Original Notice.

Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 99-23-103.

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; and 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 The changes will eliminate burdensome and outdated regulations, clarify state interests in shorelines and incorporate more efficient and effective regulatory reform measures in the guidelines.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 does not apply 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:

Pasco
Date:	Tuesday, June 27.
Location:	Columbia Basin Community College, 2600 North 20th, Workforce Training Center, Room 180.
Open house:	5:30 p.m.
Public hearing:	7:00 p.m.
Spokane
Date:	Wednesday, June 28.
Location:	Spokane Intercollegiate Research and Technology Institute, 665 North Riverpoint Boulevard, Room 201.
Open house:	5:30 p.m.
Public hearing:	7:00 p.m.
Wenatchee
Date:	Thursday, June 29.
Location:	Chelan County PUD, 327 North Wenatchee Avenue.
Open house:	5:30 p.m.
Public hearing:	7:00 p.m.
Olympia/Lacey
Date:	Wednesday, July 5.
Location:	Ecology Department Auditorium, 300 Desmond Drive.
Open house:	5:30 p.m.
Public hearing:	7:00 p.m.
Raymond
Date:	Thursday, July 6.
Location:	Raymond High School Auditorium, 825 Commercial.
Open house:	5:30 p.m.
Public hearing:	7:00 p.m.
Vancouver, Washington
Date:	Monday, July 10.
Location:	Water Resource Education Center, 4600 S.E. Columbia Way.
Open house:	5:30 p.m.
Public hearing:	7:00 p.m.
Seattle
Date:	Tuesday, July 11.
Location:	Seattle Center, Shaw Room, 305 Harrison Street.
Open house:	5:30 p.m.
Public hearing:	7:00 p.m.
Bellingham
Date:	Wednesday, July 12.
Location:	Whatcom County Courthouse Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue.
Open house:	5:30 p.m.
Public hearing:	7:00 p.m.

Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact Tim Gates by June 16, 2000, TDD (360) 407-6006, or (360) 407-7256, P.O. Box 47600.

Submit Written Comments to: Shoreline Rule, Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, e-mail shorerule@ecy.wa.gov, fax (360) 407-6902 by August 7, 2000.

Date of Intended Adoption: August 31, 2000.

May 23, 2000

Tom Fitzsimmons

for Dan Silver

Deputy Director

OTS-4065.3

The provisions of this chapter implement the requirements of chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.      RCW 90.58.200 authorizes the adoption of rules by the department as necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of the act.      RCW 90.58.080 directs local governments to develop and administer local shoreline master programs for regulation of uses on shorelines of the state.      Such local programs should be integrated with other local government systems for administration and enforcement of land use regulations.      RCW 36.70A.480 provides that the goals and policies contained in a local shoreline master program shall be considered an element of the local comprehensive plan required by the Growth Management Act.      All other portions of the local shoreline master program, including the use regulations, are considered a part of the local development regulations required by the Growth Management Act.

This chapter is drafted to also reflect RCW 90.58.050 which provides that the Shoreline Management Act is intended to be a cooperative program between local government and the state.      It is the intent of this chapter to provide minimum procedural requirements as necessary to comply with the statutory requirements while providing latitude for local government to establish procedural systems based on local needs and circumstances.

Pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act, the department must approve master programs prepared by local governments or adopt them by rule consistent with the act.      In order to facilitate this process, Part I of this chapter establishes a recordkeeping system for the department and defines the contents of the state master program.      Part II sets forth procedures for approving and adopting master programs and amendments thereto. Parts III and IV comprise the guidelines pursuant to RCW 90.58.060 and provide alternative approaches to developing the content of shoreline master programs. Part V addresses the requirements of the state Ocean Resources Management Act.

[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3) and [90.58].200.      96-20-075 (Order 95-17), § 173-26-010, filed 9/30/96, effective 10/31/96.]

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

(1) "Act" means the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, chapter 90.58 RCW.

(2) "Adaptive management" means the modification of management practices to address changing conditions and new knowledge. Adaptive management is an approach that incorporates monitoring and research to allow projects and activities, including projects designed to produce environmental benefits, to go forward in the face of some uncertainty regarding consequences. The key provision of adaptive management is the responsibility to change adaptively in response to new understanding or information after an action is initiated.

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

(((3))) (5) "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))) (6) "Aquatic" means pertaining to those areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.

(7) "Bank full width" means the horizontal projection of bank full depth to the stream bank. Most river channels are bordered by a relatively flat area or valley floor. When the water fills the channel completely, or is at bank full stage, this surface is level with the flood plain. The stream cuts down or builds up as climate and watershed conditions change because there is a new relation between discharge and sediment transport and storage. The channel will erode or modify its flood plain in response to changes in discharge and sediment. The former flood plain it had been constructing is thus abandoned. An abandoned flood plain is called a terrace. While a terrace is flooded on occasion, the active flood plain is frequently flooded by discharges that occur approximately every 1.5 years to 2.0 years in the annual flood series. Bank full depth means the elevation of the water surface of a stream flow having a return period of approximately 1.5 years measured from the line of maximum depth of the stream or thalweg. In those valleys that narrowly confine the channel such that no flood plain can be built, this bank full stage projection still applies.

(8) "Channel migration zone (CMZ)" means the lateral extent of likely movement along a stream reach with evidence of active stream channel movement over the past one hundred years. Evidence of active movement can be provided from aerial photos or specific channel and valley bottom characteristics. A time frame of one hundred years was chosen because aerial photos and field evidence can be used to evaluate movement in this time frame. Also, this time span typically represents the time it takes to grow mature trees that can provide functional large woody debris to most streams. In large meandering rivers a more detailed analysis can be conducted to relate bank erosion processes and the time required to grow trees that function as stable large woody debris. The CMZ shall include floodways and wetlands, as defined under chapter 90.58 RCW, whether associated with either shorelines of the state or shorelines of state-wide significance, as defined under chapter 90.58 RCW.

With the exception of shorelands in the "natural" and "rural conservancy" environments, areas separated from the active channel by legally existing artificial channel constraints that limit bank erosion and channel avulsion without hydraulic connections shall not be considered within the CMZ. All areas, including areas within the "natural" and "rural conservancy" environments, separated from the natural channel by legally existing structures designed to withstand the 100-year flood shall not be considered within the CMZ. A tributary stream or other hydraulic connection allowing PTE species fish passage draining through a dike or other constricting structure shall be considered part of the CMZ.

(9) "Department" means the state department of ecology((;)).

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

(11) "Development regulations" means the controls placed on development or land uses ((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))) (12) "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))) (13) "Drift cell," "drift sector," or "littoral cell" means a particular reach of marine shore in which littoral drift may occur without significant interruption and which contains any natural sources of such drift and also accretion shore forms created by such drift.

(14) "Ecological functions" or "shoreline functions" means the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the proper maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline ecosystem. Ecological functions relevant to specific shoreline ecological systems include, but are not limited to:

(a) Riverine:

• Hydrologic processes: Maintaining a natural range of flow variability, sideflow and overflow channel functions, reducing peak flows and downstream erosion, and helping to maintain base flows.

• Water quality: Temperature; removing excessive nutrients and toxic compounds.

• Dynamic sediment processes: Sediment removal, stabilization, transport, deposition, and providing spawning gravels.

• Habitat for: Proposed, threatened, endangered, and priority species (whatever they may be in the jurisdiction); aquatic and shoreline-dependent birds, invertebrates, and mammals; amphibians; and anadromous and resident native fish. Habitat functions may include, but are not limited to, shade, litter and woody debris recruitment, refugia, and food production.

• Hyporheic functions: Water quality, water storage, vegetation base, and sediment storage.

(b) Lacustrine:

• Water quality: Removing excessive nutrients and toxic compounds and removing and/or stabilizing sediments.

• Habitat for: Proposed, threatened, endangered, and priority species (whatever they may be in the jurisdiction); aquatic and shoreline-dependent birds, invertebrates, and mammals; amphibians; and anadromous and resident native fish. Habitat functions may include, but are not limited to, shade, litter and woody debris recruitment, refugia, and food production.

(c) Marine:

• Water quality: Removing excessive nutrients and toxic compounds.

• Dynamic sediment processes: Sediment removal, stabilization, transport, deposition, and providing spawning gravels.

• Wave attenuation.

• Habitat for: Proposed, threatened, endangered, and priority species (whatever they may be in the jurisdiction); aquatic and shoreline-dependent birds, invertebrates, and mammals; amphibians; and anadromous and resident native fish. Habitat functions may include, but are not limited to, shade, litter and woody debris recruitment, refugia, and food production.

(d) Wetlands:

• Flood attenuation.

• Water quality: Removing excessive nutrients and toxic compounds.

• Ground water recharge.

• Maintenance of base flows.

• Nutrient filtering.

• Habitat for: Proposed, threatened, endangered, and priority species (whatever they may be in the jurisdiction); aquatic and shoreline-dependent birds, invertebrates, and mammals; amphibians; and anadromous and resident native fish. Habitat functions may include, but are not limited to, shade, litter and woody debris recruitment, refugia, and food production.

When used in Part IV, sections 270 through 350 of this chapter, the term "ecological functions" shall include all functions necessary for properly functioning condition for PTE species.

(15) "Ecologically altered shorelines" means those shorelines where humans have directly or indirectly modified the vegetation or shoreline configuration in a manner that significantly influences or reduces the natural shoreline functions.

(16) "Ecologically intact shorelines" means those shoreline areas that retain the majority of their natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by the shoreline configuration and the presence of native vegetation or, in rivers, a natural range of flow variability. Generally, but not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of structural shoreline modifications, structures, and intensive human uses. In unmanaged forested areas, they generally include native vegetation with diverse plant communities, multiple canopy layers, and the presence of large woody debris available for recruitment to adjacent water bodies.

Recognizing that there is a continuum of ecological conditions ranging from near natural conditions to totally degraded and contaminated sites, this term is intended to delineate those shoreline areas that provide valuable functions for the larger aquatic and terrestrial environments which could be lost or significantly reduced by human development. Whether or not a shoreline is ecologically intact is determined on a case-by-case basis.

The term "ecologically intact shorelines" applies to all shoreline areas meeting the above criteria ranging from larger reaches that may include multiple properties to small areas located within a single property.

(17) "Ecosystem-wide processes" means the suite of physical and geologic processes of erosion, transport, and deposition and specific chemical processes (e.g., flocculation) that shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat that are present and the associated ecological functions and their processes. Ecosystem-wide processes include, but are not limited to:

(a) Riverine fluvial processes: Landform and channel erosion; sediment transport and load in channel and overbank; channel dynamics, including channel gradation and migration; and changes in channel form during flooding.

(b) Lacustrine, tidal wave, and current processes: Wave erosion (including refraction), littoral drift, and tidal erosion and deposition.

(18) "Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, that an action, such as a development project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, meets all of the following conditions:

(a) The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past, or studies or tests have demonstrated that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results;

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

(c) The action does not physically 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 on 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. For the provisions of Part IV, this evaluation shall give special consideration and precedence to protecting PFC for PTE species.

(19) "Fill" means the addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other material to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land.

(20) "Flood plain" is synonymous with one hundred-year floodplain and means that land area susceptible to inundation with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The limit of this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method which meets the objectives of the act.

(21) "Geotechnical report" or "geotechnical analysis" means a scientific study or evaluation conducted by a qualified expert that includes a description of the ground and surface hydrology and geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other geologic hazards or processes, 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 down-current properties. 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 shoreline geology and processes.

(22) "Grading" means the movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land.

(23) "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))) (24) "In-stream structure" means a structure placed by humans within a stream or river waterward of the bank full width that either causes or has the potential to cause water impoundment or the diversion, obstruction, or modification of water flow. In-stream structures may include those for hydroelectric generation, irrigation, water supply, flood control, transportation, utility service transmission, fish habitat enhancement, or other purpose.

(25) "Lacustrine" means pertaining to a lake.

(26) "Letter of exemption" means a letter or other official certificate issued by a local government to indicate that a proposed development is exempted from the requirement to obtain a shoreline permit as provided in WAC 173-27-050. Letters of exemption may include conditions or other provisions placed on the proposal in order to ensure consistency with the Shoreline Management Act, this chapter, and the applicable master program.

(27) "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))) (28) "Marine" means pertaining to tidally influenced waters, including oceans, sounds, straits, marine channels, and estuaries.

(29) "May" means the action is acceptable, provided it conforms to the provisions of this chapter.

(30) "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, with (a) of this subsection being top priority.

(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;

(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.

(31) "Must" means a mandate; the action is required.

(32) "Nonpoint pollution" means pollution that enters any waters of the state from any dispersed land-based or water-based activities, including, but not limited to, atmospheric deposition, surface water runoff from agricultural lands, urban areas, or forest lands, subsurface or underground sources, or discharges from boats or marine vessels not otherwise regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program.

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

(34) "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 or wildlife density;

• Comparatively high fish or wildlife species diversity;

• Important fish or wildlife breeding habitat;

• Important fish or wildlife seasonal ranges;

• Important fish or wildlife movement corridors;

• Rearing and foraging habitat;

• Refugia habitat;

• 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 or 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 a consolidated marine/estuarine shoreline, talus slopes, caves, snags) of key value to fish and wildlife. A priority habitat may contain priority and/or nonpriority fish and wildlife.

(35) "Priority species" means species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their persistence at genetically viable population levels. Priority species are those that meet any of the criteria listed below.

(a) Criterion 1. State-listed or state proposed 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 proposed 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.

(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 colonies, 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 federal Endangered Species Act as either proposed, threatened, or endangered.

(36) "Properly functioning condition" or "PFC" means conditions that create and sustain natural habitat-affecting processes (such as sediment routing, riverine community succession, precipitation runoff patterns, a natural range of flow variability and channel migration) over the full range of environmental variation and that support productivity at a viable population level of PTE species. The term "properly functioning condition" indicates a level of performance for a subset of the more broadly defined "ecological functions," reflecting what is necessary for the recovery of PTE species.

(37) "Proposed, threatened, and endangered species" or "PTE species" means those native species that are proposed to be listed or are listed in rule by the Washington state department of fish and wildlife pursuant to RCW 77.12.020 as threatened (WAC 232-12-011) or endangered (WAC 232-12-014), or that are proposed to be listed as threatened or endangered or that are listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533.

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

(39) "Restoration" or "ecological restoration" means the significant upgrading of ecological shoreline functions through measures such as revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials.

(40) "Restore" means to significantly upgrade shoreline ecological functions through measures such as revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures, and removal or treatment of toxic sediments.

(41) "Riverine" means pertaining to a river system, including associated lakes and wetlands.

(42) "Shall" means a mandate; the action must be done.

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

(44) "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))) (45) "Shoreline modifications" 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, pier, weir, dredged basin, fill, bulkhead, or other shoreline structures. They can include other actions, such as clearing, grading, or application of chemicals.

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

(47) "Should" means that the particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason, based on policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, against taking the action.

(48) "Significant ecological impact" means an effect or consequence of an action if any of the following apply:

(a) The action measurably or noticeably reduces or harms an ecological function or ecosystem-wide process.

(b) Scientific evidence or objective analysis indicates that the action could cause reduction or harm to those ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes described in (a) of this subsection under foreseeable conditions.

(c) Scientific evidence indicates that the action could contribute to a measurable or noticeable reduction or harm to ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes described in (a) of this subsection as part of cumulative impacts, due to similar actions that are occurring or are likely to occur.

(49) "Significant vegetation removal" means the removal or alteration of native trees, shrubs, and/or ground cover by clearing, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or other activity that causes significant ecological impacts to functions provided by such vegetation. The removal of invasive or noxious weeds does not constitute significant vegetation removal. Tree pruning, not including tree topping, where it does not affect ecological functions, does not constitute significant vegetation removal.

(50) "Site potential tree height" means the average height, at age one hundred years, of the tallest mature native tree 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.

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

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

(52) "Storm water" means that portion of precipitation that does not normally percolate into the ground or evaporate but flows via overland flow, interflow, channels, or pipes into a defined surface water channel or constructed infiltration facility.

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

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

(b) The degrading action may cause damage or harm to shoreline ecological functions under foreseeable conditions; or

(c) Scientific evidence indicates that the action may contribute to damage or harm to ecological functions as part of cumulative impacts.

(54) "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 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, surface water intake, and sewer outfalls.

(55) "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 location, design, and operation ensures 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.

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

(57) "Water quality" means the physical characteristics of water within shoreline jurisdiction, including water quantity, hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation-related, and biological characteristics. Where used in this chapter, the term "water quantity" refers only to development and uses regulated under this chapter and affecting water quantity, such as impermeable surfaces and storm water handling practices. Water quantity, for purposes of this chapter, does not mean the withdrawal of ground water or diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340.

(58) "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) The use has 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 uses and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient.

Water-related uses include manufacturing of ship parts large enough that transportation becomes a significant factor in the product's cost, professional services serving primarily water-dependent uses, and storage of water-transported foods. Other examples of water-related uses 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 upland log storage for water-borne transportation.

In addition, the definitions and concepts set forth in RCW 90.58.030, as amended, and implementing rules 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.]

(1) Local governments shall develop new or amended master programs according to this chapter.

(2) Parts III and IV of this chapter are distinct and separate methods for developing new or amended master programs. Part III is the default path for local government submissions. Absent a declaration of intent pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, the department will review a new or amended master program submitted to the department pursuant to WAC 173-26-110 for consistency with Part III.

(3) At any time prior to submittal to the department of a new or amended master program pursuant to WAC 173-26-110, a local government may provide written notice to the department declaring that its submission has been or will be developed according to Part IV. Upon receipt of such a declaration, the department will review the submitted master program for consistency with Part IV.

(4) A local government who has declared its intention to proceed under Part IV may, at any time prior to approval by the department, revert to Part III by providing written notice to the department.

[]

GUIDELINES -- DEFAULT APPROACH
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-26-170
Purpose of Part III.

(1) Objectives.

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 the act for regulation of uses of the shorelines; and to provide criteria to local governments and the department in developing and amending master programs. The purposes of Part III are to: (Text in quotations is excerpted from RCW 90.58.020.)

(a) Protect against adverse impacts.

"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. . . ."

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

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).)

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."

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

"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."

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

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."

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."

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

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:

"(i) Single-family residences and their appurtenant structures;

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

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

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

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.

"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."

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

(d) Protection and restoration of ecological functions.

This chapter captures the resource protection and restoration policy of RCW 90.58.020 within the concept of protection and restoration of ecological functions. The relative state of ecological functions in a species' range or habitat has a dramatic effect on the general health of the state's native vegetation, wildlife, and fish. Some native species remain vigorous, while others have declined over the years. Local governments with proposed, threatened, or endangered species within their jurisdiction should consider the needs of such species when drafting master program provisions intended to protect and restore ecological functions.

(2) Responsibilities of state and local governments.

RCW 90.58.050 gives local governments the responsibility of initiating the planning required by the Shoreline Management Act and administering the regulatory program consistent with its policy and provisions. 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.

[]

(1) Master program concepts.

The following four concepts are the basis for effective shoreline master programs.

(a) Master program policies and regulations.

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 planning and regulatory measures for adjacent land. For jurisdictions planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, the Growth Management Act, the requirements for integration of shoreline and adjacent land planning are more specific and are described in WAC 173-26-190 (2)(a). Fourth, master programs address conditions and opportunities of specific shoreline segments by classifying the shorelines into "environment designations" as described in WAC 173-26-210.

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. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and issues a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them. The regulations apply to all uses and development 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:

(a) An economic development element for the location and design of industries, industrial projects of statewide significance, 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.

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

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

(d) 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.

(e) 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.

(f) 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.

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

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

(i) 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. Local jurisdictions are not required to address the master program elements listed in the Shoreline Management Act as discrete sections. The elements may be addressed throughout master program provisions rather than used 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 by setting use priorities and requiring "optimum implementation" of the act's policy. WAC 173-26-250 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 sets of environment protection measures, allowable use provisions, and development standards for each of these shoreline segments.

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.

(2) Basic requirements.

Part III of this chapter describes the basic components and content required in a master program. Part III also contains suggestions for fulfilling the requirements which local governments may or may not choose to follow.

For this chapter, the terms "shall," "must," and "are required" and the imperative voice mean a mandate; the action must be done. As noted in WAC 173-26-020, the term "should" means that the particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason, based on a policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, against taking the action. 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 chapter 36.70A RCW 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. The department may develop recommendations for land use control for such lands. Local governments shall, in developing use regulations for such areas, take into consideration any recommendations developed by the department as well as any other state agencies or units of local government [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 34.]

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.

(A) First, WAC 173-26-190 (2)(b) and (c) describe optional methods to integrate master programs and other development regulations and the local comprehensive plan.

(B) Second, WAC 173-26-220 through 173-26-250 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.

(C) 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 ensure that local master programs are consistent with other regulations.

Shoreline master programs may include other regulations by referencing a specific, dated edition. When including referenced regulations within a master program, local governments shall ensure that the public has an opportunity to participate in the formulation of the regulations or in their incorporation into the master program, as called for in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(b)(i). In the approval process, the department will review the referenced development regulation sections 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 will require 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 rather than preparing a discrete master program in a single document. Master program provisions that are integrated into such plans and development regulations shall be clearly identified so that the department 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 or the applicable 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 to the department a listing and copies of all provisions that constitute the master program. The master program shall also be sufficiently complete and defined to provide:

(i) Clear directions to applicants applying for shoreline permits; and

(ii) 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.

Place illustration here.

(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 and efficiently manage natural resources, such as drift cells or watersheds, 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.

(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, 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 master program policies are considered a shoreline element of the local comprehensive plan and shall also be consistent with the planning goals of RCW 36.70A.020.

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 173-26-210. 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.

(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 that apply to specific environments consistent with WAC 173-26-210.

(C) Include general regulations, use regulations that address issues of concern to specific uses, and shoreline modification regulations that protect shoreline ecological functions from the effects of human-made modifications to the shoreline.

(iii) Administrative provisions.

(A) Statement of applicability.

The Shoreline Management Act's provisions apply to all development and uses within its jurisdiction, whether or not a shoreline permit is required. Local governments have the authority to condition a project even though it is exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit. There has been, historically, some public confusion regarding the Shoreline Management Act's applicability. Therefore, all master programs shall include the following statement:

"All new development and uses 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.

(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.

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 173-27 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.

(D) Documentation of project review actions and changing conditions.

Master programs shall include a mechanism for documenting project review actions in shoreline areas. Local governments shall also identify a process for evaluating their cumulative effects on shoreline conditions. This process could involve a joint effort by local governments, state resource agencies, affected Indian tribes, and other parties.

[]

Reviser's note: The brackets and enclosed material in the text of the above section occurred in the copy filed by the agency and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-26-200
Comprehensive process to prepare or amend shoreline master programs.

(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 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 update since original master program adoption.

(g) Monitoring and adaptive management indicate that changes are necessary to avoid loss of ecological functions.

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 fully comprehensive process.

All master program amendments, even amendments that do not fit within the criteria above, are subject to approval by the department.

(2) Basic concepts 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.

To address the requirements for the use of scientific and technical information, local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master program development and amendment process.

First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern. The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of and, where applicable, incorporate all available and relevant 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 use accepted scientific methods and research procedures and be subject to peer review. Local governments are encouraged to work interactively with neighboring jurisdictions, state resource agencies, and affected Indian tribes to address technical issues beyond the scope of existing information resources or locally initiated research.

At a minimum, local governments should consult with the technical assistance materials produced by the department. Unless there is more current or specific information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines.

Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available. Local governments should be prepared to identify the following:

(i) Scientific information and management recommendations on which the master program provisions are based;

(ii) Assumptions and information gaps in the scientific analysis;

(iii) Risks to ecological functions associated with master program provisions. Address potential risks as described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d).

The requirement to use scientific and technical information in these guidelines does not limit a local jurisdiction's authority to solicit and incorporate information, experience, and anecdotal evidence provided by interested parties as part of the master program amendment process. Such information should be solicited through the public participation process described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(b). Where information collected by or provided to local governments conflicts or is inconsistent, the local government shall base master program provisions on a reasoned, objective evaluation of the relative merits of the conflicting data.

RCW 36.70A.172(1) of the Growth Management Act 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.

Accordingly, local governments shall also include best available science as defined in RCW 36.70A.172(1) and its implementing rules when developing policies and regulations for critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction.

(b) Environmental evaluation and regulatory response.

Effective shoreline management requires the evaluation of changing conditions and the modification of regulations to address identified trends and new information. Local governments are encouraged to undertake local monitoring and periodically update master program provisions to improve shoreline management practices over time.

(c) Ecological functions.

RCW 90.58.020 includes the following statement:

This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto.

This chapter implements the above-cited policy through the protection and restoration of ecological functions. The concept of ecological functions, as defined in WAC 173-26-020, recognizes that successful management of the shoreline environment depends on sustaining the:

(i) Ecosystem-wide fluvial, current, and wave processes that form habitats, and

(ii) Individual functions and their processes that are present in each habitat type.

