- June 30, 1999
by David Wilkins - Daily World Writer, The Aberdeen Daily World
MONTESANO - The Department of Ecology says it's time to update the Shoreline Management Act, enacted by the Legislature in 1971.
Fine, say local officials. But don't make the changes without talking to us first.
The Grays Harbor County commissioners adopted a resolution Monday protesting what the commissioners say is a decision-making process that appears to have a predetermined outcome. And Grays Harbor is not alone in expressing alarm over the proposed new rules.
"We also really felt slighted that between Grays Harbor and Pacific counties, with all of our coastline and waterway areas, not one person was chosen for their advisory panel," said Dick Dixon, a Grays Harbor County commissioner.
Since April, Ecology has been circulating a 100-page set of proposed amendments to the 28-year-old act. The new guidelines include severe restrictions on development within "site potential tree height" of a waterway, defined as the height of a mature tree at stream side.
In addition, the definition of stream banks is expanded to include floodplains, which vastly widens the area subject to regulation.
Grays Harbor County's public services director, Mike Daniels, is concerned that further restrictions on the already heavily regulated shoreline areas will further stifle economic growth in the county. He believes the county is already doing a good job of taking care of local waterways.
"The effects on property owners would be dramatic," said Daniels. "I think the Legislature needs to take another look at this before it goes any further."
Pacific County officials had previously complained that the changes would make for setbacks from waterways as wide as 150 feet. Daniels says that figure is conservative.
"It says the shoreline jurisdiction is 200 feet, plus "the uplands that affect the shoreline.' Well, that's everything," Daniels said. "It also says no more than 10 percent of a lot can be covered with an impervious surface. Well, if you have a 12,000 square foot lot at the beach, do the math. If the square footage includes your driveway, how much is left for your house?"
The original act sets out guidelines regulating development around and on waterways, and the proposed changes reflect changes in science and in shoreline uses, according to Ecology spokesman Peter Skowlund.
"It's not just a salmon habitat issue. It's an update of nearly 30-year-old rules. One critical issue is the integration of local growth management and shoreline management issues," Skowlund said from Lacey Tuesday.
"The Legislature directed the Department of Ecology to update the guidelines. That's partly a recognition of the changes that have occurred in shoreline uses in the last 28 years - there's a lot more residential development, and changes in science and technology that have changed the way we address shoreline preservation.
Also, in the habitat arena, we have a much better idea of what resources are necessary to protect, what needs protection."
Why left out?
All well and good, says Daniels, but why weren't county decision-makers involved in the process from the start?
"One of the most irritating things about this is that they just don't want to hear what anyone else has to say," Daniels said. "If you disagree with them, you're wrong. They say you're basing your conclusion on incomplete information. I think Grays Harbor and Pacific counties have been excellent shoreline stewards. It's our livelihood - trees and fish. Why would we want to screw that up? We've been scrupulous about following the Shoreline Management Act, because it works! If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
According to the draft environmental impact statement that lays out the basis for the new rules, the first four public hearings on the new rules were held at or east of the I-5 corridor.
Four more meetings were added after several counties in Western Washington protested.
Skowlund said Ecology was doing its best to inform the public with limited resources, but local officials are unimpressed.
Not just us
"Basically, if they notified us as to not having an opportunity to comment before they followed through with the amendments, and then had to add additional meetings, I kind of think that speaks for itself," said Commissioner Dixon. "If they did all that, why did they have to add four more meetings? Obviously, it wasn't just us. Other counties didn't tune in either.
Otherwise the additional meetings wouldn't have been requested."
Skowlund says the agency is trying to be more sensitive to citizen concerns over possible impacts from the new rules.
"I think that there is a legitimate need to reach out to folks and address their concerns," the Ecology spokesman said. "It does concern me that people are actually losing sleep over the idea that they might lose a farm over these new rules.
"We have an obligation to reach out to these folks and reassure them that we are holding an open process and we will do the best we can to address their needs. And I think what they need to do is be dealing with their local governments in the public process that occurs as the local programs are updated. We are in effect giving direction to local government. We can give them direction, but we need to assist local governments in making the right choices in these matters.
"Now you've got some folks who aren't used to reading regulations," the Ecology spokesman added. "They're not concerned with shoreline plans and rules. They're concerned about their individual piece of property, and what those rules are going to be that affect it, and they have a legitimate need to be addressing that issue. I think citizens need to be closely involved with their local governments on these issues. We're one step removed from the property owner."
Skowlund also added that local government concerns over the expense of the new rules is justified, but he said the Legislature had cut money from the budget that had been allocated to help implement the new rules.
Not so, says Sen. Sid Snyder, D-Long Beach.
Vetoes noted
"We passed a salmon recovery bill during the special session. During the regular session, the governor vetoed the original salmon plan we put in there, and 20 percent of that was to go for planning and shoreline management and so on," the Senate majority leader said Tuesday.
"Once we were in special session, the Legislature wasn't real enamored of sending more money to the counties or cities, but there were a lot of special appropriations in the fund, where a legislator had a project in his or her district. Well, the governor vetoed all of those out, because he said why have a salmon recovery board if they're not going to be able to decide where the money is going to go," Snyder said.
"So there is $119 million in the budget there, and cities and counties can apply to the Salmon Recovery Board for some of that money to help with planning and shoreline management and so forth. It's just like the bureaucrats, of course, to blame the Legislature when something goes wrong for them."
Beyond the mandate
House Democratic leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, adds that the agency has gone far beyond the original legislative mandate to update the regulations.
"We said go back and revisit all your rules, but our idea was to have them less onerous, not more," Kessler said this morning. "And it looks as if they're just looking the other way in the more congested and polluted concrete jungles of the I-5 corridor."
To the Grays Harbor officials, this is just one more example of a paternalistic, isolated state agency engaging in arrogance.
"To me, it's just another indication of a state agency giving the impression that local government and their representatives and the local people themselves aren't considered as front-line contributors," said Dixon.
"I'm sure they have better scientific experts than what we could offer. But still, to do thorough research and make a complete plan, I would think it would behoove them to say they've got the local support. And I think the reaction to this plan clearly shows that they don't."
David Wilkins, a Daily World reporter, can be reached at 532-4000 ext. 123, or by e-mail at dwilkins@thedailyworld.com
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council