Opinion ID: 2634734
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantial Evidence of Species Listing

Text: ¶ 45 The GMA was enacted in 1990 and 1991 in response to public concerns about rapid population growth and increasing development pressures in the state, especially in the Puget Sound region. Alan D. ¶ 1 Copsey, Including Best Available Science in the Designation and Protection of Critical Areas Under the Growth Management Act, 23 SEATTLE U.L. REV. 97, 97 (1999). The GMA employs concepts that are designed for the densely populated and wealthy Puget Sound counties and imposes them on sparsely populated and financially distressed counties like Ferry County. [2] ¶ 46 The GMA requires that all counties and their cities comply with all its mandates if the county has (1) a population of over 50,000 and a growth rate of 10 percent during the previous 10 years or (2) a growth rate of over 20 percent in the previous 10 years regardless of population. RCW 36.70A.040(1). Counties not meeting the above criteria are permitted to opt in to the GMA and are courted with promised state financial assistance in meeting their compliance obligations. [3] Cumulatively, the majority of the funding went to King County (21%), Kitsap County (9.65%), Pierce County (9.4%), Snohomish County (7.2%), and Spokane County (7.15%); these five counties received 55% of the funding. Ferry County received approximately 1%, and most of Washington's smaller, poorer counties received under 2%. ¶ 47 Ferry County decided in good faith to opt in (a decision they have no doubt learned to regret). Some funding was provided early on but diminished to $29,915 for the 97-99 biennium, the relevant time here, and no money was received in fiscal year 2000. Tim Trohimovich, 1000 Friends of Washington, THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (GMA) AFTER MORE THAN 10 YEARS: ANOTHER LOOK & A RESPONSE TO CRITICISMS (Apr. 2002). ¶ 48 In addition to Ferry County, several other counties with limited population opted in, including Benton, Columbia, Douglas, Franklin, Garfield, Kittitas, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, and Walla Walla. Richard L. Settle & Charles G. Gavigan, The Growth Management Revolution in Washington: Past, Present, and Future, 16 U. PUGET SOUND L. REV. 867, 901 n. 217 (1993). Once under the GMA's mandates, by either law or choice, the decision of a county is irrevocable RCW 36.70A.040(1). ¶ 49 Under the GMA, all counties and cities in Washington must adopt development regulations that designate and protect critical areas, including fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The GMA does not define the term fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and the definition in WAC 365-190-080(5) was not adopted until April 15, 1991. ¶ 50 In 1995, approximately four years after enactment, the GMA was amended to clarify the standards under which counties were to designate and protect critical areas. ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1724, § 105, 54th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash.1995); Laws of 1995, ch. 347, § 105, at 1561 (codified at RCW 36.70A.172). In designating and protecting critical areas ... counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. RCW 36.70A.172(1) (emphasis added). The section passed both houses of the legislature unanimously. [4] See 1995 FINAL LEGISLATIVE REPORT, 54th Leg., at 199. The GMA does not define the term best available science (BAS), and WAC 365-195-900 through -925, which further develop this concept, was not adopted until August 27, 2000. Unfortunately, the BAS requirement does not apply to state agencies. ¶ 51 In the instant case, the issue for our consideration is `whether substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that the County did not base its species listing on the best available science.' Majority at 106 (quoting Wash. State Supreme Court Order). In order for the majority to reach the conclusion that the record is supported by substantial evidence, it must take the following untenable position: Ferry County's real quarrel with the Board seems to be based on the 12 ETS species recommended by DFW  Ferry County argues that there is no evidence of species other than the lynx and bald eagle being present in Ferry County. The validity of the DFW list is largely irrelevant here; however; Ferry County could have listed whatever species it deemed appropriate if it supported its decision by BAS.... We review only the Board's determination that Ferry County's listing did not include BAS, not whether listing 12 species is supported by BAS. Majority at 108. ¶ 52 A careful review of the Board's decision demonstrates that the DFW list of priority species is not only relevant but was the impetus for the Board's decision that the county did not include BAS in the development of its comprehensive plan. ¶ 53 The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, is the exclusive means of judicial review of an agency action, Diehl v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 153 Wash.2d 207, 103 P.3d 193 (2004), including the growth management hearings boards. In such an appeal, we review exclusively [5] the hearing board's order and the administrative record upon which it is based. See City of Burien v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 113 Wash.App. 375, 382, 53 P.3d 1028 (2002). A review of the Board's order and the record contradicts the majority's statement that the DFW priority habitat species listing was irrelevant. ¶ 54 The Board's order repeatedly compares the actions of Ferry County to the DFW priority habitat species list. The Board made three findings of fact to support its determination that the county failed to include BAS in listing fish and wildlife species for protection. The Board's second finding of fact directly compares the DFW priority habitat species list with those protected by Ferry