The loss or degradation of one or more ecosystem-wide processes or individual functions can significantly impact shoreline habitats and human health and safety. Shoreline master programs shall address the applicable ecosystem-wide processes and individual ecological functions identified in the ecological systems analysis described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d)(i).

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 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 protection and restoration of ecological functions generally apply to all shoreline areas, not just those that remain relatively unaltered.

Master programs shall contain provisions to protect and contribute to the restoration of ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes based on analysis described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d).

(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 173-26-020, 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 protection and restoration activities. Consistent with RCW 90.58.020, local governments should, when determining allowable uses and resolving use conflicts on shorelines within their jurisdiction, apply the following preferences and priorities in the order listed below, starting with (i) of this subsection.

(i) Reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public health.

(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 restoration objectives. Harbor areas and areas that are generally considered navigable for commercial purposes should be reserved for water-dependent and water-related uses unless the local governments can demonstrate that adequate shoreline is otherwise reserved for future water-dependent and water-related uses. 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) Reserve shoreline areas for water-related and water-enjoyment uses that are compatible with water-dependent uses and ecological protection and restoration objectives.

(iv) Locate single-family residential uses where they are appropriate and can be developed without significant impact to ecological functions or displacement of water-dependent uses.

(v) Limit nonwater-oriented uses 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 undeveloped shoreline may not be an appropriate site for a water-dependent use, such as a cargo facility, but may accommodate a recreational trail (water-enjoyment) of a lower priority.

For shorelines of state-wide significance, apply the preferences as indicated in WAC 173-26-250(2).

(e) Environmental impact mitigation.

Because the Shoreline Management Act recognizes both the appropriate use and environmental protection of the state's shorelines, situations may arise in which otherwise allowable development must include measures to mitigate environmental impacts and implement the Shoreline Management Act's environmental protection objectives. Rules implementing Washington's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, chapter 43.21C RCW, also address environmental impact mitigation in WAC 197-11-660 and define mitigation in WAC 197-11-768. Where these guidelines call for mitigation or mitigation sequencing, shoreline master programs shall include provisions for providing environmental impact mitigation. This may be done by prescribing specific mitigation actions for specific uses as called for in WAC 173-26-240 (2)(a), by requiring conditional use permits as described in WAC 173-26-240 (2)(b), and/or by implementing a plan for comprehensive environmental mitigation.

To this end, master programs shall indicate that, where required, mitigation measures shall be applied in the sequence defined in WAC 173-26-020. In determining appropriate mitigation measures, avoidance of impacts by means such as relocating or redesigning the proposed development shall be applied first. Lower priority measures shall be applied only after higher priority measures are demonstrated to be not feasible or not applicable.

(3) Steps in preparing and amending a master program.

(a) Process overview.

Figure 4 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 to the process, or work jointly with other jurisdictions or regional efforts, provided the provisions of this chapter are met.

Place illustration here.

The department 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.

(b) Participation process.

Establish a 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 the full range of interests of all citizens within the local jurisdiction.

(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 for a list of applicable agencies to be notified.

(iii) Communication 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.

At a minimum, gather and incorporate all pertinent and available information, existing inventory data and materials from state agencies, affected Indian tribes, watershed management planning, and other appropriate sources. Ensure that, whenever possible, inventory methods and protocols are consistent with those of neighboring jurisdictions and state efforts. Contact the department to determine information sources and other relevant efforts.

Local governments shall be prepared to demonstrate how the inventory information was used in preparing their local master program amendments.

Collection of additional inventory information is encouraged and should be coordinated with other watershed, regional, or state-wide inventory and planning efforts in order to ensure consistent methods and data protocol as well as effective use of fiscal and human resources. Local governments should be prepared to demonstrate that they have coordinated with applicable interjurisdictional shoreline inventory and planning programs where they exist. Two or more local governments are encouraged to jointly conduct an inventory in order to increase the efficiency of data gathering and comprehensiveness of inventory information. Data from interjurisdictional, watershed, or regional inventories may be substituted for an inventory conducted by an individual jurisdiction, provided it meets the requirements of this section.

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

(i) Shoreline and adjacent land use patterns and transportation facilities, including the extent of existing structures, impervious surfaces, and vegetation and shoreline modifications in shoreline jurisdiction.

(ii) Critical areas, including wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, critical wildlife habitats, geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas, as required by RCW 36.70.170.

(iii) Degraded areas and sites with ecological restoration potential.

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

(v) Conditions and regulations in shoreland and adjacent areas that affect shorelines, such as surface water management and land use regulations. This information may be useful in achieving mutual consistency between the master program and other development regulations.

(vi) Existing and potential shoreline public access sites, including public rights-of-way.

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

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

(ix) If the shoreline is rapidly developing or subject to substantial human changes such as clearing and grading, past and current records or historical 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.

(x) 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.

(d) Analyze shoreline issues of concern.

Analyze shoreline conditions based on information gathered in (c) of this subsection 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, addressing the topics below, where applicable.

(i) Shoreline ecological systems.

Prepare a characterization of shoreline ecological systems. These systems include riverine, lacustrine, and tidal systems as listed in WAC 173-26-020. The characterization consists of three steps:

(A) Identify which of the ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions listed in WAC 173-26-020 apply within the shoreline jurisdiction and identify which have been significantly altered and which may be missing or significantly impacted;

(B) Assess the ecosystem-wide processes to determine their effect/impact on shoreline systems present within a jurisdiction and their individual functions; and

(C) Develop the specific master program provisions necessary to protect and/or restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. The characterization may be achieved by using one or more of the approaches below:

(I) If a regional environmental management plan, such as a watershed plan and limiting habitat factors analysis, is ongoing or has been completed, then conduct the characterization either within the framework of the regional plan or use the data provided in the regional plan. This methodology is intended to provide an in-depth and comprehensive assessment and characterization.

(II) If a regional management plan has not been completed, use available scientific and technical information, including flood studies, habitat evaluations and studies, water quality studies, and data and information from environmental impact statements. This characterization of ecosystem-wide processes and the impact upon the functions of specific habitats and human health and safety may be of a generalized nature.

(III) One or more local governments may pursue a characterization which includes a greater scope and complexity than listed in items (I) and (II) of this subsection.

Local governments should ensure that master program provisions protect the shoreline processes within the subject jurisdiction that are critical to creating and sustaining the widest range of shoreline functions. To achieve this, the level of resource protection must account for risks to the environment and incremental impacts from development allowed by the master program. Local governments should use this analysis to prepare master program provisions to protect and contribute to the restoration of the ecosystem-wide processes and individual ecological functions on a comprehensive basis over time. This does not necessarily require that each development or action on the shoreline individually improves ecological functions.

(ii) Shoreline use analysis and priorities.

Conduct an analysis to determine the future demand for shoreline space and the 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 WAC 173-26-200 (2)(d) and 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 ecological restoration.

(iii) Cumulative impacts.

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. This assessment should include potential impacts due to all development, including current conditions and those uses not requiring a shoreline permit. Master programs should address cumulative adverse impacts caused by incremental development, such as residential bulkheads, residential piers, or runoff from newly developed properties, and shall include master program provisions to assess, minimize, and mitigate cumulative impacts.

(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) Public access.

Identify public access needs and opportunities within the jurisdiction and explore actions to enhance shoreline recreation facilities, as described in WAC 173-26-220(4).

(vi) 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 mutual 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.

(vii) Water quality.

Identify water quality and quantity issues relevant to master program provisions, including those that affect human health and safety. At a minimum, consult with appropriate federal, state, tribal, and local agencies.

(viii) Vegetation conservation.

Identify how existing shoreline vegetation provides ecological functions and determine methods to ensure protection of those functions. Identify important ecological functions that have been degraded through loss of vegetation and feasible means to restore those functions. Consider the amount of vegetated shoreline area necessary to achieve ecological objectives. While there may be less vegetation remaining in urbanized areas than in rural areas, the importance of this vegetation, in terms of the ecological functions it provides, is often as great or even greater than in rural areas due to its scarcity.

(ix) Special area planning.

If the jurisdiction includes complex shoreline ecological issues, changing uses, or other unique features, the local government is encouraged to undertake special area planning. Special area planning may be used to address: Public access, vegetation conservation, shoreline use compatibility, port development master planning, ecological restoration, 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.

(e) Establish environment designations.

Establish environment designations and identify permitted uses and development standards for each environment designation.

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

Prepare specific environment designation policies and regulations where necessary to address different shoreline conditions and objectives.

Review 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 WAC 173-26-200 (2)(d).

(f) Establish shoreline policies.

Address all of the elements listed in RCW 90.58.100(2). Review for mutual consistency with the comprehensive plan policies. If there are shorelines of state-wide significance, ensure that the other comprehensive plan policies affecting shoreline jurisdiction are consistent with the objectives of RCW 90.58.020 and 90.58.090(4).

(g) Prepare shoreline regulations.

Prepare shoreline regulations based on the analyses described in this section and the guidelines of this chapter. The level of detail of inventory information and planning analysis 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 should be to avoid irreparable damage to shoreline resources. 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 significantly damaged. Local governments may accomplish this by including master program requirements for an on-site inventory at the time of project application.

(h) Submit for review and approval.

Local governments are encouraged to work with department personnel during master program preparation and to submit draft master program provisions to the department for informal advice and guidance prior to formal submittal.

Local governments shall submit the completed checklist, as described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(a), 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.

Master programs shall contain a system to classify shoreline areas into specific environment designations. Each master program's classification system shall be consistent with that described in WAC 173-26-210 (4) and (5) of this chapter unless there is a compelling reason, based on the act and this chapter, to the contrary and the alternative proposed provides equal or better implementation of the Shoreline Management Act.

An up-to-date and accurate map of the shoreline area and environments shall be prepared and 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, physical features, explicit criteria, or "common" boundary descriptions to accurately define and distinguish the environments on the ground.

To facilitate consistency with land use planning, local governments planning under chapter 36.70A RCW are encouraged to illustrate shoreline designations on the comprehensive plan Future Land Use Map as described in WAC 365-195-300 (2)(d).

The map should clearly illustrate what environment designations apply to all lands in shoreline jurisdiction, including flood plains, river deltas, and associated wetlands.

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.

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

(a) Purpose statement.

The statement of purpose shall describe the shoreline management objectives of the designation in a manner that distinguishes it from other designations.

(b) Classification criteria.

Clearly stated criteria shall provide the basis for classifying or reclassifying a specific shoreline area with an environment designation.

(c) Management policies.

These policies shall be in sufficient detail to assist in the interpretation of the environment designation regulations and, for jurisdictions planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, to evaluate consistency with the local comprehensive plan.

(d) Regulations.

Environment-specific regulations shall address the following where necessary to account for different shoreline conditions:

(i) Types of shoreline uses permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited;

(ii) Preferred shoreline use requirements;

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

(iv) Native vegetation conservation, shoreline stabilization, parking, signs, public access, and other standards not covered in general use regulations.

(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 three of the conditions below should be met:

(a) Provisions not precluding one another.

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. The comprehensive plan and master program should make specific provisions for resolving any apparent inconsistency. Further, when considered together and applied to any one piece of property, the master program use policies and regulations and the local zoning or other use regulations should not conflict in a manner that all viable uses of the property are precluded. For example, if the property is designated as within the shoreline residential environment, it should not be zoned exclusively for industrial use.

(b) Use compatibility.

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 prevent new uses that are not compatible with preferred uses from locating where they may restrict preferred uses or development. For example, new residential development should not be allowed near heavy shoreline industrial areas unless the impacts can be mitigated through design standards applied to the new residential development.

(c) Sufficient infrastructure.

Infrastructure and services provided in the comprehensive plan are sufficient to support allowed shoreline uses. Shoreline uses should 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 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, local governments should ensure that existing shoreline ecological functions can be protected and degraded shoreline ecological functions restored with the proposed pattern and intensity of urban growth. Infrastructure plans must also be mutually 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 WAC 173-26-210(5).

Local governments may establish different subdesignations provided they are consistent with this chapter. 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.

Local governments may use "parallel environments" where appropriate. Parallel environments divide shorelands into different sections generally running parallel to the shoreline or along a physical feature such as a bluff or railroad right of way. Such environments may be 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 existing environment designation provisions are consistent with this chapter.

(a) "Natural" environment.

(i) Purpose.

The purpose of the "natural" environment is to protect and restore those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include important shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require restrictions on the intensities and types of uses permitted to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

(ii) Management policies.

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

(B) The following uses should not be allowed in the "natural" environment:

• Residences (except as noted below).

• Commercial uses.

• Industrial uses.

• Agriculture that involves tilling the earth or clearing native plant communities.

• Nonwater-oriented recreation.

• Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of "natural”-designated shorelines.

Limited development, including residential development, may be allowed as a conditional use within the "natural" environment if such shoreline master program provisions result in a greater level of ecological functions.

(C) Commercial forestry may be allowed as a conditional use in the "natural" environment provided it meets the conditions of the State Forest Practices Act and its implementing rules.

(D) Access may be permitted for scientific, historical, cultural, educational, and low-intensity water-oriented recreational purposes, provided that no significant ecological impact on the area will result.

(E) New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions should not be allowed. Do not allow the subdivision of property in a configuration that, to achieve its intended purpose, will require significant vegetation removal or shoreline modification that adversely impacts ecological functions. That is, each new property parcel must be able to support its intended development without significant damage to the shoreline or to the vegetation necessary to maintain ecological functions.

(b) "Rural conservancy" environment.

(i) Purpose.

The purpose of the "rural conservancy" environment is to protect, conserve, and restore 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 low-impact outdoor recreation uses, timber harvesting on a sustained-yield basis, agricultural uses, aquaculture, low-intensity residential development consistent with the local comprehensive plan's rural element and chapter 36.70A RCW, and other related low-intensity uses.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) Uses in the "rural conservancy" environment should be limited to those which are nonconsumptive (i.e., do not deplete over time) of the shoreline area's physical and biological resources and uses 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. Agricultural practices, commercial forestry, and aquaculture when consistent with provisions of this chapter may be allowed. 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.

Water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities that do not deplete the resource over time, such as boating facilities, angling, hunting, wildlife viewing trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses, provided significant ecological impacts to the shoreline are avoided or mitigated.

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

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

(D) For jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act, new residential development in the "rural conservancy" environment should be consistent with the comprehensive plan rural element and with RCW 36.70A.070(5). Residential development standards should prevent significant cumulative adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. If existing development does not conform to rural element provisions, then the master program should address nonconforming uses in ways that reduce impacts to ecological functions.

For jurisdictions not planning under the Growth Management Act, development should be limited to a maximum of ten percent total impervious surface area within the lot or parcel lying in shoreline jurisdiction, unless an alternative standard is developed based on scientific information that meets the provisions of this chapter and protects shoreline ecological functions.

Master programs for jurisdictions not planning under the Growth Management Act may allow greater lot coverage to allow development of lots legally created prior to the adoption of these guidelines. In these instances, master programs shall require that lot coverage is minimized, that impacts are mitigated according to the mitigation sequence defined in WAC 173-26-020, and that development of lots created after the adoption of these guidelines does not exceed ten percent impervious surface area within shoreline jurisdiction.

(E) New shoreline stabilization, flood control measures, vegetation removal, and other shoreline modifications should be designed and managed to ensure that the natural shoreline functions are protected and restored over time. Shoreline ecological restoration should be required of new development or redevelopment where the shoreline ecological functions have been degraded.

(c) "Aquatic" environment.

(i) Purpose.

The purpose of the "aquatic" environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) New over-water structures should be allowed only for water-dependent uses, public access, or ecological restoration.

(B) The size of new over-water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use.

(C) 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.

(D) All developments and uses on 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.

(E) Uses that cause significant ecological impacts to critical saltwater and freshwater habitats should not be allowed. Where those uses are necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, their impacts shall be mitigated according to the sequence defined in WAC 173-26-020.

(F) Shoreline uses and modifications should be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water quality.

(d) "High-intensity" environment.

(i) Purpose.

The purpose of the "high-intensity" environment is to provide for high-intensity water-oriented commercial and industrial uses while protecting and restoring ecological functions. The "high-intensity" environment is designed to ensure optimum use of shorelines that are presently industrial or commercial in nature or planned for such use.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) In regulating uses in the "high-intensity" environment, first priority should be given to water-dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Nonwater-oriented uses should not be allowed except as part of mixed-use developments or existing developed areas supporting water-dependent uses. Nonwater-oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water-oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline. Such specific situations should be identified in shoreline use analysis or special area planning, as described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d).

If an analysis of water-dependent use needs as described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d) demonstrates the needs of existing and envisioned water-dependent uses for the planning period are met, then provisions allowing for a mix of water-dependent and nonwater-dependent uses may be established. If those shoreline areas also provide essential ecological functions, apply use standards to prevent significant ecological impacts to those functions.

(B) Full utilization of existing urban areas should be achieved before further expansion of intensive development is allowed, provided that as development occurs, ecological functions are maintained or restored. Reasonable long-range projections of regional economic need should guide the amount of shoreline designated high-intensity.

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

(D) Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be required as provided for in WAC 173-26-220 (4)(d).

(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 and implementing the policy through other development regulations, such as sign or design review ordinances.

(e) "Urban conservancy" environment.

(i) Purpose.

The purpose of the "urban conservancy" environment is to protect and restore ecological functions in urban and developed settings while allowing a variety of water-oriented uses.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) During development and redevelopment, all reasonable efforts should be taken to restore ecological functions. Where feasible, shoreline restoration and public access should be required of all nonwater-dependent development on previously developed shorelines.

(B) Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "urban conservancy" designation to ensure that new development does not further degrade the shoreline and is consistent with an overall goal to improve ecological functions.

(C) Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological 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 purpose of the "shoreline residential" environment is to accommodate residential development and associated uses that are consistent with this chapter; to avoid and, if that is not feasible, minimize residential development impacts; and to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) Developments should be permitted only in those shoreline areas where there are adequate access, water, sewage disposal, and utilities systems, and public services available and where the environment can support the proposed use in a manner which protects or restores the ecological functions.

(B) Densities or minimum frontage standards in the "shoreline residential" environment should be set to protect the shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and 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 conservation, critical area protection, and water quality should be established to protect and, where significant ecological degradation has occurred, restore ecological functions over time.

(D) Multifamily and multilot residential and recreational developments should provide public access and joint use for community recreational facilities.

(E) Commercial development should be limited to water-oriented uses.

Place illustration here.

(5)Criteria for assigning environment designation boundaries.

Local governments shall assign shoreline environment designations (environments) to all shoreline areas consistent with the criteria in (a) through (f) of this subsection.

(a) "Natural" environment criteria.

Assign a "natural" environment designation to shoreline areas if any of the following characteristics apply:

(i) The shoreline is ecologically intact and currently performing an important, irreplaceable function or ecosystem-wide process;

(ii) The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular scientific and educational interest; or

(iii) The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant ecological impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety.

Such shoreline areas include largely undisturbed wetlands, marine estuaries, unstable bluffs, coastal dunes, spits, and ecologically intact shoreline habitats. Shorelines inside or outside urban growth areas may be designated as "natural."

(b) "Rural conservancy" environment criteria.

Assign a "rural conservancy" environment designation to shoreline areas outside incorporated municipalities and outside urban growth areas, as defined by RCW 36.70A.110, if any of the following characteristics apply:

(i) The shoreline is currently supporting lesser-intensity resource-based uses, such as agriculture, forestry, or recreational uses;

(ii) The shoreline is currently accommodating residential uses outside urban growth areas and incorporated cities or towns;

(iii) The shoreline is supporting human uses but subject to environmental limitations, such as properties that include or are adjacent to steep banks, feeder bluffs, or flood-prone areas;

(iv) The shoreline is of high recreational value or with unique historic or cultural resources; or

(v) The shoreline is currently supporting low-intensity water-dependent uses.

Areas designated in a local comprehensive plan as "rural areas of more intense development," as provided for in chapter 36.70A RCW, may be designated an alternate shoreline environment, provided it is consistent with the objectives of the Growth Management Act and this chapter. "Master planned resorts" as described in RCW 36.70A.360 may be designated an alternate shoreline environment, provided the applicable master program provisions do not allow significant ecological impacts to shoreline ecological functions.

Lands designated as "mineral resource lands of economic importance" may be designated as an alternative environment designation that allows mineral extraction, provided the provisions for that designation conform to WAC 173-26-240 (3)(h) and this chapter and protect ecological functions.

(c) "Aquatic" environment criteria.

Assign an "aquatic" environment designation to lands waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.

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 designation system used must provide regulations for managing submerged and intertidal lands that are clear and consistent with the "aquatic" environment management policies in this chapter.

(d) "High-intensity" environment criteria.

Assign a "high-intensity" environment designation to shoreline areas within incorporated municipalities, urban growth areas, and industrial or commercial "rural areas of more intense development," as described by RCW 36.70A.070, if they currently support or are suitable and planned for high-intensity water-dependent uses related to commerce or navigation.

(e) "Urban conservancy" environment criteria.

Assign an "urban conservancy" environment designation to shoreline areas planned for development that are less suitable for water-dependent uses and that lie in incorporated municipalities, urban growth areas, or commercial or industrial "rural areas of more intense development" containing any of the following:

(i) Areas suitable for a mix of water-related or water-enjoyment uses that allow a substantial number of people to enjoy the shoreline;

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

(iii) Areas with potential for ecological restoration; or

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

(f) "Shoreline residential" environment criteria.

Assign a "shoreline residential" environment designation to shoreline areas inside urban growth areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.110, incorporated municipalities, "rural areas of more intense development," or "master planned resorts," as described in RCW 36.70A.360, if they are predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for residential development.

[]

(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, and the office of archaeology and historic preservation.

(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 the office of archaeology and historic preservation and affected Indian tribes for additional information.

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

(ii) Require that permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological artifacts and data require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional 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 jurisdiction. Implementation of RCW 90.58.020 includes management of critical areas in the shoreline in order to protect human health and safety and the state's natural resources. 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 and management policies.

(b) Principles.

Local master programs shall implement the following principles:

(i) 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.

(ii) In addressing issues related to critical areas, include best available science, as provided for in chapter 36.70A RCW.

(iii) Where necessary for the protection of the functions of a critical area, review provisions outside the designated critical area pursuant to RCW 90.58.340.

(iv) In protecting and restoring critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction, consider 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 objective of shoreline management provisions for critical areas shall be the protection of existing ecological functions and restoration of areas with degraded ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. Appropriate units to address this goal include a littoral drift cell for marine waters or all of an identifiable portion of a watershed for freshwaters. Local governments should accomplish this on a comprehensive basis, as described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d)(i), (e), (f), and (g).

(vi) Promote human uses and values, such as aesthetic values, provided they do not adversely impact ecological functions.

(vii) Implement, where applicable and consistent with the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, the minimum guidelines in WAC 365-190-080.

(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. Provisions for frequently flooded areas are included in WAC 173-26-220(3).

(i) Wetlands.

(A) Wetland use regulations.

In developing regulations for the protection of wetlands, local governments shall include best available science as required by RCW 36.70A.172(1). Local governments should consult the department's technical guidance documents on wetlands.

Use regulations shall address the following uses to achieve, at a minimum, no net loss of wetland area and functions:

• 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 industrial wastewater;

• The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level, duration of inundation, or water table;

• The driving of pilings;

• The placing of obstructions;

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

• Significant vegetation removal, provided that these activities are not part of a forest practice governed under chapter 76.09 RCW and its rules; or

• Other uses or development that results in a significant change of physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of wetlands.

(B) Wetland rating or categorization.

Wetlands shall be categorized based on the rarity, irreplaceability, or sensitivity to disturbance of a wetland and the functions the wetland provides. Local governments should consult the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Eastern or Western Washington version as appropriate.

(C) Alterations to wetlands.

Master program provisions addressing alterations to wetlands shall be consistent with the policies of no net loss of wetland area and functions, wetland rating, best available science, and the mitigation sequence defined in WAC 173-26-020.

(D) Buffers.

Master programs shall contain requirements for buffer zones around wetlands. Buffer requirements shall be adequate to ensure that wetland functions are protected and maintained in the long-term. Requirements for buffer zone widths and management shall include best available science and shall take into account the ecological functions of a wetland, the characteristics and setting of the existing buffer, the potential impacts associated with the adjacent land use, and other relevant factors.

(E) Mitigation.

Master programs shall contain wetland mitigation requirements that are consistent with the definition of mitigation in WAC 173-26-020, are based on the wetland rating, and include best available science.

(F) Compensatory mitigation.

Compensatory mitigation should be allowed only after mitigation sequencing of WAC 173-26-020 (a) through (d) is applied.

Requirements for compensatory mitigation must include provisions for:

(I) Mitigation replacement ratios or a similar method of addressing the following:

• The risk of failure of the compensatory mitigation action;

• The length of time it will take the compensatory mitigation action to result in sustainable wetland functions and values;

• The gain or loss of the type, quality, and quantity of the ecological functions of the compensation wetland as compared with the impacted wetland.

