Shoreline management guidebook

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Shoreline Management
Guidebook

Second Edition, 1994

'Illilil ljj if lint
d fill I lJjJ

Volume 11
Shoreline Master Program
Handbook

w A S w i N 6 T 0 4 S T h T E
D I P A A 7 M 1 11 1 1 F
@@E C 0 L 0 G Y

Shorelands & Coastal Zone
Management Program

q,z- i nAr

Shoreline
Master Program
Handbook

Second Edition, 1994

Property of cSC LibraW I

*@i7

Cn
CY)

LID if A S H I N G T 0 NS 7 A T E
F P A R T M F 4 T I F
C 0 L 0 G Y

Shorelands &Coastal Zone
Management Program
us Department of commerce
93-104C NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Preface

The Shoreline Master Program Handbook is a guide to preparing shoreline master program
amendments; it is intended to provide assistance in addressing common shoreline management
issues and to respond to new directions in shoreline management practice. Interpretations and
policies in this Handbook are based on the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (Chapter 90.58
RCW), related rules and regulations (Chapters 173-14, 173-16, 173-17, 173-19 and 173-22
WAC), Shorelines Hearings Board cases, court decisions, Attorney General Office opinions,
and Ecology staff determinations.

The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) is administered through a cooperative program
between local government and the state Department of Ecology. Local governments have the
primary responsibility for initiating and administering the regulatory programs of the SMA_
Ecology provides technical assistance to the local governments with an emphasis on ensuring
compliance with the policies and procedures of the SMA and related rules. Technical
assistance is provided through workshops and conferences, direct inquiries to department staff
and through technical assistance documents.

Technical assistance documents include this Shoreline Master Program Handbook, Volume H
of Ecology's two-volume Shoreline Management Guidebook, and the Shoreline
A&ninistrator's Manual, Volume I of the Shoreline Management Guidebook These
documents as well as related laws and regulations are available from the Department of
Ecology Shorelands Program.

The 1994 Guidebook addresses the following trends in shoreline management:

I .Many master program amendments are updates rather than new documents or full-scale
rewrites. Handbook Chapter 3 outlines procedures and techniques to update master
programs in an effective and timely manner.

2. Recent amendments to SMPs are placing greater emphasis on general provisions.
Handbook Chapter 5 contains extensive general policies and regulations, which can be
customized to fit local situations. The Handbook emphasizes general policies and
regulations because:

a. General regulations eliminate the need to repeat the provisions which apply to all uses,
activities, and environment designations.

b. General regulations can incorporate up-to-date environmental requirements and
practices.

c. Model general provisions foster greater state-wide SMP consistency.

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. The state is experiencing increased development along river systems on both sides of the
Cascades. Handbook Chapters 13 and 14 address emerging issues related to rivers and
present a number of applicable shoreline management techniques, including:

a. Parallel environment designations;

b. Options for establishing shoreline jurisdiction;

c. Habitat, vegetation, fisheries and forest practices management;

d. Environment designations on federal lands;

e. Environmentally sensitive flood hazard management; and

f Destination resort and other recreational activity planning.

4. State-wide shoreline management objectives are receiving greater attention. Handbook
Chapter 5 clarifies provisions for shorelines of state-wide significance.

5. Local governments are requesting permit administration guidance. The Shoreline
Administrator's Manual clarifies the shoreline permit process including permit review
procedures and special issues such as shoreline jurisdiction, exemptions, variances, and
conditional use permits. Handbook Chapter 9 provides model SNIP provisions for
shoreline permit administration and enforcement.

6. Local governments are pursuing waterfront redevelopment as part of comprehensive
economic revitalization efforts. Handbook Chapters 10, 11 and 12 address a number of
waterfront redevelopment issues, including:

a. Mxed-use projects;

b. Historic sites;

c. Shoreline redevelopment district planning; and

d. Water-oriented use suitability analysis and management.

7. Special issues in Eastern Washington are demanding greater attention. The Chfidebook
makes an effort to address shoreline management issues which relate to the eastern half of
the state, including:

a. River systems in and regions-,

b. Shoreline use policies where water borne commerce is not prevalent;

c. Large scale resort/recreational community development; and

d. Permit review procedures and SNIP administration in small communities.

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

8. Local governments are developing innovative shoreline management techniques that
warrant special recognition and are discussed in the Handbook in detail. These include:

a. Aquatic environment designations-,

b. Shoreline use, activity and development standards matrices;

c. Comprehensive shoreline planning techniques; and

d. Detailed public access plans and provisions.

9. Many local governments are now planning under the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) which directs applicable cities and counties to prepare and
implement comprehensive plans and development regulations. Handbook Chapter 3 and
Appendix A discuss the interrelationship between SMA and GMA and how to achieve
greater consistency between comprehensive plans, development regulations and SMPs.

10. Flood hazard management is receiving increased attention. Reasons for this attention
include: the disastrous floods of 1990, which illustrated the need to focus on flood hazard
management and prevention; recent floods illustrate the limitations of structural flood
control works; and flood control measures have significant implications for shoreline
management and comprehensive planning. Handbook Chapter 13 discusses flood hazard
management issues as they relate to SMPs.

11. Off-site environmental mitigation (compensation) for on-site development impacts is
becoming increasingly common when on-site mitigation is not possible. The Department
of Ecology is currently reviewing the policies and procedures regarding off-site
compensatory mitigation for individual projects. Handbook Chapter 16 and Appendix B
address Ecology's approach to off-site environmental mitigation planning.

12. SMPs need clear, consistent definitions for commonly used shoreline management terms.
The Manual and the Handbook contain glossaries with definitions recommended for
SMPS.

Ecology welcomes comments on the Second Edition of the Shoreline Master Program
Handbook. Please forward your comments to Peter Skowlund, Ecology Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, Washington, 98504-7690.

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Acknowledgments

This document was produced by the Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelands
and Coastal Zone Management Program, Rod Mack, Program Manager. Special recognition
goes to all Shorelands Program staff who participated in the project. Tom Mark and Peter
Skowlund were the principal staff persons developing shoreline management concepts and
directing the work. Consultant team members included John Owen, Rebecca Rudd and Karin
Chew of MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design.

The Department also would like to acknowledge the participants from local governments,
associated agencies and consulting firms that participated in the state-wide workshop in
Seattle, April 19 and 20, 1992, and who reviewed draft materials and helped define shoreline
management issues.

This publication was funded in part by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
NOAA or any of its subagencies.

0 NIMOSP,

19rI&WIE'40T OF

Ae Department of Ecology is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employer and
shall not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status,
sexual orientation, age, religion, or disability as defined by applicable state andlorfederal
regulations or statutes. Ifyou have special accommodation needs, please contact Ecology at
2061407-7250. Ecology's telecommunications devicefor the deaf (7DD) number is 2061407-
6006

SW Handbook - 994 Edition

Table of Contents

Preface
Acknowledgments
List of Figures
List of Appendixes

Chapter I - Introduction to the Handbook .............................................................. I
Purpose ................................................................................................................. I
History of the SMA ............................................................................................... 2
Geographic Applications of the SMA ..................................................................... 3
Shoreline Master Programs .................................................................................... 5
User's Guide to the Handbook ................................................................................ 6

Chapter 2 - SMP Organization . ................................................................................ 8
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 8
SMP Components .................................................................................................. 9
The Relationship Between Goals, Policies and Regulations ..................................... 15
Special Tips for Writing SMP Provisions ................................................................ 16

Chapter 3 - SMP Amendment Process ..................................................................... Is
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 18
Comprehensive SMP Amendment Process ............................................................. 22
Shoreline Management and Growth Management ................................................... 23
Public Participation ................................................................................................ 28
Local Process ......................................................................................................... 29
State Review and Approval Process ....................................................................... 52
Checklist for Submittal of SMP Amendments ......................................................... 58

Chapter 4 - SMIP Goals ............................................................................................. 60
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 60
Background and Purpose ................................................................................. 60
Format and Contents ........................................................................................ 60
Model Goal Statements .......................................................................................... 61
Shoreline Use Element ..................................................................................... 61
Economic Development Element ...................................................................... 62
Circulation Element .......................................................................................... 63
Conservation Element ...................................................................................... 64
Public Access ................................................................................................... 64
Recreational Element ....................................................................................... 65
Historical./Cultural Element .............................................................................. 65
Other Elements ................................................................................................ 66

SM7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

Chapter 5 - General Policies & Regulations ............................................................. 67
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 67
Background and Purpose ................................................................................. 67
Format and Contents ........................................................................................ 68
Special Considerations ......... ................................................................................. 68
Shorelines of State-wide Significance ............................................................... 68
Model Language .................................................................................................... 74
General Regulations ......................................................................................... 74
Archaeological and Historic Resources ............................................................. 75
Clearing and Grading ....................................................................................... 77
Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................... 81
Environmentally Sensitive Areas ....................................................................... 83
Geological Hazard Areas ............................................................................ 85
Critical Salt Water Habitats ........................................................................ 88
Wetlands .................................................................................................... 95
Salmon and Steethead Habitats ................................................................... 101
Parking ............................................................................................................ 108
Public Access ................................................................................................... 110
Shorelines of State-wide Significance ............................................................... 114
Signage ............................................................................................................ 117
Utilities ............................................................................................................ 120
Vegetation Management ................................................................................... 121
View Protection ............................................................................................... 124
Water Quality ................................................................................................... 126
Chapter 6 - Environment Designation ...................................................................... 128
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 128
Components of the SMP ........................................................................................ 129
Statement of Purpose ....................................................................................... 129
Shoreline Map and Description ......................................................................... 131
Summary Matrices ........................................................................................... 133
Environment Designations ................................................................................ 133
Special Considerations ........................................................................................... 142
Environment-Specific Use Provisions ............................................................... 142
Conditional Use Provisions ............................................................................... 143
Classifying Submerged Lands ........................................................................... 145
Parallel Environments ....................................................................................... 149
Sample Environment Designation Provisions .......................................................... 153
Urban Environment .......................................................................................... 154
Rural Residential Environment ......................................................................... 156
Rural Environment ........................................................................................... 160
Conservancy Enviromnent ................................................................................ 162
Natural Envirorunent ........................................................................................ 165
Aquatic Environment ....................................................................................... 167

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Chapter 7 - Shoreline Use Policies & Regulations .................................................... 169
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 169
Background and Purpose ................................................................................. 169
Format and Contents ........................................................................................ 170
Model Language .................................................................................................... 171
Agriculture ....................................................................................................... 172
Aquaculture ..................................................................................................... 177
Boating Facilities .............................................................................................. 185
Commercial Development ................................................................................ 201
Flood Hazard Management .............................................................................. 205
Forest Practices ................................................................................................ 211
Industry ........................................................................................................... 216
Instrearn Structures .......................................................................................... 225
Mining ............................................................................................................. 231
Recreational Development ................................................................................ 236
Residential Development .................................................................................. 243
Transportation Facilities ................................................................................... 251
Utilities (Primary) ............................................................................................. 257
Chapter 8 - Shoreline Modification Activity Policies & Regulations ...................... 261
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 261
Background and Purpose ................................................................................. 261
Format and Contents ........................................................................................ 264
Model Language .................................................................................................... 265
General Shoreline Modification Provisions ....................................................... 265
Shoreline Stabilization ...................................................................................... 270
Beach Restoration and Enhancment ............................................................ 271
Bioengineering ........................................................................................... 273
Revetments (Riprap) ................................................................................... 276
Bulkheads .................................................................................................. 279
Breakwaters, Jetties, Rock Weirs and Groins .............................................. 286
Dikes and Levees ....................................................................................... 290
Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal ........................................................... 292
Landfill ............................................................................................................ 301
Piers, Docks, Floats and Buoys ........................................................................ 305
Chapter 9 - Administration and Enforcement ......................................................... 314
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 314
Model Provisions ................................................................................................... 316

SM? Handbook - 1994 Edition

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses .......................................................... 361
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 361
Water-dependent, Water-related and Water-enjoyment Uses .................................. 362
Physical Requirements of Water-dependent Uses .................................................... 370
General Guidelines for Setting Water-dependency Requirements on
Urban Waterfronts ........................................................................................... 377

Chapter I I - Master Program Provisions for Mixed-use Projects ........................... 380
Definition and Objectives ................................................................................. I ..... 380
Specifying Where Mixed-use Projects Are Permitted .............................................. 383
Site Development Standards for Mixed-use Projects .............................................. 394
Techniques for Reviewing Mixed-use Projects ....................................................... 395
Insuring the Permanence of Water-oriented Uses ................................................... 397
Checklist for Master Program Mixed-use Provisions .............................................. 398

Chapter 12 - Encouraging Waterfront Redevelopment in Special Situations ........ 401
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 401
Mixed-use Projects ................................................................................................ 402
Historic Structures ................................................................................................. 402
Constrained or Unusual Shoreline Areas ................................................................ 403
Central Waterfront Redevelopment Districts .......................................................... 404

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management ......................................................... 410
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 410
Determining Shoreline Jurisdiction ......................................................................... 411
Coordination vrith Fisheries Regulations and Forest Management Practices ............ 418
Public Access and Recreational Development ......................................................... 419
Floodplain Management ......................................................................................... 419
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan .................................................... 421
Flood Hazard Management and Local SMP's ......................................................... 423
Shoreline Master Program Issues ........................................................................... 424
Recommendations for Master Programn-drig Riparian Systems ............................... 425

