| On June 7, the Department of Ecology (DOE) proposed new Shoreline Guidelines used to implement the state’s Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The guidelines are scheduled to be adopted on August 7 and require cities and counties to update their Shoreline Master Programs within two years of the date of adoption. The guidelines are a drastic expansion of the DOE’s authority and go far beyond the legislative intent of the SMA. This sets a dangerous precedent in the era of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) that the policy and intent of state laws can simply be disregarded.
The new guidelines establish two implementation options for local governments: Path A (Part III) and Path B (Part IV). Path A is the default standard. Path B has been negotiated between DOE and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with the hope that it will provide local governments from “take liability” under the ESA. What this means is that a state agency has been negotiating (on behalf of local governments and state taxpayers) with federal agencies. If taxpayers, voters, property owners, etc. allow the DOE to get by with writing laws (as this revision certainly is), we will have all state and federal agencies writing law.
Key points of the proposed revisions include:
• Prohibiting the subdivision of land if it will require any form of shoreline stabilization.
• Focus almost solely on shoreline protection and restoration to achieve “properly functioning conditions” (PFC).
• Prohibit shoreline armoring (bulkheads) to protect existing homes. They will be allowed only if relocation of the home is not feasible. Twenty percent repair of an existing bulkhead will be considered replacement.
• Prohibit shoreline armoring for new development.
• Don’t even think about a dock or a float.
• Require stream buffers to be measured from the “Channel Migration Zone” (CMZ), which in many areas will include the entire valley floor.
• Limit residential development in the “natural environment” Allowing development only if it increases ecological functions and PFC.
• Prohibition of significant vegetation removal. How will this impact your view?
• It could require protection not only of threatened and endangered species, but species proposed for protection and their prey!
• Prohibit removal of native vegetation for replacement with lawn or non-native plant materials. This means no landscaping.
• Focus mostly on rural areas.
• Tribal reservations and tribal trust lands will be exempted.
I talked with Rene Beam, Kitsap County Shorelines Manager and she told me that Kitsap County is going forward with Part A and expects to have the revisions ready for public review in late August or early September, followed by public comment and adoption by the end of this year.
Why the hurry? Part A is the less onerous of these two paths but the costly burdens it imposes on property owners is not acceptable either. When the county reveals its plan, we will deal with it at that time.
But right now we need to deal with the State Department of Ecology. They are taking written testimony through August 7. DOE is going forward with these outrageous revisions with the approval of the Governor. It is critical that Kitsap County residents respond to this unprecedented power grab by a state agency. It absolutely undermines our representative form of government.
Vivian Henderson, Director
Governmental Affairs/Land Use
Kitsap County Association of Realtors
(Editor’s Note: Comments must be postmarked no later than August 7.
Send your comments to: Shorelines Guidelines, Dept. of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504.
E-mail them to shorerule@ecy.wa.gov.)
. | 
