Program of Work Planning 2020 Logo

  • Shoreline Study Consensus

  • Due to State Board: January 16, 2023

  •  - -
  •  -

  • Introduction

  • The Shoreline study was adopted at the 2019 LWVWA convention. It is now ready for member study and discussion. The consensus derived from this process will be used to develop a LWVWA position which both the state and local Leagues can use to advocate for changes to public policy. 

    Consensus is member agreement reached after study and discussion. It is not a simple majority, nor is it necessarily unanimity; rather, it is the overall sense of the group as expressed through the exchange of ideas and opinions. Consensus is not a vote or a poll. However, a show of hands may be used to determine the sense of the group.

    Local League boards submit a single consensus statement to LWVWA that captures the responses to the consensus questions from their members. 

    We have added discussion questions to help get the conversation started. While the responses to the consensus questions are the basis for a League position, consensus may arise from the discussion questions as well. Discussion questions are optional. Note any major points related to the discussion question in the box provided if you wish.

    Place comments related to the consensus questions in the Comments box. All of this information will be used to draft a LWVWA position.

    To assist in the discussion, we have noted where in the study you can find information pertaining to the question.

    Thank you!

     

     

     

  • Questions for Discussion and Consensus

  • ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    One of the issues that some interviewees raised is whether the goal of environmental protection should outweigh the other policy goals of public access, fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses and a preference for certain shoreline uses.  The Legislative Findings, RCW 90.58.020, set forth policy goals for the Shoreline Management Act.  These include:


    (1) planning and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses, in a manner that protects against adverse impacts;
    (2) ensuring public access to the shorelines; and
    (3) creating a preference for water-dependent uses. 


    The Ecology Guidelines note:  “Through numerous references to and emphasis on the maintenance, protection, restoration, and preservation of "fragile" shoreline "natural resources," "public health," "the land and its vegetation and wildlife," "the waters and their aquatic life," "ecology," and "environment," the act makes protection of the shoreline environment an essential statewide policy goal consistent with the other policy goals of the act.”  WAC 173-26-186(8). 


    However, the guidelines also state: “To the extent consistent with the policy and use preference of RCW 90.58.020, this chapter (chapter 173-26 WAC), and these principles, local governments have reasonable discretion to balance the various policy goals of this chapter, in light of other relevant local, state, and federal regulatory and nonregulatory programs, and to modify master programs to reflect changing circumstances.” WAC 173-26-186(9).  

    See pages 32-37; 24-28; 42-43.

  • CLIMATE CHANGE
    Currently no requirement exists that local shoreline master plans consider or plan for climate change effects.  While there is a requirement for a program element regarding the prevention and minimization of flood damages, there is no corollary requirement for other impacts of climate change, including sea level rise. Ecology has issued guidance for planning for climate change and some local jurisdictions are incorporating it in their plans, but there is no mandate to do so.  

    See pages 52-54.

  • NO NET LOSS/NET GAIN
    The governing principles of the SMA include a requirement that local master programs shall include policies and regulations that meet a standard of “no net loss” of ecological functions. Simply stated, the no net loss standard is designed to halt the introduction of new impacts to shoreline ecological functions resulting from new development and the existing condition of shoreline ecological functions should remain the same. Both protection and restoration are needed to achieve no net loss.
    When the Department of Ecology approves a local shoreline master program, it is presumed that all actions approved under that plan will result in No Net Loss of ecological functions. Local programs are required to include restoration and monitoring plans, but there is no requirement to review or document whether a no net loss standard is being achieved over time, even in periodic updates. 

    See pages 17-20; 43-44.

  • NO NET LOSS/NET GAIN Continued

    The governing principles of the SMA include a requirement that local master programs shall include policies and regulations that meet a standard of “no net loss” of ecological functions.  Despite this standard, many of the stakeholders interviewed believed that shoreline ecological systems have continued to degrade and that restoration efforts are not keeping up with the loss of ecological functions. 

    See pages 39-40.

  • LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING

    Funding for local shoreline programs is always limited.  Local governments have many concerns regarding unfunded mandates.  Adequate funding would enhance shoreline programs in the areas of training and enforcement, which are often cut when revenue is short.  

    See pages 44-45;49-52; 55-58.

  • EXEMPTIONS

    The SMA includes a number of “exemptions” for shoreline permits.  Exemptions are to be construed narrowly and exempt projects must still comply with the SMA.  A letter of exemption is required to be issued only where there is also a federal Army Corps of Engineers permit or a Section 404 permit involved.  WAC 173-27-050.  Although the Ecology Shoreline Permitting Manual recommends that local governments document all granted exemptions in a letter of exemption and encourages submittal to Ecology, it is not required. 

    See pages 21-22; 40-41.

  • STATE OVERSIGHT

     The SMA is administered jointly by the state Department of Ecology and local governments.  Ecology must approve all local shoreline master programs.  At the permitting level, Ecology must approve conditional use permits (CUPs) and variances, but not exemptions or shoreline substantial development permits (SDPs).  Some local governments have sought to streamline permit processes by reducing requirements for conditional use permits and allowing more exemptions and administrative permits.  Such streamlining could lead to a less thorough review by the local government and less oversight by Ecology.  

    See pages 20-21; 55.

  • PREFERRED USES
    The Legislature stated that preferred uses are those that are “consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment or are unique to or dependent upon the use of the shoreline” RCW 90.58.020.  Priority must be given to single-family residences, ports, and shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to, parks, marinas, and piers. Priority must also be given to other improvements facilitating the following:
      1) public access to shorelines of the state,
      2) industrial and commercial developments that are particularly dependent on their location on, or use of, the shorelines of the state, and
      3) other development providing opportunities for people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.  Dramatic changes have occurred to the types of uses dependent on the shoreline over the years, yet the language in the preferred uses statute has been in place since 1971 and has not changed. 

    See pages 14; 35-57; 46-49.

  • PUBLIC ACCESS

    It is difficult for local governments to require the provision of public access as a condition of a permit, due to constitutional limitations.  Therefore, most public access points are publicly owned, and expansion of shoreline access points can be expensive.  Population growth has, and will continue to, limit existing public access opportunities.

    See pages 50-52.

  • Should be Empty: