Measuring Outcomes of Land Acquisitions and Regulations

Study reviews efforts to protect habitat and expand outdoor recreation in six counties

Legislature specified programs for review

The 2016 Legislature directed JLARC staff to review the outcome measures used to evaluate the success of specific acquisition and regulatory programs that are intended to protect and conserve habitat and expand outdoor recreation (ESHB 2380, Sec. 6005). Appendix 1 includes details about each program's goals, existing outcome measures, and other benefits.

Exhibit 1.1: Acquisition and regulatory programs reviewed

Source: Programs mandated in (ESHB 2380, Sec. 6005). JLARC was also directed to look at other DNR expenditures and other state expenditures that expand recreational lands and facilities. These include the Natural Areas Program, Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account, Nonhighway and Off-road Vehicle Activities program, and others. See Appendix 1 for full list.

JLARC staff selected counties based on geographic distribution and program representation

The mandate specified that the study compare the amount of habitat land protected by regulations and acquisitions in six counties — three west of the Cascades and three east of the Cascades. JLARC staff selected the counties based on geographic distribution, acres acquired, and the inclusion of all programs specified by the Legislature.

Exhibit 1.2: Study includes Asotin, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kittitas, and Okanogan Counties

Click on the map below for more information about regulations and acquisitions.

Source: "Agency reported acres acquired" is based on JLARC staff analysis of acquisition data provided by state agencies. "Acres regulated" is based on UW scientists' analysis of best available spatial data about regulated resources.

View Executive Summary | Next Section

Regulations and acquisitions protect habitat in different ways

There are many tools for protecting habitat, such as landowner agreements, leases, regulations, and acquisitions. The Legislature directed JLARC to compare the amount of habitat lands protected by regulations and acquisitions, including easements.

Scientists and conservation specialists identify general differences between regulations and acquisitions

Scientists and conservation specialists agree that while there are exceptions, regulations and acquisitions generally differ in a few key ways.

• Regulations provide general protection to large areas. They may slow damage to habitat quality, while allowing development or Land conversion means changing the land from one use to another. For example, forest may be converted from harvestable timber land to residential development use. land conversion.
• Acquisitions provide targeted protection to a defined area. They may offer opportunities to improve habitat, and likely preclude development or land conversion.

Depending on an agency's habitat, recreation, and other goals, different tools or a combination of tools may be needed. This section highlights the difference in habitat protection between regulations and acquisitions.

JLARC's consultants estimate that regulations cover four times as many acres as acquisitions in six counties studied

JLARC staff worked with a team of scientists from the University of Washington (UW) to map the extent of regulations and acquisitions in Asotin, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kittitas, and Okanogansix counties using ArcGIS. This analysis is the first effort to compare the footprint of regulations and acquisitions and relied upon the best available spatial data. Not all regulations and acquisitions could be mapped. For additional details about data limitations, methodology, and links to the UW report and maps, see Appendix 2.

The UW scientists estimate that land use is regulated on at least 762,000 acres, and acquisitions protected at least 186,000 acres between fiscal years 1990 and 2015. This estimate is lower than the number of acres acquired as reported by agencies because not all acquisitions could be mapped.

Regulations and acquisitions created different patterns of protected area

• Regulations in the six counties covered narrow bands of land clustered around particular environmental resources (e.g., water, riparian areas, wetlands). These regulations were intended to reduce the impact of development and human activity to these resources.
• Acquisitions in the six counties often covered blocks of "uplands" are areas elevated above the lowlands along rivers or between hillsuplands, creating large areas of contiguous protection. These acquisitions are intended to protect good quality habitat, often provide recreational opportunities, and may allow restoration projects to occur.

Exhibit 2.1: Regulations covered narrow bands with large gaps. Acquisitions covered contiguous blocks.

Source: JLARC staff depiction of University of Washington analysis. The analysis was based on best available spatial data for land acquisitions and included the creation of new maps for the areas regulated under the Shoreline Management Act, Forest Practices rules, wetlands restrictions, and the Growth Management Act’s critical areas regulations.

