By Kristin Kelly and others / For The Herald

Puget Sound is in trouble. Despite the hard work of state agencies, counties, cities and local organizations, habitat restoration is not keeping up with habitat damage.

The governor’s Salmon Recovery Office reports that Puget Sound chinook “are falling further behind.” Climate change is making salmon recovery harder. But right now in Snohomish we have a once every ten-year opportunity to improve protections for salmon habitat: the county’s update to its critical areas regulations.

The Snohomish County Council held a public hearing in January and there was a great deal of public testimony and comments, most of which supported strong protections for salmon and other habitats.

However, there is a controversy going on. The council has continued the hearings, and the written record remains open for public comments. Another hearing will be scheduled soon.

So what is the controversy? It is a choice between providing housing for the incoming growth for the next 20 years versus protecting wetlands, streams and rivers near where these new developments are planned.

Snohomish County developers are arguing that all of our current critical area regulations are “good enough.” But that is not what the state departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology, the Tulalip Tribes, Adopt-A-Stream Foundation, Pilchuck Audubon Society, Futurewise, and hundreds of citizens have told the council. The best available science shows that Snohomish County’s current regulations are not protective enough for wetlands and streams, that larger buffers are needed, and smaller wetlands need to be protected rather than filled, all of which will help increase salmon and orca populations, as well as protect our water quality.

We must protect salmon. More salmon means more orcas! Access to nature, including wetlands and streams, contributes to human health. Since the county has been “protecting” wetlands, Pilchuck Audubon has collected yearly data that show a 30 percent decline in bird population in Snohomish County.

We recognize that counties and cities also must provide more affordable housing for the growing population. That’s why we have also advocated for more housing, especially affordable housing, in urban areas and near transit, successfully winning changes at the state and local level. Prioritizing redevelopment of underutilized properties (vacant lots or long-vacant commercial spaces) and increasing density through upzoning, especially around job centers and commercial corridors, can increase the housing stock without reducing the environmental protections for critical areas.

An analysis by Snohomish County staff shows that the county can adopt better protections for wetlands and salmon habitats while maintaining the capacity of housing in the county. In addition, the county’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update increased capacity for housing and affordable housing by increasing densities near frequent transit, calling for reducing parking near transit, and increasing densities in parts of the urban growth areas.

We urge all the council members to adopt critical areas regulations that will:

• Use best available science and the science-based recommendations from the state Department of Ecology and the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to protect our critical areas. These recommendations include basing river and stream buffer widths on the site potential tree height at 200 years; wetland and stream buffer averaging should be no narrower than 75 percent of the required buffer width; buffers should not otherwise be reduced; require replacing the functions lost due to impacts on all wetlands; and protect priority habitats, wildlife, fish and plant species.

• Implement the policies in the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan that will allow more opportunities for developers to build affordable housing.

• Put politics aside and consider the kind of world we want to leave to our children and grandchildren, one with an abundance of clean water, fish, birds, whales and the plant species which support them, and homes to live in they can afford to buy or rent.

As Councilmember Megan Dunn stated in her latest newsletter: “The council has passed changes to increase density to allow for more housing and housing types in our urban areas, such as allowing accessory dwelling units and increasing heights. But the need for housing and clean water do not have to be in conflict; we can have both. Council should make our decision on protecting critical areas using the framework set forth by the state; and continue the conversation on affordable housing with different legislation.”

Dunn is right, the available data and science shows that we can have housing and affordable housing while protecting and enhancing salmon and orcas. We need to do it now. This opportunity will not come again for another 10 years.

Kristin Kelly is a consultant with Futurewise. She is joined in this commentary by Bill Derry, president of Pilchuck Audubon Society; Bobby Thompson, executive director of Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County; Tom Murdoch, executive director of Adopt-A-Stream Foundation; Cathy Liu Scott, president, League of Women Voters of Snohomish County; and Nancy Johnson and Cynthia Jones, co-chairs of Sno-Isle Chapter of Sierra Club.