(II) Establishment of performance standards for evaluating the success of compensatory mitigation actions;

(III) Establishment of long-term monitoring and reporting procedures to determine if performance standards are met; and

(IV) Establishment of long-term protection and management of compensatory mitigation sites.

Credits from a state certified mitigation bank may be used to compensate for unavoidable impacts in accordance with chapter 90.84 RCW and chapter 173-700 WAC.

(ii) Geologically hazardous areas.

Restrict new development on unstable bluffs and river channel migration zones and landslide areas. Consult minimum guidelines for geologically hazardous areas, WAC 365-190-080(4).

Do not allow new development or the creation of lots that would cause foreseeable risk to people or ecological functions during the life of the development.

Do not allow new development that would require structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development. 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 significant ecological impacts are mitigated. The stabilization measures shall conform to WAC 173-26-230.

Where no alternatives, including relocation of existing structures, are found to be feasible, shoreline stabilization structures (including bluff walls) to protect existing residences may be allowed in strict conformance with WAC 173-26-230 requirements and then only if significant ecological impacts are adequately mitigated.

(iii) Critical saltwater habitats and shorelands associated with marine waters and estuaries.

Critical saltwater habitats include kelp beds, eelgrass beds, spawning and holding areas for forage fish, such as herring, sandlance, and smelt, commercial and recreational shellfish beds, and areas with which priority species have a primary association. Critical saltwater habitats require a higher level of protection due to the important ecological functions they provide. Ecological functions of marine shorelands can affect the viability of critical saltwater habitats. Therefore, effective protection and restoration of critical saltwater habitats should consider management of shorelands as well as submerged areas.

(A) Comprehensive saltwater habitat management.

Applicable shoreline master programs should implement cooperative saltwater habitat management planning to protect and restore the resource through regulations, advanced planned mitigation, and other means. The management planning shall incorporate the participation of state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes and serve as the basis for master program provisions. Local governments should base management planning on information provided by state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes unless they possess more accurate and reliable information.

The management planning should include an evaluation of current data and trends regarding the following:

• The physical characteristics of the habitat and any information on species population trends;

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

• Land uses surrounding the critical saltwater habitat areas that may negatively impact these areas; and

• Existing data gaps and a strategy for gaining this information.

The management planning should address the following, where applicable:

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

• Protecting and restoring estuarine ecosystems;

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

• Restoring lost salmonid habitat;

• Improving water quality;

• Protecting freshwater and sediment inflow regimens; and

• Protecting and restoring the relevant ecological functions of shorelands associated with marine waters.

Local governments, in conjunction with state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes, should classify and protect seasonal ranges and habitat elements with which federal- and state-listed endangered, threatened, and priority 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.

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, and affected Indian tribes.

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

(B) Conditions for development.

Docks, bulkheads, bridges, fill, floats, jetties, utility crossings, and other human-made structures shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except for a water-dependent use, ecological restoration, or public access 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 impacts to 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 ecological 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, the shoreline master program 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 consistent with accepted research methodology and with standards for scientific and technical information. At a minimum, local governments should consult with department technical assistance materials for guidance.

(iv) Riverine corridors and other freshwater fish and wildlife conservation areas.

(A) The following provisions apply to master program provisions and shoreline management activities within shoreline jurisdiction, including streams, rivers, wetlands, and lakes, affecting freshwater fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, as defined in WAC 365-190-080 (5)(a), and those freshwater shoreline areas with priority species and habitats.

(B) Many ecological functions of riverine corridors depend both on the continuity of the natural environment along the length of the shoreline and on 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 ecological functions downstream. Likewise, gradual destruction or loss of the vegetation along the corridor or extensive flood plain development can raise water temperatures and alter hydrologic conditions, thereby making the corridor uninhabitable for priority species and susceptible to catastrophic flooding, droughts, and landslides. These conditions can also threaten human health, safety, and property. Therefore, effective management of riverine corridors depends on (I) planning, protecting, and restoring the length of the corridor, and (II) regulating the uses within the stream channel, channel migration zone, 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.

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

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

• Restoring degraded shoreline areas whenever feasible.

Local governments should base master program provisions for critical freshwater fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on a comprehensive approach, as described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d)(i), (e), (f), and (g). As part of this comprehensive approach, local governments should integrate categories of master program provisions, including those for shoreline stabilization, fill, vegetation conservation, water quality, flood hazard reduction, and specific uses, to protect human health and safety and to protect and restore the corridor's ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

Applicable master programs should contain provisions to protect and restore hydrologic connections between water bodies, water courses, and associated wetlands. For example, master programs should require that permitted dikes, roads, or other structures be constructed to allow the natural flow of water between dry or braided channels, associated wetlands, the main river channel, and associated water bodies. Incentives should be provided to restore water connections that have been impeded by previous development.

Master program provisions for riverine corridors should, where appropriate, be based on the information from comprehensive watershed management planning, as indicated in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(c) and (d).

(3) Flood hazard reduction.

(a) Applicability.

The following provisions apply to actions taken to reduce flood damage or hazard and to uses that could increase flood hazards. Flood hazard reduction measures may consist of structural measures, such as dikes, levees, revetments, floodwalls, elevation of structures, 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 affected by factors and land uses occurring throughout 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.

Structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as stream channelization and diking, even if effective in reducing inundation in a portion of the watershed, can intensify flooding elsewhere. Flood hazard reduction measures can damage ecological functions crucial to fish and wildlife species, bank stability, and water quality. Therefore, flood hazard reduction measures shall be accomplished in a manner to minimize impact to shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

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, and other comprehensive planning efforts, provided those measures are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter.

(ii) Consider integrating master program flood hazard reduction provisions with other regulations and programs, including (if applicable): Storm water management plans; 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.

(iii) Protect and restore the ecological functions while reducing risk to human safety and property. When preparing master program provisions for flood hazard reduction measures, address the protection and restoration of ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes on a comprehensive basis consistent with WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d)(i), (e), (f), and (g) and 173-26-220 (2)(c)(iv).

(iv) Where feasible, give preference to nonstructural flood hazard reduction measures over structural measures. For example, setback or relocation of uses is generally preferred over new dikes or seawalls.

(c) Standards.

Master programs shall implement the following standards within shoreline jurisdiction:

(i) Do not allow new development that substantially increases flood hazard or that is inconsistent with a comprehensive flood hazard management plan adopted pursuant to chapter 86.12 RCW and approved by the department. Do not allow new development or uses in shoreline jurisdiction, including the subdivision of land, that will require structural flood hazard reduction measures within the channel migration zone, except for:

• Actions that increase the ecosystem-wide processes or ecological functions toward more properly functioning conditions.

• Forest practices in compliance with the Washington State Forest Practices Act and its implementing rules.

• Existing and ongoing agricultural practices, provided that no new restrictions to channel movement occur.

• Bridges, utility lines, and other public utility and transportation structures where no other feasible alternative exists. Where such structures are allowed, mitigation shall be required that returns limited functions and processes of the applicable section of watershed or drift cell to more properly functioning conditions.

• Repair and maintenance of an existing legal use, provided that such actions do not adversely affect threatened or endangered species.

• Development on a previously altered site where it is demonstrated that the development returns applicable functions and processes of the applicable section of the watershed or drift cell to a more natural condition.

• Development consistent with a management plan approved by the department of ecology that is directed toward achieving properly functioning conditions.

• Modifications or additions to an existing legal use, provided that channel migration is not further limited and that the new development includes appropriate ecological restoration.

• Development in incorporated municipalities and designated urban growth areas, as defined in Chapter 36.70A RCW, where existing human-made structures prevent active channel movement.

(ii) Allow new structural flood hazard reduction measures in shoreline jurisdiction only when it can be demonstrated by a scientific and technical analysis that they are necessary to protect existing development and uses, that nonstructural measures are not feasible, that impacts to the existing shoreline functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated, and that appropriate vegetation conservation actions are undertaken.

Structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be consistent with an adopted comprehensive flood hazard management plan approved by the department that evaluates cumulative impacts to the watershed system.

(iii) Require that all new structural flood hazard reduction measures and improvements to existing structures include measures to restore ecological functions whenever feasible.

(iv) Place new structural/flood hazard reduction measures landward of the floodway, channel migration zone, and associated wetlands that function as flood storage areas, except for actions that increase ecological functions, such as wetland restoration, or as noted below.

Flood hazard reduction measures may occur in a channel migration zone only if it is determined that no other alternative to protect existing improvements is feasible. The need for structural improvements in the channel migration zone shall be documented through a hydrogeological analysis. Assess and mitigate impacts to priority species through a habitat evaluation and application of mitigation sequencing.

(v) Require that new structural public flood hazard reduction 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.

(vi) 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 hydrogeological study shows that extraction has a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction, does not cause significant ecological impacts to fish and wildlife, and is part of a comprehensive flood management solution.

(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 adjacent 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 space necessary for 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 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.

Local governments should plan for an integrated shoreline area public access system that identifies specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access. Such a system can often be more effective and economical than applying uniform public access requirements to all development. This planning should be integrated with other relevant comprehensive plan elements, especially transportation and recreation.

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, provided it meets the provisions of this chapter. The planning may also justify more flexible off-site or special area public access provisions in the 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 public access requirements for shoreline permits, recommended projects, port master plans, and/or actions to be taken to develop public shoreline access to shorelines on public property. The planning should identify 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.

(d) Standards.

Shoreline master programs shall implement the following 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 should seek to increase the amount and diversity of public access to the state's shorelines consistent with the natural shoreline character, property rights, public 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 public 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 public access planning as described in WAC 173-26-220 (4)(c) demonstrates that a more effective public access system can be achieved through 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 improvement of public access in developments for water-enjoyment, water-related, and nonwater-dependent uses and for the subdivision of land into more than four 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 WAC 173-26-220 (4)(c).

(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 infeasibility, 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 uses 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 four 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 adjacent properties, the water-dependent uses and physical public access shall have priority, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.

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

(5) Shoreline vegetation conservation.

(a) Applicability.

Vegetation conservation includes activities to protect and restore vegetation along or near the shoreline that contributes to the ecological functions of shoreline areas. Vegetation conservation provisions may include the prevention or restriction of plant clearing and grading, vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and nonnative species.

Unless otherwise stated, vegetation conservation 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 conservation provisions apply even to those shoreline uses and developments that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit. Like other master program provisions, vegetation conservation standards do not apply retroactively to existing uses and structures, such as existing agricultural practices.

(b) Principles.

The intent of vegetation conservation is to protect and restore the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation along shorelines. Vegetation conservation should also be undertaken to protect human safety and property, 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, and to enhance shoreline uses.

Master programs shall include provisions to protect vegetation needed to sustain the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, to avoid adverse impacts to soil hydrology, and to reduce the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion.

In areas that have been ecologically degraded, master program provisions should contribute to the restoration of ecological processes and functions provided by vegetation as development or redevelopment occurs. Master programs should be directed toward achieving the vegetation characteristics described in Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats, prepared by the Washington state department of fish and wildlife.

Local governments should address ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes provided by vegetation as described in WAC 173-26-200 (3)(d)(i), (e), (f), and (g).

Local governments may implement objectives through a variety of measures, where consistent with Shoreline Management Act policy, including clearing and grading regulations, setback and buffer standards, critical area regulations, conditional use requirements for specific uses or areas, and mitigation requirements.

In establishing vegetation conservation regulations, local governments must use all available scientific and technical information, as described in WAC 173-26-200 (2)(a). At a minimum, local governments should consult shoreline management assistance materials provided by the department.

(c) Relationship of shoreline vegetation to ecological functions.

Current scientific evidence indicates that the width and character of the shoreline vegetation contribute substantively to the ecological functions of the shoreline environment. The ability of vegetated areas to provide critical ecological functions diminishes as the width of the vegetated area along shorelines is reduced. When shoreline vegetation is removed, the narrower the area of remaining vegetation, the greater the risk that the functions will not be performed.

Sustaining different individual functions requires different widths of vegetation. The importance of the different functions, in turn, varies with the type of shoreline setting. For example, in forested riverine settings, periodic recruitment of fallen trees into the stream channel is an important attribute, critical to natural stream channel maintenance. Therefore, vegetated areas along streams in naturally forested settings should be wide enough to accomplish this periodic recruitment process.

For naturally forested shoreline environments, including shorelines where trees have been removed by humans, achieving vegetation-related shoreline functions is linked to a vegetated area of one mature tree height in width, measured perpendicular from bank full width.

Woody vegetation normally classed as trees may not be a natural component of plant communities in some riverine and lake environments in arid and semiarid climates. In these instances, the width of a vegetated area necessary to protect and restore ecological functions may not be related to vegetation height.

In addressing the restoration of degraded shorelines, local governments should ensure that required vegetated areas are large enough to be of ecological benefit, even if they are not sufficiently wide to achieve all ecological functions.

Local governments should identify which ecological processes and functions are important to the local aquatic and terrestrial ecology and conserve sufficient vegetation to maintain them.

(d) Standards.

Master programs shall implement the following requirements in shoreline jurisdiction.

(i) Do not allow significant 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). This does not preclude pruning of trees or removal of noxious weeds.

(ii) Establish minimum vegetation conservation standards that implement the principles in WAC 173-26-220 (5)(b) and (c). Methods to do this may include setback or buffer requirements, clearing and grading standards, environment designation standards, or other master program provisions.

Additional vegetation conservation standards for specific uses are included in WAC 173-26-240(3).

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

(a) Applicability.

The following section applies to all development and uses in shoreline jurisdiction that affect the quantity or hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation-related, or biological characteristics of water within shoreline areas.

(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, aesthetic qualities, or recreational opportunities.

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

(c) Standards.

Shoreline master programs shall include provisions to ensure that new development within shoreline jurisdiction does not cause significant ecological impacts to ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes by altering water quality or flow characteristics.

[]

(1) Applicability.

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

The provisions in this section apply to all shoreline modifications within shoreline jurisdiction.

(2) Principles.

Master programs shall implement the following principles:

(a) Allow structural shoreline modifications only where they are demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect an allowed principal structure or an existing shoreline use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage.

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

(c) Allow only shoreline modifications that are appropriate to the specific type of shoreline and environmental conditions for which they are 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, rather than piers constructed with fill, which alter the normal flow of water currents.

(e) Where applicable, base provisions on scientific and technical information and a comprehensive analysis of drift cells. Contact the department for available drift cell characterizations.

(f) As shoreline modifications related to existing legally permitted uses occur, incorporate all feasible measures to protect and restore ecological shoreline functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

(g) Mitigate significant ecological impacts.

(3) Provisions for specific shoreline modifications.

(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 wakes. These actions include structural and nonstructural methods.

Nonstructural methods include building setbacks, ground water management, 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 soft to hard that include:

• Vegetation enhancement;

• Biotechnical measures;

• Beach enhancement;

• Anchor trees;

• Gravel placement;

• Rock revetments;

• Gabions;

• Concrete groins;

• Retaining walls and bluff walls;

• Bulkheads; and

• Seawalls.

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 program shoreline stabilization provisions shall also be consistent with WAC 173-26-220(5), vegetation conservation, 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.

In order to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to shoreline functions where shoreline alterations are necessary to protect single-family residences and principal appurtenant structures in danger from active shoreline erosion, prepare standards setting forth the circumstances under which alteration of the shoreline is permitted, and for the design and type of protective measures and devices.

As applied to shoreline stabilization measures, "normal repair" and "normal maintenance" include the patching, sealing, or refinishing of existing structures, the replenishment of sand or other material that has been washed away, and the replacement of less than twenty percent of the existing structure. Normal maintenance and normal repair are limited to those actions that are typically done on a periodic basis. Construction that causes significant ecological impacts is not considered normal maintenance and repair.

As applied to shoreline stabilization measures, "replacement" means the construction or reconstruction of new structures, such as bulkheads, walls, riprap revetments, or gabions, to perform a shoreline stabilization function of an existing structure that can no longer adequately serve its purpose. Replacement may or may not include removal of the existing structure.

(ii) Standards.

Master programs shall implement the following standards:

(A) New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except to protect or support an existing principal use or for the restoration of ecological functions. This is to prevent speculative shoreline stabilization.

(B) New development should be located and designed to eliminate the need for future shoreline stabilization.

(C) New nonwater-dependent development that includes structural shoreline stabilization should not be allowed unless all of the conditions below apply:

• The need to protect the development from imminent destruction due to erosion caused by natural processes, such as tidal action, currents, and waves, is demonstrated through a geotechnical report.

• Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from the shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient.

• The structure will not affect priority species.

(D) Shoreline stabilization for new development that would cause significant ecological impacts to adjacent or down-current properties and shoreline areas shall not be allowed.

(E) The subdivision of land into parcels that will require shoreline stabilization for development to occur shall not be allowed.

(F) 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.

(G) New shoreline stabilization measures for an existing principal structure or use, including residential uses, should not be allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis, that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by tidal action, currents, or waves. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering structural shoreline stabilization. The geotechnical analysis should also specify mitigation of significant impacts to ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

(H) An existing shoreline stabilization structure may be replaced with a similar structure if there is a demonstrated need to protect principal uses or structures from erosion caused by currents, tidal action, or waves. In this case, demonstration of need does not necessarily require a geotechnical report. The replacement structure should be designed, located, sized, and constructed to minimize harm to ecological functions. Replacement walls or bulkheads shall not encroach waterward of the ordinary high-water mark or existing structure unless the residence was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure shall be adjacent to the existing structure. Shoreline stabilization that restores ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.

(I) Where structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary, limit the size of stabilization measures to the minimum necessary and use techniques designed to minimize harm to ecological functions. Allow hard structural measures only if it is demonstrated that a softer approach will not suffice.

(J) 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 WAC 173-26-020. Include vegetation conservation, as described in WAC 173-26-220(5), as part of shoreline stabilization, where feasible.

(K) 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 provisions; WAC 173-26-220(4). Where feasible, incorporate ecological restoration and public access improvements into the project.

(L) Mitigate new erosion control measures on feeder bluffs or other actions that affect beach sediment-producing areas to avoid and, if that is not possible, to minimize 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 or public access. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses may be allowed as part of mixed-use development on over-water structures where they are clearly auxiliary to and in support of water-dependent uses. 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, excluding docks accessory to single-family residences, should be permitted only when the applicant has demonstrated that a specific need exists to support the intended water-dependent uses. 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, and if the plan or analysis is approved by the local government and consistent with these guidelines, 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.

Master programs should contain provisions to encourage joint use or community dock facilities over individual docks serving single-family residences.

Piers and docks, including those accessory to single-family residences, shall be designed and constructed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize and mitigate the impacts to ecological functions and environmental critical areas resources such as eelgrass beds and fish habitats and processes such as currents and littoral drift. See WAC 173-26-220 (2)(c). Master programs should require that structures be made of inert, nonpolluting materials.

(c) Fill.

Fills shall be located, designed, and constructed to protect shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, including channel migration.

Fills waterward of the ordinary high-water mark shall be allowed only when necessary to support a water-dependent use, public access, cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental clean-up plan, mitigation action, environmental restoration, or beach nourishment or enhancement project. Fills waterward of the ordinary high-water mark for any use except ecological restoration 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 absolutely necessary to support water-dependent uses, public access, shoreline stabilization, or other specific public purpose. Breakwaters, jetties, groins, weirs, and similar structures should require a conditional use permit, except for those structures installed to protect or restore ecological functions, such as large woody debris installed in streams. The design and construction of such structures shall make provision for ecological processes and critical area protection and shall provide for mitigation according to the sequence defined in WAC 173-26-020.

(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 within shoreline jurisdiction shall be managed to conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal dunes. Dunes and associated beaches should also be managed 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" is the removal or addition of material to a dune, the reforming or reconfiguration of a dune, or the removal or addition of vegetation that will alter the dune's shape or sediment migration. Dune modification may be proposed for a number of purposes, including protection of property, flood and storm hazard reduction, erosion prevention, and ecological restoration.

Coastal dune modification shall be allowed only as a conditional use unless a jurisdiction-wide or regional plan for dune management addressing grading, revegetation, and monitoring is carried out consistent with state and federal flood protection standards and approved by the local government and the department.

Dune modification to protect views of the water shall be allowed only where the view is completely obstructed for residences or water-enjoyment uses and where it also can be demonstrated that the dunes did not obstruct views at the time of original occupancy.

(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 development should be sited and designed to avoid or, if that is not possible, 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 significant ecological impacts are minimized 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, except when the material is necessary for the restoration of ecological functions. When allowed, the site where the fill is to be placed must be located waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. The project must be either associated with a MTCA or CERCLA habitat restoration project or, if approved through a shoreline conditional use permit, any other significant habitat restoration project.

Disposal of dredge material into river channel migration zones within shoreline jurisdiction shall be discouraged. In the limited instances where it is allowed, such disposal shall require a conditional use permit.

[]

(1) Applicability.

The provisions in this section apply to uses and development within shoreline jurisdiction.

(2) General use provisions.

(a) Principles.

Shoreline master programs shall implement the following principles:

(i) Establish a system of use and environment designation provisions consistent with WAC 173-26-200 (2)(d) and 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. In implementing this provision, preference shall be given first to water-dependent uses, then to water-related uses and water-enjoyment uses.

(ii) 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.

(iii) Establish regulations to ensure use compatibility and mitigate impacts, such as destructive flooding, erosion, and water quality degradation.

(iv) Establish use provisions that preserve unique shoreline development opportunities. Shoreline master programs should establish use provisions that take advantage of shorelines with unique attributes or resources.

(b) Conditional uses.

Define the types of uses and development that require shoreline conditional use permits. Requirements for a conditional use permit may be used for a variety of purposes, including:

• To effectively address unanticipated uses not classified in the master program as described in WAC 173-27-030.

• To address cumulative impacts.

• To provide the opportunity to require environmental analysis or design modifications of a proposal that would otherwise be inconsistent with Shoreline Management Act policies.

• To allow discretion in permitting uses that may have significant ecological impacts in some locations but may be acceptable in others.

In these cases, allowing a given use as a conditional use could provide greater flexibility within the master program than if the use were prohibited outright.

If a master program permits the following types of uses and development, it should require a conditional permit.

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

(ii) Uses and development which, by their intrinsic nature, may have a significant ecological impact on shoreline ecological functions or shoreline resources depending on location, design, and site conditions, such as fill waterward of the ordinary high-water mark, disposal of dredge material within a river channel migration zone but outside a harbor area, dredging for the primary purpose of obtaining fill material, Class IV general forest practices where shorelines are being converted or are expected to be converted to nonforest uses, breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs.

(iii) Other uses and development 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.

Applicable master programs shall address new agricultural development that does not meet the definition of existing and ongoing agriculture.

RCW 90.58.030 (3)(e) defines substantial development for agricultural uses. New shoreline master program provisions should not apply retroactively to existing agricultural uses. Existing and ongoing agriculture includes, but is not limited to, the production of horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, livestock, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, or Christmas trees; the operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds, drainage ditches, or irrigation systems; and the normal maintenance and repair of existing structures, facilities, and lands currently under production or cultivation.

New development, clearing, and grading in support of agricultural uses shall be located and designed to avoid impacts to shoreline environments.

Applicable master programs shall include standards for setbacks, water quality protection, environmental impacts, and vegetation conservation, as described in WAC 173-26-220(5), for new agricultural development, clearing, and grading in shoreline jurisdiction.

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

Agricultural lands within jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act which are enrolled in set-aside programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Farm Services Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture, or any other federal, state, or local agency, are considered to remain existing, ongoing agriculture for purposes of the Shoreline Management Act and this rule. This provision is intended to ensure that master program provisions do not prevent agriculture from being resumed after the period of the set-aside program.

(b) Aquaculture.

Aquaculture is the culture or farming of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants and animals. This activity is of state-wide and national interest. Properly managed, it can result in long-term over short-term benefit and can protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. Aquaculture is dependent on the use of the water area and, when consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the environment, is a preferred use of the water area.

Potential locations for aquaculture are relatively restricted due to specific requirements for water quality, temperature, flows, oxygen content, adjacent land uses, wind protection, commercial navigation, and, in marine waters, salinity. The technology associated with present-day aquaculture is still in its formative stages and experimental. Local shoreline master plans should therefore recognize the necessity for some latitude in the development of this emerging economic water use as well as its potential impact on existing uses and natural systems.

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

(c) Boating facilities.

For the purposes of this chapter, "boating facilities" excludes docks serving four or fewer single-family residences. Shoreline master programs shall contain provisions to address potential impacts while providing the boating public recreational opportunities on waters of the state.

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

(i) Provisions to ensure that boating facilities are located only at sites with suitable environmental conditions, shoreline configuration, access, and neighboring uses.

(ii) Provisions that assure that facilities meet health, safety, and welfare requirements. Master programs may reference other regulations to accomplish this requirement.

(iii) Regulations to mitigate visual and ecological impacts.

(iv) Provisions for public access in new marinas, particularly where water-enjoyment uses are associated with the marina, in accordance with WAC 173-26-220(4).

(v) Regulations to limit the impacts from boaters living in their vessels (live-aboards).

(vi) Regulations reducing the impacts of associated parking.

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

(viii) Regulations to protect the rights of navigation.

