Historical Washington environmental information, 1954-2016

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Public Policy Logo-one line.pngin Washington

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png This article does not contain the most recently published data on this subject. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

Environmental Policy Logo on Ballotpedia.png
State environmental policy
U.S. environmental policy
Endangered species policy
State endangered species
Federal land policy
Environmental terms
Public Policy Logo-one line.png

The historical environmental information below applies to prior years. For more current information regarding environmental policy in Washington, see this article.

Land ownership

See also: Federal land policy and Federal land ownership by state

The federal government owned between 635 million and 640 million acres of land in 2012 (about 28 percent) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Around 52 percent of federally owned acres were in 12 Western states—including Alaska, 61 percent of which was federally owned. In contrast, the federal government owned 4 percent of land in the other 38 states. Federal land policy is designed to manage minerals, oil and gas resources, timber, wildlife and fish, and other natural resources found on federal land. Land management policies are highly debated for their economic, environmental and social impacts. Additionally, the size of the federal estate and the acquisition of more federal land are major issues.[1][2]

According to the Congressional Research Service, Washington spans 42.6 million acres. Of that total, 28.51 percent, or 12.17 million acres, belonged to the federal government as of 2012. More than 30 million acres in Washington are not owned by the federal government, or 4.37 non-federal acres per capita. From 1990 to 2010, the federal government's land ownership in Washington increased by 189,829 acres.[1]

The table below shows federal land ownership in Washington compared to its neighbors, Oregon and Idaho. More than 76 percent of federal land in Washington, or 9.2 million acres, are owned by the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service owned more land in Oregon and Utah with 15.6 million acres and 20.4 million acres, respectively. The U.S. Department of Defense owned more land in Washington compared to Oregon and Idaho.[1]

Federal land ownership in Washington and other states by agency
State
Agency Washington Oregon Idaho
Acres owned Percentage owned Acres owned Percentage owned Acres owned Percentage owned
U.S. Forest Service 9,289,102 76.30% 15,687,556 92.20% 20,465,014 62.71%
U.S. National Park Service 1,833,697 15.06% 192,020 1.13% 507,585 1.56%
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 181,693 1.49% 482,694 2.84% 48,947 0.15%
U.S. Bureau of Land Management 429,156 3.53% 574,510 3.38% 11,610,111 35.57%
U.S. Department of Defense 440,166 3.62% 77,153 0.45% 4,178 0.01%
Total federal land 12,173,814 100% 17,013,933 100% 32,635,835 100%
Source: Congressional Research Service, "Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data"

Land usage

Federal lands and Indian reservations in the state of Washington by government agency (click on the image to enlarge)

Recreation

National parks in Washington

Washington has 13 National Park Service units, six national forests, 31 wilderness areas, one national recreation areas, three national historic sites and one national historic trail. A study by the U.S. National Park Service found that 7.3 million visitors attended Washington's national parks and monuments and generated $430.8 million in visitor spending in 2013.[3]

State recreation lands

There are 138 state parks in Washington, which are listed below.[4]

Economic activity on federal lands

Oil and gas activity

See also: BLM oil and gas leases by state

Private mining companies, including oil and natural gas companies, can apply for leases from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to explore and produce energy on federal land. The company seeking a lease must nominate the land for oil and gas exploration to the BLM, which evaluates and approves the lease. The BLM state offices make leasing decisions based on their land use plans, which contain information on the land's resources and the potential environmental impact of oil or gas exploration. If federal lands are approved for leasing, the BLM requires an application from the company containing information on how the exploration, drilling and production will be conducted. Afterward, the BLM will produce an environmental analysis and a list of requirements before work on the land can begin. The agency also inspects the companies' drilling and producing on the leased lands.[5]

In 2013, there were 47,427 active leases covering 36.09 million acres of federal land nationwide. Of that total, 2 leases (0.0001 percent of all leases), covering 3,804 acres (0.01 percent of all leased land in 2013), were in Washington. In 2013, out of 3,770 new drilling leases approved nationwide by the BLM for oil and gas exploration, no leases were in Washington.[6][7][8][9][10]

The table below shows how Washington compared to neighboring states in oil and gas permits on BLM-managed lands in 2013. Washington had the fewest leases on BLM-managed lands in 2013 compared to neighboring states.

