CreekCheckerWalla Walla · Washington

Research library · compiled 2026-10-12

Do your own research.
Here is everything we used.

Search every source and fact below, or start with the five documents that matter most; each card shows whether it opens the official source or our hosted copy.

  • 109documents
  • 27statutes, rules & codes
  • 21datasets & map services
  • 99sourced facts

Links checked 2026-10-12. CreekChecker is built by residents; it is unofficial and not legal advice. Only the City can determine how its rules apply to a property.

Start here

The five documents that matter most.

If you read nothing else: the proposed text, the staff report and agency letters, the Planning Commission’s vote, the memo Council has for the hearing, and the City’s own explanation.

01The proposed code text

PDFLATEST · Oct 9, 2026Official sourceHosted copyP·01

Staff Recommended Draft Critical Areas Code Amendments Table, updated Oct 9, 2026

City of Walla Walla, Development Services2026-10-09

The proposed code text: 48 pages amending WWMC chapter 21.04. Table 6 (pp. 40–41) sets a 100-ft minimum buffer per side on the named creeks; the struck-out table it replaces shows 35 ft on most creeks and 50 ft on Yellowhawk.

The plain-text extract is unofficial, for searching only; the PDF is the official version. Extraction loses bold (new) and strikeout (deleted) formatting.

02Staff report and agency letters

PDFOfficial sourceHosted copyP·03

Planning Commission packet, Sept 14, 2026

City of Walla Walla, Development Services2026-09-14

97 pages: the staff report for File PLN5-26-0001 (pp. 1–12), the SEPA checklist, exhibits, and the DNR (pp. 86–87) and WDFW (pp. 89–97) comment letters.

Our hosted copy redacts one resident’s email and phone on p. 88; the City’s copy is the unredacted public record.

03The 7-0 vote

MinutesOfficial sourceR·05

Planning Commission draft minutes, Sept 14, 2026

City of Walla Walla Planning Commission2026-09-14

Draft minutes, not yet approved. Thirteen people testified, and the Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that Council direct staff to revise the draft to align with infill and growth-area goals “following available science matching local conditions” (p. 5).

Linked, not hosted: the minutes print speakers’ home addresses.

04What Council has in front of it

WebOfficial sourceP·02

Council agenda memo, Item 6E: Critical Areas Ordinance public hearing

City of Walla Walla2026-10-14

The staff memo for the Oct 14 hearing and the list of every attachment. It reports the Planning Commission’s recommendation and recommends that Council “open the public hearing and receive all public testimony.”

05The City’s own explanation

WebOfficial sourceHosted copyP·08

Critical Areas Ordinance project page

City of Walla Walla, Development Servicescaptured 2026-10-10

The City’s own summary, FAQ and schedule: Council hearing Oct 14, adoption Oct 28, effective Dec 31, 2026. It embeds the City’s buffer web map and links the WDFW riparian mapping tool.

The capture is an unofficial plain-text copy taken 2026-10-10; the live page may have changed.

P · 19 sources

The proposal: City documents

What the City is proposing and the documents it rests on: the draft, the consultant’s work, the presentations, and the code in force today.

The draft and the record behind it

PDFOfficial sourceHosted copyP·01

Staff Recommended Draft Critical Areas Code Amendments Table, updated Oct 9, 2026

City of Walla Walla, Development Services2026-10-09

The proposed code text: 48 pages amending WWMC chapter 21.04. Table 6 (pp. 40–41) sets a 100-ft minimum buffer per side on the named creeks; the struck-out table it replaces shows 35 ft on most creeks and 50 ft on Yellowhawk.

The plain-text extract is unofficial, for searching only; the PDF is the official version. Extraction loses bold (new) and strikeout (deleted) formatting.

WebOfficial sourceP·02

Council agenda memo, Item 6E: Critical Areas Ordinance public hearing

City of Walla Walla2026-10-14

The staff memo for the Oct 14 hearing and the list of every attachment. It reports the Planning Commission’s recommendation and recommends that Council “open the public hearing and receive all public testimony.”

PDFOfficial sourceHosted copyP·03

Planning Commission packet, Sept 14, 2026

City of Walla Walla, Development Services2026-09-14

97 pages: the staff report for File PLN5-26-0001 (pp. 1–12), the SEPA checklist, exhibits, and the DNR (pp. 86–87) and WDFW (pp. 89–97) comment letters.

Our hosted copy redacts one resident’s email and phone on p. 88; the City’s copy is the unredacted public record.

PDFOfficial sourceP·04

Stream Buffer Analysis (GIS memo), July 1, 2026

Facet, for the City of Walla Walla2026-07-01

The consultant’s desktop GIS analysis: 43.2 stream miles (29.7 open, 13.5 piped), and buffer area growing from 268.8 to 757.4 acres (2.1% to 5.8% of the city). It says the figures are for estimating and should not be used for site-level determinations.

PDFOfficial sourceP·05

Best Available Science Review Addendum (City BAS Review)

Facet, for the City of Walla Walla2026-06-26

Written to supplement the County’s 2008 science review, not to replicate it. It lists four references, reuses the 2008 HDR stream maps, and contains no Walla Walla field survey. Its one buffer map (Figure 12, p. 23) reproduces the 2008 recommended buffers: 35 ft on most city creeks, 50 ft on Yellowhawk.

PDFOfficial sourceP·06

Gap Analysis (final, revision 2)

Facet, for the City of Walla Walla2026-06-26

The consultant’s code and literature review. It reads WDFW’s guidance as 100 to 170 ft for Walla Walla and recommends 100 ft for all streams, adding that “The City must review the BAS-based recommendations and determine the best regulatory approach.” It contains no Walla Walla field data and no analysis of tiered or intermediate widths.

Presentations and the City’s own explanation

WebOfficial sourceHosted copyP·08

Critical Areas Ordinance project page

City of Walla Walla, Development Servicescaptured 2026-10-10

The City’s own summary, FAQ and schedule: Council hearing Oct 14, adoption Oct 28, effective Dec 31, 2026. It embeds the City’s buffer web map and links the WDFW riparian mapping tool.

The capture is an unofficial plain-text copy taken 2026-10-10; the live page may have changed.

VideoOfficial sourceP·10

Council work session recording, Sept 21, 2026

City of Walla Walla, on Vimeo2026-09-21

The full session (1:58:56). Sr. Planner Lisa Wasson-Seilo and Nell Lund of Facet presented; no public comment was taken. The captions are machine-generated and do not label speakers.

WebOfficial sourceP·11

Work session agenda, Sept 21, 2026

City of Walla Walla agenda portal2026-09-21

Item 2A: “2026 Draft Implementing 2046 Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas Ordinance Code Amendments.”

PDFOfficial sourceP·12

Comprehensive Plan 2046, draft of Sept 8, 2026

City of Walla Walla2026-09-08

The 628-page draft plan, heard Oct 14 as Item 6C. It plans for 39,884 people and 2,348 net new housing units by 2046.

Large file: about 217 MB.

The code in force today

CodeOfficial sourceP·13

WWMC chapter 21.04, Critical Areas (current code)

City of Walla Walla, via eCode360current

The critical-areas chapter in force today, which the draft amends. Its Table 6 sets 35 ft on most creeks and 50 ft on Yellowhawk; its wetland table runs from 25 to 250 ft.

CodeOfficial sourceP·14

WWMC Division VII: Nonconforming Situations (chapter 20.212)

City of Walla Walla, via eCode360current

Rules for existing structures that no longer meet code. A damaged nonconforming structure loses that status unless a permit application to repair or rebuild is made within six months (20.212.070(A)(4)).

PDFOfficial sourceP·15

Shoreline Master Program (amended 2023)

City of Walla Walla, filed with the Department of Ecology2023-12

Governs Mill Creek, which the draft leaves out of the CAO. Mill Creek’s shoreline buffer is 35 ft, and 0 ft where it is piped underground downtown (Table 6-2, amended Aug 23, 2023).

WebOfficial sourceP·16

Development Services public notices

City of Walla Wallacurrent

Hearing and land-use notices, including the City’s 2026 CAO vesting interpretations for two projects.

County context

WebOfficial sourceP·17

Walla Walla County 2046 periodic update

Walla Walla County Community Developmentcurrent

The County’s own update, also due Dec 31, 2026. As of Oct 10 it had posted no critical-areas draft, buffer proposal or hearing dates.

PDFOfficial sourceP·18

County periodic update scope of work (Kimley-Horn), final draft Dec 20, 2024

Walla Walla County2024-12-20

Budgets “Task 4: Best Available Science (BAS) review and gap analysis” at $12,300.

PDFOfficial sourceP·19

County 2026 periodic update project charter

Walla Walla County2026

The County’s project charter; page 5 includes a critical-areas update.

R · 29 sources

The public record

Agendas, minutes, notices, every written comment in the record, and the press coverage we found. Private residents appear as first name and last initial, as on our Learn page; their letters are linked at the City’s portal, not hosted here.

The Oct 14 hearing

WebOfficial sourceR·02

City Council page: meetings and livestream

City of Walla Wallacurrent

Regular meetings are the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays at 6:30 pm, and the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays in November and December. Work sessions take no oral public comment.

