|
|
| Comment topics | King County Response | Commentors | ||
| CAO Comments CAO comments received that were not specifically related to the Public Rules. | Thank you for your comment regarding recently passed changes to King County's clearing and grading, stormwater and critical area regulations. Your letter or e-mail was received during the comment period for consideration of the stewardship and farm planning public rules. These rules give county staff further direction on how farm and stewardship planning will be implemented. Because the issue you raised did not pertain specifically to either of these topics, it is not addressed in this response document. There are many other ways and opportunities to get more information about CAO regulations.
Over the next several months the county will be meeting with local community groups and working with the new Rural Liaison appointed by Executive Sims to work with citizens to clarify information about these regulations. If you would like to learn about upcoming meetings and where to get more information, send an e-mail by visiting the King County CAO Web site at: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/topics/cao/. In particular, we encourage you to investigate the stewardship, forestry and agricultural planning options available. Tax reductions of up to 90% are built into these regulations and available to those with a completed stewardship plan. King County is dedicated to improving its relationship with rural citizens who are concerned about the CAO and its potential impacts on them. We welcome your suggestions and thank you for your participation in this process. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 | ||
| Comment topics | King County Response | Commentors | ||
| CAO Related Public Rules Comments and Questions 1) Do the Public Rules apply to urban residents? 2) Why have so many types of Plans? 3) These Rules are difficult to understand and confusing. | 1) The county has jurisdiction for protecting critical areas in unincorporated King County, not in urban jurisdictions.
2) The development of the Rural Stewardship Planning Rule and the associated program was required by King Council Ordinance 15051 and K.C.C. 21A.06.139, 140. Though three different stewardship-planning tracks exist, it is the intent of King County and program staff to develop and coordinate these programs to provide a seamless and streamlined service to our customers. 3) The final Farm Management and Rural Stewardship Plan Public Rules have been greatly simplified in response to comments received. These rules were revised to clarify the process, roles, and responsibilities associated with the development of a Rural Stewardship and Farm Management Plan. | 7, 22 | ||
| Comment topics | King County Response | Commentors | ||
| Farm Management Plan Rule Comments and Questions 1) Does the Farm Management Plan comply with Washington State Law? (See RCW 84.34, Section 030, 035, and 037.) 2) Rural area residents will not support the Farm Management Plan Program if King Conservation District (KCD) is perceived as an arm of King County. 3) Why does the Farm Management Plan exclude animals from aquatic areas and wetlands? 4) Why does King County need to supplement the standards and specifications already established by NRCS? 5) Did King County consult with the State and NRCS during the development of these new standards? 6) Farm Plan, Section III.E - All anomalies should be corrected. 7) Farm Plan, Section II.D.2.a - Stormwater runoff facilities requirements should be different for different soil types. 8) Farm Plan, Section III.B - Will an Agricultural Construction Plan (ACP) be required for all rural King County areas and AG production districts? 9) Farm Plan, Section VII.A. - The protect critical areas wording certainly can, be interpreted as prohibiting farmers to operate their heavy equipment on their AG land during crucial land-working periods. Is this true? 10) Why does the county need a copy of the Farm Management Plan? An affidavit of completion, dates of BMPs to be completed, and a place for a follow up should be good enough. 11) Please provide examples of a Farm Plan and approved BMPs. | 1) Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 84.34, Section 030, 035, and 037 states who should make an application to for enrollment in the Open Space Taxation Act, and who has the responsibility to act upon that application. The rules for the Farm Management Plans do not attempt to usurp the authority of the State Assessor to approve credit for the farm and agriculture program, timberland and the Public Benefit Rating System.