Oil and gas leasing on BLM lands by state
State Active permits on BLM lands (FY 2013) Total acres under lease (FY 2013) State percentage of total permits State percentage of total acres
Washington 2 3,804 0.00% 0.01%
Idaho 4 7,355 0.01% 0.02%
Montana 3,488 2,728,738 7.35% 7.56%
Oregon 112 188,391 0.24% 0.52%
Total United States 47,427 permits 36,092,482 acres - -
Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Oil and Gas Statistics"

Grazing permits

See also: Grazing permits on federal land
Sheep grazing on BLM lands in Worland, Wyoming in 1940

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages livestock grazing on 155 million acres of its public lands. Nationally, the BLM oversees about 18,000 permits and leases that allow ranchers to graze their livestock, mostly sheep and cows, on BLM-managed lands. The permits and leases overseen by the BLM are valid for 10 years and the fees are based on the number of animals the rancher has on the land. To track these animals the BLM created what are called Animal Unit Months (AUMs), or "the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow, five sheep, or five goats for a month." Since 1954, grazing on public lands has declined, from 18.2 million AUMs to 7.9 million AUMs in 2013. Holding a grazing permit requires the applicant to own or control the property used for grazing. The applicant may also offer other privately owned property used for grazing by submitting a separate application. The terms and conditions in a grazing permit control how livestock can be used on BLM lands.[11][12][13]

The table compares the grazing permits in the 10 states where permits are issued. Washington had more grazing permits than Idaho but fewer than other states where grazing permit data were available.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

Grazing on BLM lands (March 2011)
State BLM land (acres) Grazing allotments Grazing permits Animal unit months (AUMs) of livestock use
Washington 429,156 N/A 266 32,976
Arizona 12,203,495 824 759 659,990
Alaska 72,958,757 15 N/A N/A
California 15,306,243 699 572 525,000
Colorado 8,332,001 2,500 1,500 N/A
Idaho 11,610,111 N/A 199 832,000
Nevada 47,805,923 745 635 1,100,000
Oregon 16,134,191 N/A 753 960,288
South Dakota 274,437 504 N/A 73,800
Utah 22,854,937 1,410 1,462 1,300,000
Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Fact Sheet on the BLM's Management of Livestock Grazing"

Payments in lieu of taxes

See also: Payments in lieu of taxes

Since local governments cannot collect taxes on federally owned property, the U.S. Department of the Interior issues payments to local governments to replace lost property tax revenue from federal land. The payments, known as "Payments in Lieu of Taxes" (PILTs), are typically used for funding services such as fire departments, police protection, school construction and roads.[21]

The table below shows PILTs for Washington compared to neighboring states between 2011 and 2013. Washington more PILTs in 2013 than Oregon but fewer than Idaho and Montana.

Total PILTs for Washington and neighboring states
State FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 State's percentage of 2013 total
Washington $13,843,603 $15,340,025 $17,222,833 4.29%
Idaho $25,592,241 $26,560,218 $26,326,163 6.55%
Montana $24,717,269 $26,151,999 $26,497,071 6.60%
Oregon $13,062,332 $14,004,966 $15,578,762 3.88%
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, "PILT"

State trust lands

State trust lands as of November 2014.

The Washington Department of Natural Resources manages the state's 2.2 million trust lands. Trust lands are intended to benefit specific educational and other public institutions. These institutions include capitol buildings, schools, prisons and two state universities (Washington State University and the University of Washington). According to the Washington Department of Natural Resources' 2013 annual report, about 70 percent of state trust land revenue went to the trust's beneficiaries, while 30 percent went to resource management. In fiscal year 2013, Washington state trust lands raised $141.7 million, primarily through timber sales, which accounted for $79.4 million in total revenue. Other revenue was raised from land sales, leases for agriculture and grazing, commercial real estate leases, mineral and hydrocarbon leases, rights-of-way leases, communication sites leases, special forest products leases, income from interest, and income from various permits and fees.[22][23]

Legislation and regulation

Federal laws

Clean Air Act

The federal Clean Air Act requires each state to meet federal standards for air pollution. Under the act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency oversees national air quality standards aimed at limiting pollutants from chemical plants, steel mills, utilities, and industrial factories. Individual states can enact stricter air standards if they choose, though each state must adhere to the EPA's minimum pollution standards. States implement federal air standards through a state implementation plan (SIP), which must be approved by the EPA.[24]