(ix) Regulations restricting vessels from permanently mooring on waters of the state unless a lease or permission is obtained from the state and impacts to navigation and public access are mitigated.

(d) Commercial development.

Master programs shall give preference to water-dependent commercial uses on the shoreline over nonwater-dependent commercial uses. Shoreline ecological restoration 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 should exclude nonwater-oriented commercial uses from locating on the shoreline unless they provide public access and ecological restoration and they meet at least one of the following criteria:

(i) The use is part of a mixed-use project or area 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.

Nonwater-oriented commercial uses may be allowed if the site is physically separated from the shoreline by another property or public right of way.

New nonwater-dependent development should be required to protect existing shoreline vegetation contributing to ecological functions. Where shoreline vegetation has been removed or degraded, nonwater-dependent development should contribute to the restoration of ecological functions provided by vegetation.

New water-dependent development should mitigate impacts to shoreline vegetation.

Nonwater-dependent commercial uses should not be allowed over water except in existing structures or in the limited instances where they are auxiliary to and in support of water-dependent uses.

(e) Forest practices.

Local master programs should rely on the Forest Practices Act and rules implementing that act and the Forest and Fish Report for adequate management of commercial forest uses within shoreline jurisdiction. However, local governments should apply this chapter to Class IV-General forest practices where shorelines are being converted or are expected to be converted to nonforest uses.

Forest practice conversions and other Class IV-General forest practices where there is a likelihood of conversion to nonforest uses 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 such timber removal is consistent with the master program environment designation provisions and the provisions of this chapter. Shoreline master programs should contain provisions to ensure that when forest lands are converted to another use, including a residential use, significant vegetation removal, grading, and development, except for low-intensity water-dependent uses and public access that sustains ecological functions, are not allowed within shoreline jurisdiction.

Master programs shall implement 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 commercial significance" shall be designated either "natural," "rural conservancy," or equivalent environment 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.

(f) Industry.

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 environmental limitations, such as critical areas, unless no other feasible option is available. Industrial development shall not be located, designed, or constructed in a manner that causes significant ecological 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 restoration of the shoreline area. Nonwater-oriented industrial development--that is, industrial development that is neither water-dependent nor water-related--should only be allowed on nonnavigable shorelines and should include ecological restoration of the shoreline. In such cases, no new structural shoreline stabilization measures should be permitted, except to protect or restore ecological functions or public access.

New nonwater-dependent development should be required to protect existing shoreline vegetation contributing to ecological functions. Where shoreline vegetation has been removed or degraded, nonwater-dependent development should contribute to the restoration of ecological functions provided by vegetation. New water-dependent development should mitigate impacts to shoreline vegetation.

(g) In-stream structures.

In-stream structures shall provide for the protection and preservation of ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fish passage, wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas, 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 protecting and restoring priority habitats and species.

(h) Mining.

Mining and the removal of sand, gravel, soil, minerals, and other earth materials for commercial and other uses alters the natural character, resources, and ecology of shorelines of the state and may adversely impact critical shoreline resources. Activities associated with mining, including processing and transportation, also have the potential to adversely impact shoreline resources. Master programs shall include policies and regulations that assure:

(i) Mining and associated activities are not allowed where such uses would result in short-term or long-term significant ecological impacts to shoreline ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes.

(ii) Where mining and associated activities are allowed, they must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the policies of the environment designation in which they are located, impacts to fish and wildlife habitat shall be avoided, and all disturbed areas must be restored upon completion of mining. Destruction of priority species habitat is prohibited.

(iii) Surface mining shall be conducted in conformance with the Washington State Surface Mining Reclamation Act, chapter 78.44 RCW.

(iv) Surface mine reclamation plans shall provide for subsequent use of the property that is consistent with the policies of the environment designation in which they are located and shall assure that ecological functions of the shoreline are restored.

(v) Removal of sand and gravel resources from a location waterward of the ordinary high-water mark of a river shall be prohibited unless:

(A) A hydrogeological study, conducted by a qualified professional and approved by appropriate state agencies, demonstrates that removal of specific quantities at specific locations will not significantly alter the natural processes of gravel transportation for the river system as a whole; and

(B) A biological study, conducted by a qualified professional and approved by appropriate state agencies, demonstrates that removal will not significantly degrade habitat values for priority species or damage other ecological functions.

Removal of sand and gravel from a location waterward of the channel migration zone shall require a conditional use permit.

In locations where gravel removal has been allowed in the past, any future authorization to continue shall be based on studies as required above, and no further authorization shall be granted except in conformance with this provision.

(i) Recreational development.

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.

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

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 restoration.

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 significant ecological impacts can be avoided.

(j) Residential development.

Single-family residences are a priority use when consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment.

Residential development includes single-family and multifamily development and the creation of new residential lots through land division or conversion from another use. Master programs should include shoreline setbacks, density regulations, bulkhead restrictions, vegetation conservation requirements, and on-site sewage system standards for residential uses and development, including single-family residences and appurtenant structures and uses, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Master programs may provide the above standards either by direct language within the master program or by specific reference to the applicable development regulations. New residential development, including appurtenant structures and uses, shall be sufficiently set back from steep slopes and shorelines vulnerable to erosion so that structural improvements, including bluff walls and other bluff stabilization structures, are not required to protect property. (See RCW 90.58.100(6).)

New over-water residences, including floating homes, are not a preferred use and shall be prohibited.

New multiunit residential development, including duplexes, fourplexes, and the subdivision of land for more than four parcels, should provide community and/or public access in conformance to the local government's public access plan and this chapter.

Local governments should not allow residential development of a scale and location that will significantly reduce the ecological functions performed by vegetation. Limit significant vegetation removal to the minimum necessary to accommodate permitted primary residential structures. Where the dimensions of existing legally created lots are not sufficient to accommodate development of a permitted use without significant vegetation removal, apply the mitigation sequence defined in WAC 173-26-020 to address adverse impacts to vegetation.

Master programs shall include standards for the creation of new residential lots, through land division or conversion from another use, that accomplish the following:

(i) Prevent significant vegetation removal or significant ecological impact to ecological functions. That is, all residential lots resulting from such platting or subdivision should be large enough or configured in a way that a residence may be developed without causing significant ecological impacts to ecological functions through vegetation removal.

When land is converted to residential use from agriculture, forestry, or other less intensive land use, ensure that the resulting lots are sufficient in size and configuration to allow protection of ecological functions or, if vegetation supporting ecological functions has been removed, the restoration of ecological functions.

(ii) Prevent the need for new shoreline stabilization measures that would cause significant ecological impacts to ecological functions.

(iii) Implement the provisions of WAC 173-26-210 and 173-26-220.

(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.

Transportation facilities should be located, designed, and constructed so that 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.

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 shall be considered a part of the allowed use.

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 and 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 no other feasible alternative exists. 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.

Chapter 90.58 RCW raises the status of shorelines of state-wide significance in two ways. First, the Shoreline Management Act sets specific preferences 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.

Optimum implementation involves special emphasis on state-wide objectives and consultation with state agencies. The state's interests may vary, depending upon the geographic region, type of shoreline, and local conditions. Optimum implementation may involve ensuring that other comprehensive planning policies and regulations support Shoreline Management Act objectives.

Because shoreline ecological resources are linked to other environments, implementation of ecological objectives is most effective when conducted on an ecosystem-wide or watershed basis. Optimum implementation places a greater imperative on identifying, understanding, and managing ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions that support resources of state-wide importance.

(3) Master program provisions for shorelines of state-wide significance.

Because shorelines of state-wide significance are major resources from which all people of the state derive benefit, local governments that are preparing master program provisions for shorelines of state-wide significance shall implement the following:

(a) State-wide interest.

To recognize and protect state-wide interest over local interest, consult with applicable state agencies, affected Indian tribes, and state-wide interest groups and consider their recommendations in preparing shoreline master program provisions. Recognize and take into account state agencies' policies, programs, and recommendations in developing use regulations.

(b) Preserving resources for future generations.

Prepare master program provisions on the basis of preserving the shorelines for future generations. For example, actions that would convert resources into irreversible uses or detrimentally alter natural conditions characteristic of shorelines of state-wide significance should be severely limited.

(c) Priority uses.

Establish shoreline environment designation policies, boundaries, and use provisions that give preference to those uses described in RCW 90.58.020(1) through (7). More specifically:

(i) 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.

(ii) Preserve sufficient shorelands 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, requirements for essential public facilities, and comment from related industry associations, affected Indian tribes, and state agencies.

(iii) Base public access and recreation 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.

(d) Resources of state-wide importance.

Establish development standards that:

(i) Ensure the long-term protection and restoration of ecological resources of state-wide importance, such as anadromous fish habitats, forage fish spawning and rearing areas, shellfish beds, and unique environments. Standards shall consider incremental and cumulative impacts of permitted development and include provisions to improve the functions of shoreline ecosystems as a whole.

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

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

(e) Comprehensive plan consistency.

Assure that other local comprehensive plan provisions are consistent with and support as a high priority the policies for shorelines of state-wide significance. Specifically, shoreline master programs should include policies that incorporate the priorities and optimum implementation directives of chapter 90.58 RCW into comprehensive plan provisions and implementing development regulations.

[]

GUIDELINES -- OPTIONAL APPROACH
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-26-270
Purpose of Part IV.

(1) Objectives.

WAC 173-26-270 through 173-26-350 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 in developing and amending master programs. The purposes of Part IV are to: (Text in quotations is excerpted from RCW 90.58.020.)

(a) Protect against adverse impacts.

"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. . . ."

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

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).)

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."

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

"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."

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

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."

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."

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

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."

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.

"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."

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

(d) Recovery of proposed, threatened, and endangered species (PTE species).

It is the policy of the act to "[p]rotect against adverse effects to . . . the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life." RCW 90.58.020. In recent years numerous species of aquatic and terrestrial life which live in or near the shoreline have seen dramatic declines in population. A number of these species, including several species of salmonids, have declined to such an extent that they have been listed as proposed, threatened, or endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1533, or by the Washington state department of fish and wildlife pursuant to RCW 77.12.020. Species declines dramatic enough to warrant listing under the ESA or RCW 77.12.020 signify a failure to adequately protect against adverse effects to such species. As such, the listing of such species indicates that particular attention should be paid to the species and their habitat in order to fulfill the act's policy of protecting against adverse effects to the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life.

(2) Responsibilities of state and local governments.

RCW 90.58.050 gives local governments the responsibility of initiating the planning required by the Shoreline Management Act and administering the regulatory program consistent with its policy and provisions. 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 173-26-270 through 173-26-350 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.

[]

(1) Master program concepts.

The following concepts are the basis for effective shoreline master programs.

(a) Master program policies and regulations.

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 173-26-300(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 planning and regulatory measures for adjacent land. For jurisdictions planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, the Growth Management Act, the requirements for integration of shoreline and adjacent land planning are more specific and are described in WAC 173-26-290 (2)(a). Fourth, master programs address conditions and opportunities of specific shoreline segments by classifying the shorelines into "environment designations" as described in WAC 173-26-310.

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. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and issues a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them. The regulations apply to all uses and development 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:

(a) An economic development element for the location and design of industries, industrial projects of statewide significance, 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.

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

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

(d) 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.

(e) 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.

(f) 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.

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

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

(i) 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. Local jurisdictions are not required to address the master program elements listed in the Shoreline Management Act as discrete sections. The elements may be addressed throughout master program provisions rather than used 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 by setting use priorities and requiring "optimum implementation" of the act's policy. WAC 173-26-350 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 sets of environment protection measures, allowable use provisions, and development standards for each of these shoreline segments.

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 173-26-310 presents guidelines for environment designations in greater detail.

(2) Basic requirements.

Part IV of this chapter describes the basic components and content required in a master program. As indicated in WAC 173-26-020, for this chapter, the terms "shall," "must," and "are required" and the imperative voice mean a mandate; the action must be done. As noted in WAC 173-26-020, the term "should" means that the particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated, compelling reason, based on a policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, against taking the action. Part IV 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 chapter 36.70A RCW 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 173-26-300.

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. The department may develop recommendations for land use control for such lands. Local governments shall, in developing use regulations for such areas, take into consideration any recommendations developed by the department as well as any other state agencies or units of local government (1971 ex.s. c 286 § 34.)

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, facilitate consistent, efficient environmental review, effectively implement the Shoreline Management Act, and address PFC requirements for PTE species.

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.

(i) First, WAC 173-26-290 (2)(b) and (c) describe optional methods to integrate master programs and other development regulations and the local comprehensive plan.

(ii) Second, WAC 173-26-320 through 173-26-350 translate the broad objectives in the Shoreline Management Act into more specific policies. They also provide a 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.

(iii) Finally, WAC 173-26-310(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 ensure that local master programs are consistent with other regulations.

Shoreline master programs may include other regulations by referencing a specific, dated edition. When including referenced regulations within a master program, local governments shall ensure that the public has an opportunity to participate in the formulation of the regulations or in their incorporation into the master program, as called for in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(b)(i). In the approval process, the department will review the referenced development regulation sections 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 will require 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 rather than preparing a discrete master program in a single document. Master program provisions that are integrated into such plans and development regulations shall be clearly identified so that the department 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 or the applicable 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 to the department a listing 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.

Place illustration here.

(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 and efficiently manage natural resources, such as drift cells or watersheds, 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 173-26-300 (3)(b), and submit the multijurisdictional master program to the department for approval.

(e) Master program contents.

Master programs shall include the following contents described in (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, 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 master program policies are considered a shoreline element of the local comprehensive plan and shall also be consistent with the planning goals of RCW 36.70A.020.

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 173-26-310. 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.

(D) Be consistent with conservation requirements for PTE species.

(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 that apply to specific environments consistent with WAC 173-26-310.

(C) Include general regulations, use regulations that address issues of concern to specific uses, and shoreline modification regulations that protect shoreline ecological functions from the effects of human-made modifications to the shoreline.

To comply with Part IV of chapter 173-26 WAC, regulations shall also be consistent with the properly functioning condition requirements for PTE species.

(iii) Administrative provisions.

(A) Statement of applicability.

The Shoreline Management Act's provisions apply to all development and uses within its jurisdiction, whether or not a shoreline permit is required. Many activities that may not require a substantial development permit, such as clearing vegetation or construction of a residential bulkhead, can cause serious damage to adjacent properties, natural resources, and lands held in public trust. Local governments have the authority and responsibility to condition a project even though it is exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit. There has been, historically, some public confusion regarding the Shoreline Management Act's applicability. Therefore, all master programs shall include the following statement:

"All new uses and development 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.

(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.

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 173-27 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.

However, master programs shall include a mechanism, such as a letter of exemption, to ensure that all development, including development exempted from a substantial development permit, meets the conditions of the permit or letter of exemption, the applicable master program, these guidelines, and the Shoreline Management Act. See WAC 173-26-300 (2)(g).

(D) Documentation of project review actions and changing conditions in shoreline areas.

Master programs shall include a mechanism for documenting project review actions and evaluating their cumulative effects on shoreline conditions. See WAC 173-26-300 (2)(b) and (3)(h).

Local governments, in conjunction with state agencies, must provide enforcement mechanisms needed to assure that development within shoreline jurisdiction will comply with the act, this chapter, and PFC requirements for PTE species.

[]

Reviser's note: The brackets and enclosed material in the text of the above section occurred in the copy filed by the agency and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-26-300
Comprehensive process to prepare or amend shoreline master programs.

(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.

(g) When monitoring and adaptive management indicate changes are necessary to avoid loss of ecological functions.

If a local jurisdiction has undertaken a recent comprehensive update of the master program but seeks to make minor revisions, such as an adjustment to a single environment designation boundary, to bring the master program into compliance with these guidelines or other state requirements, these modifications may be made without undertaking a fully comprehensive process.

All master program amendments, even amendments that do not fit within the criteria above, are subject to approval by the department.

(2) Basic concepts 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.

To address the requirements for the use of scientific and technical information, local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master program development and amendment process.

First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern. The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, 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 use accepted scientific methods and research procedures and be subject to peer review. 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.

In addition, local governments shall identify all shoreline areas which provide habitats that support PTE species.

At a minimum, local governments should consult with the technical assistance materials produced by the department. Unless there is more current or specific information available, those technical assistance materials shall constitute an element of scientific and technical information as defined in these guidelines.

Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available. Local governments shall be prepared to identify the following:

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

• Assumptions and data gaps in the scientific information;

• Risks to ecological functions associated with master program provisions. Address potential risks as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(g).

The requirement to use scientific and technical information in these guidelines does not limit a local jurisdiction's authority to solicit and incorporate information, experience, and anecdotal evidence provided by interested parties as part of the master program amendment process. Such information should be solicited through the public participation process described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(b). Where information collected by or provided to local governments conflicts or is inconsistent, the local government shall base master program provisions on a reasoned, objective evaluation of the relative merits of the conflicting data. In such instances, particular consideration shall be given to protecting PTE species.

(b) Monitoring and adaptive management.

The recovery of PFC for PTE and priority species requires making decisions based on an ecosystem perspective. Recognizing the complexity of ecosystems and the degree of uncertainty about the outcomes of many management actions, effective shoreline management will require a process of adaptive learning and change. To achieve and effectively maintain PFC, the state and local government shoreline policies and regulations shall have and implement adaptive management strategies that clearly identify existing and desired future conditions, measurable performance criteria, procedures and schedules to monitor progress toward performance criteria, management options, specific thresholds for changes, and applicable management responses. Priorities for monitoring specific performance criteria should be tied to the degree of uncertainty for effectiveness of measures. Actions with a high degree of effectiveness or low risk to PFC, should be low priority for monitoring and adaptive management.

(i) Responsive adaptive management requires a cooperative effort on the part of local governments, the department, other resource agencies and affected Indian tribes. As part of the master program amendment process, local governments shall conduct the following adaptive management activities:

(A) Obtain base line inventory information as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(c).

(B) Conduct the ecological analysis as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(i) and cumulative impact analysis as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(iii).

(C) Set measurable performance criteria, thresholds, or benchmarks, such as area of natural or restored vegetation or length of unmodified or restored shoreline to maintain and restore PFC.

(D) Establish a program of monitoring land use and shoreline permit activities, including letters of exemption, to accurately assess the condition of the shoreline with respect to the performance criteria.

(E) Identify a long term funding source and commitment.

(F) Identify a timely procedure to incrementally adjust management activities to respond to new information. In some cases, monitoring results may lead to changes in master program provisions.

(ii) In addition, the department, in conjunction with local governments and applicable state agencies, shall institute the following state-wide monitoring and regulatory response program:

(A) Local governments shall keep records of all permit and land use actions regulated under the master program, including letters of exemption and impact analysis documentation prepared under chapter 43.21C RCW, and provide such information to the department.

(B) The department shall compile all such documentation into a readily accessible data base.

(C) The department shall visit a minimum of 100 completed projects per year and verify whether or not the in-place construction meets the permit or letter of exemption requirements. The department shall inform local governments of its findings and required actions, if any. Where possible and appropriate, the department's visit will take place at the time of the local government's final inspection and prior to occupancy together with follow up visits thereafter.

(D) Each year, the department shall prepare a summary report of the site visits along with related information. The report shall include findings and recommendations for alleviating conditions or trends that could constitute take or inhibit the attainment or maintenance of properly functioning condition. The information will document development actions, assess current levels of compliance, and identify shoreline management activities requiring change in order to achieve PFC objectives. Where applicable, the findings will be compared to ongoing monitoring of ecological functions by other agencies.

(E) The 100 site visits will be selected by the department to represent the full range of development actions and shoreline conditions (e.g., marine, riverine, Eastern Washington, Western Washington, etc.).

(F) The department, along with local governments, shall evaluate the effectiveness of current guidelines in achieving Shoreline Management Act policies, giving particular consideration to the conservation of habitat that supports PTE species, at least once every five years, as called for in RCW 90.58.060(3). The department shall amend the guidelines to achieve PFC and other Shoreline Management Act objectives.

In addition, the department shall participate as appropriate in more detailed inventory monitoring and adaptive management activities conducted by other state resource agencies.

(c) Ecological functions.

(i) General.

RCW 90.58.020 includes the following statement:

This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto.

This chapter implements the above-cited RCW policy through the protection and restoration of ecological functions. The concept of ecological functions, as defined in WAC 173-26-020, recognizes that successful management of the shoreline environment depends on sustaining the:

• Ecosystem-wide fluvial, current, and wave processes that form habitats, and

• Individual functions and their processes that are present in each habitat type.

The loss or degradation of one or more ecosystem-wide processes or individual functions can significantly impact shoreline habitats and human health and safety. Shoreline master programs shall address the applicable ecosystem-wide processes and individual ecological functions identified in the ecological systems analysis described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(i).

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 are themselves interconnected. The life cycle of anadromous fish, for example, 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 protection and restoration of ecological functions generally apply to all shoreline areas, not just those that remain relatively unaltered.

Master programs shall contain provisions to protect and to contribute to the restoration of ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes based on analysis described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(i).

(ii) Functions related to properly functioning condition.

Several provisions in Part IV of this chapter require that master programs be directed toward the maintenance or attainment of "properly functioning condition" for PTE species. This subsection amplifies the intent of those provisions and describes the method for determining whether or not a master program meets the requirement for PFC.

The Habitat Approach: Implementation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for Actions Affecting the Habitat of Pacific Anadromous Fishes, prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Habitat Conservation and Protected Resources Divisions, 26 August 1999 describes PFC as:

. . . the sustained presence of natural habitat-forming processes in a watershed (e.g., riparian community succession, bedload transport, precipitation runoff pattern, channel migration), estuary (e.g., riparian community succession, tidal circulation, emergent vegetation, distributary channels) or marine shoreline (e.g., riparian community succession, detrital inputs, sediment erosion, transport and accretion, aquatic plants) that are necessary for the long-term survival of the species through the full range of environmental variation. PFC, then, constitutes the habitat component of a species' biological requirements. The indicators of PFC vary between different landscapes based on unique physiographic and geologic features. For example, aquatic habitats on timberlands in glacial mountain valleys are controlled by natural processes operating at different scales and rates than are habitats on low-elevation coastal rivers.

The importance of the term "PFC" to these guidelines rests on the fact that in order to achieve a limitation on take under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, master program provisions must not allow development that impairs currently properly functioning habitat, reduces the functioning of already impaired habitat, or retards the long-term progress of impaired habitat toward PFC.

Stated in positive terms, in order to satisfy the conditions of Part IV related to PFC, local governments must demonstrate that master program provisions accomplish the following two requirements:

• Maintain PFC where it occurs.

• Contribute to the attainment of PFC where proper functioning has been impaired. Master programs must include provisions that will result in the long-term improvement of impaired conditions even if those provisions, in themselves, will not achieve PFC in the foreseeable future.

The methodology for local governments to demonstrate conformance to this standard is described by the process below. The methodology tasks listed below also fit within the requirements of WAC 173-26-300 (2)(c)(i) and the process described in WAC 173-26-300(3).

• Task 1: Identify the status and biological requirements of the affected species regarding the life history phases within the jurisdiction. This information may be obtained through the department and other local state and federal resource agencies. Contact the department for access to necessary information.

• Task 2: Evaluate what aspects of the baseline inventory conditions are achieving species' requirements. As part of the analysis conducted in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(i), (iii), (viii), (ix), and (x), analyze the implications of the information gathered as part of inventory described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(c). As part of the inventory process, identify those stretches of shorelines with baseline conditions determined to be either "properly functioning," "at risk," or "not properly functioning." With respect to properly functioning condition determination, it is particularly important to identify those functions that have been altered to the point that they are limiting or threatening species survival and recovery. These are the functions that shall be given top priority for restoration.

• Task 3: Consider cumulative impacts in the jurisdiction. Accomplish this task through the cumulative impact analysis described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(iii). Establish master program provisions to address cumulative impacts to properly functioning condition as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(g).

• Task 4: Determine the effects of the proposed master program on PTE species. This evaluation may be accomplished through analysis included in an impact evaluation conducted under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act. In order to approve a master program, the department must find that development conducted under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act and allowed by the proposed master program does not have the potential to hinder attainment of properly functioning condition and has an insignificant (extremely low) probability of taking proposed or PTE species or resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of their shoreline and aquatic habitat. In making this evaluation, the department will consider the ways that master program provisions will protect existing habitats with PFC and restore impaired conditions critical to species' survival.

• Task 5: Establish shoreline policies, regulations and environment designations, as appropriate to protect PFC along those shorelines that are "properly functioning" and "at risk," and to restore those shorelines "not properly functioning" to the point to where they effectively contribute to and eventually attain PFC for all shoreline areas within the watershed, sub-basin, or shoreline area within question.

For PTE salmonid species, the following objectives are relevant to PFC:

• Protect and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watersheds, marine environments, and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted.

• Protect and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds and along marine shorelines. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include flood plains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. Provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riverine-dependent species.

• Protect and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, beaches, banks, marine near-shore habitats, and bottom configurations.

• Protect and restore timing, volume, and distribution of large woody debris (LWD) recruitment by protecting trees in riverine and marine habitat conservation areas.

