Chapters 173-18, 173-20, 173-22, 173-26, and 173-27 WAC, Shoreline Management Act Rulemaking Informal Comment Period

Comment From: Chris Gourley

8/15/25 @ 9:58 PM

The attached comments have been provided representing the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission's Stewardship Division. Thank you for considering our comments.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Carly Michiels, WPPA

8/15/25 @ 8:16 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Ellie Ziegler (Sound Transit)

8/15/25 @ 4:53 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Robinson Low

8/15/25 @ 4:37 PM

Please accept these comments on the Preliminary Draft language for the Shoreline Management Act rulemaking on behalf of the following organizations:

Washington Conservation Action (WCA)
Futurewise
Washington Chapter of the Sierra Club
League of Wome...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: John Phillips

8/15/25 @ 3:28 PM

1. Shift to Mean Higher High Water Measurement for Shoreline Regulations (WAC 173-26-246)
2. Climate Change Considerations in Shoreline Master Programs (WAC 173-26-246)
3. Substantial Development Definition and Cumulative Impacts (WAC 173-26-226)
4....↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Robinson Low

8/15/25 @ 2:53 PM

Please accept these comments on the Preliminary Draft Language for the Shoreline Management Act Rulemaking informal comment period from Washington Conservation Action.

If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out via email. Thank you.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Robinson Low

8/15/25 @ 2:31 PM

I am submitting comments WCA received from our member base regarding the SMA Preliminary Draft language proposed by Ecology.

Our members have tailored these comments individually so please accept these as separate, individual comments rather than o...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Peter Steelquist

8/15/25 @ 2:29 PM

Please See Attached Comments on Behalf of Surfrider Washington

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Ian Sinks

8/15/25 @ 2:08 PM

This comment pertains to Chapter 173-27 WAC SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

WAC 173-27-215: "However, restoration projects that shift the location of the shoreline can inadvertently create hardships for property owners, partic...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Laura Wolfe

8/15/25 @ 1:38 PM

Please see the attached comment letter from the Port of Seattle.

~ Laura Wolfe

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Yolanda Ho

8/15/25 @ 1:33 PM

On behalf of King County, I am submitting the attached comment letter. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the preliminary drafts of the SMA WACs.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Brett Swift

8/15/25 @ 11:50 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jenna Kay

8/15/25 @ 10:28 AM

Attached for your consideration please find comments from staff in the Clark County Community Planning and Community Development departments.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Nicolas Nicolas

8/15/25 @ 8:39 AM

Please find the file with comments provided by Pierce County Planning and Public Works Long Range Planning Division in the document below.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Ann Soule

8/14/25 @ 4:21 PM

As a member of the Clallam County Marine Resources Committee I have become aware of the serious issue of imminent conflicts between development and nearshore habitat as sea level rises. I am submitting this comment as an individual at this time simpl...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Amy Boyd Port of Longview

8/14/25 @ 4:07 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Brian Carrico

8/14/25 @ 11:08 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Robert Phillips

8/13/25 @ 7:42 PM

Comments are provided in the attached file.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Margaret SUTRO

8/12/25 @ 4:36 PM

As a person of faith, I am indebted to our Earth for unfathomable sustenance. Please do your very best in taking climate changes into account as you update our state's Shoreline Management Act. Thank you for your service to all who dwell within and a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ali Gulduren

8/12/25 @ 12:43 PM

Hello, please see my comments below in several areas:

1) Sea level rise and increased storm severity

a) New language must direct local governments and municipalities to define Sea Level Rise Hazard Areas, Future Tidal and Groundwater Inundation Ar...↓eas, and Frequently Flooded Areas. This is a fundamental step in meeting the requirements of HB 1181.
b) That said, Ecology must specifically define these areas so there is less variability in how local jurisdictions interpret information. It also creates better consistency in how these areas are managed.
c) Ecology must be more specific in their language around "affected Tribes". Local jurisdictions should not define what "affected Tribes" means.
d) Local jurisdictions must complete a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Risk Assessment. This assessment must also depict how the various shoreline hazard areas are designated and managed.

2) Achieving no net loss of ecological function

a) DOE must hold to the strong language added around "No Net Loss" of ecological function.
b) New language must include the expansion, clarification, and additions of subsections to WAC 173-26-226 Protection of critical areas and shoreline ecological functions.
c) DOE should add language that alludes to achieving a gain of ecological function such as "...that ensure, at a minimum, no net loss of ecological functions...". These additions serve an important reminder that the "No Net Loss" value system is being recognized and acted upon throughout the programs.