The shape and distribution of protected land may be a better indicator of protection than the total acreage

When a species avoids habitat edges, total acres can overstate the amount of usable habitat, particularly for terrestrial species. Scientists note certain species need a buffer between the edge of their habitat and where they live. This is called "edge sensitivity." Examples include species such as the Bald Eagle and Tiger Salamander, and other Species of Concern in Washington include those species listed as State Endangered, State Threatened, State Sensitive, or State Candidate, as well as species listed or proposed for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.species of concern identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The UW scientists assessed the impact of edge sensitivity for 40 species of concern that are moderately to highly edge sensitive. When edge sensitivity was considered, acquisition covered more acres of habitat than regulation in the six counties during the study period.

Exhibit 2.2: Acquisitions in six counties provide more habitat than regulations when edge sensitivity is considered

Source: UW analysis of data, fiscal years 1990-2015 in six counties. Analysis used median "edge" of 82 meters based on scientific literature. Species included in the analysis are endangered, threatened or sensitive, and have moderate to high edge sensitivity.

To be effective, regulations and acquisitions must cover the range of the species in question

Scientists note that individual members of a species live and move in a specific area. This is called its "home range." To be effective, land protected by either regulation or acquisition should cover the species' home range. Generally:

• Regulations protect areas suitable for species that have smaller home ranges, regardless of edge sensitivity.
• Acquisitions protect areas suitable for species that have large home ranges or that are very edge sensitive.

Previous Section | Next Section

Whether the state should buy land depends on the conservation goals

Regulations and acquisitions may be used together or separately to protect habitat. The Legislature asked JLARC staff to identify situations when acquiring land that is already regulated may or may not provide adequate habitat protection. JLARC staff worked with UW scientists to map the extent of regulations and acquisitions in six counties.

Case studies show that regulations may provide adequate area protection for some species, but not others

The UW scientists' approach focused on habitat protection for terrestrial species. Such an analysis could be expanded to include plant species, biodiversity, and other factors that affect land use decisions. The UW scientists compared maps of acquisitions and regulations to the needs of four species, including their Some species, including many species in need of conservation, need a buffer between the edge of their habitat and where they live.edge sensitivity and Every species lives and moves in a specific area. This is called its home range.home range requirements.

The case studies indicate that regulations may offer adequate habitat protection for some species, and acquisition may provide adequate protection for other species. The UW scientists' analysis does not assert whether existing regulations or acquisitions have been successful through measurable outcomes. In fact, as noted in the next sections, data to measure such outcomes is largely unavailable.

Exhibit 3.1: Two examples from the case studies demonstrate how acquisitions and regulations differ in habitat protection

Source: JLARC staff depiction of UW analysis.

The detailed maps for these case studies are available for download in Appendix 2.

State agencies have processes to review potential acquisitions. These processes do not include spatial maps of areas covered by regulations and existing acquisitions.

The Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Department of Natural Resources each have internal processes to review potential acquisitions. These reviews do not currently include updated spatial information about areas protected through regulations.

Agencies’ approaches vary, but they report that they typically consider existing protection, proximity to other protected lands, ecosystem needs, threats to habitat, and recreational opportunities. All three agencies participate in the Habitat and Recreation Lands Coordinating Group, which publishes reports of planned acquisitions. These reports include descriptions, acreage, current and future costs, and funding sources.

Mapping where regulations apply and asking key questions would inform decisions about future land acquisitions

Maps of the spatial extent of regulations, like the ones created by the UW scientists, would complement existing conservation tools, such as the An approach using biodiversity and population trends to develop regional priorities that focus conservation investments in areas that will yield the greatest benefits.Washington Biodiversity Council's Conservation Opportunity Framework, to help make decisions about habitat protection and conservation. This could be done by state and local governments.

The UW scientists suggest two approaches for conservation planning tools that can incorporate the spatial extent of regulations:

1. Prioritization Map. This approach would generate a map that ranks parcels based on factors such as number of species of concern, threat of land conversion, connection to other protected habitat, and ability to withstand climate change.
2. Dashboard.  This approach would allow evaluation of a parcel by its characteristics, such as information on species of concern, the protection status of a species, and the level of threat of land conversion. Data may be represented by a dashboard, with visual status indicators for different criteria to display information about a single parcel or to compare parcels.

Scientists also recommend key questions for legislators to effectively focus acquisitions

State agencies have internal processes to review potential acquisitions. These processes vary by agency. Information about land acquisition decisions may not be readily available or linked to final funding requests.

