Court Opinion

ID: 9906820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 14:25:14.70435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:08.893532
License: Public Domain

Filed
                                                                                      Washington State
                                                                                      Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Division Two

                                                                                     December 5, 2023

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                        DIVISION II
 IAN MUNCE,                                                       No. 57087-4-II

                              Appellant,

        v.

 CITY OF ANACORTES and GROWTH                               UNPUBLISHED OPINION
 MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD,

                              Respondents.

       GLASGOW, C.J. — In 2021, the City of Anacortes updated its critical areas ordinance, which

regulates development and other activities around wetlands, geologic hazards, and other sensitive

areas. The updated ordinance incorporated recommendations from three expert reports addressing

what would be most consistent with best available science. The City also considered numerous

public comments made during the four-year adoption process.

       Munce petitioned the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board for

review of the ordinance, alleging violations of the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter

36.70A RCW, including its public participation requirements. The Board issued a final decision

and order, ruling that Munce failed to show the ordinance violated the GMA.

       Munce appeals and argues that the City violated the GMA’s public participation

requirements by changing language about mapping protocols after the last public comment period

closed. He also asserts that the ordinance violated the GMA because the City failed to include
No. 57087-4-II

monitoring and adaptive management requirements for wetland buffers and failed to allow

members of the public to comment on and appeal enforcement actions.

       We affirm.

                                               FACTS

                             I. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW ORDINANCE

       The GMA requires counties and cities to adopt development regulations that protect critical

areas. RCW 36.70A.060(2).1 Critical areas include wetlands, “areas with a critical recharging

effect on aquifers used for potable water,” frequently flooded areas, “fish and wildlife habitat

conservation areas,” and geologically hazardous areas. RCW 36.70A.030(11).

       Anacortes updated its comprehensive plan in 2016. The new goals and policies included

the City’s intent to identify and preserve areas of “biological significance” and “[u]se the best

available science to preserve or enhance the function and values of critical areas.” Admin. R. (AR)

at 177. The City then began updating its critical areas regulations to bring them into compliance

with its comprehensive plan and the GMA.

A.     Best Available Science

       Counties and cities planning under the GMA “must include the best available science . . .

when designating critical areas and when developing policies and regulations that protect critical

areas.” Former WAC 365-190-080(2) (2010); see RCW 36.70A.172(1).

       Between 2016 and 2019, the City commissioned three best available science reports to

inform the revision of its critical areas ordinance.

1
  The provisions of the GMA have been updated since the City passed its new ordinance, but the
relevant language has not changed, so we cite to the current provisions of chapter 36.70A RCW
throughout this opinion.

                                                  2
No. 57087-4-II

       The 2016 report reviewed the prior critical areas ordinance and suggested updates to bring

the ordinance into compliance with guidance from the Department of Ecology, Department of

Natural Resources, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. It also recommended

additional studies on certain types of critical areas.

       In a list of specific recommendations for revising the ordinance, the 2016 report suggested

attaching maps of geologic hazard zones as appendices to the ordinance because that practice

would make the maps more accessible to the public than the then-current practice of publishing

the maps as appendices to the comprehensive plan. The report also recommended expressly

defining adaptive management, which is “a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking

action and obtaining information in the face of uncertainty.” Former WAC 365-195-920(2) (2000).

Adaptive management is used when “there is an absence of valid scientific information or

incomplete scientific information relating to a county’s or city’s critical areas” that results in

uncertainty about which land uses could harm critical areas. Former WAC 365-195-920. The

report also recommended deleting a provision requiring the City to perform adaptive management

of projects adjacent to critical area buffers because the City typically required monitoring as part

of a development applicant’s compensatory mitigation plan. See ANACORTES MUNICIPAL CODE

(AMC) 19.70.130(D) (provision of the new critical areas ordinance requiring projects that may

impact critical areas to submit mitigation plans that include a “monitoring and contingency plan”

and to provide monitoring reports to the City).

       The 2017 report reviewed the prior critical areas ordinance’s provisions regarding aquifer

recharge and geologic hazard zones, including frequently flooded areas. It recommended

alterations to bring the ordinance into compliance with the applicable scientific literature, and the

                                                   3
No. 57087-4-II

report highlighted comparison examples of regulations from other jurisdictions that had similar

environmental attributes. In part, the report suggested referring to Geographic Information System

(GIS) maps to update the city’s aquifer maps. This report did not recommend including an adaptive

management program in any new critical areas ordinance.

       The 2019 report addressed the buffers around fish and wildlife conservation areas,

including analyzing the conditions around 15 streams in the city to suggest updates to the

ordinance. The report cited to scientific literature, including guidance from the Department of Fish

and Wildlife and the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development. This report

did not recommend including an adaptive management program in any new critical areas

ordinance.