2) This concern has been noted. The county values the ability and reputation of the KCD in working with landowners. The county will work with KCD to see that the use of Farm Plans as an alternative means to protect critical areas does not jeopardize the multiple functions of the district. Farm Plans are already used as a regulatory option in other ways. They are required under the State Dairy Nutrient Management Act and they are provided as one option to meet the regulatory requirements for managing livestock in King County. The primary reason for proposing Farm Plans as a possible option to one size fits all development standards is to maintain agricultural viability. Only some Farm Plans will be used for this function with some related conditions. KCD will continue its usual work developing Farm Plans for landowners who are not pursuing a development activity. 3) The amended Livestock Management Ordinance removes the exemption from fencing livestock from aquatic areas and wetlands in the Snoqualmie floodplain. It also removes the former exemptions for dairies from the requirement to exclude livestock from wetlands and aquatic areas. (Dairies with a Nutrient Management Plan from the State do not need to meet the other requirements of the Livestock Ordinance). However, for the purposes of agriculture; grazed wet meadows are exempt from the requirements for wetlands. Otherwise, there could be no grazing in many agricultural areas of the county. In order to support agriculture, the new CAO also allows livestock structures in grazed wet meadows if there is no other practical alternative. However, flood plain requirements for compensatory storage must be met. 4) The county supplemented NRCS standards for two reasons: a. To provide a programmatic approach for activities such as small manure compost bins and livestock bridges so that they may be built and sited with a Farm Plan instead of a grading permit; and b. To meet the countys flood protection standards. The NRCS standards do not address compensatory storage in flood plains. Because of the county's flood protection standards, landowners receive a 30% discount on premiums for federally backed flood insurance. 5) King County technical staff did consult with NRCS, both locally and nationally, to assess the adequacy of the NRCS standards and practices in protecting critical areas. The Decision Trees in the draft Rule are a reflection of that consultation. This information was needed for the county to decide whether to offer the option of Farm Planning to protect critical areas on agricultural lands. The county did not seek any formal approval or concurrence from NRCS. The State will ultimately review the countys CAO. If the comment is intended to note potential ramifications of using federal standards that are traditionally associated with what is a voluntary Farm Planning process as one option provided in what is a regulatory program - the county is aware of the challenge in communicating that distinction. The county and the King Conservation District are working to make sure that landowners understand that voluntary Farm Plans are available through the District. Farm Plans used to meet regulatory requirements, though they may be similar in standards and process, do not fall under the provisions of this Rule. 6) Comment noted. The new version of the Rule does not include these different types of plans and the resulting anomalies. 7) Section IID.2.a - The Best Management Practices for stormwater are dependent upon soil types. Infiltration may be used if the soils allow. The impervious and pervious surface standards primarily affect sites that are being cleared for agriculture. The Stormwater Ordinance was specifically amended to recognize large agricultural buildings such that the majority will undergo small site drainage review instead of large site drainage review. 8) Section IIIB - Because of comments such as this one, the potential sub-components of Farm Plans such as the Agricultural Construction Plan was deleted from the final version of the Farm Plan Public Rule. A Farm Plan will include the elements needed as determined by the King Conservation District, and will generally apply to an entire site. 9) Section VII A - The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area regulations were written for new development. It is understood that wildlife hang around the open space provided by farms and the adjacent farmland should be considered the buffer to a breeding site and not a specific diameter circle. For this reason, agricultural landowners who choose to get a Farm Plan will address wildlife according to the decisions they make together with the King Conservation District farm planners. The District applies the state wildlife recommendations in the context of both farm viability and wildlife protection. 10) The county needs a copy of a Farm Management Plan that is used to protect critical areas as an alternative to the standard development regulations as a reference to show that critical areas have been protected, and how they have been protected. The fact that the practices in a Farm Plan treat the entire site is the reason why Farm Plans are being accepted as protecting critical areas. Standard development regulations do not treat an entire site - only a buffer. The county does not need the specifics of nutrient management formulas, but it does need to be able to respond to questions from neighbors, staff, enforcement, potential buyers - as to the commitments made by the landowner to protect critical areas. 11) As shown in the new draft of the Public Rule for Farm Management Plans, the county is not directly using the decision trees. The King Conservation District will develop Farm Plans and the Best Management Practice examples. | 5, 9, 24 | ||