WebOfficial sourceR·03

Work session agenda, Oct 12, 2026

City of Walla Walla agenda portal2026-10-12

Item 2A continues the Sept 21 discussion of the implementing code amendments. No public comment.

PDFOfficial sourceR·04

Full Council agenda packet, Oct 14, 2026

City of Walla Walla2026-10-14

Every item on the Oct 14 agenda in one 2,672-page file; Item 6E runs packet pages 901–2635. The Item 6E memo links each attachment separately.

Very large file: about 334 MB (349,909,062 bytes). Download only if you need the complete packet.

Planning Commission, Sept 14

MinutesOfficial sourceR·05

Planning Commission draft minutes, Sept 14, 2026

City of Walla Walla Planning Commission2026-09-14

Draft minutes, not yet approved. Thirteen people testified, and the Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that Council direct staff to revise the draft to align with infill and growth-area goals “following available science matching local conditions” (p. 5).

Linked, not hosted: the minutes print speakers’ home addresses.

LetterOfficial sourceHosted copyR·06

WDFW comment letter, Aug 28, 2026

Mark Wachtel, Region 1 Habitat Manager, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife2026-08-28

The state fish and wildlife agency found “a high level of consistency” with its goals; said Table 6’s 100 ft “may be compliant … however a site evaluation would be best”; and asked that averaging not reduce a buffer below 100 ft at its narrowest point.

Written comments attached to Item 6E

LetterOfficial sourceHosted copyR·08

Technical, Legal, and Policy Concerns (12 pp.)

Matt Heuer, Walla Walla Valley Association of REALTORS2026-10-08

Argues that 100 ft is a City policy choice informed by a WDFW recommendation, not a width the statute imposes, and asks Council to pause adoption, seek Commerce guidance on the deadline, and commission a reach-by-reach analysis.

LetterOfficial sourceHosted copyR·09

Comment letter on the proposed updates

Bailee Butcher, Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities and Walla Walla2026-09-11

Calls WDFW’s buffer “a recommendation rather than a statewide mandate” and asks the City to delay implementation to the end of 2026 and evaluate a 75-ft buffer.

LetterOfficial sourceR·13

GIS map exhibit, Planning Commission hearing

James K. Hayner, attorney2026-09-14

A one-page map he presented at the hearing. The parcel and acreage counts in its legend are his own figures, not the consultant’s.

LetterOfficial sourceR·15

Comment letter

Dave C., Walla Walla-area resident2026-09-14

Calls protective buffers “reasonable public policy” but asks that the tree-height standard be described as a policy choice; wants flexibility and compensation.

LetterOfficial sourceR·16

Comment email

Michael M., PE, civil engineer writing personally2026-09-14

Asks about economic and tax effects on newly encumbered properties and for definitions of undefined terms; calls the process hasty.

City notices

WebOfficial sourceR·19

City bulletin, Aug 12, 2026

City of Walla Walla (GovDelivery)2026-08-12

The first public schedule: Sept 14 Planning Commission hearing, Sept 21 work session, Oct 14 hearing, Oct 28 adoption.

WebOfficial sourceR·20

City bulletin, Sept 1, 2026

City of Walla Walla (GovDelivery)2026-09-01

September eNewsletter: announces the update and the “creation of a minimum 100-foot buffer,” with a map of streams and current buffers; no hearing dates.

WebOfficial sourceR·21

City bulletin, Sept 8, 2026

City of Walla Walla (GovDelivery)2026-09-08

Notice of the Sept 14 Planning Commission hearing, naming eight creeks “and all other creeks within city limits.”

WebOfficial sourceR·22

City bulletin, Sept 17, 2026

City of Walla Walla (GovDelivery)2026-09-17

Notice of the Sept 21 work session; public comment is not taken at work sessions.

WebOfficial sourceR·23

City bulletin, Sept 22, 2026

City of Walla Walla (GovDelivery)2026-09-22

Recap of the Sept 21 session naming the item and presenters, with the video link.

WebOfficial sourceR·24

City bulletin, Oct 1, 2026

City of Walla Walla (GovDelivery)2026-10-01

October eNewsletter: hearing Oct 14 at 6:30 pm; “on the agenda for adoption” Oct 28.

WebOfficial sourceR·25

City bulletin, Oct 7, 2026

City of Walla Walla (GovDelivery)2026-10-07

Three hearings on Oct 14 (Comprehensive Plan, implementing code, CAO); Council action Oct 28.

Press

NewsOriginal sourceR·26

Stricter waterway protections headed to public hearings in Walla Walla

Elkhorn Media Group2026-08-13

Early coverage of the proposal before the hearings.

NewsOriginal sourceR·27

Walla Walla sets public hearing for code updates to protect riparian areas

Walla Walla Union-Bulletin2026-08-24

Hearing-notice story; quotes Deputy Director Emily Arteche: “There’s flexibility. So it’s not necessarily a one and done, or one buffer size fits all.”

NewsOriginal sourceR·29

Walla Walla works on comprehensive plan with new state housing requirements

Apple Valley News Now2026-01-28

Reports the City planning for 2,348 housing units.

All 22 attachments to Item 6E, as the City lists them
  1. Staff recommended draft amendments table (Oct 9) ↗ 648 KB · see card P·01
  2. Work-session presentation (Sept 21) ↗ 21.8 MB · see card P·09
  3. Planning Commission packet (Sept 14) ↗ 2.5 MB · see card P·03
  4. Planning Commission draft minutes (Sept 14) ↗ 182 KB · see card R·05
  5. City BAS Review (Facet, June 26) ↗ 4.8 MB · see card P·05
  6. Gap Analysis (Facet, June 26) ↗ 4.9 MB · see card P·06
  7. BAS Appendix A: Walla Walla County BAS Report ↗ 28.4 MB · see card P·07
  8. Stream GIS memo (Facet, July 1) ↗ 774 KB · see card P·04
  9. Riparian Ecosystems, Vol. 1 ↗ 11.2 MB · see card L·18
  10. Riparian Ecosystems, Vol. 2 ↗ 5.2 MB · see card L·19
  11. Wetlands in Washington State, Vol. 1 ↗ 3.3 MB · see card L·22
  12. Wetlands in Washington State, Vol. 2 ↗ 3.9 MB · see card L·23
  13. Howard B. (Aug 26) ↗ 46 KB · see card R·14
  14. Home Builders Association (Sept 11) ↗ 66 KB · see card R·09
  15. Tarragon NW (Sept 11) ↗ 3.5 MB · see card R·10
  16. Dave C. (Sept 14) ↗ 1.5 MB · see card R·15
  17. Michael M., PE (Sept 14) ↗ 85 KB · see card R·16
  18. Travis W. (Sept 14) ↗ 106 KB · see card R·17
  19. James K. Hayner, map exhibit (Sept 14) ↗ 335 KB · see card R·13
  20. Serenity Point Counseling (Sept 21) ↗ 708 KB · see card R·11
  21. James K. Hayner, memo (Sept 22) ↗ 71 KB · see card R·12
  22. Walla Walla Valley Association of REALTORS (Oct 8) ↗ 99 KB · see card R·08

Private residents are labeled by first name and last initial; the City’s file names may show full names.

We found no local news coverage of the Sept 14 Planning Commission vote or the Sept 21 work session through Oct 10, 2026 (F-065). Read the quotes from the record on our Learn page →

L · 49 sources

Law and guidance

The statutes, rules, state guidance and court and Board decisions that govern critical-areas buffers in Washington. Each line says what the source says, in plain English; it is not legal advice.

Statutes (RCW)

StatuteOfficial sourceL·01

RCW 36.70A.060

Washington State Legislaturecurrent

Requires counties and cities to adopt development regulations that protect critical areas (subsection 2).

StatuteOfficial sourceL·02

RCW 36.70A.070

Washington State Legislaturecurrent

Comprehensive plan elements. The housing element must identify sufficient land capacity for housing ((2)(c)).

StatuteOfficial sourceL·03

RCW 36.70A.130

Washington State Legislaturecurrent

Periodic update schedule. Walla Walla County and its cities must finish their update by Dec 31, 2026; a city fewer than 12 months late on critical-areas rules counts as making substantial progress for certain state loans and grants.

StatuteOfficial sourceL·04

RCW 36.70A.172

Washington State Legislaturecurrent

Cities must “include the best available science” when protecting critical areas and give “special consideration” to measures that preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. It sets no buffer width.

StatuteOfficial sourceL·06

RCW 36.70A.370

Washington State Legislaturecurrent

Directs the Attorney General to maintain a process, including a checklist, that planning jurisdictions use to evaluate proposed regulations for unconstitutional takings.

StatuteOfficial sourceL·07

RCW 36.70A.635 (middle housing)

Washington State Legislaturecurrent

Cities of Walla Walla’s size must allow at least two units per residential lot; the section does not apply to portions of a lot designated as critical areas or their buffers ((8)(a)).

StatuteOfficial sourceL·08

RCW 36.70A.681 (accessory dwelling units)

Washington State Legislaturecurrent

State ADU rules for cities; they “do not apply to lots designated with critical areas or their buffers” ((4)).