Chapter 14 - Parallel Environment Designations ..................................................... 427
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 427
Parallel Environments on Urban Shorelines ............................................................ 431
Parallel Environments on Coastal and Lacustrine Shorelines ................................... 433
Parallel Environments on Riparian Shorelines ......................................................... 434

Chapter 15 - Shoreline Modification Activities ........................................................ 437
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 437
The Larger Picture and the Planning Process .......................................................... 439
Shoreline Master Program Recommendations ........................................................ 443

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Chapter 16 - Advance Compensation and Environmental
Mitigation Planning ................................................................................................... 446
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 446
Individual Off-site NEtigation ................................................................................. 449
Nfitigation Banking ................................................................................................ 452

Chapter 17 - Public Access ........................................................................................ 460
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 460
Comprehensive Access Plan ................................................................................... 461
Public Access as a Requirement for Non-water-oriented Uses ................................ 463
Public Access on Industrial Sites ............................................................................ 463
Off-Site Public Access ........................................................................................... 467
Public Access in Environmentally Sensitive Areas .................................................. 467
Public Access Design Standards ............................................................................. 468
Writing Specific Public Access Provisions .............................................................. 470

Chapter 18 - Aquatic Habitats .................................................................................. 476
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 476
Kelp Beds, Eelgrass Beds, Herring Spawning Areas, Smelt Spawning Areas
and other Critical Salt Water Habitats ............................................................... 477
Salmon and Steelhead Habitats ............................................................................... 479
Recommended Approach ....................................................................................... 480
Recommended Comprehensive Plan Policies .......................................................... 483
Additional Information ............................................................................................ 483

Chapter 19 - Technical References ........................................................................... 485

Appendixes
Glossary
Index

Sr" Handbook - 1994 Edition

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Local and State Responsibilities ............................................................... 4

Figure 2-1 SMP Elements and Processes ..................................................................... I I

Figure 2-2. The Organization of SMP Goals, Policies and Regulations ........................ 15

Figure 3-1. SMP Amendment Process ......................................................................... 19

Figure 3-2. Example Shoreline/Resource Inventory Map ............................................ 39

Figure 3-3 Graphic Illustrating Environmental Information ......................................... 40

Figure 3-4. Graphic Illustrating Shoreline Use Component ......................................... 45

Figure 3-5. Example of Environmental Component Measures ..................................... 46

Figure 3-6. Example of a Public Access Component ................................................... 47

Figure 3-7. Example of an Urban Design Component ................................................ 48

Figure 3-8. Example of Proposed Implementation Action Summary ........................... 49

Figure 3-9. Model Adoption Resolution ..................................................................... 56

Figure 3-10. Checklist for Submittal of SMP Amendments ......................................... 58

Figure 5-1. Shorelines of State-wide Significance Illustrating State-wide
Coverage ..................................................................................................................... 73

Figure 6-1. Contents of Environment Designations Section ........................................ 130

Figure 6-2. Shoreline Use and Modification Activity Matrix ....................................... 134

Figure 6-3. Use-related Development Standards Matrix ............................................. 137

Figure 6-4. Vegetation Maintenance Corridor Standards ............................................ 141

Figure 6-5. Over-water designations based on extension of upland environments ........ 145

Figure 6-6. Over-water use (dock) regulations tied to nearest adjacent upland
environment ................................................................................................................. 147

Figure 6-7. Using more than one aquatic environment ................................................ 148

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 6-8. Setting Minimum Distances to Shoreline Environments From
Specified Aquatic Uses . ............................................................................................... 149

Figure 6-9. Typical Environment Designations ........................................................... 151

Figure 6-10. Use of Parallel Environments to Achieve Better Resource
Protection and Redevelopment Opportuntities ............................................................. 152

Figure 7-1 ................................................................................................................... 248

Figure 8-1. Design Criteria for Riprap Revetments ..................................................... 278

Figure 8-2. Typical Rock Bulkhead ............................................................................ 279

Figure 8-3. Typical Concrete Bulkhead ...................................................................... 280

Figure 10-1. Examples of water-dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment, and
non-water-oriented uses ............................................................................................... 369

Figure 10-2. Generalized physical requirements for specific water-oriented uses ......... 372

Figure 11-1 Fishermen's Terminal in Seattle, a Mixed-use Project . .............................. 386

Figure 11-2 Mixed-use formula based on a maximum percentage of the building's
ground floor area being non-water-oriented ................................................................. 387

Figure 11-3 Mixed-use formula based on a percentage of land area ............................. 389

Figure 11-4. Mixed-use provisions using parallel environments that require water-
oriented uses ................................................................................................................ 390

Figure 11-5 Mixed-use provisions allowing non-water-oriented uses if the uses are
set back from the shoreline ........................................................................................... 391

Figure 11-6 Illustration of n-tixed-use provisions requiring that non-water-
dependent uses be separated from the shoreline by public access and a water-
oriented use ................................................................................................................. 392

Figure 12-1. Seattle's Master Program Allows Over-water Non-water-oriented
Uses ............................................................................................................................ 406

Figure 12-2. Example of Site Specific Public Access Improvements as a
Condition of Substantial Development Permits ............................................................. 409

Figure 13-1. Options for Determining Shoreline Jurisdiction on Rivers ....................... 413

Figure 14-1. Typical Environment Designations ......................................................... 428

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 14-2. Use of Parallel Environments to Achieve Better Resource Protection
and Redevelopment Potential ....................................................................................... 430

Figure 14-3. Parallel environment used to preserve open shoreline on waterward
side of roadway ........................................................................................................... 431

Figure 14-4. Example of a Parallel Corridor Used to Reduce View Impacts ............... 432

Figure 14-5. Cross Section Illustrating Use of Parallel Environment to Protect
Steep Slopes ................................................................................................................ 434

Figure 14-6. Parallel Environment Used to Create Riverine Conservancy Corridor ..... 436

Figure 16-1. Approaches to Off-site Mitigation .......................................................... 448

Figure 17-1. Example of Trail Development in Sensitive Areas .................................. 471

Xiii

SW Handbwk - 1994 Edition

List of Appendixes

Appendix A - Technical Assistance Paper, Integrating Growth Management with
Shorelines Management: Local Options

Appendix B - Suggested Techniques for Compensatory Mitigation Planning

Xiv

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER I
Introduction to the
Handbook

Purpose

This Handbook is a guide for preparing or updating shoreline master programs
in the State of Washington. Its purpose is to describe the elements, procedures
and practices in preparing shoreline master programs (SNP) in accordance
with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (SMA or the
"Act") and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). To that end, it
contains detailed information and recommendations regarding:

I . The contents and organization of master programs;

2. The process to prepare and submit master programs and amendments to
the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology); and

3. Guidelines, examples and model language for each of the principal sections
typically found in master programs (see Chapters 4-9).

The Shoreline Master Program Handbook represents a compilation of the
"best practices" contained in existing shoreline master programs, but also
incorporates state-of-the-art strategies in shoreline management that have been
developed and refined as a result of practical experience over the past two

Chapter I - Introduction to the Handbook H-1

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

decades. Most master programs were developed and adopted over fifteen 40
years ago, and many cities and counties are now working on amendments to
update their programs and address emerging issues. The Handbook is
designed to provide a comprehensive set of policies and regulations upon
which local jurisdictions can draw in developing future master program
amendments.

This Handbook is a partial fulfillment of Ecology's responsibility to provide
technical assistance to local governments in the implementation of the State
Shoreline Management Act. The Handbook is Volume H of the two-volume
Shoreline Management Guidebook. Volume I is the Shoreline
Administrator's Manual; a tool for the local permit administrator plamer.

History of the SMA

In 1969, the Washington State Supreme Court decided in the case of Wilbur v.
Gallagher (77 Wn 2d 302), commonly known as the "Lake Chelan Case", that
certain activities along shorelines were contrary to the public interest. The
court findings required that the public interest be represented in the proper
forum for determining the use of shoreline properties. The ramifications of this
decision were significant in that developers, environmentalists and other
interested parties began to recognize, although probably for different reasons,
the need for a comprehensive planning and regulatory program for shorelines.

Wilbur v. Gallagher was a case primarily involving property rights. It was
decided at a time of heightened environmental awareness. Federal legislative
comn-dttees were hearing the beginnings of what eventually became the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. "Earth Day" and the concept of
11 spaceship earth" were part of the American scene. "Conservationists" had
become "environmentalists" and some had even gone so far as to call
themselves "ecologists". Whatever the name or concept, concern for fragile
ecological areas became important, along with the rights of property
ownership.

Voters of the state, seeing the failure of the Seacoast Management Bill in the
State legislature, validated an initiative petition commonly titled the "Shoreline
Protection Act". The State legislature, choosing between adoption of the
peoples' initiative petition or its own alternative, passed into law the "Shoreline
Management Act of 1971 ", effective June 1, 197 1, which contained the
provision for both statutes to be deferred to the electorate in the November
1972 election. The election issue required that voters respond to two
questions: (1) Did they favor shoreline management? And (2) which
alternative management program did they prefer9 Most Washington voters

Chapter 1 - Introduction to the Handbook H-2

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

favored both shoreline management and the legislature's alternative by an
approximate 2 to I margin. It is important to keep in m@ind that the SMA was
a response to a peoples' initiative and was ratified by the voters, giving the Act
a populist foundation as well as an environmental justification.

The Act's paramount objectives are to protect and restore the valuable natural
resources that shorelines represent and to plan for and foster all "reasonable
and appropriate uses" that are dependent upon a waterfront location or that
offer opportunities for the public to enjoy the state's shorelines. With this clear
mandate, the provisions of the SMA established a planning and regulatory
program, which is initiated at the local level under state guidance.

This cooperative effort balances local and state-wide interests in the
management and development of shoreline areas by requiring local
governments to plan (via shoreline master programs) and regulate (via permits)
shoreline development. Local government actions are monitored by Ecology,
which approves new or amended SMPs, reviews substantial development
permits and approves conditional use permits and variances (see Figure 1-1).
The master program is essentially a shoreline comprehensive plan with a
distinct environmental orientation applicable to shoreline areas and customized
to local circumstances. Collectively, all the local master programs throughout
the state comprise the State Shoreline Master Program.

Geographic Applications
of the SMA

The Shoreline Management Act covers all shorelines of the state ' including
"shorelines" and "shorelines of state-wide significance" (SSWS). Provisions of
the Act apply to the following geographical shoreline areas (see RCW
90.58.030 (2)):

1 . All marine waters of the state, together with the lands underlying them;

2. Streams and rivers with a mean annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second
(cfs) or more;

3. Lakes and reservoirs larger than 20 acres in area; and

4. Wetlands associated with the above (this is a specific SMA term which
includes related dry upland, shoreland and wetland areas).

Chapter 1 - Introduction to the Handbook H-3

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 1-1. Local and State Responsibilities

Local Government State (Ecology)
Responsibifity ResponsiWity

To administer the SNIA at To insure that the SMA's
the local level. objectives are implemented
statewide.

To perform shoreline To assist local government
0 inventory, analysis and in addressing the full range
planning and public of new and emerging
participation activities in shoreline management
T preparation of the SW. issues (e.g. wetlands,
ocean use activities, public
access, special area
management planning,
etc.)
Cn
To prepare the SMEP and To review and approve
update regularly and sul@mit locally prepared SMT's and
to Ecology for approval. amendments that are
consistent with the Act and

To review all substantial To review all shoreline
@r development conditional substantial development
use and variance permits to permit applications
approve, condition or deny submitted by local
permit applications and to governments, and, to
submit all approved review and d@cide upon
applications to Ecology for shoreline CUP and
review. variance permits.

To enforce the SMA in
To enforce the provisions cooperation with, or
of the local master program independent of, local
within the authority given government.

Chapter I - Introduction to the Handbook H-4

SW Randbook - 1994 Edition

Shoreline Master Programs

The SMA sets up a process for managing development of the state's shorelines
through state-monitored, locally-administered permitting programs. Local
goverrunents are required to prepare a detailed shoreline inventory and a
it shoreline master program" to manage shoreline development. Based upon the
inventory of local shorelines, a system for categorizing various segments is
established through application of shoreline environment designations. The
Act specifies that master programs include policy statements (i.e. the required
11 elements") that take into account econon-dc development, public access,
circulation and transportation, recreation, shoreline use, conservation and
historical and cultural aspects of the shoreline area (RCW 90.58.100 (2)).
From these policy statements, regulations are derived which establish
appropriate permitted uses and standards within each shoreline environment.

Following approval of its master program, local government is required to
administer and enforce a procedure for issuing permits for activities in the
shoreline area. The Act requires local government to take primary
responsibility for initiating and administering the regulatory program. Ecology
is required to support local efforts and to review programs and permits for
consistency with the Act (RCW 90.58.050).

By providing guidance and assistance to local governments in preparing and
updating master programs, this Handbook is an integral part of Ecology's
support mission.

Chapter 1 - Introduction to the Handbook H-5

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

User's Guide to the Handbook

Chapter Format

This Handbook is divided into two parts. Chapters 1-9 address SMP
preparation. Chapters 10- 18 address special topics, for example, public access
and off-site environmental m@itigation.
Chapters 4-8 each cover a specific master program component and are divided
into two sections:

I . Introduction: Describing the purpose, format and special considerations
involved in preparing the applicable master program section.