Clean Water Act

The federal Clean Water Act is meant to address and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological status of the waters of the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates water pollution sources and provides financial assistance to states and municipalities for water quality programs.[25]

According to research done by The New York Times using annual averages from 2004 to 2007, Washington had 435.3 facilities that were regulated annually by the Clean Water Act. An average of 195.4 facilities violated the act annually from 2004 to 2007 in Washington, and the EPA enforced the act an average of 16.8 times a year in the state. This information, published by the Times in 2009, was the most recent information on the subject as of October 2014.[26]

The table below shows how Washington compared to neighboring states in The New York Times study, including the number of regulated facilities, facility violations, and the annual average of enforcement actions against regulated facilities between 2004 and 2007. Washington had the most regulated facilities and the most facility violations compared to neighboring states.

New York Times Clean Water Act study, 2004-2007
State Number of facilities regulated Facility violations Annual average enforcement actions
Washington 435.3 195.4 16.8
Idaho 214.5 126.3 4.2
Montana 195.3 127.7 1.3
Oregon 374.5 26.5 17.3
Source: The New York Times, "Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record"

Endangered Species Act

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 provides for the identification, listing, and protection of both threatened and endangered species and their habitats. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the law was designed to prevent the extinction of vulnerable plant and animal species through the development of recovery plans and the protection of critical habitats. ESA administration and enforcement are the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.[27][28]

Federally listed species in Washington

There were 49 endangered and threatened animal and plant species believed to or known to occur in Washington as of July 2015.

The table below lists the 38 endangered and threatened animal species believed to or known to occur in the state. When an animal species has the word "Entire" after its name, that species will be found all throughout the state.[29]

The table below lists the 11 endangered and threatened plant species believed to or known to occur in the state.[29]

State-listed species in Washington

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the state's list of endangered and threatened species, which is known as the Species of Concern list. The complete list can be found here.[30]

Sage grouse

The greater sage grouse

The sage grouse (also known as the "Greater sage grouse") is a ground-nesting bird species whose populations span 11 states, including Washington, or around roughly 165 million acres. The bird is considered a potentially endangered species and is a candidate for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) after a swift drop in its population from millions of birds to an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 over a course of 30 years (an estimated 30 percent decline population since 1985). In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (which is responsible for managing and conserving endangered and threatened species) had decided in favor of federal protection for the sage grouse, but the agency declined to list the species as endangered or threatened in September 2015, citing the sufficient state and federal protection of the bird since 2010.[31]

Sage grouse appear in the isolated areas of central and southeastern Washington. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) began reintroducing sage grouse populations into the Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area in Lincoln County, Washington in 2008. The goal was to allow a third sage grouse population to live in an appropriate habitat on state-owned land. Relocating sage grouse populations occurred between 2008 and 2011, which ultimately relocated 144 separate sage grouse birds into Washington-owned land.[32]

Enforcement

See also: Enforcement at the EPA

Washington is part of the EPA's Region 10, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Idaho.[33]

The EPA enforces federal standards on air, water and hazardous chemicals. The EPA takes administrative action against violators of environmental laws, or brings civil and/or criminal lawsuits, often with the goal of collecting penalties/fines and demanding compliance with laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. In 2013, the EPA estimated that 31.9 million pounds of pollution, which includes air pollution, water contaminants, and hazardous chemicals, were "reduced, treated or eliminated" and 45.8 million cubic yards of soil and water were cleaned in Region 10. Additionally, 174 enforcement cases were initiated, and 177 enforcement cases were concluded in fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2012, the EPA collected $252 million in criminal fines and civil penalties from the private sector nationwide. In fiscal year 2013, the EPA collected $1.1 billion in criminal fines and civil penalties from the private sector nationwide, primarily due to the $1 billion settlement from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill along the Gulf Coast in 2010. The EPA only publishes nationwide data and does not provide state or region-specific information on the amount of fines and penalties it collects during a fiscal year.[34][35][36][37]