StatuteOfficial sourceL·09

RCW 58.17.145 (lot splits)

Washington State Legislaturecurrent

Lots not buildable under local regulations, including critical-area rules, are not eligible for administrative lot splits ((6)).

StatuteOfficial sourceL·10

RCW 43.155.070 (Public Works Board assistance)

Washington State Legislaturecurrent

A city may not receive this financial assistance unless it has adopted a comprehensive plan and development regulations as RCW 36.70A.040 requires.

Rules (WAC) and permits

RuleOfficial sourceL·11

WAC 365-190-130

Office of the Code Revisercurrent

Guidance for designating fish and wildlife habitat areas. Cities “should consider” buffer zones and “must consult” WDFW priority-habitat information; it contains no buffer widths.

RuleOfficial sourceL·12

WAC 365-195-900 through -925 (best available science)

Office of the Code Revisercurrent

How cities identify and include best available science. A city “may not ignore the best available science in favor of science it prefers” (-900); -905 lists the marks of a valid scientific process; -915(1)(c), amended effective Jan 23, 2026, lists the findings needed to depart from it; -920 covers absent or incomplete science.

RuleOfficial sourceL·13

WAC 365-196-830

Office of the Code Revisercurrent

Critical-areas regulations “must preserve the existing functions and values” and may not allow a net loss ((4)).

RuleOfficial sourceL·14

WAC 365-196-060

Office of the Code Revisercurrent

Counties and cities “must give some effect to all the goals” of the Growth Management Act ((2)(a), as amended in 2026).

RuleOfficial sourceL·15

WSR 26-01-181 (2026 rule amendments)

Office of the Code Reviser2025-12-23

Filed Dec 23, 2025, effective Jan 23, 2026. Amended WAC 365-195-900 through -915 and much of chapter 365-196, adding climate resiliency to the science framework; it did not amend WAC 365-190-130.

RuleOfficial sourceL·16

WAC 222-16-030 (water typing)

Office of the Code Revisercurrent

The state’s stream typing system (Type S, F, Np, Ns). The draft keeps a one-line definition referring to it and strikes the long-form type definitions.

PermitOfficial sourceL·17

Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit

Washington State Department of Ecology2024-08-01

The general stormwater permit for eastern Washington cities. The City of Walla Walla is a permittee (WAR046508); the term runs Aug 1, 2024 to July 31, 2029.

State guidance

GuidanceOfficial sourceL·20

WDFW riparian management zone checklist for critical areas ordinances

WDFW (copy hosted by Pierce County)2023-04

A voluntary checklist that supplements Commerce’s critical-areas checklist.

GuidanceOfficial sourceL·21

Critical areas guidance

Washington State Department of Commercecurrent

Links Commerce’s Critical Areas Handbook and checklist. The page says: “The recommendations in this handbook are not mandatory.”

GuidanceOfficial sourceL·26

Critical Areas

Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC)current

Summaries of Washington critical-areas law and cases, including Swinomish and Yakima County.

GuidanceOfficial sourceL·27

Growth Management Hearings Board digest, 2010 to present

Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office2023

Board holdings by topic. Our research quotes it for OSF/CAPR v. Jefferson County (2015), p. 112.

GuidanceOfficial sourceL·28

Growth Management Hearings Board case update 2026

Planning Association of Washington2026-04

Summaries of 2025–26 Board decisions, including Futurewise v. Snohomish County and the Mercer Island and Kitsap housing-capacity cases.

Court and Board decisions

CaseOfficial sourceL·29

WEAN v. Island County, 122 Wn. App. 156 (2004)

Washington Court of Appeals (CourtListener)2004

Island County’s 25-ft buffers on the smallest streams were struck, but its 50-, 75- and 100-ft tiers were upheld because best available science “does not require a 100-foot minimum for all streams.”

CaseOfficial sourceL·30

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. WWGMHB, 161 Wn.2d 415 (2007)

Washington Supreme Court (CourtListener)2007

A county must include best available science and may depart from it with a reasoned justification; the duty is to protect, not to enhance; adaptive management needs benchmarks.

CaseOfficial sourceL·31

Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. CPSGMHB, 160 Wn. App. 250 (2011)

Washington Court of Appeals (FindLaw)2011

Upheld Kitsap County’s 50-ft urban and 100-ft rural shoreline buffers; a county “need not develop its own scientific information” and may rely on agency science.

CaseOfficial sourceL·32

Yakima County v. EWGMHB, 168 Wn. App. 680 (2012)

Washington Court of Appeals (CourtListener)2012

Yakima County’s 25-, 50- and 75-ft stream buffers fell below the science’s ranges, and the county made “no specific findings” to justify the departure.

CaseOfficial sourceL·33

Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. WWGMHB, 166 Wn. App. 172 (2012)

Washington Court of Appeals (CourtListener)2012

Upheld Jefferson County’s reliance on agency studies; quotes the Board that a blanket restriction not linked to the functions it protects “was not supported by BAS.”

CaseOfficial sourceL·34

Ferry County v. GMHB, 184 Wn. App. 685 (2014)

Washington Court of Appeals (FindLaw)2014

Departure from best available science “should be rare,” and the county “should show its work.”

CaseOfficial sourceL·35

Peste v. Mason County, 133 Wn. App. 456 (2006)

Washington Court of Appeals (CourtListener)2006

An as-applied takings claim is not ripe until the owner has pursued the available reasonable-use or variance route.

CaseOfficial sourceL·36

OSF/CAPR v. Jefferson County, GMHB No. 14-2-0008c (Mar 16, 2015)

Growth Management Hearings Board (via the Board digest)2015-03-16

A county “has the latitude to adopt buffer widths which lie within the range of widths recommended by the assembled scientific information.”

CaseOfficial sourceL·37

Futurewise v. Snohomish County, GMHB No. 25-3-0011 (Feb 17, 2026)

Growth Management Hearings Board (via PAW case update)2026-02-17

The Board accepted WDFW’s review as best available science and found the county’s adopted riparian buffers would not preserve functions and values.

CaseOfficial sourceL·38

Futurewise v. Mercer Island (25-3-0003) and KAPO v. Kitsap County (25-3-0005c), 2025

Growth Management Hearings Board (via PAW case update)2025-08

The Board found noncompliance for insufficient housing capacity in both cases.

NewsOriginal sourceL·39

Skagit County critical areas ordinance found not to comply with Growth Management Act

Skagit Valley Herald2026-07-20

Reports the Board found Skagit County’s riparian buffer section noncompliant even with 150-ft fish-stream and 200-ft shoreline buffers.

CaseOfficial sourceL·40

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe v. Kitsap County (appeal pending)

Futurewise2026

Futurewise’s notice of its friend-of-the-court brief. The Board had upheld Kitsap’s narrower stream buffers in urban growth areas.

CaseOfficial sourceL·41

Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Jefferson County, Div. II (2017)

Washington Court of Appeals (Justia)2017

Upheld Jefferson County’s shoreline program with 150-ft buffers; the state Supreme Court declined review in 2018.

How the law got here

WebOfficial sourceL·42

Washington Legislature enacts Growth Management Act on April 1, 1990

HistoryLink.org1990-04-01

The Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (ESHB 2929) on April 1, 1990; Gov. Booth Gardner signed it about three weeks later, with a partial veto.

StatuteOfficial sourceL·43

ESHB 1724 (1995), session law

Washington State Legislature1995-05-15

The 1995 act, requested by Gov. Mike Lowry, whose section 105 created RCW 36.70A.172’s best-available-science requirement.

StatuteOfficial sourceL·44

SSB 5558 (2025), final bill report

Washington State Legislature2025

The 2025 law that set the Dec 31, 2026 update deadline for Walla Walla County and its cities; effective July 27, 2025.

StatuteOfficial sourceL·45

HB 1838 / SB 5727 (2022), the Lorraine Loomis Act

Washington State Legislature2022

Requested by the Office of the Governor; would have required riparian management zones in cities’ next periodic updates, with a small-parcel exemption where the zone covered more than half a lot. It had hearings but no committee vote and died at the Feb 3, 2022 cutoff.

S · 21 sources

Science

The science reviews, fish and water-quality studies, and tree-height tools in the record and in our research, including the parts that support a wide buffer.

Walla Walla science

PDFOfficial sourceS·01

Walla Walla County Critical Areas Best Available Science Review (HDR, 2008)

Walla Walla County2008-08-01

The County’s science review. It types every named in-city creek fish-bearing (Type F), documents Yellowhawk as the steelhead migration corridor, and says “a single prescription is not necessarily appropriate or warranted for all situations.”

PDFOfficial sourceS·02

Mill Creek Final Environmental Assessment (2016)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers2016

Describes the flood channel and its fish: steelhead, bull trout and reintroduced spring Chinook migrate through it; documents Mill Creek’s water-quality limits.

WebOfficial sourceS·03

Grant profile: Yellowhawk Creek

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Describes Yellowhawk as “the principle corridor for native steelhead” to upper Mill and Blue creeks.

PDFOfficial sourceS·04

Biological Opinion: City of Walla Walla water supply intake and fish ladder (2023)

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service2023

Reports 14 adult steelhead passing Bennington Dam in 2019–20 and does not expect a large increase in steelhead passage into upper Mill Creek in the next 10 years.

