Original Notice.

Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 95-22-068.

Title of Rule: Chapter 173-26 WAC, State master program approval/amendment procedures.

Purpose: To update and replace chapter 173-16 WAC, Shoreline Management Act guidelines for development of master programs; to implement regulatory reform measures integrating shorelines, growth management and related statutes; to create minimum requirements for local shoreline master programs which regulate shoreline development; to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat, including salmon, within shorelines of the state.

Statutory Authority for Adoption: RCW 90.58.060, 90.58.200.

Statute Being Implemented: Chapter 90.58 RCW, Shoreline Management Act of 1971.

Summary: The proposed rule creates updated requirements for regulation of uses and activities conducted in shoreline areas throughout the state, implementing the Shoreline Management Act. The rule also provides criteria for local government and the department in developing and amending local shoreline master program policies and regulations.

Reasons Supporting Proposal: The shoreline guidelines have never been comprehensively updated since originally adopted in 1972. The proposed changes recognize new advancements in science and shoreline management practice affecting human shoreline uses, activities and fish and wildlife habitat. The changes will eliminate burdensome and outdated regulations, clarify state interests in shorelines and incorporate more efficient and effective regulatory reform measures in the guidelines. The legislature, with passage of ESHB 1724 in 1995, required ecology to review and update the guidelines.

Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting, Implementation and Enforcement: Peter Skowlund, Lacey, Washington, (360) 407-6522.

Name of Proponent: Department of Ecology, governmental.

Rule is not necessitated by federal law, federal or state court decision.

Explanation of Rule, its Purpose, and Anticipated Effects: Update of the shoreline master program guidelines is required by the Shoreline Management Act. The guidelines are being updated to recognize changes in shoreline management law, science and practice. Update of the guidelines will require local governments to revise as necessary their local shoreline master programs to comply with new standards for public and private construction and location of structures and activities in shoreline areas, dredging, drilling, dumping, filling, removal of minerals, removal/restoration of vegetation, bulkheading and related shoreline stabilization devices, driving of pilings, placing of obstructions or any project which interferes with the normal public use of surface waters of the state. The guidelines apply to water areas, associated wetlands and adjacent uplands subject to the Shoreline Management Act.

Proposal Changes the Following Existing Rules: Amends chapter 173-26 WAC and repeals chapter 173-16 WAC in its entirety.

No small business economic impact statement has been prepared under chapter 19.85 RCW. RCW 19.85.025(3) provides, "This chapter does not apply to the adoption of a rule described in RCW 34.05.310(4)." One of the categories of rules referenced by the above is "Rules relating only to internal governmental operations that are not subject to violation by a nongovernment party."

In this case, the regulated community consists of local governments required to prepare and implement shoreline master programs by the Shoreline Management Act. It is clear that this process will affect private businesses and individuals, but the nature of those impacts will depend on the specific choices made by each jurisdiction as it complies with these guidelines. Further, that process will involve significant public involvement at the local level, during which these concerns can be raised and addressed.

RCW 34.05.328 applies to this rule adoption. These rules are significant under RCW 34.05.328 because they adopt new or make significant amendments to a policy or regulatory program. The department has conducted the additional analysis required under RCW 34.05.328.

Hearing Location: Ellensburg, on Wednesday, May 19, 1999, at the Hal Holmes Community Center, 201 North Ruby, open house 5:30 p.m., public hearing 7:00 p.m.

In Spokane, on Thursday, May 20, 1999, at the Public Health Center, West 1101 College, Room 140, open house 5:30 p.m., public hearing 7:00 p.m.

In Olympia/Lacey, on Tuesday, May 25, 1999, at the Ecology Headquarters Auditorium, 300 Desmond Drive, open house 6:00 p.m., public hearing 7:30 p.m.

In Seattle, on Wednesday, May 26, 1999, at the Mountaineers Building, 300 Third Avenue West, Tahoma Room 2, open house 5:30 p.m., public hearing 7:00 p.m.

Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact Tim Gates by May 12, 1999, TDD (360) 407-6006, or (360) 407-7256, P.O. Box 47600.

Submit Written Comments to: Amy Johnson, Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, e-mail ajoh461@ecy.wa.gov, fax (360) 407-6902, by June 21, 1999.

Date of Intended Adoption: August 4, 1999.

March 30, 1999

Daniel J. Silver

Deputy Director

OTS-2886.4

As used herein, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:

(1) "Adaptive management" means the modification of management practices and activities, including policies, regulations, physical improvements, and supporting programs to address changing conditions and new knowledge regarding the issues and objectives in question. A key provision of adaptive management is the willingness to change adaptively in response to new understanding or information. As applied to environmental protection, the concept of adaptive management seeks to reduce the risk of destruction of natural shoreline functions and values through an ongoing effort to correct trends adversely affecting the natural environment.

In terms of shoreline management practices, adaptive management involves the monitoring of shoreline conditions and the revision of regulatory and physical improvement measures to more fully achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020.

(2) "Adoption by rule" means an official action by the department to make a local government shoreline master program effective through rule consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, thereby incorporating the adopted shoreline master program or amendment into the state master program;

(((2))) (3) "Amendment" means a revision, update, addition, deletion, and/or reenactment to an existing shoreline master program;

(((3))) (4) "Approval" means an official action by a local government legislative body agreeing to submit a proposed shoreline master program or amendments to the department for review and official action pursuant to this chapter; or an official action by the department to make a local government shoreline master program effective, thereby incorporating the approved shoreline master program or amendment into the state master program;

(((4))) (5) "Bank full width" means the width of a river or stream channel at bank full stage. "Bank full stage" occurs when the water level reaches the level of the flood plain and corresponds to the river height at which channel formation and migration are most active. Bank full width is determined by a hydrologic analysis. Where such analysis has not been done, bank full width shall be measured at the top of the bank nearest the stream or river channel that can support mature tree growth.

(6) "Best available science" means scientific information or scientific methods that:

• Must be the product of a valid scientific process. A valid scientific process contains the following characteristics:

• Peer review;

• Clearly stated and replicable methodology;

• Logical conclusions and reasonable inferences;

• Statistical analysis;

• Context is established and appropriately framed; and

• References to credible and pertinent existing information.

• Must be based on some or all of the following valid scientific sources:

• Research used to test a specific hypothesis;

• Monitoring that collects data over time to determine trends or evaluate a management program;

• Inventories that collect data from entire populations or ecosystems or segments of populations or ecosystems;

• Surveys that collect data from a statistical sample of a population or ecosystem;

• Assessments of site-specific information by a qualified scientific expert;

• Syntheses or comprehensive review and presentation of pertinent literature and other relevant knowledge by a qualified scientific expert; or

• Expert opinion or statement of a qualified scientific discipline.

• A qualified scientific expert is determined by professional credentials and/or certification, advanced degrees earned in the pertinent discipline, years of experience in the pertinent scientific discipline, and authorship in peer-reviewed journals or other professional literature.

• Anecdotal information, nonexpert opinion and hearsay are not considered best available science.

Best available science is used to develop management recommendations by qualified scientific experts. The management recommendations are then applied to local decision making processes.

For the purposes of this chapter, best available science shall mean conformance to RCW 90.58.100(1) and 36.70A.172 in addition to the characteristics listed above.

(7) "Channel migration zone" means the area of a river corridor where the active channel is prone to lateral movement, usually evidenced by abandoned channels, recent sediment, topographic changes, and vegetation character. The channel migration zone generally consists of the area that a stream has occupied or could be expected to occupy within the time it would take the trees to reach their site potential tree height.

(8) "Department" means the state department of ecology;

(((5))) (9) "Developed shorelines" means those shoreline areas that are characterized by existing uses or permanent structures located within shoreline jurisdiction.

(10) "Development regulations" means the controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, all portions of a shoreline master program other than goals and policies approved or adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto;

(((6))) (11) "Document of record" means the most current shoreline master program officially approved or adopted by rule by the department for a given local government jurisdiction, including any changes resulting from appeals filed pursuant to RCW 90.58.190;

(((7))) (12) "Ecological functions," or "natural shoreline functions" means those natural physical and biological processes which contribute to the shoreline ecology, including, but not limited to:

• Geomorphic processes;

• Hydrographic response and flooding;

• Sediment transport and deposition;

• Erosion and bank stability;

• Biological production;

• Litter and woody debris production;

• Sediment removal and filtration;

• Microclimate and temperature regulation;

• Fish and wildlife habitat and refuge;

• Vegetation growth; and

• Littoral drift.

(13) "Ecologically altered shorelines" means those shorelines that have had their vegetation or shoreline configuration substantially changed in a manner that significantly modifies or reduces the natural shoreline functions.

(14) "Ecologically intact shorelines" means those shoreline areas that retain the majority of their natural shoreline functions and values, as evidenced by vegetation and shoreline configuration. Generally, but not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of structural shoreline modifications, structures, and intensive human activities. In unmanaged forested areas, they generally include native vegetation with a diversity of species, multiple canopy layers, and large woody debris available for recruitment.

Recognizing that there is a continuum of ecological conditions ranging from near natural conditions to totally degraded and contaminated sites, this definition is intended to delineate those shoreline areas that provide valuable functions for the larger shoreline ecosystem which would be lost by significant human development. Whether or not a shoreline is ecologically intact is determined on a case-by-case basis using best available science.

The term "ecologically intact shorelines" applies all shoreline areas meeting the criteria ranging from larger reaches may include several properties to small areas located within a single property. For example, in establishing boundaries for "natural" environment designations as called for in section WAC 173-26-090(6), the term "ecologically intact" may apply to continuous, multiparcel sections of shorelines. In applying shoreline stabilization standards to an individual property, the term may apply to a portion of the property.

(15) "Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, that an action meets all of the following conditions:

(a) It can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past or if studies or tests have demonstrated that such technologies are likely to achieve the intended results;

(b) It provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; and

(c) It does not preclude achieving the project's primary intended use.

In cases where these guidelines require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is placed upon the applicant.

In determining an action's infeasibility, the reviewing agency may weigh the action's relative public costs and public benefits, considered in the short and long term time frames.

(16) "Geotechnical report" or "geotechnical analysis" means a scientific study or evaluation conducted by a qualified expert that includes a description of the site hydrology and geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed development, alternative approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitigate potential site specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed development including the potential adverse impacts to adjacent and downstream material resource. Geotechnical reports shall conform to accepted technical standards and must be prepared by qualified engineers or geologists who are knowledgeable about the regional and local geology.

(17) "Guidelines" means those standards adopted by the department to implement the policy of chapter 90.58 RCW for regulation of use of the shorelines of the state prior to adoption of master programs.  Such standards shall also provide criteria for local governments and the department in developing and amending master programs;

(((8))) (18) "In-stream structure" means a dam or other structure for the impoundment, diversion, or use of water for hydroelectric generation and transmission, flood control, irrigation, water supply, recreational or fisheries enhancement.

(19) "Local government" means any county, incorporated city or town which contains within its boundaries shorelines of the state subject to chapter 90.58 RCW;

(((9))) (20) "Mitigation" or "mitigation sequencing" means the process of avoiding, reducing, or compensating for the environmental impact(s) of a proposal, including the following listed in the order of sequence priority. Measure (a) shall be applied first and subsequent measures applied only after higher priority measures are demonstrated to be not feasible or applicable.

(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;

(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;

(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;

(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action;

(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and

(f) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures.

(21) "Nonpoint pollution" means pollution not originating from a specific point such as a wastewater outfall.

(22) "Nonwater-oriented uses" means those uses that are not water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment.

(23) "Priority habitat" means a habitat type with unique or significant value to one or more species. An area classified and mapped as priority habitat must have one or more of the following attributes:

• Comparatively high fish and wildlife density;

• Comparatively high fish and wildlife species diversity;

• Important fish and wildlife breeding habitat;

• Important fish and wildlife seasonal ranges;

• Important fish and wildlife movement corridors;

• Limited availability;

• High vulnerability to habitat alteration; or

• Unique or dependent species.

A priority habitat may be described by a unique vegetation type or by a dominant plant species that is of primary importance to fish and wildlife (such as, oak woodlands, eelgrass meadows). A priority habitat may also be described by a successional stage (such as, old growth and mature forests). Alternatively, a priority habitat may consist of a specific habitat element (such as, consolidated marine/estuarine shorelines, talus slopes, caves, snags) of key value to fish and wildlife. A priority habitat may contain priority and/or nonpriority fish and wildlife.

(24) "Priority species" means fish and wildlife species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Priority species are those that meet any of the criteria listed below.

(a) Criterion 1. State-listed or state candidate species. State-listed species are those native fish and wildlife species legally designated as endangered (WAC 232-12-014), threatened (WAC 232-12-011), or sensitive (WAC 232-12-011). State candidate species are those fish and wildlife species that will be reviewed by the department of fish and wildlife (POL-M-6001) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive according to the process and criteria defined in WAC 232-12-297. Federal candidate species are evaluated individually to determine their status in Washington and whether inclusion as a priority species is justified.

(b) Criterion 2. Vulnerable aggregations. Vulnerable aggregations include those species or groups of animals susceptible to significant population declines, within a specific area or state-wide, by virtue of their inclination to congregate. Examples include heron rookeries, seabird concentrations, marine mammal haulouts, shellfish beds, and fish spawning and rearing areas.

(c) Criterion 3. Species of recreational, commercial, and/or tribal importance. Native and nonnative fish, shellfish, and wildlife species of recreational or commercial importance and recognized species used for tribal ceremonial and subsistence purposes that are vulnerable to habitat loss or degradation.

(d) Criterion 4. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act as either threatened or endangered.

(25) "Provisions" means policies, regulations, standards, guideline criteria or designations.

(26) "Rehabilitation" or "ecological rehabilitation" means the significant upgrading of ecological shoreline functions and values such as revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials.

(27) "Shoreline areas" and "shoreline jurisdiction" means all "shorelines of the state" and "shorelands" as defined in RCW 90.58.030.

(28) "Shoreline master program" or "master program" means the comprehensive use plan for a described area, and the use regulations together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals, and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020;

As provided in RCW 36.70A.480, the goals and policies of a shoreline master program for a county or city approved under chapter 90.58 RCW shall be considered an element of the county or city's comprehensive plan.  All other portions of the shoreline master program for a county or city adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW, including use regulations, shall be considered a part of the county or city's development regulations; and

(((10))) (29) "Shoreline modification activities" means those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike, breakwater, dredged basin, landfill, or bulkhead. They can include other actions, such as clearing, grading, or application of chemicals.

(30) "Shoreline property" means an individual property wholly or partially within shoreline jurisdiction.

(31) "Significant vegetation removal" means the removal of trees, shrubs, and/or ground cover by clearing, grading, cutting, chemical means, or other activity that threatens the viability of shoreline vegetation. The removal of invasive or noxious weeds does not constitute significant vegetation removal.

(32) "Site potential tree height" means the average height, at age one hundred years, of the tallest mature native conifer species that is capable of growing in the soils found at the site and for which height measurements are noted in the soil survey reports published by the natural resource conservation service and other sources. Each local natural resource conservation service field office maintains the surveys for its area.

West of the Cascade summit, the site potential tree height will be based on either Douglas fir or western hemlock. East of the summit, the species could be ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, western larch, Englemann spruce, subalpine fir, grand fir, or Douglas fir.

For sites that historically supported cottonwoods as the largest tree, the site potential tree height is the average height, at age seventy-five years, of a black cottonwood tree growing under those site conditions.

(33) "State master program" means the cumulative total of all shoreline master programs and amendments thereto approved or adopted by rule by the department.

(34) "Storm water" means surface water runoff collected and transported by a managed system.

(35) "Substantially degrade" means to cause damage or harm to an area's natural ecological functions. An action is considered to substantially degrade the environment if:

(a) The damaged ecological function or functions affect other related functions or the viability of the larger ecosystem; or

(b) The damage is not reversed or self-correcting through natural means within approximately two years; or

(c) There is the threat, as determined by best available science, that the degrading action could cause significant damage to shoreline ecological functions under foreseeable conditions; or

(d) There is the threat that the action could contribute to damaging ecological functions as part of cumulative impacts from similar permitted activities on nearby shorelines.

(36) "Surface water runoff" means water draining on the surface of the ground on its way to a shoreline.

(37) "Uplands" means those areas lying landward of the shoreline and outside shoreline jurisdiction.

(38) "Vegetation management corridor" means the area extending from a stream or river channel or the bank of a lake or marine shoreline to a distance at least one site potential tree height. On streams or rivers the corridor width is measured landward from the bank full width. On lakes and marine shorelines, the corridor is measured landward of the nearest bank that can support mature tree growth.

(39) "Water-dependent use" means a use or portion of a use which cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to the water but is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water-dependent uses may include ship cargo terminal loading areas, fishing, ferry and passenger terminals, barge loading facilities, ship building and dry docking, marinas, aquaculture, float plane facilities, hydroelectric dams, irrigation facilities, and sewer outfalls.

(40) "Water-enjoyment use" means a recreational use, or other use that facilitates public access to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the use and which through the location, design, and operation assures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use, the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Primary water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to:

• Parks with activities enhanced by proximity to the water;

• Piers and other improvements that facilitate public access to shorelines of the state;

• Restaurants with water views and public access improvements;

• Museums with an orientation to shoreline topics;

• Aquariums;

• Scientific/ecological reserves;

• Resorts with uses open to the public and public access to the shoreline; and any combination of those uses listed above.

(41) "Water-oriented use" means a use that is water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment, or a combination of such uses.

(42) "Water-related use" means a use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because:

(a) Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or

(b) The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent activities and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient.

Examples include manufacturers of ship parts large enough that transportation becomes a significant factor in the product's cost, professional services serving primarily water-dependent activities and storage of water-transported foods. Examples of water-related uses may include the warehousing of goods transported by water, seafood processing plants, hydroelectric generating plants, gravel storage when transported by barge, oil refineries where transport is by tanker, and log storage.

In addition, the definitions and concepts set forth in RCW 90.58.030, as amended, shall also apply as used herein.

[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200.  96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § 173-26-020, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.]

[]

Prior to submittal of a new or amended master program to the department, local government shall solicit public and agency comment during the drafting of proposed new or amended master programs.  The degree of public and agency involvement sought by local government should be gauged according to the level of complexity, anticipated controversy, and range of issues covered in the draft proposal.  Recognizing that the department must approve all master programs before they become effective, early and continuous consultation with the department is encouraged during the drafting of new or amended master programs.  For local governments planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, local citizen involvement strategies should be implemented that insure early and continuous public participation consistent with WAC 365-195-600.

At a minimum, local government shall:

(1) Conduct at least one public hearing to consider the draft proposal;

(2) Publish notice of the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the area in which the hearing is to be held.  The notice shall include:

(a) Reference to the authority(s) under which the action(s) is proposed;

(b) A statement or summary of the proposed changes to the master program;

(c) The date, time, and location of the hearing, and the manner in which interested persons may present their views; and

(d) Reference to the availability of the draft proposal for public inspection at the local government office or upon request;

(3) Consult with and solicit the comments of any persons, groups, federal, state, regional, or local agency, and tribes, having interests or responsibilities relating to the subject shorelines or any special expertise with respect to any environmental impact.  The consultation process should include adjacent local governments with jurisdiction over common shorelines of the state;

(4) Where amendments are proposed to a county or regional master program which has been adopted by cities or towns, the county shall coordinate with those jurisdictions and verify concurrence with or denial of the proposal.  For concurring jurisdictions, the amendments should be packaged and processed together.  The procedural requirements of this section may be consolidated for concurring jurisdictions;

(5)(a) Solicit comments on the draft proposal from the department prior to local approval((.)); or

(b) For local governments planning under the Growth Management Act, the local government shall:

(i) Solicit comments from the department on the draft proposal prior to commencing the sixty-day formal review period pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106; and

(ii) When submitted in accordance with the provisions of WAC 173-26-110, the notice of intent to adopt as provided for in RCW 36.70A.106 may, at the option of local government, constitute submittal of the proposal for formal review and final action by the department pursuant to WAC 173-26-110 and 173-26-120.

