By Mary Duncan

Shelton Journal - 12/13/01 -The Mason County commissioners must choose between two versions of amendments to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation section of the
county's resource ordinance.

TWO CITIZENS' ADVISORY GROUPS, THE MASON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND SHORELINES ADVISORY BOARD, OFFERED AN ALTERNATIVE DRAFT TO THE REVISIONS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING STAFF AND WRITTEN WITH ASSISTANCE FROM OTHER STATE
AGENCIES.

Both alternatives were presented during Tuesday's public hearing on the
amendments designed to bring the regulations into compliance with the Growth
Management Act. Twice the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings
Board ruled the county's regulations are invalid, first December 1, 2000 and
again March 14 of this year.

The commissioners took no action after 75 minutes of testimony but continued
the hearing to 11 a.m. next Tuesday, December 18, to allow additional time
for the public to review and comment on draft proposals.

Before making their decision, the commissioners will meet with members of
the planning commission and shorelines board at 6 p.m. Monday, December 17,
in commissioners' chambers.

The commissioners attempted to hold a similar meeting December 10, convening
members of the citizens' groups without providing 24-hour notice to the
public and media of the special meeting as required by the state open
meetings act. That meeting was canceled after The Journal registered an
official protest.

In remanding the fish and wildlife regulations to the county, planner Allan
Borden reported the hearings board identified three issues which must be
resolved to bring the regulations into compliance:
  . Buffers on saltwater and lakes over 20 acres, which must be set using the
best available science;
  . The buffer reduction review process, which must include guidelines for
administrative review and a public hearing; and
  . Revision of exemptions from the environmental permit process for existing
activities within buffers.

 From July to October, Borden said, county staff worked with the state
departments of ecology, fish and wildlife and natural resources and the
office of community development to bring the regulations into compliance.

The staff draft proposed no changes to stream buffers but did include a
75-foot shoreline setback, a requirement for public hearing on requests for
buffer reductions and deletion of ongoing agricultural activities within a
buffer from the subsection on exemptions from the environmental permit
process, Borden said.

THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHED BUFFERS OF 150 FEET FOR STREAMS OF TYPES 1, 2 AND 3, 100 FEET FOR TYPE 4 AND 75 FEET FOR TYPE 5, WHICH BORDEN POINTED OUT WERE APPROVED BY THE HEARINGS BOARD IN ITS DECEMBER 2000 FINDINGS AND ORDER.

Staff recommends a 75-foot shoreline setback on saltwater and lakes over 20
acres with a minimum buffer distance of 20 feet for view protection.

THE STAFF draft includes a table of "priority species" not listed by federal
or state governments and not governed by the ordinance. The table was
included at the request of the state fish and wildlife department, Borden
said, and was previously approved by the hearings board.

BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE SHORELINES BOARD, AFTER REVIEWING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, CAME UP WITH THEIR OWN VERSIONS FOLLOWING A DECEMBER 3 HEARING. THOSE GROUPS RECOMMENDED SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS IN STREAM BUFFERS AND SHORELINE SETBACKS AND ADDRESSED OTHER ISSUES NOT
CHALLENGED, RULED OUT OF COMPLIANCE OR DECLARED INVALID.

A PETITION PRESENTED AT HEARING AND SIGNED BY 15 RESIDENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DRAFT STATES THE "MAJORITY OPINION" IS THE BUFFERS PROPOSED BY STAFF "WERE TOO LARGE AND WOULD BE AN UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP FOR THE PROPERTY HOLDERS CAUSING LOSS OF MONEY THROUGH LOSS OF VALUE, LOSS OF USE AND LOSS OF TIME AND MONEY DEALING WITH SO MANY REGULATIONS.

"IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY MAKE TYPE 1 WATERFRONT INTO VIEW PROPERTY. IT COULD MAKE A DITCH INTO A TYPE 5 STREAM WITH REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN NATURAL CONDITIONS FOR OVER 150 FEET BY THE STREAM," THE PETITION STATES.

