A.320. For Futurewise to prevail, the 

GMHB should have found substantial evidence that BAS was not included in the record. 

Instead the GMHB found "no substantial evidence" that BAS was included. CP at 28. 

This improperly shifted the burden to Ferry County. 

Had the GMHB correctly placed the burden on Futurewise, the county argues, 

Futurewise would have had to provide substantial evidence that the county excluded BAS 

from its designation of critical areas. The standard for including BAS and whether 

substantial evidence supports the GMHB's finding is the subject of the next section. 

The harmless error doctrine applies to misstating the burden of proof if the facts 

the GMHB found were otherwise sufficient to conclude the county failed to include BAS. 

City o/Vancouver v. State Pub. Emp't Relations Com 'n, 180 Wn. App. 333, 354-57, 325 

P .3d 213 (2014). This is because, under the AP A, judicial relief is appropriate only if the 

"'person seeking judicial relief has been substantially prejudiced by the action 

, 

44 f 

I 
No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

complained of.'" RCW 34.05.570(l)(d); City o/Vancouver, 180 Wn. App. at 357. In its 

second finding, the GMHB found "Ferry County failed to include the Best Available 

Science in designating ... Habitats and Species of Local Importance." CP at 28. This 

finding does not evidence the same shift in burdens as the first. If substantial evidence 

supports that finding, the GMHB's error was harmless. 

Best Available Science 

The GMHB concluded Ferry County failed to include the BAS in designating 

habitats and species of local importance. Ferry County challenges this finding. This 

court reviews the GMHB' s factual findings for substantial evidence. Substantial 

evidence exists where there exists '''a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fairminded person of the truth or correctness of the order.'" Spokane County, 176 Wn. App. 

at 565 (citation omitted). 

In 1995, the state legislature amended the GMA to clarify the standards under 

which counties are to designate and protect critical areas. The amendment found in RCW 

36.70A.l72(l) reads: 

(1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, 

counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing 

policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of 

critical areas. 

The GMA does not define the term "best available science." The Department of 

Commerce, however, has adopted regulations to assist a county in including BAS in a j 

I. 

45 
No. 31331-0-II1 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

critical area ordinance. The regulations recognize the importance ofthe inclusion of BAS 

to decisions affecting endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. WAC 365-195­

900(3), WAC 365-195-905(2) and WAC 365-195-910 encourage a county to use 

resources available from state and federal agencies. The responsibility for including best 

available science lies with the county. WAC 365-195-905(3). A county may consult 

with qualified scientists, but scientists should follow criteria contained in the regulations. 

WAC 365-195-905(3). 

"Science," for purposes of BAS, is information produced through the scientific 

process. WAC 365-195-905(5). The information should be peer reviewed. WAC 365­

195-905(5)(a)(l). The information should be obtained by methods that can be replicated 

and that reach logical conclusions. WAC 365-195-905(5)(a)(2)-(3). The scientific 

information should be the result of appropriate statistical or quantitative methods. 

A county need not develop the scientific information through its own means, but it 

must rely on scientific information. CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 836. By RCW 36.70A.l72(1), 

"the Legislature left the cities and counties with the authority and obligation to take 

scientific evidence and to balance that evidence among the many goals and factors to 

fashion locally appropriate regulations based on the evidence not on speculation and 

surmise." HEAL, 96 Wn. App. at 531. The GMA directs counties to determine what 

lands are primarily associated with listed protected species, and then to adopt regulations 

protecting those lands. RCW 36.70A.020(9), .030(5), .060(2), . 170(l)(d). "The GMA 

46 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

requires the county to designate and protect all critical areas within its boundaries." 

Stevens County v. Futurewise, 146 Wn. App. 493, 511, 192 P.3d 1 (2008). Generally the 

DFW's priority habitat maps are the BAS on the county's critical areas for listed species. 

Futurewise, 146 Wn. App. at 512. 

In an earlier generation of this case, Ferry County argued that its citation to 

regulations on the subject of critical areas met compliance with the GMA's demand for 

BAS. CFFC, 155 Wn.2d 824. The high court disagreed because dependence on another 

body'srule-making removes the county from the role of considering scientific 

information in a reasoned process of analysis. CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 835. Although the 

county is not required to use a particular methodology, it must, at a minimum, use some 

kind of scientific methodology. CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 83'6-37. Growth boards require 

counties to consider competing scientific information and other factors in a reasoned 

process of analysis. CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 835. 

One Washington court has emphasized the importance of BAS in the setting of 

adopting a critical areas ordinance. The HEAL court wrote: 

While the balancing of the many [GMA] factors and goals could 

mean the scientific evidence does not playa major role in the final policy in 

some GMA contexts, it is hard to imagine in the context of critical areas. 

