Certain proposed alterations to how the county protects wetlands in its development regulations have raised some eyebrows, including objections from officials with the state Department of Ecology and the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The rules on critical areas are being revised under the wider 10-year Comprehensive Plan update.
What’s in a package of amendments put forward jointly by County Councilmembers Jared Mead and Nate Nehring is particularly receiving criticism. Their amendments lower the minimum distance which development is allowed near wetland buffers under certain circumstances, and it maintains an incentive that lets development be closer to wetlands.
Other rules in the county’s package would have more stringent rules about allowing to fill small, non-important wetland areas as long as there are other mitigation measures.
A public hearing and possible final vote will be Wednesday, Jan. 15.
Last week, the County Council voted to keep things in motion with the hearing date, a simple step meant to show state officials that work is still happening. The formal deadline is year end.
County planners wrote rules to maintain a wetland buffer of no less than 75 percent of the standard required buffer width.
The council members’ amended version lowers the buffer to no less than 50 percent of the standard required width.
Mead and Nehring write their reasons for these adjustments are to avoid pressure to expand existing Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), address housing affordability, and maintain harmony for development within existing UGAs.
The lower figure is prompting criticism.
Doug Gresham, a Wetlands Specialist with the state Department of Ecology, said “reducing the buffer is not following the best available science.”
Bill Lider, an expert certified in stormwater engineering, said the county’s “wetland and stream buffers are already too small.” He contested that the county has shown “no evidence a 50% reduction in buffer width will not adversely affect wetlands.”
“Growth is coming to Snohomish County, but we should not be sacrificing our wetlands just to promote growth,” he said.
In both cases, these incentives are only allowed in conjunction with a critical area study being done.
Buffers are typically determined by the high water mark, a county planner said.
Another rule change repeals an incentive that gives an up-to-15% reduction for the buffer width distance if it meets certain conditions: If there’s a fence around the critical area, or the critical area is set aside in a separate tract.
Mead and Nehring’s amendment package retains the up-to-15% buffer reduction.
County planners wrote in the ordinance they repealed it because most of the time it does not protect the critical area any better so this “should not receive reduced buffer widths.”
County Senior Legislative Analyst Ryan Countryman said last week that while fencing does not provide protective value, it can prevent critical areas from being encroached or trampled on.
Kara Whittaker, a state Department of Fish and Wildlife manager who leads land use planning teams, registered her concerns at a hearing last week.
A fence or separate tract “does not protect nor replace the ecological values provided by stream buffers,” Whittaker said. These could compromise fish and wildlife habitat, Whittaker said.
Activists who monitor development closely called on the County Council to pump the brakes entirely.
Maltby activist Debbie Wetzel asked: “Where is the evidence that passing this ordinance would not have any adverse effect on the environment, either short term or long term?”
Further proposed code changes
The rules were last amended in 2022.
During this year, county planners developed the ordinance that is 106 pages.
One of the notable changes lowers the size of what kinds of low-importance wetlands can be filled. These would reduce to wetlands under 4,000 square feet, pending that there is impact mitigation. They can’t be touched if they are part of a wildlife habitat and other criteria. Low-importance wetlands under 1,000 square feet would have a lower level of protection. The current code allows larger-sized, low-importance wetlands to be filled, a county planner said. These changes are based on Ecology guidance, the planner said.
The proposed new code also removes a loophole that lets builders combine buffer reductions with buffer averaging methods to calculate the buffer sizes they must adhere to.
The rules also retain exceptions to developing single-family housing within the space of wetland and critical area buffers when there are no alternatives for building on the lot.
The county’s volunteer planning commission gave its OK in the summer.