JLARC's consulting scientists identified general questions that legislators could ask agencies about proposed land acquisitions intended to protect and conserve habitat.

1. Does the acquisition have a clearly stated goal?
2. What species will the acquisition protect and what are its habitat requirements?
3. To what degree are these species and habitat types already protected?
4. What is the level of threat to the species/habitat and to what degree will acquisition offset those threats?
5. How likely is the acquisition to provide continued protection for the species/habitat in the future? 
6. Does the proposed acquisition have a plan that includes monitoring and a mechanism to adjust management if goals are not being met?

Previous Section | Next Section

Outcomes are measured for only salmon acquisition programs and two regulatory programs

The Legislature directed JLARC to review outcome measures of acquisition and regulatory programs. Outcomes indicate how effective the program or project is in meeting its goals. 

Exhibit 4.1: Outcomes indicate how effective the program or project is in meeting its goals

Source: JLARC staff adaptation of Office of Financial Management logic model (2016 Performance Measure Guide).

Programs that succeed in measuring outcomes have mandates, monitoring plans, and funding

JLARC's consultants from the Institute for Natural Resources (INR) found that programs that successfully measure outcomes share three characteristics. This was consistent with JLARC staff's analysis of acquisition and regulatory programs with outcome information:

1. Legal requirement for monitoring outcome measures, including designation of responsible agency.
2. Clear monitoring plan including goals, specific desired outcomes, and quantifiable metrics.
3. Dedicated resources for monitoring, through federal and/or state sources.

Outcome information is available for acquisition programs related to salmon recovery

Outcome information for salmon recovery is available and publicly reported.

Washington receives funds for salmon recovery through a Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The grant requires the state to spend ten percent of funds on monitoring efforts. The state provides its monitoring plan in the grant application. Washington funds three types of monitoring: effectiveness, population trends, and species level data. The work is done by multiple agencies and provides the basis for information on the state’s progress toward salmon recovery.

Outcome information is available for regulatory programs related to the federal Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts

State regulatory programs that have federal reporting requirements collect and report performance information.

• DNR’s forest practices rules have reporting requirements under the federal Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts. DNR submits annual compliance and monitoring reports to the federal services. An adaptive management program ensures effective implementation and informs adjustments to the forest practices rules.
• The State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has a water quality program that fulfills the state's responsibilities under the federal Clean Water Act. Consistent with EPA requirements, Ecology has a long-term strategy for monitoring and analyzing data about water quality. It provides an annual report with 12 standard parameters and requires local jurisdictions to collect and analyze stormwater discharge data.

Previous Section | Next Section

Outcome measures for acquisition programs are required by statute, but agencies have not developed them

Local approaches and capacity to implement and monitor regulations vary

The Legislature directed JLARC to review existing and potential outcome measures of acquisition and regulatory programs. Outcomes indicate how effective the program or project is in meeting its goals. 

No systematic approach for measuring outcomes of state regulatory programs

The Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) implements the Hydraulic Project Approval program and collects data about compliance. While there is no statutory requirement to do so, the agency has conducted some effectiveness studies.

Statute does not require state agencies or local governments to monitor the effectiveness of state regulations implemented at the local level (local regulations). This includes the Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act's Critical Area Ordinances, which may include wetland and floodplains regulations.

Local capacity for implementing, enforcing, and monitoring state regulations varies widely among the local governments in the Asotin, Clark, Jefferson, King, Kittitas, and Okanogansix counties studied. For example, King County has a specialized department that is able to draw on the expertise of county ecologists, geologists, hydrologists, and biologists for permit reviews. In contrast, Asotin County has a small planning staff that work with the Department of Ecology and WDFW when Asotin County determines technical expertise is required.

City, town, and county officials reported to JLARC staff that they presume local regulations are effective because they are based on best available science and approved by the state. Many jurisdictions also reported that their resources are limited for monitoring outcomes.

Conversely, state agencies reported that they do not have the authority or resources to monitor the outcomes of local regulations.

Outcome measurement for state regulations implemented at the local level would be improved with monitoring

Determining whether local regulations meet goals requires two types of monitoring:

1. Implementation and compliance monitoring (an output measure) examines if the local regulation is implemented as intended and if permit holders are following the rules. For example, did a permittee leave a prescribed buffer between their home and a stream?
2. Effectiveness monitoring (an outcome measure) examines the regulation’s effect on the environment. For example, did the function and value of the resource change or were fish and wildlife affected?