| Comment topics | King County Response | Commentors | ||
| KCSWD 2005 Manual Update Comments 1) Section C.1.3 list rain gardens as a lower priority than Full Infiltration with conventional infiltration practices. The implication of this priority order is that rain gardens would only be used in soils that do not drain well enough to utilize a conventional infiltration practice. 2) Limit drain time based on native soils. I recommend adding soil-specific guidelines for determining the maximum ponding depth allowed in a rain garden based on the time required to drain the facility. For this region, I would recommend a drain time of 12 hours to protect against storms that are more frequent. The most significant design factor affecting rain garden performance is the underlying native soils. Excessive drain times can drastically impact the performance of a rain garden in two significant ways: (a) Excessive ponding times can kill plants that do not tolerate extended inundation. (b) Excessive ponding also reduces available storage capacity for subsequent storms that occur within the drain time which decrease the effectiveness of the rain garden. (e.g., for a sandy loam soil (K0.5 in/hr) the maximum allowable ponding depth should be 6 inches). 3) Provide underdrains for poorly drained soils. For facilities constructed in lower permeability soils (loam, silt loam or lower), underdrains can be installed to decrease the drain time. Such facilities still have a substantial benefit of filtering pollutants and reducing runoff volume. Controlling the underdrain discharge using an orifice is advantageous in that it allows for some adjustment if actual conditions differ from anticipated. 4) Planting guidelines: If facilities are to be allowed in poorly drained soils separate plant lists should be provided to accommodate either well-drained conditions or prolonged inundation. 5) Rain Garden Sizing: Guidelines for sizing facilities should also be soil-specific. Determining the rain garden size based on the native soils is important not only in terms of providing adequate storage/surface area to fully infiltrate stormwater in poorer draining soils, but also reducing the rain garden size for more well drained soils. Simply reducing the size can increase the sustainability of rain gardens using only the stormwater input. 6) Sizing Credits for Partial Infiltration: Greater flexibility in providing credit for facilities that cannot completely meet the Full Infiltration sizing could increase the likelihood of constructing LID BMPs. Even if sized to overflow during larger events, installing practices to disconnect the greatest amount of site impervious area can significantly reduce annual surface runoff and increase groundwater recharge. Is it possible to scale the modeling credit to match the relative size of the practice to the Full Infiltration requirement? 7) Perforated Outlet: Section C.1.3 requires a perforated pipe connection to the local drainage system however; Figure C.2.5.A specifies a rigid outlet to the storm system. If the overflow occurs from non-pollution generating surfaces or only from events exceeding the water quality storm, perforated outlets should also be required for rain garden outlets to maximize potential infiltration. 8) The manual should make clear that a drainage review is required if any of the scenarios listed under KCC 9.04.030 applies to a proposed project. Project proponents should not be able to selectively choose the scenario to apply to their project if one scenario does not subject a project to drainage review but another does. The definition of redevelopment project should be clarified to not include projects characterized as maintenance. 9) What are the predevelopment land use assumptions used for soil conditions in King countys Surface Water Design Manual? 10) King County Surface Water Design Manual will adversely impact landowners. Landowners will not be able to afford the mitigating costs for surface water runoff impacts, especially if the new predevelopment assumptions for sites will be historic site conditions (e.g. forest). 11) Wendy Bell, EPAs lead for Clearing and Grading Rules, stated that local authorities can not regulate agricultural activities for surface water management. 12) Is DDES responsible for reviewing and directing WLRDs work in developing the update to the SWDM? 13) The revision to sole source aquifers thresholds does not comply with CARA requirements in State Law. 14) For Issaquah Creek, no runoff for forested land was assumed in the Basin Plan and this is in error. 15) The criteria for fully dispersed surfaces should include soil types. 16) The Small Project Drainage Requirements Section discusses simplified drainage requirements for small projects. Is there really going to be a simplified process for small drainage projects? | 1) It is our intention that rain gardens be used when soil conditions are not suitable for full infiltration. Most infiltration ponds will be publicly maintained. Given the budget and equipment constraints on maintenance program, we prefer that infiltration ponds be grass lined.