2. Model Language: Presenting sample provisions for a typical master
program. The model language has been compiled fi7orn several sources and
represents a set of "best practices" related to the topic. The sample
provisions can be customized by the local government for use directly in a
master program. They do not necessarily represent mandatory state-wide
requirements. Their intent is to provide assistance and information rather
than act as a constrictive specification. Chapters 4-9 contain all the
components of a complete SMP.

Throughout the text you will also find:

jl@@' Special Tips

Which answer commonly asked questions or explore special topics in greater
detaiL

Notes to Master Programmers

Which provide additional background information on special topics
concerning the shoreline elements, uses or aclivifies. These are located
throughout the model provisions.

References

The fundamental reference for updating and amending master programs is, of
course, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, RCW 90.58. WAC-173-16,
which contains guidelines for preparing master programs, is also essential for
preparing master programs. You should always work from the most current
edition. Check with Ecology's Shorelands Program for copies of current
RCWs and WACs.

Chapter I - Introduction to the Handbook H-6

SNIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

The Shoreline A&Wnistrator's Manual, Volume I of the Guidebook, discusses
the SNT's legal and historical foundations in greater detail. The Manual
discusses the flip side of shoreline management: permit review and most of the
topics that have relevance to master program implementation. Chapter 19
provides a detailed list of technical references by subject area.

Contacts for Assistance

The Ecology Shorelands Program SW Coordinator should be your first point
of contact for assistance in updating a local SNP (Telephone: (206) 407-
6523).

Chapter I - Introduction to the Handbook H-7

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

50-

CHAPTER 2
SMP Organization

Introduction

Proper organization of a shoreline master program can influence its
coordination with other local regulatory programs and improve its
administration and public understanding. This chapter exam@ines two basic
aspects of program structure: (1) the way components are organized in an
SW and (2) the relationship between SW policies and regulations.
Because it is important that the program be clearly understandable to the
public, the chapter also includes a section describing tools to aid public
understanding of shoreline master programs.

Chapter 2 - SNIT Organization H-8

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

SMP Components

Shoreline master programs contain the following:

A. Introduction

I . The history and objectives of shoreline management in
Washington State;

2. The legislative and legal framework and applicability of
shoreline master programs (see the Shoreline Administrator's
Manual);

3. The relationship of the shoreline master program to other
regulatory programs; and

4. How to use the SMP, including a guide to processes and
concepts involve'd with shoreline management and an
organizational outline of the document (see Figure 2-1).

B. Goals

The goals are the broadest principals that establish the intent behind
the policies and regulations contained in the SNIP. Goals are
organized into the following "Master Program Elements" as
directed in WAC 173-16-040.

1. Shoreline Use Element;

2. Economic Element;

3. Circulation Element;

4. Conservation Element;

5. Public Access Element;

6. Recreational Element;

7. Historic/Cultural Element; and

8. Other Elements: as added by local governments (e.g. Growth
Management Planning, Community Redevelopment, Education,
Public Trust Elements).

Chapter 2 - SNIEP Organization H-9

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

C. General Policies and Regulations

This section includes specific policies and regulations for shoreline
management topics which apply equally in all environment
designations such as public access, view protection, parking, water
quality, utilities, signs, stormwater runoff, erosion, vegetation
management, shoreline modification and wetland preservation.
This is also a good location for policies related to Shorelines of
State-wide Significance. Experience with contested permits
indicates that regulations must flow directly from policies, hence a
general policies section is also included in our example.

Special Tip

Generalpolicies and regulations cover the most hasic shoreline
management issues and a hroad range of shoreline conditions. Yhe
generalpolicies and regulations are applicahle to most governmental
jurisdictions throughout the state. Recent experience indicates that use of
general regulations makes master programs simpler hy reducing
redundancy and hulk in the text resulting in a more accessihle SMP that is
easier to administer. Therefore, this handbook encourages master
programs to contain strong general policies and regulations and includes
model languagefor these generic components.

e
@` "A' -

Chapter 2 - SNEP Organization H-10

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 2-1. SMY Elements and Processes

How Developed Section/Contents How Used
Written by local governments. A good Goals Primarfly as a foundation for the
vehicle for citizen involvement Broadest policy contained in the SNIP policies and regulations in other
Interprets state-%vide objectives in local elements" categories. Provides basis for sections. Recommendations for other
terms. all other policies and regulations. Also local actions could be used to coordinate
could include recommendations for other other local government efforts consistent
actions (e.g. biostudies, civic development, with the SNIP.
park acquisition) outside the typical scope
of SNIP administration.

Local application of state guidelines. General Policies & Regulations A useful place to locate regulations and
Should be relatively consistent Provisions that apply to all environments, avoid repetition of similar regulations in
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. uses or activities including public access, several use or environment categories.
water quality, wetland protection, utilities, This may be the last place a permit
signs, etc. applicant will look so must be cross-
referenced to specific use and activity
regulations.

Since this section is most responsive to Environment Designation Policies & This section will occupy the bulk of the
local conditions, it is the best way to Regulations planning effort during SNIP update. It
integrate SNIP into local planning %vill be used by local governments as a
efforts and address issues such as; public 1. Description of environment comprehensive shoreline development
access planning, waterfi-ont designations and criteria for and regulatory tool. Permit applicants
redevelopment and protection of specific classif@,ing shorelines. will turn here fast to detem-dne what
habitats. This section, developed by can be done on their property. There is
local governments, evolves from 2. Policies and regulations for each a chance for confusion with zoning
comprehensive land use and shoreline designation based on location, ordinance.
planning. physical and design objectives.
3. Shoreline environment maps and Note: Uses permitted in each
Local government establishes descriptions establishes geographic environment must be consistent with the
environment designations based upon extent of environment designations. stated purpose of each environment
shcreline inventory and WAC
designation criteria.
Used by local governments to identify
applicable environment designations for
specific shoreline locations.

State provides guidelines and local Shoreline Use Policies & Regulations Once applicant detennines environment
jurisdictions custon-dze. Development guidelines and standards for specific regulations regarding use,
specific uses (e.g. marinas, industry, etc.) shc/he will turn to use regulations to
identify specific standards for that
particular use.

State provides guidelines and local Shoreline Modification Activity Policies Applicant must check this to see that
governments customize. Especially & Regulations proposed construction conforms. Deals
important to coordinate with other Development guidelines/standards for primarily with construction issues.
agency regulations (e.g. Corps, Wildlife, construction activities in preparation of or
Fisheries, etc.). supporting a shoreline use.

State provides guidelines consistent with Permit Adndnistration Used primarily by local shoreline
legal requirements of the SNIA/WAC. Addresses the detai Is of shoreline administrator to identify the step-by-step
management implementation. process for processing all shoreline
permits, appeals, enforcement actions
and SNIP amendments.

Local government establishes Shoreline En%ironment Maps and Used by local governments to identify
environment designations based upon Descriptions applicable environment designations for
shoreline inventory and WAC Establishes geographic extent of specific shoreline locations.
designation enteria. environment designation.

Chapter 2 - SMEP Organization H-11

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

D. Policies and Regulations for Specific
Environment Designations

WAC-173-16-040 (4) calls for classifying shorelines into specific
11 environment designations" based on the shorelines physical,
biological and development characteristics. The WAC recommends
four basic environment classifications including "natural",
of conservancy", "rural" and "urban" categories, but many local
governments have added additional classifications to this list.
Policies and regulations are developed for each designation,
reflecting the specific purpose and intent of each environment and
responding to its specific conditions. Environment designation
regulations can, for example, establish standards for:

1. Locations where water-dependent, water-related, water-
enjoyment uses and non-water-oriented uses are
pertnitted/prohibited,

2. Shoreline setbacks, over-water construction and building height
standard specific to each designation;

3. Locations where mixed-use developments are either encouraged
or prohibited; and

4. Protection of environmentally sensitive areas.

Environment-specific regulations are commonly placed in a
series of matrices or charts indicating the use/activity
development standard. These matrices often become the most
referred to part of the SN1P document and are encouraged.
Where necessary, the matrices refer to specific regulations in
the SN4P text that state the requirement in greater detail.

E. Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations

Development regulations supported by related policies for specific
shoreline "use" categories such as agriculture, aquaculture, mining,
commercial, industrial, recreation and marinas are included in this
chapter. A shoreline "use" is defined as the "end" to which a land
or water area is ultimately employed.

Chapter 2 - SMP Organization H-12

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

F. Shoreline Modification Activity Policies
and Regulations

.Shoreline modification "activities" are considered by WAC 173-16-
060 as "use activities" although for management purposes we have
separated them. They include dredging, landfill, piers, bulkheads,
etc. Shoreline modification activities are usually preliminary
construction actions undertaken in preparation for, or in support of,
a shoreline use and should not be granted a permit unless a "use" is
specified.

There are several advantages of distinguishing "use" from
flactivity". One is that a single use, such as a marina, may require
several activities, such as pier and breakwater construction,
dredging, grading, etc. Also a single activity may be a part of
developing a variety of uses. However, for legal purposes, such as
conditional use and variance, "uses" and "activities" are treated
together as "uses" (e.g. a prohibited "activity" could not be granted
a variance or conditional use pern-iit). What must be kept in mind is
that the distinction is also important because a permit should not be
granted for a modification activity unless a use is specified. For
example, dredging may be perm=itted as necessary to develop a
berthing pier but not in preparation for an inappropriate dump site.
Shoreline modification activity regulations generally deal with
construction impacts whereas use regulations typically address
longer term shoreline management issues.

G. Program Administration

Establishes adn-iinistrative procedures and responsibilities of all
involved including:

1. Applicability;

2. Permit application requirements and process;

3. Local appeal and interpretations-,

4. Enforcement- and

5. Process for updating/revi sing SNIP.

Chapter 2 - SNIP Organization H-13

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition
is H. Definition of Terms

Refer to glossary at the end of this document.

1. Technical References

An optional but helpful section is a list of references pertaining to
each category addressed in the Handbook for use by those seeking
additional technical information.

I Personnel Contacts

Another helpful piece of information is a list of state and federal
agencies that are involved in some capacity concerning the
management of state shorelines.

K. Environment Designation Maps and
Descriptions

These maps should be recognized as a major component of every
SUT.

I . Shoreline Environment Designation Map(s) showing geographic
extent of environment designations; and

2. Common boundary descriptions for each environment
designation indicating the border where each designation begins
and ends.

Chapter 2 - SAIEP Organization H-14

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition
The Relationship Between Goals, 40
Policies and Regulations

For the purpose of this Handbook, "goals" mean the broadest expression
of community desires consistent with the SMA. A "policy" is a
commitment to act in a prescribed manner in the administration of the
master program. Most policy statements use the verb form "should" to
indicate the principal to be upheld in making a decision and that the policy
direction itself will require interpretive judgment in applying it to a specific
case. A "regulation" is an authoritative rule dealing with the specifics of
a use or physical standard. Regulations are specific, as definitive as
possible, and generally use the verb form "shall" to indicate that the
statement must be conformed to. The term "provision" is used in this
Handbook to include goals, policies and regulations. Shoreline master
programs include goals, policies and regulations relating to development in
shoreline areas (see Figure 2-2).

Goals are the broadest value statements and
Goals recom ndations organized into SMP
"Elements" and placed in their own chapter.

Policies are the bridge between goals and
regulations, translating the general into the
specific.

Since policies are useful in interpreting the
Policies intent of regulations, they should be located
in the same section as the regulation.

Regulations are specific, enforceable controls
and standards for shoreline development.
REGULATIO They are organized into general regulations,
environment designation regulations
(optional), use regulations and shoreline
modification activity regulations.

Figure 2-2. The Organization of SW Goals, Policies and Regulations
@Policies

Chapter 2 - SNIP Organization H-15

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Legally, the entire SMP is adopted by Ecology as a planning and regulatory
program and incorporated in the WACs. In practice, however, the SMP
policies are adhered to with more flexibility than the use regulations in the
review of development proposals at the local and state level. Most
jurisdictions use the f6gulations as the primary standards against which all
development proposals are evaluated. The policies form the umbrella
framework under which the regulations were originally developed and are
now used to help interpret, give support to or explain the regulations. It is
important to keep in-mind that the mandate of the SMA is to implement
adopted shoreline policy.

An underlying issue in the organization of a master program is whether to
compile all the policy statements into a discrete section of policies or to
include relevant policies as an introduction to each of the regulation
sections. In the past, some jurisdictions have placed all the policies in a
single section and organized them into the required master program
"elements." However, practice has shown that separating the policies from
the regulations has reduced their practical linkage and effectiveness in
providing guidance to the interpretation and implementation of specific
regulations. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that policies specific to
general use, activity or environment designation regulations be included in
each of those sections. This leaves the Goals section to address the most
general objectives related to shoreline master program elements as
applicable to the particular jurisdiction. The specific policies then become
the bridge between goals (elements) and the regulations, and can be located
in the section which makes the connection between policy direction and
implementing regulation most apparent and effective.

Special Tips for Writing
SMP Provisions

1. Use the verb form "should" in policy statements to indicate intent and
provide direction while at the same time allowing needed administrative
flexibility.

2. Use the verb form "shall" when stating mandatory regulations.

3. Use the term "may be permitted" or "may be allowed" when describing
a use or modification activity that could be permitted subject to and
complying with the SMP provisions (e.g. marinas may be permitted in
the Urban environment designation). This provides the jurisdiction the
expressed discretion of approving, approving with conditions or
denying proposals.