If a local government planning under the Growth Management Act chooses not to submit the proposal for formal review as provided above, the local government shall notify both the department and the department of community, trade, and economic development of its intent to adopt shoreline policies or regulations, at least sixty days prior to final local approval, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106;

(6) Comply with chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act; and

(7) Approve the proposal.

(8) For local governments not planning pursuant to the Growth Management Act or for local governments planning pursuant to the Growth Management Act and not choosing to submit pursuant to subsection (6)(b)(ii) of this section, the local government must approve the proposal.

[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200.  96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § 173-26-100, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.]

A master program or amendment proposed by local government shall be submitted to the department for its review and formal action.  A complete submittal shall include two copies of the following, where applicable:

(1) Documentation (i.e., signed resolution or ordinance):

(a) That the proposal has been approved by the local government; or

(b) For local governments planning pursuant to the Growth Management Act, a notice of intent to adopt pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 may be submitted provided that:

(i) Said notice is approved and issued by the governing body of the local government; and

(ii) The notice clearly indicates that the proposal is being submitted to the department for formal review and action by the department; and

(iii) The formal review process conducted by the department will include opportunity for public and agency review and comment as provided in WAC 173-26-120; and

(iv) No further action may be taken to modify or adopt the proposal until completion of the state review process; and

(v) Final action on the proposal must be in conformance with the decision of the department on the proposal;

(2) If the proposal includes text amending a master program document of record, it shall be submitted in a form that can replace or be easily incorporated within the existing document.  Amended text shall show strikeouts for deleted text and underlining for new text, clearly identifying the proposed changes.  At the discretion of the department, strikeouts and underlined text may not be required provided the new or deleted portions of the master program are clearly identifiable;

(3) Amended environment designation map(s), showing both existing and proposed designations, together with corresponding boundaries described in text for each change of environment.  Environment designation maps shall include a scale and north arrow and shall be of standard size using distinct reproducible noncolor patterns.   All proposals for changes in environment designation and redesignation shall provide written justification for such based on existing development patterns, the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the shoreline being considered, and the goals and aspirations of the local citizenry as reflected in the locally adopted comprehensive land use plan;

(4) A summary of proposed amendments together with explanatory text indicating the scope and intent of the proposal, staff reports, records of the hearing, and/or other materials which document the necessity for the proposed changes to the master program;

(5) Evidence of compliance with chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act, specific to the proposal;

(6) Copies of all public, agency and tribal comments received, including a record of names and addresses of interested parties involved in the local government review process or, where no comments have been received, a comment to that effect.

[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200.  96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § 173-26-110, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.]

Review and approval of master programs and amendments by the department shall follow the procedures set forth below:

FORMAL REVIEW:

(1) The department shall review the submitted master program or amendment for compliance with WAC 173-26-100 and 173-26-110.  The department shall notify the local government in writing when it determines that a complete submittal has been received.  If the submittal is determined to be incomplete, the department will identify the deficiencies and so notify the local government in writing.  The review process will not commence until the department determines the submittal is complete.

(2) The department shall provide reasonable notice and opportunity for written comment to all parties of record who expressed interest regarding the local government proposal and to all persons, groups, agencies, and tribes that have requested in writing notice of proposed master programs or amendments generally or for a specific subject matter.  The comment period shall be at least thirty days, unless the department determines that a lack of complexity or controversy surrounding the proposal supports a shorter period.

(3) For master program or amendment proposals involving local governments planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, the department shall provide notice to the department of community, trade, and economic development of its intent to commence formal review of the local government proposal.

(4) At the department's discretion, it may conduct a public hearing during the comment period in the jurisdiction proposing the master program or amendment.

(5) If the department conducts a hearing pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, it shall publish notice of the hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the master program.  The public notice shall include:

(a) A description of the proposed master program or amendment;

(b) Reference to the authority under which the action is proposed;

(c) The dates, times, and locations of the public hearing, and the manner in which interested persons may obtain copies of the proposal and present their views.

For master program or amendment proposals involving adoption by rule, the notice of the hearing shall be published at least once in each of the three weeks immediately preceding the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the county in which the hearing is to be held.

(6) Within fifteen days after the close of the department's public comment period, the department shall request of the local government submitting the proposal a review of the issues if any, identified by the public, interested parties, groups, agencies, and tribes, and a written response as to how the proposal addresses the identified issues consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines.  Local government shall submit its response to the department within forty-five days of the date of the department's letter requesting a response.  If no response is received by the department within the forty-five-day period, the department may proceed with action on the proposal according to subsection (7) of this section.  Within the forty-five-day period, the local government may request in writing additional time to prepare a response.

APPROVAL:

(7) Within thirty days after receipt of the local government written response pursuant to subsection (6) of this section, the department shall make written findings and conclusions regarding the consistency of the proposal with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, provide a response to the issues identified in subsection (6) of this section and either approve the proposal as submitted, recommend specific changes necessary to make the proposal consistent with chapter 90.58 RCW policy and its applicable guidelines, or deny the proposal in those instances where no alteration of the proposal appears likely to be consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines.  The written findings and conclusions shall be provided to the local government, all interested parties, tribes, and agencies of record on the proposal.

In reaching its determination of consistency with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, the department shall approve those parts of a master program relating to shorelines unless it determines that the submitted parts are not consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines.  The department shall approve those parts of a master program relating to shorelines of state-wide significance only after determining the program provides for optimum implementation of the state-wide interest as set forth in the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines.

(a) In cases where the proposal has been approved by the local government prior to submittal and subsequently:

(i) Is approved by the department as submitted, the effective date of the approved master program or amendment shall be the date of the department's letter to local government approving the submitted master program or amendments.

(((b) If)) (ii) The department recommends changes to the proposal, within thirty days after the department mails the written findings and conclusions to the local government pursuant to this subsection (7), the local government may:

(((i))) (A) Agree to the proposed changes.  Receipt by the department of the written notice of agreement from the local government shall constitute final action by the department approving the revised submittal.  Written notice of the local government acceptance shall be provided by the department to all parties of record.  In such cases, the effective date of the approved master program or amendment is the date the department receives from local government the written notice of agreement; or

(((ii))) (B) Submit an alternative proposal.  If, in the opinion of the department, the alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes originally proposed by the department in this subsection (7) and with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, it shall approve the alternative changes and provide written notice to all parties of record.  In such cases, the effective date of the approved master program or amendments is the date of the department's letter to local government approving the alternative proposal.

If the department determines the alternative proposal is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes proposed by the department, the department may either deny the alternative proposal or at the request of local government start anew with the review and approval process beginning at WAC 173-26-120.

(b) In cases where the proposal has been submitted prior to final approval by the local government, the department's transmittal of written findings, conclusions and decision shall authorize the local government to take action on the proposal in conformance with the decision of the department.

If the department recommends changes to the proposal, the local government may either accept those changes or submit an alternative proposal.

(i) In those cases where the department accepts the proposal as submitted or where changes are recommended by the department and accepted by the local government, final action may be taken on the proposal by local government and the department shall be notified of the action in writing. The department shall acknowledge receipt of the notice of action in writing which shall constitute final action in approving the proposal. The effective date of the master program or amendment shall be the date of the letter of acknowledgement by the department.

(ii) In those cases where the department recommends changes to the proposal and the local government submits an alternative proposal;

(A) If, in the opinion of the department, the alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes originally proposed by the department in this subsection (7) and with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, it shall approve the alternative changes and provide written notice to all parties of record and the local government. Final action may be taken on the proposal by local government and the department shall be notified of the action in writing. The department shall acknowledge in writing receipt of the notice of action which shall constitute final action in approving the proposal. The effective date of the master program or amendment shall be the date of the letter of acknowledgement by the department.

(B) If the department determines the alternative proposal is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes proposed by the department, the department may either deny the alternative proposal or at the request of local government start anew with the review and approval process beginning at WAC 173-26-120.

(8) A master program or amendment thereto takes effect when and in such form as it is approved or adopted by rule by the department except when appealed to the shorelines board as provided for in RCW 90.58.190(4) for local governments not planning under chapter 36.70A RCW.  The department's approved document of record, filed at the department, constitutes the official master program.

(9) For local governments planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, after final action by the department on a local government's shoreline master program or amendment the local government shall (pursuant to RCW 90.58.090) promptly publish a notice that the department has taken final action on the master program or amendment.  For purposes of this section, the date of publication for the master program adoption or amendment shall be the date on which the local government publishes the notice that the department has taken final action on the master program or amendment.

[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200.  96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § 173-26-120, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.]

SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM GUIDELINES
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-26-170
Purpose of Part III.

WAC 173-26-170 through 173-26-250 are adopted pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, to serve as standards for implementation of the policy of chapter 90.58 RCW for regulation of uses of the shorelines; and provide criteria to local governments and the department of ecology in developing and amending master programs. The purposes of Part III are to: (Text in quotations is excerpted from RCW 90.58.020.)

(1) "Protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life. . . ."

(a) Provide measures for the restoration, preservation, and protection of the state shorelines, which are "among the state's most valuable and fragile of its natural resources."

(b) Design and conduct permitted uses and activities "in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area. . . ."

(c) Prepare standards governing the protection of single-family residences and appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion, giving preference to measures to protect single-family residences occupied before January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment. (See RCW 90.58.100(6).)

(2) Protect the public's right to use and access the surface waters of the state.

(a) "Insure the development of shorelines of the state in a manner which, while allowing limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest."

(b) "Protect generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto."

(c) Preserve "the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally."

(d) Regulate the design, construction, and operation of "permitted uses in the shorelines of the state to minimize, insofar as practical, any interference with the public's use of the water."

(3) Foster reasonable and appropriate uses that are in the public's best interest.

(a) Give preference to uses "which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline." Alterations to the natural conditions of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances where authorized, shall be given priority for:

• "Single-family residences and their appurtenant structures;

• Ports; shoreline recreational uses, including, but not limited to, parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to the shorelines of the state;

• Industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state; and

• Other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state."

(b) Conduct the "coordinated planning necessary to protect the public's interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest." Ensure equal treatment and fairness to all parties with respect to the use of shoreline resources.

(c) Undertake a "planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines."

(d) "Appropriately classify the shorelines and shorelands of the state and revise these classifications when circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in the circumstances occurs through man-made causes or natural causes."

(e) Reflect that state-owned shorelines of the state are particularly adapted to providing wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational activities for the public and give appropriate special consideration to same. (See RCW 90.58.100(4).)

RCW 90.58.050 gives local governments the responsibility of "initiating the planning required by this chapter and administering the regulatory program consistent with the policy and provisions of this chapter." Recognizing that local governments largely bear the costs associated with shoreline management, the policies in this chapter are limited to those necessary to meet the objectives of the act. Nothing in this chapter is intended to reduce the opportunity for local governments to pursue local shoreline management objectives, provided they are consistent with the policies of the act and this chapter.

In 1995, the Washington state legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724, an act relating to implementing the recommendations of the governor's task force on regulatory reform on integrating growth management planning and environmental review. The bill amended, among other statutes, the Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW; the Shoreline Management Act, chapter 90.58 RCW; and the State Environmental Policy Act, chapter 43.21C RCW. Section 304 of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724 amended RCW 90.58.060(1) to read:

(1) The department shall periodically review and adopt guidelines consistent with RCW 90.58.020, containing the elements specified in RCW 90.58.100 for:

(a) Development of master programs for regulation of the uses of shorelines; and

(b) Development of master programs for regulation of the uses of shorelines of state-wide significance.

These guidelines implement the directive to integrate referenced statutes. Specifically, the guidelines are directed toward more efficient planning, permitting, and environmental review and more effective resource management.

[]

WAC 173-26-170 through 173-26-250 apply to actions taken in the preparation, amendment, and review of local shoreline master programs pursuant to RCW 90.58.060(1). The master programs prepared or amended pursuant to this chapter, when adopted or approved by the department, shall constitute use regulations for the shorelines of the state. WAC 173-26-260 implements the Ocean Resources Management Act (ORMA), chapter 43.143 RCW. WAC 173-26-260 applies to uses conducted in Washington's coastal waters as referenced in WAC 173-26-260(2).

[]

(1) Master program concepts. The following four concepts are the basis for effective management of Washington's shorelines.

(a) The shoreline master programs are both planning and regulatory tools. RCW 90.58.020 establishes the need for both planning and regulatory action.

The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor [sic], a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines.

The act expresses this dual function in RCW 90.58.030 (3)(b):

"Master program" means the comprehensive use plan for a described area and the use regulations, together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals, and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020.

Master programs serve a planning function in several ways. First, they balance and integrate the objectives and interests of local citizens insofar as they are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. Therefore, the preparation and amending of master programs shall involve active public participation, as called for in WAC 173-26-200(3). Second, they address the full variety of conditions on the shoreline. Third, they consider and, where necessary to achieve the objectives of chapter 90.58 RCW, influence upland planning and regulatory measures. For jurisdictions planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, the Growth Management Act, the requirements for integration of upland and shoreline planning are more specific and are described in subsection (2)(a) of this section. Fourth, master programs address conditions and opportunities of specific shoreline segments identified during shoreline planning efforts by classifying the shorelines into "environment designations" as described in (d) of this subsection.

The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline. Some development requires a shoreline permit prior to construction. Local governments evaluate the permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and issue a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them. The regulations apply to all uses and activities within shoreline jurisdiction, whether or not a shoreline permit is required and are implemented through other permitting and regulation activities of the local government. See RCW 90.58.140.

(b) Master program elements. RCW 90.58.100(2) states that the master programs shall, when appropriate, include the following elements:

(i) An economic development element for the location and design of industries, transportation facilities, port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce, and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of shorelines of the state.

(ii) A public access element for making provision for public access to publicly owned areas.

(iii) A recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities, including, but not limited to, parks, tidelands, beaches, and recreational areas.

(iv) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the shoreline use element.

(v) A use element which considers the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, industry, transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land.

(vi) A conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including, but not limited to, scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protections.

(vii) An historic, cultural, scientific, and educational element for the protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values.

(viii) An element that gives consideration to the state-wide interest in the prevention and minimization of flood damages.

(ix) Any other element deemed appropriate or necessary to effectuate the policy of this chapter.

The Growth Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW) also uses the word "element" for discrete sections or chapters of a comprehensive plan. To avoid confusion, "master program element" refers to the definition in the Shoreline Management Act.

Master programs are not required to address master program elements listed in the Shoreline Management Act as discrete sections. Master programs may treat the master program elements as topics addressed throughout master program provisions rather than as a means to organize the master program.

(c) Shorelines of state-wide significance. The Shoreline Management Act identifies certain shorelines as "shorelines of state-wide significance" and raises their status in two ways. First, the Shoreline Management Act sets specific priorities for uses of shorelines of state-wide significance. RCW 90.58.020 states:

The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of state-wide significance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of state-wide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of state-wide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:

(1) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest;

(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;

(3) Result in long term over short term benefit;

(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;

(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;

(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;

(7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary.

Second, the Shoreline Management Act calls for a higher level of effort in implementing its objectives on shorelines of state-wide significance. RCW 90.58.090(4) states:

The department shall approve those segments of the master program relating to shorelines of state-wide significance only after determining the program provides optimum implementation of the policy of this chapter to satisfy the state-wide interest.

WAC 173-26-100 describes methods to provide for the priorities listed in RCW 90.58.020 and to achieve "optimum implementation" as called for in RCW 90.58.090(4).

(d) Shoreline environment designations. Shoreline management must address a wide range of physical conditions and development settings along shoreline areas. Effective shoreline management requires that the shoreline master program prescribe different environment protection measures, allowable use provisions, and development standards for each of these shoreline segments. Therefore, a system is needed for applying policies and use regulations within distinctively different shoreline areas.

The method for local government to account for different shoreline conditions is to assign an environment designation to each distinct shoreline section in its jurisdiction. The environment designation assignments provide the framework for implementing shoreline policies and regulatory measures specific to the environment designation. WAC 173-26-210 presents guidelines for environment designations in greater detail.

Place illustration here.

(2) Basic requirements. Part III of this chapter describes the basic components and content required in a master program. The terms "shall," "must," and "are required" and the imperative voice mean a mandate; the action must be done. The term "should" means that the particular action is required unless there is a compelling reason with respect to the policies of the Shoreline Management Act against doing it. Part III also contains suggestions for fulfilling the requirements which local governments may or may not choose to follow. The term "may" indicates that the action is acceptable, provided it satisfies all other provisions in this chapter. A master program as submitted to the department for approval shall be sufficient and complete to implement the Shoreline Management Act and the provisions of this chapter. A master program shall contain all of the policies and regulations necessary for the department and other reviewers to evaluate shoreline permits for conformance to the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter.

(a) Consistency with comprehensive planning and other development regulations. Shoreline management is most effective when accomplished within the context of comprehensive planning. For cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW requires mutual and internal consistency between the comprehensive plan elements and implementing development regulations (including master programs). The requirement for consistency is amplified in WAC 365-195-500:

Each comprehensive plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. This means that each part of the plan should be integrated with all other parts and that all should be capable of implementation together. Internal consistency involves at least two aspects:

(1) Ability of physical aspects of the plan to coexist on the available land.

(2) Ability of the plan to provide that adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur (concurrency).

Each plan should provide mechanisms for ongoing review of its implementation and adjustment of its terms whenever internal conflicts become apparent.

The Growth Management Act also calls for coordination between local jurisdictions. RCW 36.70A.100 states:

. . . The comprehensive plan of each county or city that is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 shall be coordinated with, and consistent with, the comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.00 of other counties or cities with which the county or city has, in part, common borders or related regional issues.

This statutory provision complements watershed-wide or regional planning described in WAC 173-26-200.

Furthermore, legislative findings provided in Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724, section 1, chapter 347, Laws of 1995 states:

The legislature recognizes by this act that the Growth Management Act is a fundamental building block of regulatory reform. The state and local governments have invested considerable resources in an act that should serve as the integrating framework for all other land-use related laws. The Growth Management Act provides the means to effectively combine certainty for development decisions, reasonable environmental protection, long-range planning for cost-effective infrastructure, and orderly growth and development.

Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724 also added RCW 36.70A.480(1) to the Growth Management Act, which states:

For shorelines of the state, the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 are added as one of the goals of this chapter as set forth in RCW 36.70A.020. The goals and policies of a shoreline master program for a county or city approved under chapter 90.58 RCW shall be considered an element of the county or city's comprehensive plan. All other portions of the shoreline master program for a county or city adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW, including use regulations, shall be considered a part of the county or city's development regulations.

Furthermore, RCW 36.70A.481 states:

Nothing in RCW 36.70A.480 shall be construed to authorize a county or city to adopt regulations applicable to shorelands as defined in RCW 90.58.030 that are inconsistent with the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW.

The Shoreline Management Act addresses the issue of consistency in RCW 90.58.340, which states:

All state agencies, counties and public and municipal corporations shall review administrative and management policies, regulations, plans and ordinances relative to lands under their respective jurisdictions adjacent to the shorelines of the state so as to achieve a use policy on said land that is consistent with the policy of this chapter, the guidelines, and the master programs for the shorelines of the state.

Pursuant to the statutes cited above, the intent of these guidelines is to assist local governments in preparing and amending master programs that fit within the framework of applicable comprehensive plans and facilitate consistent, efficient environmental review as well as effective implementation of the Shoreline Management Act.

Place illustration here.

Several sections in these guidelines include methods to achieve the consistency required by both the Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act.

• First, (b) and (d) of this subsection describe optional methods to integrate master programs and other development regulations and the local comprehensive plan.