Mercury and air toxics standards

See also: Mercury and air toxics standards
The EPA on mercury capture systems

The EPA enforces mercury and air toxics standards (MATS), which are national limits on mercury, chromium, nickel, arsenic and acidic gases from coal- and oil-fired power plants. Power plants are required to have certain technologies to limit these pollutants. In December 2011, the EPA issued greater restrictions on the amount of mercury and other toxic pollutants produced by power plants. As of 2014, approximately 580 power plants, including 1,400 oil- and coal-fired electric-generating units, fell under the federal rule. The EPA has claimed that power plants account for 50 percent of mercury emissions, 75 percent of acidic gases and around 20 to 60 percent of toxic metal emissions in the United States. All coal- and oil-fired power plants with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater are subject to the standards. The EPA has claimed that the standards will "prevent up to 31 premature deaths in Washington while creating up to $250 million in health benefits in 2016."[38][39][40]

In 2014, the EPA released a study examining the economic, environmental, and health impacts of the MATS standards nationwide. Other organizations have released their own analyses about the effects of the MATS standards. Below is a summary of the studies on MATS and their effects as of November 2014.

EPA study
In 2014, the EPA argued that its MATS rule would prevent roughly 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks nationwide. The agency also anticipated between $37 billion and $90 billion in "improved air quality benefits" annually. For the rule's cost, the EPA estimated that annual compliance fees for coal- and oil-fired power plants would reach $9.6 billion.[41]

NERA study
A 2012 study published by NERA Economic Consulting, a global consultancy group, reported that annual compliance costs in the electricity sector would total $10 billion in 2015 and nearly $100 billion cumulatively up through 2034. The same study found that the net impact of the MATS rule in 2015 would be the income equivalent of 180,000 fewer jobs. This net impact took into account the job gains associated with the building and refitting of power plants with new technology.[42]

Superfund sites

The EPA established the Superfund program as part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.The Superfund program focuses on uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites nationwide. The EPA inspects waste sites and establishes cleanup plans for them. The federal government can compel the private entities responsible for a waste site to clean the site or face penalties. If the federal government cleans a waste site, it can force the responsible party to reimburse the EPA or other federal agencies for the cleanup's cost. Superfund sites include oil refineries, smelting facilities, mines and other industrial areas. As of October 2014, there were 1,322 Superfund sites nationwide. A total of 75 Superfund sites reside in Region 10, with an average of 18.75 sites per state. There were 50 Superfund sites in Washington as of October 2014.[43][44]

Economic impact
EPA studies
The Environmental Protection Agency publishes studies to evaluate the impact and benefits of its policies. Other studies may dispute the agency's findings or state the costs of its policies.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent federal agency, the Superfund program received an average of almost $1.2 billion annually in appropriated funds between the years 1981 and 2009, adjusted for inflation. The GAO estimated that the trust fund of the Superfund program decreased from $5 billion in 1997 to $137 million in 2009. The Superfund program received an additional $600 million in federal funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the stimulus bill.[45]

In March 2011, the EPA claimed that the agency's Superfund program produced economic benefits nationwide. Because Superfund sites are added and removed from a prioritized list on a regular basis, the total number of Superfund sites since the program's inception in 1980 is unknown. Based on a selective study of 373 Superfund sites cleaned up since the program's inception, the EPA estimated these economic benefits include the creation of 2,240 private businesses, $32.6 billion in annual sales from new businesses, 70,144 jobs and $4.9 billion in annual employment income.[46]

Other studies were published detailing the costs associated with the Superfund program. According to the Property and Environment Research Center, a free market-oriented policy group based in Montana, the EPA spent over $35 billion on the Superfund program between 1980 and 2005.[47][48]

Environmental impact

In March 2011, the EPA claimed that the Superfund program resulted in healthier environments surrounding former waste sites. An agency study analyzed the program's health and ecological benefits and focused on former landfills, mining areas, and abandoned dumps that were cleaned up and renovated. As of January 2009, out of the approximately 500 former Superfund sites used for the study, roughly 10 percent became recreational or commercial sites. Other former Superfund sites in the study became wetlands, meadows, streams, scenic trails, parks, and habitats for plants and animals.[49]


Carbon emissions

In 2011, Washington ranked 28th nationwide in carbon emissions. Washington's emissions have fluctuated between 1990 and 2011, from 71 million metric tons of CO2 in 1990 before peaking in 1999 to 2000 at 81 million metric tons of CO2. Emissions fell steadily until 2007, when emissions began falling significantly. In 2011, Washington's emissions were at their lowest since 1990.[50]

Carbon dioxide emissions in Washington (in million metric tons). Data was compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Carbon dioxide emissions in Washington by sector

Pollution from energy use

Note: Annual data on nitrogen dioxide levels in the Northwest between 2000 and 2014 are unavailable.

