Staff outlines 2026 critical‑areas code updates, recommends against site‑potential‑tree‑height buffers

Hans Shepherd, a senior planner for the City of Lacey, briefed the council at the Feb. 25 work session on an ongoing update to the city’s critical‑areas regulations, a set of code chapters required to be reviewed on a 10‑year cycle under Washington’s Growth Management Act.

Shepherd said the update package draws on state “best available science” and reviews from lead state agencies — including the Washington State Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Department of Natural Resources — to update definitions, references and mitigation requirements across wetland, habitat conservation, floodplain, aquifer recharge and geologically hazardous area rules. He said the last update occurred in 2017 and that the next update is due in 2026.

Key changes staff described include clarifying subdivision limitations adjacent to wetlands, strengthening language on mitigation sequencing and compensatory mitigation, and adding explicit emphasis on a “no net loss” of ecological functions and values. Shepherd explained mitigation sequencing as an ordered approach to impacts on critical areas — avoidance first, then restoration, creation, preservation and enhancement — and said WDFW guidance caused staff to reorder some compensatory categories.

Shepherd also reviewed riparian management zones (RMZs) and the code’s buffer widths for different stream types: Type S streams (designated state streams) have a 250‑foot buffer, Type F (fish‑bearing) streams a 200‑foot buffer, and perennial nonfish streams a 150‑foot buffer. WDFW suggested using a site‑potential‑tree‑height (SPTH) tool to assign buffers based on predicted tree height and soil data; Shepherd said staff tested the tool on case studies and found it produced variable, parcel‑level buffers that in some locations would decrease protection along Woodland Creek. He called the SPTH tool “a clunky tool” and recommended that the city not adopt it in this update cycle for reasons of consistency, clarity and the dated soil inputs used by the model.

Shepherd said the city’s permitting flow for projects affecting critical areas includes an applicant‑prepared critical‑areas report (typically produced by a wetland biologist or similar expert), internal staff review, and routing to the appropriate state agencies for technical review. He noted the city can also contract for third‑party reviews when needed. He said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft, and on Nov. 13 recommended the package be forwarded to council.

Shepherd said staff will work with the city attorney’s office to draft an ordinance for council adoption in a future regular meeting. Staff emphasized the update is largely clarifying text, aligning definitions to state guidance, and strengthening code language rather than changing on‑the‑ground practice.