County urged to create 'minimalist' restrictions for Shoreline Master Program, Critical Areas Ordinance

Posted 1/6/2010 -

By Marcy Stamper
Methow Valley News

Date: 12-02-2009  |  Volume: 107  |  Issue: 29

Methow Valley, WA - Amid frustration with the complexity of the documents and sometimes pointed attacks on state wildlife and environmental agencies, the county planning commission heard testimony from a dozen people on two environmental plans, the Shoreline Master Program and Critical Areas Ordinance. About 25 people attended the hearing on Monday (Nov. 30).

A handful of Methow residents talked about the need for preserving restrictions on building in the floodplain and for identifying critical wildlife habitat and threatened species. But the majority of the commenters urged the commissioners and planning department to take a “minimalist” approach by addressing only what is mandated by law.

Many speakers also pressed the commissioners to delay the review of the two plans until the comprehensive plan has been approved because that document is the basis for the others.

The shoreline program, currently 268 pages long, came in for the most criticism, almost universally described as unnecessarily complicated and unwieldy. “The main thing is to make the SMP user-friendly,” said Twisp resident Vicky Welch, who had worked on the plan as part of the advisory group.

Welch was among the speakers who denounced the process that produced the current draft of the shoreline plan. Apparently after meetings of the advisory group had lapsed, a different plan was passed on to the planning commission without the group’s approval.

Several speakers said they had not had the opportunity to read the plans in their entirety and seconded the comments of Jon Wyss, a member of the shoreline advisory group who also represents organizations including the Okanogan County Farm Bureau, the Okanogan County Horticultural Association and the Coalition for Property Rights.

Ken Bevis, a Methow resident and habitat biologist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, said he had already submitted comments on the shoreline program and was now working on defining key habitat types, including wetlands, riparian areas, mule deer migration corridors and individual nesting sites for inclusion in the Critical Areas Ordinance.

More than one commenter following Bevis attacked his agency’s work and that of the Department of Ecology. Former county commissioner and rancher Craig Verjaska said he resents agencies for “coming in and telling me how to manage wildlife,” when “bald eagles are picking the eyes out of my newborn calves.”

Ecology must approve the shoreline program, but the Critical Areas Ordinance, while required by state law, can be developed independently by the county, according to planning director Perry Huston.

Others in the public objected to the inclusion of terminology such as “best-available science” and asked that it be replaced with a requirement for “verifiable science.”

The requirement for buffers in the shoreline area came in for strong criticism, with two speakers saying buffers and setbacks constitute “a taking.” “What this does is thievery. It’s my value, my land,” said Ray Campbell, a rancher and real estate broker from Gold Creek.

Other Methow residents urged the inclusion of maps of channel-migration zones and clearer definitions of places for development that would not threaten water quality or supply and that would avoid the placement of riprap to protect houses situated too close to a river.

Planning commissioner Mark Miller, also a real estate broker from Brewster, said he had observed that development appeared to benefit wildlife. “The naturally flowing Columbia was barren,” he said, noting that the bird population had increased since the construction of Wells Dam and that orchards had attracted deer and geese. “Development seems like it actually is constructive to habitat,” he said. “I’d like the SMP to become a plan for development of our shorelines.”

At the request of planning commissioner Marlene Rawley, Huston said his department would produce a simplified draft of the shoreline program that clarifies the sections required by law. They will also produce new maps delineating shorelines and critical areas, rather than rely on maps produced by other agencies.

The county officially has until 2014 to revise its shoreline plan, but signed up to be an “early adopter” in exchange for funding to assist with revisions, which could mean it must complete the plan next year. Huston said he was not sure if the county is bound by the earlier date.

Once they have a new draft, the planning commissioners will reopen public comment, but no date has been set for the next stage.