PDFOfficial sourceS·05

Mill Creek assessment (Mendel et al., 2006)

WDFW2006

Measured overland flow “nearly 90°F” entering the concrete channel in the weir section.

PDFOfficial sourceS·06

Walla Walla Fecal Coliform TMDL (Pub. 06-10-074)

Washington State Department of Ecology2006

Expects the City and others to reduce fecal coliform loads from stormwater by 60 to 80 percent, and also says stormwater “was not demonstrated to be a significant FC load during the June – October critical period.”

PDFOfficial sourceS·07

City stormwater documents: Stormwater 101, 2026 stormwater management plan, Creekside property owners

City of Walla Walla2025–2026

The City’s own stormwater material. “Stormwater 101” says water running into storm drains “flows directly into the many creeks running through the city… It isn’t treated.”

NewsOriginal sourceS·09

CTUIR and Corps of Engineers sign pact to improve Mill Creek fish passage

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation2025-01

Announces the tribe–Corps agreement on fish passage through the Mill Creek channel.

WebOfficial sourceS·10

Garrison Creek

Walla Walla County Conservation Districtcurrent

The district’s Garrison Creek page; our research cites it for the creek’s steelhead critical-habitat designation.

Tree height and riparian zones

GISOfficial sourceS·11

WDFW riparian management zone map (site-potential tree height)

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlifecurrent

The online map WDFW recommends for quickly estimating riparian zone widths; the City’s CAO page links it.

GuidanceOfficial sourceS·12

Riparian Management Zone map user guide

WDFW2025-12-15

Explains the map: the zone is one 200-year site-potential tree height, with a 100-ft minimum where trees are shorter; the map “represents estimated locations only.”

GISOfficial sourceS·13

WDFW site-potential tree height and RMZ map services

WDFWqueried 2026-10-12

The services behind WDFW’s map. A query on Oct 12, 2026 returned no 200-year tree-height data for the city area, and the mapped zones touching the city are about 100 ft wide; WDFW notes its mapped zones are often narrower than its own definition.

GISOfficial sourceS·14

Priority Habitats and Species on the Web (public)

WDFWcurrent

Public, generalized habitat and species data; sensitive records are generalized, and WDFW asks users not to redistribute it.

Reviews from other jurisdictions

PDFOfficial sourceS·15

Stream buffer memo to Skagit County (Oct 17, 2025)

Facet, for Skagit County2025-10-17

The same consultant’s memo for Skagit: the relationship between buffer width and function is non-linear, with diminishing returns past a certain width.

PDFOfficial sourceS·16

Kennewick best available science review (Apr 17, 2026)

Parametrix, for the City of Kennewick2026-04-17

Places the region in WDFW’s dryland classification and recommends considering at least 100-ft buffers for non-fish-bearing streams.

PDFOfficial sourceS·17

Bremerton consultant memo (Feb 2026)

City of Bremerton2026-02

Says the use of riparian management zones in local regulation “is discretionary” and that the WAC does not mandate site-potential tree height.

PDFOfficial sourceS·18

Technical memo: recommendations for riparian management zones

Kittitas County2020

Summarizes WDFW Vol. 2’s function-based approach for non-forested landscapes.

PDFOfficial sourceS·19

Shade and stream temperature modeling report (Pub. 07-03-028)

Washington State Department of Ecology2007

A 2007 Ecology report on shade and temperature modeling, cited in our research as a local reference.

PDFOfficial sourceS·20

Riparian shade summary (CMER)

Washington State Department of Natural Resources2018-07-12

Notes that no Type Np stream studies had been implemented on the eastside.

PDFOfficial sourceS·21

The shadeshed: a lidar-based variable-width shade buffer (Martin et al., 2025)

Copy hosted by the Washington Forest Protection Association2025

Found variable-width shade buffers matched or beat fixed widths; the study streams are western Washington headwaters.

M · 22 sources

Maps and data

Every live map service CreekChecker reads, with its endpoint, and the numbers we computed from them.

City of Walla Walla

GISOfficial sourceM·02

City web map: Walla Walla Minimum Riparian Buffer Width (per side)

City of Walla Walla2026-10-06

The interactive map embedded on the City’s CAO page, built on the same service. We did not find the City’s August 2026 static buffer map on its website.

Walla Walla County

GISOfficial sourceM·03

Tax_Parcels feature service

Walla Walla County GIS and Assessor2026-09-28

County parcel polygons. The map queries one parcel or one view at a time and never requests owner fields.

GISOfficial sourceM·04

Minimum_Riparian_Buffer feature service

Walla Walla County GIS2026-08-31

The County’s working buffer layer, tiered 35, 50, 75 and 100 ft by reach. It is a preview, not an adopted rule.

GISOfficial sourceM·05

Hydrologic_Features feature service (streams)

Walla Walla County GIS2021

County stream centerlines, including Mill Creek and its channel; used for the Mill Creek reach and for context outside city limits.

GISOfficial sourceM·06

City_Limits feature service

Walla Walla County GIScurrent

Boundaries of the county’s five cities; used to tell Walla Walla, College Place and unincorporated land apart.

GISOfficial sourceM·08

Zoning feature service

Walla Walla County GIS2022

Zoning for unincorporated land and growth areas only; no public City zoning map service exists.

GISOfficial sourceM·09

FEMA (Q3) flood zones feature service

Walla Walla County GIS2021

Legacy FEMA Q3 flood zones. Walla Walla County is not in FEMA’s digital flood map (NFHL).

GISOfficial sourceM·11

City of Walla Walla stormwater basins (County-hosted, 2022 snapshot)

Walla Walla County GIS2022-09-27

A County-hosted copy of the City’s stormwater drainage data. It is a 2022 snapshot and undercounts outfalls.

GISOfficial sourceM·12

Walla Walla County ArcGIS REST services directory

Walla Walla County GIScurrent

Every public County feature service, including wetlands, shoreline designations and habitat layers.

State and federal

GISOfficial sourceM·15

Forest Practices hydrography: watercourses

Washington State Department of Natural Resourcescurrent

State watercourses with water type (S, F, N); an optional map layer and a cross-check. DNR says it is for Forest Practices regulatory purposes only.

GISOfficial sourceM·16

USGS National Hydrography Dataset, high-resolution flowlines (Ecology-hosted)

USGS, hosted by the Department of Ecology2025-08-14

National hydrography used as a cross-check: about 36 miles of flowlines inside city limits.

DataOfficial sourceM·18

April 1 official population estimates (2026)

Washington State Office of Financial Management2026-04-01

City of Walla Walla 35,080; Walla Walla County 64,100; College Place 10,090.

Basemap and search

GISOfficial sourceM·19

OpenFreeMap “Liberty” street style

OpenFreeMap (OpenStreetMap data)current

The map’s street background, built from OpenStreetMap data; OpenStreetMap’s own tiles are the fallback.

Our numbers

DataCreekCheckerM·21

data/stats.json: our computed numbers

CreekChecker2026-10-10

Stream miles, buffer acres and parcel counts at 35, 50, 75, 100 and 150 ft, computed from the City and County layers.

WebCreekCheckerM·22

How we computed the buffer numbers

CreekChecker2026-10-10

Our method, caveats, coverage check and reconciliation with the consultant’s figures.

How the numbers were computed

On 2026-10-10 we buffered the City’s own stream centerlines at 35, 50, 75, 100 and 150 ft in Washington State Plane South (EPSG:2927) and counted County tax parcels whose polygon touches the band and whose center lies inside city limits. Our 100-ft band and the City’s published polygon differ by 2.4 acres. Every band is measured from a mapped centerline; the draft measures from the ordinary high-water mark, so the regulated edge is farther out than drawn.

Why we link instead of host: the City’s license says its digital products “may not be reproduced or redistributed … without the express written authorization of City of Walla Walla,” and the County’s terms are similar. The map reads the public services live, and this page links them.

Read the full method →

W · 17 sources

Other Washington towns

The sources behind the stories on our home page and in “Elsewhere in Washington” on the Learn page, and the codes other cities adopted.

Stories on our site

MinutesOfficial sourceW·01

Puyallup Planning Commission minutes, Aug 13, 2025

City of Puyallup2025-08-13

Homeowners’ testimony on raising non-fish stream buffers from 35–50 ft to 100 ft (in the Aug 27, 2025 agenda packet).

WebOfficial sourceW·02

Critical Area Ordinance Amendments

City of Puyallupcurrent

The project page; the commission held fish-stream buffers at 100 ft instead of staff’s 150.

WebOfficial sourceW·03

2025 Critical Areas Update

City of Newcastle2025–2026

About 500 letters went to owners near streams and wetlands; the FAQ covers grandfathered buildings.

NewsOriginal sourceW·05

Fire victims take complaints over stalled home rebuilds to Talent City Council

KTVL2021-03-04

Talent, Oregon: families could not rebuild after the Almeda Fire because their lots sat in a floodway or the city’s 35-ft creek buffer.

NewsOriginal sourceW·06

Buffer Beef: riverfront property owners fighting

The Spokesman-Review1998-10-29

Spokane Valley owners and the flat 250-ft river buffer Spokane County adopted in 1996; a historical case.

