Dear Editor,
Recently the Snohomish County Council voted 3-2 to reduce the buffer for wetlands from 100 to 50 feet, plus a fence, using the need to house the projected population increase of 100,000 over the next 10 years as justification.
Unfortunately, wildlife-used wetlands are under-protected already and this will make it worse. The Washington Department of Ecology recommends buffers of a minimum of 100 feet. Reducing this to 50 feet would severely limit wildlife habitat. The need for more housing is a serious problem, but so is reducing critical habitat for salmon, wading birds, amphibians, aquatic mammals and others. Essentially, Snohomish County is relegating all wetlands in the county to a category III, as defined by the State of Washington, opening up the possibility of declaring the wetlands as non-functioning and removing wildlife protection completely. A fence is not habitat.
We need to responsibly plan for future population increases, but trading our wildlife and the reputation of our county as an environmentally responsible entity is a very bad bargain. Once habitats are gone, it is difficult, time consuming, and expensive to restore them, and impossible to restore to their original state. Additionally, this would be a backward step in the state goal of restoring Puget Sound, including salmon runs.
The purpose of government is to both help the citizens and protect the environment so that life is worth living in the governed area. We must make the world we leave our children better, not worse, then the one we inherited.
David B. Richman
Edmonds
So the answer is to pack people in like sardines, don’t get me wrong I am all for protecting the environment I just don’t see the need for more people, in general I think we already have to many.
Council members Jared Mead, Sam Low and Nate Nehring voted for the 50 foot set back. Remember those names and vote them out first opportunity. Council members Megan Dunn and Strom Peterson opposed it
I agree. Vote them out!
Environmental setbacks are good for the protection of wetlands and native species of plants and animals (I should know I live next to one and I love it). The reality is they do take land away from being developed. With the state growth initiatives and requirements on Snohomish county and all cities, like Edmonds, we now have two issues at odds with each other. Environmental protection versus Urban Density and growth requirements.
The answer can be found somewhere within the state legislature. Snohomish county council members are simply trying to find a way to allow for more density without sacrificing the farms, green spaces, and timber lands.
If you want to protect the environment and the setbacks for wetlands the sole focus should be on the state legislature density requirements on Snohomish county. The Snohomish county council members are being forced to choose between protecting our farms/timberland and our environmental wet land spaces. I’m not upset with the way any of the council members voted. Voting one way or the other is a losing battle that the state legislature has caused.
Vote to drop the density when you elect your state legislature and governor. That will protect our wetlands, farmlands, and timberlands of Snohomish County and is the long term answer to this problem.
Thank you, David. Your letter is informative and important. The additional danger I see is that the extra 50 of buildable space will significantly disrupt habitats, not simply shrink them. A question: do you know of n next steps following this 3-2 vote, or recourse?
I’m not sure what can be done until the next election at least. As a scientist I am appalled at the still difficult task of getting planners to take environmental issues as serious as we must if we are to leave our descendents a livable planet.
I’d just as soon not have a huge influx of people into the county, but we have to be realistic. Still, the way things are going the future is getting very hard to predict anyway.
Dr. Richman’s comments are especially important as Edmonds addresses tree protection, housing growth and zoning in general. Encroaching on wetlands not only reduces habitat, it interferes with carbon storage and other natural processes that are also important for humans. Some of the Snohomish County Council members claimed that their position was actually better for critical areas; listen to the scientists!
As Jim describes, “… pack people like sardines”, to avoid what we called “California sprawl”, is what we chose when enacted the Growth Management Act. Back then, it was hard to envision all the negative effects of that decision. Now we are faced with accommodating more growth in our self-confined Municipal Urban Growth Areas (MUGAs). Instead of encroaching into our precious environmental buffers, perhaps modifying the GMA to accommodate well-planned growth into new areas should be considered. That choice will also have unintended consequences. More people living closer together in walkable neighborhoods with viable transit options is a good option for some, while others will desire more space. Find a balance. Damaging the environment that attracted us to our current home locations seems to me to be madness.
Let’s try to be smarter than the problem.
It seems that almost every person that runs for office says that one of their top priorities is climate and environment. Is this just a campaign slogan with no intention behind it?
The uniqueness of Edmonds is being chipped away by the people that we elect.
Why do citizens feel hopeless? Because we vote politicians in to represent us on the campaign promises they make. They get elected and we get the same sad outcome over and over.
Those who used to worship the God of Environment, instead now Worship the God of Density.
Enough said!
I guess that I am dense, Robert. I must say that I never have worshipped to a God of Environnment or one of density. Never even heard of them. So I just don’t get what you are saying. I have heard of religion which honors spirits in nature. Perhaps that is what you mean by God of Environment. Frankly, I miss your point.
Jim, I am hard pressed to know of anyone who would want people to live “packed in like sardines”. The “charm” of Edmonds will go through more change than either you or I will ever witness before that were to happen. So why talk about sardines? What are your thoughts about duplexes, triplexes and quadraplexes on lots previously occupied by single-family homes? Those thoughts might be more pertinent. Which people do you object to? If a family of two moves away from Edmonds, do we refuse a family of five moving in because that is “too many” people?
Michael you are correct I will be long gone by the time Edmonds gets rebuilt one thing for sure is things never stay the same, there are places where population density is really high and some people like it there are some that like Edmonds of old and some think it is about right now, is there a problem with advocating to keep things as much the same as possible for future generations that might like it as much as most of us do? Lot splitting adu and dadu duplexes and more will be great for property owners because it will increase the value of their properties my little piece of paradise will likely house 15 or more people. I feel sorry for my neighbors and the local environment but that is progress I guess cause there is no stopping it.
All that you write above makes more sense than talking about sardines. I find that I may actually agree with you. I believe wetlands play a vital role in the health of an environment. You want to avoid change. For different reasons we may agree on the same course of action.: saving 50ft of wetlands.
I don’t know what this setback is supposed to mean I have worked on a lot of housing developments in Snohomish county where the houses are backed right up to the wetlands. I believe developers can purchase existing wetlands to offset or eliminate requirements on another piece of property so Edmonds wetlands may shrink or disappear with future development not that we have much left around here as it is.