Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
RESEARCH TOOLS › MRSC Inquiries › Environment & Natural Resources
 

MRSC Inquiries

Environment & Natural Resources

    Environment & Natural Resources - Clean Indoor Air Act


    1. Is smoking allowed in a city/county building if it is done in a designated smoking room?
      The governing law here is the Washington Clean Indoor Air Act, chapter 70.160 RCW. The basic rule of that law is set out in RCW 70.160.030, which provides that "No person may smoke in a public place except in designated smoking areas." A "public place" is defined by RCW 70.160.020 to mean "that portion of any building or vehicle used by and open to the public, regardless of whether the building or vehicle is owned in whole or in part by private persons or entities, the state of Washington, or other public entity." The smoking ban applies to all office work environments in public buildings and includes any indoor or enclosed occupied space in which activities such as clerical, administration or business are conducted, as well as any associated areas such as meeting rooms and bathrooms. Under the Clean Indoor Air Act, a smoking area may be designated in a public place except in office reception areas and waiting rooms of any building owned or leased by the state of Washington or by any city, county, or other municipality in the state of Washington; ... [and] public meetings or hearings . . ." RCW 70.160.040(1)(a).

      Additionally, any designated smoking area within a city/county building must comply with strict rules adopted in 1994 by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries to protect office workers from exposure to secondhand smoke. These rules apply to local governments and are set out in the Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) beginning at section 296-62-12000.

      According to the WACs, smoking rooms must be:


      clearly posted;
      enclosed;
      separate from common areas such as restrooms, hallways and stairways;
      ventilated at a rate of at least 60 cubic feet per minute per smoker;
      subject to sufficient "negative pressure" to prevent smoke from migrating to other nonsmoking areas at all times;
      operated with a separate mechanical exhaust system that exhausts directly outside without recirculation to nonsmoking areas;
      closed for use whenever the ventilation and exhaust system is operating improperly, until repairs can be completed;
      closed for use whenever cleaning or maintenance work is conducted.


    Environment & Natural Resources - Critical Areas


    1. Request for model critical areas ordinances and background articles
      Please see our Critical Areas Web page.

    Environment & Natural Resources - Marine Environment


    1. What is a marine protected area?
      A marine protected area (MPA), as adopted by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, is an environmental management tool used to protect marine life. A marine protected area is a refuge for marine life where certain plants and animals are not harvested, and human activities that can disturb or damage marine life are restricted. A report on marine protected areas in Puget Sound identified a total of 102 Puget Sound intertidal and subtidal protected areas as existing MPAs, including state and local parks, such as Edmonds &Underwater Park and Tacoma&s Titlow Beach Park. As of 1998, there were only five "no-take " MPAs in Puget Sound where extraction of marine life is prohibited: the Edmonds Underwater Park, two beaches in Des Moines, Octopus Hole in Hood Canal, and Orchard Rocks, south of Bainbridge Island. In San Juan County, eight voluntary no-take zones have been identified. There is some question about whether local control of harvest management in MPAs is pre-empted by the state and tribes. At the Edmonds Underwater Park, in addition to the city, the state Department of Natural Resources and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife are involved in the closure of the area to harvesting.

    Environment & Natural Resources - Shoreline Management Act


    1. Must a property owner apply for a shoreline substantial development permit for development on property that includes the shoreline area but that will not have any part of the development in the shoreline area as that is defined in the Shoreline Management Act (200 feet from the ordinary high water mark)?
      Must a property owner apply for a shoreline substantial development permit for development on property that includes the shoreline area but that will not have any part of the development in the shoreline area as that is defined in the Shoreline Management Act (200 feet from the ordinary high water mark)?

      No. The fact that substantial development is proposed on property that includes a shoreline area does not trigger the permit requirement unless that development takes place, in whole or in part, in the shoreline area, which is defined to include the area extending to 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. See RCW 90.58.030(2)(f).