• Protect and restore the water quality necessary to support healthy aquatic and wetland ecosystems. Attain water quality within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riverine communities.

• Protect and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

• Protect and restore in-stream flows including natural range of flow variability sufficient to create and sustain riverine, aquatic, and wetland habitats, retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing, and optimize the essential features of designated critical habitat. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows should be maintained, where optimum, and restored, where not optimum.

• Protect and restore the timing, variability, and duration of flood plain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

• Protect and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riverine areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

• Protect and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate species.

• Protect and restore marine shoreline conditions to support PTE species.

For those shoreline areas that affect PTE species, the ecological functions and processes necessary to support those species are of special importance. Applicable master programs shall include measures to protect and restore those functions necessary to attain properly functioning condition for PTE species.

(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 protection and restoration activities. Consistent with RCW 90.58.020, local governments should, when determining allowable uses and resolving use conflicts on shorelines within their jurisdiction, apply the following preferences and priorities in the order listed below, starting with (i) of this subsection.

(i) Reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring properly functioning condition for PTE species and ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public health.

(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. Harbor areas and areas that are generally considered navigable for commercial purposes should 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) Reserve shoreline areas for water-related and water-enjoyment uses that are compatible with water-dependent uses and ecological protection and restoration objectives.

(iv) Locate single-family residential uses where they are appropriate and can be developed without significant impact to ecological functions or displacement of water-dependent uses.

(v) Limit nonwater-oriented uses 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 undeveloped shoreline may not be an appropriate site for a water-dependent use, such as a cargo facility, but may accommodate a recreational trail (water-enjoyment) of a lower priority.

For shorelines of state-wide significance, apply the preferences as indicated in WAC 173-26-350(2).

(e) Cumulative impacts.

Some types of shoreline developments do not cause measurable ecological harm as individual development projects but can cause significant ecological impacts when considered together with similar projects on a specific shoreline. Examples may include a group of residential bulkheads that, taken together, disrupt sediment drift, cause erosion down-current, and cause loss of forage fish habitat, and incremental construction of impervious surfaces, which prevent water infiltration and retention, exacerbate flooding, and cause stream bed scouring.

Cumulative impacts due to incremental development can also cause significant damage to habitat. Therefore, shoreline master programs must not allow classes of actions that, when considered cumulatively, cause significant ecological impact to shoreline functions or would hinder or prevent the attainment or maintenance of properly functioning condition for PTE species.

The method to accomplish this requirement is to identify potential ecological impacts that could occur from the maximum amount and extent of development allowed by the master program and establish master program provisions and/or mitigation requirements to address the maximum possible ecological impact, as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(iii).

In areas where degradation has already occurred, such requirements may be part of restoration of functions that contribute to properly functioning condition.

(f) Environmental impact mitigation.

Because the Shoreline Management Act recognizes both the appropriate use and environmental protection of the state's shorelines, situations may arise in which otherwise allowable development must include measures to mitigate environmental impacts and implement the Shoreline Management Act's environmental protection objectives. Rules implementing Washington's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, chapter 43.21C RCW, also address environmental impact mitigation in WAC 197-11-660 and define mitigation in WAC 197-11-768. Where these guidelines call for mitigation or mitigation sequencing, shoreline master programs shall include provisions for providing environmental impact mitigation. This may be done by prescribing specific mitigation actions for specific uses as called for in WAC 173-26-340 (2)(a), by requiring conditional use permits as described in WAC 173-26-340 (2)(b), and/or by implementing a plan for comprehensive environmental mitigation.

To this end, master programs shall indicate that, where required, mitigation measures shall be applied in the sequence described in WAC 173-26-020. In determining appropriate mitigation measures, avoidance of impacts by means such as relocating or redesigning the proposed development shall be applied first. Lower priority measures shall be applied only after higher priority measures are demonstrated to be not feasible or not applicable.

(g) Assurance of development compliance.

(i) Letters of exemption.

A mechanism must be established to ensure that new development meets the conditions and objectives of these guidelines, even if the development is exempt from the requirement to obtain a shoreline permit. Therefore, local governments shall require that no development normally exempted from the requirement to obtain a shoreline permit be undertaken without a letter of exemption from the applicable local government if the proposed development is any of the following:

• Waterward of the ordinary high-water mark or bank full width, whichever applies, including any form of stream channel modification.

• Shoreline stabilization, including the construction, addition to, or repair of residential bulkheads.

• Development associated with the construction of or addition to a single-family residence.

• Clearing and grading.

• Road construction when a shoreline permit is not required.

The letters of exemption shall describe conditions, requirements, or limitations placed upon the proposed development where necessary to ensure that the development does not cause significant ecological impacts or contribute to potential adverse cumulative impacts. Projects to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage that meet the criteria of RCW 90.58.147 do not require a letter of exemption.

(ii) Compliance assurance mechanism.

Master programs must include a mechanism for assuring that the completed development meets the conditions and mitigation requirements of the permit or letter of exemption, the master program, this chapter, and the act. Such a mechanism may include a performance bond or expressed enforcement conditions or penalties. In the case of a bond, the bond shall not be released before a final inspection indicates the bond conditions have been met. Bonding requirements for projects by local governments and state agencies are limited by RCW 36.32.590.

Local governments participating in the program must perform a final inspection of all development permitted or conditioned with a letter of exemption and take measures to ensure correction of conditions not in compliance. Local governments shall send results of final inspections, including descriptions of noncompliant conditions and violations, to the department. (See chapter 173-27 WAC for permit enforcement provisions.)

(3) Steps in preparing and amending a master program.

(a) Process overview.

Figure 4 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 to the process, or work jointly with other jurisdictions or regional efforts, provided the provisions of this chapter are met.

Place illustration here.

The department 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.

(b) Participation process.

Establish a 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 the full range of interests of all citizens within the local jurisdiction.

(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 for a list of applicable agencies to be notified.

(iii) Communication 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.

Gather and incorporate all pertinent and available information, existing inventory data and materials from state agencies, affected Indian tribes, watershed management planning, and other appropriate sources. Ensure that, whenever possible, inventory methods and protocols are consistent with those of neighboring jurisdictions and state efforts. Map inventory information at an appropriate scale.

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 properly functioning condition. To accomplish this requires an inventory that is sufficiently 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 an 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 a baseline for monitoring purposes.

The department will secure services and resources for coordinated, interjurisdictional inventory work. Contact the department to determine information sources and other relevant efforts.

Local governments shall be prepared to demonstrate how the inventory information was used in preparing their local master program amendments.

Collection of additional inventory information is encouraged and should be coordinated with other watershed, regional, or state-wide inventory and planning efforts in order to ensure consistent methods and data protocol as well as effective use of fiscal and human resources. Local governments should be prepared to demonstrate that they have coordinated with applicable interjurisdictional shoreline inventory and planning programs where they exist. Two or more local governments are encouraged to jointly conduct an inventory in order to increase the efficiency of data gathering and comprehensiveness of inventory information. Data from interjurisdictional, watershed, or regional inventories may be substituted for an inventory conducted by an individual jurisdiction, provided it meets the requirements of this section.

Collect and analyze the following information:

(i) Shoreline and adjacent land use patterns and transportation facilities, including the extent of existing structures, impervious surfaces, and vegetation and shoreline modifications in shoreline jurisdiction.

(ii) Critical areas, including wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, critical wildlife habitats, geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas, as required by RCW 36.70.170.

(iii) Degraded areas and sites with potential for ecological restoration.

(iv) Areas of special interest, such as priority habitats, rapidly developing waterfronts, clean-up sites, or eroding shorelines, to be addressed through new master program provisions.

(v) Conditions and regulations in shoreland and adjacent areas that affect shorelines, such as surface water management and land use regulations. This information may be useful in achieving mutual consistency between the master program and other development regulations.

(vi) Existing and potential shoreline public access sites, including public rights-of-way.

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

(viii) Gaps in existing information. During the initial inventory, local governments should identify what additional information may be necessary for more effective shoreline management and develop strategies to collect this information.

(ix) If the shoreline is rapidly developing or subject to substantial human changes such as clearing and grading, past and current records or historical 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.

(x) Consult with the state historic preservation office and local affected Indian tribes regarding existing archaeological, and historical information.

For those shorelines that affect PTE species, the inventory information shall establish baseline conditions for the items listed below:

Natural:	Physical:
	Location and extent of populations of PTE species
	Drift cells
	Direction of littoral drift (primary)
	Sediment accretion areas (marine and riverine)
	Sediment transport zones (marine and riverine)
	Erosional zones and "feeder" bluffs
	Geological hazard areas
	Wave energy or fetch
	Intertidal substrate description
	Shallow subtidal (-10 feet MLLW) substrate description
	Channel migration zones
	Pool/riffle ratios
	Flood plains
	Ground water upwellings or springs
	Hydric soils
	Biological:
	Forage fish spawning and holding areas
	Shellfish areas (both certified and uncertified)
	Eelgrass beds
	Algae and kelp beds
	Spit berm vegetation (gravelly and sandy soils)
	Condition of riverine vegetation (native, nonnative) age and width
	Submerged and emergent vegetation
	Wetland (associated and isolated)
	Salmon and bull trout spawning, rearing, feeding, and migration areas
	Marine riparian vegetation
Alter Conditions:	Land use:
	Zoning density (units per acre)
	Single-family residences and appurtenant structures
	Agricultural structures and practices
	Aquacultural practices
	Industrial complexes and appurtenant structures
	Commercial buildings and appurtenant structures
	Bulkheads and shore hardening, including levees and dikes
	Filled areas
	Docks, piers, and other over-water structures
	Storm water outfalls
	Sewer outfalls
	Roads within shoreline jurisdiction
	Extent of impermeable surfaces
	Identified contaminated sediments
	Tide gates, ditches, diversions, culverts, and barriers to wildlife migration
	Utilities
	Shoreline designations
	Land use overlays
	Development within channel migration zones

For those items inventoried for protection and restoration of habitat for PTE species, document the information at a scale sufficiently detailed to be able to identify changing conditions over time. Washington state resource agencies have inventory information available for most items. Contact the department for access to inventory records.

(d) Analyze shoreline issues of concern.

To support policies of the Shoreline Management Act and ensure properly functioning condition for listed PTE species, analyze shoreline conditions based on information gathered in (c) of this subsection 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, addressing the topics below, where applicable.

(i) Characterization of functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

Prepare a characterization of shoreline ecological systems. These systems include riverine, lacustrine, and tidal systems as listed in WAC 173-26-020. The characterization consists of three steps:

(A) Identify which of the ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions listed in WAC 173-26-020 apply within the shoreline jurisdiction and identify which have been significantly altered and which may be missing or significantly impacted;

(B) Assess the ecosystem-wide processes to determine their effect/impact on shoreline systems present within a jurisdiction and their individual functions; and

(C) Develop the specific master program provisions necessary to protect and/or restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. The characterization may be achieved by using one or more of the approaches below:

(I) If a regional plan, such as a watershed plan and limiting habitat factors analysis, is ongoing or has been completed, then the master program should conduct the characterization either within the framework of the watershed plan or use the data provided in the watershed plan. This methodology is intended to provide an in-depth and comprehensive assessment and characterization.

(II) If a regional management plan has not been completed, the local government shall use available scientific and technical information, including flood studies, habitat evaluations and studies, water quality studies, and data and information from environmental impact statements. The characterization of ecosystem-wide processes and the impact upon the functions of specific habitats and human health and safety objectives may be of a generalized nature.

(III) One or more local governments may pursue a characterization, which includes a greater scope and complexity than listed in items (I) and (II) of this subsection.

Local governments shall ensure that master program provisions protect the shoreline processes within the subject jurisdiction that are critical to creating and sustaining properly functioning condition and other ecological functions. To achieve this, the level of resource protection must account for risks to the environment and cumulative impacts from development allowed by the master program. Local governments shall use this analysis to prepare master program provisions to protect and to contribute to the restoration of the ecosystem-wide processes and individual ecological functions on a comprehensive basis over time. This does not necessarily require that each development or action on the shoreline individually improve ecological functions.

For shoreline areas that affect PTE species, the ecosystem characterization shall include an identification of those functions and processes limiting the sustainability and recovery of those species. This analysis should be done for discrete reaches or shoreline segments of differing characteristics. It shall be sufficiently detailed to determine the current performance of shoreline functions relative to properly functioning condition for PTE species. The analysis shall identify those master program provisions necessary to attain properly functioning condition. Local governments shall use scientific and technical information and should consult with department technical assistance materials and work with federal, state, and local resource agency teams and affected Indian tribes when analyzing ecological conditions and their implications for priority species' survival.

(ii) Shoreline use analysis and priorities.

Conduct an analysis to determine the future demand for shoreline space and the 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 ecological restoration.

(iii) Cumulative impacts.

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. This assessment should include potential impacts due to all development, including current conditions and those uses not requiring a shoreline permit. Master programs should address cumulative adverse impacts caused by incremental development, such as residential bulkheads, residential piers, or runoff from newly developed properties, and shall include master program provisions to assess, minimize, and mitigate cumulative impacts.

For shorelines that affect priority species, local governments shall prepare a biological evaluation of the full build-out condition allowed by the master program. The full build-out condition assumes the maximum impact of development permitted by the proposed master program. Where projected cumulative impacts are found to adversely affect priority species populations, master program provisions or mitigation requirements shall be added for each development so that there will be no cumulative impacts significantly affecting ecological functions at full build-out. At a minimum, biological evaluation shall address the following:

• Shoreline stabilization and impacts to the near-shore habitat and critical aquatic habitats.

• Residential development.

• Over-water structures, including residential docks, and impacts to the near-shore habitat and critical aquatic habitats.

• Vegetation conservation and impacts to shoreline stability, water quality, and aquatic habitats.

• Control of exotic species.

• Water quality and quantity, including storm water runoff, discharges, hydrographic response, and pollutant levels.

• Forest and agricultural practices.

Cumulative impact analysis shall incorporate scientific and technical information. Local governments should consult with technical assistance materials for addressing cumulative impacts produced by the department.

(iv) Shorelines of state-wide significance.

If the area contains substantial amounts of shorelines of state-wide significance, undertake the steps outlined in WAC 173-26-350.

(v) Public access.

Identify public access needs and opportunities within the jurisdiction and explore actions to enhance shoreline recreation facilities, as described in WAC 173-26-320(4).

(vi) 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 mutual consistency in accordance with chapter 36.70A RCW and RCW 90.58.340. In order to effectively administer and enforce master program provisions, local governments should also review their current permit review and inspection practices to identify ways to increase efficiency and effectiveness and to ensure consistency.

(vii) Water quality and quantity.

Identify water quality and quantity issues relevant to master programs, including those that affect human health and safety. At a minimum, consult with appropriate federal, state, tribal, and local agencies.

(viii) Vegetation conservation.

Identify how existing shoreline vegetation provides ecological functions and determine methods to ensure protection of those functions. Identify important ecological functions that have been degraded through loss of vegetation and feasible means to restore those functions. Consider the amount of vegetated shoreline area necessary to achieve ecological objectives. While there may be less vegetation remaining in urbanized areas than in rural areas, the importance of this vegetation, in terms of the ecological functions it provides, is often as great or even greater than in rural areas due to its scarcity. Identify measures to ensure that new development meets vegetation conservation objectives.

(ix) Ecological restoration.

Where restoration of the shoreline is necessary for recovery efforts for PTE species or management of priority species or habitats, local governments shall base restoration requirements on comprehensive restoration planning, using scientific and technical information that identifies specific sites, preferred methods, implementation incentives, requirements, and projects.

(x) Special area planning.

If the jurisdiction includes complex shoreline ecological issues, changing uses, or other unique features, the local government is encouraged to undertake special area planning. Special area planning may be used to address: Public access, vegetation conservation, shoreline use compatibility, port development master planning, ecological restoration, 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.

(e) Establish environment designations.

Establish environment designations and identify permitted uses, and development standards for each environment designation.

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

Prepare specific environment designation policies and regulations where necessary to address different shoreline conditions and objectives, including those necessary to maintain properly functioning condition for PTE species.

Review the environment designations for mutual consistency with comprehensive plan land use designations as indicated in WAC 173-26-310(3).

In determining the boundaries and classifications of environment designations, adhere to the priorities in WAC 173-26-300 (2)(d).

In accordance with WAC 173-26-310, 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 damage 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.

(f) Establish shoreline policies.

Address all of the elements listed in RCW 90.58.100(2). Review for mutual consistency with the comprehensive plan policies. If there are shorelines of state-wide significance, ensure that the other comprehensive plan policies affecting shoreline jurisdiction are consistent with the objectives of RCW 90.58.020 and 90.58.090(4). If the shorelines affect PTE species, include a policy in the master program calling for properly functioning condition for the PTE species and review the comprehensive plan for consistency.

(g) Prepare shoreline regulations.

Prepare shoreline regulations based on the analyses described in this section and consistent with the guidelines of this chapter. The level of detail of inventory information and planning analysis 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 should be to avoid irreparable damage to shoreline resources. 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 protected. Shorelines that affect PTE species shall be afforded special consideration to maintain or contribute to the restoration of properly functioning condition.

The regulations shall be sufficient to address cumulative impacts as described in WAC 173-26-300 (2)(e) and (3)(d)(iii).

(h) Submit for review and approval.

Local governments are encouraged to work with department personnel during preparation of the master program and to submit draft master program provisions to the department for informal advice and guidance prior to formal submittal.

Local governments shall submit the completed checklist, as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(a), 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. The checklist will include a monitoring and adaptive management program described in WAC 173-26-300 (2)(b).

[]

(1) Applicability.

This section applies to the establishment of environment designation boundaries and provisions as described in WAC 173-26-290 (1)(d).

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

Master programs shall contain a system to classify shoreline areas into specific environment designations. Each master program's classification system shall be consistent with that described in WAC 173-26-310 (4) and (5) unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary and the alternative proposed provides equal or better implementation of the act, particularly with respect to protection of PTE species.

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 prepared and 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, physical features, explicit criteria, or "common" boundary descriptions to accurately define and distinguish the environments on the ground.

To facilitate consistency with land use planning, local governments planning under chapter 36.70A RCW are encouraged to illustrate shoreline designations on the comprehensive plan Future Land Use Map as described in WAC 365-195-300 (2)(d).

The map should clearly illustrate what environment designations apply to all lands in Shoreline Management Act jurisdictional limits including flood plains, river deltas, and associated wetlands.

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.

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

(a) Purpose statement.

The statement of purpose shall describe the shoreline management objectives of the designation in a manner that distinguishes it from other designations.

(b) Classification criteria.

Clearly stated criteria shall provide the basis for classifying or reclassifying a specific shoreline area with an environment designation.

(c) Management policies.

These policies shall be in sufficient detail to assist in the interpretation of the environment designation regulations and, for jurisdictions planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, to evaluate consistency with the local comprehensive plan.

(d) Regulations.

Environment-specific regulations shall address the following where necessary to account for different shoreline conditions:

• Regulations to maintain or restore properly functioning condition for PTE species relevant to each designation.

• Preferred shoreline use requirements;

• Types of shoreline uses permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited;

• Building or structure height and bulk limits, setbacks, maximum density or minimum frontage requirements, and site development standards;

• Native vegetation conservation, shoreline stabilization, parking, signs, public access, and other topics not covered in general use regulations.

(3) Consistency between shoreline environment designations and the local comprehensive plan.

As noted in WAC 173-26-290 (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 three of the conditions below should be met:

(a) Provisions not precluding one another.

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. Further, when considered together and applied to any one piece of property, the master program use polices and regulations and the local zoning or other use regulations should not conflict in a manner that all viable uses of the property are precluded. For example, if the property is designated as within the shoreline residential environment, it should not be zoned exclusively for industrial use.

(b) Use compatibility.

Land use policies and regulations should 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 prevent new uses that are not compatible with preferred uses from locating where they may restrict preferred use 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.

(c) Sufficient infrastructure.

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 and industrial uses shall not be allowed unless the comprehensive plan makes provision for needed infrastructure and services at appropriate locations. However, supporting infrastructure is not a justification for more intense development if that development causes significant ecological impact to habitat for PTE species.

In delineating environment designations, local governments shall ensure that shoreline ecological functions and properly functioning condition for PTE species can be maintained or enhanced with the proposed pattern and intensity of urban growth. Conversely, infrastructure plans must be consistent with shoreline designations. Where they do exist, 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 WAC 173-26-310(5).

Local governments may establish different subdesignations, provided they are consistent with this chapter. 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.

Local governments may use "parallel environments" where appropriate. Parallel environments divide shorelands into different sections generally running parallel to the shoreline or along a physical feature such as a bluff or railroad right of way. Such environments may be useful, for example, to accommodate both resource protection near the shoreline and development opportunities further from the shoreline. Where parallel environments occur, development allowed in one must not preclude the maintenance or restoration of ecological functions or properly functioning condition for PTE species.

Local governments may retain their current environment designations provided they can demonstrate that existing environment designation provisions are consistent with this chapter.

(a) "Natural" environment.

(i) Purpose.

The purpose of the "natural" environment is to preserve and enhance those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or with intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require restrictions on the intensities and types of uses permitted to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions, particularly PFC for PTE species, or natural character of the shoreline area shall be prohibited.

(B) The following new uses shall not be allowed in the "natural" environment:

• Residences (except as noted below).

• Commercial uses.

• Industrial uses.

• Agriculture that involves tilling the earth or clearing of native plant communities.

• Nonwater-oriented recreation.

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

However, limited single-family residential development may be allowed as a conditional use within the natural environment if such shoreline master program provisions result in a greater level of ecological functions and properly functioning condition.

(C) Commercial forestry may be allowed as a conditional use in the natural environment provided it meets the conditions of the State Forest Practices Act and its implementing rules.

(D) Access may be permitted for scientific, historical, cultural, educational, and low-intensity recreational purposes, provided that no significant ecological impact on the area will result.

(E) Do not allow new development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions or maintain PFC for PTE species. Do not allow the subdivision of property in a configuration that, to achieve its intended purpose, will require significant vegetation removal that adversely impacts ecological functions. That is, each new property parcel must be able to support its intended development without significant damage to the vegetation necessary to maintain ecological functions.

(b) "Rural conservancy" environment.

(i) Purpose.

The purpose 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, achieve natural flood plain processes, and provide recreational opportunities. Examples of uses that are appropriate in a "rural conservancy" environment include low-impact outdoor recreation uses, timber harvesting on a sustained-yield basis, agricultural uses, 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.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) Uses in the "rural conservancy" environment should be limited to those which are nonconsumptive (i.e., do not deplete over time) of the shoreline area's physical and biological resources and uses of a nonpermanent nature that do not substantially degrade ecological functions, PFC for PTE species, 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. Agricultural practices, commercial forestry, and aquaculture when consistent with provisions of this chapter may be allowed. 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.

Water-dependent and water-enjoyment recreation facilities that do not deplete the resource over time, such as limited boating facilities, angling, hunting, wildlife viewing trails, and swimming beaches, are preferred uses, provided significant ecological impacts to the shoreline are avoided or mitigated.

(B) Developments and uses that would substantially degrade or permanently deplete the physical or biological resources of the area or that preclude maintenance or attainment of properly functioning condition shall not be allowed.

(C) Construction of new structural shoreline stabilization and flood control works shall not be allowed except where there is a documented and imminent need to protect an existing structure or ecological functions and mitigation is applied, consistent with WAC 173-26-330. New development shall be designed and located to preclude the need for such work.

(D) For jurisdictions 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). Residential development standards shall prevent significant cumulative adverse impacts to the shoreline environment that prevent properly functioning condition for PTE species. If existing development does not conform to rural element provisions, then the master program should address nonconforming uses in ways that restore ecological functions over time.

For jurisdictions not planning under the Growth Management Act, development shall be limited to a maximum of ten percent total impervious surface area within the lot or parcel lying in shoreline jurisdiction, unless an alternative standard is developed based on scientific information that meets the provisions of this chapter and protects shoreline ecological functions and properly functioning condition.

Master programs for jurisdictions not planning under the Growth Management Act may allow greater lot coverage to allow development of lots legally created prior to the adoption of these guidelines. In these instances, master programs shall require that lot coverage is minimized, that impacts are mitigated according to the mitigation sequence in WAC 173-26-020, and that development of lots created after the adoption of these guidelines does not exceed ten percent impervious surface area within shoreline jurisdiction.

(E) New shoreline stabilization, flood control measures, vegetation removal, and other shoreline modifications shall be designed and managed to ensure that the natural shoreline functions are protected and restored over time. Shoreline ecological restoration should be required of new development or redevelopment where the shoreline ecological functions have been degraded.

(c) "Aquatic" environment.

(i) Purpose.

The purpose of the "aquatic" environment is to protect the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark by managing uses and by assuring compatibility between shoreland and aquatic uses while ensuring that properly functioning condition and shoreline ecological functions are protected and restored over time.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) Provisions for the "aquatic" environment shall be directed towards maintaining and restoring PFC for PTE species.

(B)Allow over-water structures only for water-dependent uses or public access that will not preclude attainment of PFC for PTE species.