• Second, WAC 173-26-220 through 173-26-260 translate the broad objectives in the Shoreline Management Act into more specific policies. They also provide a more defined policy basis on which to frame local shoreline master program provisions and to evaluate the consistency of applicable sections of a local comprehensive plan with the Shoreline Management Act.

• Third, this chapter incorporates the concepts of best available science and ecological functions congruent with both the Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act to achieve greater consistency in critical area regulations and environmental protection in the framework of comprehensive planning.

• Finally, WAC 173-26-210(3) presents specific methods for testing consistency between shoreline environment designations and comprehensive plan land use designations.

(b) Including other documents in a master program by reference. Shoreline master program provisions sometimes address similar issues as other comprehensive plan elements and development regulations such as the zoning code and critical area ordinance. For the purposes of completeness and consistency, local governments may include other locally adopted policies and regulations within their master programs. For example, a local government may include specific portions of its critical area ordinance in the master program, provided the critical area ordinance is consistent with this chapter. This can further reduce duplication by allowing other regulations to satisfy Shoreline Management Act requirements and ensure that local master programs are consistent with other regulations. However, if the critical area ordinance is amended, the corresponding master program provisions will not be altered except through a master program amendment.

Shoreline master programs may include other regulations by referencing a specific, dated edition. In the adoption process the department of ecology will review the referenced development regulation sections for approval as part of the master program. A copy of the referenced regulations shall be submitted to the department with the proposed master program or amendment. If the development regulation is amended, the edition referenced within the master program will still be the operative regulation in the master program. Changing the referenced regulations in the master program to the new edition requires approval of a master program amendment.

Place illustration here.

(c) Incorporating master program provisions into other plans and regulations. Local governments may integrate master program, policies, and regulations into their comprehensive plan policies and implementing development regulations. Master program provisions that are integrated into such plans and development regulations shall be clearly identified so that the department of ecology can review these provisions for approval and evaluate development proposals for compliance. RCW 90.58.120 requires that all adopted regulations, designations, and master programs be available for public inspection at the department of ecology or the appropriate county or city. Local governments shall identify all documents which contain master program provisions and which provisions constitute part of the master program. Clear identification of master program provisions is also necessary so that interested persons and entities may be involved in master program preparation and amendment, as called for in RCW 90.58.130.

Local governments integrating all or portions of their master program provisions into other plans and regulations shall submit a listing to the department of ecology and copies of all provisions that constitute the master program. The master program shall also be sufficiently complete and defined to provide:

• Clear directions to applicants applying for shoreline permits; and

• Clear evaluation criteria and standards to the local governments, the department, other agencies, and the public for reviewing permit applications with respect to state and local shoreline management provisions.

(d) Multijurisdictional master program. Two or more adjacent local governments are encouraged to jointly prepare master programs. Jointly proposed master programs may offer opportunities to effectively manage natural resources that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Local governments jointly preparing master programs shall provide the opportunity for public participation locally in each jurisdiction, as called for in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(b) and submit to the department the multijurisdictional master program for approval.

Place illustration here.

(e) Master program contents. Master programs shall include the following contents described in (e)(i) through (iii) of this subsection.

(i) Master program policies. Master programs shall provide clear, consistent policies that translate broad state-wide objectives of this chapter into local directives. Policies are statements of intent directing or authorizing a course of action or specifying criteria on which to make a public decision. They provide a comprehensive basis for the shoreline master program regulations, which generally are more specific, and prescriptive standards used to evaluate shoreline development.

Shoreline policies shall be developed through a comprehensive shoreline planning process allowing for public and affected Indian tribes participation. For governments planning under the Growth Management Act, the policies shall also be consistent with the planning goals of RCW 36.70A.020 and master program policies are considered a shoreline element of the local comprehensive plan.

At a minimum, shoreline master program policies shall:

(A) Be consistent with state shoreline management policies listed in this chapter and the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act.

(B) Address the master program elements of RCW 90.58.020.

(C) Include policies for environment designations as described in WAC 173-26-060. The policies shall be accompanied by a map or physical description of the schematic environment designation boundaries in sufficient detail to compare with comprehensive plan land use designations. Environment designations include "high-intensity," "shoreline residential," "urban conservancy," "rural conservancy," "natural," and "aquatic." However, local governments may establish their own sub-classifications or retain current designations, provided they are consistent with this chapter.

(ii) Master program regulations. RCW 90.58.100 states:

The master programs provided for in this chapter, when adopted or approved by the department, shall constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of the state.

In order to implement the directives of the Shoreline Management Act, master program regulations shall:

(A) Be in sufficient scope and detail to ensure the implementation of the Shoreline Management Act, state-wide shoreline management policies of this chapter, and local master program policies;

(B) Include environment designation regulations sufficient to describe: Allowed uses, prohibited uses, conditional uses, and development standards, such as: Shoreline setbacks, vegetation management requirements, development intensity, and shoreline modification provisions, necessary to: Protect the public trust, provide for preferred uses, and protect the environment within shoreline areas.

(C) Include general regulations applicable to all environment designations, use regulations that address issues of concern to specific uses, and shoreline modification activity regulations that protect the shoreline ecology from the effects of human-made modifications to the shoreline.

Local governments are encouraged to prepare master program provisions that distinguish between shoreline modification activities and shoreline uses. Shoreline modification activities are generally related to construction of a physical element such as a dike, breakwater, dredged basins, or landfill, but they can include other actions such as clearing, grading, or application of chemicals. Shoreline modification activities usually are undertaken in support of or in preparation for a shoreline use; for example, landfill (shoreline modification activity) required for a cargo terminal (industrial use) or dredging (shoreline modification activity) to allow for a marina (boating facility use).

(iii) Administrative provisions.

(A) Statement of applicability. The Shoreline Management Act's provisions apply to all development and use activities within its jurisdiction, whether or not those activities require a shoreline permit. Many activities that may not require a permit, such as clearing vegetation, fertilizing crops, and residential bulkhead construction, can cause serious damage to adjacent properties and lands held in public trust by the state. Furthermore, there has been, historically, some public confusion regarding the Shoreline Management Act's applicability. Therefore, all master programs shall include the following statement:

"All uses, development, and activities occurring within shoreline jurisdiction must conform to chapter 90.58 RCW: The Shoreline Management Act, chapter 173-26 of the Washington Administrative Code, and this master program."

(B) Conditional use and variance provisions. RCW 90.58.100(5) states:

Each master program shall contain provisions to allow for the varying of the application of use regulations of the program, including provisions for permits for conditional uses and variances, to insure that strict implementation of a program will not create unnecessary hardships or thwart the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. Any such varying shall be allowed only if extraordinary circumstances are shown and the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. The concept of this subsection shall be incorporated in the rules adopted by the department relating to the establishment of a permit system as provided in RCW 90.58.140(3).

All master programs shall include standards for reviewing conditional use permits and variances which conform to chapter 173-27 WAC. Conditional use provisions shall conform to guidelines in WAC 173-26-080 (2)(f).

(C) Administrative permit review and enforcement procedures. RCW 90.58.140(3) states:

The local government shall establish a program, consistent with rules adopted by the department, for the administration and enforcement of the permit system provided in this section. The administration of the system so established shall be performed exclusively by the local government.

Except for items noted in (e)(i) and (ii) of this subsection, which must be included in the master program, local governments may, but are not required to, include administrative, enforcement, and permit review procedures into the master program. These procedures shall conform to the Shoreline Management Act, specifically RCW 90.58.140, and to chapter 173-25 WAC. However, the procedures may be defined by a local government ordinance separate from the master program.

Adopting review and enforcement procedures separate from the master program allows local governments greater flexibility in revising their shoreline permit review procedures and integrating them with other permit processing activities.

(3) Monitoring and documentation. For the purposes of monitoring shoreline development and assessing the cumulative impacts, trends and effectiveness of shoreline management practices, local governments shall retain application documentation of all permits and project review actions issued for development within shoreline jurisdiction, including building permits, land subdivision permits, permits for septic systems and sewage facilities, SEPA documentation, and letters of exemption. These materials shall be accessible to state agencies and the public for monitoring shoreline conditions. WAC 173-26-200 (3)(i) describes procedural requirements for monitoring.

(4) Consistency and compliance with other laws. There are many other state and federal laws and treaty rights addressing issues related to shoreline management and activities within shoreline jurisdictions. The intent and provisions of these laws should be incorporated into local master programs, where appropriate, in order to achieve a more integrated regulatory system. Likewise, the Shoreline Management Act applies, within shoreline jurisdiction, to activities specific to these other laws.

RCW 90.58.260 states:

The state, through the department of ecology and the attorney general, shall represent its interest before water resource regulation management, development, and use agencies of the United States, including among others, the federal power commission, environmental protection agency, corps of engineers, department of the interior, department of agriculture and the atomic energy commission, before interstate agencies and the courts with regard to activities or uses of shorelines of the state and the program of this chapter. Where federal or interstate agency plans, activities, or procedures conflict with state policies, all reasonable steps available shall be taken by the state to preserve the integrity of its policies.

Where there is a perceived conflict or inconsistency between the Shoreline Management Act or this chapter and other state or federal laws or their implementation guidelines, contact the department of ecology. Contact affected Indian tribes if treaty rights issues are identified.

[]

(1) Applicability. This section outlines a comprehensive process to prepare or amend a shoreline master program. Local governments shall incorporate the steps indicated if one or more of the following criteria apply:

(a) The master program amendments being considered represent a significant modification to shoreline management practices within the local jurisdiction; they modify more than one environment designation boundary, significantly add, change or delete or use regulations, or change where specific uses are allowed;

(b) Physical shoreline conditions have changed significantly, such as substantial changes in shoreline use or priority habitat integrity, since the last comprehensive master program amendment;

(c) The master program amendments being considered contain provisions that will affect a substantial portion of the local government's shoreline areas;

(d) There are substantive issues such as priority species recovery or water resource management that must be addressed on a comprehensive basis;

(e) The current master program and the comprehensive plan are not mutually consistent; or

(f) There was no previous comprehensive master program amendment since the original adoption.

If a local jurisdiction has undertaken a recent comprehensive update of the master program but seeks to make minor revisions to bring the master program into compliance with these guidelines or other state requirements, these modifications may be made without undertaking a comprehensive process, provided the issues can be addressed by revising individual provisions that do not affect other aspects of the master program.

(2) Basic concepts, definitions, and principles.

(a) Use of scientific and technical information. RCW 90.58.100(1) states:

In preparing the master programs and any amendments thereto, the department and local governments shall, to the extent feasible:

(a) Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach that will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social science and the environmental design arts;

(b) Consult with and obtain the comments of any federal, state, regional, or local agency having any special expertise with respect to any environmental impact;

(c) Consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state;

(d) Conduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary;

(e) Utilize all available information regarding hydrology, geography, topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data;

(f) Employ, when feasible, all appropriate modern scientific data processing and computer techniques to store, index, analyze, and manage the information gathered.

This requirement is consistent with RCW 36.70A.172(1) of the Growth Management Act, which states:

(1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.

In order to better integrate Shoreline Management Act and Growth Management Act activities, where so noted, the requirement for best available science refers to both the provisions of RCW 90.58.100(1) noted above, the definition in WAC 173-26-020 and the provisions of Washington Administrative Code implementing RCW 36.70A.172.

To address the requirements for the use of best available science, local governments shall incorporate the following three steps into their master program development and amendment process.

(i) Identify and assemble information that represents best available science applicable to the issue of concern. At a minimum, local governments should make use of, and where applicable, incorporate scientific information, aerial photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and services from reliable sources of science. Local governments should also contact relevant state agencies, universities, and affected Indian tribes for available information. If local governments initiate scientific research as a basis for master program provisions, that research shall adhere to best available science principles. Local governments are encouraged to work interactively with state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes to address technical issues beyond the scope of existing information resources or locally initiated research.

(ii) Prepare management recommendations that are based on best available science. Where ecological systems extend beyond the local jurisdiction, management recommendations should be consistent with state-wide and regional management efforts such as watershed planning.

(iii) Base master program provisions on the science based management recommendations. Local governments should be prepared to identify the following:

• Scientific information and management recommendations on which the master program provisions are based;

• Assumptions and information gaps in the scientific analysis;

• Risks to ecological functions associated with master program provisions and methods to monitor conditions and adapt management practices over time.

(b) Adaptive management. Adaptive management involves the monitoring of shoreline conditions and the revision of regulatory and physical improvement measures to more fully achieve the objectives in RCW 90.58.020. Because there are unavoidable gaps in scientific knowledge, adaptive management is necessary to monitor and correct deficient management practices.

A necessary first step in effective adaptive management is securing shoreline inventory information as a base line sufficient to document changing conditions over time. Monitoring activities shall be sufficiently detailed and timed to identify changes in conditions in time to effectively modify practices. Some adaptive management activities may be local, such as the monitoring of water quality or sediment transport on a particular shoreline. Other issues will be more effectively addressed through watershed, regional or state-wide activities.

The concept of adaptive management may also be applied to shoreline use objectives. For example, monitoring the changes in harbor uses from water-dependent activities to nonwater-dependent activities can alert the local government to the need to revise shoreline use policies.

(c) Ecological functions. The concept of ecological functions, as defined in WAC 173-26-020, recognizes that successful management of the shoreline environment in both undeveloped and developed areas depends on sustaining the interaction between the various functions and that the loss of one or more function can limit the viability of the shoreline ecology in general. Therefore, shoreline master programs shall address the full range of riparian, marine, estuarine, wetland, and upland ecological functions, including, but not limited to, those identified in WAC 173-26-020.

Nearly all shoreline areas, even substantially developed or degraded areas, retain some important ecological functions. For example, an intensely developed harbor area may also serve as a fish migration corridor and feeding area critical to species survival. Also, ecological systems found within shoreline jurisdictions are themselves interconnected. For example, the life cycle of anadromous fish depends upon the viability of freshwater marine and terrestrial shoreline ecosystems, and many wildlife species associated with the shoreline depend on the health of both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Therefore, the objectives for maintenance and enhancement of ecological functions generally apply to all shoreline areas not just those that remain relatively unaltered.

(d) Preferred uses. RCW 90.58.020 states:

In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including, but not limited to, parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be recognized by the department. Shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man-made causes or natural causes.

Consistent with this policy, these guidelines use the terms "water-dependent," "water-related," and "water-enjoyment," as defined in WAC 173-26-030, when discussing appropriate uses for various shoreline areas.

Shoreline areas, being a limited ecological and economic resource, are the setting for competing uses and ecological preservation and rehabilitation activities. Consistent with RCW 90.58.020, local governments shall apply the following priorities, starting with (i) as the top priority, when determining allowable uses and resolving use conflicts on shorelines within their jurisdiction.

(i) Protect the integrity of existing ecological functions. Improve ecological functions over time on a comprehensive basis (for example, within a watershed or littoral drift cell).

(ii) Reserve shoreline areas for water-dependent uses and establish policies and regulations so that water-dependent development is consistent with comprehensive ecological protection and enhancement objectives.

(iii) Reserve shoreline areas for water-related and water-enjoyment uses and establish policies and regulations so that water-related development is compatible with water-dependent uses and ecological protection and enhancement objectives.

(iv) Establish policies and regulations so that nonwater-oriented uses, including residential uses, are limited to those locations where either water-oriented uses are inappropriate or where nonwater-oriented uses demonstrably contribute to the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act.

Local conditions and environmental constraints may result in lower priority uses being accommodated. For example, an estuarine shoreline may not be an appropriate site for a water-dependent use, such as a boating facility, but may accommodate a bird watching trail (water-enjoyment) of a lower priority.

(3) Steps in developing a master program.

(a) Process overview. Figure 5 below illustrates a generalized process to prepare or comprehensively amend a shoreline master program. Local governments may modify the timing of the various steps, integrate the process into other planning activities, add steps or activities to the process, or work jointly with other jurisdictions or regional efforts, provided the provisions of this chapter are met.

The department of ecology will provide a shoreline master program amendment checklist to help local governments identify issues to address. The checklist will not create new or additional requirements beyond the provisions of this chapter. The checklist is intended to aid the preparation and review of master program amendments. Local governments shall submit the completed checklist with the proposed master program amendments. The department will send completed checklists to other resource agencies and affected Indian tribes reviewing the master program.

Place illustration here.

(b) Establish public and intergovernmental participation process.

(i) Public participation. RCW 90.58.130 states:

To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments shall:

(1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and

(2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments.

For local governments planning under the Growth Management Act, the provisions of RCW 36.70A.140 also apply.

At a minimum, all local governments shall be prepared to describe and document their methods to ensure that all interested parties have a meaningful opportunity to participate. If a local committee or other group is appointed to advise the amendment process, local governments shall ensure that that body represents a broad range of interests reflective of all local citizens and not a selected segment of the populace.

(ii) Communication with state agencies. Before undertaking substantial work, local governments shall notify applicable state resource agencies to identify state interests, relevant regional and state-wide efforts, available information, and methods for coordination and input. Contact the department of ecology for a list of applicable agencies to be notified.

(iii) Communications with affected Indian tribes. Prior to undertaking substantial work, local governments shall notify affected Indian tribes to identify tribal interests, relevant tribal efforts, available information and methods for coordination and input. Contact the individual tribes or coordinating bodies such as the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for a list of affected Indian tribes to be notified.

(c) Inventory shoreline conditions. This chapter requires that several shoreline issues such as critical area protection, vegetation management and shoreline stabilization be addressed on a comprehensive basis to achieve a net gain in ecological functions over time within the shoreline ecosystem considered as a whole. To accomplish this requires an inventory that is significantly comprehensive to characterize the shoreline ecosystems and sufficiently detailed to provide baseline information for monitoring and adaptive management.

The preferred method for local governments to accomplish a detailed comprehensive inventory of ecological conditions is to participate in a interjurisdictional state-wide, regional, or watershed based inventory. If such an inventory is being conducted to improve resource management efforts, local governments preparing master program amendments should work with the applicable state agencies and affected Indian tribes to determine the level of detail, methodology and cooperative steps necessary to provide base line for monitoring purposes.

The department of ecology will seek to secure services and resources for coordinated, interjurisdictional inventory work. If there is not an interjurisdictional inventory process and if the resources necessary to accomplish a detailed and comprehensive inventory described above are not available from the state or other sources, local governments preparing comprehensive master program amendments shall, at a minimum, conduct an inventory in sufficient detail to designate shoreline environments and write provisions to protect existing resources and accommodate preferred shoreline uses, in accordance with the following provisions in (c) of this subsection.

Use best available science. Gather and incorporate all available information, existing inventory data and materials from state agencies, affected Indian tribes, watershed management planning, and other appropriate sources. In conjunction with state agencies, ensure that, wherever possible, inventory methods and protocols are consistent with those of neighboring jurisdictions and state efforts so that the information can be compiled on a regional and state-wide basis. Contact the department of ecology to determine information sources and other relevant efforts.

At a minimum, and to the extent such information is reasonably available, address the following:

(i) Shoreline use and adjacent upland land use and activity patterns.

(ii) Critical areas, as required by RCW 36.70.170, and opportunities for ecological rehabilitation.

(iii) Areas of special interest, such as priority habitats, rapidly developing waterfronts, cleanup sites, or eroding shorelines, to be addressed in new master program provisions.

(iv) Conditions and regulations in shoreland and upland areas that affect shorelines, such as surface water management and land use regulations.

(v) Existing and potential shoreline public access sites.

(vi) General location of bank full width limits, channel migration zones, and flood plains.

(vii) Gaps in existing information. During the initial inventory, local governments should identify what additional information may be necessary for more effective shoreline management.

(viii) If the shoreline is rapidly developing or subject to substantial human changes such as forestry practices, a more definitive analysis of existing trends based on past records or aerial photographs may be necessary to identify cumulative impacts such as bulkhead construction, intrusive development on priority habitats, and conversion of harbor areas to nonwater-oriented uses.

