Critical Areas Ordinance Talking Points

The City of Tacoma will host a Walk & Talk about the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) on October 18th, giving community members a chance to see firsthand how local policies shape the wetlands, streams, and habitats that protect our neighborhoods.

This event comes at an important time. The City is nearing the end of its multi-year update to the CAO, which determines how Tacoma safeguards its most sensitive natural areas and, by extension, the health and safety of our residents. Communities for a Healthy Bay has prepared a set of key talking points and questions you can bring to the Walk & Talk, organized by issue area: Tribal rights and sovereignty, pollution exposure and health equity, and long-term environmental protection.

If you’re joining the walk, we encourage you to ask questions that matter most to you and to listen closely to how the City plans to uphold science-based protections for our shared waters, wildlife, and communities.

1. Tribal Rights and Sovereignty – The Puyallup Tribe underscores that salmon, shellfish, and clean water are central to their identity and are protected by treaty. Their comments reiterated that the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) must honor these treaty-reserved resources through stronger – not weaker – protections. Some key concerns and questions include:

• Protecting Treaty-Reserved Salmon Habitat: In their comments, the Tribe expresses worries that proposed exemptions (e.g. allowing the fill of “small” wetlands) and reduced buffers will accelerate cumulative damage to salmon streams, contrary to treaty obligations. The Best Available Science (BAS) and Gap Analysis do acknowledge this concern – these recommend removing the draft provision that exempted certain Category III wetlands, because all wetlands, regardless of size, provide essential filtration and habitat functions. The Tribe specifically urges eliminating such size-based loopholes entirely. Clarifying Question: Will the final CAO fully remove these small-wetland exemptions and buffer reductions in order to align with best available science and uphold treaty-protected salmon habitat?
• Ensuring “No Net Loss” and Addressing Cumulative Impact: Tribal and state feedback highlights that the ordinance must prevent the incremental, cumulative loss of wetlands and buffers that is pushing salmon runs toward collapse. Best Available Science and state policy call for a “no net loss” standard for all critical areas, yet it’s unclear how the City will ensure this in practice. The City’s response so far is that each project must avoid/minimize impacts and mitigate remaining harm – but this case-by-case approach may miss bigger-picture declines. Clarifying Question: How will Tacoma actively monitor and limit cumulative impacts to treaty resources over time? For instance, will the City track total wetland acreage and stream functions lost/gained and adjust regulations if targets for “no net loss” are not met?
• Legal Duty to Consider Salmon: Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) requires giving “special consideration” to conservation measures for anadromous fish (salmon). However, commenters noted the draft CAO did not mention “salmon” at all. For a city in a salmon-bearing watershed, omitting explicit salmon protections is a serious gap (legally and culturally). Clarifying Question: Will the CAO be revised to explicitly recognize salmon-bearing streams and include measures to enhance salmon habitat? (For example, integrating local salmon recovery plan elements or stricter buffers for streams known to support salmon.) How is Tacoma ensuring the ordinance meets the GMA mandate to preserve and enhance fisheries?
• Meaningful Tribal Consultation vs. Notification: The Puyallup Tribe explains that they rely on SEPA notices for consultation on matters like this, which is not true engagement. Simply notifying the Tribe – without co-managing or incorporating their input – diminishes the Tribe’s ability to protect treaty resources. This concern was echoed by community members: “Notification is not the same as engagement.” Clarifying Question: How will the City improve direct consultation with the Tribe going forward? Will there be government-to-government meetings or a formal role for tribal experts in shaping the CAO? Ensuring the Tribe’s sovereignty and knowledge are respected in this process is crucial for partnership and trust.

2. Pollution Exposure and Health Equity – Community feedback draws a clear connection between environmental protections and public health, especially for overburdened neighborhoods. Weaker critical-area rules could translate to more pollution, flood risk, and loss of green space where communities can least afford it.

