04/15/2008: "EDITORIAL"

Aquatic Reserve Plan? So Many Questions, So Few Answers
The County Council will discuss the Aquatic Reserve Plan today (11:10 A.M.) with members of the MRC (Marine Resources Committee), and the seat may get a little warm for the MRC speakers. In the classic “The more answers to questions you get, the more questions you have” scenario, the public and the council members are starting to wonder who did what, and when, and with whom.

It is still too early to sort in all out, and it may soon become academic if the Council decides to back away from the Reserve idea, but in the meantime there is mounting evidence that the Council has been pushed off into the aquatic reserve proposal without a full understanding of what it means, and what it can mean; best expressed in the words of Councilman Gene Knapp when he early on in the process stated his “concern over hidden problems” that may rise to the surface later.

One problem -depending on one’s viewpoint- that is starting to bob on the surface is the question of who really is in charge, and are the council members receiving all of the information on what the impacts may be if the DNR puts the County into a 90 year program; a program that they may not be able to get out of.

.
(continued from front page)
Councilman Petersen had to work hard to get David Palazzi, DNR Aquatic Reserves Program Manager to directly answer the question “Can we get out of this once were in it,” and the indirect answer he got was the County “could be removed through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process during a review cycle”.

This answer implied that if you can prove to DNR there is greater benefit to the goals of the Reserve by being out of it, then in it, and the County can prove that by a SEPA process, DNR would consider it. In other words, there is no real chance of catch-and-release in this program, since DNR retains the right to refuse release.

An what about Knapp’s concern of “what the benefits and effects to the average citizen would be? Peterson read from an existing plan for another area that “Public benefits may take place within reserves, but they will be of lesser priority and may occur only if they meet the criteria” of the plan To Peterson this indicated that what we now take as an approved activity in San Juan County would become of secondary importance to a DNR management plan, that would govern what could, and could not, be approved under our current Comprehensive Plan and land use codes.

Councilman Lichter raised the question of funding, and who would pay the costs of the program, such as “The most sustainable management strategy is to bypass or relocate Deer Harbor Road,” which is but one example of what is being proposed by the plan; and it is not explained how this would be done, who would pay for it All questons that are on point with Knapp’s question of “what the benefits and effects to the average citizen” would be if the plan goes forward.

MRC members will appear before the Council at 11:10 today (Tuesday the 15th) to answer questions from the Council. Some Council members have said they are ready to “kill the program”, while others have expressed an interest in slowing it down while obtaining additional information on where this proposed plan is sailing off to; and who is that at the rudder?.