(ix) If archaeological or historic resources have been identified in shoreline jurisdiction, consult with the state historic preservation office and local affected Indian tribes regarding existing archaeological, and historical information.

Even if an interjurisdictional inventory is being performed, the local government shall collect inventory information described in (c)(i) through (ix) of this subsection not addressed by the interjurisdictional program. An inventory's level of detail will be a consideration in setting shoreline regulations. As a general rule, the less known about existing resources the more stringent shoreline master program provisions need to be to ensure protection. If there is a question about the extent or condition of an existing ecological resource, then the master program provisions shall be sufficiently restrictive to ensure that the resource is not damaged.

(d) Analyze shoreline conditions based on best available science and address special topics. Before establishing specific master program provisions, local governments shall perform analysis and planning tasks necessary to ensure effective shoreline management provisions, including the topics below, if applicable.

(i) Ecological systems analysis. Prepare a generalized characterization of comprehensive ecological systems, such as riparian corridors, estuaries, sediment transportation, channel migration, and aquatic habitats. To the extent reasonable and necessary for establishing master program provisions, identify the primary ecological functions of the shoreline as an ecological system. Evaluate how these ecological functions are managed under the current master program and will be managed under proposed provisions. For shorelines of state-wide significance, the requirement for optimum implementation places a greater imperative on identifying and understanding ecological functions that support resources of state-wide importance.

The intent of this requirement is to, at a minimum, present a generalized understanding of the ecological resources within the jurisdiction and to indicate the broad measures necessary to protect and improve their ecological viability. Also, the guidelines for riparian corridor management, critical saltwater habitats, vegetation management, flood hazard reduction, and shoreline stabilization require that these issues be addressed on a comprehensive basis. Master program provisions for these topics shall be based on a systematic analysis of the measures necessary to achieve no net loss and net gain in ecological functions over time, as measured on a watershed- or ecosystem-wide basis.

Local governments are encouraged to accomplish this analysis by participating in state-led or interjurisdictional efforts. If the jurisdiction is part of an intergovernmental watershed management plan or other regional plan, incorporate the applicable recommendations of that effort, provided the recommendations are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and these guidelines.

If the jurisdiction contains priority habitats or species as defined by the state, work with federal, state, and local resource agency teams and affected Indian tribes to identify specific master program provisions, monitoring techniques and, additional studies that may be needed.

(ii) Shoreline use analysis and priorities. If extensive development or change in use of the jurisdiction's shoreline areas is projected, conduct an analysis to determine the future demand for shoreline space and methods to resolve potential use conflicts. Characterize current shoreline use patterns and projected trends to ensure a balance of uses consistent with chapter 90.58 RCW and subsection (2)(d) of this section and WAC 173-26-210(5).

If the jurisdiction includes a harbor area or urban waterfront with intensive uses or significant development issues, work with the Washington state department of natural resources and port authorities to ensure consistency with harbor area statutes and regulations. Identify measures and strategies to encourage appropriate use of these shoreline areas while pursuing opportunities for environmental rehabilitation.

Harbor areas and areas that are generally considered navigable for commercial purposes shall be reserved for water-dependent and water-related uses unless the local governments can demonstrate that adequate shoreline is reserved for future water-dependent and water-related needs. Local governments may prepare master program provisions to allow mixed-use developments that include and support water-dependent uses and address specific conditions that affect water-dependent uses.

(iii) Cumulative impacts. If the area is experiencing substantial cumulative adverse impacts to the shoreline environment due to incremental development, such as residential bulkheads, residential piers, or runoff from newly developed properties, or if substantial incremental development is expected along the shoreline, develop, in conjunction with the department of ecology, methods to assess, minimize, and mitigate cumulative impacts to the shoreline environment. This assessment should include potential impacts due to all development including those activities not requiring a shoreline permit. At a minimum, local governments, with the assistance of state agencies, should project the ultimate allowed full build-out condition for existing and proposed master program provisions being considered.

(iv) Shorelines of state-wide significance. If the area contains substantial amounts of shorelines of state-wide significance, undertake the steps outlined in WAC 173-26-250.

(v) Special area planning. If the jurisdiction includes a complex shoreline ecology, changing uses, or other unique features or issues, the local government may undertake special area planning and request state assistance to conduct a shoreline ecological planning and development plan that provides additional scientific information and guidance in techniques to accommodate necessary water-dependent development while enhancing the shoreline's overall ecological viability. Special area planning may be used to address: Public access, vegetation management, shoreline use compatibility, port development master planning, ecological rehabilitation, or other issues best addressed on a comprehensive basis.

The resultant plans may serve as the basis for facilitating state and local government coordination and permit review. Special-area planning shall provide for public and affected Indian tribe participation.

(vi) Public access. Identify public access needs and opportunities within the jurisdiction and explore actions to enhance shoreline recreation facilities. For local governments planning under the Growth Management Act, conduct this task in conjunction with the comprehensive plan open space element. (See WAC 173-26-220(4).)

(vii) Enforcement and coordination with other regulatory programs. Local governments planning under the Growth Management Act shall review their comprehensive plan policies and development regulations to ensure consistency. In order to effectively administer and enforce master program provisions as well as other development regulations, local governments should also review their current permit review and inspection practices to identify ways to increase efficiency and effectiveness and to ensure consistency with this chapter.

(viii) Ecological rehabilitation. Where rehabilitation of the shoreline is necessary for endangered species recovery efforts, management of priority species or habitats, or to provide optimum implementation for shorelines of state-wide significance, local governments should base rehabilitation requirements on comprehensive rehabilitation planning using best available science that identifies specific sites, preferred methods, and implementation incentives, requirements, and projects.

(ix) Water quality. Identify water quality issues relevant to master program provisions. At a minimum, consult with the department of ecology, the local health department, the Army Corps of Engineers, the environmental protection agency, affected Indian tribes, and state department of health.

(e) Establish environment designations and identify permitted uses, activities, and development standards for each environment designation.

Based on the inventory of step (c) and the analysis of step (d), assign each shoreline segment an environment designation.

Through a citizen involvement process, ensure that environment designations reflect local values and objectives for the development, use, and conservation of different shoreline areas.

In accordance with RCW 90.58.100(4), ensure that master program provisions reflect that state-owned shorelines are particularly adapted to wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational activities for the public and give appropriate special consideration to the same.

In accordance with WAC 173-26-210, environment designation policies and regulations shall identify and protect ecologically intact shorelines that are largely free of human influence, prevent further loss of ecological functions on a comprehensive basis, and identify urban areas suitable for water-dependent uses and ecological rehabilitation.

In the master program environment designation provisions and boundaries, identify the areas where structural shoreline stabilization measures are prohibited or greatly restricted to avoid injury to natural shoreline functions, those areas where restoration of natural shoreline processes are encouraged or required, and those areas where shoreline stabilization may be appropriate because of the potential for property damage or the needs of water-dependent uses.

Test the environment designations for mutual consistency with comprehensive plan land use designations as indicated in WAC 173-26-210(3).

In determining the boundaries and classifications of environment designations, adhere to the priorities in subsection (2)(d)(i) through (v) of this section.

(f) Establish shoreline polices.

(i) Address all of the elements listed in RCW 90.58.100(2).

(ii) Test for mutual consistency with the comprehensive plan policies.

(iii) If there are shorelines of state-wide significance, ensure that the other comprehensive plan policies are consistent with the objectives of RCW 90.58.020 and 90.58.090(4).

(g) Establish shoreline regulations based on the analyses described in this section and the guidelines of this chapter.

(h) Identify a monitoring and adaptive management program. If the local jurisdiction includes priority habitat or species or endangered species or habitats, contact the department of ecology to determine a cooperative program supporting state-wide efforts to monitor:

• Implementation. How effective are the ecological management policies and plans being implemented? This may require documentation of permits, legal and illegal construction, and other activities on the shoreline.

• Effectiveness. Trends in ecological functions, in fish and wildlife populations and other ecological indicators.

• Validation. Analysis of findings of implementation actions and environmental responses to verify or alter environmental management practices.

Identify a procedure to address deteriorating or changing conditions if they should occur.

(i) Submit for review and adoption. Local governments are encouraged to submit draft master program provisions to the department of ecology for informal advisory review.

Local governments shall submit the completed checklist with their master program amendments proposed for adoption. Master program review and formal adoption procedures are described in Parts I and II of this chapter.

[]

(1) Applicability. This section applies to the establishment of environment designation boundaries and provisions as described in WAC 173-26-190 (1)(d).

(2) Basic requirements for environment designation classification and provisions.

(a) Master programs shall contain a system to classify shoreline areas into specific environment designations. Each master program's classification system shall conform to that described in subsection (4) of this section unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.

(b) For each environment designation, the shoreline master program shall describe:

(i) The statement of purpose, describing the shoreline management objectives of the designation in a manner that distinguishes it from other designations.

(ii) Clearly stated criteria or basis for classifying, assigning, or reassigning environment designations to a specific shoreline area.

(iii) Management policies forming the basis of the regulations. These policies shall be in sufficient detail and to assist in the interpretation of the environment designation regulations and, for jurisdiction planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, to evaluate consistency with the local comprehensive plan.

(iv) Regulations translating the management policies into enforceable requirements and development standards. Environment-specific regulations shall address where necessary to implement environment specific management policies or to account for different shoreline conditions:

(A) Preferred shoreline use requirements (where water-dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment, and nonwater-oriented uses are permitted or prohibited).

(B) Types of shoreline uses and activities permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited. Master programs should also include provisions to address existing nonconforming uses.

(C) Building or structure height and bulk limits, setbacks, maximum density (or minimum frontage) requirements, and site development standards.

(D) Environment-specific requirements for vegetation management, shoreline stabilization, parking, signs, public access, and other topics not covered in general use and activity regulations.

(E) Public access requirements specific to the particular environment.

(c) Master programs shall contain a map delineating the environment designations and their boundaries.

An up-to-date and accurate map of the shoreline area and environments shall be maintained in the local government office that administers shoreline permits. If it is not feasible to accurately designate individual parcels on a map, the master program text shall include a clear basis for identifying the boundaries, explicit criteria or "common" boundary descriptions to accurately define environment boundaries that can be used to distinguish the environments on the ground.

To facilitate consistency with land use planning, shoreline designations should be illustrated on the comprehensive plan Future Land Use Map as described in WAC 365-195-300 (2)(d) for jurisdictions planning under chapter 36.70A RCW.

Where jurisdiction has been reduced to floodway plus two hundred feet, the map should clearly indicate any areas (flood plains, river deltas, associated wetlands) beyond the two hundred-foot limit that are in shoreline management jurisdiction and what environment designation applies. The master program should also make it clear that in the event of a mapping error, the jurisdiction will rely upon common boundary descriptions and the criteria contained in chapter 173-22 WAC pertaining to wetlands, as amended, rather than the incorrect or outdated map.

The map and the master program should note that all areas within shoreline jurisdiction that are not mapped and/or designated are automatically assigned a "rural conservancy" designation until the shoreline can be redesignated through a master program amendment.

The following diagram summarizes the components of the environment designation provisions.

Place illustration here.

(3) Consistency between shoreline environment designations and the local comprehensive plan. As noted in WAC 173-26-190 (2)(a), RCW 90.58.340 requires that policies for lands adjacent to the shorelines be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, implementing rules, and the applicable master program. Conversely, local comprehensive plans constitute the underlying framework within which master program provisions should fit. The Growth Management Act, where applicable, designates shoreline master program policies as an element of the comprehensive plan and requires that all elements be internally consistent. Chapter 36.70A RCW also requires development regulations to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The following criteria are intended to assist local governments and the department in evaluating the consistency between master program environment designation provisions and the corresponding comprehensive plan elements and development regulations. In order for shoreline designation provisions, local comprehensive plan land use designations, and development regulations to be internally consistent, all four of the conditions below should be met.

(a) The comprehensive plan provisions and shoreline environment designation provisions do not preclude one another. To meet this criteria, the provisions of both the comprehensive plan and the master program must be able to be met. For example, a local comprehensive plan may identify a large tract of land with a stream corridor running through it as suitable for a new residential development. The comprehensive plan and the master program may be consistent even if the stream is designated "natural," because these two objectives could be achieved in a number of ways: Development could be restricted to two hundred feet landward of the ordinary high-water mark or the stream corridor could be dedicated as a passive park and trail system. In this case, the comprehensive plan should make specific provisions for resolving any apparent inconsistency.

(b) The master program regulations and the development regulations allow some viable use or activity on all ownership parcels, except where biophysical limitations such as steep slopes or wetlands preclude development. For example, if the zoning ordinance allows only residential development on a section of shoreline designated in the master program exclusively for water-dependent industrial use, then the two sets of regulations are not consistent. If the zoning ordinance allows both residential and industrial uses, then the two may be consistent.

(c) Land use policies and regulations protect preferred shoreline uses from being impacted by incompatible uses. The intent is to prevent water-oriented uses, especially water-dependent uses, from being restricted on shoreline areas because of impacts to nearby nonwater-oriented uses. To be consistent, master programs, comprehensive plans, and development regulations should not allow uses that are not compatible with preferred uses in locations where they may restrict preferred use activities or development. For example, new residential development should not be allowed near heavy shoreline industrial areas unless the impacts can be mitigated through design standard applied to the new residential development.

(d) Infrastructure and services provided in the comprehensive plan are sufficient to support allowed shoreline uses. Shoreline uses shall not be allowed where the comprehensive plan does not provide sufficient roads, utilities, and other services to support them. For example, high-density residential development, marinas, and industrial uses shall not be allowed unless the comprehensive plan makes provision for needed infrastructure and services at appropriate locations.

In delineating environment designations and urban growth area boundaries, as defined in RCW 36.70A.110, local governments should ensure that shoreline environmental quality can be enhanced with the proposed pattern and intensity of urban growth. Conversely, infrastructure plans must be consistent with shoreline designations. Utility services routed through shoreline areas shall not be a sole justification for more intense development.

(4) Recommended environment designation classifications. The recommended classification system consists of six basic environments: "High-intensity," "shoreline residential," "urban conservancy," "rural conservancy," "natural," and "aquatic." Local governments shall assign all shoreline areas an environment designation consistent with subsection (5) of this section.

Local governments may establish different subdesignations. For example, a local government wishing to differentiate between "conservancy" shorelines used for park purposes and those for habitat restoration might establish "conservancy-park" and "conservancy-habitat" designations, each with separate purposes, criteria, policies, and use provisions. Or, a local government may wish to set site-specific standards for pier and dock construction in more sensitive aquatic areas and restrict aquaculture in harbor areas by establishing "aquatic-conservancy" and "aquatic-harbor" environments, each with different allowable uses and development standards. Shoreline master programs shall include clearly defined purpose statements, criteria, policies, use regulations, and development standards for each subdesignation as noted in subsection (1) of this section.

Local governments may use "parallel environments" where appropriate. Parallel environments divide shorelands into different sections running parallel to the shoreline and are useful, for example, to accommodate both resource protection near the shoreline and development opportunities further from the shoreline.

Local governments may retain their current environment designations provided they can demonstrate that the environment designation provisions are consistent with this chapter. Specifically, the environment designation system shall meet the purpose and management policies of subsection (4) of this section.

(a) "Natural" environment.

(i) Purpose. The "natural" environment is intended to preserve and enhance those shoreline areas relatively free of human influence or possessing natural shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require severe restrictions on the intensities and types of uses permitted so as to maintain the integrity of the natural shoreline environment.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) Any use or activity that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area shall not be allowed.

(B) The following uses shall not be allowed in "natural" environments:

• Residences.

• Commercial activities.

• Industrial activities.

• Forestry, except as directed to enhance the natural ecology.

• Agriculture.

• Nonwater-oriented recreation.

• Roads and parking areas that can be located outside of natural-designated shorelines.

(C) Limited access should be permitted for scientific, historical, cultural, educational, and low-intensity recreational purposes, provided that no significant adverse impact on the area will result.

(b) "Rural conservancy" environment.

(i) Purpose. The intent of the "rural conservancy" environment is to protect, conserve, and enhance ecological functions, existing natural resources, and valuable historic and cultural areas in order to achieve ecological protection, sustain resource use, and provide recreational opportunities. Examples of uses that are appropriate in a "rural conservancy" environment include dispersed outdoor recreation activities, timber harvesting on a sustained-yield basis, agricultural uses such as farming, pasture, and range lands, low-intensity aquaculture, residential development consistent with the local comprehensive plan's rural element and chapter 36.70A RCW, and other related low-intensity uses and activities.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) Preferred uses in the "rural conservancy" environment are those which are nonconsumptive of the shoreline area's physical and biological resources and uses and activities of a nonpermanent nature that do not substantially degrade ecological functions or the rural or natural character of the shoreline area. Shoreline habitat restoration and environmental enhancement are preferred uses.

Except as noted below, commercial and industrial uses should not be allowed except for agricultural practices, commercial forestry, and aquaculture when consistent with provisions of this chapter. Nonconsumptive, water-oriented commercial and industrial uses may be permitted in the limited instances where those uses have located in the past or at unique sites in rural communities that possess shoreline conditions and services to support the development.

Nonconsumptive water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities, such as boat launches, angling, wildlife viewing trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses, provided environmental damage to the shoreline is mitigated.

(B) Activities and uses that would substantially degrade or permanently deplete the physical or biological resources of the area shall not be allowed.

(C) Construction of new structural shoreline stabilization and flood control works shall not be allowed except where there is a demonstrated need to protect an existing structure and mitigation is applied consistent with WAC 173-26-230, or to protect ecological functions. New development shall be designed to preclude the need for such work.

(D) For government planning under the Growth Management Act, new residential development in the "rural conservancy" environment shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan rural element and with RCW 36.70A.070(5). Where existing development does not conform to rural element provisions, means to address nonconforming uses and reduce impacts to the ecology should be identified.

For jurisdictions not planning under the Growth Management Act, residential development intensity within shorelands shall be limited to a maximum of ten percent total impervious surface area within the lot or parcel area lying in shoreline jurisdiction, unless an alternative standard is developed based on best available science that meets the provisions of this chapter and protects the shoreline ecology in residential areas outside incorporated cities or towns.

(E) Shoreline stabilization, flood control measures, vegetation removal, and other shoreline modifications shall be designed and managed to ensure that the natural shoreline functions are enhanced over time. Shoreline rehabilitation should be required of new development where applicable.

(c) "Aquatic" environment.

(i) Purpose. The purpose of this designation is to protect the unique characteristics of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark by managing uses and activities and by assuring compatibility between upland and aquatic uses. It is designed to promote the wise use of the natural features and resources of water areas.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) Allow over-water structures only for uses that are water-dependent or for public access.

(B) In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multiple use of over-water facilities should be encouraged, provided that use conflicts can be avoided. For example, community docks providing moorage for several residences should be encouraged over individual residential docks.

(C) All developments and activities using navigable waters or their beds should be located and designed to minimize interference with surface navigation, to consider impacts to public views, and to allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration.

(D) Activities that substantially degrade critical saltwater and freshwater habitats should not be allowed. Where those activities are necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, their impacts shall be mitigated to provide a net gain of critical ecological functions.

(E) Shoreline uses and modification activities shall be designed and managed to prevent damage to water quality.

(d) High-intensity environment.

(i) Purpose. The high-intensity environment is an area for high-intensity water-oriented commercial and industrial uses. The purpose of this environment is to ensure optimum use of shorelines that are either presently urbanized or planned for urbanization while protecting and enhancing ecological functions. Development in high-intensity areas shall be managed for a variety of urban uses.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) First priority shall be given to water-dependent uses over other uses. Second priority shall be given to water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Nonwater-oriented uses should not be allowed except as part of mixed-use developments supporting water-dependent uses. See also subsection (5)(d) of this section.

(B) Full utilization of existing urban areas should be achieved before further expansion of intensive development is allowed. Reasonable long-range projections of regional economic need should guide the amount of shoreline designated high-intensity. Redevelopment of underused areas should be encouraged.