Pollution from energy use includes three common air pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone. These and other pollutants are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are federal standards limiting pollutants that can harm human health in significant concentrations. Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is also regulated by the EPA, but it is excluded here since it is not one of the pollutants originally regulated under the Clean Air Act for its harm to human health.

Industries and motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide directly when they use energy. Nitrogen dioxide forms from the emissions of automobiles, power plants and other sources. Ground level ozone (also known as tropospheric ozone) is not emitted but is the product of chemical reactions between nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic chemicals. The EPA tracks these and other pollutants from monitoring sites across the United States. The data below shows nationwide and regional trends for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone between 2000 and 2014. States with consistent climates and weather patterns were grouped together by the EPA to make up each region.[51][52]

Carbon monoxide (CO)

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced from combustion processes, e.g., when gasoline reacts rapidly with oxygen and releases exhaust; the majority of national CO emissions come from mobile sources like automobiles. CO can reduce the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and at very high levels can cause death. CO concentrations are measured in parts per million (ppm). Since 1994, federal law prohibits CO concentrations from exceeding 9 ppm during an eight-hour period more than once per year.[53][54]

The chart below compares the annual average concentration of carbon monoxide in the Northern Rockies/Plains and Northwestern regions of the United States between 2000 and 2014. States with consistent climates and weather patterns are grouped together by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which collects these data, to make up each region. Each line represents the annual average of all the data collected from pollution monitoring sites in each region. In the Northwest, there were three monitoring sites throughout three states, compared to one monitoring site for five states in the Northern Rockies/Plains. In 2000, the average concentration of carbon monoxide was 3.93 ppm in the Northwest, compared to 5.5 ppm in the Northern Rockies/Plains. In 2014, the average concentration of carbon monoxide was 1.73 ppm in the Northwest, a decrease of 55.9 percent from 2000, compared to 2.6 ppm in the Northern Rockies/Plains, a decrease of 52.7 percent from 2000.[55]

NW-Rockies regional comparison.png

Ground-level ozone

Ground-level ozone is created by chemical reactions between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in sunlight. Major sources of NOx and VOCs include industrial facilities, electric utilities, automobiles, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents. Ground-level ozone can produce health problems for children, the elderly, and asthmatics. Since 2008, federal law has prohibited ozone concentrations from exceeding a daily eight-hour average of 75 parts per billion (ppb). Beginning in 2025, federal law will prohibit ground-level ozone concentrations from exceeding a daily eight-hour average of 70 ppb.[54][56]

The chart below compares the daily eight-hour average concentration of ground-level ozone in the Northern Rockies/Plains and Northwestern regions of the United States between 2000 and 2014. In the chart below, ozone concentrations are measured in parts per million (ppm), which can be converted to parts per billion (ppb). In the Northern Rockies/Plains, there were 12 monitoring sites throughout five states, compared to 17 monitoring sites throughout three states in the Northwest. In 2000, the daily eight-hour average concentration of ozone was 0.0598 ppm, or 59.8 ppb in the Northern Rockies/Plains, compared to 0.0599 ppm, or 59.9 ppb in the Northwest. In 2014, the daily eight-hour average concentration of ozone was 0.0578 ppm, or 57.8 ppb in the Northern Rockies/Plains, a decrease of 3.3 percent from 2000, compared to 0.059 ppm, or 56.9 ppb in the Northwest, a decrease of 5 percent from 2000.[57]

NW-Rockies regional comparison.png


State laws

Washington's statutes cover water supplies, air quality, waste management, contaminated water and land, toxic substances, and more. The state's rules and regulations on environmental issues and can be found here.[58]

WA DE Logo.gif

Enforcement

The Washington Department of Ecology oversees six major environmental programs:

WA DNR Logo.jpg
  • The Air Quality Program involves the regulation of air pollutants from motor vehicles, outdoor burning, agricultural burning and wood smoke. The program is also used for real-time air monitoring and grants and loans for renewable energy development.[59]
  • The Environmental Assessment Program involves monitoring fresh water, ground water and coastal areas.[60]
  • The Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program (HWTR) involves managing and reducing wastes. State inspectors are sometimes sent to private businesses to advise them on waste management and to ensure compliance with state law.[61]
  • The Shorelands program involves managing the state's shorelands and wetlands and distributing grants for flood control assistance, coastal protection and watershed protection.[62]
  • The Toxics Cleanup Program involves treating accidental spills of dangerous materials.[63]
  • The Water Quality Program involves preventing and cleaning up water pollution.[64][65]