(C) The size of over-water structures should be limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use.

(D) 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.

(E) All developments and uses on 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.

(F) Uses that cause significant ecological impacts to critical saltwater and freshwater habitats shall not be allowed. Where those uses are necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, their impacts shall be mitigated according to the sequence in WAC 173-26-020.

(G) Shoreline uses and modifications shall be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions.

(d) "High-intensity" environment.

(i) Purpose.

The purpose of the "high-intensity" environment is to provide for high-intensity water-oriented commercial and industrial uses. Also, the high-intensity environment is designed to ensure use of shorelines that are industrial or commercial in nature while preserving existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) In regulating uses in the high-intensity environment, first priority shall be given to water-dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Nonwater-oriented uses should not be allowed except as part of mixed-use developments or existing developed areas supporting water-dependent uses. Nonwater-oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water-oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline. Such specific situations should be identified in shoreline use analysis or special area planning, as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d).

If an analysis of water-dependent use needs as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d) demonstrates the needs of existing and envisioned water-dependent uses for the planning period are met, then provisions allowing for a mix of water-dependent and nonwater-dependent uses may be established. If those shoreline areas also provide ecological functions, particularly properly functioning condition for PTE species, apply use standards as described in WAC 173-26-340 to prevent significant ecological impacts to those functions.

(B) Full utilization of existing urban areas should be achieved before further expansion of intensive development is allowed, provided that as development occurs, ecological functions are maintained or enhanced. Reasonable long-range projections of regional economic need should guide the amount of shoreline designated high-intensity. However, nonwater-oriented uses shall not be considered when determining full utilization of urban waterfronts.

(C) Development should restore shoreline ecological functions, with particular emphasis on the attainment of properly functioning condition for PTE species. Where applicable, development shall include environmental cleanup in accordance with state and federal requirements.

(D) Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be required as provided for in WAC 173-26-320 (4)(d).

(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 and implementing the policy through other development regulations, such as sign or design review ordinances.

(e) "Urban conservancy" environment.

(i) Purpose.

The purpose of the "urban conservancy" environment is to protect and restore ecological functions, including properly functioning condition for PTE species and ecological functions in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of water-oriented uses.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) During development and redevelopment, efforts shall be taken to restore PFC for PTE species and other ecological functions. Shoreline restoration and public access should be required of all nonwater-dependent development on previously developed shorelines.

(B) Standards shall be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation as described in WAC 173-26-320(5), water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "urban conservancy" designation to ensure that development maintains and contributes to the restoration of ecological functions and properly functioning condition for PTE species.

(C) Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological 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 purpose of the "shoreline residential" environment is to accommodate residential development in those instances where consistent with protection and restoration of ecological functions and PFC for PTE species. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.

(ii) Management policies.

(A) Developments should be permitted only in those shoreline areas where adequate setbacks or buffers are possible to protect ecological functions, where there are adequate water and sewage disposal systems, and where the environment can support the proposed use in a manner which protects or enhances the ecological functions.

(B) Densities and minimum frontage width standards in the "shoreline residential" environment shall be set to protect the shoreline ecological functions, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations.

Local governments may establish two or more different "shoreline residential" environments to accommodate different shoreline densities or conditions, provided both environments adhere to the standards in this chapter.

(C) Development standards for shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality shall be established to protect and, where significant ecological degradation has occurred, contribute to the restoration of properly functioning condition and other ecological functions over time.

(D) Multifamily and multilot residential and recreational developments should provide public access and joint use for community recreational facilities.

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

(F) Commercial development should be limited to water-oriented uses.

Place illustration here.

(5) Criteria for assigning environment designation boundaries.

Local governments shall assign shoreline environment designations (environments) to all shoreline areas consistent with the criteria in (a) through (f) of this subsection.

(a) "Natural" environment criteria.

Assign a "natural" environment designation to shoreline areas that have any of the following characteristics:

(i) The shoreline is ecologically intact or currently performing an important, irreplaceable function or ecosystem-wide process that would be damaged by human activity;

(ii) The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular scientific and educational interest;

(iii) The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant ecological impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety; or

(iv) The shoreline is especially sensitive to human disturbance and important for the conservation and recovery of PTE species; or

(v) The shoreline is programmed for substantial restoration to PFC.

Such shoreline areas include largely undisturbed wetlands, marine estuaries, unstable bluffs, coastal dunes, spits, and ecologically intact shoreline habitats. Shorelines inside or outside urban growth areas may be designated as "natural."

Local governments are encouraged to designate parallel environments as "natural" in order to achieve a higher level of protection for PTE species. For example, an undisturbed area between a shoreline and a roadway may be designated as "natural" even if the area landward of the roadway is no longer ecologically intact.

(b) "Rural conservancy" environment criteria.

Assign a "rural conservancy" environment designation to shoreline areas outside incorporated municipalities and outside urban growth areas, as defined by RCW 36.70A.110, if any of the following characteristics apply:

(i) The shoreline is currently supporting lesser-intensity, resource-based uses, such as agriculture, forestry, or recreational uses;

(ii) The shoreline is currently accommodating residential uses outside urban growth areas and incorporated cities or towns;

(iii) The shoreline is supporting human uses but subject to environmental limitations, such as properties that include or are adjacent to steep banks, feeder bluffs, flood plains, or flood-prone areas;

(iv) The shoreline is of high recreational value or with unique historic or cultural resources; or

(v) The shoreline has low-intensity water-dependent uses.

Areas designated in a local comprehensive plan as "rural areas of more intense development," as provided for in chapter 36.70A RCW, may be designated an alternate shoreline environment, provided it is consistent with the objectives of the Growth Management Act and this chapter. Master planned resorts as described in RCW 36.70A.360 may be designated an alternate shoreline environment, provided the applicable master program provisions do not allow significant ecological impacts to ecological functions.

(c) "Aquatic" environment criteria.

Assign an "aquatic" environment designation to lands waterward of the ordinary high-water mark for marine and lacustrine shorelines and bank full width for riverine shorelines. Additionally, local governments may assign an "aquatic" environment designation to wetlands.

(d) "High-intensity" environment criteria.

Assign a "high-intensity" environment designation to shoreline areas within incorporated municipalities, urban growth areas, and industrial or commercial "rural areas of more intense development," as described by RCW 36.70A.070, if they currently support or are suitable and planned for high-intensity water-dependent uses related to commerce or navigation.

(e) "Urban conservancy" environment criteria.

Assign an "urban conservancy" environment designation to shoreline areas planned for development that are less suitable for water-dependent uses and that lie in incorporated municipalities, urban growth areas, or commercial or industrial "rural areas of more intense development" if any of the following characteristics apply:

(i) They 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) They are flood plains or other areas that should not be more intensively developed;

(iii) They have the potential for ecological restoration;

(iv) They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or

(v) They have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration.

(f) "Shoreline residential" environment criteria.

Assign a "shoreline residential" environment designation to shoreline areas inside urban growth areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.110, incorporated municipalities, "rural areas of more intense development," or "master planned resorts," as described in RCW 36.70A.360, if they are predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for residential development.

[]

(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 and the office of archaeology and historic preservation.

(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 the office of archaeology and historic preservation and 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 and the office of archaeology and historic preservation if anything of possible archaeological interest is uncovered during excavation.

(ii) Require that permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological artifacts and data require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional 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 jurisdiction. Implementation of RCW 90.58.020 includes the management of critical areas in the shoreline in order to protect public health and safety and the state's natural resources. 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 and management policies.

(b) Principles.

Local master programs shall implement the following principles:

(i) 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. Promote and enhance the public interest by protecting, restoring, and preserving ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. Take necessary measures to help attain the survival and recovery of PTE species.

(ii) In addressing issues related to critical areas, include scientific and technical information, as provided for in WAC 173-26-300 (2)(a). When science is lacking, base decisions related to the protection of PTE species on an approach that minimizes risk to those species and places the highest priority on their protection and recovery.

(iii) Where necessary for the protection of the functions of a critical area, including properly functioning condition for PTE species, review provisions outside the designated critical area pursuant to RCW 90.58.340.

(iv) In protecting and restoring critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction, integrate the full spectrum of planning and regulatory measures, including the comprehensive plan, interlocal watershed plans, local development regulations, and state, tribal, and federal programs. For shoreline areas affecting PTE species, make full use of such provisions to maintain or achieve properly functioning condition.

(v) The objective of shoreline management provisions for critical areas shall be the protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes and restoration of degraded areas to upgrade ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. Appropriate systems to address this goal include a littoral drift cell for marine waters or a watershed sub-basin for freshwaters. Local governments should accomplish this on a comprehensive basis, as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(i), (e), (f) and (g).

(vi) Promote human uses and values, such as aesthetic values, provided they do not adversely impact ecological functions.

(vii) Implement, where applicable and consistent with the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, the minimum guidelines in WAC 365-190-080.

(c) Standards.

Shoreline master programs shall adhere to the following standards, unless it is demonstrated through scientific and technical information that an alternative approach provides better resource protection. Provisions for frequently flooded areas are included in WAC 173-26-320(3) and WAC 173-26-330(3).

(i) Wetlands.

(A) Wetland use regulations.

In developing regulations for the protection of wetlands, local governments shall use scientific and technical information, as described in this chapter. Local governments should consult department technical guidance documents on wetlands.

Use regulations shall address the following uses to achieve, at a minimum, no net loss of wetland area and functions, including lost time when the wetland does not perform the function:

• 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;

• The driving of pilings;

• The placing of obstructions;

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

• Significant vegetation removal, provided that these activities are not part of a forest practice governed under chapter 76.09 RCW and its rules; or

• Other uses or development that result in a significant ecological impact of physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of wetlands.

• Activities that may result in a change in the physical, biological, thermal, or chemical characteristics of wetlands water sources that inhibit the recovery of PTE species.

• Activities reducing the functions of buffers described in (D) of this subsection.

(B) Wetland rating or categorization.

Wetlands shall be categorized based on the rarity, irreplaceability, or sensitivity to disturbance of a wetland and the functions the wetland provides. Local governments should consult the Washington State Wetland Rating System, Eastern or Western Washington version as appropriate.

(C) Alterations to wetlands.

Master program provisions addressing alterations to wetlands shall be consistent with the policy of no net loss of wetland area and functions, wetland rating, scientific and technical information, and the mitigation priority sequence defined in WAC 173-26-020.

(D) Buffers.

Wetland buffers shall be established, restored, and/or maintained in a natural condition. Master programs shall contain requirements for buffer zones around wetlands. Buffer requirements shall be adequate to ensure that wetland functions are protected and maintained in the long-term. Requirements for buffer zone widths and management shall be based on scientific and technical information and shall consider the ecological functions of the wetland that need to be protected.

(E) Mitigation.

Master programs shall contain wetland mitigation requirements that are consistent with the definition of mitigation in WAC 173-26-020 and which are based on the wetland rating and include scientific and technical information.

(F) Compensatory mitigation.

Compensatory mitigation should be allowed only after mitigation sequencing is applied.

Requirements for compensatory mitigation must include provisions for:

(I) Mitigation replacement ratios or a similar method of addressing the following:

• The risk of failure of the compensatory mitigation action;

• The length of time it will take the compensatory mitigation action to adequately replace the impacted wetland functions and values;

• The gain or loss of the type, quality and quantity of the ecological functions of the compensation wetland as compared with the impacted wetland.

(II) Establishment of performance standards for evaluating the success of compensatory mitigation actions;

(III) Establishment of long-term monitoring and reporting procedures to determine if performance standards are met; and

(IV) Establishment of long-term protection and management of compensatory mitigation sites.

Credits from a state certified mitigation bank may be used to compensate for unavoidable impacts related to wetland functions only, in accordance with chapter 90.84 RCW and chapter 173-700 WAC, provided that impacts to wetland functions contributing to PTE species are adequately mitigated within the same stream reach.

(ii) Geologically hazardous areas.

New development shall be restricted on unstable bluffs, active river channel migration zones, and landslide areas in consideration of minimum guidelines for geologically hazardous areas, WAC 365-190-080(4).

Do not allow new development or the creation of new lots that would cause foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or ecological functions during the life of the development. Allow development on or adjacent to a geologically hazardous area only if the results of a geotechnical report indicate that such development is safe and will not require shoreline stabilization or channel modification. Allowable development must incorporate adequate drainage control to prevent erosion or significant ecological impacts.

Do not allow new development that would require structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development. 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 173-26-330.

(iii) Critical saltwater habitats and shorelands associated with marine waters and estuaries.

(A) Applicability.

Critical saltwater habitats include all kelp beds, eelgrass beds, spawning and holding areas for forage fish, such as herring, smelt, and sandlance, commercial and recreational shellfish beds, mudflats, intertidal habitats with vascular plants, and areas with which priority species have a primary association. Critical saltwater habitats require a higher level of protection due to the important ecological functions and contribution to properly functioning condition they provide. Ecological functions of marine shorelands can affect the viability of critical saltwater habitats. Therefore, effective protection and restoration of critical saltwater habitats should integrate management of shorelands as well as submerged areas.

(B) Comprehensive saltwater habitat management principles.

Master programs shall implement saltwater management planning to protect and restore critical saltwater habitats and properly functioning condition for PTE species by establishing coordinated master program policies and regulations. Local governments shall review relevant comprehensive plan policies and development regulations for shorelands and adjacent lands to achieve consistency as directed in RCW 90.58.340. The management planning shall incorporate the participation of state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes and serve as the basis for master program provisions. Local governments should base management planning on information provided by state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes unless they demonstrate that they possess more accurate and reliable information.

The management planning shall include an evaluation of current data and trends regarding the following:

• Available inventory and collection of necessary data regarding physical characteristics of the habitat, including upland conditions, and any information on species population trends;

• Terrestrial and aquatic vegetation;

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

• Restoration potential;

• Tributaries and small streams flowing into marine waters;

• Dock and bulkhead construction, including an inventory of bulkheads serving no protective purpose;

• Conditions and ecological functions in the near-shore area;

• Land uses surrounding the critical saltwater habitat areas that may negatively impact these areas; and

• An analysis of what data gaps exist and a strategy for gaining this information.

The management planning shall address the following, where applicable:

• Protecting a system of fish and wildlife habitats with connections between larger habitat blocks and open spaces and restoring such habitats and connections where they are degraded;

• Protecting existing and restoring degraded riparian and estuarine ecosystems, especially salt marsh habitats;

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

• Protecting existing and restoring degraded near-shore habitat;

• Protecting existing and restoring degraded or lost salmonid habitat;

• Protecting existing and restoring degraded upland ecological functions important to critical saltwater habitats, including riparian vegetation;

• Improving water quality; and

• Protecting existing and restoring degraded sediment inflow and transport regimens.

Local governments, in conjunction with state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes, shall classify critical saltwater habitats and protect and restore seasonal ranges and habitat elements for priority species.

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 or potential for recovery. 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, and affected Indian tribes as critical saltwater habitats.

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

(C) Standards.

Docks, bulkheads, bridges, fill, floats, jetties, and other human-made structures shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except as a conditional use for a water-dependent use or ecological restoration and when all of the conditions below are met:

• PFC for PTE species is protected or restored as determined by the department in consultation with natural resource agencies and affected Indian tribes. The proponent of a structure over critical saltwater habitat must demonstrate that there will be no loss of ecological functions provided by the habitat upon completion of the project. The analysis demonstrating no loss must account for potential cumulative impacts and risks to the environment resulting from the proposed action;

• 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 impacts to critical saltwater habitats 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 ecological 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.

Until an inventory of critical saltwater habitat has been done, shoreline master programs shall condition all over-water and near-shore developments with the requirement for an inventory of the site and adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical saltwater habitats and functions. The methods and extent of the inventory shall be consistent with WAC 173-26-300 (3)(c).

(iv) Riverine corridors and other freshwater fish and wildlife conservation areas.

(A) Applicability.

The following provisions apply to master program provisions and shoreline management activities affecting freshwater critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction, including streams, rivers, wetlands, lakes, their associated channel migration zones, and flood plain.

(B) Principles.

Many ecological functions, including PFC for PTE species, of riverine corridors depend both on the continuity of the natural environment along the length of the shoreline and on the conditions of the surrounding lands on either side of the river channel. Significant damage to the environment, such as a polluting outfall, vegetation loss, or imperviousness within the watershed, can destroy ecological functions downstream. Likewise, gradual destruction or loss 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, droughts, and landslides. These conditions can also threaten human health, safety, and property. Therefore, effective management of riverine corridors depends on:

(I) Planning, protecting, and restoring the length of the corridor from river headwaters to the mouth; and

(II) Conservatively regulating the uses within shoreline jurisdiction, the stream channel, associated channel migration zone, wetlands, and the flood plain. Water quality and hydrological processes also depend upon subsurface flows through the adjacent hyporheic zone, 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.

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

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

• Restoring degraded shoreline areas wherever feasible. Redevelopment activities along shorelines provide opportunities to achieve setbacks and ecological restoration.

Local governments shall base master program provisions for critical freshwater conservation areas on a comprehensive approach, as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(i), (e), (f) and (g). As part of this comprehensive approach, local governments shall integrate categories of master program provisions, including shoreline stabilization, fill, vegetation conservation, water quality, flood damage minimization, and specific use provisions, to protect human health and safety and to protect and restore the corridor's ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

Applicable master programs shall contain provisions to protect and restore hydrologic connections between water bodies, water courses, and associated wetlands. For example, master programs should require that dikes, roads, or other structures, when allowed, be constructed or refitted to allow the unrestricted natural flow of water between dry or braided channels, associated wetlands, the main river channel, and associated water bodies. Incentives should be provided to restore those connectors that have been impeded by previous development.

Master program provisions for riverine corridors shall, where applicable, be based on the information from comprehensive watershed management planning, as indicated in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(c) and (d).

A natural channel configuration with features such as pools, off-channel habitat, and refugia is especially important to PTE species. These habitat features depend upon natural channel formation, natural flood plain function, and unrestricted channel movement within the channel migration zone. Therefore, applicable master programs shall include provisions that prevent restrictions to channel movement within the channel migration zone and that contribute to achieving more natural channel characteristics on a comprehensive basis over time.

(C) Standards.

New structures, flood control measures, structural shoreline stabilization measures, significant vegetation removal, reconfiguration of the channel bed and associated areas, and other new shoreline modifications that affect natural channel movement or natural flood plain function in areas affecting PTE species shall not be allowed within a stream's channel migration zone. However, the following development and uses may be allowed:

• Protection and restoration actions that increase the ecosystem-wide process or ecological functions toward more properly functioning condition.

• Forest practices in compliance with the Washington State Forest Practices Act and its implementing rules.

• Existing and ongoing agricultural practices, provided that no new structures, flood control measures, or restrictions to channel movement occur and there is no clearing and grading within the channel migration zone.

• Bridges, utility lines, and other public utility and transportation structures where no other feasible alternative exists. Where such structures are allowed, mitigation shall be required to maintain or restore impacted functions and processes in the affected section of watershed or drift cell.

• Repair and maintenance of an existing legal use, provided that such actions do not create significant ecological impacts to PTE species.

• Development on a previously altered site where it is demonstrated that the development restores ecological functions and processes of the applicable section of the watershed or drift cell to a more natural condition.

• Development consistent with special area planning as described in WAC 173-26-300 (2)(d)(x) for a riverine corridor that is directed toward protecting and restoring properly functioning condition for priority species and habitats on a comprehensive basis.

• Modifications or additions to an existing legal development, provided that channel migration is not further limited and that the new development includes appropriate ecological restoration of properly functioning condition.

• New development in incorporated municipalities and designated urban growth areas, as defined in chapter 36.70A RCW, where existing human-made structures prevent active channel movement. In this exception, the new development must not adversely affect hydrological conditions and must include where otherwise required under the provisions of this chapter appropriate restoration which contributes to the attainment of properly functioning condition.

Do not allow the creation of new lots that would require development in the CMZ in order to achieve a viable use.

(3) Flood hazard reduction.

(a) Applicability.

The following provisions apply to actions taken to reduce flood damage or hazard and to uses, development, and shoreline modifications that may increase flood hazards. Flood hazard reduction measures may consist of nonstructural measures, such as setbacks, land use controls, wetland restoration, dike removal, use relocation, and storm water management programs, and of structural measures, such as dikes, levees, revetments, floodwalls, elevation of structures consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program and biotechnical measures. Additional relevant critical area provisions are in WAC 173-26-320(2).

(b) Principles.

Flooding of rivers, streams, and other shorelines is a natural process that is dependent upon factors and land uses occurring throughout the watershed. Past land use practices have disrupted habitat processes, thereby exacerbating flood hazards and reducing ecological functions. Flood hazard reduction measures are most effective when integrated into comprehensive strategies that recognize the natural hydrogeological and biological processes of water bodies. Over the long term, the most effective means of flood hazard reduction is to prevent or remove development in flood-prone areas, to manage storm water within the flood plain, and to maintain or restore the riverine system's natural hydrogeological processes.

Structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as diking, even if effective in reducing inundation in a portion of the watershed, will intensify flooding elsewhere. Moreover, structural flood hazard reduction measures will damage ecological functions crucial to fish and wildlife species, bank stability, and water quality. Therefore, structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be avoided whenever possible. When necessary, they shall be accomplished in a manner to minimize change to shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. In such cases, set-back levees shall be preferred over levees located near the floodway.

Master programs shall implement the following principles:

(i) Where feasible, give preference to nonstructural flood hazard reduction measures over structural measures. For example, setback or relocation of structures is generally preferred over new dikes or seawalls.

(ii) Base shoreline master program flood hazard reduction provisions on applicable watershed management plans, comprehensive flood hazard management plans, and other comprehensive planning efforts, provided those measures are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter. Integrate, when consistent with principles in this section, other regulations and programs associated with flood hazard reduction, including (if applicable):

• Storm water management plans;

• 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.

(iii) Protect and restore the ecological functions while reducing risk to human safety and property. When preparing master program provisions for flood hazard reduction measures, address the protection and restoration of ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes on a comprehensive basis consistent with WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(i) and 173-26-320 (2)(iv).

(iv) Implement management efforts to return riverine corridors to more natural hydrological conditions that maintain properly functioning condition. Recognize that seasonal flooding is an essential natural process.

(v) When evaluating alternate flood control measures, consider the removal or relocation of structures in flood-prone areas.

(c) Standards.

Master programs shall implement the following standards within shoreline jurisdiction:

(i) Do not allow new development that increases flood hazard or that is inconsistent with a comprehensive flood hazard management plan adopted pursuant to chapter 86.12 RCW, provided the plan has been adopted after 1994. Do not allow new development or uses in shoreline jurisdiction, including the subdivision of land, that will require structural flood hazard reduction measures, except water-dependent uses in the "high-intensity" environment.

(ii) Allow new structural flood hazard reduction measures in shoreline jurisdiction only when it can be demonstrated by a scientific and engineering analysis that they are necessary to protect existing development, that nonstructural measures, including relocation of the structure to be protected, are not feasible, that impacts to the existing shoreline conditions can be successfully mitigated, and that vegetation conservation actions are undertaken consistent with WAC 173-26-320(5). In such cases, structural flood hazard reduction measures must be set back as far as feasible from the channel migration zone.

Structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be consistent with an adopted comprehensive flood hazard management plan approved by the department that evaluates cumulative impacts to the watershed system and effects on properly functioning condition for PTE species.

(iii) Require that all new structural flood hazard reduction measures and improvements to existing structures include measures to restore ecological functions.

Place new structural/flood hazard reduction measures landward of the floodway, channel migration zone, associated wetlands, and associated vegetation conservation areas, except for actions that increase ecological functions, such as wetland restoration. Consult with Washington's department of fish and wildlife and affected Indian tribes with respect to ecological restoration measures.

Exception: Flood hazard reduction projects as described in this section may occur in a channel migration zone only if it is determined that no other alternative to protect existing development is feasible. The need for structural improvements shall be documented through a hydrogeological analysis. If the hydrogeological analysis demonstrates a need for the structural measure, assess and mitigate impacts to priority species through a habitat evaluation and application of mitigation sequencing.

Require that new structural public flood hazard reduction 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 to properly functioning condition, 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 phased out consistent with an adopted flood hazard reduction plan and with this chapter and allowed in the near term only after a biological and geomorphological study shows that extraction does not adversely impact priority species and priority habitats.

(v) 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;

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

(G) Within the local governments shoreline jurisdiction approximate percentage of the flood plain that is already uncoupled from the river corridor; and

(H) Approximate percentage of stream channel that is currently prevented from meandering within the local governments shoreline jurisdiction.

(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 adjacent 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.

Local governments should plan for an integrated shoreline area public access system that identifies specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access. Such a system can often be more effective and economical than applying uniform public access requirements to all development. This planning should be integrated with other relevant comprehensive plan elements, especially transportation and recreation.

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, provided it meets the provisions of this chapter. The planning may also justify more flexible off-site or special area public access provisions in the master program. Public participation requirements in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(b)(i) apply to public access planning.