B.     Public Participation and Mapping Protocols

       The City held several public comment periods about each draft of the new critical areas

ordinance. The City received numerous written comments, and there were opportunities for oral

comments at planning commission and city council meetings.

       1.      2017 draft

       In a 2017 draft of the updated ordinance, a general mapping section addressed overall how

the public could see where critical areas were:

       The general locations of many critical areas in Anacortes are displayed on the City
       of Anacortes’ Critical Areas Maps, which are hereby adopted by reference. The
       maps are used to alert the public of the potential location of critical areas in
       Anacortes. As new environmental information related to critical areas becomes
       available, the Director is authorized to make changes as necessary to the Critical
       Areas Maps.

AR at 873-74 (emphasis added). The same portion of the 2017 draft also explained that actual site

conditions would control over a map designation: “Regardless of whether a critical area is shown

                                                  4
No. 57087-4-II

on the Critical Areas Map, the actual presence or absence of the features defined in this code as

critical areas will govern.” AR at 874.

         A different section of the 2017 draft addressed how the City would map wetlands. It stated

that the “approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown in the wetland data layer

maintained in the City of Anacortes geographic information system.” AR at 894. The same section

also explained that the maps were for reference only: “The maps and resources cited above are to

be used as a guide for the [City Planning] Department, project applicants, and/or property owners

and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do

not provide a final critical area designation.” Id. Identical language referencing GIS maps and

explaining that the maps were for reference only appeared in the sections of the 2017 draft

addressing mapping of fish and wildlife habitats, geologic hazards, and critical aquifer recharge

areas.

         The City’s planning commission received public comments on the 2017 draft at several

meetings over the summer of 2017.

         2.     2019 draft

         A 2019 draft of the ordinance contained the same language as the 2017 draft in the general

mapping section. This draft also contained the same language as the 2017 draft in the sections

about each type of critical area, stating that the City would use GIS maps and explaining that the

maps were for reference only, while actual site conditions would control any critical area

designation. The City received public comments on this draft at both planning commission and

city council meetings over several months. At least 40 public comments were filed between one

planning commission meeting in December 2019 and a second meeting in January 2020. Over the

                                                 5
No. 57087-4-II

full course of the comment period, the City received 114 written comments from 75 people. The

Department of Ecology also commented on the draft.

       3.      2021 drafts

       An early 2021 draft of the ordinance contained the same language about general mapping

as the previous drafts. In the general section addressing actual site conditions, this version retained

language stating that the City may require an applicant to “submit technical information to indicate

whether critical areas actually exist on or adjacent to the applicant’s site based on the definitions

of critical areas in this code.” AR at 1164. The 2021 draft ordinance added language explaining

that an applicant may be required to fill out a certain form to provide this information before the

City would act on any development permit. In the specific sections about each type of critical area,

this version was the same as previous versions, referencing GIS maps and explaining that the maps

were for reference only. This version received additional written and oral public comments.

       The city council further edited the draft ordinance after the public comment period closed,

and the City released another draft in June 2021. This version then received limited additional

public comments. The June 2021 draft had different language in the general mapping section than

the previous drafts:

       The general locations of many critical areas in Anacortes are displayed on the City
       of Anacortes’ Critical Areas Maps, which are hereby adopted by reference. The
       maps are used to alert the public of the potential location of critical areas in
       Anacortes. As new environmental information related to critical areas becomes
       available, the City is authorized to make changes as necessary to the Critical Areas
       Maps. The City Geographic Information Systems office must maintain an
       interactive, publicly available online map containing the location of known and
       potential critical areas, and must make pdf maps available to the public upon
       request.

                                                  6
No. 57087-4-II

AR at 1265 (alteration in original). This version did not include the clause incorporating the critical

areas maps into the ordinance by reference. Instead this version added the requirement in the last

sentence that the Geographic Information Systems Office must maintain interactive, publicly

available maps of critical areas online and make them available to the public upon request.

       The city council passed a final version of the ordinance on July 26, 2021. The final

ordinance included the same language in the general mapping section as the June 2021 draft recited

above. The final ordinance also retained the language from the preceding drafts stating,

“Regardless of whether a critical area is shown on the Critical Areas Map, the actual presence or

absence of the features defined in this code as critical areas will govern.” AR at 15. The sections

about mapping wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats, geologic hazards, and critical aquifer recharge

areas all contained the same language explaining that these critical areas would be reflected in

publicly available GIS maps that had appeared in the previous drafts, including explaining that the

GIS maps were for reference only.

                                     II. APPEAL TO THE BOARD

       Munce petitioned the Board for review of the ordinance. He asserted that the new ordinance

violated the GMA and the City’s comprehensive plan.

A.     Motion Regarding Public Participation

       Before the hearing on the merits, Munce moved for a preliminary determination that the

City violated the GMA’s public participation requirements when passing the new ordinance.