State environmental policy act

See also: State environmental policy acts

The Washington Environmental Policy Act (also called the State Environmental Policy Act, or SEPA) was passed in 1971. It requires state and local agencies in Washington to gauge all possible environmental impacts of potential state decisions such as the following activities:[66]

  • permits for private projects such as office buildings, grocery stores and apartment complexes
  • public facilities such as new schools, water pipelines and highways
  • regulations, policies and plans such as county or city comprehensive plans, critical area ordinances and water quality regulations

The Washington SEPA applies to all state and local agencies, including Washington state agencies, city governments, county governments, ports and special districts such as water and school districts. Environmental impact studies are meant to give state and local agencies an overview of the potentially adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project. These studies will also allow the agencies to consider changes to project proposals to reduce potential impacts. When creating the studies, agencies are required to adopt a "systematic, interdisciplinary approach" that utilizes "the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts" in state planning and decision-making. Each environmental impact study will include information on the specific environmental impacts of a proposed state action, any potential alternatives to the action, and how the state plans to mitigate the environmental impacts of its proposed action.[67]

State and local projects that may require an environmental impact study include new construction projects, demolitions, landfills and use of natural resources such as natural gas, electricity, solar energy or oil. They can also include proposals such as zoning and development regulations. Some local governments may have the option to exempt minor construction projects from an environmental review depending on their scale and size.[67]

Historical budget information

The table below shows state budget figures for Washington's environmental and natural resource departments compared to neighboring states.

Total state natural resource expenditures by state
State Departments/Divisions FY 2013 FY 2012 FY 2011
Washington* Natural Resources; Ecology $780,033,000* $695,409,000*
Idaho Environmental Quality; Fish and Game; Lands; Parks and Recreation; Water Resources $254,231,700 $236,704,800 $240,448,300
Montana Environmental Quality $58,222,952 $58,226,820 $59,201,557
Oregon* Environmental Quality; Fish and Wildlife; Parks and Recreation - $874,090,275* $842,797,961*
Sources: Washington State Legislature, Idaho Division of Financial Management, Montana Office of Budget and Program Planning, Oregon Chief Financial Office
*This denotes a biennium state budget's figures.

Major groups

Below is a list of environmental advocacy organizations in Washington. A complete list of environmental groups by state can be accessed on the website Eco-USA.[68]

Ballot measures

Voting on the Environment
Environment.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot


Below is a list of ballot measures relating to environmental issues in Washington.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Washington State environmental policy. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Historical Washington environmental information, 1954-2016 - Google News