3) Effective enforcement and compliance

a) DOE must be extremely clear and more specific in these documents how SMA regulations and guidance are monitored for compliance and enforced (using actors, timelines, consequences, appeals, etc to make the process clear for all stakeholders).
b) DOE should add a new section outlining the process for a permit recission by either the local jurisdiction or the state.
c) DOE should add a new section stating that violators are financially liable for removal of the unpermitted activity AND the cost of restoring the affected area.
e) The order for removal and remediation also be clearly stated as applicable to unpermitted structures.
f) DOE should retain the provision about citizen or civil suits in this section to hold violators accountable at the local AND state level.
g) DOE should gather information from local jurisdictions on any exemptions and substantial development permits -- this will be important for public transparency and accountability. DOE should commit to publishing this information online (in an accessible format) to more readily track and enforce "No Net Loss" of ecological functions. I encourage this information to be translated into the key languages used throughout the state.

Thank you for incorporating these comments.

No attachments

Comment From: Tim Trohimovich

8/12/25 @ 12:07 PM

The comments are in the enclosed letter.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Elizabeth Bockstiegel

8/12/25 @ 9:23 AM

The attached comment letter is submitted on behalf of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Sharla Matthews

8/10/25 @ 11:55 AM

Climate science is indisputable; sea levels will rise and storms will become more severe in the coming years. That means the 28,000 miles of Washington State shorelines must be managed differently in the future to protect people and nature alike. The...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kimberly Danke

8/06/25 @ 5:30 PM

As a Washington resident who lives directly on the shores of Puget Sound, I am very concerned about the impact unpermitted armoring of shoreline areas has on both salmon and orca habitat as well as on public access. I strongly encourage the state to ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Brenda Goates

8/06/25 @ 10:32 AM

I support the Washington Sores Management Act. It will help prevent further degradation of the environment that I teracts with the sea, this enhancing the chances for salmon survival. It further disallows private property owners to interrupt the biol...↓

No attachments

Comment From: avery maverick

8/05/25 @ 9:49 AM

WAC 173-26-231 Shoreline modifications.3.k.ii. "New outfalls shall not be allowed in support of non-water-dependent uses." --- Please add clarity to this. Not sure what non-water-dependent uses means here or how this applies.

WAC 173-26-231 Shoreli...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kenneth Zirinsky

8/01/25 @ 11:53 AM

Dear Department of Ecology,

I am writing to provide input on the proposed updates to the Shoreline Management Act (Chapters 173-18, 173-20, 173-22, 173-26, and 173-27 WAC). I strongly support strengthening these rules to better protect Washington's ...↓shorelines, fish and wildlife habitat, and communities in the face of climate change.

First, I urge Ecology to help meet the requirements of HB1181, which calls for improved state response to climate change. The updated rules should include clear definitions and language to protect sea level rise hazard areas and groundwater inundation areas so that shoreline development does not put communities or ecosystems at greater risk.

It is also essential that assessments of cumulative impacts include both permitted and unpermitted uses. Ignoring unpermitted development results in incomplete analysis and undermines the intent of shoreline protections.

Despite longstanding mitigation policies, shoreline ecosystems continue to degrade. To address this, Ecology should:

Require robust monitoring and reporting to track progress toward "no net loss."

Hold local jurisdictions accountable for meeting these requirements.

When mitigation plans fail, require additional corrective strategies to ensure real results rather than allowing continued decline.

One of the most serious threats is unpermitted shoreline armoring, which reduces ecosystem functioning, blocks public access, and harms critical salmon and orca habitat. Ecology should establish statewide, comprehensive enforcement and compliance measures to prevent conflicts of interest at the local level. Strong tools should include punitive fines for unpermitted docks, bulkheads, and armoring; mandatory removal and remediation orders; and potential contractor license loss for repeated violations.

Finally, aquaculture operations must be managed for sustainability. Ecology should evaluate the cumulative effects of aquaculture within each jurisdiction, require periodic reporting on no net loss (NNL) measures, and ensure that aquaculture practices truly achieve NNL of ecological functions.