Munce reasoned that the change to the language in the general mapping provision was a significant

change from the drafts available for public comment. Munce asserted that the ordinance violated

the GMA’s public participation requirements because the public had no opportunity to comment

                                                  7
No. 57087-4-II

on the final version of the ordinance stating in the general mapping section that critical areas maps

would be online GIS maps that City staff could update regularly. He argued the Board was required

to remand the ordinance for the City to allow additional public comments. Munce also argued that

the use of GIS maps violated public participation requirements because City staff could update

critical area maps without public comment or input.

       The City responded that the edit to the general mapping language was a correction to bring

the general mapping section in-line with the specific sections about each type of critical area, which

had each referred to GIS maps throughout multiple drafts subject to public comment periods.

“Reading the ordinance in its entirety, it is clear that the change cited by Petitioner was merely a

cleanup for consistency and that the public had ample opportunity to comment on the change in

wetland mapping methodology.” AR at 7169. And the City explained that it had switched to GIS

maps, “because the former maps were less accessible to the public, were generally out of date

because they were updated infrequently, and did not show the level of interaction between critical

areas and other map features, such as public and private existing infrastructure, lot lines,

stormwater facilities, etc.” AR at 7163.

       The Board considered the history of public comments on the various drafts of the

ordinance. It noted that the City adopted the ordinance “after over four years, 12 planning

commission meetings, ten City Council meetings, two public hearings, and over 100 public

comments.” AR at 7263.

       Next, the Board considered the language in the drafts that explained that each type of

critical area would be mapped through GIS. The Board found “that the change to the method for

updating maps was within the scope of alternatives available for public comment” and therefore

                                                  8
No. 57087-4-II

did not violate GMA’s public participation requirements. AR at 7265. “A member of the public

would hardly have been surprised by or foreclosed from commenting on the fact that [the final

ordinance] allowed the City to make changes to the Critical Areas Maps ‘as new environmental

information related to critical areas bec[ame] available,’” because “this language was proposed as

early as July 20, 2017.” AR at 7266-67. And the new language in the general section about using

GIS maps “was apparently added solely for clarification and to ensure that [the general section]

was consistent with the language in [the sections for each type of critical area] regarding GIS

mapping.” AR at 7267. The Board; therefore, denied Munce’s motion.

B.     Briefing on the Merits

       1.      Arguments

       In his briefing on the merits, Munce argued that the new ordinance violated the GMA and

comprehensive plan in several ways. First, he contended that the City had to include an adaptive

management program in the new ordinance. He also asserted that the City had failed to enforce its

prior adaptive management program, and that this failure was itself a violation of the GMA. The

City responded that it was “not required to include adaptive management in its critical areas

ordinance because the City based its ordinance on a very thorough review of best available

science.” AR at 17142. The City explained that the GMA recommended an adaptive management

program only “as an interim measure” for jurisdictions that did “not have best available science to

rely on in adopting regulations.” Id.; see former WAC 365-195-920(2). Because the City had

incorporated the recommendations from the best available science reports, it had no reason or

obligation to also implement an adaptive management program.

                                                9
No. 57087-4-II

       Munce next argued that the City violated the GMA’s public participation mandates with

the switch to GIS maps, because the maps could be adjusted “at any time without any identified

standards and without an opportunity for public comment and legislative action.” AR at 7276. He

contended that the switch to GIS maps that could be updated without a public comment period,

violated regulations requiring a precautionary approach when there was an absence of scientific

information about local critical areas. The City responded that the GIS maps “integrate information

from multiple sources to provide the most up-to-date maps that reflect real time conditions within

the City” and that drafts of the ordinance mentioning the use of such maps had been available for

public comment since 2017. AR at 17152.

       Munce further asserted that the City had an obligation to allow members of the public to

participate in enforcement actions under the ordinance by letting them “submit their own [best

available science reports]” and “comment on the merits of the appeal.” AR at 7280. He reasoned

that members of the public should be able to appeal enforcement decisions to a hearing examiner,

and that the lack of such a mechanism was “clearly erroneous” and inconsistent with the

comprehensive plan. AR at 7281. The City responded that the new ordinance and other provisions

of the municipal code allowed interested parties to appeal enforcement actions and other decisions.

For example, permitting decisions under the new ordinance are land use decisions appealable

under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW. RCW 36.70C.020(2)(a). And

anyone subject to an enforcement action under the new ordinance could appeal the administrative

order to a hearing examiner. AMC 20.20.100(A)(1).

       Munce also raised several arguments related to the City’s alleged failure to enforce

provisions of the prior critical areas ordinance or suggested language changes to the new

                                                10
No. 57087-4-II

ordinance. He asserted that the City “failed to establish specific baseline dates from which to

measure illegal activities and advance enforcement and restoration,” and “failed to map and then

advance monitoring and corrective action on wetlands identified in development projects since

1990.” AR at 7272. He also contended that the City “effectively reward[ed] those who

encroach[ed] on buffers with smaller buffers.” Id.