At a minimum, the public access planning should result in public access requirements for shoreline permits and policies, project descriptions, port master plans, and/or actions to be taken to develop public shoreline access to shorelines on public property. The planning should identify 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.

(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 should seek to increase the amount and diversity of public access to the state's shorelines consistent with the natural shoreline character, property rights, public 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 public 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 public access planning as described in WAC 173-26-320 (4)(c) 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 improvement of public access in developments for water-enjoyment, water-related, and nonwater-dependent uses and for the subdivision of land into more than four 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 WAC 173-26-320 (4)(c); 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 uses 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 four 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 adjacent properties, the water-dependent uses and physical public access shall have priority, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.

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

(5) Shoreline vegetation conservation.

(a) Applicability.

Vegetation conservation includes activities to protect and restore native vegetation along or near marine and freshwater shorelines that contribute to the ecological functions of shoreline areas. Vegetation conservation provisions shall include the prevention or restriction of plant clearing and earth grading, vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and nonnative species detrimental to PFC for PTE plant and animal species.

Unless otherwise stated, vegetation conservation 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 conservation provisions apply even to those shoreline uses and developments that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit. Like other master program provisions, vegetation conservation standards do not apply retroactively to existing structures or existing agricultural practices. However, local master programs shall implement vegetation restoration objectives to help attain PFC for PTE species. Vegetation conservation for aquatic plants is covered in WAC 173-26-320 (2)(c)(iii).

(b) Principles.

Vegetation conservation along shorelines is critical to protect aquatic resources, including many priority species and their critical habitat. The intent of vegetation conservation is to protect existing and restore degraded habitat so as to contribute to ecological functions, including PFC, and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation along shorelines. Vegetation conservation should also be undertaken to protect human safety and property, 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, to protect plant species and their habitats, or to enhance shoreline uses.

Master programs shall include provisions to protect and restore vegetation needed to sustain the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, to avoid adverse impacts to soil hydrology, and to reduce the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion.

In ecologically degraded areas, master program provisions shall contribute to the restoration of properly functioning condition and other ecological processes and functions provided by vegetation as development or redevelopment occurs. Master programs should be directed toward achieving the vegetation characteristics described in Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats, prepared by the Washington state department of fish and wildlife.

Local governments shall address properly functioning condition and other ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes provided by vegetation as described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(i) and ensure the protection or restoration of these functions.

(c) Relationship of shoreline vegetation to ecological functions.

Current scientific evidence indicates that the length, width, and species composition of a shoreline vegetation community contribute substantively to the aquatic ecological functions. Likewise, the biota within the aquatic environment is essential to ecological functions of the adjacent upland vegetation.

In the Pacific Northwest, aquatic environments, as well as their associated upland vegetation and wetlands, provide significant habitat for a myriad of fish and wildlife species. Properly functioning condition for aquatic species is inseparably linked with the ecological integrity of the surrounding terrestrial ecosystem. For example, except for arid conditions, a nearly continuous corridor of mature, conifer-dominated forests characterizes the natural riparian conditions of the Pacific Northwest. Riparian corridors along marine shorelines provide many of the same functions as their freshwater counterparts. The most commonly recognized functions of the shoreline vegetation include:

• Providing shade necessary to maintain the cool temperatures required by salmonids, spawning forage fish, and other aquatic biota.

• Providing organic inputs critical for aquatic life.

• Providing food in the form of various insects and other benthic macroinvertebrates.

• Stabilizing banks, minimizing erosion, and reducing the occurrence of landslides. The roots of trees and other riparian vegetation provide the bulk of this function.

• Reducing fine sediment input into the aquatic environment through storm water retention and vegetative filtering.

• Filtering and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants from ground water and surface runoff.

• Providing a source of large woody debris into the aquatic system. Large woody debris is the primary structural element that functions as a hydraulic roughness element to moderate flows. Large woody debris also serves a pool-forming function, providing critical salmonid rearing and refuge habitat. Abundant large woody debris increases aquatic diversity and stabilization.

• Regulation of microclimate in the stream-riparian and intertidal corridors.

• Providing critical wildlife habitat, including migration corridors and feeding, watering, rearing, and refugia areas.

• Providing habitat for PTE plant species.

The ability of vegetated areas to contribute to properly functioning condition and other critical ecological functions diminishes as the length and width of the vegetated area along shorelines is reduced. Many ecological functions will not be performed when shoreline vegetation is removed. The smaller the area of remaining vegetation, the greater the reduction of properly functioning condition and other critical functions.

Sustaining different individual functions requires different widths of vegetation. The importance of the different functions, in turn, varies with the type of shoreline setting. For example, in forested shoreline settings, periodic recruitment of fallen trees, especially conifers, into the stream channel is an important attribute, critical to natural stream channel maintenance. Therefore, vegetated areas along streams should be wide enough to accomplish this periodic recruitment process.

For riverine shoreline environments where trees naturally grow, achieving the full suite of vegetation-related shoreline functions requires a vegetated area of one mature site potential tree height in width, measured perpendicular from bank full width or outer edge of the channel migration zone. Absent a channel migration zone, bank full width is used as the reference point because it usually corresponds to the top of the bank nearest the stream or river channel that supports mature tree growth.

For marine shorelines where trees naturally grow, achieving the full suite of vegetation-related shoreline functions requires approximately one half the height of a mature native tree measured from ordinary high-water mark.

Woody vegetation normally classed as trees may not be a natural component of plant communities in some environments, such as in arid climates and on coastal dunes. In these instances, the width of a vegetated area necessary to achieve the full suite of vegetation-related shoreline functions may not be related to vegetation height.

Therefore, local governments shall work with resource agencies and affected Indian tribes to identify ecological processes and functions important to the local aquatic and terrestrial ecology and conserve sufficient vegetation to protect, restore, and maintain them.

In addressing the restoration of degraded shorelines, local governments shall develop provisions to ensure that required vegetated areas are large enough to help attain properly functioning condition for PTE species and ecological benefits, even if they are not sufficiently wide to achieve all ecological functions.

Local governments may implement objectives through a variety of measures, where consistent with Shoreline Management Act policy, including:

• Clearing and grading regulations;

• Setback and buffer standards;

• Critical area regulations;

• Conditional use requirements for specific uses or areas; and

• Mitigation requirements.

In establishing vegetation conservation regulation objectives, local governments must use all available scientific and technical information, as described in WAC 173-26-300 (2)(a). At a minimum, local governments should consult shoreline management assistance materials provided by the department.

(d) Standards.

Master programs shall implement the following requirements in shoreline jurisdiction.

(i) Do not allow significant vegetation removal that would likely result in soil erosion or in the need for structural shoreline stabilization measures as described in WAC 173-26-330 (3)(a).

(ii) Establish vegetation conservation minimum standards to implement principles in WAC 173-26-320 (5)(b) and (c). Methods to do this may include setback or buffer requirements, clearing and grading standards, native vegetation retention standards, environmental designation standards, or other master program provisions.

(iii) Additional vegetation conservation standards for specific uses are included in WAC 173-26-340(3).

(iv) Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, for shorelines that affect PTE species, the following will apply.

Master programs shall include vegetation conservation provisions to provide the ecological functions necessary to the survival and recovery of PTE species. As part of the ecosystem characterization described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(i) and using scientific and technical information, local governments shall establish provisions to protect and restore vegetation-related functions affecting PFC. Local governments shall institute protective setbacks, buffers, standards for retention or restoration of native species, clearing restrictions, and/or other provisions to ensure that those functions are provided. At a minimum, local governments shall address the following functions unless they are shown to be not applicable for a particular shoreline: Natural channel stability, water quality, hydrographic response, large woody debris recruitment, water temperature (shading), nutrient and sediment filtering, and food production.

In the absence of more detailed or current scientific and technical information or specific ecological analysis of local conditions, master programs shall contain provisions to conserve the vegetation necessary to maintain or restore PFC for PTE species within the following vegetation conservation areas within shoreline jurisdiction, including all environment designations:

• For riverine shorelines where trees naturally grow: One site potential tree height measured perpendicular from the channel migration zone or, absent a channel migration zone, bank full width.

• For shorelines where trees do not naturally grow, such as arid areas: Sixty feet, measured perpendicularly, from the channel migration zone or bank full width for riverine shorelines without a channel migration zone.

• For marine and lacustrine shorelines where trees naturally grow: One-half site potential tree height or one hundred feet, whichever is greater, measured perpendicular from the ordinary high-water mark. If conditions for tree blowdown occur, local governments should include a wider vegetation conservation area, if necessary, to reduce the probability of wind or erosion downing trees.

Master programs shall include provisions to implement the following minimum standards within the areas described above except as noted.

• In the "natural" environment, allow no significant vegetation removal that reduces PFC or hampers the achievement of PFC for PTE species. For activities conducted under the Washington State Forest Practices Act, conform to the provisions of that act.

• In the "rural conservancy" environment, allow no reduction in PFC resulting from vegetation removal. Allow no significant vegetation removal except as demonstrated to be necessary for an allowed development. Where possible, locate new development or clearing and grading outside the vegetation conservation areas described above. If vegetation is removed as part of an allowed development, require restoration with native shoreline vegetation to provide at least an equal degree of PFC. The proponent for such development must demonstrate that the PFC is maintained or restored, taking into account the time lost for revegetation and risks to the environment. The intent of this provision is to allow limited development away from the shoreline if PFC is maintained or enhanced.

For activities conducted under the Washington State Forest Practices Act, conform to the provisions of that act.

• In the "high-intensity" environment, allow no significant removal of existing native vegetation except for water-dependent uses. Require protection of existing native vegetation or restoration of degraded areas in portions of the site that are not occupied by structures necessary for the use. Because of the importance of shoreline vegetation to PFC, even in intensely developed urban settings, master programs shall implement the vegetation conservation principles described in (b) and (c) of this subsection through a restoration strategy based on the ecological characterization and analysis described in WAC 173-26-300 (3)(d)(i). The strategy shall give special emphasis to those functions necessary to PFC for PTE within the particular reach of the shoreline.

• In the "urban conservancy" environment, require that new development for nonwater-dependent uses on degraded sites include the restoration of native shoreline vegetation. As a general rule, provide the maximum natural vegetation strip feasible along the shoreline. Mitigate impacts from water-dependent development according to the mitigation sequence described in WAC 173-26-020.

• In the "shoreline residential" environment, avoid or, if that is not possible, minimize significant vegetation removal as provided for in the provisions for residential areas, below.

• For properties within areas planned for residential development within the "rural conservancy," "urban conservancy," or "shoreline residential" environments, do not allow new development that will have significant ecological impacts to PFC for PTE species, and restrict significant vegetation removal to the minimum necessary to accommodate permitted primary residential structures. Where the dimensions of existing lots or parcels are not sufficient to accommodate permitted primary residential structures outside of the vegetation conservation area, apply the mitigation sequence in WAC 173-26-020 to minimize ecological impacts. Generally, this will mean placing the development away from the shoreline as far as possible, locating the development to avoid tree cutting, and modifying building dimensions to reduce vegetation removal. Do not allow the removal of native vegetation for replacement with lawn or nonnative plant materials.

For shoreline properties with existing residential uses located within a vegetation conservation area, do not allow new development, building additions, or significant vegetation removal that would cause significant ecological impacts to PFC for PTE species. Reconstruction of or additions to buildings within an existing building footprint or paved area may be allowed. New development associated with existing residences may be allowed landward of an existing structure or if native vegetation is enhanced where vegetation has been degraded.

The minimum standards may be altered where it is demonstrated through scientific and technical information that certain vegetation functions are not important for properly functioning condition or where the functions are provided by other means. In these cases, the vegetation conservation provisions do not need to address this function. Local governments are encouraged to consult with technical assistance materials provided by the department in determining the extent of vegetation conservation provisions.

Development may be allowed within the minimum vegetation conservation areas described above, provided that vegetation-related ecological functions necessary for PTE species are not diminished and other provisions of this chapter are met.

The department will only approve vegetation conservation provisions if the department determines that the provisions will, over the long term, restore properly functioning condition.

(v) For residential and other nonwater-dependent uses, do not allow the creation of lots that will require significant vegetation removal in order to be developed for the use allowed by the local government's development regulations. That is, make sure that each lot is large enough to allow development without significant vegetation removal that reduces properly functioning condition or other ecological functions.

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

(a) Applicability.

The following section applies to all development and uses in shoreline jurisdiction that affect water quantity and quality, including hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation-related, or biological characteristics within shoreline areas.

(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 and storm water quantity that significantly reduce properly functioning condition and other shoreline ecological functions, aesthetic qualities, or recreational opportunities.

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

(c) Standards.

(i) Shoreline master programs shall include provisions to ensure that new development within shoreline jurisdiction does not cause significant ecological impacts to ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes by altering storm water quality, quantity, or flow characteristics.

(ii) Shoreline master programs for jurisdictions with PTE species shall include a policy that land use and storm water run-off policies and regulations shall maintain or contribute to the attainment of PFC for those species, including ground water recharge and hydrological base flow considerations.

(iii) Shoreline master programs shall also include standards to ensure that storm water outfalls do not adversely affect PFC.

[]

(1) Applicability.

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

The provisions in this section apply to all shoreline modifications within shoreline jurisdiction.

(2) Principles.

Master programs shall implement the following principles.

(a) Allow structural shoreline modifications only where demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect a legally existing or allowed development and only when ecological functions will be maintained or improved, including maintenance or improvement of ecological functions necessary for the attainment of properly functioning condition.

(b) Avoid significant ecological impacts of new shoreline modifications and 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 or contribute to the attainment of properly functioning condition or other ecological functions.

(e) Where applicable, base provisions on scientific and technical information and a comprehensive analysis of drift cells for marine waters or reach conditions for riverine systems. Contact the department for available drift cell characterizations.

(f) Enhance ecological functions while accommodating existing legally permitted uses. As shoreline modifications occur, incorporate all feasible measures to restore ecological shoreline functions. Apply conditions to permits and letters of exemption so that structural shoreline modifications for nonwater-dependent uses on degraded sites restore properly functioning condition and other ecological functions.

(g) Avoid and reduce significant ecological impacts according to the mitigation sequence in WAC 173-26-020.

(h) Prohibit the use of materials with toxic effects and do not allow construction and site development techniques that may affect PFC and other ecological functions.

(i) Master program environment designation provisions and boundaries should identify the areas where structural shoreline stabilization measures are prohibited or greatly restricted to avoid harm to natural shoreline functions and those areas where restoration of natural shoreline processes are encouraged or required.

(j) Conduct baseline and post-construction monitoring to assess the impacts of shoreline modifications and application of adaptive management instituted to reconcile problems.

(k) Conduct monitoring and regulatory response activities as described in WAC 173-26-300 (2)(b) in order to identify and address negative trends or cumulative impacts due to shoreline modifications. The department will also examine impacts and trends specific to shoreline modifications and adopt guidelines to correct deficiencies in shoreline management practices.

(l) Develop incentives for the use of innovative alternative approaches for shoreline modifications that help attain PFC.

(3) Provisions for specific shoreline modifications.

(a) Shoreline stabilization.

(i) Applicability.

Shoreline stabilization includes actions taken to address erosion impacts to dwellings, businesses, or essential structures caused by natural processes, such as current, flood, tides, or wind. These actions include structural and nonstructural methods.

Nonstructural methods include building setbacks, relocation of the structure to be protected, ground water management, 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 soft to hard that include:

• Vegetation enhancement;

• Upland drainage control;

• Biotechnical measures;

• Beach enhancement;

• Anchor trees;

• Gravel placement;

• Rock revetments;

• Gabions;

• Concrete groins;

• Retaining and bluff walls;

• Bulkheads; and

• Seawalls.

Generally, the harder the construction measure, the greater the impact on shoreline processes, including sediment transport, geomorphology, and biological functions.

Shoreline armoring typically results in the following adverse effects:

• Beach starvation. Sediment supply to nearby beaches is cut off, leading to "starvation" of the beaches for the gravel, sand, and other fine-grained materials that typically constitute a beach.

• Habitat degradation. Vegetation that shades the upper beach or bank is eliminated, thus degrading the value of the shoreline for many ecological functions, including spawning habitat for salmonids and forage fish.

• Sediment impoundment. As a result of shoreline armoring, the sources of sediment on beaches (eroding "feeder" bluffs) are progressively lost and longshore transport is diminished. This leads to lowering of down-drift beaches, the narrowing of the high tide beach, and the coarsening of beach sediment. As beaches become more coarse, less prey for juvenile fish (including threatened Hood Canal chum and Puget Sound Chinook salmon) is produced. Sediment starvation may lead to accelerated erosion in down-drift areas. Also, as sediments become coarser, they become less suitable for forage fish. Forage fish provide food for bull trout and other salmonids in the marine environment.

• Exacerbation of erosion. The hard face of shoreline armoring, particularly concrete bulkheads, reflects wave energy back onto the beach, exacerbating erosion.

• Bulkhead failure. In time, the substrate of the beach coarsens and scours down to bedrock or a hard clay. The footings of bulkheads are exposed, leading to undermining and failure. This process is exacerbated when the original cause of the erosion and "need" for the bulkhead was from upland water drainage problems.

• Ground water impacts. Erosion control structures often raise the water table on the landward side, which leads to higher pore pressures in the beach itself. In some cases, this may lead to accelerated erosion of sand-sized material from the beach.

• Hydraulic impacts. Shoreline armoring generally increases the reflectivity of the shoreline and redirects wave energy back onto the beach. This leads to scouring and lowering of the beach, to coarsening of the beach, and to ultimate failure of the structure.

• Loss of shoreline vegetation. Vegetation provides important "softer" erosion control functions. Vegetation is also critical in maintaining properly functioning condition for listed PTE species and other ecological functions.

• Loss of large woody debris. Changed hydraulic regimes and the loss of the high tide beach, along with the prevention of natural erosion of vegetated shorelines, lead to the loss of beached organic material. This material can increase heterogeneity, can serve as a stabilizing influence on natural shorelines, and is habitat for many aquatic-based organisms, which are, in turn, important prey for larger organisms, including young salmon.

• Restriction of channel movement and creation of side channels. Hardened shorelines along rivers slow the movement of channels, which, in turn, prevents the input of larger woody debris, gravels for spawning, and the creation of side channels important for juvenile salmon rearing, and can result in increased floods and scour.

• Loss of rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids. Hardened channels can decrease habitat.

Structural shoreline stabilization often results in vegetation removal and damage to near-shore habitat and shoreline corridors. Therefore, master program shoreline stabilization provisions shall also be consistent with WAC 173-26-320(5), vegetation conservation, and WAC 173-26-320(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.

RCW 90.58.020 includes the statement:

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.

Therefore, it is also necessary that master program regulations include provisions to ensure against ecological harm from the cumulative impacts of incremental development actions, including residential development.

As applied to shoreline stabilization measures, "normal repair" and "normal maintenance" include the patching, sealing, or refinishing of existing structures, the replenishment of sand or other material that has been washed away, and the replacement of less than twenty percent of the original structure. Normal maintenance and normal repair are limited to those actions that are typically done on a periodic basis. Construction that causes significant ecological impacts is not considered normal maintenance and repair.

As applied to shoreline stabilization measures, "replacement" means the construction of a structure to perform a shoreline stabilization function of the existing structure, which can no longer adequately serve its purpose. Replacement includes removal of the existing structure.

Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures.

Local governments should consult with technical assistance materials provided by the department. Local governments are encouraged to offer incentives, such as expedient permitting, for removal of unnecessary shoreline stabilization measures and contribution to properly functioning condition for priority species.

(ii) Standards.

Master programs shall implement the following standards:

(A) New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except to protect or support an existing or approved development or for the restoration of ecological functions. This is to prevent speculative shoreline stabilization consistent with WAC 173-26-320(5).

(B) New development shall, where feasible, be located and designed to eliminate the need for concurrent or future shoreline stabilization.

(C) On shorelines where PTE species and their prey have a primary association, new nonwater-dependent development, including single-family homes, that includes structural shoreline stabilization shall not be allowed unless all of the conditions below apply:

• The need to protect the development from imminent destruction due to erosion caused by natural processes, such as tidal action, currents, and waves, is demonstrated through a geotechnical report.

• The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as loss of vegetation and drainage.

• Nonstructural measures as described in WAC 173-26-330 (3)(a)(i), such as placing the development further from the shoreline or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible.

• The structure will not affect priority species in other locations.

New water-dependent development requiring shoreline stabilization shall not cause adverse ecological impacts to PFC for PTE species. Where allowed, new shoreline stabilization for water-dependent development shall be conditioned with the requirement to help attain PFC for PTE species.

(D) Do not allow shoreline stabilization for new development that would cause significant ecological impacts to adjacent or down-current properties and shoreline areas.

(E) Do not allow the subdivision of land into parcels, or the creation of new lots, that will require shoreline stabilization for development to occur.

(F) 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.

(G) New or enlarged shoreline stabilization measures for an existing structure, including residences, should not be allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis, that the structure is in imminent danger from shoreline erosion caused by tidal action, currents, or waves. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering shoreline stabilization. The geotechnical analysis should also evaluate vegetation enhancement as a means of reducing undesirable erosion. If the geotechnical analysis demonstrates a need for shoreline stabilization, impacts to PTE species shall be assessed through a habitat evaluation and conditioned to maintain properly functioning condition and other ecological functions.

(H) An existing shoreline stabilization structure shall not be replaced with a similar structure unless a geotechnical analysis demonstrates there is a need to protect preferred or priority structures identified in RCW 90.58.020 from erosion caused by currents, tidal action, or waves. The demonstration of need must identify the reason for erosion, the protective benefit that the shoreline stabilization measures will perform, and the minimum measures necessary to accomplish the protective function. The replacement structure shall be designed, located, sized, and constructed to minimize harm to the natural shoreline environment. Replacement walls or bulkheads shall be located landward to the greatest extent possible unless the residence was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure shall abut the existing structure. Soft shoreline stabilization that restores properly functioning condition or other ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.

(I) Where structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary, as in the above provisions, limit the size of stabilization measures to the minimum necessary. Use measures designed to minimize harm to the natural shoreline environment and apply mitigation through mitigation sequencing. Mitigation shall address the functions lost. Soft approaches shall be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures, dwellings, and businesses.

(J) In the design of shoreline stabilization measures, use the habitat evaluation as a basis to maintain or restore, as much as possible, properly functioning condition for PTE species and the ecological functions of the shoreline. Require mitigation of adverse impacts to shoreline functions in accordance with the mitigation sequence defined in these guidelines. Include vegetation conservation, as described in WAC 173-26-320(5), as part of shoreline stabilization, where applicable.

(K) 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, security, or harm to ecological functions. See public access provisions; WAC 173-26-320(4). Where feasible, incorporate ecological restoration and public access improvements into the project.

(L) Mitigate new erosion control measures, including replacement structures, on feeder bluffs or other actions that affect beach sediment-producing areas to avoid and, if that is not possible, to minimize 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 or 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 should be permitted only when the applicant has demonstrated that a specific need exists to support the intended water-dependent uses. 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, and if the plan or analysis is approved by the local government and consistent with these guidelines, 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.

For new multiunit residential developments, master programs shall limit new dock construction to joint-use or community dock facilities rather than allow individual docks for individual residences.

Piers and docks, including those accessory to single-family residences, shall be designed and constructed to avoid impacts to critical saltwater habitats consistent with WAC 173-26-320 (2)(c)(iii)(B). Master program provisions for piers and docks shall prevent cumulative impacts to PFC consistent with WAC 173-26-300 (2)(e).

(c) Fill.

Fills shall be located and designed to protect shoreline ecological functions and specifically shall not adversely affect or preclude the attainment of PFC and hydrological and geomorphological processes, including channel migration.

Fills waterward of the ordinary high-water mark shall be allowed only when necessary to support a water-dependent use, public access, clean-up and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental clean-up plan, mitigation action, environmental restoration, or beach nourishment or enhancement project. Fills waterward of the ordinary high-water mark for any use except ecological enhancement shall 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. Breakwaters, jetties, groins, weirs, and similar structures shall require a conditional use permit, except for those structures installed to enhance ecological functions, such as large woody debris installed in streams. Such structures shall be designed to support the attainment of properly functioning condition, ecological processes, and critical area protection and shall provide for mitigation according to the sequence described in WAC 173-26-020.

(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 within shoreline jurisdiction shall be managed to conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal dunes. Dune modification shall not be allowed where it would cause significant ecological impacts to PFC for PTE species. Dunes and associated beaches should also be managed 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" is the removal or addition of material to a dune, the reforming or reconfiguration of a dune, or the removal or addition of vegetation that will alter the dune's shape or sediment migration. Dune modification may be proposed for a number of purposes, including protection of property, flood and storm hazard reduction, erosion prevention, restoration, and ecological restoration.

Coastal dune modification shall be allowed only as a conditional use unless a jurisdiction-wide or regional plan for dune management, including grading, revegetation, and monitoring, is carried out consistent with state and federal flood protection standards and approved by the local government and the department. Where vegetation is used, native dunal vegetation should be required.