Chapter 2 - SW Organization H-16

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. Use the verb form "will" when i ribing an administrative action taken
by the government (e.g. the citN I review the submittal and approve
or deny the permit application;

5. Use the term "prohibited" whei -_--.,,ribing a use, activity or condition
that is not permitted under any .,.mstance. This is very important,
because a "prohibited" use cap , granted a variance or conditional
use process. WAC 173-14-14 '@s that a conditional use permit
shall not be granted for a use V .5 specifically prohibited. The
various sections of a master py. '.i applied during the review of a
project should not conflict aw" ...en the intent of the WAC so that
If not permitted" may be giver, ierall connotation of "not usually
permitted", thus opening the -Wity of applying the conditional use.
iL 1i;
The lack of a specific prohib tion aiso fuels the confusion. The bottom
fine is, state the use as "is prohibited" if you want to insure that the
prohibition will stand up.

6. Wherever possible, cross-reference interrelated general use,
environment designation and modification activity regulations so it is
clear that all apply. This will make administration easier and the
document more user-ftiendly.

7. Use the general term "shoreline permit" if the referenced provisions
could apply to a substantial development, variance or conditional use
permit, or any combination thereof

8. Often, a large maritime industrial or commercial activity will require
non-water-oriented uses such as parking or office and warehouse
space. Unless some accessory use provision is included in the master
program, these support activities will be difficult to regulate. At the
same time, the definition of an accessory use must not be so broad as to
allow uses that are not subordinate to and supportive of the primary use
or else unintended uses could be permitted on the shoreline as
accessory uses. Thus, an accessory use should be defined as follows:

Accessory Use: A use that is demonstrably subordinate and incidental
to the principal use and whichfunctionally supports its activity.

Chapter 2 - SW Organization H-17

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 3
SMP Amendment
Process

Introduction

Generally speaking, amending (updating) a local shoreline master program
(SNT) involves a two-step process (see Figure 3-1):

Step I Preparation of amendments for review and approval at the
local level (WAC 173-19-060 and -061).

Note: A "draft" ofproposed amendments must be sent to
Ecologyfor review and comment before local action is
taken.

Step 2 Transmittal of the locally approved amendments to Ecology
who must then review and process the proposals (WAC 173-
19-062(4)), and where consistent with the SMA, adopt them.

Note: All masterprogram amendments must be reviewed
and adopted by Ecology in order to become effective.

Chapter 3 - SMEP Amendment Process H-18

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 3-1. SMY Amendment Process

Process to Amend
Shoreline Master Programs

[7Form. Citizens Advisory Committee

Perform technical and public participation
tasks necessary to develop SMP
amendments (see process described
below in Step 1)
Ecology review &
10 comment on "Draft"
before it goes public
Advertise public hearing
(3 consecutive weeks)

Hold public hearing

F Local government decision

Apply to Ecology
F (see application requirements)
06.

Ecology Review
F (requires 3-5 months)
-1 --
ECOLOGY ADOPTION
SMP amendments take effect

Chapter 3 - SMIP Amendment Process H-19

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Step 2, Ecology review, will take at a minimum between three to five months
for additional state agency, Ecological Commission and public involvement.
The SMA and implementing WACs place specific procedural requirements on
amending master programs including:

1. Public involvement requirements at the local and state level;

2. Coordination with adjacent jurisdictions;

3. Coordination with applicable state agencies, Native American nations,
federal agencies, etc.; and

4. Technical requirements for modifying specific master program sections.
(For example, the requirements for justifying changes in environment
designation boundaries are called out in WAC 173-16-040(4).)

Because shorelines are a limited resource, they attract a lot of attention, and
local and state-wide interests can certainly differ. Even minor changes in an
SW can be complicated by a backdrop of comprehensive issues. Protection
of the natural environment, optional use of shoreline resources, the desire for
public access and other civic goals are not always congruent. Sometimes a
change in one SNIP provision will trigger a necessary change in another
provision. The bottom line is that many shoreline management issues are
complicated.

There are three basic levels of SNIP updates.

1. Selective Text Amendments

Selective text amendments focus on changing a use or modifying specific
shoreline policies and regulations or administrative provisions. This type of
amendment usually does not require the comprehensive planning process,
nor the environment designation change justification of the other two
processes below. However, the proposed amendments must meet the
requirements listed on the "Checklist for Submittal of SNIP Amendments
(WAC 173-19-062)" in its most current form. A sample of the current
checklist is included at the end of this chapter. An example of a selective
text amendment would be a proposed change in the Piers and Docks
provisions of the SM[P.

2. Changes in Environment Designations or Boundaries (i.e.
environment map changes)

Amendments which propose a change to an environment designation
boundary require special scrutiny because they represent a fundamental
change in the shoreline management system as locally applied. This type of
amendment is often instigated by individual development proposals and can

Chapter 3 - SMIP Amendment Process H-20

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

result in "spot redesignation" of a shoreline and a general erosion of
shoreline resource planning and protection standards. Therefore it is
critical that these proposed SMT modifications be supported by a
comprehensive written justification for the redesignation. These should
address at a minimum, the three criteria in WAC 173-16-040(4), including:

1. The biophysical capabilities and limitations of the shoreline;

2. The existing development pattern in the area; and

3. The goals and aspirations of the local citizenry.

Special Tip

If the area in question is a shoreline of state-wide significance, additional
criteria apply; namely that priority should be given to thefollowing values in
descending order of preference:

1. Recognize andprotect 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 Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58. 100 deemed
appropriate or necessary.
(See Chapter 5for more information on shorelines of state-wide sjgn@ficance).

Chapter 6 discusses the process to establish or revise environment
designations. In addition, all of the requirements in the "Checklist for
Submittal of SNP Amendments (WAC-19-062)" apply (see the sample
checklist at the end of this chapter).

3. Comprehensive SMP Update

The process to update a master program on a comprehensive basis is
presented below. Since even the easiest SNV amendment involves
extensive local and state review, it is often preferable to prepare a single
comprehensive update rather than several amendments over time.

Chapter 3 - SMT Amendment Process H-21

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Special Tip

The comprehensive process outlined below may seem particularly lengthy.
This is because our discussion is intended to accountfor a wide variety of
conditions and to assist in developing a scope of work in which all of the steps
are clearly defined Local governments mayfind that they do not require all
of the steps listed in the process or that some of the comprehensive planning
tasks have already been accomplished in other steps.

The procedural model below and associated descriptions are presented as a
guide rather than a recipe. However, there are certain steps of the process
(e.g. public participation) which are required by law. Procedural
requirements are referenced in the description for your convenience. Consult
with Ecology Shorelands staff regarding the appropriate process.

Comprehensive SMP
Amendment Process

Shoreline master programs are not designed as static documents. Conditions
change and new objectives emerge that require master program updates.
However, updating a master program on a piecemeal, issue-by-issue basis is
not efficient because such an approach does not consider shoreline resources in
a comprehensive manner. Therefore, it is recommended that local
governments initiate a comprehensive update of their master programs when:

I . Problems in adm@inistering the current master program arise frequently or if
current master program regulations are not meeting stated goals.

2. Changes have occurred in the physical, economic or social environment
that are not considered in a current master program.

3. Amendments are required to bring the master program into compliance
with state-wide environmental standards or procedures.

4. New planning issues (e.g. Growth Management Act requirements) or civic
objectives arise that can be addressed through shoreline management.

5. Annexation has occurred and added new shoreline area (WAC 173-19-
044).

Chapter 3 - SMIP Amendment Process H-22

SNIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

In recent years, many governments have updated their ofiginal master
programs. These experiences have resulted in a set of suggested procedures
that have proven effective in updating local master programs. The steps in the
process outlined below are intended as a general guideline to be adapted to
local conditions and needs.

One benefit of comprehensively updating a master program is that it offers an
opportunity to incorporate Ecology guidelines into the updated program.
Since these guidelines are based on similar regulations that have proven
effective in other jurisdictions or incorporate other environmental regulatory
standards, they can provide a useful starting point. Their use can simplify
master programs and result in regulations that are easier to administer, that
comply with state requirements and that are congruent with those of other
regulatory agencies. Use of Ecology guidelines and models also typically
speed the amendment review approval process, since they represent acceptable
standards.

Comprehensive updating of a master program also offers the opportunity for
shoreline planning. Since the strong environmental regulations mandated
through the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 are based on both enabling
legislation powers and the public trust doctrine, master programs can be a
planning enforcement tool to direct shoreline use, implement public access
plans, encourage redevelopment, promote maritime industries and upgrade the is
environmental, visual and functional qualities of a local waterfront.

Also, a comprehensive SMP approach makes it easier to coordinate with
Growth Management Act requirements and incorporate public participation.
These two critical topics are discussed prior to the step-by-step SMP
amendment process outline.

Shoreline Management and Growth
Management

The Growth Management Act (GMA) has fundamentally changed the focus of
environmental protection in Washington State. It both empowers and requires
local governments to incorporate environmental protection into their decisions.
At the same time, the GMA did not repeal any preexisting environmental
legislation. The SMA, for example, remains unchanged and is still in full force
and effect. This means that local and state government must closely coordinate
implementation of the two laws. Fortunately, the two laws are quite
compatible.

Chapter 3 - SMT Amendment Process H-23

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

The GMA requires local comprehensive plans and adoption of "development
regulations". Similarly, the SNIA is a program that involves both
comprehensive planning and implementation functions through use regulations.
GMA-required comprehensive plan elements are similar in many cases to
SMA-required shoreline master program elements. The goals relating to
environmental protection are similar, particularly as related to public access,
recreation and open space. Many of the environmental resources addressed in
the SMA and its guidelines are also addressed in Growth Management as
critical areas" and natural resource lands.

The SMA focuses on shorelines, with jurisdiction limited to certain water areas
and adjacent shorelines. The SMA applies to all cities and counties with
shorelines of the state within their boundaries.

Shorelines and other water resources must be managed for a variety of industrial,
agricultural, commercial, recreational and environmental purposes.

Chapter 3 - SMY Amendment Process H-24

SAIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shoreline master programs (implementing the SMA) must receive state review
and approval before becoming effective and are adopted as state rule (WAC).
Certain shoreline permits require state approval, penalties are provided and the
State Shorelines Hearings Board hears appeals.

The GMA is broader; is limited to "growth" and "opting-in" counties and cities
(except that critical area protections apply to all); and local comprehensive
plans are "presumed valid" and do not require state approval. Sanctions for
GMA noncompliance now exist and appeals can be filed with regional growth
planning hearings boards.

Relationship Between Comprehensive Plans and
SMPs

A local government comprehensive plan contains a jurisdiction's vision of its
future. Local governments need to include the state perspective in this vision.
The state perspective is reflected in the GMA's comprehensive planning goals
found in RCW 36.70A.020. For local governments with shoreline areas within
their jurisdiction, the local vision should also consider and incorporate the
policies of the SMA (RCW 90.58.020).

Involvement of state agency staff is encouraged early on in the local planning
process - prior to SEPA review would be the ideal. One of the principal tenets
of the GMA is that local government decisions should be made with fall
knowledge of the consequences, addressing not only fiscal constraints but also
the environmental consequences. This presents an opportunity for Ecology to
share its expertise and available information with local planners and decision
makers. In so doing, appropriate and informed decisions will be made and
conflicts can be avoided.

A jurisdiction's vision in the comprehensive plan must be reflected in local
plans and implementing regulations. This includes local shoreline master
programs. Ecology encourages local governments to amend their SNTs so
they are consistent with their comprehensive plans. Of course, proposed
amendments to the local SNT cannot be approved unless they are consistent
with SMA policies, guidelines and regulations.

Local governments should incorporate shoreline policies and issues in their
comprehensive planning process. The extent to which shorelines policies and
issues are incorporated depends on the jurisdiction and the extent and character
of shoreline resources in the area. The key to effectively incorporating
shoreline issues is to include them as an integral part of the planning process,
rather than adding them on at the end.

Chapter 3 - SNIEP Amendment Process H-25

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

SMA Policy Fundamentals

Local governments will undoubtedly use a number of methods to consider
shorelines issues and concerns in the planning process. Shoreline areas and
resources can be included in GMA-required inventories of critical areas and
resource lands. Shoreline policies can also be incorporated into the
comprehensive planning analysis of trends and opportunities. For example,
changes on the waterfront from industrial to commercial use may create
opportunities for shoreline redevelopment and increased public access.
Shoreline factors can also be included in land capability and suitability analyses.
Existing shoreline master program environment designations, floodplains,
access to deep water shipping channels, fish and wildlife habitat and riparian
vegetation should be addressed in planning suitability analyses.

And of course, consultation with Ecology on draft plans and implementing
regulations is encouraged. This peer review dan help local governments
address potential problems before adoption.

This will also make it easier for local governments to amend their SN1Ps to
make them consistent with newly adopted comprehensive plans because
Ecology will have had the opportunity to identify and resolve any problems
during the comprehensive planning process.