2) We agree that the underlying soil is the most significant factor. Rain gardens in the KCSWDM are intended to be sized without site-specific soil texture or infiltration testing. The KC rain garden design depth of 12 inches is based on storing 3 inches of runoff. A rain garden of this design will fill to a 6 inch depth with roughly 1.5 inches of runoff, which includes frequent storms. 3) We have chosen not to include underdrains and orifice control in our designs to limit the cost and simplify maintenance. We cannot justify the additional cost that would be involved in performance monitoring and adjustment of facility parameters after construction. 4) The plants on our list are intended to be used with poorly draining soils. Rain gardens will not be required on sites with well-drained soils. 5) As mentioned above, rain gardens in the KCSWDM are intended to be sized without site-specific soil texture or infiltration testing in order to keep costs low. 6) The sizing credit system in the 2005 SWDM does allow flexibility in mixing different BMP sizes and types. Designers could elect to use non-standard LID designs to meet stormwater requirements using the adjustment process. Projects using LID have been reviewed and approved under the 1998 manual through the adjustment process. 7) Overflow durations from rain gardens should be small and should occur during extend periods of heavy rainfall when soils will be saturated. Little or no benefit would be derived using perforated outlet connections during these conditions. 8) Drainage review is required if any of the thresholds are triggered, applicants cannot choose another scenario that exempts them if they trigger a threshold. Maintenance is defined in the manual, and activities meeting the definition of maintenance do not trigger drainage review. 9) Regarding the predevelopment land use assumption, soil conditions are taken into consideration in the hydrologic analysis methodology and in the types of runoff control facilities that are allowed or required. The KCRTS model input includes soil type, land cover (forest, pasture, grass and impervious surface) and rainfall scaling factors. These are described in Chapter 3 of the SWDM. The two major soil types that are found in King County are glacial till and outwash. As you are aware, these soil types have very different runoff producing characteristics and drainage characteristics. Till soils drain poorly and produce surface runoff; outwash drains well and produces very little runoff. The KCRTS model is calibrated to local runoff data from these soil types. Flow control facility design reflects soil type as well. Infiltration is strongly encouraged where feasible, typically sites with outwash soil. 10) It is true that the new stormwater requirements will generally increase development cost, the adverse impacts of stormwater runoff on flooding, erosion and aquatic habitat are well-documented in the scientific literature. The need for more effective stormwater mitigation has been recognized by the State Department of Ecology (DOE). The August 2001 DOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington requires the historic site conditions pre-development assumption. The DOE is delegated by the Federal government to implement the Clean Water Act through the NPDES permitting program. King County is a Phase I permitee. Our permit requires that either we adopt the DOE stormwater manual or an equivalent manual. Most of the changes we are implementing in the new SWDM are intended to bring our manual up to the new DOE manual standards. 11) King County's stormwater, zoning and critical area ordinances have applied to agriculture in the past as well as in the new rules. Agriculture has and continues to receive special treatment and exemptions under these rules. We have added new criteria to the SWDM to simplify permitting and design for agricultural projects that result in less than 4% impervious surface on a single or multiple parcels. We expect that almost all large farms and many small farms will qualify under this provision. 12) WLRD is responsible for developing and updating the SWDM and DDES is responsible for implementing the requirements in the manual when development permits are required. DDES does not check WLRDs work and direct revisions to the manual. This relationship is the same as it has been for approximately 20 years and does not change under the new ordinances. WLRD will be providing cost-free technical assistance to projects doing Rural Stewardship and Farm Management Plans. 13) The Large Project Drainage Review threshold was changed from one based on sole-source aquifers to one based on Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA) because of the CAO update which created the CARA critical area rules in King County. The CARA was created in response to GMA requirements. 14) Regarding the comment about Issaquah Creek Basin Plan assuming no runoff from forested land, is incorrect. The Issaquah Creek Plan used an HSPF hydrologic model that does produce runoff from forested land. The KCRTS model is based on HSPF and also produces runoff from forested land. Runoff from forested land is a function of soil types, with outwash soils producing very small amounts of runoff, and till soils producing more runoff. Runoff from forested land cover produces less runoff than other land cover types. 15) Regarding the comment about fully dispersed surfaces, the small site BMPs include full infiltration, which is appropriate for outwash soils. Runoff is a function of soil type and BMP selection is based on soil type. Runoff, as used in the surface water design manual and in the KCRTS model has two components, surface runoff and shallow subsurface flow, also called interflow. The runoff produced by outwash soil is almost all interflow. Interflow becomes surface flow when outwash soils are exposed on slopes (springs), in stream channels and ravines. 16) The Small Project Drainage Requirements section is intended to be simplified; it is simplified relative to full drainage review. For individuals it is complex. We have added BMPs to provide as much flexibility as possible to meet individual site characteristics, tastes and budgets. We will be providing technical assistance to property owners going through small project review. | 4, 8, 24 | ||