(C) Where applicable, new development shall include environmental cleanup and rehabilitation of the shoreline ecology in accordance with state and federal requirements.

(D) Where feasible, visual and physical public access shall be required as provided for in WAC 173-26-220 (4)(d). Where appropriate, industrial and commercial facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian shoreline access. Planning for the acquisition of land for permanent public access to the water in the high-intensity environment should be encouraged and implemented through a comprehensive public access plan.

(E) Aesthetic objectives should be actively implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. (Local governments may implement this guideline by adopting a master program policy for aesthetic objectives on the shoreline and implement the policy through other development regulations, such as sign or design review ordinances.)

(e) "Urban conservancy" environment.

(i) Purpose. The purpose of this designation is to provide ecological protection and rehabilitation in urban and developed settings while allowing a variety of water-oriented uses and uses consistent with effective environmental management.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) During development and redevelopment, all reasonable efforts should be taken to enhance ecological functions. Where feasible, shoreline rehabilitation and public access should be required of all nonwater-dependent development.

(B) Standards shall be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation management, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "urban conservancy" designation to ensure that new development does not further degrade the shoreline.

(C) Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant adverse impacts can be mitigated.

(D) Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. For shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters, water-dependent uses should be given highest priority.

(f) "Shoreline residential" environment.

(i) Purpose. The "shoreline residential" environment is reserved for shorelines uses dominated by or planned for residential development within incorporated areas or urban growth areas as defined by the Growth Management Act. The purposes of this environment are to accommodate residential development and associated uses that are consistent with this chapter and where there are adequate water and sewage disposal services; to minimize residential development impacts; and to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) Developments shall be permitted only in those shoreline areas where the environment can support the proposed use in a manner which protects and enhances the ecological functions.

(B) Densities or minimum frontage standards in the "shoreline residential" environment shall be set to protect the shoreline ecology and functions based on the following criteria.

• Biophysical limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area.

• The development character and land parcel pattern.

• Level of infrastructure and services available or planned.

• Other comprehensive planning considerations.

Local governments may establish two or more different "shoreline residential" environments to accommodate different shoreline densities or conditions.

(C) Development standards for shoreline stabilization, vegetation management, critical area protection, and water quality shall be established to protect and, where significant ecological degradation has occurred, enhance ecological functions over time.

(D) Multifamily and multilot residential and recreational developments shall provide public access and areas for joint use, community, or public open space.

(E) Access, utilities, and public services shall be available and adequate to serve existing needs and/or planned future development.

(F) Commercial development should be limited to water-oriented uses that serve local residents.

(5) Criteria for assigning environment designation boundaries. Local governments shall assign shoreline environment designations (environments) to all shoreline areas consistent with the directions in (a) through (f) of this subsection. Local governments shall designate a shoreline area "natural" if the criteria in (a) apply, "rural conservancy" if the criteria in (b) apply, and "aquatic" if the criteria in (c) apply.

(a) Identify those shoreline areas with any of the following characteristics:

(i) Ecologically intact;

(ii) Currently performing an important, irreplaceable function in the shoreline ecosystem;

(iii) Considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular scientific and educational interest; or

(iv) Unsuitable for development because of biophysical limitations.

Assign these shoreline areas a "natural" environment designation with regulations that preclude any development that could significantly damage the shoreline ecology. Such shoreline areas include wetlands, largely undisturbed marine estuaries, unstable bluffs, coastal dunes, spits, and ecologically intact riparian habitats. Shorelines inside or outside urban growth areas may be designated as "natural."

(b) Identify those shoreline areas outside urban growth areas as defined by RCW 36.70A.110 with any of the following characteristics:

(i) Supporting lesser-intensity, resource-based activities, such as agriculture, forestry, or recreational uses;

(ii) Currently accommodating residential uses outside urban growth areas and incorporated cities or towns;

(iii) Supporting human activities but subject to biophysical limitations, such as properties that include or are adjacent to steep banks, feeder bluffs, or flood-prone areas; or

(iv) Of high recreational value or with unique historic or cultural resources.

Assign these shoreline areas a "rural conservancy" environment designation, with regulations that allow for the continuation of those activities but provide protection for the essential functions of the shoreline ecology. Include provisions that provide optimum environmental protection if the area converts to a more intensive use such as forestry or agriculture to residential use.

(c) Assign "aquatic" environment designation(s) for submerged and intertidal lands waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. Apply use and activity regulations for the following activities in the general order of priority, with (i) being the highest.

(i) Identify those waters with important ecological functions, including critical saltwater habitats that should remain undisturbed, and where development restrictions are necessary to protect the health of the ecology.

(ii) Identify those areas that should remain open to protect rights of navigation.

(iii) Identify those areas with especially scenic value and unique recreational opportunities that should be protected for those values and activities.

Local governments may designate submerged and intertidal lands with shoreland designations (e.g., high intensity or rural conservancy) if the management policies and objectives for aquatic areas are met. In this case, the local government shall be prepared to demonstrate that the designation system used provides regulations for managing submerged and intertidal lands that are clear and consistent with the aquatic environment management policies.

(d) Identify shoreline areas that currently support, or are suitable and planned for, water-dependent uses related to commerce and navigation, such as harbor areas and marinas. Assign these shoreline areas a "high-intensity" environment designation, with regulations that retain the area's capacity to support water-dependent uses. If an analysis of water-dependent use needs and local conditions as described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d) demonstrates the opportunity to allow a mix of water-dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment, and nonwater-dependent uses on the shoreline, then provisions for a mix of uses may be established, provided the needs of existing and envisioned water-dependent uses are met for the planning period. If those shoreline areas also provide functions essential to ecosystem viability, establish use standards to ensure that the functions are not diminished.

(e) Identify those shoreline areas in urban settings or areas planned for development that are less suitable for water-dependent uses but that have any of the following characteristics:

(i) Are suitable for a mix of water-enjoyment recreational uses with other uses that allow a substantial number of people to enjoy the shoreline;

(ii) Are flood plains or other areas that should not be more intensively developed;

(iii) Have the potential for ecological rehabilitation; or

(iv) Retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed.

Assign these shoreline areas an "urban conservancy" environment designation that encourages a mix of uses with substantial public access and environmental restoration.

(f) Identify those shoreline areas inside urban growth areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.110 or within an incorporated city or town that are predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or that are planned and platted for residential development. Assign these shoreline areas a "shoreline residential" environment designation with appropriate densities based on the biophysical limitations of the shoreline environment, compatibility with other uses, and the local comprehensive plan. Establish provisions to ensure that new development or expansion or remodeling of existing development does not substantially degrade the shoreline ecology or conflict with water-dependent uses.

Place illustration here.

[]

(1) Archaeological and historic resources.

(a) Applicability. The following provisions apply to archaeological and historic resources that are either recorded at the State Historic Preservation Office and/or by local jurisdictions or have been inadvertently uncovered. Archaeological sites located both in and outside shoreline jurisdiction are subject to chapter 27.44 RCW (Indian graves and records) and chapter 27.53 RCW (Archaeological sites and records) and shall comply with chapter 25-48 WAC as well as the provisions of this chapter.

(b) Principles. Due to the limited and irreplaceable nature of the resource(s), prevent the destruction of or damage to any site having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as identified by the appropriate authorities including affected Indian tribes.

(c) Standards. Local shoreline master programs shall include policies and regulations to protect historic, archaeological, and cultural features and qualities of shorelines and implement the following standards. A local government may reference historic inventories or regulations. Contact affected Indian tribes for additional information.

(i) Require that developers and property owners immediately stop work and notify the local government and affected Indian tribes if anything of possible archaeological interest is uncovered during excavation.

(ii) Require that permits issued in areas known to contain archaeological artifacts and data require a site inspection or evaluation by an archaeologist in coordination with affected Indian tribes.

(2) Critical areas.

(a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to all critical areas as defined by chapter 36.70A RCW that lie within shoreline jurisdictions. RCW 36.70A.030 defines critical areas as stated below:

(5) "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems:

(a) Wetlands;

(b) Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable waters;

(c) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;

(d) Frequently flooded areas; and

(e) Geologically hazardous areas.

See WAC 365-190-080 for further definition of critical area categories.

(b) Principles. Local master programs shall implement the following principles:

(i) Protect and enhance the ecological functions found within critical areas on a system-wide basis; that is, identify and address interrelationships upon which the ecosystem's integrity depends. (See WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d)(i).)

(ii) In addressing issues related to critical areas, use "best available science," as defined in this chapter and as provided for in chapter 36.70A RCW.

(iii) Where necessary for the protection of the functions of a critical area, implement provisions outside the designated critical area consistent with RCW 90.58.340.

(iv) In protecting and enhancing critical areas within shoreline jurisdictions, incorporate the full spectrum of planning and regulatory measures, including the comprehensive plan, interlocal watershed plans, local development regulations, and state, tribal, and federal programs.

(v) The goal of shoreline management provisions for critical areas shall be a net gain of ecological functions on a system-wide basis. Appropriate systems to address this goal include a littoral drift cell for marine waters, or all or an identifiable portion of a watershed for fresh waters. The intent of this provision is to effect an increase in ecological functions and ecosystem integrity over time. It does not necessarily require that each development or action on the shoreline individually improve ecological functions.

(c) Standards. Shoreline master programs shall adhere to the following standards, unless it is demonstrated through best available science that an alternative approach provides better resource protection.

(i) Wetlands.

(A) Wetland use regulations. Use regulations shall address the following activities, where appropriate, to achieve no net loss and, over time, a net gain in ecological functions provided by wetlands:

• The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind;

• The dumping, discharging, or filling with any material, including discharges of storm water and domestic, commercial, or industrially treated wastewater;

• The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level, duration of inundation, or water table, including the propagation of deleterious waves or currents, such as boat wakes;

• The driving of pilings;

• The placing of obstructions;

• The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure;

• The destruction or alteration of wetlands vegetation through the clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a regulated wetland, provided that these activities are not part of a forest practice governed under chapter 76.09 RCW and its rules; or

• Activities that result in a significant change of water temperature, a significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of wetlands water sources, including quantity, or the introduction of pollutants.

In the absence of more current, detailed or specific information, consult department of ecology technical assistance materials.

(B) Wetland classification. The management of wetlands shall be based on resource value. Resource value is given to the ecological functions performed by wetlands. Resource value shall be determined according to best available science. Where current classification methods are adopted by state resource agencies, classify wetlands consistent with those methods and standards.

(C) Alterations to wetlands. Master program provisions addressing alterations to wetlands shall be consistent with the policy for a net gain, on a system-wide basis, in wetland functions, best available science, and the mitigation priority sequence defined in WAC 173-26-020.

(D) Buffers. Wetland buffer zones shall be established, restored and/or maintained in a natural condition. Widths of buffer zones and management standards shall be based on best available scientific information and consider the type of wetland and the functions it contributes, the characteristics and setting of the existing buffer, the potential impacts associated with the adjacent land use, and other relevant factors.

(E) Mitigation. When compensating for wetland impacts, the following options may be considered, alone or in combination, as appropriate compensatory mitigation consistent with best available science:

• On-site, successful replacement of critical functions that are lost due to project impacts that cannot be compensated for off-site and that will not be negatively influenced by adjacent development pressures are generally preferred.

• Impacted functions that are of high quality and are limiting within the watershed and are critical for replacement and the continued health of the watershed or shoreline area shall be replaced.

• Impacted functions may be adequately replaced off-site if: The project proponent can demonstrate that greater limiting or critical functions can be achieved off-site than on-site; impacted functions are of low quality and an off-site location can be restored, preserved, or created to provide higher quality functions than what is impacted; and it is demonstrated that on-site opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success.

• Out-of-kind compensation may be appropriate when resources impacted are of low quality and out-of-kind functions proposed to be created are demonstrated by the proponent to provide a net gain in ecological functions within the watershed or shoreline.

• Preservation of irreplaceable areas having multiple critical or limiting functions may be accepted as part of a mitigation plan so long as there is not loss of ecological functions overall in the watershed. These areas must be demonstrated to be at risk of destruction or degradation and their size sufficient to replace impacted functions at higher ratios than traditional forms of mitigation.

• Credits from a mitigation bank may be used after the standard sequencing of mitigation as defined in WAC 173-26-020.

(ii) Geologically hazardous areas. Development shall be restricted on unstable bluffs and river banks and landslide areas in consideration of minimum guidelines for geologically hazardous areas, WAC 365-190-080(4).

Local master programs shall comply with (c)(ii)(A) or (B) of this subsection:

(A) All shoreline development, including development exempted from a shoreline permit, shall require a geotechnical report when in or proximate to a geologically hazardous area, or when the development may affect the stability of geological conditions; or

(B) Local shoreline master program provisions addressing development on or near geologically hazardous areas shall be based on a scientific or engineering study of geological conditions.

Do not allow new development that requires structural shoreline stabilization, such as bulkheads, revetments, and biotechnical measures, within the geological hazardous areas. Exceptions may be made for the limited instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed water-dependent uses where no alternative locations are available and adverse impacts are mitigated. The stabilization measures shall conform to WAC 173-26-230.

(iii) Critical saltwater habitats. Critical saltwater habitats include kelp beds, eelgrass beds, herring and smelt spawning areas, commercial and recreational shellfish beds, and areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association. Shoreline master programs shall implement, where applicable, the minimum guidelines in WAC 365-190-080(5) to address the objective of no net loss and net gain over time of ecological functions provided by critical saltwater habitats.

(A) Comprehensive saltwater habitat management. Shoreline master programs shall implement cooperative saltwater habitat management planning to enhance the resource through preservation, restoration, advanced planned mitigation, and other means. The management planning shall incorporate the participation of state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes and may serve as the basis for master program provisions, permit conditioning, and the coordinated review of development proposals by state agencies. Local governments may base management planning on information provided by state resource agencies.

The management planning shall address the following, where applicable:

• Preserving and enhancing a system of fish and wildlife habitats with connections between larger habitat blocks and open spaces;

• Evaluating the level of human activity in such areas, including the presence of roads and the level of recreation types (passive or active recreation may be appropriate for certain areas and habitats);

• Protecting riparian and estuarine ecosystems;

• Evaluating land uses surrounding critical saltwater habitat areas that may negatively impact these areas;

• Establishing buffer zones around these areas to separate incompatible uses from the habitat areas;

• Restoring lost salmonid habitat; and

• Protecting fresh water and sediment inflow regimens.

Local governments, in conjunction with state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes, shall classify and protect seasonal ranges and habitat elements with which federal- and state-listed endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain its population and reproduce over the long term.

Local governments, in conjunction with state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes, should determine which habitats and species are of local importance. Habitats and species may be further classified in terms of their relative importance. Local governments should use information prepared by the Washington department of fish and wildlife when available to classify and designate locally important habitats and species, unless there is more current information.

All public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest shall be classified as critical areas. Local governments should consider both commercial and recreational shellfish areas. Local governments should review the Washington department of health classification of commercial and recreational shellfish growing areas to determine the existing condition of these areas. Further consideration should be given to the vulnerability of these areas to contamination. Shellfish protection districts established pursuant to chapter 90.72 RCW shall be included in the classification of critical shellfish areas. Local governments shall classify kelp and eelgrass beds identified by the department of natural resources' aquatic lands division, the department of ecology, and affected Indian tribes. Though it is not an inclusive inventory, locations of kelp and eelgrass beds are compiled in the Puget Sound Environmental Atlas, Volumes 1 and 2. Herring and smelt spawning times and locations are outlined in WAC 220-110-240 through 220-110-260 and the Puget Sound Environmental Atlas.

Comprehensive saltwater habitat management planning shall identify methods for monitoring conditions and adapting management practices to new information.

(B) Conditions for development. Docks, bulkheads, bridges, landfill, floats, jetties, and other human-made structures shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except for a water-dependent use or environmental enhancement and when all of the conditions below are met:

• The public's need for such a structure is clearly demonstrated and the proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW 90.58.020;

• Avoidance of critical areas by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible;

• The project is designed to minimize its impacts on critical saltwater habitats and the environment;

• Significant adverse impacts will be mitigated through the mitigation sequence described in WAC 173-26-020; and

• The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species recovery.

If an inventory of critical saltwater habitat has not been done, shoreline master programs shall condition all over-water developments where critical saltwater habitats may occur with the requirement for an inventory of the site to assess the presence of those habitats. The methods and extent of the inventory shall be as approved by the department of ecology in consultation with the department of fish and wildlife; the department of natural resources, if the site is located on state-owned land; and affected Indian tribes.

(iv) Riparian corridors and other critical fresh water habitats.

(A) Applicability. The following provisions apply to master program provisions and shoreline management activities affecting riparian corridors within shoreline jurisdiction, including streams, rivers, and wetlands and lakes associated with riparian systems.

(B) Principles. The ecological health of riparian corridors depends both on the continuity of the natural environment along the length of the shoreline and the conditions of the surrounding lands on either side of the river channel. Significant damage to the environment, such as a polluting outfall, can destroy the shoreline ecology downstream. Likewise, gradual destruction of the vegetation along the corridor or extensive flood plain development can raise water temperatures and alter hydrographic conditions, thereby making the corridor uninhabitable for priority species and susceptible to catastrophic flooding and droughts. Therefore, effective management of riparian corridors depends on (I) planning, regulating and/or enhancing the whole length of the corridor, from headwaters to and including its mouth, and (II) regulating the uses and activities within the stream channel, channel migration zone, adjacent land, and the flood plain. Water quality and hydrological processes also depend upon surface water run-off and ground water in lands outside the flood plain. For this reason, comprehensive watershed efforts are the most effective approach to corridor management.

In terms of master program measures, effective corridor management requires integrating several categories of master program provisions, including shoreline stabilization, landfill, vegetation management, water quality, flood damage minimization, and specific uses such as forest practices, agriculture, residential development and commercial and industrial activities, to address the corridor's various ecological functions.

To more clearly translate the ecological functions of riparian corridors into workable master program regulations, several characteristic zones within a river corridor have been identified. These are illustrated in Figure 8 and defined in WAC 173-26-020.

Recognizing that long stretches of riparian shorelines have been altered or degraded from their natural condition, effective riparian management usually requires a two-part strategy of:

• Preventing damage to river shoreline areas that retain their ecological functions; and

• Rehabilitating degraded shoreline areas wherever feasible.

Therefore, local governments shall base master program provisions on a comprehensive approach that allows for upgraded management as new information emerges.

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

Because of the importance of riparian corridors to the ecology and human activities, shoreline master programs shall include provisions to implement the following objectives:

• Maintain and enhance the full range of ecological functions necessary for the integrity of riparian shoreline ecosystems.

• Support the full recovery of endangered species and genetic diversity achievable through the Shoreline Management Act.

• Maintain and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the natural shoreline.

To achieve these objectives, local governments shall:

• Adopt master program provisions to achieve greater hydrological and ecological continuity with respect to river corridors' upstream-downstream connections, channel-flood plain connectivity, and surface water-ground water connections.

• Base master program provisions for riparian corridors on comprehensive corridor or watershed management planning that incorporates the work and information from state agencies and Indian tribes, coordinates with other jurisdictions within the watershed, and includes a program to monitor local conditions and adapt management practices for better effectiveness.

• Establish and implement a two-part riparian corridor management strategy that first identifies and protects ecologically intact shoreline environments and second, pursues rehabilitation in shorelines that have been degraded and/or are occupied with active uses.

(C) Standards. Specific standards for riparian corridor management are included in this section, WAC 173-26-230, and WAC 173-26-240. The chart in Figure 9 summarizes these provisions. The chart is for illustrative purposes only and does not constitute requirements in this guideline.

(3) Flood hazard reduction.