PDFNot linkedW·07

Thurston County Hearing Examiner decision, Aug 4, 2025

Thurston County2025-08-04

A family’s 16-month reasonable-use approval to replace a small 1930s house inside a wetland buffer.

Not linked here because the decision names the family; it is on file with the County.

What other places adopted

NewsOriginal sourceW·08

Skagit County critical areas plan sees updates

Salish Current2025-11-26

Skagit County adopted fixed 100- and 150-ft widths instead of the state tree-height model.

PDFOfficial sourceW·09

Determination of nonsignificance, 2025 critical-areas regulations update

City of Mill Creek2025-12

The city’s environmental determination for its 2025 critical-areas update.

CodeOfficial sourceW·10

Kitsap County Code 19.100

Kitsap County, via Code Publishingcurrent

Kitsap’s critical-areas code (Ord. 633-2024), with alternative widths inside urban growth areas.

WebOfficial sourceW·11

Critical Areas Ordinance Update 2024

Kitsap County2024

Kitsap’s update page; Ord. 633-2024 was adopted Oct 14, 2024 and took effect Apr 1, 2025.

WebW·04Ordinance 2026-683See card W·04 ↑
PDFOfficial sourceW·12

Critical areas ordinance: Planning Commission staff report (Oct 15, 2025)

City of Bellevue2025-10-15

Proposed 150 ft on fish streams, 75 ft on perennial and 50 ft on seasonal non-fish streams, with reductions to 50 ft for degraded channels.

CodeOfficial sourceW·14

Richland Municipal Code chapter 22.10

City of Richland, via Code Publishingcurrent

Ties riparian widths to WDFW’s Vol. 2 “or as revised,” and allows averaging to 75% and reductions by lowering land-use intensity.

Our research notes this code predates Richland’s 2026 update.

WebOfficial sourceW·15

Critical Areas Ordinance Update

City of Lake Stevenscurrent

A pending update with a 100/150-ft baseline table; council hearing Oct 13, 2026.

WebOfficial sourceW·16

Stream buffers

City of Kenmorecurrent

Stream-buffer options from 50 to 231 ft under review; no decision yet.

The other side

PDFOfficial sourceW·17

Floodplain Management in the State of Washington (Pub. 04-06-016)

Washington State Department of Ecology2004

Found that stream buffers adopted under critical-areas codes helped reduce flood losses.

Fact ledger · 99 facts

Every number we use, and where it comes from.

Generated from our research fact file. High means a primary document or statute. Med means a credible secondary source or an attributed statement: read it as “according to” the source listed. Rows marked low-confidence, superseded, or not suitable for publication are left out.