Shoreline related policies and issues to incorporate into GNIA-mandated
comprehensive planning can, where applicable, include:

� Reserving appropriate shoreline areas for water-dependent, water-
related and water-enjoyment uses;

� Protecting the character and resources of natural, conservancy and
rural shoreline environments;

� Protecting the productive capacity and resource values of urban and
suburban environments,

� Protecting shoreline wildlife sanctuaries and sensitive habitat areas
(including kelp and eel grass beds),

� Protecting shoreline visual assets and physical access to the water,
consistent with SMA and Public Trust Doctrine principles;

� Encouraging use and densities on adjacent lands that reinforce the
policies of the SNIA and local master programs-,

0 Planning for public utilities and transportation facilities so they
reinforce shoreline environment designations;

Chapter 3 - SW Amendment Process H-26

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

� Considering river basin plans and the maintenance and restoration of
riparian vegetation in shoreline areas and on tributary streams which
affect shoreline resources;

� Considering state and federal wetland protection policies in shoreline
areas and adjacent lands;

� Considering coastal hazards and the impacts of vertical land movement
and sea level rise on coastal resources;

� Considering state and federal floodplain policies in shoreline areas and
adjacent lands (including Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management
Plans);

� Considering land clearing, soil disturbance and nonpoint runoff control
measures affecting water quality in shoreline areas and adjacent lands-,

� Considering applicable stormwater regulations and surface and ground
water cumulative impacts as they affect shoreline resources;

� Encouraging revitalization/restoration of blighted and degraded urban
waterfronts consistent with SMA policy; and finally

� The use of preferences of designated shorelines of state-wide
significance (RCW 90.58,020), recognizing state-wide interests, long-
term over short-term benefits, preservation of natural shoreline
character and increased public access to such shorelines.

In light of the above, one can conclude that there is considerably more to
shoreline management than protection of critical areas. There are state-wide
concerns of preserving our finite shoreline areas for uses that must locate there,
maintaining or restoring the natural character of such resources, increasing
public access and general environmental protection. These shoreline issues and
concerns require specific attention in the local comprehensive planning process.

Each local SMP is a complete shoreline management "program" (i.e. more than
just a "plan"). Each master program consists not only of shoreline policies and
implementing regulations, but also an administrative (shoreline permitting)
component. Most local jurisdictions will want this pern-dt administration
component (with related shoreline regulations and development standards) to
be consistent with its other local planning policies and approaches. Many local
SMPs are currently out of date and may not be consistent with renewed local
visions. As a result, many local SMPs will need updating as an indirect
consequence of GMA planning mandates.

Chapter 3 - SNIP Amendment Process H-27

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Integrating Comprehensive Plans,
Development Regulations and SMPs

Local governments in Washington State have twenty years experience
integrating comprehensive plans and shoreline master programs. Some
approaches have worked better than others. Alternative approaches include,
but are not limited to:

I .Treating SMPs as special area plans and special area regulations;

2. Including a shorelines sub-element in the Conservation (or other) Element
of the local Comprehensive Plan;

3. Adopting a "development ordinance" with chapters which contain the
SMP;

4. Including SMP provisions, applicable Comprehensive Plan provisions and
Development Regulations in a single document for a limited geographic
area;

5. Including a nonregulatory overlay in the Comprehensive Plan or
Development Regulations;

6. Integrating Sensitive Area Regulations with SMPs;

7. Centralizing or integrating permlit services-,

8. Simultaneous review of multiple permits; and

9. Combining public hearings.

These and other approaches are discussed in detail in an Ecology technical
assistance paper prepared by Tim Trohimovich, AICP, titled Integrating
Growth Management with Shorelines Management: Local Options
(Washington State Department of Ecology, November 199 1). This is included
in its entirety in the Guidebook as Appendix A.

The process to update SMPs described in the following section indicates
where special attention should be given to integrating shoreline concerns within
local comprehensive plans.

Public Participation

Any master program amendment must incorporate public input and
coordination with public agencies. The Shoreline Management Act states that
all people should have an opportunity for involvement in the development and

Chapter 3 - SMEP Amendment Process H-28

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

implementation of SNIPs and that Ecology and local governments shall actively
encourage participation by the public and federal, state and local agencies
(RCW 90.58.130).

WAC 173-16-040 suggests a process to comply with the SMA!s public
participation requirement consisting of the following actions:

1. Appoint a citizens advisory committee to guide the master program
formulation-,

2. Hold at least 3 public meetings during the draft SNT development and
environment designation process. Public notice should be given 7 days
before each meeting and a record should be kept of the proceedings. The
final meeting should be at least 7 days prior to the required public
hearing;

3. Notice of public hearing must appear in a newspaper of general circulation
in the area in each of the three weeks preceding the hearing date (WAC
173-19-061(2));

4. Publish a newsletter to explain the process and publicize meeting times and
locations;

5. Publicize the mast er program update effort through radio and local news
media.

The procedures detailed in the WAC have generally been found to be effective
in building a consensus on shoreline management issues if representatives from
a broad spectrum of civic groups and interests are included. The number of
meetings and public notification steps may vary depending on the size of the
community and complexity of issues and necessary techniques for coordinating
with GMA requirements.

Step I - Local Process

As noted earlier, updating a master program is a two-step process. The first
step involves the development of new SNV provisions and approval by the
local government prior to subrnitting it to Ecology.

There are three broad categories of tasks in writing master program
amendments:

1. Setting or revising goals and general policies that serve as a foundation for
specific regulations and standards.

Chapter 3 - SMT Amendment Process H-29

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. Developing general, use and shoreline modification activity policies and
regulations from state standards. This process is facilitated by adapting
state guidelines for these regulations to fit local conditions.

3. Classifying various sections of the shoreline into environment designations
and setting environment specific regulations for each designation. This
effort requires comprehensive shoreline planning as it sets standards for
shoreline use, height, bulk, environmental protection, site design and other
issues for specific sections of the shoreline. This category of tasks is often
the most difficult technically, but it offers the opportunity for communities
to "fine tune" their master programs to do such things as protect special
resources, coordinate redevelopment activities or promote maritime
industries in special districts.

There are ten separate tasks involved in Step 1 of updating a master program.
The following numbered tasks describe the process that local governments are
responsible for.

Task 1: Form a Citizens Advisory Committee

As stated earlier, WAC 173-16 recommends that local government form a
citizen advisory committee (CAC) to provide a forum to discuss shoreline
management issues, set goals, review technical work and propose regulations
and to promote communication with the general public concerning shoreline
management issues.

The first meeting of the CAC should be used to introduce committee and staff
members, outline the purpose, process and responsibilities of the committee
and review issues needing attention.

Following are some tips and suggestions for selecting a committee, establishing
procedures, starting the process, building a working consensus and involving
the public.

Selecting a Committee

� Committee members should represent a cross section of interest groups
and public values. However, all committee members should have
experience in working toward consensus. "Radicals" or "extremists"
who cannot work in a group setting should be passed over for
individuals with similar values who can develop constructive solutions
to satisfy opposing interests.

� Search for members who are committed to participating on the
committee, not just those who are available.

Chapter 3 - SMIP Amendment Process H-30

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

� The comn-dttee should be limited to no more than about a dozen
members unless there is an overriding circumstance. Larger groups can
be unwieldy and prevent efficient work.

� The committee chair should remain neutral and not represent a
particular group or interest. When there is a conflict it should be the
chair's primary task to direct the process and arrive at consensus.

Establishing Committee Rules and Procedures

� It is very important to clearly describe the committee's authority,
responsibilities and work procedures. Generally, the committee will be
advisory to the planning commission, governmental councd or other
decision making body. Clarify what the committee's tasks will be. (i.e.
Will the committee actually help prepare the provisions or will they
review and approve or reject stafrs language? Will they be given
alternate provisions to choose between?) The committee's authority
and responsibilities should be prepared in writing and should be
indicated in the initial letter of invitation to prospective members.

� Set a standard meeting time and place for committee meetings. That
way all members can more easily adjust their schedules. Begin and end
the meetings on time.

� Discuss a long-term schedule, with the understanding that the process
may take much longer. Since turnover can be expected, discuss how
replacements will be selected.

� Determine a decision making process. Is consensus required? What
constitutes a consensus?

� Keep at least informal minutes of the meetings.

� Determine what will happen to the committee after the SNM is
adopted. Unless there are specific tasks for the committee after
adoption, it is recommended that the committee be disbanded. On the
other hand, there have been instances where CACs have evolved into
active, ongoing committees. These assist in substantial development
permit review, shoreline program implementation and public access
improvement programs.

� Determine whether or not other citizens may take part in committee
meetings. Although allowing all citizens to observe meetings is
important, opening the discussion to the general public can be very
distracting and prevent progress. It is recommended that outside
participation during the meeting be limited, by allowing input in writing

Chapter 3 - SMIP Amendment Process H-31

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

or by invitation or appointment only, or by setting a specific time in the
meeting for public comment.

Starting up the Process

� A tour of the shoreline, especially a boat tour, is an ideal way to give
the committee members a familiarity with the waterfront.

� It also can be useful to have "guest experts" such as port officials,
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife staff, Ecology staff dealing with
special issues, maritime economists, etc. address the committee to
provide background information.

� Other committees have found the Shoreline Management Guidebook
(or selected excerpts) a useful introduction to the work before them.
Copies of the Guidebook are available from the Department of Ecology
Shorelands Program.

Decision Making
The real key is to avoid a split committee vote. Each difficult issue must be
tackled in a way that looks for a solution satisfactory to all interests. Such a
solution is not necessarily a compromise, but rather a "solution" to a complex
problem. Ideally a corrin-iittee should act as a team that considers all objectives.
The win-win negotiating technique described by Roger Fisher and WiUiarn Ury
in the book, Getting to Yes, provides a good model for solving potentially
difficult conflicts. The approach features the following four elements in
arriving at a fair solution to a conflict.

1. Separate people ftom the problem.

Emotions often get in the way of solving conflicts. Hopefully, this will not
be as big a problem in a conunittee setting as it is in negotiation, but
personalities can arise and suspicion between different parties can Emit a
committee's effectiveness. Fisher and Ury suggest several methods for
dealing with emotions, including acknowledging both sides' perceptions
and prejudices, not responding to emotional outbursts and using effective
communication methods. The key is to build personal working
relationships so all participants can work together to solve a problem,
rather than create a conflict in which each side tries to win. Opportunities
to meet informally, such as during a shoreline tour, help strengthen a
working relationship.

2. Focus on interests rather than positions. (Describe what each party
wants, not what they demand.)

Chapter 3 - SNT Amendment Process H-32

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

A position is a statement or demand. An interest is a desire, a motivation
or a concern. "I don't want any public access in the industrial waterfront"
is a position. "I want to make sure that the safe, efficient operation of
industrial activities is not diminished by public access improvements" is an
interest. Focusing on interests rather than positions allows both sides to
explore areas of compatible interests and to attack the problem rather than
each others objectives.

3. Explore optionsfor mutual gain.

Searching for creative solutions is preferable to simply trying to
compromise. Staff members can assist in this effort by proposing the
solutions that optimize all interests. Usually in SNV planning, or any other
type of planning, for that matter, there are a number of ways to satisfy
several interests. For example, in the case of a conflict between industrial
operators and public access advocates, there are several ways to promote
both objectives, including: 1) develop plans for public access features that
do not impede industrial activities, 2) include an SNT provision that
describes how to decide when public access is inappropriate or 3) describe
expficitly where public access is not required, allowing off-site public
access mitigation according to a specified plan.

4. Use objective criteria to make a decision.

Resolving the issue ultimately means arriving at a decision that may not
please everyone. Before taking a potentially divisive vote, the committee
should evaluate all options with respect to objective criteria. In this case,
the criteria should obviously be the Goals and Objectives set out in the
Elements section. The preferred solution should be in conforinance with
the SMA and, if applicable, the priorities set for shorelines of state-wide
significance.

Getting to Yes develops these principles in detail and presents many useful
techniques for their implementation. The book is strongly recommended.

Special Tip

Major issues should be resolved locally to the maximum extent possible. Keep
in mind that locally unresolved or contentious issues will likely surface at the
state level as well.

The Nurturing of a Committee
This is most important. Remember that committee members are providing an
invaluable and difficult serv ice, and recognition of their work is important.
Each committee member deserves his or her viewpoint to be considered by the

Chapter 3 - SMIP Amendment Process H-33

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

other members and the staff. The greatest reward is knowing that they are
making an important contribution. Keeping the committee on track in meeting
objectives, verifying role(s) and reviewing performance occasionally will
enhance this feeling.

Public Outreach Program

Public participation during the entire planning process is essential. Several
optional public outreach techniques are discussed below,

� In some cases, distributing a mail-in or telephone survey early in the
process to determine public opinion on shoreline management issues
can be added. This optional step can provide a gauge of the public
values useful in formulating goals and evaluating possible regulations.

� Another public outreach effort to both publicize the master program
update and to elicit citizen participation is an open house forum. Such
a forum is especially useful if sponsored and attended by the CAC,
because it provides the opportunity to directly discuss issues at the
project's outset.

� Two formats for beginning a planning process have proven effective in
open houses. The first is the traditional public presentation to the
complete group followed by a period where the large group is divided
into smaller groups (six to twelve individuals) that discuss issues,
problems and goals. These small group exercises are most effective
when they are structured with specific work sheets, instructions and/or
questions to discuss. Obviously, this open house format requires
thoughtful preparation.

� A second open house format is the informal "drop-in" center at which
individuals are invited to attend any time during an advertised 2 to 4
hour period. Staff persons and/or CAC members are available to
explain the upcoming process and discuss the project informally. It is
often useful to display presentation graphics explaining key concepts,
jurisdictional boundaries, etc. The use of a survey questionnaire form
that provides space for general comments assists participants in
expressing their concerns and values. These forms can be collected and
tabulated to provide an index of participant comments.