       2.      Board ruling and later proceedings

       The Board issued a final decision and order. As an initial matter, the Board largely declined

to consider arguments related to site-specific actions, enforcement of the prior ordinance,

suggested edits to the new ordinance, or arguments that lacked citation to the GMA.2 The Board

explained, “[i]t is not enough for challengers to claim to the Board that the City could have adopted

better protections.” AR at 18539. Instead, a “[p]etitioner must establish that what was adopted was

clearly erroneous after giving deference to the local [jurisdiction].” Id.

       The Board then addressed the guidance around adaptive management programs. The

relevant regulations provide that “[w]here there is an absence of valid scientific information or

incomplete scientific information relating to a county’s or city’s critical areas,” the jurisdiction

should use “[a]s an interim approach, an effective adaptive management program that relies on

scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions achieve their

objectives.” AR at 18516 (boldface omitted) (quoting former WAC 365-195-920(2)). Thus, if a

jurisdiction followed the best available science “in adopting regulations, it [was] not required to

2
  Munce also argued that the City “reduced wetland protections by eliminating the City’s long
established Wetland District Approach.” AR at 7279. The Board ruled that there was “no
requirement within the GMA for a wetland district approach.” AR at 18523. And Munce contended
that the City had failed to include several wetlands in its maps, which were corrected before the
Board issued its ruling. Munce appears to have abandoned these arguments on appeal.

                                                 11
No. 57087-4-II

adopt an adaptive management program.” Id. The Board emphasized that the City had “shown that

it worked closely with the Department of Ecology and its own consultants in identifying and

relying on [best available science] in the update of its [ordinance].” Id. The Board concluded that

Munce had not shown that the City lacked valid scientific information in drafting the new

ordinance. Thus, he had not demonstrated that the new ordinance’s lack of an adaptive

management program violated any GMA requirement.

       The Board also addressed Munce’s argument that the switch to GIS maps violated the

GMA’s public participation requirements. The Board first observed that “[t]he GMA does not

require that agencies even adopt maps of critical areas” because maps are “‘too inexact for

regulatory purposes,’” so jurisdictions “‘should clearly state that maps showing known critical

areas are only for information and illustrative purposes.’” AR at 18521 (quoting former WAC 365-

190-080(4)(a), (b)). And while Munce had alleged a violation of the GMA’s public participation

mandates, “there [was] no citation to, nor argument presented, on the GMA’s various public

participation requirements.” Id. Therefore, the Board found and concluded that Munce had not

shown “that the City violated the public participation mandates of the GMA by failing to adopt a

specific wetland map set.” AR at 18522.

       In addressing Munce’s argument that the public should have standing to participate in

enforcement actions, the Board began by stating that “there is nothing in the GMA nor in the

[caselaw Munce cited] that creates an obligation to require participation or appeal rights to those

not parties to the enforcement action.” AR at 18525. And it noted that the critical areas ordinance

as well as other chapters of the municipal code provided appeal rights for any party subject to an

enforcement action. Thus, the Board found and concluded that Munce “failed to demonstrate the

                                                12
No. 57087-4-II

existence of an obligation under the GMA to involve the public in City enforcement actions.” AR

at 18526.

       The Board found and concluded that Munce had not demonstrated any violation of the

GMA. Munce petitioned for judicial review of the Board’s order. The trial court transferred the

appeal directly to this court. Futurewise, a nonprofit corporation, filed an amicus brief in support

of Munce.

                                            ANALYSIS

                     I. PRINCIPLES GOVERNING REVIEW OF BOARD DECISIONS

       Growth management hearings boards “have exclusive jurisdiction to review petitions

alleging a [local government] did not comply with the GMA in adopting or amending its

comprehensive plan or development regulations.” Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt.

Hr’gs Bd., 176 Wn. App. 555, 569, 309 P.3d 673 (2013); see also RCW 36.70A.280(1)(a). Boards

reviewing local government decisions must afford the localities deference “in how they plan for

growth, consistent with the requirements and goals of [the GMA].” RCW 36.70A.3201. While the

GMA “requires local planning to take place within a framework of state goals and requirements,

the ultimate burden and responsibility for planning, harmonizing the planning goals of [the GMA],

and implementing a county’s or city’s future rests with that community.” Id.

       A city planning under the GMA has “broad discretion” to issue regulations “suited to its

local circumstances.” King County. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d

543, 561, 14 P.3d 133 (2000)). A board presumes that a city’s development regulation is valid, and

it is the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate otherwise. RCW 36.70A.320(1). “The board shall find

compliance unless it determines that the action by the . . . city is clearly erroneous in view of the

                                                 13
No. 57087-4-II

entire record before the board and in light of the goals and requirements of [the GMA].” RCW

36.70A.320(3). The board must defer to “local planning processes,” and “where, within the

constraints of the GMA, more than one appropriate planning choice exists, boards must defer to a

[city’s] discretion.” Kittitas County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 172 Wn.2d 144, 155-

56, 256 P.3d 1193 (2011).