The policies at issue here deal with critical areas, which are deemed 

"critical" because they may be more susceptible to damage from 

development. The nature and extent of this susceptibility is a uniquely 

scientific inquiry. It is one in which the best available science is essential 

to an accurate decision about what policies and regulations are necessary to 

mitigate and will in fact mitigate the environmental effects of new 

47 
No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

development. 

HEAL, 96 Wn. App. at 532-33. 

A math teacher requires a student to demonstrate the manner in which she arrived 

at her result in addition to showing the result. This requirement informs the teacher 

whether the student thoroughly and correctly performed the calculation. The GMA has a 

similar demand. The Act affords a county deference when reviewing the scientific 

evidence, but the BAS must be included in the record and must be considered 

substantively in the development of critical areas policies and regulations. HEAL, 96 

Wn. App. at 532. Mere inclusion of scientific sources in a critical area ordinance is not 

sufficient. HEAL, 96 Wn. App. at 531. To demonstrate that BAS has been included, 

counties and cities should address the BAS on the record. WAC 365-195-915( I). A 

'''written record'" need not be a discrete document but must provide an actual 

explanation. Kittitas County, 172 Wn.2d at 158. In short, the county should show its 

work. 

Ferry County argues it considered all BAS about habitats and species that might 

be considered important from a local perspective. It contends it reviewed the DFW's 

PHS list, DFW Living with Wildlife Series; and a US Department of Fish and Wildlife email of January 26, 2005. The ordinance also lists other guides and letters from Karin 

Divens that the county reviewed. Based on these sources, the county found no candidate 

species or species of concern that have been identified as species of local importance. 

48 

No. 31331-0-II1 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

The county argues the inclusion of these legal and scientific authorities referenced in the 

record fulfill its obligations under the GMA. 

Ferry County inaccurately describes the science upon which it relied, and the 

county disagreed or ignored DFW's science without developing or obtaining its own 

valid scientific information. Therefore, we must uphold the GMHB's finding. 

The bibliography Ferry County attached to its critical area ordinance separates the 

sources upon which it relied for each section of the ordinance. Section 9.01-02 

designates species and habitats of local importance and the bibliography lists six sources 

for those sections. The bibliography for designating species and habitats of local 

importance omits the Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Office Technical 

Guide, the Soil Conservation Service manual, the National Cooperative Soil Survey, the 

DFW Classification System for Priority Habitat, updated February 4, 1998, the DFW 

Priority Habitat and Species Program, initiated 1989, DFW representative Karin Divens's 

letters, and the transcription of the county's meeting with Karin Divens. Of the six 

sources the county lists in this section, one is a statute and two are WAC regulations, 

which are not considered scientific sources. 

The only scientific source identified as supporting the critical area ordinance 

section on habitat or species oflocal importance is Washington Department ofFish and 

Wildlife Maps (Fish Planting). This is not a comprehensive source for designating and 

49 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

protecting wildlife and habitats in Ferry County. Nor did Ferry County explain how it 

utilized the fish planting maps in creating the ordinance. 

We could end our analysis here but we go further and discuss the other science 

sources that Ferry County cites in support of other portions of the critical area ordinance. 

Regulations direct a county to consider the Department ofFish and Wildlife's priority 

habit and species lists, which are peer reviewed by wildlife scientists. WAC 365-190­

130(4 )(b). The county analyzed only 23 of the 31 species the DFW lists as occurring and 

being locally important in Ferry County. The county's review did not include the bald 

eagle, peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, common loon, fisher, gray wolf, grizzly bear, 

or lynx. Ferry County provided no explanation for omitting a review of the 8 species. 

Ferry County refused to list any of the 22 species that it placed on its 2011 review. 

Most of the reasons the county offered for its refusal are not based in science. Those 

non-scientific reasons are addressed later. The scientific reasons Ferry County offered 

are addressed now. 

Ferry County refused to list the Columbia spotted frog because chemical runoff 

from residential and agricultural areas is insignificant, trout have a negative effect on the 

frog, and there is no winter grazing. No scientific evidence in the record supports these 

statements. 

Ferry County refused to designate the western toad as locally important because 

"losses occur even in pristine areas due to unknown causes." AR at 1506. Ferry County 

50 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

provided no scientific support in the record for this assertion. 

Ferry County refused to designate the black-backed woodpecker because most 

private property does not experience large high intensity fires or insect infestations, 

factors DFW identifies as harmful to the woodpecker. Again, the record lacks scientific 

support for the county's conclusion. 

