1,200 give Ecology officials an earful - July 16, 1999
By David Wilkins - Daily World writer, The Aberdeen Daily World
MONTESANO - More than 1,200 angry citizens from all over Southwest Washington packed the Montesano High School gym Thursday night.
They were there to air their discontent over proposed changes to the 1971 Shoreline Management Act, and Tom Fitzsimmons, director of the Department of Ecology, did something he said he has never done before.
He ordered that an informal question-and-answer session before the public hearing be made part of the public record. The idea was to get as many of the public's concerns on the record as possible, according to Fitzsimmons. But Grays Harbor and Pacific County officials noted that it was also the first time DOE officials have gone on record saying that the proposed changes are still under revision by the agency.
County and city officials across the state say the proposed changes would drastically restrict economic development in rural counties. Some have even called the proposed new restrictions on shoreline development a "land grab." Some outraged land owners call it "environmental communism."
Part of the new guidelines include "vegetation management corridors" as much as 200 feet wide on either side of waterways. The corridors would be subject to severe restrictions on any proposed uses, and in some cases no development would be allowed in the corridors at all.
Ecology says the new rules would not affect existing uses of property at all, but admits that new development and changes in land use would be severely restricted, with the goal of first saving the waterways that can most easily be preserved or restored to a natural state.
Ecology staffers also said that the proposed rule changes would be applied more flexibly in urban areas such as Seattle, because so much of the urban shorelines are already taken up with port and industrial facilities, and "other economic activities."
This didn't sit well with the skeptical, sometimes raucous crowd. "What about our economic activities?" shouted out an elderly woman.
The Montesano hearing was one of four additional meetings added to the public comment period after a storm of protest erupted from coastal communities because none of the initial hearings was held west of I-5.
The evening began with a special meeting of the Grays Harbor Economic Development Council, at which the council unanimously approved a resolution opposing the proposed rule changes.
"We've been managing our shorelines using the Shoreline Management Act since it was enacted in 1971, and we've never had a problem with it," said Grays Harbor's public services director, Mike Daniels. "Ecology says that under the new rules single-family homes are exempt from the new requirements, and if you read the rules, clearly they're not exempt.
"I specifically called Ecology and said, "Explain this to me,' and they said, "That's not what it means.' According to these changes, the buffer zone is 150 feet plus "associated uplands that drain into the waterways.' Well, in Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties, what is that? Everything."
Daniels added that in the county's opinion, Ecology had not adequately addressed the social and economic impacts of the proposed new rules.
"Not just the cost to local jurisdictions of implementing the rules, but also the cost to individual land owners," said Daniels. "We also think Ecology has predetermined the outcome of this process. They've already submitted this to the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife for final approval, even though the public comment period doesn't end until Aug. 4."
Ecology's Peter Skowlund was asked at the informal workshop session that preceded the main meeting why the department had submitted the changes to the federal agencies. He responded that federal approval wasn't required.
"These rules are authorized under the state Shoreline Management Plan," Skowlund said. "We are, however, obliged to consult with other entities that may be affected. In effect, we've provided these federal agencies with a draft copy of the proposed changes."
Bryan Harrison, of Pacific County Community Development, echoed Daniels' concerns.
"It scares me, what's being proposed here," he said. "I'm worried about the Willapa River. It says here if you've got a river with any water quality problem at all, you've got to ensure a net gain of natural vegetation over time in a strip 150 feet wide to either side of that river. We don't have a lot of development along the Willapa, but it's all tied up in agriculture and dairy farms. How do you ensure net gain of vegetation if it's being hayed, or critters are eating it?"
Skowlund's response at the workshop was that the new rules wouldn't affect "existing uses" of shoreline property, but Harrison was unimpressed.
"This Shoreline Master Plan has dropped out of the sky with no context or relationship to any of the other conservation or ecology acts already in force," the Pacific County official said. "As anyone here knows, if you're trying to run and develop a small business, everything is in context.