• No-Net-Loss Standard as an Equity Issue: By allowing buffer averaging, reductions, and broad exemptions, the draft ordinance may undermine the “no net loss” standard, risking further degradation of urban nature. This is more than an ecological concern – it directly affects residents’ health. Tacoma’s most pollution-burdened areas already suffer from some of the states’s worst air quality and urban heat islands. Any additional loss of wetlands (natural filters) or tree-covered buffers (which cool and clean the air) will hit these communities hardest. The BAS and Gap Analysis support tightening these provisions – for example, Ecology’s latest guidance ties any buffer reductions to strict mitigation (habitat corridor requirements, etc.), and WDFW recommends explicitly aiming for no net loss of functions and values for all critical areas (not just wetlands). Clarifying Question: How will the updated CAO ensure that environmental benefits are not incrementally stripped away from frontline communities? Will the City commit to stronger buffer standards (as recommended in the Gap Analysis) and monitor conditions in low-income/minority neighborhoods to verify that policy changes don’t lead to disproportionate harms (e.g. increased flooding or pollution)?
• Water Quality and Pollution Prevention: The Department of Ecology’s science is clear that even small wetlands filter out pollutants and improve downstream water quality. If the CAO allows “small” wetlands to be filled or ignored, those lost filtration benefits could mean more contaminated runoff reaching streams, bays, and eventually people. The Puyallup Tribe and Ecology both note that all wetlands, regardless of size, perform essential functions and must be mitigated when impacted. Failing to protect these natural filters could worsen pollution exposure for communities fishing in local waters or using well water. Clarifying Question: Has the City analyzed how proposed wetland and stream buffer changes might affect water pollution levels and public health? For instance, if certain industries or developments get leniency under the new rules, will nearby residents face higher exposure to contaminants in water or soil, and how will that be addressed or monitored?
• Groundwater and Aquifer Protection: The draft update expands Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) protections to cover much of the city – including industrial areas in the Tideflats – which the Port of Tacoma flagged as a concern. From a health equity perspective, however, protecting groundwater used for drinking is paramount. The BAS report seems to support this broad CARA mapping (recognizing interconnections between surface pollution and aquifer health). Clarifying Question: Will the City stand by science-based CARA designations in the face of industry pressure? How will it ensure that any activities in these recharge areas (especially around marginalized communities) meet strict standards so that toxics don’t seep into groundwater? If there are plans to adjust CARA boundaries or requirements due to the Port’s comments, what public health analysis will accompany those changes?
• Transparency and Public Accountability: A recurring community theme is the lack of transparency in how the CAO draft was developed and presented. For example, the draft didn’t clearly cite which studies or BAS were used, nor explain deviations – even though doing so is a legal requirement. This opacity feeds public distrust, especially in communities that have historically been left out of environmental decision-making. The Planning Commission heard pointed questions on this: Why put forward a draft that even staff admit needed Ecology’s corrections? Why were agency comments (like WDFW’s letter) not shared openly? Clarifying Question: What steps will Tacoma take to improve transparency and accountability in this CAO update? And will the public get to see and discuss agency and tribal feedback in a more accessible way moving forward? A clear explanation of the “why” behind each policy (in plain language) would go a long way toward building community trust.

3. Long-Term Environmental Protection for the Community – Lasting environmental protection means thinking beyond this year’s code update – it requires ongoing use of the best science, monitoring outcomes, and adapting to new challenges like climate change. Community and expert input highlighted several needs to make the CAO a proactive, living policy rather than a static incremental update.