| Comment topics | King County Response | Commentors | ||
| Rural Stewardship Plan Rule Comments and Questions BENEFITS 1) What are the benefits and why would rural area landowners choose to do the Rural Stewardship Plan alternative? PLAN POINTS OF CONTACT 2) The Draft Rural Stewardship Public Rule makes clear that the primary county interface with landowners will be DDES. Is this true? 3) Section 8.3 suggests that DDES has veto control of the Rural Stewardship process, including the decisions and actions of Water and Land Resources Department. Is this true? DOCUMENT USABILITY 4) The Public Rules (and much of the Rural Stewardship Planning Handbook) are designed for county land use professionals, consultants, and developers. The Rule in itself is not sufficient for citizens to make informed judgments with regard to their personal land use decisions. What is needed are documents that Rural Area landowners can read that will inform them enough to allow them to make a determination to take the Rural Stewardship alternative or not. A clear, easy-to-follow flow chart will help make this process work for all parties involved. COST 5) What will be the added costs to the landowners if they choose to do a Rural Stewardship Plan? 6) Where is the $1,850 low cost quick review proposal in the Rural Stewardship Public Rule? TERMS OF COMMITMENT AND MONITORING 7) How long is the long-term stewardship commitment. 8) How long is the monitoring period that involves DDES at charges of $144/hour? 9) The requirements for mitigation and performance bonding are the same requirements that are applied to developers engaged in real estate subdivisions. These requirements are excessive, expensive, and unnecessary for almost all individual small landowner projects. The requirement for a monitoring plan as described in paragraph 7.3.6 suggests that DDES compliance monitoring will be accomplished to the same high level that are required for subdivision development. Will monitoring be enforced on a sustained basis for subdivision development and other government projects the same as for small landowner developments? 10) How will the Rural Stewardship Plan be monitored for its effectiveness? RULE CLARIFICATION 11) What is Adaptive-Management Monitoring and how is it advantageous to the rural landowner? 12) The Site Development Component of a Rural Stewardship Plan seems to require a permit for all development activities in rural areas. Is this true? 13) Regardless if a landowner chooses to do a Rural Stewardship Plan; wouldn't the Site Development Component of the Plan still require the landowner to meet the full regulatory requirements of the CAO? 14) Would landowners be required to hire technical specialists, such as; surveyors, hydro-geologists, ecologists, etc... to establish a Rural Stewardship Plan for their property? Landowners should not be precluded from performing any or all of the requirements to establish a Plan. 15) Notice on Title: The requirement for recording an approved Rural Stewardship Plan on title should be removed from the Public Rule. 16) Please clarify in the Rural Stewardship Public Rule the sections pertaining to definitions, process, and roles and responsibilities to help rural landowners better understand and comprehend the requirements for establishing a Rural Stewardship Plan. 17) Rural Stewardship Plans should cover areas zoned F as well as zoned RA. RURAL STEWARDSHIP HANDBOOK 18) The Rural Stewardship Plan Handbook is too long and complicated for the average resident to use. 19) Providing an easy-to-read process flow chart (from beginning to end) showing where routine cases start and stop would be helpful. 20) Templates of a Rural Stewardship Plan would be helpful in the Handbook. 21) For the Handbook to be a useful tool, the process in it must be clearly explained. It must answer in simple language the 6 Ws (Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How) | BENEFITS
1) The main goal of a Rural Stewardship Plan is to help a landowner achieve their objectives for a property without impacting the existing ecosystem or downstream neighbors. By developing and implementing a Rural Stewardship Plan, landowners may be eligible to take advantage of several benefits that includes free technical assistance to develop a comprehensive sustainable plan to achieve landowner's long and short-term goals for their property. Reduced stream and wetland buffers and increased clearing allowances, eligibility for tax incentives through the Public Benefit Rating System, and a simplified and potentially less expensive permitting process for development projects in RA zone areas. Flexibility to standard Critical Areas protections can be achieved through a Rural Stewardship Plan for landowners that are willing to take on the responsibility of ongoing stewardship actions and land management methods that are expected to ameliorate adverse impacts of site-specific development, allowing a relaxation of standard requirements otherwise necessary to protect the resource. Rural Stewardship Planning is a voluntary program in which Plans are collaboratively developed with the technical assistance of county staff and in consideration of both the landowner's goals and the protection of the resource. PLAN POINTS OF CONTACT 2) The Public Rule describes the roles and responsibilities of Rural Stewardship Planning. The final Rule clarifies that the primary county interface with landowners for Rural Stewardship Planning is King County Water and Land Resources staff. Any landowner entering the Rural Stewardship Planning program will be assigned a Rural Steward to guide them and facilitate them through the planning process. 