(a) Applicability. The following provisions apply to actions taken to reduce flood damage or hazard and to uses or activities that may increase flood hazards. Flood hazard reduction measures may consist of structural measures, such as dikes, levees, gabions, floodwalls, biotechnical measures, and channel realignment, and nonstructural measures, such as setbacks, land use controls, wetland restoration, dike removal, use relocation, and storm water management programs.

(b) Principles. Flooding of rivers, streams, and other shorelines is a natural process that is dependent upon factors and land uses occurring through the watershed. For this reason, flood hazard reduction measures are most effective when integrated into comprehensive strategies that recognize the natural hydrogeological and biological processes of water bodies.

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

Structural flood control measures such as stream channelization and diking, even if effective in reducing inundation in a portion of the watershed, can intensify flood conditions downstream. Moreover, flood control measures can damage shoreline ecological functions crucial to the viability of fish and wildlife species, bank stability, and water quality. Therefore, flood hazard reduction measures shall be accomplished in a manner to minimize change to the ecological functions of the shoreline.

Master programs shall implement the following principles:

(i) Base shoreline master program flood hazard reduction provisions on applicable watershed management plans, comprehensive flood hazard management plans, local comprehensive plan flood damage minimization elements, and other comprehensive planning efforts, provided those measures are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter. Consider other regulations and programs associated with flood hazard management, including (if applicable):

• Storm water management program;

• Comprehensive flood hazard management plan, as described in chapter 86.12 RCW, adopted within the last five years;

• Flood plain regulations, as provided for in chapter 86.16 RCW;

• Critical areas ordinance and comprehensive plan, as provided in chapter 36.70A RCW; and

• National Flood Insurance Program.

Where two of these regulations or programs conflict, the more stringent in terms of long-term management of the shoreline ecological functions shall take precedence.

(ii) Protect and enhance the shoreline functions. Restrict structural flood control measures, vegetation removal, and gravel removal within channel migration zones. Adhere to provisions in this chapter, especially subsection (2)(c)(iv) of this section, riparian corridors, subsection (5) of this section, vegetation management, and WAC 173-26-240, use provisions.

(iii) Where feasible, give preference to nonstructural flood hazard reduction measures over structural measures. For example, structure setbacks or use relocation are generally preferred over new dikes or seawalls.

(c) Standards. Master programs shall implement the following standards:

(i) Do not allow new development in 100-year flood plains that substantially increases flood hazard or that is inconsistent with a comprehensive flood hazard management plan (comprehensive flood control management plan), as described in chapter 86.12 RCW, that has been adopted within the previous five years.

(ii) Do not allow structural flood control measures unless it can be demonstrated by a scientific and engineering analysis that nonstructural measures are not feasible, impacts to the existing shoreline conditions can be successfully mitigated, and appropriate vegetation management actions are undertaken.

Structural flood control measures shall be consistent with an adopted comprehensive flood hazard management plan approved by the department of ecology that evaluates cumulative impacts to the watershed system through this and similar development permitted by the shoreline master program.

Require shoreline permit applications for structural flood control projects to include the following information unless the proposed projects are consistent with standards set in a comprehensive flood hazard management plan:

(A) River channel hydraulics and floodway characteristics up and downstream from the project;

(B) Existing shoreline stabilization and flood protection works within the affected area;

(C) Physical, geological, and soil characteristics of the affected area;

(D) Biological resources and predicted impact to fish, vegetation, and animal habitat associated with shoreline ecological systems;

(E) Predicted impact upon shore and hydraulic processes, adjacent properties, and shoreline and water uses; and

(F) Analysis of alternative flood protection measures, both structural and nonstructural.

(iii) Require that all new structural flood control measures and all improvements to existing structures include measures to enhance ecological functions whenever feasible. Measures may include placement of woody debris, vegetation planting, storm water management measures, and other actions.

Place new flood hazard reduction measures landward of the natural floodway, channel migration zone and associated wetlands, except for actions that increase ecological functions, such as wetland restoration.

Exceptions: Flood damage minimization projects may occur in a channel migration zone only if the department of ecology determines that no other alternative to protect existing improvements is feasible. The need for structural improvements shall be documented through a geotechnical report.

Require that continuous public flood control measures, such as dikes and levees, dedicate and improve public access pathways unless public access improvements would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems, unacceptable and unmitigable environmental harm, significant unavoidable conflict with the proposed use, or a cost that is disproportionate and unreasonable to the total long-term cost of the development.

(iv) Require that the removal of gravel for flood management purposes be consistent with an adopted flood hazard reduction plan and with this chapter and allowed only after a hydrogeologic study shows that extraction has a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction and will not intensify downstream flooding.

(4) Public access.

(a) Applicability. Public access includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from upland locations. Public access provisions below apply to all shorelines of the state unless stated otherwise.

(b) Principles. Local master programs shall:

(i) Promote and enhance the public interest with regard to rights to access waters held in public trust by the state while protecting private property rights and public safety.

(ii) Protect the rights of navigation and water-dependent uses.

(iii) To the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally, protect the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state, including views of the water.

(iv) Regulate the design, construction, and operation of permitted uses in the shorelines of the state to minimize, insofar as practical, interference with the public's use of the water.

(c) Planning process to address public access. All local governments should plan for an integrated shoreline area public access system. When appropriate, this planning shall be integrated into other comprehensive plan elements. Local governments shall ensure that shoreline master program public access provisions support and are supported by other comprehensive plan elements, especially transportation and recreation. Local governments should identify specific public needs, access opportunities, and activities to provide public access, which can often be more effective and economical than applying uniform public access requirements to all development. Where a port district or other public entity has incorporated public access planning into its master plan through an open public process, that plan may serve as a portion of the local government's public access planning. The planning may also justify more flexible off-site or special area public access provisions in the shoreline master program. Public participation requirements in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(b)(i) apply to public access planning.

At a minimum, the public access planning should result in:

(i) Specific policies on which to base public access requirements for shoreline permits.

(ii) Policies, map illustrations, project descriptions, port master plans, and/or actions to be taken to develop public shoreline access to shorelines on public property.

(iii) Policies, map illustrations, project descriptions, and/or actions to be taken to provide a variety of shoreline access opportunities and circulation for pedestrians, including disabled persons, bicycles, and vehicles between shoreline access points, consistent with other comprehensive plan elements.

The plan shall identify regulations and other actions necessary to provide opportunities for public access, to meet the level of service standards in the local comprehensive plan, and to ensure the public's opportunity to use the water and to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.

(d) Standards. Shoreline master programs shall implement the following policy standards:

(i) Based on the public access planning described in (c) of this subsection, establish policies and regulations that protect and enhance both physical and visual public access. The master program shall address public access on public lands. The master program shall seek to increase the amount and diversity of public access to the state's shorelines and adjacent areas consistent with the natural shoreline character, property rights, including the public's rights under the Public Trust Doctrine, and public safety.

(ii) Require that shoreline development by public entities, including local governments, port districts, state agencies, and utility districts, include public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, or impact to the shoreline environment. Where a public access plan as described in (c) of this subsection demonstrates that a more effective public access system can be achieved through an alternate means, such as focusing public access at the most desirable locations, local governments may institute master program provisions for public access based on that approach in lieu of uniform site-by-site public access requirements.

(iii) Provide standards for the dedication and improvements of public access in developments for water-enjoyment, water-related, and nonwater-dependent uses and for the subdivision of land into more than five parcels. In these cases, public access shall be required except:

(A) Where the local government provides more effective public access through a public access planning process described in (c) of this subsection; or

(B) Where it is demonstrated to be infeasible due to reasons of incompatible uses, safety, security or impact to the shoreline environment.

In determining the undesirability or incompatibility of public access in a given situation, local governments shall consider alternate methods of providing public access, such as off-site improvements, viewing platforms, separation of activities through site planning and design, and restricting hours of public access.

(C) For individual single-family residences not part of a development planned for more than five parcels.

(iv) Adopt provisions, such as maximum height limits, setbacks, and view corridors, to minimize the impacts to existing views from public property or substantial numbers of residences. Where there is an irreconcilable conflict between water-dependent shoreline uses or physical public access and maintenance of views from upland properties, the water-dependent uses and physical public access shall have priority, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.

(v) Require that public access improvements with the potential to substantially degrade ecological functions be designed to minimize adverse impacts. Do not allow public access improvements that would unavoidably cause significant adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions.

(5) Vegetation management.

(a) Applicability and definitions. Vegetation management includes activities to prevent or minimize the loss of and increase the extent and viability of vegetation along or near the shoreline that contribute to the ecological functions of shoreline areas. Vegetation management activities may include the prevention or restriction of plant clearing and grading, vegetation rehabilitation, and the control of invasive weeds and nonnative species.

The intent of vegetation management is to protect and enhance the ecological functions performed by vegetation along streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and marine shorelines. Vegetation management may also be undertaken to increase the stability of river banks and coastal bluffs, to reduce the need for structural shoreline stabilization measures, to improve the visual and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline, or to enhance shoreline uses. Unless otherwise stated, vegetation management does not include those activities covered under the Washington State Forest Practices Act, except for conversion to other uses and those activities over which local governments have authority. As with all master program provisions, vegetation management provisions apply even to those shoreline uses and activities that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit. Vegetation management for aquatic plants is covered in subsection (2)(c)(iii) of this section.

(b) Principles. Master programs shall include provisions to implement the following objectives:

(i) Maintain and enhance vegetation needed to achieve the full range of ecological functions necessary for the integrity of shoreline ecosystems.

(ii) Support the full recovery of endangered species and genetic diversity achievable through the Shoreline Management Act.

(iii) Maintain and enhance the physical and aesthetic qualities of the natural shoreline.

(iv) Maintain and enhance vegetation to avoid adverse impacts to soil hydrology and to reduce the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion.

Because of the importance of native vegetation to the shoreline ecological functions, master programs shall use a variety of regulatory provisions based on comprehensive vegetation management, preservation, and rehabilitation strategies. Master programs shall ensure effective maintenance of vegetation in ecologically intact shoreline areas and increase the integrity of vegetation in ecologically altered shoreline areas. Master programs shall be directed toward achieving the following vegetation characteristics, as described in Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats, prepared by the Washington state department of fish and wildlife:

• Plant species diversity;

• Continuity of habitat and ecological processes;

• Multiple canopy layers (where such conditions naturally occur);

• The production of snags and downed woody debris (where forests naturally occur); and

• Diverse habitat and edge conditions.

Local governments shall be prepared to demonstrate, using best available science, how master program provisions will contribute to a net increase in system-wide (for example, on a watershed basis) ecological functions performed by shoreline vegetation. The intent of this requirement is to most effectively and efficiently implement, on a comprehensive, jurisdiction-wide (or, preferably, watershed or regional) basis, the vegetation management objectives described in (b) of this subsection. A system of monitoring the viability and functions of vegetation along the shorelines should be established to ensure that the vegetation management objectives are met.

The department of ecology will only approve vegetation management provisions if it is determined that they will, over the long term, contribute to an increase in the integrity of shoreline vegetation that supports ecological functions. In reviewing vegetation management provisions, the department of ecology will solicit comments from other state resource agencies, affected Indian tribes, and interested parties.

Place illustration here.

Vegetation management options in urbanized areas may be limited due to existing development and the need to accommodate preferred uses as defined in RCW 90.58.020. Nevertheless, local governments shall be prepared to demonstrate that the planning and resultant master program provisions take all feasible steps toward vegetation management objectives. Such master program measures include, but are not limited to:

• Preserving vegetation on undeveloped shorelines as parks or preserves;

• Requiring on-site vegetation enhancement for all nonwater-dependent development;

• Mitigating impacts from new water-dependent development; and

• Restricting new improvements to residential development unless shoreline vegetation is enhanced.

(c) Vegetation management corridor. Achieving the full range of ecological functions requires management of vegetation in corridors at least one site potential tree height in width. Therefore, master program vegetation management provisions shall implement vegetation maintenance and enhancement principals pursuant to (b) of this subsection within a designated "vegetation management corridor" of at least one site potential tree height width, as measured landward from the bank full width or top of bank nearest the shoreline that can support mature tree growth.

The vegetation management corridor concept applies to both fresh and saltwater shoreline areas and is distinct from the broader concept of a riparian corridor discussed in subsection (2)(c)(iv) of this section. The establishment of a vegetation management corridor does not necessarily preclude development. Refer to (d) of this subsection for development standards appropriate for different shoreline conditions. Nor is the vegetation management corridor necessarily synonymous with a buffer or no touch zone.

As Figure 10 illustrates, the ability of vegetated areas to provide critical ecological functions diminishes rapidly as the width of the vegetated area along riparian corridors is reduced.

Figure 10 illustrates that when shoreline vegetation is removed, the narrower the area of remaining vegetation, the greater the risk that the functions will not be performed. Therefore, in preparing provisions to protect existing vegetation, local governments shall consider the whole vegetation management corridor and protect sufficient vegetation to minimize risk to priority habitats.

In preparing master program provisions for the rehabilitation of altered shorelines, local governments should ensure that the vegetated areas are large enough to be of ecological benefit, even if they are not sufficiently wide enough to achieve all ecological functions.

Experience has indicated that vegetated areas less than fifty feet wide along shorelines are largely ineffective in achieving significant ecological functions because such areas are often encroached upon. Therefore, in preparing comprehensive vegetation management provisions that achieve the ecological functions provided by vegetation, no benefit should be ascribed to vegetated areas less than fifty feet in width, unless their value is otherwise demonstrated through best available science and measures are taken to prevent encroachment over time.

(d) Standards. Master programs shall ensure the following requirements are met within vegetation management corridors in shoreline jurisdiction, unless the department of ecology, pursuant to its authority under RCW 90.58.090, determines using best available science, that a different standard or regulatory approach provides more effective vegetation management.

(i) Do not allow vegetation removal that would likely result in significant soil erosion or in the need for structural shoreline stabilization measures as described in WAC 173-26-230 (3)(a).

(ii) For jurisdictions with an approved Endangered Species Act recovery plan addressing habitat within shoreline jurisdiction under the applicable federal and state agency authority, comply with that agreement.

(iii) For shorelines designated as "natural" shoreline environment and for undeveloped shoreline properties outside urban growth areas as defined by chapter 36.70A RCW that are relatively free of human structures, buildings, and pavements, do not allow new development or significant alteration of vegetation that would reduce the capability of vegetation to perform ecological functions. Do not allow the subdivision of property in a configuration that, to achieve its intended purpose, will require significant vegetation removal within the vegetation management corridor. That is, each new property parcel must be able to support its intended development on land outside the vegetation management corridor.

(iv) For shorelands designated for forestry purposes, including those covered by the Forest Practices Act, restrict activities sufficiently to ensure maintenance of ecological functions. Establish provisions that will contribute to vegetation enhancement where the shoreline has been ecologically degraded. If the land is converted to a more intense use, do not allow significant vegetation removal, grading or development within the vegetation management corridor except for low-intensity water dependent uses and public access that sustains ecological functions.

(v) For shorelands used for agricultural practices, restrict uses and activities that are not existing and ongoing agriculture sufficiently to ensure maintenance of ecological functions. Establish provisions that will contribute to vegetation enhancement where the shoreline has been ecologically degraded. If the land is converted to a more intense use, do not allow significant vegetation removal, clearing or development within the vegetation management corridor, except for low-intensity water-dependent uses and public access that sustains ecological functions.

(vi) For shoreline properties within areas planned for residential development, do not allow development that will significantly reduce the ecological functions performed by vegetation within the vegetation management corridor and restrict alteration of vegetation to the minimum necessary to accommodate permitted development. Where the dimensions of existing platted lots are not sufficient to accommodate development of a permitted use without encroaching on the vegetation management corridor, apply the mitigation sequence in WAC 173-26-020 to minimize adverse impacts to vegetation.

Shoreline master programs shall include standards for clearing and grading associated with residential development in accordance with technical guidance prepared by the department of ecology in coordination with other state agencies and affected Indian tribes.

(vii) For shoreline properties with existing residential uses located within a vegetation management corridor, do not allow new development, building additions, or significant vegetation removal that would significantly reduce ecological functions performed by vegetation. Reconstruction of or additions to buildings within an existing building footprint may be allowed. New development where vegetation is enhanced, may be allowed.

(viii) For shoreline properties within developed areas or urban growth areas planned for commercial and industrial uses, require shoreline vegetation protection (or rehabilitation, where vegetation has been degraded or removed) as a permit condition for nonwater-dependent uses and mitigation of vegetation impacts for water-dependent uses. Development proponents for nonwater-dependent uses shall be required to demonstrate that vegetation management measures will contribute increasing ecological functions.

Allow water-dependent uses within the vegetation management corridor only if impacts to existing vegetation are mitigated according to the mitigation sequence in WAC 173-26-020.

(6) Water quality, storm water runoff, and nonpoint pollution.

(a) Applicability. The following section applies directly to all activities occurring in shoreline jurisdiction that affect the physical, chemical or biological characteristics of surface water and ground water within shoreline areas. Applicable characteristics include, but are not limited to, biological properties, dissolved or suspended materials, presence of toxic materials, nutrient loading, temperature, and hydrological properties, such as runoff quantity, storm response, rate of flow, velocity, and discharge configuration.

(b) Principles. Shoreline master programs shall, as stated in RCW 90.58.020, protect against adverse impacts to the public health, to the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and to the waters of the state and their aquatic life, through implementation of the following principles:

(i) Prevent impacts to water quality that significantly reduce shoreline ecological functions.

(ii) Ensure that water within and entering shorelands and shorelines of the state, including ground water, surface water and channeled or piped water, conforms to state and federal water quality standards and, where applicable, endangered species recovery programs.

(iii) Ensure mutual consistency between shoreline management provisions and other regulations that address water quality, including public health, storm water runoff, and water discharge standards. The regulations most protective of ecological functions shall apply.

(c) Standards. Shoreline master programs shall implement the following policy standards:

(i) Development in shoreline jurisdiction shall not significantly and adversely affect the ecological functions of the shoreline by altering water quality.

(ii) Development on previously degraded shoreline sites should result in water quality that supports a net gain, within the watershed overall, in ecological functions.

(iii) All shoreline master programs for jurisdictions with priority species or impaired water quality with respect to human health, shall include a policy that land use and storm water runoff policies and regulations shall improve, over time, the water quality characteristics necessary to maintain or, if necessary, achieve long-term sustainability of anadromous fishes, and protection of human health, as demonstrated by meeting or exceeding state and federal water quality standards and endangered species recovery program requirements.

(iv) Discharges and storm water runoff within or into shoreline jurisdictions, especially aquatic areas that support anadromous fishes, shall be managed so that the water flow characteristics do not adversely affect juvenile fish survival.

(v) Variances to local and state public health code standards within shoreline jurisdiction shall require a shoreline variance.

[]

(1) Applicability. The provisions in this section apply to all shoreline modification activities within shoreline jurisdiction.

(2) Principles. Master programs shall implement the following principles.

(a) Allow shoreline modification only where demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect a permitted shoreline use.

(b) Reduce the adverse effects of shoreline modifications and, as much as possible, limit shoreline modifications in number and extent.

(c) Only allow shoreline modifications that are appropriate to the specific type of shoreline and environmental conditions for which it is proposed.

(d) Give preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions. For example, in normal circumstances, preference should be given to pile supported piers which allow normal water flow over landfill supported piers which alter the natural flow of water currents.

(e) Base master program provisions on best available science. Where applicable, base provisions on a comprehensive analysis of drift cells. Contact the department of ecology for available drift cell characterizations.

(f) Enhance ecological functions while accommodating existing legally permitted activities and the needs of water-oriented uses. As shoreline development and redevelopment occur, use all feasible measures to restore ecological shoreline functions.

(g) Mitigate significant adverse impacts according to mitigation sequence in WAC 173-26-020.

(3) Standards for specific shoreline modification activities.

(a) Shoreline stabilization.