Ferry County refused to designate Vaux's swift, in part, because insecticide use in 

Ferry County is limited. The county refused to designate the yellow-billed cuckoo that 

possibly the bird may be extirpated in Ferry County. The record supports neither of these 

statements. 

Ferry County refused to designate the bull trout because it does not have critical 

habitat in Ferry County. The county cites a US Fish and Wildlife e-mail dated January 

26,2005, to support this conclusion, but the e-mail is not in the record. The only science 

source in the bibliography critical area ordinance of locally important species is the 

"DFW Maps (Fish Planting)." This source does not support a finding of an absence of 

the bull trout in the county. To the contrary, DFW recommended Ferry County list the 

bull trout and the department's map for bull trout identifies Ferry County as "a priority 

area where the species is known to occur." AR at 664. 

The county refused to designate Townsend's big-eared bat as a species of local 

importance, in part, because no private demolition occurs in Ferry County. Again, 

nothing in the record supports the county's statement. 

51 
No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Ferry County refused to designate the Wolverine because ofits possible 

extirpation in the contiguous United States. A 2001 report from the State of Washington 

on its lynx recovery plan describes the population of wolverines in Washington as "low 

density." AR at 672. Under a goal of the GMA, low density species should be protected. 

The DFW's PHS lists wolverines as occurring in Ferry County. 

In sum, contrary to DFW's recommendations, Ferry County refused to designate 

any species or habitats as locally important. In support of its lack of designations, the 

county uses DFW biologist Karin Divens's letter for support, in which she explains the 

DFW cannot force the county to designate any species or habitats. Divens is correct that 

DFW cannot force the county to designate any species or habitats. The county may 

disagree with or ignore DFW's recommendations. But in choosing this course of action, 

the county "necessarily ha[s] to unilaterally develop and obtain valid scientific 

information." CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 836. The county failed to develop or obtain any 

valid scientific information supporting its refusal to designate any habitats or species as 

locally important. 

Substantial evidence supports the GMHB' s finding that the county failed to 

include BAS in its designation of species and habitats of local importance. The county 

may depart from BAS, but must do so using a reasoned process. This is the subject ofthe 

final section of this opinion. 

52 

No. 31331-0-1I1 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Reasoned Departure 

Ferry County denies it avoided BAS, but argues, assuming it did, its departure 

resulted from a reasoned justification. The GMHB found Ferry County "failed to provide 

a reasoned justification for departing from the Best Available Science." CP at 27. This 

court reviews the GMHB's factual findings for substantial evidence. Substantial 

evidence exists when there exists "a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fairminded person of the truth or correctness of the order." Spokane County, 176 Wn. App. 

at 564-65 (citation omitted). 

Futurewise argues the county's departure from BAS must be based in science, 

citing CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 837. We disagree. The CFFC court analyzed whether Ferry 

County departed from BAS using a reasoned process and found the county's process 

insufficient because the county did not evaluate the science produced by Dr. McKnight or 

compare his science with any other resources. CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 837. The court 

analyzed Ferry County's process for departing from BAS in scientific terms because the 

county departed from BAS for scientific reasons. CFFC, 155 Wn.2d at 837. The court 

subsequently clarified that the GMA does not require the county to follow BAS; rather, it 

is required to include BAS in its record. Thus, a county may depart from BAS if it 

provides a reasoned justification for such a departure. Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty., 

161 Wn.2d at 431-32. Our court has declared, however, that departure from BAS in a 

critical areas ordinance should be rare. HEAL, 96 Wn. App. at 532-33. 

53 

No.3l33l-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

What constitutes a sufficiently reasoned process for departing from BAS is poorly 

defined in GMA jurisprudence. But reasoned means rational and supported by evidence. 

In Swinomish Tribal Community, BAS supported riparian buffers to protect fish habitat in 

agricultural areas, but those areas had been diked and drained as much as 100 years ago. 

161 Wn.2d at 431. Skagit County departed from BAS because it would require the 

county to restore habitats that no longer existed. The court upheld the county's 

justification for departing from BAS because the GMA does not require counties to 

enhance critical areas, only to protect them. 161 Wn.2d at 431. The proposed buffers 

were inconsistent with the goals of the GMA. 

This division of the Court of Appeals agreed Stevens County departed from BAS 

for an insufficiently reasoned process in Stevens County, 146 Wn. App. 493. Stevens 

County tied its classification of critical habitat to lands designated for protection by 

federal or state rule making. We found Stevens County failed to comply with the GMA 

because its critical areas ordinance removed the county from the role of considering 

scientific information in a reasoned process of analysis. 146 Wn. App. at 514-15. 

