Commissioners set June 3 hearing on Channel Migration Zone technical report amid public complaints about landowner engagement and hazard‑mitigation process

Clallam County commissioners on Tuesday approved a call for a hearing June 3 to consider a resolution approving the Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) technical report, prompting public comments that the hearing was being scheduled before landowner outreach concluded.

Why it matters: The hearing advances a formal adoption process for a technical report that affects how riparian and channel migration areas are regulated. Residents who addressed the board said they fear the public and landowners have not been adequately engaged and that hazard‑mitigation planning has been handled behind closed doors.

During public comment, Ed Bowen, who gave his address as PO Box 1 on Column Bay, said the CMZ hearing was “calling for a hearing before the landowner public engagement process is even complete,” and called the schedule “the cart before the horse.” He told the commissioners the process “is not engaging the landowners. It is not engaging the public.”

John Worthington of Sequim echoed Bowen’s concerns, saying he had reviewed materials from the North Olympic Development Council (NODC) and related entities and concluded “the decisions already been made” and later steps amount to “a dog and pony show.”

Separately during public comment, Jeff Tozer, who identified himself as living on Jamestown Road in Sequim, raised concerns about a hazard‑mitigation contract with Cascadia Consulting Group and the role of the NODC. Tozer said he saw a payment to Cascadia as part of a $369,100 contract and said that, in his view, the draft hazard‑mitigation work he reviewed “heavily favors the Jamestown S'Klallam tribe” and that process steps had occurred within NODC and other groups outside broad public view.

Board action: Item 1D, the call for hearing on the CMZ technical report, was included in the consent agenda. The consent agenda — which also included vouchers, minutes, and other items — was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote. The board therefore formally scheduled the June 3 hearing to consider adoption of the CMZ resolution.

What residents asked for: Commenters requested that the board postpone or “sidebar” item 1D until landowner and public engagement activities are complete, and asked for clearer reporting on staff and commissioner contacts with outside groups. Tozer also raised a conflict‑of‑interest concern involving NODC and the Jamestown S'Klallam tribe; the meeting transcript records the allegation but includes no county finding or formal response to the conflict claim.

What the record shows and doesn’t: The board scheduled the hearing; the transcript does not record the commissioners’ deliberations about postponing item 1D or any vote to delay public engagement. The county did not state in the meeting that the CMZ hearing date would change. No formal action on the hazard‑mitigation contract was recorded during the meeting.

Next steps: The hearing on June 3 will be the formal opportunity for continued public comment and for commissioners to consider adopting the CMZ technical report. Residents who raised engagement and contracting concerns asked the board to postpone final action until outreach and documentation are complete.