The advantage of the drop-in format is that it allows individual
exchange of information in a relaxed setting. On the other hand, the
presentation/group exercise format promotes the exchange of
viewpoints and forces participants to recognize the wide range of issues
and trade-offs involved with shoreline management.

Chapter 3 - SW Amendment Process H-34

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Special Tip

A list of "interestedpersons"' names and addresses that participated in the
process should be maintained so that they can be kept informed through the
local process and by Ecology during the state re vienv process addressed later
in Step 2.

Task 2: Inventory Shoreline

This step begins the effort to characterize the different environments that are
specific to different sections of the shoreline. Since shoreline inventories can
be time consuming efforts, they can be begun earlier and conducted in
conjunction with the previously fisted tasks. This work often involves
comprehensive shorefine management planning and deals with such varied
issues as central waterfront revitafization, view blockage, vegetation
protection, wetlands and sensitive areas protection and shoreline access. A
complete shoreline and resource inventory is an essential toot in this effort.
Therefore, base maps should be prepared on which the following information is
illustrated:

� Shorelines of state-Aide significance
� Shoreline jurisdiction and current environment designations
� Wetlands (fi7om wetland inventory)
� Parks, open spaces, trails (existing and proposed), public access in
general.
� Significant natural resources, marshes, bogs and swamps, vegetation,
topography, habitat areas, etc.
� Hazardous and sensitive areas: Slide areas, feeder bluffs, frequently
flooded areas, floodways, floodplains, river deltas, aquifers, etc.
� Shoreline uses: residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
� Water depth and suitability assessment for commerce
� Other planning and regulatory policies: zoning, comprehensive
planning, revitalization plans, historic districts, etc.
� Land and shoreline ownership, public tidelands and Public Trust
Doctrine areas
� Circulation systems, rail, etc.
� Drainage or hydrological systems, flood protection, irrigation, etc.

� Other shoreline management issues

Chapter 3 - SMT Amendment Process H-35

SN[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

Local technical staff should evaluate and decide which of the above elements
are applicable, then assemble the information and prepare the maps, common
boundary descriptions or other analytical tools.

Special Tip

Much of this inventory work may be accomplished as part of growth
management planning (using Department of Community Development Growth
Managementfunds) andflood hazard management planning (using Flood
Control Assistance Account Program [FCAAP]Junds) or Section 306 Coastal
Zone Management Grants availableftom Ecology's Shorelands Program.
Inventory work should be coordinated to optimize use of local staff and grant
resources as well as to avoid duplicative work.

Task 3: Perform Technical Analysis of Shoreline
Issues

The extent of technical analysis required will depend upon the complexity of
the jurisdictions' shoreline. Key tasks in the technical analysis that may be
necessary, depending on local conditions, are:

A. Shoreline Use Component (See Figure 3-2)

1 .Determine suitability of shoreline areas for various water-oriented uses
such as maritime industrial uses. Identify opportunities and constraints
for water-oriented uses (e.g. dredging, wave exposure, public access,
etc.).

2. Identify sections of shoreline where commercial redevelopment is
desirable. Examine opportunities and restrictions on civic revitalization
efforts. Evaluate water-enjoyment use potential.

3. Examine constraints and issues related to transportation, parking,
loading, storage, etc.

4. Determine actions necessary to bring comprehensive planning and
zoning (and related GMA mandates) in conformance with shoreline
management policies including Comprehensive Flood Hazard
Management Plans, Open Space and Parks Plans and Public Access
Plans (see section "C" below).

Chapter 3 - SW Amendment Process H-36

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. Examine compatibility between existing and adjacent uses and
projected trends.

6. Identify opportunities to integrate shoreline management activities with
protection or enhancement of histofical/cultural resources.

B. Environmental Component (See Figure 3-3)

1. Identify environmental resources of special significance. Explore
opportunities to restore, protect and enhance environmental systems
(e.g. estuary systems, kelp and eelgrass beds and other unique aquatic
habitats). Identify sensitive areas that should be preserved (e.g.
wetlands, rookeries, etc.).

2. Identify potential conflicts between types of development and
environmental resource protection.

3. Identify general environmental parameters and concerns relative to
specific shorelines and also common to all areas (e.g. vegetation
management objectives, erosion control, wildlife corridor
considerations, etc.).

4. Examine how stormwater management and water resource allocation
may influence shoreline management objectives.

5. Identify areas where presently degraded shoreline can be restored (e.g.
toxic waste clean up sites or severely modified shoreline).

C. Public Access and Recreation Component

1. Identify opportunities for public access and recreational development
by reviewing the shoreline component of public trail systems.

2. Identify public access projects on public properties and potential links
that should be constructed as a condition for approval of pfivate
development.

3. Explore ways to integrate public access component with use and
environment components.

4. Identify significant views of the water from public and private areas and
explore design standards necessary to protect views and desired visual
character of the shoreline area.

Chapter 3 - SMIP Amendment Process H-37

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

These materials should be presented to the CAC for review prior to developing
the shoreline management strategy plan. Conducting a workshop with
technical staff, committee members, staff of Ecology and other relevant
agencies provides an opportunity to review the analysis and brainstorm
concepts for the shoreline management strategy plan.

'F7'!@6 Special Tip

Do not underestimate the importance of a shoreline resource inventory in the
SMP amendment process. Inventories conducted as apart of GMA efforts
may be useful in updating an SMP.

Chapter 3 - SNIP Amendment Process H-38

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

-..d Door Indusiriall A,..

Jelly 1.10"

Bell M..h

00
Netwill Sh-Ove Area
A)
Y

04 0
@'Z@ 0 0
a

A
D
11.1t..1 op" as". E4.11 '.
Porkies
Z@

L
laid
Ublic Park 0
*q;le- r.,j

Fatw. Marilee

Ollincult Public
0
a
A.....
T&Cht Clob iA 0

Fvteva@ Navy slatiori g

211-11111,1C via.

pol.. ship s."heas
Will 1119'"A trong Inseall POMI
.11

Lee 9'..W
vie's over P0.0ible Legend

Access Points
::,rrier
Potential via.. urn[ Areas
Landmarks
Topography
rT-n '-,/views
r-n

Figure 3-2. Example Shoreline/Resource Inventory Map displaying key inventory
information useful in committee workshops and setting environment designations.

Chapter 3 - SMP Amendment Process H-39

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

0
C-
B.DV' 01 M'
sob
&

x",
P-

014 a.*- fth@

&AM OP--- Pd
L A,
Sk%U LW

96P

LQJ 0

0-
13

U r3m ...... ..

C-:f@, Fw, Na,-I
43 - CL, 0 Si-
01@ coco
(7
L-j

or
EZEM
El

Z ) ri I

A cul@t

Sliver Lake Shoreline Management A Access Plan
Naiura; SYSIem, SIIF Fealut,-, &

Figure 3-3. Graphic illustrating en-Oronmental information useful in shoreline
planning. Scientific wetland and en,*ironmentally sensitive area boundaries should be
illustrated and incorporated into the planning process.

Chapter 3 - SMEP Amendment Process H40

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition
Task 4: Develop Shoreline Management is
Strategy

Although WAC 173-16 does not include a specific requirement for a shoreline
management strategy plan, such a product is useful in clarifying management
issues, integrating the master program regulations with other civic actions into
a comprehensive regulatory/public improvement shoreline development
program and serving as a basis for the explicit environment designation
requirements. Such a management strategy should call for public actions to
accomplish shoreline management objectives.

A. Shoreline Use Component (See Figure 3-4)

1. Identification of shoreline segments with differing use and development
opportunities. Guidelines for directing shoreline use and development
in each segment should be formulated with consideration of type of use.

2. Identification of specific segments of shoreline where mixed-use/
commercial development, community revitalization, maritime industrial,
recreational and residential uses should be encouraged.

3. Recommendations for modifying other local land use controls to
coordinate with the shoreline management strategy. RCW 90.58.340
requires that local planning and zoning for lands adjacent to the
shoreline be consistent and not in conflict with the SMP.

At the same time, the Growth Management Act (GMA) directs local
governments to adopt local "development regulations" that are
consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. As a local
implementation tool the SMP should be consistent with the
comprehensive plan. The requirements of both the SMA and the GMA
can best be satisfied by considering shoreline management objectives in
the local comprehensive planning process. With this policy foundation
laid, certain GMA mandates can then be implemented most effectively
through amendments to the SMP.

4. Recommendations for circulation and other public improvements that
support shoreline use component directives.

5. Policies to reduce incompatibility of different uses and to equitably
address nonconforming uses.

6. Identification of those limited areas where and under what conditions
over-water development should be allowed.

Chapter 3 - SNIEP Amendment Process H41

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

B. Environmental Component (See Figure 3-5)

1. Identification of impacts and issues raised in applicable SEPA
documents (EISs, checklists).

2. Policy guidelines and recommendations to protect environmental
resources.

3. Recommendations for regulatory or public acquisition steps to protect
environmental resources (e.g. wetlands, parks and other critical areas)
including those to be implemented by local land use controls other than
shoreline master program amendments.

4. Recommendations for stormwater quality and water resource
management actions.

C. Public Access Component (See Figure 3-6)

1. Recommendations for a comprehensive public access plan including a
trail system connecting shoreline features with other recreation
resources, bicycle, pedestrian and parking areas. If a public access plan
already exists, it can be referenced and appropriate provisions
incorporated into the SNIP.

2. Recommendations for development of waterfront recreation features
and ways to integrate them into surrounding shoreline activities.

3. Guideline policies for public access requirements on private
developments in areas where pedestrian links to pocket parks or water
access may be critical.

D. Urban Design Component (See Figure 3-7)

1 .Recommendations for height and bulk controls in specified areas.

2. Recommendations for sign controls, if appropriate.

3. Recommendations for public and private actions to enhance view and
other visual characteristics of key districts.

4. Recommendations for protection or enhancement of historical and
cultural resources.

Chapter 3 - SMEP Amendment Process H42

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

E. Implementation and Action Plan (See Figure 3-8)

1 . Recommendations to coordinate use, environmental and recreation and
urban design actions listed above, in upgrading the function,
environmental and visual qualities of the shoreline within the context of
the community's vision and desires.

2. Schedule showing projected implementation for recommended actions.

3. Funding sources and resources necessary to accomplish such actions.

4. Identification of lead and supporting participants to pursue
recommendations.

5. Local Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) consistency with
Comprehensive Plan and SUR

Some of the components listed above may have already been developed by the
local government. Other components may not be applicable. The results of
the management strategy plan may be presented formal-ly in a document as a
record of the analytical work and a useftil planning tool. The recommendations
in the plan may be quite specific; if the issues are complex, the
recommendations can be general in nature and call for further study. For
example, the public access component may identify key trail routes and
recommend a detailed hiking trail development plan to be accomplished in the
near future. Some jurisdictions may minimize this step as a brief policy
formulation exercise in preparation for refining environment designation and
use requirements. Others will find this an ideal opportunity to coordinate
several shoreline management issues and integrate master program regulations
with other civic redevelopment actions.

Shorelines of state-wide significance should receive special attention at this
point. Options for environment designations and use regulations should
provide for "optimum implementation" of SMA objectives as called out in
RCW 90.58.090(2). Policies and regulations being considered should also give
priority to those values described in WAC 173-16-040(5), namely in order of
preference to favor state-wide over local interests, preserve the natural
character of the shoreline, result in long-term over short-term benefit, protect
ecological resources and increase public access and recreational opportunities.

The completion of Task 4 is a good opportunity for a public presentation as it
will allow citizens comments prior to formulating environment designation and
use requirements.

Chapter 3 - SMP Amendment Process H43

S51P Handbook - 1994 Edition

Special Tip

Shoreline management strategy planning provides an opportunity to
coordinate with the comprehensive planning being accomplished under the
GMA. 1he shoreline management strategy plan may be prepared as part of
the comprehensive plan (perhaps as a specific laskforce function) or the
strategy plan may be the SMP effort's contribution to the comprehensive plan.

Task 5: Review and Revise Goals (i.e. Elements)

After the CAC has had a chance to review the background materials and the
survey or public forum has been completed, the members should set the master
program's general goals. These goals are statements of intent in most general
terms. It is useful to categorize the goal statements into the "elements" fisted
in WAC 173-16-040 (3). This format has proven effective in promoting
review of the existing goals of the current master program or considering
issues raised by Ecology guidelines or technical staff members, along with
satisfying SNP requirements. It is generally useful for the local staff to prepare
a discussion sheet laying out these issues and draft goal statements.

Special Tip

Be sure that the goals statements are consistent with the local comprehensive
plan. 7his will also help to insure that the comprehensive plan is consistent
with the provisions of the SMA.

Special Tip

7he "goals" section is not the best location for '@olicies " which relate to
specific regulations (see Chapter 4 ) because the linkage between policies and
regulations should be clear. It is likely that some of the discussion will result
in more specific policy statements which can be used in the master program
policies and regulations.