3) King County Water and Land Resources Division is the lead agency in Rural Stewardship Planning, and is the primary contact for the landowner. The Rural Stewardship Planning Program team includes staff from both Water and Land Resources Division and DDES. DDES does not have veto control of the Rural Stewardship process. Furthermore, if landowners use the technical assistance available to them, WLRD, DDES, and the landowner should all be in full agreement as to objectives, conditions and management actions at the end of the planning process...which is highly likely to result in an approved and successful plan. DOCUMENT USABILITY 4) The final Rural Stewardship Public Rule was revised to clarify the process, roles, and responsibilities associated with the development of a Rural stewardship Plan with the intent of being clearer for the individual landowner. As suggested, the program is being developed and implemented we will create and improve materials like clear and easy to read flow charts that help Program applicants navigate the process. COST 5) Rural Stewardship Plans are supported by a great deal of technical assistance that is free-of-charge to the individual landowner. If a landowner is using a Rural Stewardship Plan to pursue development permits and gain flexibility from standard regulations, they will still incur costs associated with acquiring any relevant development permits. However, by working closely with county staff to develop a Rural Stewardship Plan, landowners are expected to experience a streamlined critical areas review process, which could reduce the overall cost of their permitting process. It is expected that a Rural Stewardship Plan won't be any more expensive than pursuing standard development permits. 6) The $1,850 low cost quick review mentioned is a program being offered by DDES in a much broader context of development permit review. It is one of many options available to Rural Stewardship Plan applicants that are pursuing development permits. TERMS OF COMMITMENT AND MONITORING 7) Long-term commitment: The length of the commitment is intended to be for the life of the development. 8) Monitoring Period: A Rural Stewardship Plan is a comprehensive management plan uniquely devised for a specific property. Any one plan may address a number of goals. Similarly, any one plan may have different types of monitoring associated with it, as mutually agreed upon by the landowner and Rural Stewardship Program staff. If a Rural Stewardship Plan applicant is seeking modification of the standard CAO regulations for an action requiring a permit (such as building a house), a performance bond and monitoring agreement are required as part of the permitting process to ensure the permitted conditions are implemented. This type of monitoring will be arranged directly with DDES (whose services are fee-based) and is usually conducted over a 2-year period. Other monitoring associated with Rural Stewardship Plans is voluntary and aimed at evaluating the success of stewardship actions and the program on a site specific and landscape scale. 9) The requirements for mitigation in a Rural Stewardship Plan are based on the RSP goals as outlined in the CAO ordinance and are not available to developers engaged in real estate subdivisions. The requirements for performance bonding are standard permit requirements, but are not expected to be identical to those that are applied to developers ... the reason for this is simple. The action that is bonded is only that part of a Rural Stewardship Plan that is a condition of letting the permit. This means that some mutually identified BMPs will be a condition of the associated permit, but not necessarily all. Because each Plan will be unique, bonding requirements will vary with each plan. No bond will be required where a landowner achieves all their permit condition before beginning their development. 10) The Rural Stewardship Planning Rule and supporting documents refer to monitoring plans that are aimed at monitoring the success of BMPs and stewardship actions on a site-specific basis. As part of the larger CAO implementation process there is an effort to establish monitoring methodologies to determine the effectiveness of these regulations, both standard and flexible, toward their resource protection goals. RULE CLARIFICATION 11) Adaptive Management: It is the intent of the Rural Stewardship Planning Program to support landowners in the development, application, and implementation of a Rural Stewardship Plan. By helping landowners set realistic objectives for their stewardship actions and supporting them in the monitoring of those actions, we can help assure that landowners objectives for resource protection are achieved. By working together, we may determine that a specific stewardship action or management practice is not achieving the expected outcome, and in such cases we want to assist the landowner in either adjusting objectives, or finding a more successful stewardship action to achieve resource protection goals. Adaptive-Management is the term used to encompass this relationship. 