IDFactSourceDateConfidence
F-001City of Walla Walla is updating its Critical Areas Ordinance with a proposed 100-foot stream buffer2026-09-22; Aug 2026High
F-005Planning Commission recommendation included that staff explore best available science for the local area2026-09-22Med
F-009City zoning policy seeks ≥4 lots/acre; Comp Plan relies on infill and density2026-09-22Med
F-014Staff estimate a local BAS study would cost "hundreds of thousands of dollars"2026-09-22Med
F-015The city's buffer map shows the 100-ft band along every mapped stream, including through downtown, parks, and residential neighborhoods
  • City map “City of Walla Walla 100’ Stream Buffer,” Aug 2026
Aug 2026High
F-016RCW 36.70A.172 requires counties/cities to "include the best available science" in developing CAO policies and to give "special consideration" to conservation/protection measures for anadromous fisheriescurrentHigh
F-017WAC 365-195-915 allows a jurisdiction to depart from BAS recommendations if it identifies the science, explains the reasons, and (for anadromous fisheries) addresses risks; this is the "reasoned justification" pathcurrentHigh
F-018Council public hearing on the CAO is Wed Oct 14, 2026 (regular meeting, City Hall, 15 N 3rd Ave); adoption scheduled Oct 28, 2026; effective Dec 31, 20262026-10-10High
F-019Draft Table 6 sets a 100-ft minimum buffer per side for Yellowhawk, Russell, Reser, Caldwell, Stone, Garrison, Bryant, Titus "and others within city limits/UGA including intermittent open channels between piped sections"; Mill Creek → SMPOct 14, 2026 hearing draftHigh
F-020Current code buffers (being struck): 35 ft on Russell, Reser, Caldwell, Stone, Garrison, Bryant, Titus and "all other creeks"; 50 ft Yellowhawk; 35 ft Mill Creek flood channelcurrentHigh
F-021City's own measured existing riparian averages: Yellowhawk 31 ft, Titus 25, Garrison 24, Reser 23, Russell 21, Stone 20, Bryant 14 See also F-104currentHigh
F-022Buffers measured from OHWM, top of bank, or channel migration zone, whichever is greater; not from centerlinedraftHigh
F-023Building setback beyond the buffer edge increases from 5 ft to 15 ft (reducible to 5 ft with a report) → 115 ft from OHWM for a new structuredraftHigh
F-025Existing buildings/fences/landscaping may be maintained and repaired if no further encroachment; fences may be built/replaced; existing nonconforming structures continue under WWMC 20.212draftHigh
F-026City rationale: "the first 100 feet from a stream is the minimum distance for effective pollution removal"; baseline 100 ft "for all stream types" per WDFW Vol. 1/22026-10-10High
F-030WWMC 20.212.070(A)(4): a nonconforming structure "damaged by any cause" loses nonconforming status if a building-permit application to repair/rebuild/replace is not made within SIX MONTHS of the damagecurrentHigh
F-031WWMC 20.212.050(D)/(E): a nonconforming situation may be enlarged once by up to 20%; single-family homes and accessory structures may be enlarged up to allowable lot coverage (Level I); a building in a required setback may extend along its existing line but not encroach furthercurrentHigh
F-032WWMC 20.212.060(C): renovations/reconstruction costing >25% of replacement cost need a conditional use permit (Level III); >50% must not increase nonconformitycurrentHigh
F-033City of Walla Walla GIS published a public ArcGIS FeatureServer "WW_Streams_Riparian_Buffer" on 2026-10-06: layer 0 Visible Streams Centerlines (61 segments), layer 1 100-ft buffer from centerline (1 dissolved polygon), layer 2 city limit, layer 3 parcels (30,424)2026-10-06High
F-034Using the City's own layers: 17.93 miles of mapped "visible streams" inside city limits; 100-ft band covers 476.9 ac inside the city (City's published polygon: 479.3 ac); 1,489 parcels inside city limits intersect the 100-ft band (1,549 incl. 1-mile margin)2026-10-10High (method documented)
F-035Other widths (inside city): 35 ft → 982 parcels / 163 ac; 50 ft → 1,064 / 236 ac; 75 ft → 1,307 / 357 ac; 150 ft → 1,881 / 709 ac2026-10-10High
F-036The City's buffer polygon (and ours) is measured from digitized centerlines, not the OHWM the ordinance uses; City centerline layer excludes Mill Creek and piped reaches; County/DNR/NHD show 28–36 stream miles in the city2026-10-10High
F-037City AGOL license: digital products "may not be reproduced or redistributed … without the express written authorization of City of Walla Walla"; County: release "does not authorize the party to redistribute or resell"2026-10-10High
F-038Walla Walla County's own "Minimum_Riparian_Buffer" layer (2026-08-31) uses tiered widths 35/50/75/100 ft See also F-1182026-08-31High
F-039Planning Commission public hearing Sept 14, 2026: 13 testified; PC voted 7-0 to recommend Council direct staff to REVISE the draft to align with infill/UGA goals using "available science matching local conditions" and WAC 365-195-915(1)(c) (departure from BAS)2026-09-14High
F-040Staff's "Updated 10.09.2026" amendments table still proposes a flat 100 ft on all creeks; only substantive change since Sept 14 is a new "reasonable use" definition2026-10-09High
F-042Oct 28, 2026, 6:30 pm: scheduled adoption vote; single-meeting adoption on the hearing record (WWMC 20.48.030(C)); no first/second reading; no stated written-comment deadline (record closes when Council closes the Oct 14 hearing unless held open)2026-10-10High
F-043Council work sessions: Mon Oct 12, 4 pm (continued discussion of implementing code amendments; no public comment); Mon Oct 26, 4 pm (agenda not posted)2026-10-10High
F-044Consultant is Facet (Spokane; Nell Lund, Sam Payne). Facet memo July 1, 2026: 43.2 stream miles in city (29.7 open, 13.5 piped); buffer area 268.8 ac → 757.4 ac (2.1% → 5.8% of city area); 69.6% of proposed buffer "would remain vegetated"2026-07-01High
F-045WDFW comment letter Aug 28, 2026: "Table 6 is recommending 100 ft, which may be compliant with our BAS of SPTH, however a site evaluation would be best."2026-08-28High
F-046Opposition letters on record: Walla Walla Valley Association of Realtors (Matt Heuer, 12 pp., Oct 8, 2026); Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities & Walla Walla (Bailee Butcher, Sept 11, 2026) asking for 75 ft and delayOct 2026High
F-047No comment letters found from Blue Mountain Land Trust, Kooskooskie Commons, Tri-State Steelheaders, WWBWC, CTUIR, Futurewise, Ecology, or Commerce2026-10-10Med
F-0482026 City Council: Mayor Gustavo Reyna; Mayor Pro Tem Steve Moss; Rodney Outlaw (Central); Rick Eskil (South); Monte Willis (East, PC liaison); Jeffrey Robinson (West); Emily Brown (appointed 2/25/2026). Staff: City Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain; Deputy Director Emily Arteche; CAO lead Sr. Planner Lisa Wasson-Seilo; Sr. Planner Jon Maland2026High
F-050OFM 4/1/2026 population: city 35,080; county 64,100; College Place 10,090. Comp Plan 2046: plan for 39,884 people; 2,348 net new housing units needed (HB 1220); capacity 2,370 + 2,198 pending; 9,909 parcels in low-density residential zoning2026High
F-051Walla Walla County: no CAO draft, buffer proposal, or hearing dates posted (periodic update due Dec 31, 2026; Kimley-Horn scope includes BAS/gap task). College Place: no CAO update posted; Hayner's "College Place refuses 100 ft" is UNVERIFIED. Kennewick's Parametrix BAS memo recommends ≥100 ft for non-fish streams. Bellevue adopted Ord. 6894 on Dec 9, 20252026-10-10Med
F-052Existing code: 50 ft on Yellowhawk, 35 ft everywhere else, 0 for piped segments; the Mill Creek concrete channel (Rooks Park–Gose St) maintenance stays an allowed activitycurrentHigh
F-053GMA periodic-update deadline for Walla Walla County and its cities is Dec 31, 2026 (RCW 36.70A.130(5)(c) as amended by SSB 5558, eff. July 27, 2025); being late affects only PWTF/Ecology loan eligibility and grant preference; a city <12 months out on its CAO is deemed making substantial progress See also F-1232025High
F-054No statute or rule mandates a 100-ft (or any numeric) buffer: RCW 36.70A.172 requires cities to "include" BAS and give "special consideration" to anadromous fisheries; WAC 365-190-130 (2023) contains no widths and never mentions RMZ or SPTH; WDFW Vol. 2 says it is "not, in and of itself, science … policy recommendations"; Commerce: "recommendations … are not mandatory"currentHigh
F-055BAS is substantive: a city "may not ignore the best available science in favor of science it prefers" (WAC 365-195-900); departure requires reasoned justification (Swinomish, 161 Wn.2d 415 (2007)) and "should be rare… show its work" (Ferry County, 184 Wn. App. 685 (2014)); WAC 365-195-915(1)(c), re-amended eff. Jan 23, 2026, lists the departure findings (record, rationale, risks incl. climate resiliency, added measures)2026High
F-056WDFW Vol. 2 for dryland ecoregions: SPTH200 if ≥100 ft, else extent of riparian vegetation, with a 100-ft minimum for pollutant removal; WDFW disfavors "uniform-width (i.e., one-size-fits-all) RMZs, as these may result in over-protection in some places and under-protection in others"2020High
F-060Housing-law conflict: RCW 36.70A.635(8)(a) (middle housing, HB 1110), 36.70A.681(4) (ADUs), and 58.17.145(6) (lot splits, HB 1096) all exclude lots within critical areas/buffers; housing element must show capacity (RCW 36.70A.070(2)); Boards enforced capacity in 2025 (Futurewise v. Mercer Island 25-3-0003; KAPO v. Kitsap 25-3-0005c); WAC 365-196-060 (2026): "must give some effect to all the goals"2023–2026High
F-062Other cities: Bellevue adopted Ord. 6894 (Dec 9, 2025) with larger standard buffers but 50-ft reductions for degraded/armored channels and an expanded reasonable-use exception; Richland RMC 22.10.210(J)/22.10.115 performance standard + averaging/intensity reductions; Bremerton BMC 20.14.730 existing-development reductions; Kennewick: functionally disconnected buffers, consultant recommends moving toward 100 ft; College Place: nothing found2025–26High
F-064PC motion text (Sept 14 minutes p. 5): "recommend city council direct Development Services to revise the draft Critical Areas Ordinance to align with infill and Urban Growth Area goals of the Comprehensive Plan following available science matching local conditions, also taking into consideration the Washington statute allowing a city to adopt critical area regulations that can depart from science-based recommendations on the basis of legal, social, cultural, economic, and political information. Motion carried 7-0"2026-09-14High
F-065No local press coverage exists of the Sept 14 PC vote, the Sept 21 work session, or the Oct 14 hearing (sweep of U-B, Elkhorn, NBC Right Now, Apple Valley News, Waitsburg Times, Whitman Wire through Oct 10); only City bulletins
  • CreekChecker press sweep through Oct 10, 2026
2026-10-10High
F-068WDFW letter also says (PC packet p. 89): "we found a high level of consistency between your draft CAO, our resources, and our conservation goals."2026-08-28High
F-069Facet memo (pp. 6, 9): newly added buffer area is "62.6% vegetated" where vegetated "may include … lawns, parks"; the memo contains no sentence on cost, housing capacity, or any 50/60/75-ft alternative; WWVAR (pp. 10–11) documents the City claimed to have analyzed alternatives but could not produce the analysis before closing a records request2026High