The planning commission's draft reduces stream buffers to 100 feet for types
1 and 2, 75 feet for type 3, 50 feet for type 4 and 35 feet for type 5. It
also calls for a 35-foot setback from saltwater and large-lake shorelines,
noting Kitsap County's setbacks are only 35 feet. "Mason County should
require no more than that," the planning commission states in its petition.

"In many cases these are still excessive amounts but they are more
reasonable than those shown in the original (county staff) draft," the
petition concludes.
The planning commission draft also deletes the priority-species table.

Planning Manager Bob Fink told the board there are some areas where "staff
feels it cannot support the recommendations given the record which exists at
this time." The revisions prepared by staff with technical assistance from
an interagency team "provide a strong basis of resource protection," he
added.

Noting the hearings board's order does not require the county to revisit
stream-buffer widths, Fink said the buffers proposed by the planning
commission "are less protective than those previously remanded in 1999."

The shoreline buffer of 75 feet has support from the department of fish and
wildlife and is based on best available science, he said. "There is general
concurrence from state agencies this was a reasonable proposal providing
reasonable protection."

Staff incorporated a 20-foot minimum buffer in a special provision for view
protection on saltwater shorelines and large lakes after public testimony
before the shorelines board, Fink said. The planning commission's draft does
not set a minimum buffer.

Fink argued for inclusion of the priority-species table even though the
animals listed are not governed by the ordinance. "The table was accepted by
the hearings board," he reported, "and removing the table does not change
the regulations since it is informational in intent and effect."

The planning commission draft was criticized by two parties which have been
involved in developing the fish and wildlife regulations.

"It is in the Skokomish Indian Tribe's best interest to seriously consider
the modification alluded to by the planning commission draft as threats to
the tribe's resources," Keith Dublanica, Skokomish natural resources
director, told the board. The tribe is among the petitioners challenging the
county's fish and wildlife regulations before the hearings board.

Turning to the stream-buffer reductions, Dublanica said, "The previous
county commissioners, planning staff, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Skokomish tribe and many others worked hard for several years to
develop a draft that would adequately protect freshwater fish and wildlife
habitats and that could be supported by the best available science. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SABOTAGE THE EXISTING DRAFT AND
IF ADOPTED WILL BE CHALLENGED BY THE SKOKOMISH TRIBE BEFORE THE HEARINGS
BOARD. The tribe is confident the hearings board would rule in our favor."

Dublanica also criticized the reduction of setbacks from marine waters and
large lakes. "The attempt by the planning commission to impose meager
buffers appears to stem from their review of other counties and what 'they
were able to get away with,' rather than a thorough review of the best
available science.

Arguing for the inclusion of the species table, Dublanica said, "The
reasoning presented by the planning commission was 'because it might give
the authorities ideas that they should include those next.' THE TRIBES,
ALONG WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, CO-MANAGE THE FISHERIES IN
THE STATE. Habitat concerns and future conditions are addressed in proactive
and collaborative fashion. The planning commission appears to be making
efforts that thwart such collaboration and protection."

DUBLANICA SAID WHILE THE STAFF DRAFT IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER PREVIOUS
EFFORTS, "IT IS STILL THE TRIBE'S OPINION THAT THE (75-FOOT) BUFFER WIDTH
RECOMMENDED CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE AND MAY STILL
REQUIRE THE HEARINGS BOARD TO IMPOSE AN ORDER OF INVALIDITY."

The tribe would like to work with the county "to develop a credible
ordinance" Dublanica said. "However, simply being asked to review completed
draft ordinances does not allow our professional staff the ability to assist
in the creation of a new ordinance."

Jim Fraser, WDFW assistant regional habitat program manager, addressed the
planning commission's draft, noting it includes "substantial reduction of
the riparian buffers for streams, lakes and marine waters compared to your
staffs proposal."

The department filed an Amicus Curiae or "friend of the court" brief with
the hearings board supporting petitioners' challenges to the county's
regulations.

Fraser cautioned, "We do not believe that the (planning) commission's buffer
widths are supported by best available science and, if adopted, would result
in continued invalidity of the county's ordinance by the (hearings) board."

**EMPHASIS ADDED**
[Interesting note: The term "best available science" was used SIX times in
this article. -ms]

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]