Fifty miles of marine shoreline encircle Vashon-Maury Island, establishing our Island’s shorelines as a vital component in the ongoing effort to restore and protect Puget Sound.

As the state moves forward in these efforts, what do you believe the process for establishing development regulations in nearshore areas should be? Should decisions encompass independent science-based evaluations or corporate agendas? And who should make these important decisions — corporations and their lobbyists or ecosystem experts after contemplative review?

While the clear answer is that nearshore policy should be science-based and made by habitat specialists, mining company Glacier Northwest has a different plan when it comes to shoreline development. And it appears that some King County councilmembers may agree as they consider updates to the county’s shoreline regulations.

Recognizing shorelines as the most fragile of the state’s natural resources, Washington’s Shoreline Management Act was established in 1972. Under this act, counties are required to develop a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to ensure preservation of local shorelines and to determine how they are managed. Using scientific review of environmental habitats and the state and federal plans related to the protection of Puget Sound and endangered species, King County initiated a mandated SMP update in 2005.

After detailed evaluation, the stretch of shoreline where Glacier owns its site on Maury Island was designated as “natural,” which is intended for areas of high ecological quality.

While years were spent reviewing criteria, even a brief glance shows the “natural designation” is appropriate for the site. The Glacier shoreline sits at the heart of a state Aquatic Reserve and is part of the national system of Marine Protected Areas; the recovery plan for chinook salmon also directs protection of the area. Additionally, orca specialists believe the loss of this important foraging site would contribute to the whale’s population decline.

While it would not affect Glacier’s current permits — which are grandfathered to earlier regulations — the “natural designation” is the most protective and does not allow docks, which have been documented as causing significant adverse impacts to shoreline habitats. For example, the Puget Sound Partnership’s Action Agenda describes nearshore alteration due to pier construction as a striking example of development which threatens broad components of the ecosystem.

On Nov. 8, the SMP update will be voted on by the full King County Council and adopted as a county ordinance.

The plan before the council includes a “natural designation” along the full length of the Glacier site. And although current permit approvals would not be affected, Glacier is nonetheless working to cut a special backroom deal with the county council to overturn the “natural designation” at the site by adding a segment designated as “resource,” which would allow for industrial use and unfettered development. Not only has the corporation hired a strong-arm lobbyist, it has also threatened to sue unless the county council complies with its “resource designation” demand.

While the recklessness of allowing Glacier to dictate environmental regulations is apparent, some councilmembers are heeding the company’s preposterous requisition and appear ready to forfeit the health of Maury Island and Puget Sound in order to support Glacier’s corporate interests. Most alarming is that Councilwoman Jan Drago — who was appointed last year as a placeholder representative for the Island and who has close ties to Glacier’s lobbyist — has not committed to a vote to keep the “natural designation” intact.

If Puget Sound policymaking based on corporate bullying and back-room dealmaking sounds good to you, then sit back and relax.

But if you would rather say no to this absurdity, you still have an opportunity to do so by attending a public hearing on the SMP update, which will be held in the council chambers at the King County Courthouse on the afternoon of Nov. 1. The exact time is still being determined and will be posted on the Preserve Our Islands and King County Council websites.

Most importantly, you can call and e-mail all of the county council members — especially Drago — to let them know that as elected officials, you expect them to represent environmental protections over corporate special interests. Remind them that the “natural designation” is a critical component in Puget Sound recovery and was developed after years of science-based review and that there should be no arbitrary “resource designation” granted simply because a mining company doesn’t like what the habitat experts say.

In the ruling overturning Glacier’s federal approvals, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez lamented, “What’s missing here is science.” Amending the SMP update to include a “resource designation” at the Glacier site would be equally void of factual consideration. While Glacier may be happy to once again disregard science in order to move its agenda forward, the King County Council should not be so willing. It’s up us to let them know not only what we expect of them, but that we are paying attention and holding them accountable.

— Amy Carey heads Preserve Our Islands, a grassroots organization working to protect Maury Island.

E-mail addresses and phone numbers for county councilmembers can be found on the county council’s webpage at www.kingcounty.gov/council and at the POI website at www.preserveourislands.org.