Chapter 3 - SMP Amendment Process H-44

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 3-4. Graphic Illustrating Shoreline Use Component Policies

SHORELINE USE

Public Open Space

Shoreline Restoration

Water-Dependent Use

-Dependent Commercial or General
Water
Commercial with Public Access Improvements
Mixed-Use with "Water-Enjoyment" Activities
eseeeeooe Esplanade Improvements

Key Public Access Trail Links
W W W W W W6P
y C
Parking
P
so IT,
PubLic "Water-Enjoyment" Activities
Cluster of Uses Linked by Site Design
L .,W

-5w,
P

F C.
0

W
_J Z
_J
V"

iA
P

nr-i MU "I I

Chapter 3 - SMY Amendment Process H45

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 3-5. Example of Entironmental Component Measures

Ct3

V Cl
,8 13 on LO
0 71
C3
13
50
Create new sedimen ation
wetland and nature habitat
U @1
Create small
@3
ma
wetland area

Retain pond

Extend outfall past
46
swimming area

-0

1@ C3 Retain wetland Q0
environment
0 D <@>

r
23CM C3

C,
COD 0
0
cro 13. 1:3

C= ME=;
C:3
013 _a_ L_
0 13@ 0 0 Legend
0 0[_.@B

0
Enhancement of shoreline
@o 4:@'G L__i vegetation w/some restorative
0 02 bj
-,9D --- -4 fill
0 _Mz
U "(@- _Tr
###swap, Grass lined swales

17 Wetland areas
Cl
On-site storm water
biological filtration ponds
or wetlands (location not
Ep C3 Ili cl@ yet determined).

Environmental Enhancement Measures
Management & Access Plan
Sliver Lake Shoreline +"N ... ...

Chapter 3 - SMP Amendment Process H-46

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 3-6. Example of a Public Access Component

Public Access
Capital Improvement Plan

I V-Pis, .1 La... Park -b i-rp-- d,.Pi.y

2 B.., L.-h Sat Isap-,11,11 itel,d, la-k.og.
""i"' .-k , ".cre'sn'st, -tau ... ...........
.ad l..d.1:pT.

3 Suirt-Pe torpr-cre- and path n. 10.h Sri.,

4 Jcl) W-d- loop-coocnis ,cl,dc does. &better.
beach cabastectstai and Dal,rc -1 4

5 lt,,dje or t- to J-j ],land

6 Par% at end or t3it, street -h -w. deck. War
-p sodpk.. L. Coordicot, dcs,g.. .11.-c
dc .,I.,M,., 2, 1 Fi 2 F1 L
7 St,cciscarc orpr-acent, sod part. a, l3th Streci
I North Mari--- espiacradc isop-casents IL
S, 0-look dccki at North Mar- 6 F
10 E- hia-li ..lk .., (,0,.j;/bo:sl build..g area
IL
p,ill- I 1,1h,11 ,,, ,@ L.@ @ Fj Fj L
"d lam 1-3-1 Moo'A'c 10 1 1
and clot ... dt, ........ r. 6-d -h
rIrrear

__
12 Ma-, Esplanade cep-con,ols t-
13 tp".'ra"u'd:.'a@1 sod M-- [email protected]'yrca Mn,.,c- 2 1 E E
- I
I rot sa ad 1 0 E I D 0 E
i8c I"'- ic
14 16ib Sir- o-erpau -ith sig.-sc rrom Grand 13
--c Park

15 fi.c,clc Grand A@c -11, or E--

1, deck .1 D
17 b."O, trail car

19 Rest stop at Forest Park and trail to beach
Lj
19 lect, ....... 1, at H.,b.,.,. Park
.rki.g. Carl-.,. ps,11111r..
-r pa as and fisci,& pit,

2C bc.thr ..lk bel... H..-arlb & Park,
2 J I I 10 [1
r
_J Li

. .... ...
Lj

Legend

Park or open space

--Bicycle/ walking path
L
.01" @_j
Alternate trail route 7 A
to special features
j
--Foot walking trail
Lj
a-
Special feature :' in-
_j L:
L
L . 2 If

2
111L LIET
jo Q.o
19 ADLID"
n
I "', L

L
ci F

Chapter 3 - SMT Amendment Process H47

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 3-7. Example of an Urban Design Component

1113
01i, r-P
Oar,

-------------
111HU111111111111
,@o
C,

. .........

..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
I LI-LL III

All

.......... ....

....... .....

Site dev;lopmcnI requirements to
require
parking lot landscaping,
'an co"Id
.... ..... ...... p.Jestr ors and interrelated
site pLanning.
Legend Coordwied with Gray's Harbor
Seaport Master Plan
AAAA& PAverfrom walk% !shoreline M P site
de clopment requirements F. Street Historic District

Rencil,auon of aid buildings
NO- Other key pedestrian connections o
0 Design standards for new buildIng
special itracuons gvemems 8
0 Landscapin ofparkart lots
0 Street impro
Gate@av ent" features Parking to ser,e downtown and 7' Strect
E Wisirkah St I mpro@emenus
n'cludir,, 51h hre. site Downtown Improvemen
Or "ces
and signage controls 0 Clem up of alleys
OE Al>pcrocen street and parking 0 Relocat'on/replacemeril trees
ot . e men's to rc2te grid 0 Screen parking lots
system of c irculatzon 0 Enforce munimurn maintenance
Old Aberdeen Waterfront District

Chapter 3 - SMEP Amendment Process H-48

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 3-8. Example of a Proposed Implementation Action Summary

PARTICIPANT

C
0

Implementation Actions
E

0 a
0

ACTION TIME FRAMEE/COMMMNTS

Develop circumferential footpath Prcsent-1990 Combination of public
with shoreline vegetation 00000 and required private access
improvements.

Complete master program amendments 1988
Acquire trailer park property 01610 1 1 Present-1989 - Park bond funds
Upgrade 527 to 3 lanes plus signals As part of private development
and sidewalks 01 1* *1 projects
Masterplan park 0191 1988-89
Improve park parking lot and 1989-1991 - Park bond funds
reroute Silver Lake Road 010101 .
Park Improvements: construct boat 0 1990-92 - Park bond funds
launch and upland improvements,
extend beach, add parking lots
Develop park wetland/naturc trail 0 -6010 1990-94 - Seek state assistance
Construct pedestrian features 1988-94 - Funded partly by shoreline
along shoreline 00 permits requirements

Undertake water quality management 1988 - Based on U.W. study recom-
program 0016001 mcndations
Develop south lake parking lot -06101 Accomplish when demand warrants
Construct recreation center 00 1992-96 - As demand warrants

Review shoreline development Ongoing - Insure requirements for new
permits and monitor water 0 00 access, setback, landscaping and
quality ility are met
Widen SR 527 to 5 lanes jol 11610,16j 1995-2000 - Do only if necessary
for traffic safety

Primary responsibility or initiation
0 Secondary or coordination role

Chapter 3 - SW Amendment Process H49

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

is Task 6: Develop General Policies and
Regulations

General Policies and Regulations are those which apply to several uses and
shoreline modification activities irrespective of environment designations (see
Chapter 6). Local technical staff should review current regulations and the
state guidelines included in this Handbook, and modify them to conform to the
goals statements and local conditions. Review by Ecology Shorelands staff
during this task is recommended if significant changes are being considered.

Special Tip

General policies and regulationsfor shoreline sensitive areas (especially
wetlands) should be consistent with other development regulations such as
local (SEPA) sensitive areas ordinances. Ais does not mean that the SMP
regulations must be identical with the sensitive areas ordinance, it means that
direction must be provided to prevent conflict between the two sets of
regulations. It should be noted which regulations take precedence in given
situations. A new sensitive areas ordinance written under the GAL4 does not
preclude the necessity ofgeneral environmental regulations in an SMP. Yhe
two sets of regulations are promulgated under separate authorities and can
have different purposes.

Task 7: Develop Policies and Regulations for
Shoreline Uses and Modification Activities

Shoreline "use" policies and regulations are specific to individual shoreline use
categories such as marinas, commercial businesses, industry, residential
development, aquaculture, etc. Most current shoreline master programs
include such use requirements, and Ecology has developed guidelines for use
requirements based on best practices, environmental regulations and the
experiences of other jurisdictions. When updating the current master program,
the local staff should review current use requirements and the state guidelines,
incorporating the guidelines and adapting them as necessary.

Shoreline modification "activities" are actions which alter the shoreline by
constructing a pier, breakwater, dredging, etc., in preparation for a shoreline
development or use. Updating these requirements can follow a procedure
similar to that for the use requirements (see Chapter 8). After the staff has
prepared the preliminary set of policies and regulations, they should be
reviewed by the CAC at a work session. Often it is useful for the staff to lay
out a range of alternatives to be considered by the CAC if the provision
involves the resolution of a local issue.

Chapter 3 - SW Amendment Process H-50

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Task 8: Set Environment Designation
Boundaries, Policies and Regulations (see
Chapter 6)

During this step the recommendations of the Task 4 strategy plan are
translated into regulations that are specific to individual environments. These
regulations may include:

I .Where water-dependent, water-related and water-enjoyment uses are
permitted;

2. Prohibitions and/or restrictions on non-water-ofiented uses;

3. Provisions for over-water construction, shoreline setbacks and shoreline
modification specific to a given environment-,

4. Height, bulk, lot coverage, density and site planning standards;

5. Special environmental protection provisions,

6. Special public access view corridor requirements, etc.; and

7. Provisions for mixed-use developments or other special conditions.

Special Tip

Create environment designation specific regulalionsfor those issues that vary
ftom designation to designation. F or example, many shoreline use or
environment protection provisions will be the same for all designations and
should be defined as a General Regulation.

WAC 173-16-040 introduces four different environment designations (natural,
conservancy, rural and urban). However, many jurisdictions may find it useful
to create additional environment designations to be more specific in special
areas (see Chapter 6). Matrices should be used as a tool to indicate how the
use and site development requirements differ in the specific environments (see
Chapter 6, Figures 6-2, 6-3 and 6-4).

Task 9: Examine Permit Administration Section
and Modify as Appropriate

Ecology has developed new guidelines for the administrative sections which
should be accommodated in the master program update. Technical staff can
accomplish the bulk of this work in coordination with Ecology staff.

Chapter 3 - SM[P Amendment Process H-51

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

In addition, the CAC and staff can review local administrative procedures and
consider eliminating or correcting any procedural requirements that are not
required by the State which cause difficulties in local shoreline administration.
Examples might include establishing permit fees and local review processes in a
separate ordinance or resolution which can be easily updated without involving
lengthy state review and approval One issue that often develops is the need for
a local appeal procedure prior to submission of the permit to Ecology for
review or approval. If the local jurisdiction does not have a local appeal
procedure, one should be added that address permit decisions and policy and
regulation interpretation by the local administrator.

The completion of Task 9 marks the end of the local master program technical
review process. The CAC should meet and review the completed draft master
program prior to the first public hearing.

Special Tip

Be mire to consult with Ecology stafffor a review of the draft at this stage as
required by WAC 173-19-06](5).

Task 10: Hold Public Hearing(s)

WAC 173-19-061 sets forth the procedures to be followed for the local public
hearing required by the Shoreline Management Act.

At a minimum, one public hearing is required. However, it is critical that the
hearing announcement be locally published at least once in each of the 3
consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. This requirement is unique and often
overlooked, making the hearing invalid.

Special Tip

Do not disregard the previous two sentences, or you may be required to repeat
the public hearing and local approval process.

Step 11 - State Review and Approval
Process

With the completion of the local hearing process you have entered the second
phase of amending a SMP, that of final review and adoption as State Rule
is (WAC). SMP amendments are effective only after adoption by Ecology.
During this step Ecology will:

Chapter 3 - SMY Amendment Process H-52

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

I .Circulate the proposed amendment to state, federal and other resource
agencies for review and comment and to the State Ecological Commission
for advice and guidance;

2. Hold at least one public hearing in the locale;

3. Take public comment;

4. Review the proposed amendments for consistency with the SMA and
implementing WACs;

5. Take action to adopt, modify, or deny the proposed amendments within six
months of filing with the State Code Revisor; and

6. Follow up as appropriate to concerns expressed during the comment
period.

Department Review

The department's principal focus in reviewing master programs and
amendments is to ensure that proposals are consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act and its implementing WACs. In an effort to protect shoreline
values while at the same time, foster reasonable use, the SMA incorporates the
concept of preferred shoreline uses. Preference is given to uses and activities
which protect the natural environment, are dependent upon shoreline location
and which preserve and enhance public access or increase recreational
opportunities for the public along shorelines. In addition, departmental review
has the -further goal of

I .Ensuring master programs are kept consistent and up-to-date with
amendments to the Act and supporting WACs;

2. Recognizing the role and prerogatives of local government under the Act,
providing for the expression and resolution of local shoreline management
concerns;

3. Providing for consistency between adjacent jurisdictions-,

4. Providing for clear terminology, effective and enforceable provisions and
common understanding between state and local governments to enhance
program administration; and

5. Coordinating review by federal and state agencies, the public, tribal nations
and the State Ecological Commission to ensure recognition of public trust
and state-wide interests in the proposal.

Chapter 3 - SN[P Amendment Process H-53

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Since all SNTs are adopted as state rule (WAC), the department (in
conjunction with the procedures of the SN4A) is required to follow the process
for rule adoption contained in the State Administrative Procedures Act
(Chapter 34.05 RCW). In addition, compliance with section 43.2 1 A. 190 RCW
requires that the State Ecological Commission provide their "advice and
guidance" to the department on all such rule adoptions.