Dune modification to protect views of the water shall be allowed only where the view is completely obstructed for residences or water-enjoyment uses and where it can be demonstrated that the dunes did not obstruct views at the time of construction.

(f) Dredging and dredge material disposal.

Dredging and dredge material disposal shall be done in a manner which avoids adverse ecological impacts.

New development shall be sited and designed to avoid the need for new and maintenance dredging where significant ecological impacts to properly functioning condition for PTE species result. Dredging for the purpose of establishing, expanding, or relocating navigation channels and basins should be allowed only when significant ecological impacts are minimized 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, except when the material is necessary for the restoration of properly functioning condition for PTE species, or restoration of other ecological functions on sites not associated with PTE species. When allowed, the site where the fill is to be placed must be located waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. The project must be either associated with a MTCA or CERCLA habitat restoration project or, if approved through a shoreline conditional use permit, any other significant habitat restoration project. 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 or watershed management planning.

Disposal of dredge material into river channel migration zones or 100-year flood plains within shoreline jurisdiction but outside of harbor areas shall be discouraged and shall not be allowed in an area supporting priority species. In the limited instances where it is allowed, such disposal shall require a conditional use permit.

[]

Reviser's note: The brackets and enclosed material in the text of the above section occurred in the copy filed by the agency and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-26-340
Shoreline uses.

(1) Applicability.

The provisions in this section apply to uses and development 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) General use provisions.

(a) Principles.

Shoreline master programs shall implement the following principles:

• Establish a system of use and environment designation provisions consistent with WAC 173-26-310 that gives preference to those uses that are consistent with the prevention of pollution and damage to the ecological functions, or are unique to or dependent upon uses of the state's shoreline areas.

• 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.

• Reduce use conflicts by including provisions to prohibit or apply special conditions to those uses which are not consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment or are not unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. In implementing this provision, preference shall be given first to water-dependent uses, then to water-related uses and water-enjoyment uses.

• Establish regulations to mitigate existing and potential impacts affecting the attainment of PFC and other ecological functions.

• Establish use provisions that preserve unique shorelines. Shoreline master programs shall establish use provisions that take advantage of shorelines with unique attributes or resources.

• Establish use provisions that encourage the restoration of ecological functions on degraded shorelines.

• Address the impacts from specific uses through the monitoring and regulation response program described in WAC 173-26-300 (2)(b). As part of this program, the department will examine impacts and trends specific to different uses and adopt guidelines to correct deficiencies in shoreline management practices.

(b) Conditional uses.

Define the types of uses and development that require shoreline conditional use permits. Requirements for a conditional use permit can be used for a variety of purposes, including:

• To effectively address unanticipated uses not classified in the master program as described in WAC 173-27-030.

• To address cumulative impacts.

• To provide the opportunity to require design modifications or environmental analysis of a proposal that would otherwise be inconsistent with Shoreline Management Act policies.

In these cases, allowing a given use as a conditional use could provide greater flexibility within the master program than if the use were prohibited outright.

If master programs permit the following types of uses and development, they shall require a conditional permit.

• Uses and development that may significantly impair or alter the public's use of the water areas of the state.

• Uses and development which, by their intrinsic nature, may have a significant ecological impact on shoreline ecological functions or shoreline resources depending on location, design, and site conditions, such as fill landward of the ordinary high-water mark, disposal of dredge material within a river channel migration zone but outside a harbor area, class IV general forest practices where shorelines are being converted or are expected to be converted to nonforest uses, breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs.

• Development in critical saltwater habitats.

• Other uses and development as identified by local governments.

Master programs shall contain provisions that assure that uses requiring a conditional use permit shall not be allowed if they would cause significant ecological impacts to properly functioning condition for PTE species.

(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.

Applicable master programs shall address new agricultural development that does not meet the definition of existing and ongoing agriculture.

RCW 90.58.030 (3)(e) defines substantial development for agricultural uses. New shoreline master program provisions should not apply retroactively to existing agricultural uses. Existing and ongoing agriculture includes, but is not limited to, the production of horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, livestock, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, or Christmas trees; the operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds, drainage ditches, or irrigation systems; and the normal maintenance and repair of existing structures, facilities, and lands currently under production or cultivation.

New development, clearing, and grading in support of agricultural uses shall be located and designed to avoid impacts to shoreline environments.

Applicable master programs shall include standards for setbacks, water quality protection, environmental impacts, and vegetation conservation, as described in WAC 173-26-320(5), for new agricultural development, clearing, and grading in shoreline jurisdiction.

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

Agricultural lands within jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act which are enrolled in set-aside programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Farm Services Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture, or any other federal, state, or local agency, are considered to remain existing, ongoing agriculture for purposes of the Shoreline Management Act and this rule. This provision is intended to ensure that master program provisions do not prevent agriculture from being resumed after the period of the set-aside program.

(b) Aquaculture.

Aquaculture is the culture or farming of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants and animals. This activity is of state-wide interest. Properly managed, it can result in long-term over short-term benefit and can protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. Aquaculture is dependent on the use of the water area and, when consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the environment, is a preferred use of the water area.

Potential locations for aquaculture are relatively restricted due to specific requirements for water quality, temperature, flows, oxygen content, adjacent land uses, wind protection, commercial navigation, and, in marine waters, salinity. The technology associated with present-day aquaculture is still in its formative stages and experimental. Local shoreline master plans should therefore recognize the necessity for some latitude in the development of this emerging economic water use as well as its potential impact on existing uses and natural systems.

Aquaculture shall not be permitted in areas where it would significantly degrade ecological functions over the long term, adversely impact eelgrass and macroalgae, or significantly conflict with navigation and other water-dependent uses. Aquacultural facilities shall be designed and located so as not to spread disease to native aquatic life, establish nonnative species, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. Impacts to ecological functions shall be mitigated according to the mitigation sequence described in WAC 173-26-020.

(c) Boating facilities.

For the purposes of this chapter, "boating facilities" excludes docks serving three or fewer single-family residences. Shoreline master programs 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 to ensure that boating facilities are located only at sites with suitable environmental conditions, shoreline configuration, access, and neighboring uses and where significant ecological impacts to PFC for PTE can be avoided.

(ii) Provisions that assure that facilities meet health, safety, and welfare requirements. Master programs may reference other regulations to accomplish this requirement.

(iii) Regulations to avoid or, if that is not possible, mitigate visual impacts.

(iv) Provisions for public access in new marinas, particularly where water-enjoyment uses are associated with the marina, in accordance with WAC 173-26-320(4).

(v) Regulations to limit the impacts from boaters living in their vessels (live-aboards).

(vi) Regulations reducing the impacts of parking.

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

(viii) Regulations to protect the rights of navigation.

(ix) Regulations restricting vessels from permanently mooring on waters of the state unless a lease or permission is obtained from the state and impacts to navigation and public access are mitigated.

(d) Commercial development.

Master programs shall give preference to water-dependent commercial uses on the shoreline. Master programs shall consider public access and ecological restoration requirements for all water-oriented commercial uses. Shoreline ecological protection, maintenance, or restoration shall be a condition of all nonwater-dependent commercial development where necessary to achieve properly functioning condition. Public access shall be a condition of all nonwater-dependent development as described in WAC 173-26-320(4) except where 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.

Nonwater-oriented commercial use may be allowed if the site is physically separated from the shoreline by another property or public right of way.

New nonwater-dependent commercial development shall be required to protect existing shoreline vegetation contributing to ecological functions. Where shoreline vegetation has been removed or degraded, nonwater-dependent commercial development shall contribute to the restoration of ecological functions provided by vegetation.

New water-dependent development shall mitigate impacts to shoreline vegetation according to WAC 173-26-300 (2)(f).

(e) Forest practices.

Local master programs shall, where applicable, rely on the Forest Practices Act and rules implementing the act and the Forest and Fish Report as adequate management of commercial forest uses within shoreline jurisdiction. However, local governments shall, where applicable, apply this chapter to Class IV-General forest practices where shorelines are being converted or are expected to be converted to nonforest uses.

Forest practice conversions and other Class IV-General forest practices where there is a likelihood of conversion to nonforest uses shall avoid significant adverse impacts to the shoreline environment and maintain the ecological quality of the watershed hydrologic system. Master programs shall establish provisions to ensure that all such timber removal is consistent with the master program environment designation provisions and the provisions of this chapter. Applicable shoreline master programs shall contain provisions to ensure that when forest lands are converted to another use, including a residential use, significant vegetation removal, grading, and development, except for low-intensity water-dependent uses and public access that sustains ecological functions, are not allowed within one site potential tree height measured from the CMZ or within shoreline jurisdiction, whichever is less.

Master programs shall implement 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 commercial significance" shall be designated either "natural," "rural conservancy," or equivalent environment 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.

(f) Industry.

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 or designed in a manner that causes significant ecological impacts to the ecological functions or properly functioning condition for PTE species. 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 173-26-320(4). Industrial development and redevelopment shall, where feasible, incorporate environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline area. New nonwater-oriented industrial development--that is, industrial development that is neither water-dependent nor water-related--shall only be allowed on nonnavigable shorelines and shall include ecological restoration of the shoreline and, where feasible, public access. In such cases, no new structural shoreline stabilization measures should be permitted, except to protect or restore ecological functions or public access.

New nonwater-dependent development shall be required to protect existing shoreline vegetation contributing to ecological functions. Where shoreline vegetation has been removed or degraded, nonwater-dependent development shall provide restoration of ecological functions provided by vegetation consistent with WAC 173-26-320(5).

New water-dependent development shall mitigate impacts to shoreline vegetation.

(g) In-stream structures.

In-stream structures shall provide for the protection, preservation, and restoration of ecological functions and cultural resources, including, but not limited to, fish and fish passage, wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydrogeological processes and natural scenic vistas. The location and planning of in-stream structures shall give due consideration to the full range of public interests, watershed functions and processes, and environmental concerns, with special emphasis on priority habitats and species.

(h) Mining.

Mining and the removal of sand, gravel, soil, minerals, and other earth materials for commercial and other uses alters the natural character, resources, and ecology of shorelines of the state and may adversely impact critical shoreline resources. Activities associated with mining, including processing and transportation, also have the potential to adversely impact shoreline resources. Master programs shall include policies and regulations that assure:

(i) Mining and associated activities are not allowed where such uses would result in short-term or long-term significant ecological impacts to shoreline ecological functions or ecosystem-wide processes.

(ii) Where mining and associated activities are allowed, they must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the policies of the environment designation in which they are located, impacts to fish and wildlife habitat shall be avoided, and all disturbed areas must be restored upon completion of mining. Destruction of PTE or priority species habitat is prohibited.

(iii) Surface mining shall be conducted in conformance with the Washington State Surface Mining Reclamation Act, chapter 78.44 RCW.

(iv) Surface mine reclamation plans shall provide for subsequent use of the property that is consistent with the policies of the environment designation in which they are located and shall assure that ecological functions of the shoreline are restored.

(v) Removal of sand and gravel resources from a location waterward of the ordinary high-water mark of a river shall be prohibited unless:

(A) A hydrogeological study, conducted by a qualified professional and approved by appropriate state agencies, demonstrates that removal of specific quantities at specific locations will not significantly alter the natural processes of gravel transportation for the river system as a whole; and

(B) A biological study, conducted by a qualified professional and approved by appropriate state agencies, demonstrates that removal will not significantly degrade habitat values for priority species or damage other ecological functions.

Removal of sand and gravel from a location waterward of the channel migration zone shall require a conditional use permit.

In locations where gravel removal has been allowed in the past, any future authorization to continue shall be based on studies as required above, and no further authorization shall be granted except in conformance with this provision.

(i) Recreational development.

Provision shall be made in master programs for the public to enjoy the waters of the state. Master program provisions shall 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 causing significant ecological impacts to ecological functions.

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

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 protection and restoration.

The impacts of recreational developments, including water-dependent facilities such as marinas and swimming beaches, and nonwater-oriented uses shall be mitigated. Nonwater-dependent recreational uses shall be located away from the water unless their significant ecological impacts can be avoided. Nonwater-recreational uses, such as beach driving, shall be restricted where necessary to maintain PFC for PTE species, including forage fish habitat.

(j) Residential development.

Single-family residences are a priority use when consistent with control of pollution, prevention of damage to the natural ecology, and provisions of this chapter. However, residential uses can cause significant damage to the shoreline area through cumulative impacts from shoreline bulkheading, storm water runoff, septic system failure, eelgrass damage, introduction of pollutants, and vegetation removal. Residential development includes single-family and multifamily development and the creation of new residential lots through land division or conversion from another use. Master programs shall include shoreline setbacks, bulkhead restrictions, vegetation conservation requirements, and, where applicable, on-site sewage system standards and density regulations for residential uses, including single-family residences and appurtenant structures and uses, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Master programs may provide the above standards either by direct language within the master program or by specific reference to the applicable development regulations. New residential development, including appurtenant structures and uses, shall be sufficiently set back from shorelines so that structural improvements, including bluff walls and other stabilization structures, are not required to protect property. (See RCW 90.58.100(6).)

New over-water residences, including floating homes are not a preferred use and shall be prohibited.

New multiunit residential development, including duplexes, fourplexes, and the subdivision of land for more than four parcels, should provide community and/or public access in conformance to the local government's public access planning and this chapter.

If piers, docks, breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs are allowed in residential development, local governments should consult the department technical assistance materials and afford the best possible protection to priority species and shoreline processes.

Local governments shall not allow residential development of a scale and location that will reduce the ecological functions performed by vegetation. Limit significant vegetation removal to the minimum necessary to accommodate permitted primary residential structures. Where the dimensions of existing platted lots are not sufficient to accommodate development of a permitted use without significant vegetation removal, apply the mitigation sequence in WAC 173-26-020 to minimize adverse impacts to vegetation.

Applicable master programs shall include standards for the creation of new residential lots through land division or conversion from another use that accomplish the following:

(i) Prevent significant vegetation removal, development within the CMZ, or significant ecological impacts to properly functioning condition and other ecological functions. That is, all residential lots resulting from such platting or subdivision must be large enough or configured in a way that a residence may be developed without causing significant ecological impacts to properly functioning condition and other ecological functions. For example, master programs shall prevent the creation of new residential lots that will require structural shoreline stabilization or deviation from vegetation conservation or water quality standards.

When land is converted to residential use from agriculture, forestry, or other less intensive land use, ensure that the resulting lots are sufficient in size and configuration to allow protection of ecological functions or, if vegetation supporting ecological functions has been removed, the restoration of ecological functions.

(ii) Prevent the need for new shoreline stabilization measures that would cause significant ecological impacts to ecological functions.

(iii) Implement the provisions of WAC 173-26-310 and 173-26-320.

(k) Transportation and parking.

Establish and implement master program policies and regulations to provide safe, reasonable, and adequate circulation systems to shorelines.

Transportation and parking 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 and parking 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 shoreline jurisdiction or one site potential tree height, whichever is less.

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.

Restoration of shoreline ecological functions shall be a condition of new and expanded nonwater-dependent transportation and parking facilities where they affect PFC for PTE species.

(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 shall be considered a part of the allowed use.

All utility facilities shall be designed and located to minimize harm to properly functioning condition and 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. In such cases, significant ecological impacts to properly functioning condition shall be avoided.

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 shall be discouraged. When permitted, those facilities shall include adequate provisions to ensure against significant ecological impacts.

Restoration of ecological functions shall be a condition of new and expanded nonwater-dependent utility facilities where they may affect PFC for PTE species.

[]

(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.

Chapter 90.58 RCW raises the status of shorelines of state-wide significance in two ways. First, the Shoreline Management Act sets specific preferences 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.

Optimum implementation involves special emphasis on state-wide objectives and consultation with state agencies. The state's interests may vary, depending upon the geographic region, type of shoreline, and local conditions. Optimum implementation may involve ensuring that other comprehensive planning policies and regulations support Shoreline Management Act objectives.

Because shoreline ecological resources are linked to other environments, implementation of ecological objectives requires effective management of whole ecosystems. For example, optimum implementation places a greater imperative on identifying and understanding ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions that sustain resources of state-wide importance.

(3) Master program provisions for shorelines of state-wide significance.

Because shorelines of state-wide significance are major resources from which all people of the state derive benefit, local governments that are preparing master program provisions for shorelines of state-wide significance shall implement the following:

(a) State-wide interest.

To recognize and protect state-wide interest over local interest, consult with applicable state and federal agencies, affected Indian tribes, and state-wide interest groups and consider their recommendations in the shoreline master program provisions. Recognize and take into account state agencies' policies, programs, and recommendations in developing use regulations. For example, if an anadromous fish species is affected, the Washington state departments of fish and wildlife and ecology, as well as affected Indian tribes, should, at a minimum, be consulted.

(b) Preserving resources for future generations.

Prepare master program provisions on the basis of preserving the shorelines for future generations. For example, actions that would convert resources into irreversible uses or detrimentally alter natural conditions characteristic of shorelines of state-wide significance should be severely limited. Where natural resources of state-wide importance are being diminished over time, master programs shall include provisions to contribute to the restoration of those resources.

(c) Priority uses.

Establish shoreline environment designation policies, boundaries, and use provisions that give priority to uses that implement the priorities of RCW 90.58.020. More specifically:

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

(ii) Preserve sufficient shorelands 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, requirements for essential public facilities, and comment from related industry associations, affected Indian tribes and state agencies.

(iii) 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.

(d) Resources of state-wide importance.

Establish development standards that:

(i) Ensure the long-term viability and enhancement of functions supporting properly functioning condition and ecological resources of state-wide importance, such as anadromous fish, shellfish beds, and unique environments. Standards shall consider incremental and cumulative impacts of permitted development and include provisions to improve the functions of shoreline ecosystems as a whole.

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

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

(e) Comprehensive plan consistency.

Ensure that other local comprehensive plan provisions are consistent with and support as a high priority the policies for shorelines of state-wide significance. Specifically, shoreline master programs shall include policies that incorporate the priorities and optimum implementation directives of chapter 90.58 RCW into comprehensive plan provisions and implementing development regulations. Where necessary for the survival and recovery of PTE species, ensure that comprehensive plan policies and other development regulations are consistent with master program provisions to protect and restore ecological functions necessary for properly functioning condition.

[]

OCEAN MANAGEMENT
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-26-360
Ocean management.

(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 Washington's coastal waters from Cape Disappointment at the mouth of the Columbia River north one hundred sixty miles to Cape Flattery at the entrance to the Strait of Juan De Fuca including the offshore ocean area, the near shore area under state ownership, shorelines of the state, and their adjacent uplands.      Their broadest application would include an area seaward two hundred miles (RCW 43.143.020) and landward to include those uplands immediately adjacent to land under permit jurisdiction for which consistent planning is required under RCW 90.58.340.      The guidelines address uses occurring in Washington's coastal waters, but not impacts generated from activities offshore of Oregon, Alaska, California, or British Columbia or impacts from Washington's offshore on the Strait of Juan de Fuca or other inland marine waters.

(3) Ocean uses defined.      Ocean uses are activities or developments involving renewable and/or nonrenewable resources that occur on Washington's coastal waters and includes their associated offshore, 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.      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 augment existing requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, chapter 90.58 RCW, and those chapters in Title 173 of the Washington Administrative Code that implement the act.      They 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.      They are not intended to regulate recreational uses or currently existing commercial uses involving fishing or other renewable marine or ocean resources.      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.      Participation in the development of these guidelines and subsequent amendments to master programs will not preclude state and local government from opposing the introduction of new uses, such as oil and gas development.

These and other statutes, documents, and regulations referred to or cited in these rules may be reviewed at the department of ecology, headquarters in Lacey, Washington, for which the mailing address is Mailstop PV-11, Olympia, WA 98504.

(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 vary their programs to accommodate local circumstances, local government should attempt and the department will review local programs for compliance with these guidelines and chapter 173-16 WAC: Shoreline Management Act guidelines for development of master programs.      It is recognized that further amendments to the master programs may be required to address new information on critical and sensitive habitats and environmental impacts of ocean uses or to address future activities, such as oil development.      In addition to the criteria in RCW 43.143.030, these guidelines apply to ocean uses until local master program amendments are adopted.      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) Permit criteria: Local government and the department may permit ocean or coastal uses and activities as a substantial development, variance or conditional use only if the criteria of RCW 43.143.030(2) listed below are met or exceeded:

(a) There is a demonstrated significant local, state, or national need for the proposed use or activity;

(b) There is no reasonable alternative to meet the public need for the proposed use or activity;

(c) There will be no likely long-term significant adverse impacts to coastal or marine resources or uses;

(d) All reasonable steps are taken to avoid and minimize adverse environmental impacts, with special protection provided for the marine life and resources of the Columbia River, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor estuaries, and Olympic national park;

(e) All reasonable steps are taken to avoid and minimize adverse social and economic impacts, including impacts on aquaculture, recreation, tourism, navigation, air quality, and recreational, commercial, and tribal fishing;

(f) Compensation is provided to mitigate adverse impacts to coastal resources or uses;

(g) Plans and sufficient performance bonding are provided to ensure that the site will be rehabilitated after the use or activity is completed; and

(h) The use or activity complies with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations.

(7) General ocean uses guidelines.      The following guidelines apply to all ocean uses, their service, distribution, and supply activities and their associated facilities that require shoreline permits.

(a) 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.

(b) 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 such impacts.

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

(d) 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.

(e) Chapter 197-11 WAC (SEPA rules) provides guidance in the application of the permit criteria and guidelines of this section.      The range of impacts to be considered should be consistent with WAC 197-11-060 (4)(e) and 197-11-792 (2)(c).      The determination of significant adverse impacts should be consistent with WAC 197-11-330(3) and 197-11-794.      The sequence of actions described in WAC 197-11-768 should be used as an order of preference in evaluating steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts.

(f) 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.

(g) 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.

(h) 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.

(i) Local governments should evaluate their master programs and select the environment(s) for coastal waters that best meets the intent of chapter 173-16 WAC, these guidelines and chapter 90.58 RCW.

(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 archeological 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 onshore 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 impacts on existing water-dependent businesses and existing land transportation routes to the maximum extent feasible.

(q) Onshore facilities associated with ocean uses should be located in communities where there is adequate sewer, water, power, and streets.      Within those communities, if space is available at existing marine terminals, the onshore facilities should be located there.

(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 baseline 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 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.

(8) Oil and gas uses and activities.      Oil and gas uses and activities involve the extraction of oil and gas resources from beneath the ocean.

(a) 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.

(b) Special attention should be given to the availability and adequacy of general disaster response capabilities in reviewing ocean locations for oil and gas facilities.

(c) 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 major considerations 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.

(d) 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 onshore locations for oil and gas facilities.

(e) 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.

(f) 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.

(9) Ocean mining.      Ocean mining includes such uses as the mining of metal, mineral, sand, and gravel resources from the sea floor.

(a) Seafloor mining should be located and operated to avoid detrimental effects on ground fishing or other renewable resource uses.

(b) Seafloor mining should be located and operated to avoid detrimental effects on beach erosion or accretion processes.

(c) Special attention should be given to habitat recovery rates in the review of permits for seafloor mining.

(10) 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.

(a) 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.

(b) An assessment should be made of the effect of energy producing uses on upwelling, and other oceanographic and ecosystem processes.

(c) 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.

(11) Ocean disposal.      Ocean disposal uses involve the deliberate deposition or release of material at sea, such as solid wastes, industrial waste, radioactive waste, incineration, incinerator residue, dredged materials, vessels, aircraft, ordnance, platforms, or other man-made structures.

(a) Storage, loading, transporting, and disposal of materials shall be done in conformance with local, state, and federal requirements for protection of the environment.

(b) 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.

(c) 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 loss of 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.

(12) Transportation.      Ocean transportation includes such uses as: Shipping, transferring between vessels, and offshore storage of oil and gas; transport of other goods and commodities; and offshore ports and airports.      The following guidelines address transportation activities that originate or conclude in Washington's coastal waters or are transporting a nonrenewable resource extracted from the outer continental shelf off Washington.

(a) An assessment should be made of the impact transportation uses will have on renewable resource activities such as fishing and on environmentally critical and sensitive habitat areas, environmental and scientific preserves and sanctuaries.

(b) When feasible, hazardous materials such as oil, gas, explosives and chemicals, should not be transported through highly productive commercial, tribal, or recreational fishing areas.      If no such feasible route exists, the routes used should pose the least environmental risk.

(c) Transportation uses should be located or routed to avoid habitat areas of endangered or threatened species, environmentally critical and sensitive habitats, migration routes of marine species and birds, marine sanctuaries and environmental or scientific preserves to the maximum extent feasible.

(13) 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 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.

(a) Ocean research should be encouraged to coordinate with other ocean uses occurring in the same area to minimize potential conflicts.

(b) Ocean research meeting the definition of "exploration activity" of 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.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) Public dissemination of ocean research findings should be encouraged.

(14) 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.

(a) 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.

(b) Nonemergency marine salvage and historic shipwreck salvage activities should not be conducted in areas of cultural or historic significance unless part of a scientific effort sanctioned by appropriate governmental agencies.

[]

© Washington State Code Reviser's Office