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Congressional Research Service, "Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data," accessed September 15, 2014
  2. ↑ U.S. Congressional Research Service, "Federal Lands and Natural Resources: Overview and Selected Issues for the 113th Congress," December 8, 2014
  3. ↑ U.S. National Park Service, "2013 National Park Visitor Spending Effects Report," accessed October 14, 2014
  4. ↑ Washington State Parks, "All Parks," accessed November 19, 2014
  5. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Oil and Gas Lease Sales," accessed October 20, 2014
  6. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Number of Acres Leased During the Fiscal Year," accessed October 20, 2014
  7. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Total Number of Leases in Effect," accessed October 20, 2014
  8. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Summary of Onshore Oil and Gas Statistics," accessed October 20, 2014
  9. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Number of Drilling Permits Approved by Fiscal Year on Federal Lands," accessed October 20, 2014
  10. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Total Number of Acres Under Lease As of the Last Day of the Fiscal Year," accessed October 22, 2014
  11. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Grazing Permits," accessed October 6, 2014
  12. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Rangeland Program Glossary," March 4, 2011
  13. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Fact Sheet on the BLM’s Management of Livestock Grazing," March 28, 2014
  14. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Grazing and Rangeland Management," December 14, 2012
  15. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Grazing and Rangeland Management," December 14, 2012
  16. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Grazing and Rangeland Management," December 14, 2012
  17. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Grazing and Rangeland Management," December 14, 2012
  18. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Grazing and Rangeland Management," December 14, 2012
  19. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Grazing and Rangeland Management," December 14, 2012
  20. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Land Management, "Grazing and Rangeland Management," December 14, 2012
  21. ↑ U.S. Department of the Interior, "PILT," accessed October 4, 2014
  22. ↑ StateTrustLands.org, "Washington," accessed November 24, 2014
  23. ↑ Washington Department of Natural Resources, "State Trust Lands 2013 Annual Report," April 1, 2014
  24. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Understanding the Clean Air Act," accessed September 12, 2014
  25. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Water Act (CWA) Overview," accessed September 19, 2014
  26. ↑ The New York Times, "Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record," September 13, 2009
  27. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Improving ESA Implementation," accessed May 15, 2015
  28. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "ESA Overview," accessed October 1, 2014
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Endangered and threatened species in Washington," accessed July 6, 2015
  30. ↑ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, "Washington State Species of Concern Lists," accessed August 4, 2015
  31. ↑ Denver Post, "Feds, states spar in push to create 165 million acre safe zone for grouse," April 12, 2015
  32. ↑ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, "Grouse Ecology," accessed June 25, 2015
  33. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Region 10 (Pacific Northwest)," accessed November 19, 2014
  34. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Annual EPA Enforcement Results Highlight Focus on Major Environmental Violations," February 7, 2014
  35. ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "Accomplishments by EPA Region (2013)," May 12, 2014
  36. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Enforcement Annual Results for Fiscal Year 2012," accessed October 1, 2014
  37. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Enforcement in 2012 Protects Communities From Harmful Pollution," December 17, 2012
  38. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Basic Information on Mercury and Air Toxics Standards," accessed January 5, 2015
  39. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Cleaner Power Plants," accessed January 5, 2015
  40. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in Washington," accessed September 9, 2014
  41. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Benefits and Costs of Cleaning Up Toxic Air Pollution from Power Plants," accessed October 9, 2014
  42. ↑ NERA Economic Consulting, "An Economic Impact Analysis of EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule," March 1, 2012
  43. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "What is Superfund?" accessed September 9, 2014
  44. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund Sites," accessed October 7, 2014
  45. ↑ U.S. Government Accountability Office, "EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed Current Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the National Priorities List," accessed October 7, 2014
  46. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Estimate of National Economic Impacts of Superfund Sites," accessed September 12, 2014
  47. ↑ Property and Environment Research Center, "Superfund Follies, Part II," accessed October 7, 2014
  48. ↑ Property and Environment Research Center, "Superfund: The Shortcut That Failed (1996)," accessed October 7, 2014
  49. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Beneficial Effects of the Superfund Program," accessed September 12, 2014
  50. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "State Profiles and Energy Estimates," accessed October 13, 2014
  51. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Air Trends," accessed October 30, 2015
  52. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Basic Information - Ozone," accessed January 1, 2016
  53. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Carbon Monoxide," accessed October 26, 2015
  54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)," accessed October 26, 2015
  55. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Regional Trends in CO Levels," accessed October 23, 2015
  56. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Ground Level Ozone," accessed October 26, 2015
  57. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Regional Trends in Ozone Levels ," accessed October 26, 2015
  58. ↑ Washington Department of Ecology, "Laws and Rules," accessed November 19, 2014
  59. ↑ Washington Department of Ecology, "Air Quality Program," accessed November 19, 2014
  60. ↑ Washington Department of Ecology, "Environmental Assessment Program," accessed November 19, 2014
  61. ↑ Washington Department of Ecology, "HWTR Overview," accessed November 19, 2014
  62. ↑ Washington Department of Ecology, "Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Division," accessed November 20, 2014
  63. ↑ Washington Department of Ecology, "Toxics Cleanup Program," accessed November 24, 2014
  64. ↑ Washington Department of Ecology, "Overview of the Water Quality Program," accessed November 24, 2014
  65. ↑ Washington Department of Ecology, "Water Quality Program," accessed November 24, 2014
  66. ↑ Washington Department of Ecology, "State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Overview," accessed April 14, 2015
  67. ↑ 67.0 67.1 Washington Department of Ecology, "SEPA - General Background," accessed April 14, 2015
  68. ↑ Eco-USA.net, "Washington Environmental Organizations," accessed November 24, 2014
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Historical_Washington_environmental_information,_1954-2016&oldid=10251035"