08/20/2007: "Will SJC Lose Control To DNR?"

County Council approves letter of intent for Aquatic Reserve nomination. The County Council has voted five to one to send a Letter of Intent to the DNR (Department of Natural Resources), nominating all of SJC (San Juan County) as an Aquatic Reserve; with “possible exclusion areas.”

The question of what this may mean for SJC is not quite as clear as it could be, and those who support the nomination -which at this point are primarily federal, state, and county governmental organizations- testified to the Council that the purpose of the nomination process is to “initiate an exchange between DNR” that will help clarify the question.

San Juan Marine Resource Committee Coordinator Mary Knackstedt submitted a draft copy of the letter and a staff report that included letters of support from NOAA Fisheries; US Fish and Wildlife; People for Puget Sound, and the Friends of the San Juans.

Knackstedt led off the discussion with the Council, and was then followed by David Palazzi (DNR’s Planning Unit Supervisor for the Aquatic Reserves Program); Ken Sebens (U of W FH Labs); Peter Dederich (National Park Service), and Jacques White (The Nature Conservancy), all of whom spoke in support of the nomination.

Councilman Rich Peterson had researched an existing program on Maury Island , and started off the Council discussion by reading portions of the plan. Peterson said that for just this one small island, the plan was 142 pages long. He also noted that it was a 90 year plan. Peterson asked DNR Supervisor Palazzi if the County can get out of a 90 year plan, once in it.

Palazzi said the County could remove the Aquatic Reserve designation through the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) process. Palazzi may have assumed that the SEPA process was understood by the Council, and so did not explain that SEPA requires a study to consider what the likely environmental consequences of a proposal may be before approving or denying a proposal; in this case, removing environmental protections of an Aquatic Reserve to protect State owned tidal and sub tidal lands, and the waters above them..

If a favorable SEPA process is required to remove an Aquatic Reserve designation, then that statement by Palazzi was a depth charge for the Council that could have blown the SJC Aquatic Reserve proposal out of the water. Because the purpose of a SEPA is to determine the positive and negative impacts of a proposal on the environment, it seems unlikely that removing environmental protection (of an aquatic reserve) could be judged as a positive action, so one may assume that SEPA may not allow removal.

If the Council was concerned about retaining local control, and possessing a right to remove a reserve designation once made, then the SEPA requirement would certainly be a difficult obstacle to pass over; but for whatever reasons, all six Councilmen sailed right around the SEPA statement as they continued to discuss the pros and cons of moving forward with the nomination.

Lichter asked who makes the final decision to include or remove a designation, and while Palazzi made several attempts to answer, it was only after additional probes by Lichter that he said only the head of DNR had such authority.

While Councilman Bob Myhr and Kevin Ranker were strong vocal supporters of sending off the letter of intent, the rest of the Council needed some additional convincing, and only Councilman Rich Peterson remained unconvinced that sufficient clarity had been reached to the point that, in the words of Councilman Gene Knapp, the Council could see what the potential impacts may be on “the average citizen.”

Councilman Rich Peterson read portions of the language in the Maury Island plan, and said that to him such statements as “public benefits may take place within reserves, but they will be a lesser priority and may occur only if they meet the criteria established in this plan,” and ” Existing uses may be re-authorized, expanded, or upgrading if planned operations make use of available and reasonable technologies and result in fewer impacts to the natural environment than under existing conditions,” caused him concern; and noted that the “burden of proof is on the owner”. He said that he would be voting against moving forward at this time.

Councilman Howard Rosenfeld said the program would allow the County to have some input that “we don’t have now,” and that he was “sensitive to the rights of those who work in the aquatic environment.”

Councilman Bob Myhr said “less choices make the process easer,” and added that the Reserve “will provide more jobs for people.”

Councilman Gene Knapp said that he “favored overall protection; as long as there are no ‘booby-traps’,” and stated that the “environment is damaged by many blows, not by just a few,” adding that he would make a “strong vote of ‘yes’.”

Motion made, second made, five for, one against. For more information about DNR’s Aquatic Reserves Program go to http://www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/aqr/reserves/ .