F-071Yellowhawk Creek is the documented steelhead migration corridor from Mill Creek to upper Mill/Blue creeks ("the principle corridor for native steelhead"); Mid-Columbia steelhead and bull trout (both ESA-threatened) and reintroduced spring Chinook use it; radio-tagged steelhead used Yellowhawk, not the concrete Mill Creek channel2008–2016High
F-072Facet Table 3 detail (memo p. 6): under the proposal impervious surfaces are 24.4% of buffer area plus 6.0% functionally disconnected (30.4% combined), vs. 16.0% combined today; current buffers are 84.0% vegetated, newly added area 62.6%; "vegetated" may include lawns and parks. Sept 21 staff slide: "approximately 30% of streams with impervious surfaces/disconnected from buffer; approximately 70% are currently vegetated"2026-07-01 / 2026-09-21High
F-073Facet memo p. 6: of 43.2 stream miles, 2.4 mi (5.7%) have a 50-ft buffer today, 27.2 mi (63.0%) a 35-ft buffer, 13.5 mi (31.4%) are piped with no buffer; all 29.7 open miles would get 100 ft2026-07-01High
F-075Deputy Director Emily Arteche, Union-Bulletin Aug 24, 2026: "There's flexibility. So it's not necessarily a one and done, or one buffer size fits all."2026-08-24High
F-076WDFW Aug 28 letter (PC packet pp. 95–96) also says "site potential tree height (SPTH200yrs) should be the standard for buffer widths, with our online mapping tool being the best way to quickly determine the buffer needs for your area," and asks that averaging not reduce the buffer "below 100 feet at its narrowest point" and that intrusion "be limited to the outer 25%" (staff retained averaging to 75%)2026-08-28High
F-077Walla Walla County's Kimley-Horn periodic-update scope (final draft 12/20/2024) budgets "Task 4: Best Available Science (BAS) review and gap analysis" at $12,300 — a document review, not a field study2024-12-20High
F-078Council regular meetings are 2nd/4th Wednesdays, but 1st/3rd Wednesdays in November and December: Nov 4 and Nov 18, 2026 are listed; Dec 2 and Dec 16 follow the same rule (calendar arithmetic); no November agendas posted as of Oct 102026High (rule) / Med (Dec dates)
F-079Draft p. 5 (added Oct 9): "'reasonable use' means the application of the critical area regulations would deny all reasonable use of the property, and no other reasonable economic use has less impact to critical areas and proposed development does not pose a threat to public health, safety, or welfare." Draft p. 17: director decides; criteria include that "no other reasonable use… has less impact," "minimum necessary," and an optional "neighborhood analysis"2026-10-09High
F-081Draft p. 47: buffers for daylighted piped segments "will be determined on a case-by-case basis based on a site-specific analysis" (21.04.670(C)); subdivisions must preserve contiguous wildlife corridors (21.04.660(D)); draft p. 37: critical area reports cover habitat within 250 ft "or the extents of existing urban land use that functionally disconnect the site" (21.04.630(B)(2))2026-10-09High
F-082KAPO v. CPSGMHB, 160 Wn. App. 250 (2011): Kitsap County's 50-ft urban / 100-ft rural shoreline buffers upheld; a county "need not develop its own scientific information" and may rely on agency science; buffers grounded in BAS and a reasoned process satisfy nexus/proportionality2011High
F-083GMHB, OSF/CAPR v. Jefferson County, No. 14-2-0008c (FDO Mar. 16, 2015): a county "has the latitude to adopt buffer widths which lie within the range of widths recommended by the assembled scientific information"; OSF v. WWGMHB, 166 Wn. App. 172 (2012): "a blanket restriction … that was not linked to the functions and values it was intended to protect was not supported by BAS"2012–2015High
F-084WAC 365-195-920: where science is "absent or incomplete," a jurisdiction should use "a precautionary or a no risk approach" or an adaptive-management program with benchmarks; Swinomish (2007): adaptive management requires benchmarks and local governments "must either be certain that their critical areas regulations will prevent harm or be prepared to recognize and respond effectively to any unforeseen harm"currentHigh
F-085Swinomish, 161 Wn.2d 415 (2007): WAC 365-195-925 requires "special consideration to such measures, not necessarily to adopt them" (¶20); the GMA "has not imposed a duty on local governments to enhance critical areas, although it does permit it" (¶21); WAC 365-196-830(4): regulations "must preserve the existing functions and values" and may not allow a net loss2007High
F-087City "Visible Streams Centerlines" layer (17.94 mi, 61 segments, city-limits only) contains every draft Table 6 creek except Reser Creek (outside city limits), excludes Mill Creek, and also includes Butcher, Lincoln, College, Barber, Kathy creeks, three springs, "Unknown," and a 0.09-mi "Greco Irrigation" segment2026-10-06 layerHigh
F-088Every named in-city creek (Yellowhawk, Garrison, Stone, Bryant, Caldwell, Reser, Russell, Titus) is WDFW-typed fish-bearing (Type F) per the county's 2008 HDR BAS review2008High
F-089Garrison Creek is designated steelhead critical habitat but has multiple passage barriers and no documented spawning ("steelhead do not use Garrison Creek for spawning"); the Mill Creek concrete flume is migration only, no spawning2008High
F-090Of the 1,489/1,490 city parcels touched by the City's 100-ft polygon: 1,200 carry residential County use codes (1,088 single-family, 67 duplex–fourplex, 19 apartments 5+, 5 mobile-home parks, 21 other residential), 178 are undeveloped (160 "UNDEVELOPED LAND (BARE LOTS)" + 18 "OTHER UNDEVELOPED LAND"), 31 educational, 30 churches/parks/public2026-10-10High (method documented)
F-091Share of each touched city parcel inside the band: 879 parcels have >50% of their area inside; 328 have ≥95%; 60 additional touched parcels lie in the UGA/county margin (1,550 total)2026-10-10High
F-092Touched city parcels by nearest creek: Garrison 375, Bryant 232, Stone 195, Yellowhawk 166, Lincoln 115, Butcher 89, Barber 55, Peter Spring 45, Stone NF 39, Caldwell 32, College 31, Stone SF 27, others <252026-10-10High
F-093Streets with the most touched city parcels: S 2nd Ave 42, Fern Ave 40, Pleasant St 39, Newell St 35, Bryant Ave 30, Howard St 28, Lincoln St 28, Home Ave 28; 111 touched parcels have no situs address2026-10-10High
F-096CORRECTS F-024: the Oct 9 draft STRIKES §21.04.650(D)(6) "Decreased Buffer Widths" and Table 7 (100→75 ft with enhancement; 75→56; 50→38) and Table 8 planting guide. Remaining width tools: averaging (narrowest ≥75% of standard, total area unchanged, slopes ≤30%, notice on title, City stormwater handbook applied), functionally disconnected buffers (D)(2)(c), reasonable-use exception. Consultant had advised: "buffer reduction with enhancement is not supported by BAS. Recommend deleting 21.04.650.D.6"2026-10-09High
F-097CORRECTS F-027: the draft STRIKES the long-form Type S/F/Np/Ns definitions and keeps one line: "'Water typing system' means waters classified according to WAC 222-16-030". No other draft section uses water types. Unamended §21.04.600(A) still says streams "shall be designated in accordance with ... DNR stream type ... further categorized according to ... priority protection reaches"2026-10-09High
F-098RESOLVES F-080: the single-family waiver ("except this provision may be waived for single-family residential lots") in §21.04.640 is struck2026-10-09High
F-099Kept allowed activities (§21.04.085(B)), which "do not require approval or submission of a critical area report" and "may intrude into the critical area or required buffer": (B)(12) "The application of herbicides, pesticides, organic or mineral-derived fertilizers, or other hazardous substances, if necessary; provided; that their use shall be conducted in accordance with applicable state and federal law"; (B)(16) public-agency mosquito/weed control; (B)(18) agricultural activities incl. farming, ranching, grazing; (B)(20) maintenance of stormwater facilities; (B)(21) Mill Creek concrete channel maintenance; (B)(22) navigational dredging. Row labeled "State Mandated RCW 36.70A.172 and WDFW Comments"2026-10-09High
F-100Current WWMC 21.04.005 (draft amends only (B)): "This chapter is to be administered with flexibility and attention to site-specific characteristics. It is not the intent of this chapter to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use of the property." WWMC 21.04.015: chapter "does not apply to lawful uses or legal nonconforming uses existing at the time of adoption. Agricultural uses or changes from one agricultural use to another are exempt from this chapter."currentHigh
F-101City Shoreline Master Program Table 6-2 (amended by Council Ord. 2023-15, Aug 23, 2023): Mill Creek shoreline buffer "From N. 3rd Avenue to S. Colville Street where flow is piped underground: 0 ft. All other areas: 35 ft."; water-dependent uses no buffer; building setback 5 ft (0 in Urban Downtown). SMP App. A Table 6.5-1 keeps 35/50-ft widths for creek reaches inside shoreline jurisdiction (within 200 ft of Mill Creek), and notes for Mill Creek "No riparian vegetation allowed within the channel"2023-08-23High
F-10215-ft building setback (§21.04.130(A)) is labeled "State Mandated RCW 36.70A.172"; the consultant wrote "The City may consider increasing the standard building setback to fifteen feet," intent "to allow maintenance of a structure without encroaching into protected critical area buffers." The words "State Mandated" appear 25 times in the 48-page table2026-10-09High
F-103Unamended WWMC provisions: §21.04.340 Table 4 wetland buffers by category × land-use intensity, from 25 ft (Cat. IV, low) to 250 ft (Cat. I high-conservation/bog, high); §21.04.620(B)–(E) road/trail/bridge/ROW crossings, private access crossings, passive recreation, local utility lines, and "Stormwater facilities such as infiltration systems, dispersion trenches, level spreaders, outfalls, and LID BMPs" "may be permitted" in stream buffers when criteria are met; §21.04.670(B) "No riparian buffers are required along segments of piped or culverted streams unless designated by the city for removal"currentHigh
F-104Consultant on the City's measured vegetation table: "Remove existing conditions/targeted functions from table. This information is not used to determine buffer widths and information may be out-of-date. For example, the methodology for measuring the 'existing riparian average' is not clear and all those widths are less than required buffers." The draft strikes them. WDFW Vol. 2 urban recommendation 2: "Quantify current conditions, with a goal of maintaining and improving functions"2026-06-26 / 2020-12High
F-105City "BAS Review Addendum" (Facet, June 26, 2026): purpose "not to replicate the County's work, but to supplement it"; stream maps are HDR 2008 figures; reference list has four entries (DNR 2012; HDR 2008; HDR 2019; WDFW 2023 PHS List). No reach-by-reach field study (vegetation, water quality, fish use) found in the Oct 14 packet; Facet GIS memo is a desktop analysis of available GIS data2026-06-26High (document) / Med (absence)
