Critical Areas Home

Frequently Asked Questions

Summary of Council Review and key changes

CAO Fact Sheets and Resources

CAO information from Department of Development and Environmental Services

Summary of County Council Review and Key Changes to Final Adopted Ordinances

The Critical Areas package consists of 3 ordinances adopted by the King County Council on Oct. 25, 2004. All three update existing county code:

• Critical Areas Ordinance -- Ordinance 15051 [261 pgs, 679K pdf]
• Stormwater Ordinance -- Ordinance 15052 [39 pgs, 125K pdf]
• Clearing & Grading Ordinance -- Ordinance 15053 [76 pgs, 214K pdf]

About the state Growth Management Act (GMA)

• GMA requires local governments to protection critical areas.
• Dual aims of Critical Areas Protection: public health and safety and protection of environmentally sensitive areas.
• GMA Categories of critical areas include: Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas, Groundwater Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded Areas, and Geologically Hazardous Areas.
• In 1995, the State Legislature added a requirement to include “Best Available Science” (BAS) with December 1, 2004 deadline for review and update of policies and regulations.
• King County BAS found in: “Best Available Science Volume I -- A Review of Science Literature” and “Best Available Science Volume II -- Assessment of Proposed Ordinances” dated February 2004.

Review by King County Council's Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee (GMUAC)

• Critical Areas package transmitted by County Executive on March 4, 2004 and referred to GMUAC on March 8.
• 21 GMUAC meetings (including 5 evening community meetings). Please see Attachment 1 to the Revised Staff Report for a topical summary by meeting date.
• 16 testimony opportunities during committee meetings.
• GMUAC chair recommendations (Striking Ordinances) were released on September 17, 2004.
• Striking Ordinances were reviewed in GMUAC on September 21, 2004.
• Additional member amendments were considered and GMUAC took action on Substitute Ordinances on September 28, 2004.

Key Issues and Concerns Raised through Testimony

• Equity: Both urban and rural land owners need to play a role in protecting water quality and habitat. Rural landowners should be compensated for limits on clearing.
• Reasonableness: Need to be more reasonable about standards for common activities like clearing blackberries.
• Incentives: Standards need to reward landowners who take good care of their property.
• Tension between certainty and flexibility: Flexibility is desired but tends to make regulations more complicated and outcomes less certain.
• Forest and Farm Uses: Standards need further modification to encourage people to keep land in forest and farm uses in the rural area.
• Wildlife: Comments vary from too restrictive to calling for broader protection for foraging habitat, connections between habitat types, and greater consideration for saltwater habitat.
• Urban wetland buffers: Smaller wetland buffers in urban area raise concerns about loss of wetland functions and values.
• Rural wetland buffers: Need to account for lower intensity uses in the rural area.
• Stream buffers: Comments vary from too large to not protective enough, particularly in urban area.
• Wetland Mitigation Ratios: Too much emphasis on on-site mitigation and should not include blanket provisions for reducing ratios with one year of monitoring data.
• Housing: County needs to ensure that it stays on track to meet housing targets.
• Implementation issues: Permit fees, lack of predictability about cost and time involved in permitting, access to tax benefit programs, inconsistent code enforcement, staffing for new provisions like Rural Stewardship Plans, and future funding for King Conservation District to prepare Farm Plans.

Key Changes in Adopted Ordinances
• Wetlands: Model both urban and rural buffers after state Department of Ecology approach, which considers not only wetland classification, but also land use intensity and actual wildlife functions. This provides for more equitable treatment of urban and rural areas. It also ties buffers to actual functions of a wetland, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach.

Sample Buffer Widths in the Rural Area for Category I Wetlands: (Note: Category 1 wetlands require the highest level of protection)

Category 1 wetland under Executive Proposal: 300 feet

Category 1 wetland under final adopted ordinance:

• With moderate wildlife score and moderate intensity land use – 110 feet
• With moderate wildlife score and low land use intensity (under rural stewardship plan) – 75 feet
• With high wildlife score, moderate land use – 225
• With high wildlife score, low land use intensity (with rural stewardship plan) – 150 feet

• Wetland Mitigation Ratios: Harmonize King County’s requirements with state and federal guidance so that applicants won’t get caught in the middle of local, state, and federal requirements.
• Stormwater: Eliminate 10% limit; focus on Best Management Practices that protect groundwater infiltration and prevent flooding and erosion.
• Clearing Limits: Scale clearing limits to lot size to ensure a wider range of traditional rural uses, eliminate requirement for notice on title for individual lots, “grandfather” areas that were cleared in prior years (example: existing pastures); provide for greater range of uses in forested areas; clarify that land already set aside in a critical areas or open space tract as part of prior development activity will “count” toward the forested area; clarify that utility and public road easements that must remain cleared will not count toward the clearing limit.
• Wildfire Prevention: Ensure that property owners can carryout fire prevention BMPs like removing overhanging branches and maintaining cleared area around their residential structure.
• Removal of Noxious Weeds: Allowed in all areas without permit. In stream and wetland buffers, there are requirements to prevent re-growth of noxious weeds. Herbicides and equipment can be used in wetland and stream buffers if directed by Noxious Weed Board, and consistent with federal and state law.
• Removal of Invasive/Non-Native Plants: Most areas: No permit if under 7,000 square feet of clearing on an annual basis. In buffers: No permit if with hand tools, or as part of carrying out farm, rural stewardship, or forest plan. Hand tools include “hand-held mechanical tools.”
• Rural Stewardship Plans: Simplify rural stewardship plan provisions; focus on goals rather than prescriptive buffers; provide up-front technical assistance in the form of a web-site, classes, and model plans; designate Department of Natural Resources and Parks as the first point of contact.
• Basin Conditions Map: Make purpose clearer and add criteria for saltwater habitat.
• Forestry: Apply state forest practices standards rather than King County stormwater standards to roads used solely for forest harvest. Outline exceptions to 6-year development moratorium for unharvested portions of property.
• Lake Development: Provide for conditioned development of remaining lots around densely developed lakes without a requirement to go through lengthy exceptions process. Minimum setbacks are tied to Shoreline Master Program designation.
• Short Plats: For short plats, clarify that they will be subject to the critical areas, stormwater, and clearing and grading regulations that were in place at the time of application for a period of five years after recording.
• Effective Date: Set effective date of January 1, 2005.