    2. Does the Shoreline Management Act protect the views of upland residents from being obscured by shoreline development?
      Yes, to some extent. RCW 90.58.320 provides as follows:No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the sameand then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.Thus, a local shoreline master program could allow buildings in the shoreline area to exceed 35 feet, subject to the subjective statutory limitation that "overriding considerations of the public interest will be served."

    3. Must the shoreline master program of a city that plans under the Growth Management Act be an element of the city's comprehensive plan?
      Yes, under regulatory reform legislation adopted in 1995. RCW 36.70A.480(1) states in part that the shoreline master program of a city or county "shall be considered an element of the county or city's comprehensive plan" adopted under the Growth Management Act. In addition, the shoreline master program, including use regulations, is to be considered as part of a city or county's development regulations, for Growth Management Act purposes.

    Environment & Natural Resources - State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)


    1. May a city allow a developer to initiate construction on a project when an EIS is currently being prepared?
      No, although the developer, under WAC 197-11-070(4), may do certain preliminary activities that are not inconsistent with WAC 197-11-070(1), which states as follows:Until the responsible official issues a final determination of nonsignificance or final environmental impact statement, no action concerning the proposal shall be taken by a governmental agency that would:(a) Have an adverse environmental impact; or (b)Limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.

      Since the purpose of an EIS is to identify and discuss significant impacts and reasonable alternatives to a project, including mitigation measures, it would be unlikely that the city could allow any construction before that information is presented to the city in the form of a final EIS (and the project is approved). This conclusion is consistent with the general policy of SEPA to insure the full disclosure of environmental information so that environmental matters can be given proper consideration during decision making. Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Ass'n v. King CountyCouncil, 87 Wn.2d 267, 273 (1976).

    2. May a city require mitigation under its SEPA authority that would impose requirements beyond what the city's zoning code imposes?
      Probably, given that case law makes it clear that SEPA acts as an "overlay" to local ordinances and can be applied to deny a project that otherwise complies with zoning regulations. For example, the court of appeals explained in West Main Assocs. v. Bellevue, 49 Wn. App. 513, 525 (1987):

      SEPA standards or policies are not "elevated" above specific zoning ordinances, but rather they provide general guidance for determining whether the environmental impacts of an otherwise acceptable project require the denial of, or the imposition of conditions on, the project. In this regard, our courts have repeatedly stated that SEPA is not a substitute for local zoning ordinances, but "overlays local ordinances and must be enforced even where a particular use is allowed by local law or policy." Cook v. Clallam Cy., 27 Wn. App. 410, 415, 618 P.2d 1030 (1980), review denied, 96 Wn.2d 1008 (1981); West Main Assocs. v. Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d 47, 53, 720 P.2d 782 (1986); Polygon, at 65; RCW 43.21C.060. Nevertheless, project denial or the imposition of conditions should be based on policies identified by the city and incorporated into its zoning regulations and/or comprehensive plan and formally designated by the city as possible bases for the exercise of its SEPA authority. Victoria Partnership v. Seattle, 59 Wn. App. 592, 597 (1990).

    3. Is a short plat located partially within flood plain subject to SEPA?
      A short plat is categorically exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-11-800(6)(a), unless the city's SEPA procedures have designated the flood plain area as an environmentally sensitive area and have selected the applicable categorical exemption (for short plats under WAC 197-11-800(6)(a)) as not being applicable within designated environmentally sensitive areas. WAC 197-11-908.

    4. Is a water line extension project exempt from SEPA?
      Yes, if the line is 8 inches or less in diameter and the water line does not cross any "lands covered by water." WAC 197-11-800 (24).

    5. Is an annexation of territory to a city subject to SEPA review?
      No. RCW 43.21C.222 provides that "annexation of territory by a city or town is exempted from compliance" with SEPA requirements.