When departing from BAS, a county must again show its work. In Yakima County 

v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 168 Wn. App. 680, 693, 279 P.3d 434 (2012), 

we affirmed the GMHB because the county failed to provide in the record a justification 

for rejecting BAS with regard to stream buffers. 

54 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Ferry County contends its departure from BAS was reasonable for various reasons. 

The county argues that 4 of the 31 DFW designated species are not found in Ferry 

County. The county argues it did not list two species because they are federally listed 

and seven ETS species because they are being addressed in other revisions to the 

county's ordinance. The record does not reflect any review or analysis of these species. 

Like the Stevens County and Yakima County decisions, we find the county's lack of 

analysis is not a reasoned justification. or process, which could justify departing from 

BAS. Even ifFerry County had reviewed these species, their status as federally listed or 

ETS species does not reflect any reason they should not also be designated as species of 

local importance. 

Ferry County next argues it departed from science because wetland and riparian 

regulations and buffers already protect 11 species on the DFW list. But as Futurewise 

argues, protection by other regulations is irrelevant. Otherwise the GMA's critical 

habitat provisions are superfluous since state and federal rules already seek to protect 

ETS species. More importantly, nothing in the record supports the county's assertion. 

There is no evidence that the county analyzed regulations and determined existing 

regulations were sufficient to protect these 11 species. 

Ferry County argues it departed from BAS that recommended designating I 

nineteen species because the land they inhabit is under the authority of the federal, tribal, 

or state government, or the DFW did not list any occurrences ofthe species in Ferry I

I 

! 

55 t

. ! 

~' 
No. 31331-0-II1 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

County. Futurewise argues the county has jurisdiction over developments that are not 

forested practices on forested private land. The county's jurisdiction is not delineated in 

the record. Assuming the county's assertion is accurate, the county still fails to offer a 

reason for departing from BAS. 

Karin Divens explained the lack of a reasoned justification behind relying on state 

and federal protection in her July 2011 letter to the County Commission. AR at 1134. 

As Divens noted, the jurisdiction of other sovereigns on Ferry County land does not 

diminish the need for designating the species' habitats as locally important. By 

relinquishing to other jurisdictions, Ferry County removes itself from the role of 

considering scientific information in a reasoned process of analysis, which it cannot do. 

Ferry County also refused to list some species because DFW's PHS list could not 

confirm their breeding habitat. This assertion is not a reasoned justification because 

breeding habitats are not the only habitats needing protection. DFW explained the other 

reasons for protecting priority habitats in its PHS list: 

Priority habitats are habitat types or elements with unique or 

significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may 

consist ofunique vegetation type (e.g., shrub-steppe) or dominant plant 

species (e.g., juniper savannah), a described successional stage (e.g., oldgrowth forest), or a specific habitat feature (e.g., cliffs). 

AR at 657 (emphasis in original). The county failed to analyze these other reasons for 

protecting their habitat. Again, a failure to analyze BAS does not constitute a sufficiently 

reasoned process for departing from BAS. Stevens County, 146 Wn. App. at 514-15; 

56 

No.31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Yakima County, 168 Wn. App. at 693. In addition, Ferry County pointed to the lack of 

information as a reason for not designating these species and their habitats. In the 

. absence of scientific evidence, a county should adopt a precautionary or no risk approach. 

WAC 365-195-920. But even if the lack of science were a valid reason to not designate a 

species, Ferry County provided no explanation for why, in particular, the breeding 

locations of a species must be known in order to designate them as locally important. 

Finally, Ferry County justifies its refusal to list some species because protection of 

the species will negatively impact the entire economy of Ferry County. For support of 

this contention, Ferry County emphasizes that only 18 percent of land within Ferry 

County is privately owned. But nothing in the record analyzes how designating the 

species could harm private ownership or the economy of Ferry County. The record does 

not show that protecting any species will thwart any planned development. The record 

does not show that protected habitats will interfere with the county's mining, logging or 

other industries. 

We want Ferry County to economically succeed but reject the implication that 

protecting endangered wildlife and habitat is necessarily bad for the economy. The GMA 

does not seek to preclude all development, but to manage development. Homes and other 

structures may be built in a place and manner to protect wildlife. Mining and logging can 

be perfermed with preservation of habitat in mind. For all we know, Ferry County could 

promote its emerging tourism industry by conserving its wildlife. 

57 

No. 31331-0-III 

Ferry County v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings 

Substantial evidence supports the GMHB's finding that the county failed to 

provide a reasoned justification for departing from the BAS. 

CONCLUSION 

We uphold the GMHB's December 2011 noncompliance order and reverse the 

trial court's partial summary judgment order. 

A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to 

RCW 2.06.040. 

Fearing, 

,1~,~ J. 

WE CONCUR: 

58