Snohomish County panel weighs stricter wetland and stream buffers against housing impacts

The Snohomish County Planning and Community Development Committee hosted a March 18 panel of developers, tribal and state agency staff, builders and environmental advocates to discuss proposed updates to the county's critical areas regulations (CAR); no final action was taken at the meeting.

Panelists debated whether new "best available science" justifies larger buffers and fewer exemptions for wetlands and streams, or whether the proposed changes would meaningfully reduce housing capacity and raise prices. County and state staff offered modeling and data to inform future decisions.

Why it matters: The CAR update determines how much land adjacent to streams and wetlands is protected from development. Changes to buffer rules and exemptions affect habitat for salmon and other species as well as the supply and cost of housing in Snohomish County.

Developers and home-building representatives warned that limiting buffer averaging and reductions would shrink buildable area on many infill projects and raise per-unit prices. John Maranti, of Pacific Ridge Homes, said examples from current projects show potential losses of units and large impacts on sellers: "the buffer averaging reduction, would cause ... we would lose 2 units, and that would cause a increase in the sales price of each unit by $4,700" and, on another example, that a loss of 2 units "would be a $400,000 reduction to the seller." Brian Holtzcott, general counsel for the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, told the committee he has seen repeated claims that new science requires more restriction but said staff memos suggest the 2006 local BAS remains largely valid and that the county has not presented project-level monitoring to show current rules are failing.

Environmental and tribal speakers argued the evidence shows losses of riparian function and wetland acreage that warrant stronger protections. Tim Stapleton, operations manager for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), said the agency's recent analysis "indicates up to 15,000 acres of riparian forests may be at risk of loss under the county's current buffer proposal compared with the area of full riparian function," and the department urged the council to use the new riparian guidance in its update. Kurt Nelson, environmental department manager for the Tulalip Tribes, said tribal and independent studies show declining water quality and habitat: "We must protect what we currently have and restore ecological and watershed functions through increased investments and actions at a greater scale and pace." Tom Murdoch of the Adopt A Stream Foundation said, "Preservation protections of high quality resources should be a priority" and recommended buffers at or above state agency guidance.

The Washington State Department of Ecology's wetlands coordinator, Emily Atkins, described Ecology's wetland guidance as a "moderate risk approach" and said the agency "recommends a standard buffer is never reduced to less than 75%." Atkins expressed concern that the county's current proposed amendments would allow development in higher-functioning wetlands and larger small-wetland exemptions than Ecology recommends and warned that those allowances "may contribute to a loss of wetland functions and values in Snohomish County."

Speakers from advocacy groups and Futurewise argued the county should update the CAR to reflect the most recent BAS and state guidance and to aim for "no net loss" of functions and values; at the same time, Futurewise staff and WDFW noted the county has regulatory tools and housing approaches (zoning, middle housing, density in transit corridors) that could help accommodate growth without developing high-functioning critical areas.

Committee members asked for the underlying data and models. Stapleton and WDFW staff offered to share the new GIS-based analysis and to work with county staff to model buffer scenarios; Stapleton confirmed the analysis can be adjusted to test alternate buffer widths and thresholds. Multiple council members requested a consolidated list of recent zoning and capacity actions that bear on housing supply so the impacts of CAR changes can be assessed in context.

No motions or votes occurred at the panel. Panelists and council members were explicit that further data, modeling and public hearings would be needed before any ordinance change.

The panel closed with staff reminders about future public comment opportunities and that the date for a formal public hearing on the CAR update has not yet been set.