By taking these steps, the Department of Ecology can uphold the principles of the Shoreline Management Act, meet the state's climate goals, and ensure that future generations inherit healthy, resilient shorelines.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Kenneth Zirinsky
Tacoma, WA

No attachments

Comment From: Sydney Fishman

7/29/25 @ 3:59 PM

I am submitting this comment on behalf of myself and my colleagues on the Coastal Resilience Team at Washington Sea Grant. We appreciated the opportunity to request a meeting with Ecology staff to discuss coastal hazards and sea level rise planning i...↓

No attachments

Comment From: aida amirul

7/28/25 @ 10:56 AM

Dear Rebecca Rothwell, Misty Blair, and Charlotte Dohrn,

I write to you as a citizen concerned about the management of Washington State's shorelines. In the face of a changing climate that will bring sea level rise and an increase in storm severity,...↓ now it is as important as ever to ensure the protection of critical shoreline habitats that support species and humans alike. This rulemaking must incorporate strong, clear language directing local jurisdictions to plan for and manage their shorelines to ensure we are achieving no net loss of ecological function.

The preliminary draft language has many strong points which I see as pivotal to keep in the final language. Some groups may push back against this strong language, so I want to identify those areas and voice my strong support. Additionally, there are areas I would like to see more clarity and strength in the language.

- Sea level rise and increased storm severity: New language directs local governments and municipalities to define Sea Level Rise Hazard Areas, Future Tidal and Groundwater Inundation Areas, and Frequently Flooded Areas. This is a fundamental step in meeting the requirements of HB 1181 and I strongly support this directive in the new SMA language. However, local governments and municipalities would benefit from Ecology further defining these areas so there is less variability in how local jurisdictions interpret and more consistency in how these areas are managed across jurisdictional lines. Another area needing more definitions is how local jurisdictions define and engage with "affected Tribes". I appreciate the added language around communicating and engaging with affected Tribes and overburdened communities, but allowing local jurisdictions define what "affected Tribes" means leaves too much variance. Any actions that impact Treaty Protected Resources, including the provisioning of salmon, impact Tribes and therefore should be included in how "affected Tribes" is defined. Finally, the requirement for local jurisdictions to complete a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Risk Assessment is critically important for the protection of human infrastructure and the protection of shoreline habitats and mitigation of the coastal squeeze. This assessment should depict how the various shoreline hazard areas are designated and managed and is something I strongly support in the new language.

- Achieving no net loss of ecological function: No Net Loss of ecological function is foundational to the effective management of shoreline areas. Ecology's inclusion of language ensuring masters programs achieve no net loss of ecological function is a much-needed addition, particularly in elements of the periodic review which ensure any amendments to SMPs do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological function. The expansion, clarification, and additions of subsections to WAC 173-26-226 Protection of critical areas and shoreline ecological functions is key to more effectively directing local jurisdictions to achieve no net loss of ecological functions in their shoreline areas. These are important additions that I strongly support. However, while mitigation sequencing can work at the permit level at times, when rolled up to the city, county, and state level we are still seeing consistent trends of degrading ecological function as exhibited by a lack of healthy nearshore and shoreline habitat for salmon, forage fish, and other important species. At times throughout the proposed draft WAC language, Ecology uses language that alludes to achieving a gain of ecological function such as "...that ensure, at a minimum, no net loss of ecological functions...". This language should be included at each instance of achieving no net loss of ecological function.

- Effective enforcement and compliance: Strong and clear language in SMAs and subsequent SMPs is essential, but arguably more important is how these regulations and guidance are monitored for compliance and enforced when necessary. The addition of a new section outlining the process for a permit recission by either the local jurisdiction or the state and a new section stating that violators are financially liable for removal of the unpermitted activity and the cost of restoring the affected area are extremely important and I strongly support their inclusion in the final language. I suggest this order for removal and remediation also be applicable to unpermitted structures. It is also critically important to keep the citizen or civil suit provision in this section to allow individuals who have been harmed by the actions of violators to hold them accountable at the local and state level. Finally, I am in support of Ecology gathering information from local jurisdictions on exemptions and substantial development permits. Ecology should use this information to publish an annual report across the state to more readily track and enforce no net loss of ecological functions.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments during the informal comment period on the preliminary draft language of the Shoreline Management Act. With your help, we can ensure local jurisdictions are effectively protecting critical shoreline ecosystems to support healthy salmon and shellfish populations, human health, and the built infrastructure in the face of sea level rise and increased storm severity.

Thank you,
Aida

No attachments

Comment From: AH Mostofa Zaman

7/04/25 @ 4:35 PM

We post water right documents for notice or comment. WAC 173-26-221

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Phyllis Farrell

7/03/25 @ 12:25 PM

173-26-181 p. 64 protection requires NNL, Cumulative effects to include climate change impacts
173-26-191 p. 69 (iii) (A) Local Govt shall regulate existing uses to avoid harm to public safety or the environment
P.84 (iii) unpermitted uses and...↓

No attachments