    Environment & Natural Resources - Streams


    1. Request for information on urban stream restoration in cities.
      A Web search turned up the following links relating to stream restoration in Washington and out-of-state:

      Washington

      Out-of-State

      Portland

      The following items are availble from the MRSC Library:

      • Restoring Streams in Cities: A Guide for Planners, Policymakers, and Citizens, by Ann L. Riley, Island Press, 1998
      • Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection, by Tom Schueler, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Center for Watershed Protection, 1995
      • Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998
      • "Institutional Constraints to Urban Stream Restoration," Part 1, Public Works, June 1997, Part 2, Public Works, July 1997
      • "Environmental Constraints to Urban Stream Restoration," Part 1, Public Works, November 1998, Part 2, Public Works, December 1998
      • "Urban Stream Buffer Architecture," by Tom Schueler, PAS Memo, August 2000
      • "A Creek Runs Through It," by J. William Thompson, Landscape Architecture, February 1996
      • "Reconsidering Streams to Save the Northwest's Salmon," by Peter Steinhart, Land and People, Spring 1997
      • "Salvaging Streams," by Michele C. Monde and Robert Siegfried, Civil Engineering, July 1998


    Environment & Natural Resources - Water Rights


    1. Can a municipal water right under a water right certificate be extinguished?
      Yes. Although the statutory provision for relinquishment of water rights does not apply to water rights relating to a municipal water supply (RCW 90.14.140(2)(d)), the common law doctrine of abandonment, under which a water right can be extinguished, does apply. Okanogan Wilderness League v. Town of Twisp, 133 Wn.2d 769, 781 (1997).™

    Environment & Natural Resources - Watershed Planning


    1. What is a WRIA?
      A WRIA is a water resource inventory area. The State of Washington is divided into 62 geographic areas or WRIAs, defined on the basis of surface water resources and codified in WAC 173-500-040. WRIAs were originally established by the administrative code that implemented the Water Resources Act of 1971.

    2. Is local watershed planning required?
      No, local watershed planning is optional, not mandatory. However, if the local planning unit seeks state money to support its planning process, then the framework established in chapter 90.82 RCW must be followed.

    3. Who must be involved in watershed planning under ch. 90.82 RCW?
      Watershed planning may involve a single WRIA or multiple WRIAs. It may be initiated only with the agreement of all counties within the planning area, the largest city of town in each WRIA, and the largest water-supply utility in each WRIA. All Indian tribes with reservation lands within the WRIA must be invited to participate as initiating governments. To obtain state funds, the initiating governments must designate an entity to serve as the lead agency. State government and other affected tribal governments must be consulted in developing the planning process. Financial and technical assistance is provided through the Department of Ecology.

    4. What are the required elements of watershed planning under chapter 90.82 RCW?
      Local watershed plans must address water quantity and may address water quality, habitat, and setting or revising instream flows.

      The planning units must complete water quantity assessments. The assessment includes the following:

      • An estimate of the total water resources present in the basin, the amount available, the quantity of existing rights (including claims and federally reserved rights), and the quantity of water actually used in the watershed,
      • An estimate of future needs,
      • Identification of areas where aquifers are recharged and where they discharge to surface water bodies,
      • An estimate of surface and groundwater available for future appropriation, taking into account minimum instream flows.

      Also required are strategies for increasing water supplies in the planning area, such as conservation, reuse, voluntary water transfers, aquifer recharge and recovery, and additional water allocations or storage.

    5. How does watershed planning relate to the Growth Management Act?
      Watershed planning under chapter 90.82 RCW provides an optional, locally driven, collaborative process to address issues related to water use. It is separate from but related to planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). Watershed planning provides a structure for interjurisdictional collaboration to resolve conflicts about water.

      Cities and counties will carry out many of the decisions that result from watershed planning efforts. Local comprehensive plans, capital facilities plans, and development regulations are keys to implementation of watershed planning efforts, whether or not a city or county is planning under the GMA. For the majority of the state, which is planning under GMA, the GMA provides the framework for this effort. In addition, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) provide goals and steps that will assist in implementing watershed plans.

      Growth Management staff at the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development will work with local governments to integrate water and GMA planning efforts by providing technical assistance and collaborating with other state agencies and local and tribal governments on watershed planning activities.

    6. Who can provide technical assistance to watershed planning efforts?
      State agencies provide technical assistance to watershed planning efforts and should be represented on the planning units formed for the WRIA or multi-WRIA area. The Department of Ecology is responsible for overall coordination of the watershed planning program and is the logical place to start in obtaining technical assistance. A staff contact from the Department of Ecology's regional office is assigned to each watershed plan. Contact Melissa Gildersleeve, Ecology watershed coordinator at (360) 407-6548, or e-mail mgil461@ecy.wa.gov, for further information.

    Environment & Natural Resources - Wellhead Protection


    1. Request for sample wellhead protection ordinances and related information.
      Sample wellhead protection ordinances:

      In addition, the following material is available for loan from the MRSC Library:

      • "A Guide to Wellhead Protection," by Jon Witten and Scott Horsley, PAS Report No. 457/458 American Planning Association, 1995
      • "Washington State Wellhead Protection Program Guidance Document," Washington State Department of Health, 1995
      • City of Tumwater, "Wellhead Protection Plan," prepared by Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., 1997
      • "Zoning for Wellhead Protection," by Sanjay Jeer, Zoning News, August 1995
      • "A Primer in Aquifer and Wellhead Protection," by Jon Witten, Environment & Development, February 1994
      • Renton Ordinance No. 4992, 2002

      The PAS Report, "A Guide to Wellhead Protection," and the Zoning News and Environment & Development articles provide useful background information for developing your ordinance.



    Environment & Natural Resources - Wetlands


    1. Are cities required to adopt the Department of Ecology's standards for wetland buffers?
      No. The Growth Management Act does not establish specific buffers or setbacks for wetlands and streams. The Department of Ecology has established standard buffer widths as statewide standards for Category I, II, III and IV wetlands (see DCTED "Critical Areas Assistance Handbook). These recommended buffer widths are used in conjunction with the state's original four-tiered rating system published in 1991. These buffer widths are based upon best available science to protect all wetlands found throughout the state. It is intended that local governments consider their specific natural resources and environmental setting to tailor these standard buffer widths to protect wetlands in their jurisdiction. Basically, this means that local governments are not required to follow the standard buffer widths established by Ecology. The actual buffers and setbacks adopted by Washington jurisdictions differ somewhat from the Ecology standards.

      The Department of Ecology recommended buffer widths are listed in the DCTED "Critical Areas Assistance Handbook" on pp. 62-63. These are recommended widths but are not mandated requirements. Ecology is now developing a new rating system for wetlands as part of the department's work on Best Available Science, and has issued a draft of Volume 1, regarding "Freshwater Wetlands in Washington Stat." The second volume of the Ecology BAS document will contain protection options and recommendations and may include revised recommendations for buffer widths for wetlands. This will be available sometime this summer.

      You may also be interested in the Best Available Science (BAS) requirements of the GMA outlined in RCW 36.70A.172. The requirements for BAS are included in the Washington Administrative Code 365-195-900 - 365-195-925 (See Part Nine - Best Available Science). This regulation describes what constitutes best available science and how local governments should identify, evaluate and include it in their critical-areas policies and regulations. BAS can be described as research conducted by qualified individuals using documented methodologies, the information reviewed by qualified scientific experts, and the criticisms addressed by the proponents.

      The determination of "best available science" is the local jurisdiction's responsibility as part of the development of its critical areas policies and regulations. See the following excerpt from WAC 365-195-905:

        (3) The responsibility for including the best available science in the development and implementation of critical areas policies or regulations rests with the legislative authority of the county or city. However, when feasible, counties and cities should consult with a qualified scientific expert or team of qualified scientific experts to identify scientific information, determine the best available science, and assess its applicability to the relevant critical areas. The scientific expert or experts may rely on their professional judgment based on experience and training, but they should use the criteria set out in WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and any technical guidance provided by the department. Use of these criteria also should guide counties and cities that lack the assistance of a qualified expert or experts, but these criteria are not intended to be a substitute for an assessment and recommendation by a qualified scientific expert or team of experts.

      The following are Web links to information on wetland buffers:

      Local Government Web pages on Wetlands