12) Rural Stewardship Planning is a voluntary program in which Plans are collaboratively developed with the technical assistance of county staff and in consideration of both the landowners goals and the protection of the resource. It is the intent of the Rural Stewardship Program to support landowners in looking at their property comprehensively and making informed choices about land use goals and sustainable land management methods. This type of planning is more effective if it is inclusive of short and long-term goals. For this reason, a landowner would be encouraged to address all their planned activities in their plan. The only requirements is that if a landowner is seeking modification of standard CAO protections via a Rural Stewardship Plan, they must include a site development component in their plan which addresses proposed developments and methods of ameliorating adverse impacts. By working collaboratively with technical staff, it is expected that the landowners Critical Areas permit review will be streamlined. 13) Yes. Every landowner embarking on new development needs to meet the regulatory requirements of the Critical Areas Ordinance. The Critical Areas Ordinance provides different paths to reach compliance with those regulatory requirements. Rural Stewardship Planning is one path to achieve Critical Areas Ordinance compliance that allows some flexibility from the standard path of requirements (certain setbacks, limits, etc). 14) A Rural Stewardship Plan is a voluntary plan developed by the landowner or their agent. A landowner is not precluded from completing all aspects of their plan themselves, as long as all the goals and standards of each component are adequately completed. The Rural Stewardship Planning Program, KC DNRP and KC DDES will make landowners aware of all available sources for technical assistance and support during the development of their plan. It is the landowners choice to accept the technical assistance or not. We expect that landowners that develop their plan in collaboration with Rural Stewardship Planning Program staff will have an extremely high likelihood of developing a successful plan the first time around. 15) The Rural Stewardship Planning Rule has been revised to clarify the issue of recording a Rural Stewardship Plan on title. Only if a Rural Stewardship Plan is being used to modify critical areas does a notice on title need to be recorded. Rural Stewardship Plans acknowledge that a well-informed landowner is the best long-term steward of their land. By completing a Rural Stewardship Plan, a landowner will consider all aspects and objectives for their property, as well as challenges and opportunities. By so doing, this landowner may develop a Rural Stewardship Plan that can achieve a similar or equal level of protection for the resource as standard critical area requirements. To ensure that the choice to continue this level of Stewardship is passed on to subsequent owners of the land, the notice on title is necessary, so that those levels of resource protection can be maintained. It is important to note that subsequent landowners are not required to keep the Rural Stewardship Plan, but if they opt to let it expire, they will be responsible to compensate for the lost mitigation for permitted actions. 16) The final Rural Stewardship Public Rule was revised to clarify definitions, the process, roles, and responsibilities associated with the development of a Rural Stewardship Plan with the intent of being clearer for the individual landowner. Subsequent program materials will be aimed and better clarified. 17) The CAO as passed Oct 25, 2004 allows modification to standard aquatic, wetland and wildlife buffers as well as to clearing and grading standards for RA zoned properties. Landowners with property in F zone could complete a Rural Stewardship Plan to achieve the comprehensive planning benefits and to qualify for relevant categories of the PBRS tax incentive program, but could not achieve flexibility from buffers. To achieve the suggested objective requires a change of the CAO and King County Code. RURAL STEWARDSHIP HANDBOOK 18-21) The Preliminary Draft Rural Stewardship Planning Handbook that was provided during the public review period is in its incomplete stage. It was provided to give context for reviewing the Rural Stewardship Public Rule. It was not intended to be demonstrative of a final product we would release for general consumption. The comments received are in line with our goals for program materials and will be helpful as we continue to develop those documents. | 5, 9, 11, 24 | ||
1 Diana
2 Member Services CSR
3 streamline
4 Unidentified
5 unknown
6 Washington Enterprises
7 Jerry Adam
8 Dustin Atchison
9 Chuck Bell
10 Kelly Huge Blake
11 Richard E. Bonewits
12 Ron Braun
13 Jacqueline S. Bricker
14 unknown CAO
15 Bob Chace
16 Preston Drew
17 J duvall
18 Steve Giandalia
19 trudy harris
20 John Inman
21 Jeff Jacobsen
22 Susan Kaufman-Una
23 Susan Kaufman-Una
24 Maxine Keesling
25 Myra Lemson
26 Davi Ann Mason
27 Matt McCain
28 Jack Nelson
29 Jeanne Northfield
30 John Patera
31 Stan Powers
32 Brian Ramey
33 Patricia Saurdiff
34 Greg Schroeder
35 Charles Strouss
36 Howard VanLaeken
37 Denny Wagenman
38 Dan Wickersheim
|
|
Links to external sites
do not constitute endorsements by King County. |