       The Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, governs judicial review of board

actions. Whatcom County v. Hirst, 186 Wn.2d 648, 666, 381 P.3d 1 (2016). “The burden of

demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.” RCW

34.05.570(1)(a). There are nine grounds for relief from a board’s adjudicatory order. RCW

34.05.570(3). Relevant here, a court shall grant relief from a board’s order if the court determines

that the board “has erroneously interpreted or applied the law” or the order “is not supported by

evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court.” RCW

34.05.570(3)(d)-(e). Courts review alleged misinterpretations of the law de novo. Kittitas County,

172 Wn.2d at 155. And courts review allegations that a board’s order is not supported by

substantial evidence by determining whether there is enough evidence “to persuade a fair-minded

person of the truth or correctness of the order.” Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs

Bd., 164 Wn.2d 329, 341, 190 P.3d 38 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting City of

Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 136 Wn.2d 38, 46, 959 P.2d 1091

(1998)).

       The GMA “is not to be liberally construed.” Id. at 342. While a board must defer to the

jurisdiction’s “choices that are consistent with the GMA,” the board “itself is entitled to deference

in determining what the GMA requires.” Lewis County v. W. Wash, Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 157

                                                 14
No. 57087-4-II

Wn.2d 488, 498, 139 P.3d 1096 (2006). Although we give “‘substantial weight’” to a board’s

interpretation of the GMA, “the interpretation does not bind us.” Spokane County, 176 Wn. App.

at 565 (quoting King County, 142 Wn.2d at 553). “Overall, it is not a reviewing court’s role to

determine the correct planning decision; we review only whether the board’s action was supported

under the relevant standard of review.” Homeward Bound in Puyallup v. Cent. Puget Sound

Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 23 Wn. App. 2d 875, 894, 517 P.3d 1098 (2022).

                            II. CHALLENGES TO MAP REQUIREMENTS

A.     Public Participation Requirements

       Munce argues that the Board erroneously interpreted or applied the law when it ruled that

the City complied with the GMA’s public participation requirements. He also contends that the

Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. He asserts that the edits to the

language of the ordinance made after the last public comment period were substantive changes

that required an additional public comment period. Amicus points out that eliminating the

requirement that the maps be adopted as part of the ordinance deprived the public of the

opportunity to comment on how the maps should be drawn.

       The City responds that the edits were “within the scope of alternatives available for public

comment,” so no new comment period was required to incorporate the edits. Br. of Resp’t at 14.

The City points out that numerous drafts referenced using GIS maps specifically for each type of

critical area, and the change to the general section on mapping in the final ordinance “was merely

a cleanup for consistency” that “the public had ample opportunity to comment on.” Id. at 17.

       As an initial matter, Munce appealed only the Board’s final decision and order, not the

preliminary order on public participation. But we will review a ruling not designated in the notice

                                                15
No. 57087-4-II

of appeal if the “ruling prejudicially affects the decision designated in the notice” and the ruling

was made before we accepted review. RAP 2.4(b). An order prejudicially affects a later ruling if

“the order appealed from would not have happened but for the first order.” Right-Price Recreation,

LLC v. Connells Prairie Cmty. Council, 146 Wn.2d 370, 380, 46 P.3d 789 (2002). For example,

an appellate court may review an order denying a motion to dismiss that would have terminated

the action and precluded a later order that was properly appealed. Id. at 379. Here, if the Board

had granted Munce’s motion on public participation, it would never have proceeded to a hearing

on the merits. Therefore, the order on public participation prejudicially affected the final decision

and order, so we will review it.

       RCW 36.70A.140 provides that every county and city planning under the GMA must have

“procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and

amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations.” “Errors in exact

compliance with the established program and procedures shall not render the . . . development

regulations invalid if the spirit of the program and procedures is observed.” Id.

       There must be an opportunity for the public to comment on each major change to a

document “before the local legislative body votes on the proposed change.” RCW

36.70A.035(2)(a). However, “[a]n additional opportunity for public review and comment is not

required” if the change “is within the scope of the alternatives [that were] available for public

comment,” corrects scriveners’ errors, “or clarifies language of a proposed ordinance or resolution

without changing its effect.” RCW 36.70A.035(2)(b)(ii)-(iii). This court has held that amendments

to a comprehensive plan map complied with the GMA’s public participation requirements when

the changes were either minor corrections or the substance of the change had been included in

                                                 16
No. 57087-4-II

prior drafts that the public had an opportunity to comment on. Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson County,

159 Wn. App. 446, 473, 245 P.3d 789 (2011).

       Here, the Board found that the City updated the ordinance after “12 planning commission

meetings, ten City Council meetings, two public hearings, and over 100 public comments.” AR at

7263. The Board found that the changes to the general mapping section were either available for

public comment as early as 2017, or were clarifications to ensure the general mapping section was

consistent with the new mapping protocol referenced in each of the sections about the specific

types of critical areas. Thus, the Board concluded that “the change to the method for updating maps

was within the scope of alternatives available for public comment” and did not violate GMA public

participation requirements. AR at 7265.

       Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the City began proposing using GIS

to map the various critical areas in the 2017 draft ordinance. Every successive draft that received

public comments included references to GIS mapping for each type of critical area. The challenged

edit that occurred after the last public comment period deleted language in the general section

about mapping that discussed certain maps being adopted by reference and added an explanation

of where the public could find the GIS maps of critical areas. In short, the substance of the change

had been included in prior drafts that the public had an opportunity to comment on. The challenged

edit was a correction with no independent substance and made the general section consistent with

the specific sections that had already been altered and that had been subject to public comment.

See Brinnon Grp., 159 Wn. App. at 473.

                                                17
No. 57087-4-II

       We hold that the Board did not erroneously interpret or apply the law when it concluded

that the edit to the general mapping provision complied with the GMA’s public participation

requirements. And substantial evidence supported the Board’s order on public participation.

B.     Best Available Science for Maps

       Amicus Futurewise argues that the change to posting GIS maps online, where they could

be updated without a public comment process, deprived the public of a chance to comment on the

scope of critical areas reflected in the maps. Amicus asserts that the change was inconsistent with

the best available science reports, pointing to the 2016 report recommendation that the City include

maps referenced in the ordinance as appendices to the ordinance instead of to the comprehensive

plan. And at oral argument, Munce explained that prior critical areas ordinances allowed public

comment on changes to maps, while the current ordinance does not.

       The City first responds that amicus raises a different argument than Munce did before the

Board.3 It also points out that when the 2016 report recommended attaching maps as appendices

to the ordinance, that practice would have made the maps “more accessible to the public than an

appendix to the comprehensive plan.” Resp’t’s Answer to Amicus Curiae at 12. And the City

emphasizes that “[w]ith GIS mapping, staff now have the ability to integrate information from

project-specific critical areas reports into the online information accessible to the public.” Id. at 6.

Thus, the change to the mapping provision ultimately made the maps even more accessible than

the 2016 report contemplated.

3
 Munce argues that the new ordinance “abandoned . . . the public’s rights to challenge a wetland
designation, or de-designation,” but he does not contend on appeal that the change to using GIS
maps was contradictory to the best available science. Pet’r’s Br. at 25.

                                                  18
No. 57087-4-II

       “Issues not raised before the agency may not be raised on appeal,” except in limited

circumstances. RCW 34.05.554(1). And we may decline to address arguments raised only by

amici. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n of Wash. v. McCarthy, 152 Wn. App. 720, 749, 218 P.3d 196 (2009).

However, Munce argued before the Board that the City acted inconsistently with regulations

requiring a precautionary approach in the absence of best available science “by failing to adopt a

specific wetland map set” and instead using the GIS maps that staff could update easily. AR at

7276. Thus, amicus’ argument was within the scope of issues raised before the Board. However,

their argument fails.

       First, we note that the City’s critical areas maps have for decades been reflective of critical

areas established by experts. The new ordinance continues to require expert field investigations to

determine the boundaries of critical areas. See AR at 45 (“The exact location of a wetland’s

boundary must be determined through the performance of a field investigation by a qualified

professional.”). And the City explained at oral argument that the current maps incorporate the data

layers from the maps that were adopted under the prior ordinance and other official maps from

agencies with critical areas expertise. See AR at 66-67 (listing fish and wildlife habitat maps that

the new ordinance incorporated by reference). Additionally, because critical area designations are

land use decisions, impacted interested parties can challenge critical area designations under

LUPA. RCW 36.70C.060(1)-(2) (addressing standing under LUPA).

       The change to using GIS maps was not a departure from the best available science. The

2016 report recommended attaching maps as appendices to the ordinance to make the maps more

accessible to the public. The shift to posting the maps online makes the maps even more accessible

than they would be if attached to the critical areas ordinance or the comprehensive plan.

                                                 19
No. 57087-4-II

Significantly, maps are not required elements of critical areas regulations because they are “too

inexact for regulatory purposes,” so jurisdictions “should clearly state that maps showing known

critical areas are only for information and illustrative purposes.” Former WAC 365-190-080(4)(a),

(b). In Anacortes, “[r]egardless of whether a critical area is shown on the Critical Areas Map, the

actual presence or absence of the features defined in [the] code as critical areas will govern.” AR

at 15. Thus, the maps do not define critical areas, they merely reflect where critical areas have been

determined to exist based on project-specific critical areas reports.