(i) Applicability. Shoreline stabilization includes actions taken to address erosion impacts to property and dwellings, businesses, or essential structures caused by, or associated with current, flood, wind, or boat wake action. These actions include structural and nonstructural methods.

Nonstructural methods include building setbacks, planning, and regulatory measures to avoid the need for structural stabilization.

"Hard" structural stabilization measures refer to those with solid, hard surfaces, such as concrete bulkheads, while "soft" structural measures rely on softer materials, such as biotechnical vegetation measures or beach enhancement. There is a range of measures varying from hard to soft that include:

• Seawalls;

• Bulkheads;

• Concrete groins;

• Gabions;

• Rock revetments;

• Gravel placement;

• Anchor trees;

• Beach enhancement;

• Biotechnical measures; and

• Vegetation enhancement.

Generally, the harder the measure, the greater the impact on wave action, geomorphology, and biological functions.

Structural shoreline stabilization often results in vegetation removal and damage to near-shore habitat. Therefore, master programs shoreline stabilization provisions shall also be consistent with WAC 173-26-220(6), vegetation management, and WAC 173-26-220(2), critical areas.

The following standards, where applicable to residential bulkheads, implement RCW 90.58.100(6), which states:

Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single-family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single-family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

(ii) Standards. Master programs shall adhere to the following policy standards:

(A) For all shoreline areas, require that all development and shoreline modification activities minimize adverse impacts to the ecological functions of the shoreline through the following means.

• Do not allow structural stabilization measures except to protect or support an allowed use.

• Do not allow new nonwater-dependent development, including residences, that requires structural shoreline stabilization measures unless geotechnical analysis demonstrates that the structural stabilization measures are necessary to protect the development from shoreline erosion and that nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from the shoreline or on-site drainage improvements, would not be feasible.

• Do not allow new shoreline stabilization measures to be installed for an existing structure, including residential uses, unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis or demonstrated through imminently dangerous conditions, that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. Require that the geotechnical analysis evaluate on-site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering structural shoreline stabilization. Require mitigation of significant impacts to ecological functions.

• Do not allow the replacement of an existing shoreline stabilization structure with a similar structure unless there is a need to protect uses or structures demonstrated through a geotechnical report. Require that the replacement structure be designed, sized, and located to minimize harm to the natural shoreline environment and, where feasible, reduce harmful impacts to the shoreline.

• Where structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary, limit the size of stabilization measures to the minimum necessary and use measures designed to minimize harm to the natural shoreline environment.

• In the design of shoreline stabilization measures, use techniques to restore, as much as possible, the ecological functions of the shoreline. Require mitigation of adverse impacts to shoreline functions in accordance with the mitigation sequence defined in these guidelines.

• Do not allow shoreline stabilization for new development that would cause significant adverse impacts to adjacent properties and shoreline areas.

(B) For development on ecologically intact shoreline areas (generally corresponding to the "natural" environment designation):

• Do not allow new development that requires structural shoreline stabilization.

• Do not allow the subdivision of land into parcels that will require shoreline stabilization in order for development to occur.

(C) For uses on ecologically altered shorelines with predominantly resource-based activities, including forestry, agriculture and mining (shoreline areas generally corresponding to the "rural conservancy" environment designation), and for residential uses (generally corresponding to the "rural conservancy" or "shoreline residential" environment designations):

• Do not allow new or expanded nonwater-dependent development, including residences, that requires structural shoreline stabilization, unless there is conclusive evidence, documented through a geotechnical analysis, that there is a physical need for the measure in order to protect the proposed structure and that alternative approaches, such as setbacks, design modification, and other nonstructural methods, are infeasible. Allow new shoreline stabilization measures for water-dependent development only if there is a demonstrated need to protect the structure documented by a geotechnical report.

• Do not allow the subdivision of land into parcels that will require shoreline stabilization for development to occur.

(D) For uses on ecologically altered shoreline areas with industrial, commercial, and recreational activities (generally corresponding to the "high-intensity" and "urban conservancy" environment designations), do not allow new shoreline stabilization measures for new or expanded nonwater-dependent development unless there is conclusive evidence, documented through a geotechnical analysis, that there is a physical need for the measure and that alternate approaches, such as setbacks and design modifications, are not feasible. Require that new shoreline stabilization measures for nonwater-dependent development include ecological enhancement so that there is a net gain in the ecological shoreline functions.

(E) New development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization will not be needed during the life of the structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis.

For all developments on the top of steep or unstable bluffs or steep slopes with a height greater than ten feet above the ordinary high-water mark and a slope greater than forty percent, require a geotechnical report documenting:

• Soil conditions;

• Erosion rates;

• Drainage patterns;

• Vegetation management options;

• Recommended setbacks to avoid hard structural stabilization measures (such as bulkheads) during the life of the project;

• Evaluation of the stability and safety of the structure;

• Stability of the slope or bluff; and

• Seismic hazard.

(F) Ensure that publicly financed or subsidized shoreline erosion control measures do not restrict appropriate public access to the shoreline except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, or security. (See public access WAC 173-26-220(4).) Where appropriate, incorporate ecological shoreline rehabilitation and public access improvements into the project.

(G) Mitigate new erosion control measures on feeder bluffs or other actions that affect beach sediment-producing areas to reduce adverse impacts to sediment conveyance systems. Where sediment conveyance systems cross jurisdictional boundaries, local governments should coordinate shoreline management efforts. If beach erosion is threatening existing development, local governments should adopt master program provisions for a Beach Management District or other institutional mechanism to provide comprehensive mitigation for the adverse impacts of erosion control measures.

(b) Piers and docks. Piers and docks shall be allowed only for water-dependent uses and public access. Pier and dock construction shall be restricted to the minimum size necessary to meet the needs of the proposed use.

New pier or dock construction (including residential docks) shall be permitted only when the applicant has demonstrated that a specific need exists to support the intended water-dependent uses and that the function cannot be accommodated by an available nearby pier, dock, or mooring buoy. If a port district or other public or commercial entity involving water-dependent uses has performed a needs analysis or comprehensive master plan projecting the future needs for pier or dock space, it may serve as the necessary justification for pier design, size, and construction. The intent of this provision is to allow ports and other entities the flexibility necessary to provide for existing and future water-dependent uses.

Piers and docks shall be designed to minimize the impact to ecological functions and environmental critical areas resources such as eelgrass beds and fish habitats and processes such as tidal currents and littoral drift.

(c) Landfill. Landfill is the placement of soil, sand, rock, or other material (excluding solid waste) to create new land, tideland or submerged lands waterward of the ordinary high-water mark, or on uplands or wetlands in order to raise the elevation.

Landfills shall be located and designed to protect shoreline ecological functions and hydrological processes, including channel migration.

Landfills waterward of the ordinary high-water mark shall be allowed only when in support of a water-dependent use, public access, cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental cleanup plan, mitigation action, environmental rehabilitation, or beach nourishment or enhancement project. Landfills waterward of the ordinary high-water mark for any use except ecological enhancement should require a conditional use permit.

(d) Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs. Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs located waterward of the ordinary high-water mark shall be allowed only where necessary to support water-dependent uses, public access, shoreline stabilization or other specific public purpose. Those structures shall be designed to not obstruct natural shore processes (such as littoral drift) except in the area where intervention is warranted. The design of such structures shall make provision for ecological processes and critical area protection.

(e) Beach and dunes management. Washington's dunes and their associated beaches lie along the Pacific Ocean coast between Point Grenville and Cape Disappointment, and as shorelines of state-wide significance shall be managed from a state-wide perspective. Dunes and their beaches shall be managed to conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal dunes; and to reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or human-induced actions associated with these areas.

Shoreline master programs in coastal marine areas shall provide for diverse and appropriate use of beach and dune areas consistent with their ecological, recreational, aesthetic, and economic values, and consistent with the natural limitations of beaches, dunes, and dune vegetation for development. Coastal master programs shall institute development setbacks from the shoreline to prevent impacts to the natural, functional, ecological and aesthetic qualities of the dune.

Dune modification shall be allowed only as a conditional use. Dune modification shall be allowed only where the view is completely obstructed for lots or parcels which were created before passage of the Shoreline Management Act and where it can be demonstrated that the dunes did not obstruct views at that time; and where a regional plan for dune management, including grading, revegetation, and permanent monitoring, is carried out on a regional basis through a taxing authority such as a local improvement district, consistent with state and federal flood protection standards and requirements, and approved by the local government and the department.

Sand mining and dune modification shall not be allowed on erosional shorelines.

(f) Dredging and dredge material disposal. Dredging and dredge material disposal shall be done in a manner which avoids or minimizes negative environmental impacts.

New port facilities should be sited and designed to minimize the need for new and maintenance dredging. Dredging for the purpose of establishing, expanding, or relocating navigation channels and basins should be allowed only when it is the least environmentally adverse alternative and when suitable mitigation is provided. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins should be restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width unless necessary to improve navigation.

Dredging waterward of the ordinary high water mark for the primary purpose of obtaining fill material shall not be allowed. Master programs should include provisions for uses of suitable dredge material that benefit shoreline resources. Where applicable, master programs should provide for the implementation of adopted regional interagency dredge material management plans.

Disposal of dredge material into channel migration zones of riparian corridors outside of harbor areas is not allowed except by conditional use permit.

[]

(1) Applicability. The provisions in this section apply to uses and activities within the shoreline area and to those where the requirement for compatibility with shoreline uses, ecological protection, and other objectives of the Shoreline Management Act apply.

(2) Principles. Shoreline master programs shall implement the following principles:

(a) Establish a system of use and environment designation provisions consistent with WAC 173-26-210 that gives preference to those uses that are consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the ecological functions, or are unique to or dependent upon uses of the state's shoreline areas.

(b) Ensure that all shoreline master program provisions concerning proposed development of property are established, as necessary, to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare, as well as the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and to protect property rights while implementing the policies of the Shoreline Management Act.

(c) Reduce use conflicts by including provisions to prohibit or apply special conditions to lower priority uses. In implementing this provision, priority shall be given first to water-dependent uses, then to water-related uses and water-enjoyment uses.

Examples:

(i) New residential or commercial development should not be allowed where it might conflict with water-dependent port activity. In this case, a master program might require the residential development to include setbacks and screening to mitigate the impacts of industrial operations.

(ii) Where there is a potential conflict between aquaculture and shipping traffic, master programs could contain regulations or special aquatic shoreline designations to reduce conflict.

(d) Establish regulations to mitigate existing and potential impacts, such as flooding, erosion, and water quality.

(e) Establish use provisions that preserve unique shoreline development opportunities. Shoreline master programs shall establish use provisions that take advantage of shorelines with unique attributes or resources. For example, master program provisions should:

(i) Reserve portions of accessible deep-water urban harbors and adjacent shorelands for water-dependent uses.

(ii) Encourage mixed-use development, including water-dependent uses, near town centers.

(iii) Preserve unique public sites, such as lighthouse facilities, for public enjoyment.

(f) Define the types of uses and activities that require shoreline conditional use permits. Master programs should identify the following types of uses, structures, and activities as requiring conditional use permits, if they are permitted at all.

(i) Uses and activities that may significantly impair or alter the public's use of the water areas of the state.

(ii) Uses and activities which may have a significant adverse impact on shoreline ecology or resources depending on location, design, and site conditions.

(iii) Uses that are not preferred under the Shoreline Management Act when located on shorelines of state-wide significance or on commercially navigable waters.

(iv) Landfill waterward of the ordinary high water mark except for ecological enhancement.

(v) Other uses and activities as identified by local governments.

(3) Standards. Establish master program regulations to address the potential impacts and opportunities of specific shoreline uses that may occur in the jurisdiction.

(a) Agriculture. New development in support of agricultural activities shall be designed to minimize impacts to shoreline environments, specifically, to reduce livestock intrusion into the water; bank erosion; degradation of water quality from fertilizers, pesticides, and manure into the water; and loss of shoreline vegetation.

Recognizing that agricultural uses are an important economic, physical, and cultural asset in many Washington state communities, improper agricultural practices can have a substantial and cumulative effect on water quality and the shoreline environment. Consequently, applicable master programs shall include standards for setbacks, water quality protection, environmental impacts and vegetation management corridors, for new agricultural activities in shoreline jurisdiction.

Applicable master programs shall address new agricultural activities that do not meet the definition of existing and ongoing agriculture. Existing and ongoing agriculture includes those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2) and those activities involved in the production of crops or livestock; for example the operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds, drainage ditches, irrigation systems, and the normal maintenance and repair of existing structures, facilities, and lands currently under production or cultivation.

Requirements for setbacks and vegetation management corridors shall be based on best available science and management practices adopted by the applicable state agencies necessary to preserve the functions and qualities of the shoreline environment. In riparian corridors with priority species, the regulations shall be sufficient to ensure no net loss of habitat viability. If riparian habitat has been degraded through development or agriculture practices the master program shall include provisions that result in improved habitat over time.

Areas in agricultural production or reserved for agricultural activities shall be classified as "natural" or "rural conservancy" environment designation, as described in WAC 173-26-210, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.

(b) Aquaculture. Aquaculture is a preferred water-dependent use and shall be encouraged within specific constraints to protect the water ecology. Potential locations for aquaculture practices are relatively restricted due to specific biophysical requirements, such as water quality, temperature, substrate, dissolved oxygen, and salinity. Priority should be given to aquaculture uses in areas having a high potential for such uses.

Aquaculture should not be permitted in areas where it would degrade the natural ecology of the shoreline or significantly conflict with navigation and other water-dependent uses. Aquacultural facilities shall be developed so as not to significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.

(c) Boating facilities. Boating facilities, such as moorage facilities, marinas, boat ramps, and docks, are preferred uses. Shoreline master programs in jurisdictions where boating is a common activity shall contain provisions to address potential impacts while providing the boating public recreational opportunities on waters of the state.

Where applicable, shoreline master programs shall, at a minimum, contain:

(i) Provisions restricting boating facilities to locations with suitable environmental conditions, shoreline configuration, access, and neighboring uses;

(ii) Regulations to require facilities to meet health, safety, and welfare requirements, such as sewage pump-outs, wash-off stations, and solid waste disposal;

(iii) Regulations to mitigate visual and ecological impacts;

(iv) Provisions for public access in new marinas, including transient moorage, particularly where water-enjoyment uses are associated with the marina;

(v) Regulations to limit the impacts from boaters living in their vessels (live-aboards) and to prevent the displacement of recreational boats;

(vi) Regulations reducing the impacts of parking; and

(vii) Regulations restricting or mitigating the impacts of covered moorage.

(d) Commercial development. Master programs shall give preference to water-dependent commercial uses on the shoreline. Master programs shall consider public access and ecological rehabilitation requirements for all water-oriented commercial uses. Shoreline ecological rehabilitation and public access shall be a condition of all water-related and water-enjoyment use development unless such improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible or inappropriate. Master programs shall exclude nonwater-oriented commercial uses from locating on the shoreline unless they provide public access and ecological enhancement and they meet at least one of the following criteria:

(i) The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water-dependent uses.

(ii) Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site.

(iii) The commercial use provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives.

(iv) The commercial use is physically separated from the shoreline by another property or public right of way.

(e) Forest practices. Timber harvesting and forest practice conversions shall minimize impact to the shoreline environment and maintain the ecological quality of the watershed hydrologic system. Master programs shall establish provisions to ensure that all timber removal, including activities exempt under the Forest Practices Act and forest practice conversions, are consistent with the master program environment designation provisions and the provisions of this chapter.

Master programs shall include the provisions of RCW 90.58.150 regarding selective removal of timber harvest on shorelines of state-wide significance. Exceptions to this standard shall be by conditional use permit only.

Lands designated as "forest lands of long-term economic significance" shall be designated either "natural" or "rural conservancy" environment or equivalent designation.

Where forest practices fall within the applicability of the Forest Practices Act, local governments should consult with the department of natural resources, other applicable agencies, and local timber owners and operators to ensure a forest practices regulatory system that minimizes duplication and gaps. For riparian corridors with endangered or priority species, restrict activities within shoreline jurisdiction so that the ecological functions of the corridor are not reduced and use best available science to determine acceptable harvest practices.

Where it is determined that logging may substantially alter the water quality and hydrologic characteristics of water bodies containing endangered or priority species, the master program shall include a policy that forest practice activities not result in significant lowering of water quality characteristics within shoreline jurisdiction necessary to the life of anadromous fishes.

Shoreline master programs shall contain provisions to ensure that when forestlands are converted to another use, functions within the shoreline jurisdiction are not reduced and new development is prevented within the vegetation management corridor, except for low intensity water dependent uses and public access that sustains ecological functions.

(f) Industry. Water dependent industry is a preferred use. Regional and state-wide needs for water-dependent and water-related industrial facilities should be carefully considered in establishing master program environment designations, use provisions, and space allocations for industrial uses and supporting facilities.

Industrial development shall not be located in shoreline areas with severe biophysical limitations unless no other feasible option is available. Industrial development shall not be located or designed in a manner that causes significant adverse impacts to the ecological functions. Particular scrutiny shall be given to ecological functions necessary to support priority species.

New industrial development shall incorporate public access to the water except when such access causes significant interference with operations or hazards to life or property, as provided in WAC 173-26-220(4). Industrial development and redevelopment shall, where feasible, incorporate environmental cleanup and rehabilitation of the shoreline area. Nonwater-oriented industrial development shall only be allowed on nonnavigable shorelines and shall include public access and ecological rehabilitation of the shoreline. In such cases, no new structural shoreline stabilization measures shall be permitted.

(g) In-stream structures. In-stream structures shall provide for the protection and preservation of ecological functions and cultural resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fish passage, wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydrogeologic processes and natural scenic vistas. The location and planning of in-stream structures shall give due consideration to the full range of public interests and environmental concerns, with special emphasis on priority habitats and species. Master program provisions shall be based on best available science.

(h) Mining. Mining and the removal of gravel or other material shall not be allowed in critical areas where such activities would degrade ecological function. The excavation of sand, gravel and other materials shall be done in strict conformance to the Washington State Surface Mining Reclamation Act, chapter 78.44 RCW. The removal of gravel from rivers shall occur only after a hydrogeologic study shows that sustainable extraction can take place without altering the natural processes of gravel transport and other ecological functions. Destruction of endangered or priority species habitat is prohibited. All necessary actions shall be taken to protect fish and wildlife resources. All disturbed areas shall be reclaimed upon the completion of operations.

Surface mining and reclamation activities conducted in the flood plain shall mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife habitats.

(i) Recreational development. Water-oriented recreation is a preferred use, and provision shall be made in master programs for the public to enjoy the waters of the state. Master program provisions should ensure that shoreline recreational facilities, now and in the future, can reasonably tolerate, during peak use periods, a balance of active and passive uses without significantly degrading ecological functions.

For all jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act, master program recreation policies shall be consistent with growth projections and level-of-service standards established by the applicable comprehensive plan. Private recreational development shall not be a substitute for publicly owned, publicly accessible recreational facilities on the shorelines. Recreational development should provide for a spectrum of recreational needs and opportunities. Where possible, shoreline recreational facilities should be linked to other recreational attractions by pedestrian and bicycle trails. Master program recreation provisions shall be consistent with public access and environmental protection provisions of this chapter.

Master program provisions shall give preference to water-dependent recreation as a first priority and water-enjoyment and water-related recreational uses as a second priority. Nonwater-oriented recreational uses should be discouraged on the shoreline and, where allowed, shall include public access and ecological rehabilitation.

The impacts of recreational developments, including water-dependent facilities such as marinas and swimming beaches, and nonwater-oriented uses, such as golf courses, shall be mitigated. Nonwater-dependent recreational uses shall be located away from the water unless their adverse impacts can be avoided.