F-106Consultant reading of WDFW for Walla Walla: "the City of Walla Walla contains no forested ecosystems and is all mapped by WDFW as a dryland ecosystem"; "the riparian protection widths WDFW recommends for Walla Walla range from 100-feet to 170-feet" (170 = 95% surface-nitrogen removal); "a minimum buffer width of 100 feet for all streams aligns with BAS"; "In general, urban settings are limited by surrounding land uses"2026-06-26High
F-107WDFW SPTH service has 0 SPTH200 polygons within the city (bbox −118.40/46.02/−118.27/46.10); city pixels classed "Dryland ecosystems where there is no tree height information"; WDFW RDE_RMZ polygons touching the city are ≈100 ft (max 101 ft, est.). Nearest SPTH200 data are Blue Mountain foothills ≥9.5 km away, 105–165 ft (median 142). County BAS (Facet, June 16, 2026): SPTH data only "near the Umatilla National Forest, where SPTH values range from 114 to 156 feet"; "Most of the RMZs in Walla Walla County are mapped in PHS on the Web at 100 feet wide"; "establishing functional RMZs using the recommended methods may not be practical in many developed areas." WDFW 2025 User Guide p. 4: "RMZs default to 100 feet; as a result, RMZs shown in this map are often narrower than they would be under WDFW's RMZ definition"2026-10-12High (zone width Med per creek)
F-108WDFW Vol. 1 (Quinn, Wilhere & Krueger eds.; published May 2018, updated July 2020) §5.5: "Despite the large quantity of research and number of literature reviews, no widely accepted recommendations have emerged on minimum buffer widths needed to protect water quality"; "the relationship between removal efficacy and buffer width is highly variable"; meta-analyses predicted 33, 39, 75 and 170 ft for 90% sediment removal (width explained 28–37% of variance); for nitrogen 80 ft (Zhang 2010) vs 436 ft (Mayer 2007)2020-07High
F-109WDFW Vol. 2 (Rentz, Windrope, Folkerts, Azerrad; Dec 2020): "not, in and of itself, science. Rather, it consists of policy recommendations which are informed by the best available science" (p. 5); "Establish RMZ widths based on site-specific conditions ... rather than uniform-width (i.e., one-size-fits-all) RMZs" (p. 10); one SPTH200 "is a scientifically supported approach if the goal is to protect and maintain full function" (p. 8); "establishing a standard RMZ width for 100% pollution removal even at the site scale was impractical"; nitrogen risk and removal "are very site-specific" (p. 27); in urban areas riparian functions "are often greatly diminished or even absent altogether" (p. 35)2020-12High
F-110HDR 2008 County BAS: "There is no consensus in the scientific literature regarding single buffer widths for particular functions"; "a single prescription is not necessarily appropriate or warranted for all situations" (p. 2-45); Category 6 (urban Walla Walla/College Place): "new development in these areas will be subjected to decreased minimum streamside buffers that reflect stream potential" (p. 2-60). The City's current Table 6 uses categories 6a/6b2008High (quotes) / Med (6a/6b lineage)
F-111WAC 365-195-905(5)(a) characteristics of a valid scientific process: peer review ("critically reviewed by other persons who are qualified scientific experts"); methods ("clearly stated and able to be replicated"); logical conclusions and reasonable inferences; quantitative analysis ("appropriate statistical or quantitative methods"); context ("placed in proper context"); references. Nonscientific: anecdotal information, nonexpert opinion, hearsaycurrentHigh
F-112Stormwater: City of Walla Walla is an Eastern WA Phase II municipal stormwater permittee (WAR046508; permit term Aug 1, 2024–July 31, 2029). City "Stormwater 101": "most of the water that runs down the gutter into storm drains flows directly into the many creeks running through the city… It isn't treated." 2026 SWMP Plan App. E: "Mill Creek which contains approximately 40% of the City's outfalls"; 2025 inspections of 57 outfalls on Garrison (40), Bryant (16), Kathy (1), 55 City-owned. City "Creekside Property Owners": a creek "is piped under the street through a culvert"; "Lincoln, Bryant, and Butcher Creek are piped underground on private property, including under buildings." Who piped which reaches, and when: not documented2025–2026High
F-113County-hosted City stormwater GIS (2022 snapshot, City_of_Walla_Walla_Stormwater_Basins/FeatureServer/10): 3,300 drain points; 105 flagged OUTFALL (Mill 55, Garrison 16, Stone 13, Yellowhawk 5, other 16); ~1,522 points tagged to a named surface water vs 1,440 to groundwater See also F-1122022-09-27Med
F-114Ecology Walla Walla Fecal Coliform TMDL (Pub. 06-10-074, 2006): the City, WSDOT, County and College Place "are expected to reduce fecal coliform loads from stormwater by 60 percent to 80 percent" (p. xvii); BUT "Stormwater runoff was not demonstrated to be a significant FC load during the June – October critical period" (p. 61)2006High
F-115Comp Plan 2046 (Sept 8, 2026 draft; hearing 6C on Oct 14) App. III barrier review (App. pp. 61, 64): "Environmental constraints — No — The city has very few critical areas overall, and the Land Capacity Analysis found that critical areas do not significantly affect developable acreage." LCA "excluded ... parcel acreage encumbered by critical areas" (App. p. 43; widths not stated). City allows "up to four units and two ADUs per lot" (App. p. 38); RN zone 9,909 parcels; ADU capacity 218 (App. p. 51); LU 1.6 "Encourage infill development that provides additional housing within the city"; ENR Goal 4 "avoiding development and other land use activities within Riparian Management Zones (RMZs)"2026-09-08High
F-116Council memo, Item 6E: "Comments were received from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and changes were made to reflect the agency's comments"; memo reports the PC's 7-0 recommendation; "Plan Compliance" cites ENR Goal 1, ENR 1.3, ENR Goal 4, ENR 4.1, ENR 5.1, CR 1.4, CR 4.1–4.3 (no land-use or housing policy); "Financial Comments: NA"2026-10High
F-117City SEPA checklist for the CAO (June 29, 2026), B.9 Housing: "b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?" — "Not applicable, non-project action."2026-06-29High
F-118County "Minimum_Riparian_Buffer" layer (2026-08-31; county CAO widths): 35 ft on reaches of Stone, Bryant, Caldwell, Garrison, Reser, Russell, Titus, Yellowhawk and parts of Mill Creek; 50 ft on other reaches of Garrison, Stone, Yellowhawk; 75 ft Cottonwood, Doan, Dry, Pine, E. Little Walla Walla; 100 ft Walla Walla, Touchet, Snake, Columbia, Blue, Coppei, Dry, parts of Mill Creek2026-08-31Med-High
F-119HB 1838 / SB 5727 (2022), "Lorraine Loomis Act," "by request of Office of the Governor" (Inslee). HB sponsors: Lekanoff, Fitzgibbon, Bateman, Berry, Macri, Ramel, Simmons, Pollet, Harris-Talley. SB sponsors: Rolfes, Dhingra, Frockt, Lovelett, Pedersen, Stanford. RMZ defined by WDFW Vol. 2; §602: cities "must include restoration and protection of riparian management zones as part of their next scheduled periodic update including ... development regulations, critical areas protection"; §204(6) exempts "A small parcel in which the riparian management zone would cover more than 50 percent of the parcel" (reductions must "maximize riparian functions"; not for parcels made small by later subdivision); §204(3) exempts land "Covered by a road, trail, building, or other structure" existing at enactment; cost-share "at least 70 percent" (90% hardship). House hearings Jan 19 and 21, 2022; no executive session; died at the Feb 3, 2022 cutoff2022High
F-1202023: HB 1215 / SB 5266, "by request of Office of the Governor" (Chapman, Lekanoff et al.): voluntary riparian grant program, standards for "fully functioning riparian ecosystems," task force; hearing Jan 18, 2023; no committee vote; died. HB 1720 (Chapman, Dent, Lekanoff, Kretz, Klicker et al.): voluntary, regionally focused grants; stalled in House Capital Budget (Feb 22, 2023); Capital Press: Inslee opposed it. Legislature provided $50 million to RCO and SCC for riparian restoration (2023)2023High (bills) / Med (Inslee position)
F-121Growth Management Act (ESHB 2929) passed April 1, 1990; signed by Gov. Booth Gardner about three weeks later, with partial veto1990Med-High
F-122ESHB 1724 (c 347, Laws of 1995), "by request of Governor Lowry"; approved by Gov. Mike Lowry May 15, 1995 (sections 103, 302, 903 vetoed); §105 enacted RCW 36.70A.172: "shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas ... shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries"1995High
F-123RCW 36.70A.130(5)(c): Walla Walla County and cities "On or before December 31, 2026," next review June 30, 2036 and every 10 years; (7)(a): "a county or city that is fewer than 12 months out of compliance" on critical-areas regulations is making substantial progress for PWTF/Ecology funding. SSB 5558 (Goehner et al.; C 148 L 25; signed Apr 22, 2025; eff. July 27, 2025); HB 1241 (C 192 L 22, signed Mar 30, 2022)currentHigh
F-125E2SSB 6026 (C 236 L 26), "by request of Governor Ferguson": where permissible, "critical area buffers and critical areas governed by a critical area ordinance may be included" when calculating allowable density (commercial and mixed-use zones). SB 5384 (2025; Dozier, Schoesler, J. Wilson), review of riparian programs: not passed (retained in committee Jan 12, 2026)2026High
F-127City CAO webpage: "Within dryland ecosystems, WDFW's new science calls for cities to set a site‑specific Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) area with a 100-foot minimum width of existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater"; same page: "the proposed baseline buffer width is 100 feet for all stream types"2026-10-10High
F-128Draft §21.04.650(D) (relettered from (C); bold on p. 39): "Riparian Habitat Areas. Unless otherwise allowed in this chapter, all structures and activities shall be located outside of the riparian habitat buffers."2026-10-09High
F-130WDFW Vol. 1: "Published May 2018, updated July 2020"; peer review by the Washington State Academy of Sciences; Vol. 2 published Dec 2020 (HB 1838 cites "Riparian Ecosystems Volume 2 published December 2020"). Authoring agency: WDFW Habitat Program, Priority Habitats and Species2018–2020High
F-132The City's BAS Review Addendum (Facet, Spokane office; June 26, 2026; no individual authors named) has one buffer map: Figure 12, captioned "City of Walla Walla recommended FWHCA buffers," which reproduces HDR's 2008 "Figure 2.6-1 Walla Walla CAO Recommended Buffers / Terrestrial Species." Legend: "RECOMMENDED BUFFERS 100 ft / 75 ft / 50 ft / 35 ft"; in-city creeks (Garrison, Bryant, Lincoln, College, Butcher, Barber, Russell, Caldwell, Mill) drawn at 35 ft, Yellowhawk at 50 ft. Neither the BAS Review nor the Gap Analysis contains Walla Walla field data or a tiered/intermediate-width analysis; the Gap Analysis says "The City must review the BAS-based recommendations and determine the best regulatory approach" and "We recommend reviewing water-quality buffer functions alongside stormwater management regulations" (p. 25)2026-06-26High

Found an error?

Tell us. We correct the record.

If a link is broken, a date is wrong or a description misreads its source, send the page and the fix. Corrections are made in the open, in the fact ledger.

Report an error →