       Further, at least one of the best available science reports recommended referring to GIS

maps to update the city’s critical areas maps. And the language of the new ordinance reflects that

the maps are for reference purposes only. In sum, the City did not depart from the best available

science by providing GIS maps to illustrate the approximate locations of critical areas.

                         III. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT

       Munce next contends that the new ordinance violates the GMA because it lacks provisions

related to adaptive management and enforcement mechanisms allowing public involvement.

       As an initial matter, Munce also maintains several arguments he made to the Board which

were disregarded as outside the scope of the Board’s review. Munce continues to argue that the

City violated the GMA when it “failed to establish specific baseline dates from which to measure

illegal activities and advance enforcement and restoration,” “failed to map and then advance

monitoring and corrective action on wetlands identified in development projects since 1990,” and

“effectively reward[ed] those who encroach on buffers.” Pet’r’s Br. at 27. The Board declined to

consider Munce’s arguments related to site-specific actions and enforcement of the prior ordinance

because those claims were outside the scope of its review of the new critical areas ordinance. And

                                                 20
No. 57087-4-II

arguments that there was a better way to draft regulations did not constitute a showing that the

ordinance was clearly erroneous.

       The City’s alleged failure to enforce a prior ordinance is not an issue that we can address

when reviewing a board order on the validity of a current ordinance. Similarly, we do not consider

whether there is a better way for a locality to draft an ordinance, only whether the adopted

ordinance violates the GMA under the applicable standard of review. Homeward Bound, 23 Wn.

App. 2d at 894. And challenges to site-specific zoning and land use decisions “should be brought

by means of a LUPA petition in superior court.” Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County,

141 Wn.2d 169, 179 n.1, 4 P.3d 123 (2000). Therefore, we need not reach Munce’s arguments

about enforcement of the prior ordinance, site-specific actions, and contentions about how to better

draft the ordinance.

A.     Adaptive Management

       Munce argues that the Board erroneously interpreted or applied the law when it ruled that

the new ordinance did not violate any GMA requirements regarding adaptive management

programs in wetland buffers around critical areas. He also contends that the Board’s decision was

not supported by substantial evidence. Munce relies on Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v.

Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 161 Wn.2d 415, 166 P.3d 1198

(2007), to assert that the City was required to include adaptive management provisions in the new

ordinance but failed to do so. He also argues that “[t]he Board erred in not requiring the City to

clearly establish a wetland net loss baseline date” for monitoring and enforcement purposes. Pet’r’s

Br. at 34. We disagree.

                                                21
No. 57087-4-II

       RCW 36.70A.172(1) provides that cities planning under the GMA “shall include the best

available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and

values of critical areas.” “[A] valid scientific process” as required for a best available science

review “is one that produces reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of a

local government’s regulatory decisions and in developing critical areas policies and development

regulations that will be effective in protecting the functions and values of critical areas.” Former

WAC 365-195-905(5)(a) (2000). A jurisdiction may obtain best available science by consulting

“with state and federal natural resources agencies and tribes,” or “through its own efforts, with or

without the assistance of qualified experts, and through state agency review and the [GMA’s]

required public participation process.” Former WAC 365-195-910(1)-(2) (2000). Former WAC

365-195-920 (2000) addressed the scenario where there was not any, or only “incomplete scientific

information,” for a jurisdiction to rely on:

       Where there is an absence of valid scientific information or incomplete scientific
       information relating to a county’s or city’s critical areas, leading to uncertainty
       about which development and land uses could lead to harm of critical areas or
       uncertainty about the risk to critical area function of permitting development,
       counties and cities should use the following approach:
               (1) A “precautionary or a no risk approach,” in which development and land
       use activities are strictly limited until the uncertainty is sufficiently resolved; and
               (2) As an interim approach, an effective adaptive management program that
       relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory
       actions achieve their objectives.

       Munce relies on Swinomish to argue that the City was required to include adaptive

management in its critical areas ordinance. In that case, the Washington Supreme Court addressed

several challenges to Skagit County’s critical areas ordinance, including alleged deficiencies in the

county’s adaptive management program. 161 Wn.2d at 423. The court explained that “[w]hen a

monitoring system detects newly discovered risks to critical areas from land use or development,

                                                 22
No. 57087-4-II

adaptive management is a process used to confront the scientific uncertainty surrounding them.”

Id. at 436. Swinomish provided that when there is no best available science to guide development

regulations, “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 that

arises.” Id.

        Swinomish is distinguishable from this case because here, the City did have best available

science to rely on. In addition to the three best available science reports commissioned in the years

preceding the adoption of the ordinance, the City incorporated recommendations from the

Department of Ecology’s comments on the draft ordinance and guidance from agencies such as

the Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers. Munce does not show “an

absence of valid scientific information or incomplete scientific information” that would have

required an interim adaptive management program. Former WAC 365-195-920. Under these

circumstances, the City had no obligation to incorporate an adaptive management program into its

critical areas ordinance.