In 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), with Ecology and WDFW, developed guidance for local governments to establish monitoring programs for local regulations. The guidance states “A local government need[s] a feedback loop to help determine whether goals are being met, and if the goals are not being met, how to improve the process.” However, in a 2016 survey conducted by Commerce of local jurisdictions, 18 of 29 cities that responded reported that they do not monitor the effectiveness of Critical Area Ordinances. In another question, 19 jurisdictions reported that they would monitor effectiveness if data and tools were available.

Targeted effectiveness studies have been done

State agencies and local governments have conducted studies to evaluate the effectiveness of regulations in specific situations. Examples include:

1. Clark County conducted a study in 2009 of permit compliance and success of wetlands and habitat mitigation projects. It found that the county could modify permitting and performance standards to improve outcomes.
2. Ecology conducted a study in 2000 to assess the effectiveness of compensatory wetlands mitigation statewide and found that the state experienced loss of wetlands and mitigation could be improved.
3. King County conducted a study in 2014 of shoreline conditions and found that both permitted and unpermitted changes to the shoreline may have physical and ecological effects.

While these studies address the effectiveness of regulations in specific situations, there is no systematic approach to statewide outcome measurement. This means that the state has no way to know whether state regulations implemented at the local level are achieving state goals.

Legislative Auditor Recommendation

If the Legislature wants reliable information about the outcomes of regulatory programs implemented at the local level, it should consider requiring state agencies to work with local governments to develop outcome-focused performance measures.

Previous Section | Next Section

Agencies should improve information about land stewardship and communicate it to the Legislature

The study mandate directed JLARC staff to review whether state agencies have stewardship plans and if the agencies are in compliance with those plans. "Stewardship" refers to activities that maintain or improve the quality of habitat and recreation resources. This includes maintenance and operations (e.g., suppressing weeds, repairing fences, thinning forests, maintaining infrastructure) and restoring or developing the land to meet the objectives of the acquisition.

Agency plans vary in detail and lack outcome measures

JLARC staff found that the Departments of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Natural Resources (DNR), and the State Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks) have plans for management activities including those listed as "stewardship" in the study mandate. JLARC’s review of state agency management plans found that plans vary in the level of detail, how well information is communicated, and how often they are updated. None of the plans include outcome measures related to stewardship activities. DNR has a statutory requirement to develop management plans for one of the two types of natural areas, and funding for planning was eliminated in 2009.

Exhibit 7.1: Agency management plans do not include measurable outcomes

Source: JLARC staff analysis of WDFW, DNR, and State Parks plans and OFM Strategic Planning Guidelines.

In the absence of statutory guidance regarding stewardship, JLARC staff looked to the Office of Financial Management's (OFM) guidance to state agencies for developing management plans. OFM's guidance suggests that agencies answer questions about current and desired condition, actions needed, and indicators of progress.

Reporting approaches that use ratings to explain resource condition would answer OFM's planning questions

The existing land management plans vary in the level of detail provided. While some plans identify specific planned activities, they are not linked to measurable outcomes that would allow for an assessment of progress. The plans do not use a clear metric to show current status, desired condition, and whether agencies are making progress. This makes it difficult to communicate the current and future needs of state land.

JLARC staff identified five approaches that use a rating, grade, or other indicator to characterize the condition of an asset. The rating represents the current (baseline) condition. Agencies can express the desired condition as another rating, and communicate the actions and resources needed to achieve that condition.

Exhibit 7.2: Five approaches use ratings that communicate actions and resources needed to achieve desired condition

Source: JLARC staff analysis of WDFW, DNR, State Parks, WSDOT, National Park Service models.

JLARC staff developed hypothetical examples of how a ratings approach could be used in reporting current condition, desired condition and actions needed.

Exhibit 7.3: How could this approach be used?

Legislative Auditor Recommendation

DNR, WDFW, and State Parks should provide the Legislature with a plan detailing the resources necessary to report stewardship needs.

DNR, WDFW, and State Parks concur with this recommendation.

Previous Section | Next Section