Clark County will be making updates to its Columbia River Gorge management plan, despite objections from the county’s planning commission and a member of the county council.
While updating the county plan to incorporate the changes was mandatory, unanimous approval came on Dec. 7 only after several meetings and lengthy discussions on the scope and impacts the changes would have on county residents.
Created in 1986, the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area encompasses around 293,000 acres. Only 2.7 percent of that area, or roughly 8,000 acres, is in Clark County. Responsibility for managing the entire scenic area is divided among the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Gorge Commission.
The first management plan was adopted in 1991, with the first revisions adopted in 2004. In 2016, a second revision was undertaken and adopted by the Gorge Commission in late 2020. It now falls to the six counties — Clark, Skamania and Klickitat in Washington and Hood River, Multnomah and Wasco in Oregon – to make the same changes to their individual management plans.
Aiden Forsi, land use planner for the Gorge Commission, said Wednesday the changes are part of the commission’s overall goal of focusing on policies for urban management areas, recreation, economic development and land use. Forsi said the National Scenic Area Act’s management plan is to be reviewed every five to 10 years, with the latest effort begun in 2016.
“We held a bunch of scoping meetings where we went to different city councils, we went to county councils, along with other public hearings and public meetings and determined what needed to change based on those,” Forsi said.
After reviewing more than 2,000 comments received at numerous meetings held over a two-year period, commission staff created a draft plan that was adopted in October after a final public hearing.
Forsi also said those visiting the Gorge area likely won’t notice any changes.
“There are a lot of very important changes that occur in the recreation section. But are there things the general public is going to see? Probably not,” Forsi said. “This is a land use development policy document. Anyone coming out to hike at Cape Horn or go to Multnomah Falls or something like that, unless there’s some kind of other development that occurs there, no one is going to see that.”
Protest vote
At its Oct. 21 public hearing, the Clark County Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend the county council reject the proposed changes. The primary objections raised by the commissioners were changes to wetlands provisions, an increase to the gross agricultural income requirement for new agricultural dwellings, and changes to appeals provisions.
“We are pretty much having our hands tied. The Gorge Commission has precedent over anything else. We can voice displeasure if we found we were not happy, but it won’t change the outcome,” said planning commission vice chair Ron Barca. “Let’s just go forward and get it over with.”
Commissioner Bryan Halbert was more direct in his criticism.
“I think handing more power to the Gorge Commission, who makes the rules then issues the violations and hears the appeals is really troubling to me,” Halbert said.
Commissioner Steve Morasch said he believes the Gorge Commission is using the Gorge management act as a “vehicle to export Oregon’s flawed land use planning into Washington.”
According to Susan Ellinger, manager of development services for the county, multiple mailers were sent to property owners within the Gorge notifying them that changes were being proposed. Ellinger told the council the county received comments on the agricultural income change, but those comments did not appear to come from property owners affected by it.
County Councilor Temple Lentz said the planning commission’s vote was a missed opportunity for the county to make suggestions or propose changes to the Gorge Commission.
“I was very disappointed in their deflection of their responsibilities to make reasoned recommendations to the council,” Lentz said during the meeting. “The majority of the comments was this was a protest vote because they knew they could. Because they are solely advisory that’s true, they could just kick the can down to us.”
Lentz added the council did not have the luxury of making a similar “protest vote” without causing harm to county residents, adding it would be unreasonable for the county to do that.
Overreach
County Council Chair Eileen Quiring O’Brien’s objections extend beyond the proposed changes. For the Gorge Commission to hand down mandates the county has no choice but to implement is simply government overreach, Quiring O’Brien said.
“It’s been a thorn in my side for many, many years that this commission was formed and how they operate. This is just another example now sitting on a local government that has basically no control. Our hands are tied, as the planning commissioners stated,” Quiring O’Brien said during the Dec. 7 hearing.
Deputy Prosecutor Christine Cook, who provides legal counsel to the County Council, said the county has had many opportunities to voice its concerns throughout the revision process.
“The amended management plan didn’t simply appear one day in Clark County. The Columbia River Gorge Commission sent out notice that it was considering adoption of changes, had public hearings and eventually voted to adopt the changes. All of the counties involved were given opportunities and took opportunities, mostly, to be part of that process,” Cook told the county council. “The question as to whether staff acted in a manner to simply implement what the Gorge Commission had adopted, that is correct although there was a great deal of conversation back and forth.”
Wasco and Hood River counties have already adopted the plan changes, while Skamania and Multnomah counties are expected to do so this month. Klickitat County never adopted a scenic area ordinance or management plan for the Gorge.
“That’s a choice they could make. Clark County could have made the same choice as well not to adopt the ordinance,” Forsi said. “Since then, the Gorge Commission has had an ordinance that has applied in Klickitat County and we review all of their applications within the scenic area.”
Had the county council voted not to approve the plan changes, Clark County would have been in the same position. For property owners in the Gorge, this would have meant getting permits from both the Gorge Commission in White Salmon and from Clark County.
“Just the very idea of having to go to White Salmon for some of your permits and then all the way to Vancouver for some of your other permits, that’s just not reasonable,” Lentz said.
For more information on the Columbia River Gorge Commission, and the 2020 management plan and revisions, go to http://www.gorgecommission.org/management-plan/plan.