(j) Residential development. Residential uses can cause significant damage to the shoreline area through cumulative impacts from shoreline bulkheading, storm water runoff, septic system failure, eelgrass bed damage, introduction of pollutants, and vegetation removal. Master programs shall include shoreline setbacks, density regulations, bulkhead restrictions, vegetation management requirements, and sanitary sewer system standards for residential uses, including single-family residences and accessory structures and uses, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter in order to protect ecological functions. New residential development, including accessory structures and uses, shall be sufficiently set back from steep slopes and eroding shorelines so that structural improvements, including bluff walls and other bluff stabilization structures, are not required to protect property. (See RCW 90.58.100(6).)

Shoreline master programs shall prevent the creation of new residential lots that will require shoreline stabilization or deviation from vegetation management and water quality standards.

New over-water residences, including floating homes and houseboats, are not a preferred use and shall be prohibited. Master programs shall prevent growth in the number of over-water residences. Live-aboard vessels should be limited and carefully managed so that they do not displace recreational vessels in marinas and should be restricted to those marinas with facilities to accommodate them.

New multiunit residential development, including duplexes, fourplexes, and the subdivision of land for more than five parcels, shall provide public access in conformance to the local government's public access plan and this chapter. Master program provisions shall ensure that the platting of land and creation of lots for residential purposes is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and these guidelines.

(k) Transportation and parking. Establish and implement master program policies and regulations to provide safe, reasonable, and adequate circulation systems to shorelines.

Transportation plans and projects shall be consistent with the master program public access policies, public access plan, and environmental protection provisions.

Circulation system planning to and on shorelands shall include systems for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate. Circulation planning and projects shall support existing shoreline uses and those provided for by the master program.

Plan, locate, and design proposed transportation facilities where routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features and existing ecological functions or on existing or future water-dependent uses. Where other options are available and feasible, new roads or road expansions should not be built within two hundred feet of the shoreline or inside the vegetation management corridor.

Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be allowed only as necessary to support a preferred use. Shoreline master programs shall include policies and regulations to minimize the environmental and visual impacts of parking facilities.

(l) Utilities. These provisions apply to services and facilities that produce, convey, store, or process power, gas, sewage, communications, oil, waste, and the like. On-site utility features serving a primary use, such as a water line to a residence, are "accessory utilities" and are not addressed here.

All utility facilities shall be designed and located to minimize harm to shoreline functions, preserve the natural landscape, and minimize conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses while meeting the needs of future populations in areas planned to accommodate growth.

Utility production and processing facilities, or parts of those facilities, such as power plants and sewage treatment plants that are nonwater-oriented shall not be allowed in shoreline areas unless it can be demonstrated that no other feasible option is available.

Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables, and pipelines, shall be located to cause minimum harm to the shoreline, shall be located outside of the shoreline area where feasible. Utilities should be located in existing rights of way and corridors whenever possible.

Development of underwater pipelines and cables on tidelands should be discouraged except where adverse environmental impacts can be shown to be less than the impact of upland or deep-water alternatives. When permitted, those facilities should include adequate provisions to ensure against substantial or irrevocable damage to the environment.

[]

(1) Applicability. The following section applies to local governments preparing master programs that include shorelines of state-wide significance as defined in RCW 90.58.030

(2) Principles. In determining whether or not a local shoreline master program complies with the direction for "optimum implementation" in RCW 90.58.090(4), the department will use the following criteria:

(a) Optimum implementation of shoreline management objectives is generally achieved through a planning process that identifies significant state-wide resources or state-wide interests and integrates a comprehensive spectrum of policies and regulations.

(b) Because shoreline ecological resources are linked to other environments, implementation of ecological objectives requires effective management of whole ecosystems and the protection of shoreline and upland resources.

(c) Optimum implementation involves special emphasis on state-wide objectives and consultation with state agencies.

(d) The state's interests may vary depending upon the geographic region, type of shoreline and local conditions. Optimum implementation involves addressing the special issues and resources of the individual shorelines. Optimum implementation may involve insuring that other comprehensive planning policies and regulations support Shoreline Management Act objectives.

It is the responsibility of local governments to demonstrate that optimum implementation is achieved. The department of ecology will provide guidance regarding the state-wide interests.

(3) Planning process for shorelines of state-wide significance. Local governments that are amending shoreline master program provisions for shorelines of state-wide significance shall accomplish the following tasks as part of preparing or amending their master programs:

(a) Consult with applicable state agencies, affected Indian tribes, and state-wide interests and consider their recommendations in the shoreline master program provisions. For example, if priority species habitat is addressed, the departments of fish and wildlife, ecology, and natural resources as well as affected Indian tribes should, at a minimum, be consulted.

(b) Identify resource issues of state-wide significance and formulate public strategies for management of identified resources.

(c) Establish shoreline environment designation policies, boundaries, and use provisions that give priority to uses that are based on state-wide interests for habitat protection, water-oriented recreation, and water-oriented uses. More specifically:

(i) Base public access, recreation, and utilization requirements on demand projections that take into account the activities of state agencies and the interests of the citizens of the state to visit public shorelines with special scenic qualities or cultural or recreational opportunities.

(ii) Preserve sufficient shorelands, uplands, and submerged land to accommodate current and projected demand for economic resources of state-wide importance, such as commercial shellfish beds and navigable harbors. Base projections on state-wide or regional analyses, comment from related industry associations, affected Indian tribes and/or state agencies, and requirements for essential public facilities.

(iii) Identify the extent and importance of ecological resources of state-wide importance and potential impacts to those resources, both inside and outside the local government's geographic jurisdiction.

(d) Establish development standards that:

(i) Provide for the right of the public to use, access, and enjoy public shoreline resources of state-wide importance.

(ii) Provide for the shoreline needs of water-oriented uses and other shoreline economic resources of state-wide importance.

(iii) Ensure the long-term viability and enhancement of ecological resources of state-wide importance such as anadromous fish, shellfish beds, and unique environments. Standards shall consider incremental and cumulative impacts of permitted actions on the uplands and shorelands and include provisions to improve the functions of shoreline ecosystems as a whole.

(e) Assure that other local comprehensive plan provisions are consistent with and support as a high priority the principles and priorities for shorelines of state-wide significance. Specifically, shoreline master programs should include policies that:

(i) Require all comprehensive plan policies and critical area regulations to support the protection and enhancement of ecological resources of state-wide importance, including priority species and habitats and unique environments.

(ii) Call for the linking of shoreline public access sites to a comprehensive system of connections to other recreation resources and that identify a strategy for preserving and enhancing public access and public use to public shoreline resources of state-wide importance.

(iii) Require all comprehensive plan policies and land use designations to be consistent and support shorelines of state-wide significance use policies, shoreline environment designations, and the needs of water-dependent uses.

(f) Base shoreline master program policies and regulations for intertidal and submerged lands associated with shorelines of state-wide significance on a planning process that:

(i) Incorporates the participation of state agencies, use groups, local citizens, affected Indian tribes, and interested parties.

(ii) Identifies resources of state-wide importance and delineates areas of special importance or priority for specific uses.

(iii) Recognizes the state's special interests in state owned aquatic lands.

[]

(1) Purpose and intent. This section implements the Ocean Resources Management Act (RCW 43.143.005 through 43.143.030), enacted in 1989 by the Washington state legislature. The law requires the department of ecology to develop guidelines and policies for the management of ocean uses and to serve as the basis for evaluation and modification of local shoreline management master programs of coastal local governments in Jefferson, Clallam, Grays Harbor, and Pacific counties. The guidelines are intended to clarify state shoreline management policy regarding use of coastal resources, address evolving interest in ocean development, and prepare state and local agencies for new ocean developments and activities.

(2) Geographical application. The guidelines apply to uses conducted in Washington's coastal waters as defined in RCW 43.143.020 to include the Pacific Ocean from Cape Disappointment, at the mouth of the Columbia River, north to Cape Flattery, at the entrance to the Strait of Juan De Fuca, including the off-shore ocean area seaward of the line of mean high tide. Their broadest application would include an area seaward two hundred miles.

(3) Ocean uses defined. Ocean uses are activities or developments involving renewable and/or nonrenewable resources that occur on Washington's coastal waters and may include their associated off-shore, near-shore, inland marine, shoreland, and upland facilities and the supply, service, and distribution activities, such as crew ships, circulating to and between the activities and developments to the extent not addressed by the local master program and other regulations. Ocean uses involving nonrenewable resources include such activities as extraction of oil, gas, and minerals, energy production, disposal of waste products, and salvage. Ocean uses which generally involve sustainable use of renewable resources include commercial, recreational, and tribal fishing, aquaculture, recreation, shellfish harvesting, and pleasure craft activity.

(4) Relationship to existing management programs. These guidelines are not intended to modify current resource allocation procedures or regulations administered by other agencies, such as the Washington department of fisheries management of commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries. Every effort will be made to take into account tribal interests and programs in the guidelines and master program amendment processes. After inclusion in the state coastal zone management program, these guidelines and resultant master programs will be used for federal consistency purposes in evaluating federal permits and activities in Washington's coastal waters.

(5) Regional approach. The guidelines are intended to foster a regional perspective and consistent approach for the management of ocean uses. While local governments may have need to tailor their programs to accommodate local circumstances, local government programs should be coordinated with the programs of adjacent jurisdictions and consistent with and fully implement the provisions of this section.

In addition to the criteria in RCW 43.143.030, these guidelines apply to ocean uses until local master programs that implement this section are adopted by the department of ecology. The amended master program shall be the basis for review of an action that is either located exclusively in, or its environmental impacts confined to, one county. Where a proposal clearly involves more than one local jurisdiction, the guidelines shall be applied and remain in effect in addition to the provisions of the local master programs.

(6) General ocean uses guidelines. The following guidelines apply to all ocean uses:

(a) Local government and the department may approve permits for ocean uses, and only if the criteria of RCW 43.143.030(2) are met or exceeded:

(b) Ocean uses and activities that will not adversely impact renewable resources shall be given priority over those that will. Correspondingly, ocean uses that will have less adverse impacts on renewable resources shall be given priority over uses that will have greater adverse impacts.

(c) Ocean uses that will have less adverse social and economic impacts on coastal uses and communities should be given priority over uses and activities that will have more social and economic impacts.

(d) When the adverse impacts are generally equal, the ocean use that has less probable occurrence of a disaster should be given priority.

(e) The alternatives considered to meet a public need for a proposed use should be commensurate with the need for the proposed use. For example, if there is a demonstrated national need for a proposed use, then national alternatives should be considered.

(f) The State Environmental Policy Act and its associated administrative rules provide guidance in the application of the permit criteria and guidelines of this section. These regulations identify the range of impacts to be considered and the sequence of actions to be used as an order of preference in evaluating steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts.

(g) Impacts on commercial resources, such as the crab fishery, on noncommercial resources, such as environmentally critical and sensitive habitats, and on coastal uses, such as loss of equipment or loss of a fishing season, should be considered in determining compensation to mitigate adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts to coastal resources and uses.

(h) Allocation of compensation to mitigate adverse impacts to coastal resources or uses should be based on the magnitude and/or degree of impact on the resource, jurisdiction, and use.

(i) Rehabilitation plans and bonds prepared for ocean uses should address the effects of planned and unanticipated closures, completion of the activity, reasonably anticipated disasters, inflation, new technology, and new information about the environmental impacts to ensure that state-of-the-art technology and methods are used.

(j) Ocean uses and their associated coastal or upland facilities should be located, designed, and operated to prevent, avoid, and minimize adverse impacts on migration routes and habitat areas of species listed as endangered or threatened, environmentally critical and sensitive habitats, such as breeding, spawning, nursery, foraging areas, and wetlands, and areas of high productivity for marine biota, such as upwelling and estuaries.

(k) Ocean uses should be located to avoid adverse impacts on proposed or existing environmental and scientific preserves and sanctuaries, parks, and designated recreation areas.

(l) Ocean uses and their associated facilities should be located and designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on historic or culturally significant sites in compliance with chapter 27.34 RCW. Permits in general should contain special provisions that require permittees to comply with chapter 27.53 RCW if any archaeological sites or archeological objects, such as artifacts and shipwrecks, are discovered.

(m) Ocean uses and their distribution, service, and supply vessels and aircraft should be located, designed, and operated in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on fishing grounds, aquatic lands, or other renewable resource ocean use areas during the established, traditional, and recognized times they are used or when the resource could be adversely impacted.

(n) Ocean use service, supply, and distribution vessels and aircraft should be routed to avoid environmentally critical and sensitive habitats, such as sea stacks and wetlands, preserves, sanctuaries, bird colonies, and migration routes, during critical times those areas or species could be affected.

(o) In locating and designing associated on-shore facilities, special attention should be given to the environment, the characteristics of the use, and the impact of a probable disaster in order to assure adjacent uses, habitats, and communities adequate protection from explosions, spills, and other disasters.

(p) Ocean uses and their associated facilities should be located and designed to minimize adverse impacts on existing water-dependent businesses and existing land transportation routes to the maximum extent feasible.

(q) On-shore facilities associated with ocean uses should be located where there is adequate sewer, water, power, and streets. Preference should be given to use of existing marine terminals and other previously developed sites.

(r) Attention should be given to the scheduling and method of constructing ocean use facilities and the location of temporary construction facilities to minimize impacts on tourism, recreation, commercial fishing, local communities, and the environment.

(s) Special attention should be given to the effect that ocean use facilities will have on recreational activities and experiences, such as public access, aesthetics, and views.

(t) Detrimental effects on air and water quality, tourism, recreation, fishing, aquaculture, navigation, transportation, public infrastructure, public services, and community culture should be considered in avoiding and minimizing adverse social and economic impacts.

(u) Special attention should be given to designs and methods that prevent, avoid, and minimize adverse impacts, such as noise, light, temperature changes, turbidity, water pollution, and contaminated sediments, on the marine, estuarine, or upland environment. Such attention should be given particularly during critical migration periods and life stages of marine species and critical oceanographic processes.

(v) Preproject environmental base line inventories and assessments and monitoring of ocean uses should be required when little is known about the effects on marine and estuarine ecosystems, renewable resource uses, and coastal communities or when the technology involved is likely to change.

(w) Oil and gas, mining, disposal, and energy-producing ocean uses should be designed, constructed, and operated in a manner that minimizes environmental impacts on the coastal waters environment, particularly the seabed communities, and minimizes impacts on recreation and existing renewable resource uses, such as fishing.

(x) To the extent feasible, the location of oil and gas and mining facilities should be chosen to avoid and minimize impacts on shipping lanes or routes traditionally used by commercial and recreational fishermen to reach fishing areas.

(y) Discontinuance or shutdown of oil and gas, mining, or energy-producing ocean uses should be done in a manner that minimizes impacts to renewable resource ocean uses, such as fishing, and restores the seabed to a condition similar to its original state to the maximum extent feasible.

(7) Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted uses:

(a) Commercial and recreational fishing and shellfishing.

(b) Commercial and recreational navigation.

(c) Maintenance and improvement of aids to navigation.

(d) Fish and wildlife habitat restoration and enhancement.

(8) Conditional uses. The following uses and activities shall be conditional uses, except where they are prohibited by the provisions of a local master program:

(a) Oil and gas uses and activities. Oil and gas uses and activities involve the extraction of oil and gas resources from beneath the ocean.

(i) Whenever feasible, oil and gas facilities should be located and designed to permit joint use in order to minimize adverse impacts to coastal resources and uses and the environment.

(ii) Special attention should be given to the availability and adequacy of general disaster response capabilities in reviewing ocean locations for oil and gas facilities.

(iii) Because environmental damage is a very probable impact of oil and gas uses, the adequacy of plans, equipment, staffing, procedures, and demonstrated financial and performance capabilities for preventing, responding to, and mitigating the effects of accidents and disasters such as oil spills should be a major consideration in the review of permits for their location and operation. If a permit is issued, it should ensure that adequate prevention, response, and mitigation can be provided before the use is initiated and throughout the life of the use.

(iv) Special attention should be given to the response times for public safety services, such as police, fire, emergency medical, and hazardous materials spill response services, in providing and reviewing on-shore locations for oil and gas facilities.

(v) Oil and gas facilities, including pipelines, should be located, designed, constructed, and maintained in conformance with applicable requirements but should, at a minimum, ensure adequate protection from geological hazards, such as liquefaction, hazardous slopes, earthquakes, physical oceanographic processes, and natural disasters.

(vi) Upland disposal of oil and gas construction and operation materials and waste products such as cuttings and drilling muds should be allowed only in sites that meet applicable requirements.

(b) Ocean mining. Ocean mining includes such uses as the mining of metal, mineral, sand, and gravel resources from the ocean floor.

(i) Seafloor mining should be located and operated to avoid detrimental effects on ground fishing or other renewable resource uses.

(ii) Seafloor mining should be located and operated to avoid detrimental effects on beach erosion or accretion processes.

(iii) Special attention should be given to habitat recovery rates in the review of permits for seafloor mining.

(c) Energy production. Energy production uses involve the production of energy in a usable form directly in or on the ocean, rather than extracting a raw material that is transported elsewhere, to produce energy in a readily usable form. Examples of these ocean uses are facilities that use wave action or differences in water temperature to generate electricity.

(i) Energy-producing uses should be located, constructed, and operated in a manner that has no detrimental effects on beach accretion or erosion and wave processes.

(ii) An assessment should be made of the effect of energy-producing uses on upwelling and other oceanographic and ecosystem processes.

(iii) Associated energy distribution facilities and lines should be located in existing utility rights of way and corridors whenever feasible, rather than creating new corridors that would be detrimental to the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline area.

(d) Ocean disposal. Ocean disposal uses involve the deliberate deposition or release of material at sea, such as solid waste, industrial waste, radioactive waste, incineration, incinerator residue, dredged materials, vessels, aircraft, ordnance, platforms, or other man-made structures.

(i) Storage, loading, transporting, and disposal of materials shall be done in conformance with local, state, and federal requirements for the protection of the environment.

(ii) Ocean disposal shall be allowed only in sites that have been approved by the Washington department of ecology, the Washington department of natural resources, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers as appropriate.

(iii) Ocean disposal sites should be located and designed to prevent, avoid, and minimize adverse impacts on environmentally critical and sensitive habitats, coastal resources and uses, or opportunities for mineral resource development. Ocean disposal sites for which the primary purpose is habitat enhancement may be located in a wider variety of habitats, but the general intent of the guidelines should still be met.

(e) Ocean research. Ocean research activities involve scientific investigation for the purpose of furthering knowledge and understanding. Investigation activities involving necessary and functionally related precursor activities to an ocean use or development may be considered either exploration or part of the use or development. Since ocean research often involves activities and equipment, such as drilling and vessels, that also occur in exploration and ocean uses or developments, a case-by-case determination of the applicable regulations may be necessary.

(i) Coordination should be encouraged between ocean research and other ocean uses occurring in the same area to minimize potential conflicts.

(ii) Ocean research meeting the definition of "exploration activity" in WAC 173-15-020 shall comply with the requirements of chapter 173-15 WAC: Permits for oil or natural gas exploration activities conducted from state marine waters.

(iii) Ocean research should be located and operated in a manner that minimizes intrusion into or disturbance of the coastal waters environment, consistent with the purposes of the research and the intent of the general ocean use guidelines.

(iv) Ocean research should be completed or discontinued in a manner that restores the environment to its original condition to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with the purposes of the research.

(v) Public dissemination of ocean research findings should be encouraged.

(f) Ocean salvage. Ocean salvage uses share characteristics of other ocean uses and involve relatively small sites occurring intermittently. Historic shipwreck salvage, which combines aspects of recreation, exploration, research, and mining, is an example of such a use.

(i) Nonemergency marine salvage and historic shipwreck salvage activities should be conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to the coastal waters environment and renewable resource uses, such as fishing.

(ii) Nonemergency marine salvage and historic shipwreck salvage activities should not be conducted in areas of cultural or historic significance unless they are part of a scientific effort sanctioned by appropriate governmental agencies.

[]

© Washington State Code Reviser's Office