Yesterday’s story about King County allowing developers who destroy wetlands to purchase “mitigation credits” instead of restoring wetland functions cited support from homebuilders Quadrant Homes and the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties and the conservation group People For Puget Sound. Why the latter? Quote: ‘“While the first preference is for projects to do no harm and then to mitigate onsite, we are pleased that King County has proposed this innovative and forward-thinking plan which will address losses of storm water infiltration,” Executive Director Tom Bancroft said in a statement.’ OK, I don’t get it: You mean, “if you can’t fight ‘em, join ‘em?’ Why not just go to the mat protecting wetlands? County executive proposes new wetlands process
http://snovalleystar.com/2011/11/30/county-executive-proposes-new-wetlands-process
Editor’s Note:
I was a board of directors member from 2006 to 2011 with People For Puget Sound. I no longer am a member of the organization but I have a bit of background here.
I think that Executive Director Tom Bancroft is showing his lack of understanding of the history of the Master Builder’s Association and the history of the county rolling over to the needs of the MBA.. When someone like Tom comes into town from the east coast, it may seem easy to jump on a bandwagon like this. And so it goes. Another environmental organization sells out to gain a modicum of support when it doesn’t need to. This is no different than the decades of east side neglect that Ron Sims implemented while we watched what little wetlands that existed over there wiped out. Dow now continues that and has got a new comer like Tom to back it. “Mitigation credits” are just another diversion from solving the real problem, which is making wetlands off limits to developers. You won’t reclaim these wetlands. It rarely ever works.
Filed under: Puget Sound | Tagged: Puget Sound |
Hi Al,
You are completely correct that we must fight to protect wetlands and other resources and we fully plan to do that. Unfortunately, the newspaper article (“County executive proposes new wetlands process”) didn’t get all of the details of King County’s proposal, nor its history, clearly described. We agree that mitigation banks have been a failure in many places and indeed that compensatory mitigation, when it does occur, has been inadequate. We have fought for improvements in King County’s proposed plan for over four years, long before Tom became executive director, and we gained some key improvements in the plan (and the plan strictly addresses compensatory mitigation, not all of the elements of allowing a project in the first place and the sequence of no harm, minimizing harm, etc).
The loss of vegetated cover due to land conversion has to be reversed in order for us to recover the health of the Puget Sound basin’s ecosystem and we will not back away from that position. If you would like more details about this, please call and I would be pleased to give you a longer and more colorful description of the engagement on this issue.
Best,
Heather
Heather Trim
Director of Policy
People For Puget Sound
htrim@pugetsound.org
(206) 382-7007 X172
Heather, while I understand the nature of what is being attempted by Tom here, the reality on the ground on the east side is a joke. Black Lake, and many of the other small lakes and streams over there have been ‘mitigated’ into a sterile joke over the last two decades. Perhaps Tom should ask someone like John Huskinson, a former fire brand president of Seattle Audubon in the 70s, to take him on a tour of the Eastside and discuss what has been lost there. I was involved in trying to save Black Lake from the ‘mitigators’ as far back as the 70s, with John. The King County Executive of that day also ‘mitigated’ mainly so that the developers could do what they would and say they were protecting that gem of a lake. Another time, a friend rented an old farmhouse up near NE 132nd and 100th Ave NE (you cannot even recognize what that intersection used to look like back then). There is a small creek that has flowed through that area, and King County allowed apartments to be built within 20 feet if not less of it’s banks. I could go on and on about all this, but it’s value in a discussion on the Olympic Peninsula is limited. My point is that we in this county, working on projects like the SMP and CAO, have fought to establish appropriate buffers to avoid needing “mitigation’ at all. With scientific backing, and sympathetic politicians we helped elect, and judges who are willing to look at facts not fiction, we have so far, won.
Organizations like People For Puget Sound, by working out compromises that allow the destruction of natural habitats, in exchange for some vague promise of mitigation, is simply playing right into the hands of organzations like these that have demonstrated, by deed and word, that they have no interest in protecting these shores. Mitigation, which has not worked effectively, and the collapse of the housing market in the last five years shows that these promises are only as good as the companies that are able to carry them out. The Master Builders have fought any environmental protections as hard as they could, for decades. Ron Sims, lived next door to their president, and consistently caved into their demands, while doing only enough to make sure he could label himself ‘green’ to the voters. It’s all a political game, and the environment is the chips that get pushed around. The outcome is that our stocks of fish are still in an environmentally endangered state, after decades of ‘mitigation’ by well minded but ineffectual politicians, and environmental groups.
What all of us are asking for, is that our society protect a tiny fraction of the land of someplace like the Eastside, or out here, along a few creeks and lakes. It has been shown, over and over again, that if we do that, we end up with places that people value more and not less, both aesthetically, and financially. That protect spawning habitat. The flip side is that you profit companies that are here today and gone tomorrow, and end up bailing out homeowners, as weather systems change and rains turn what used to be tiny streams into raging torrents. Or flood out whole areas that used to be ponds and other wetlands.
Hi Al,
We completely agree with you. We fought for the CAO and SMP buffers in King County (and elsewhere).
Best,
Heather
I’ve thought that the word ‘restoration’ is improper when used with natural environments. They won’t come back the same.