FOR THE BIRDS

Although in the works for years, rules announced last year to protect shore birds, such as plovers and sandpipers, prompted a furor. That alone was not reason for the department to reconsider the rules, but if the same level of protection can be provided while putting less land off limits, more targeted regulation makes sense. That is what the DEP has done.

Under revised rules announced this week, setbacks will remain 250 feet for roosting areas, but will be reduced to 75 feet in feeding areas, where the birds can tolerate more disturbances. This reduces by two-thirds the amount of land where there can be no development . Last year’s rules would have required a 250-foot setback in all areas considered shorebird habitat. This would have covered more than 17 percent of Washington County’s shoreline, although the habitat is mostly in mud flats and on beaches, areas that are not sought out for development. Previously only a 75-foot setback was required.

In exchange for shrinking the setbacks, the DEP rules would restrict the cutting and removal of vegetation in these areas. Although some lawmakers and Realtors object to these restrictions, this seems like a reasonable trade-off.

A major criticism from lawmakers, landowners and real estate agents was that they were not aware of the pending change although it was the culmination of nearly 20 years of work and was approved by the Legislature twice since 2004. In 1988, the Legislature passed the Natural Resources Protection Act, which required landowners to obtain permits to build, dredge, drain or otherwise alter wetlands and protected natural resources.

In 1994, the act was amended to extend protection back 250 feet from shorelines. This provision was not enforced because bird habitat had not been mapped. The Legislature, in 2005, directed the DEP to develop rules to protect vernal pools, inland waterfowl, tidal and shorebird habitat. This rulemaking included public hearings and a public comment period, plus another public hearing before the Legislature. It was passed unanimously in the Senate and with only one dissenting vote in the House.

After the rules went into effect, a group, Property Rights Advocates of Maine, was formed and ads put in local newspapers encouraging coastal landowners to contact lawmakers to change the rules. Lawmakers will soon face nearly a dozen bills, including the DEP’s, on the issue.

Coastal property owners may have bigger concerns than birds. Coastal insurance rates are on the rise and some companies will no longer insure waterfront homes because of the increasing losses from hurricanes and other storms. State Farm has said it will not underwrite new policies on property within 2,500 feet of Maine’s coastline beginning in 2007, according to the Bureau of Insurance. In some other states, the company is canceling existing policies on such properties.

As lawmakers evaluate the proposals, they should seek to allow reasonable development while being as protective of habitat as possible.