• Adaptive Management and Monitoring: Some noted that the draft CAO lacks any program for monitoring critical areas or adapting management over time. While the City does update codes periodically (and staff pointed out that mitigation plans include some contingency measures for project-level failures), this is a reactive approach. Without a formal monitoring framework, there’s a risk that problems (e.g. steady wetland loss or buffer encroachments citywide) won’t be caught until it’s too late. Clarifying Question: Will Tacoma establish a more proactive adaptive management plan for critical areas? For example, could the City commit to an interim review (say in 3–5 years) of key environmental indicators – wetlands acreage, water quality metrics, species counts – to check if CAO policies are working? And might it form an advisory group (including tribal reps, scientists, community members) to regularly review monitoring data and recommend course corrections before the next 10-year update? Building in such feedback loops would demonstrate a commitment to long-term stewardship and public accountability.
• Integrating Best Available Science (BAS) Continuously: The BAS report and agency comments highlight new science and tools that could greatly enhance long-term protections. One example is WDFW’s recommendation to shift from outdated stream “typing” (the forest practice codes) to a Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH) model for riparian buffers. This SPTH approach uses local ecology (tree height potential) to determine how wide riparian buffers should be, ensuring streams have enough canopy and root zone to support full functions. It reflects the latest science and is supported by WDFW as a way to protect water quality, temperature, and habitat for the entire stream network. Clarifying Question: Is the City evaluating adoption of the SPTH model or similar BAS-backed methods? If not in this update, how will Tacoma make sure its current stream buffer standards (based on older classification systems) are providing equivalent protection? This applies to other science updates too – e.g. using the new statewide hydrography dataset (WASHD) for mapping streams, or updating wetland rating systems to 2023 standards (as the Gap Analysis suggests). Keeping the ordinance aligned with evolving science will be critical for long-term effectiveness.
• Protecting Biodiversity and Rare Habitats: Beyond salmon, the CAO covers many species and habitat types that need enduring safeguards. WDFW’s comments point out areas to strengthen – for instance, Oregon white oak groves (a priority habitat) need robust protection in Tacoma. The draft does list Oregon White Oak Habitat as regulated, but WDFW advises specific standards: e.g. define the protected area by the larger of a tree’s canopy or root zone radius to truly preserve these century-old oaks and the wildlife they support. They also endorse planning urban open spaces with wildlife corridors in mind, so species can move safely even as the city grows. Clarifying Question: Does the updated CAO incorporate these biodiversity best practices? For example, are we adopting WDFW’s oak habitat guidance and ensuring critical wildlife corridors are identified and protected from fragmentation? If certain recommendations (like larger buffers for oak stands or specific wildlife passage considerations) are not being adopted, the community will want to understand why not – and what alternative measures will ensure these irreplaceable habitats endure for future generations.
• Climate Resilience for Future Generations: Both the law and the community demand that critical areas policy be climate-forward. In fact, Washington’s new climate legislation (HB 1181) now requires cities to account for climate change in planning. The Tribe’s letter and others voiced that the CAO should explicitly incorporate climate resilience measures – because wetlands, floodplains, and forests are our natural defense against climate impacts. The BAS review does include “Climate Change Effects” sections for each critical area, outlining expected changes (e.g. bigger floods, sea level rise, drought). The Gap Analysis even suggests using updated data like 500-year flood maps (2% annual chance) in regulating flood-prone areas, since climate change is making extreme floods more frequent. Clarifying Question: How will the CAO update put this climate science into action? For instance, will Tacoma incorporate sea-level-rise projections in delineating flood and erosion hazard areas now, rather than waiting? Will buffer widths or wetland mitigation requirements be adjusted upward to account for the increased stress from a warming climate? A transparent answer is needed because long-term community protection hinges on forward-looking standards – the regulations we put in place today must hold up under the climate realities of tomorrow.
• Meaningful Ongoing Engagement: Ensuring long-term protection is not just about science and regulation – it’s about people. Several stakeholders felt that the CAO process so far “excluded key stakeholders,” resulting in an engagement process that felt “rushed and incomplete.” To build an ordinance that stands the test of time, the City should have the community as a partner in implementation. Recommendation/Question: Consider establishing a more structured ongoing engagement mechanism. For example, will Tacoma form a citizen or tribal advisory committee for critical areas? This could help with the adaptive management discussed above – by regularly bringing diverse local knowledge (tribal scientists, environmental justice advocates, neighborhood groups) to the table to review how the CAO is working and to flag emerging issues. In line with environmental justice best practices, making the process inclusive and transparent in the long run will ensure the ordinance not only uses the best available science, but also earns and retains the public’s trust.