"They just don't get it," Harrison added. "Have you driven through Raymond? All of the industrial land is either in or next to a wetland or on the river. If you write off 150 feet from the riverbank, you write off Raymond.
"These are things that (Ecology) tells us not to worry about."
The public meeting began with Harrison and a number of other citizens protesting that the question-and-answer session preceding the formal testimony was not being recorded.
Ordinarily, Ecology public hearings don't involve any testimony from agency personnel, but the assembled citizens and officials from the Twin Harbors expressed clear dissatisfaction with the notion that none of the department's assurances would be part of the public record.
So Fitzsimmons started the agency's tape recorder and told the court reporter who was there to record public testimony to start typing immediately.
"I'm glad to be here," said the department director. "I know you probably don't believe me. But I wouldn't be here if I hadn't spent my entire career in public service devoted to the process of developing and enforcing good policy. I will welcome halls full of people expressing their opinions to the end of my career.
"What I'd like to do is have you help us in considering your opinions and concerns in a constructive way."
Fitzsimmons, Skowlund, four Ecology staffers and consultant John Owen decided to move the hearing from Montesano City Hall to the High School gym because of the enormous turnout.
"Just saying "No' isn't good enough," Fitzsimmons told the crowd. "We listen to and consider everything you tell us. There is no certain future coming out of this room in terms of what we do next. These are all open minds in front of you."
In attendance among the 1,200 citizens were the mayors of Aberdeen, Westport, and Ocean Shores, as well as Grays Harbor County Commissioners Bob Paylor and Bob Beerbower and Pacific County Commissioner Pat Hamilton.
"This has gotten to be a high priority for a lot of our legislators," Hamilton said. "It's a high priority in Eastern Washington as well. Their situation is different, but the devastation there if the rules change will be just as great."
Skowlund told the assembly that the new rules would not change existing uses of land, but would severely restrict any new uses. For example, a family farm could continue in operation, but if the farm were sold to a developer who wanted to build apartments, the restrictions would apply.
"Local governments would not be required to regulate agriculture any differently from what they've been doing," Skowlund said. "There's nothing retroactive about this act. There is nothing in this rule that requires any change in existing use."
Owen, the department's consultant, added that he was well aware of public dissatisfaction over any new regulations.
"People resent getting a permit," he said. "I know it puts an additional burden on people. But I also know that people want to ensure that their neighbors don't screw up their property. If the guidelines as proposed here were looser, we find over time that they do not provide the environmental protection that is necessary."
Steve Andrews, an attorney from the Twin Harbors area, said the new rules would be in direct opposition to the state's new rural economic development initiatives to close the gap between what Gov. Locke calls "the two Washingtons."
"Any potential for development is going to be chilled, because no one will want to go to the expense of a lawsuit just to be able to develop their land in a reasonable fashion," Andrews said. "New uses for undeveloped property are going to be strictly curtailed by this. Smaller landowners are the ones who will suffer."
Dave Palmer, speaking on behalf of the Chehalis River Council, was the only voice raised in support of the changes.
"It's very appropriate to update the Shorelines Management Act, given the changes in population pressures and shorelines usage," Palmer said.
Chairman John Barnett of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe weighed in with another perspective.
"Indian tribes were the first environmentalists," he said. "I consider myself an environmentalist. But I also consider that land is to be used, and used wisely."
Skowlund and Owen both said that the Montesano meeting had the largest turnout of any of the seven held so far, and the message from the Twin Harbors was clear.
"The message you are sending us is that the current document needs work," Skowlund said. "And we are committed to working on it."
Two more hearings are planned, with a final decision due by October.
Sid Snyder, D-Long Beach, the Senate majority leader, has asked Fitzsimmons to delay implementation of new rules until next winter so that the Legislature can conduct hearings of its own.
Ecology's Skowlund said, "If the legislators have the desire to change the way these things are interpreted now, they have the opportunity in the next session to do so. We believe that we are doing what the Legislature wants us to do."
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council