        Finally, Munce cites no GMA provision or best available science requirement for the City

to include a universal baseline date for enforcement actions in the new ordinance. The closest thing

to a requirement that he cites is former WAC 365-190-090(2) (2010), which provides, “[C]ounties

and cities are requested and encouraged to make their actions consistent with the intent and goals

of ‘protection of wetlands,’ . . . as they existed on September 1, 1990.” (emphasis added). This

request is not a binding requirement. Munce’s belief that there was a better way to draft the

ordinance does not constitute a reversible error by the Board under the applicable standards of

review. Homeward Bound, 23 Wn. App. 2d at 894.

                                                 23
No. 57087-4-II

       We hold that the Board did not err in finding and concluding that the new ordinance did

not depart from the best available science regarding adaptive management programs and baseline

dates for enforcement actions.

B.     Enforcement Discretion

       Munce argues that the Board erroneously interpreted or applied the law when it ruled that

the GMA did not require the City to allow public involvement in actions involving enforcement

of the critical areas ordinance. He also contends that the Board’s decision was not supported by

substantial evidence. He asserts that the ordinance allows “a single City official” to “simply grant

an appeal of an enforcement action” without review. Pet’r’s Br. at 35. He contends that members

of the public should be able “to submit their own [best available science] and to comment on the

merits” of an enforcement action. Pet’r’s Br. at 36. Munce reasons that such enforcement is

required in part because the City has not “undertaken the annual monitoring” required by a

previous version of the critical areas ordinance. Pet’r’s Br. at 39. We disagree.

       The new critical areas ordinance provides in part, “Any decision to approve, condition, or

deny a development activity proposal or other activity based on the requirements of this chapter

may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure for the underlying permit or

approval involved.” AR at 43. And Title 20 AMC provides that “[a]ny person subject to an

administrative order,” including a stop-work order, can appeal that order to a hearing examiner.

AMC 20.20.100(A)(1). Further, LUPA authorizes both development applicants and property

owners subject to a land use decision, as well as any other “person aggrieved or adversely affected

by the land use decision, or who would be aggrieved or adversely affected by a reversal or

                                                 24
No. 57087-4-II

modification of the land use decision,” to appeal that decision to superior court. RCW

36.70C.060(2).

       Munce relies on a case where Island County’s critical areas ordinance permitted waiver of

a requirement for a biological site assessment whenever the county’s planning director

“determine[d] that development impacts [would] be minor.” Whidbey Env’t. Action Network v. W.

Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 14 Wn. App. 2d 514, 537, 471 P.3d 960 (2020). There was no

“transparent process or criteria for making that [waiver] decision.” Id. at 538. This court held that

the board in that case erred by failing to overturn the waiver provision “because, unlike a long list

of other counties, Island County ha[d] failed to provide any guidelines or parameters to ensure

county officials . . . adequately protect[ed] critical areas when evaluating waivers.” Id. In contrast,

it is permissible for codes to “allow some discretion to rest with [local] officials to determine how

to implement certain aspects of their critical areas ordinances,” so long as the ordinances also

provided “benchmarks so that discretion is not completely unfettered.” Id. at 539.

       Here, any party subject to an enforcement action or other administrative order can appeal

to a hearing examiner. AMC 20.20.040(B), .100(A)(1). And “aggrieved or adversely affected”

parties may appeal a land use decision, such as a critical area determination, in superior court.

RCW 36.70C.060(2).

       Munce challenges the fact that members of the public cannot independently appeal

enforcement decisions. The Board concluded that nothing in the GMA or Whidbey Environmental

Action Network required the City to give participation or appeal rights to people who did not have

an interest in an enforcement action. And Munce cites no case or law granting members of the

public the right to provide public comment on or appeal a critical area enforcement action. This

                                                  25
No. 57087-4-II

court remanded in Whidbey Environmental Action Network for the county to impose more detailed

benchmarks on the planning director’s discretion, but nothing in that case required the county to

allow public comment or appeals. 14 Wn. App. 2d at 540-41. Further, Munce does not show how

the City violated any provision of the GMA by assigning the responsibility of enforcing the critical

areas ordinance to the planning director. See id. at 539. And as discussed above, Munce’s assertion

that prior versions of the ordinance were not enforced is not an issue that is properly before this

court in his appeal of the current ordinance.

       We hold that the Board did not erroneously interpret or apply the law when it ruled that the

City had no obligation to allow the public to participate in enforcement actions.

                                          CONCLUSION

       We affirm.

       A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

                                                     Glasgow, C.J.
 We concur:

 Lee, J.

 Che, J.

                                                26