County under its amended comprehensive plan. That finding reads in its entirety as follows: DFW lists the following as endangered, threatened, or sensitive species in Ferry County: Birds Bald Eagle Threatened Ferruginous Hawk Threatened Peregrine Falcon Endangered Sandhill Crane Endangered Upland Sandpiper Endangered American White Pelican Endangered Mammals Lynx Threatened Pygmy Rabbit Endangered Gray Wolf Endangered Grizzly Bear Endangered Woodland Caribou Endangered Fish Bull Trout Sensitive Findings of Fact 2, AR at 246 (emphasis added). ¶ 55 The majority must concede that a review of the record conclusively demonstrates that not only is the Board's finding of fact that these 12 species are present in Ferry County not supported by substantial evidence, it is completely false. ¶ 56 The finding erroneously states that these species are in Ferry County. As the majority reluctantly concedes on page 104, footnote 2, the DFW priority habit species list is actually a compilation of species that are present in the DFW's region one. Region one includes the 10 easternmost counties of Washington, including Stevens, Pend Oreille, Lincoln, Spokane, Whitman, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin, as well as Ferry. ¶ 57 By assuming that just because a species is located in region one, which includes 10 counties, that it must necessarily be present in Ferry County, the Board and the majority are guilty of the logical error known as fallacy of division. This syllogism falsely argues that what is true of the whole must be true of each of its constituent parts. Ruggero J. Aldisert, LOGIC FOR LAWYERS: A GUIDE TO CLEAR LEGAL THINKING 222-23 (3d ed.1997). ¶ 58 Dr. McKnight's knowledge and research clearly demonstrate that the distribution of many of the species is very limited in geographical extent in eastern Washington and certainly does not extend to all 10 region one counties. For one obvious example, Dr. McKnight's research demonstrates that the upland sandpiper is known to breed only in eastern Spokane County, but not in Ferry County, in which there is no reported sighting. ¶ 59 The majority is unable to cite any available scientific information in the administrative record that demonstrates that all of the species on the DFW priority habitat species list exist in Ferry County. It is telling that the petitioners  and the DFW  chose not to present this claim or support it by actual evidence. Because the majority seems so willing to make an illogical leap, I conclude that it, like the Board, has substituted concerns for what the record actually demonstrates. ¶ 60 Further review of the Board's order demonstrates that the erroneous finding of fact 2, which states that 12 species on the DFW priority habitat species list are present in Ferry County, is more than a mere scrivener's error. Rather, the DFW priority habitat species list formed the sole basis for determining that the county failed to use BAS in designating and protecting fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. ¶ 61 According to the order below, the Board was responding to the following argument by Concerned Friends of Ferry County: Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas fails to include best available science since it rejects best available science recommendations that Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program be incorporated into Second Amended Comprehensive Plan.... AR at 251. The Board then noted that the county's comprehensive plan did not include the DFW priority habitat species plan and the Board references DFW wildlife biologist Kevin Robinette's written recommendation that 12 species be listed. The Board then concludes that Ferry County is in non-compliance with the Growth Management [Act] ... for providing insufficient evidence that its failure to list all species that are endangered, threatened or sensitive is based on best available science as required by RCW 36.70A.171. AR at 256. ¶ 62 After carefully examining the Board's order, it is impossible to draw any conclusion other than that the DFW priority habitat species list formed the basis of the Board's decision that Ferry County failed to apply BAS. In addition to the references above, the Board stated that the county's comprehensive plan includes only two species as Endangered Threatened Species and referred to this as a limited listing. In order to proclaim that the county listed only two species and that the listing was limited, the Board needed some frame of reference or baseline. AR at 254-55. The baseline was the DFW priority habitat species list, which indicates that 12 such species may exist in a 10-county area in eastern Washington. [6] ¶ 63 Under the GMA, the Board is required to apply a deferential standard of review to the actions of local jurisdictions such as Ferry County. RCW 36.70A.3201. Moreover, local ordinances are presumed valid upon adoption, RCW 36.70A.320(1), and challenging parties bear the burden of demonstrating GMA noncompliance. RCW 36.70A.320(2). ¶ 64 Here, the statutes require that Ferry County's comprehensive plan be presumed in compliance with the GMA. The only evidence of the county's alleged failure to include BAS is the DFW priority habitat species list, neither presented by nor accompanied by qualified experts. Ironically, DFW input clearly does not meet the BAS as defined in the statute, in later WACs, or even as defined in the majority opinion. ¶ 65 This is no science, much less best available science. At most, the list suggests that the 12 species in question may exist in the 10-county area known as Region 1, not in Ferry County. Concerned Friends of Ferry County did not meet its burden to overturn the county. The Board's conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence, and the county must be upheld. It is decisions like this that have led to frustration state-wide with the power assumed by these unelected and nonexpert boards. [7]