The department presents each SN1P proposal to the Ecological Commission at
its regularly scheduled meetings, and in accordance with Chapter 43.2 1 A
requirements the Commission is given at least 30 days to review and respond.
Local government is invited to attend Ecological Conunission proceedings at
the time their proposals are considered. The Commission's role is to advise the
department on rule adoption. Ecology retains its authority under the SMA to
adopt, modify, or deny SN1P proposals.

SM[Ps are intended to be dynamic documents. The SMA envisions the need
for local governments to periodically modify master programs to reflect
changing local circumstances, new information, or improved shoreline
management approaches. In light of the many players involved however, it
takes at least three but no more than 6 months (without refiling) to complete
the state review and approval (Step II) process.

Application Requirements
The "Checklist for Submittal of SNIP Amendments" included at the end of this
chapter lists the documents required for submittal of master program
amendments to Ecology for review. The submittals must conform to WAC
173-19-062.

Note: Where map changes are involved, there is a requirement to address
the three criteria listed in WA C 173-16-040(4) (see checklist item # 6).
The justification for the environment designation change should describe
the alternatives consideredfor redesignation (as derivedftom SEPA
guidelines). For example, if a shoreline is being changedftom a
"conservanc "to an "urban " environment, there should be a
Y
consideration of alternatives such as a change to a "rural", "suburban" or
other less drastic modification or use of a parallel environment
designation (see Chapter 14, Parallel Environment Designations). Also,
you should note whether or not redesignation involves a Shoreline of
State-wide Significance and how prioritiesfor such shorelines are
satisfied by the proposal.

Chapter 3 - SMY Amendment Process H-54

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

WAC 173-19-064 describes the Ecology review procedure. The Department
of Ecology may deny a new or amended program if it is inconsistent VAth:

1. The Shoreline Management Act; and

2. Ecology guidelines, rules and regulations, (i.e. supporting WACs) SEPA,
etc.

Ecology's role in the adoption of local SNU proposals is limited to:

I .Minor editing (record as corrected);

2. NEnor modifications (approved with concurrence from local government);
and

3. In the case of substantial inconsistency with the SMA and supporting
WACs, rules and regulations, denying the proposal and remanding it back
to local government with suggested modifications to achieve consistency.

The decision to adopt or deny an SMP amendment may be appealed only by
the local jurisdiction as provided for in the SMA (RCW 90.58.190). The
amendments become locally effective immediately upon Ecology approval if
the local resolution or ordinance states that the amendments are "approved"
(not just intended to be approved pending Ecology's approval). The local
resolution should read "are approved subject to adoption by Ecology" or
similar language as illustrated in Figure 3-9.

The SMP becomes effective as State law (i.e. WAC) 31 days after filing with
the State Code Revisor.

See the following pages for a "model" resolution of a locally approved
amendment forwarded to Ecology for adoption.

Chapter 3 - SMIP Amendment Process H-55

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 3-9. Model Adoption Resolution (page 1 of 2)

CITY/COUNTY OF
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY/COUNTY COUNCIL OF

DECLARING THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AND INTENTION TO ADOPT THE

- --F 199- AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the State of Washington Shoreline Management Act of
1971 (Chapter 90.58 RCW) requires that Counties and Cities
incur certain duties, obligations and responsibilities with
regard to implementation of said Act; and,
WHEREAS, the City/County Council finds that certain revisions
to the existing City/County Shoreline Master Program are
necessary in furtherance of the provisions of Chapter 90.58
RCWF and that such revisions are in the best interest of the
citizens of City/County; and,

WHEREAS, the City/County Shoreline Advisory Committee, and
Planning commission held public meetings soliciting comment on
the proposed shoreline master program amendments on the
following dates, _ , 199 - and 199
respectively; and,
WHEREAS, comments were solicited from federal, state, local,
regional and tribal interests in accordance with WAC 173-19-
061(3); and

WHEREAS, the 199 - DRAFT amendments to the
City/County Shoreline Master Program were sent to the
Department of Ecology for comment in accordance with WAC 173-
19-061(5), and on F 199 _, Ecology provided the
City/County with comments; and,
WHEREAS, the City/county council held a public meeting on
, 199 _ to review the proposed shoreline master
program amendments and Ecology's comments; and,

WHEREAS, the City/County Council held a public meeting on
, 199 to consider the criteria set forth in WAC 173-
16-040(4) in establishing proposed changes to shoreline
environment designations and provided rationale in the
attached written materials; and,

WHEREAS, as a result of these meetings, revisions recommended
by the public, commenting agencies and the Department of
Ecology were incorporated into the proposed shoreline master
program amendments; and,

Chapter 3 - SMP Amendment Process H-56

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 3-9. Model Adoption Resolution (page 2 of 2)

WHEREAS, the revised shoreline master program was formally
considered by the City/County Council during a public hearing
held on , 199 -, as advertised in accordance with WAC
173-19-061(l) and (2); and,
WHEREAS, the City/County Council directed the Planning
Department to send the proposed shoreline master program
amendments and supporting materials, consistent with WAC 173-
19-062 submittal requirements, to Ecology for its review and
adoption;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City/County Council of
, as follows:

1) The City/County Council approves the 199
shoreline master program amendments that are attached to this
resolution and incorporated herein by reference, with the
understanding that in accordance with RCW 90.58.190(3), the
proposed shoreline master program amendments will become
effective locally immediately upon formal State Department of
Ecology adoption; and,
2) Following Ecology adoption of the amendments, the
City/County Council intends to adopt (and codify), by
ordinance, the subject shoreline master program amendments.
PASSED by the City/County Council this day of _ ,
199 -, and signed by me in open session in authentication of
its passage this day of 199

APPROVED:

City/County Council Chair
APPROVED by the Mayor this day of -- - F 199

City/County Mayor
FILED this day of 199 -.

ATTEST:

City/County Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY:

City/County Attorney

RESOLUTION NO.

Chapter 3 - SNEP Amendment Process H-57

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 3-10. Checklist for Submittal of SW Amendments (page 1 of 2)

Washington State Date
Department of Ecology Jurisdiction
CHECKLIST for Submittal of SMP Amendments
(WAC 173-19-062 requirements)
In order for submittals to be found complete and acceptable
for Ecology review and processing, local government must
provide:
1) transmittal letter from authorized local official
(i.e. Mayor, County Commission Chair, Planning Director,
etc.).
2) documentation of local approval of the master
program amendment (i.e. approved resolution or ordinance).
See Figure 3-9 Model Resolution.
3) a copy of the amended text, where applicable.
Strikeout (though old text) and underline (of new text)
clearly showing the proposed changes is required excepting
that strike and underline is not necessary for major rewrites
or very large amendments. All new or deleted sections should
be clearly labeled however. In such cases, the summary
provided (item #5 below) should also be more detailed. Note:
an "insertable" (without strike and underline) that can be
readily incorporated into the State's official SMP must be
provided by local government after Ecology has adopted the
amendment including any minor modifications.
4) where applicable, amended environment designation
maps. Note: approximate acreage, scale, north arrow and
existing physical features should be,shown on maps of standard
size that can be easily photocopied.
5) a summary of what is being amended and the history
behind it, and in the case of environment redesignations the
boundaries of those areas affected. For a total rewrite,
indicate in an executive summary format or outline useful for
comparative purposes those changes made from the original SMP
(i.e. Water-dependent Commercial uses: setbacks
increased... ). Environment redesignations should also include
where applicable, old and new maps clearly indicating areas
where redesignations are proposed.
6) applicable staff reports, meeting minutes, etc.,
that document the need for the amendments and alternatives
considered. Note: all proposals for environment
redesignation (i.e. map changes) must provide written
justification for such re-designation addressing, at a
minimum, the three criteria contained in WAC 173-16-040(4)
including: the existing development pattern in the area; the
biophysical capabilities and limitations of the shoreline
being considered and; the goals and the aspirations of the
,local citizenry.

Chapter 3 - SW Amendment Process H-58

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 3-10. Checklist for Submittal of SMEP Amendments (page 2 of 2)

CHECKLIST (CONT.)
7) evidence of SEPA compliance (i.e. properly dated and
approved DNS or EIS specifically pertaining to the amendment,
not a related zoning or other project action).

8) affidavit of publication. Consistent with WAC 173-
19-061, it MUST show that the notice of Public HEARING:
was published at least "once in each of the three weeks
preceding the hearing,"
refers to Chapter RCW 90.58 as the authority for the
action taken, describes the proposed changes,
indicates the date, time and place of hearing and the
manner in which comments will be taken,
indicates that copies of the amendments are available at
local government offices or upon request.

9) copies of any comments received in the local process
(if none, a statement of such).

ALSO include a list of names and addresses of any
"interested parties" so that Ecology can ensure compliance
with WAC 173-19-064(l)(e) notification requirements.

IF THE ABOVE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED, Ecology SHOULD BE ABLE TO
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT FOR PROCESSING.

Chapter 3 - SMP Amendment Process H-59

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 4
SMP Goals

Introduction

Background and Purpose

The use of elements is mandated by the SNIA and is intended to guide and
support the major shoreline management issues. The seven use elements are:
shoreline use, economic development, circulation, conservation, public access,
recreational and historic/cultural resources. Additional subject areas are
encouraged under the heading of "other" elements. The general goal
statements found within each element are intended to provide the policy basis
for SMT General Policies and Regulations.

Format and Contents

This chapter contains model language for the elements typically found in
SNIPs. The goals and objectives found within each element may vary from
jurisdiction tojurisdiction. Suggestions for additional elements are included at
the end of the chapter.

Chapter 4 - Goals H-60

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Model Goal
Statements

Shoreline Use Element

Goals

1. Establish and implement policies and regulations for shoreline use
consistent with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. These policies and
regulations should insure that the overall land use patterns that result in
shoreline areas are compatible with existing shoreline environment
designations and will be sensitive to and not degrade habitat and ecological
systems and other shoreline resources.

2. Identify and reserve shoreline and water areas with unique attributes for
specific long-term uses, including agricultural, commercial, industrial,
residential, recreational and open space uses.

3. Insure that proposed shoreline uses are distributed, located and developed
in a manner that will maintain or improve the health, safety and welfare of
the public when such uses must occupy shoreline areas.

4. Insure that activities and facilities are located on the shorelines in such a
manner as to retain or improve the quality of the environment as it is
designated for that area.

5. Insure that proposed shoreline uses do not infringe upon the rights of
others or upon the rights of private ownership.

6. Encourage shoreline uses which enhance their specific areas or employ
innovative features for purposes consistent with this program.

7. Encourage joint-use activities in proposed shoreline developments.

8. Designated shorelines of state-wide significance (SSWS) are of value to the
entire state and should be protected and managed. In order of preference,
the priorities are to:

a. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest-

Chapter 4 - Goals H-61

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. Preserve the natural character of the shorefine;

c. Result in long-term over short-term benefit-,

d. Protect the resources and Ecology of shorelines, and

e. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.

9. Encourage restoration of shoreline areas that have been degraded or
diminished in ecological value and function as a result of past activities or
catastrophic events.

10. Ensure that planning, zoning and other regulatory and nonregulatory
programs governing lands adjacent to shoreline jurisdiction are consistent
with SMA policies and regulations and the provisions of this SN1P.

Economic Development Element

Goals

I .Insure healthy, orderly economic growth by allowing those economic
activities which will be an asset to the local economy and which result in
the least possible adverse effect on the quality of the shoreline and
surrounding environment.

2. Protect current economic activity (e.g. shipping, marinas, agriculture, etc.)
that is consistent with the objectives of the SMT and provide for
environmentally sensitive new development.

3. Develop, as an economic asset, the recreation industry along shorelines in a
manner that will enhance the public enjoyment of shorelines.

4. Insure that any economic activity taking place along the shoreline operates
- without harming the quality of the site's environment or adjacent
shorelands.

5. Encourage new economic development to locate in areas already
developed with similar uses which are consistent with this master program.

6. Before new commercial/industrial development is permitted within the
shoreline, it is the proponent's responsibility to demonstrate that upland
areas are not feasible for the intended economic activity.

Chapter 4 - Goals H-62

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

7. Limit new shoreline industrial and commercial development to that which is
classified as water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment uses and
discourage and/or prohibit non-water-oriented uses which are not
accessory to a water-oriented use.

8. Proposed economic use of the shoreline should be consistent with local
comprehensive plans. Conversely, upland uses on adjacent lands outside of
immediate SMAjurisdiction (in accordance vrith RCW 90.59.340) should
be consistent with the purpose and intent of this master program as they
affect the shoreline.

9. Protect current agricultural land uses and provide for environmentally
sensitive new agricultural development.

Circulation Element

Goals

I . Provide safe, reasonable and adequate circulation systems to shorelines
where routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile
shoreline features and existing ecological systems, while contributing to the
functional and visual enhancement of the shoreline.

2. Locate land circulation systems which are not shoreline dependent as far
from the land-water interface as feasible to reduce interference with either
natural shorefine resources or other appropriate shoreline uses. Where
possible avoid creating barriers between adjacent uplands and the shoreline.

3. Route transportation corridors to harmonize with the topography and other
natural characteristics of the shoreline.

4. Provide for alternate modes of travel with some freedom of choice and
encourage multiple-use corridors where compatible.

5. Acquire and develop physical and visual public access where topography,
view and natural features warrant as a result of new transportation
development in shoreline areas (e.g. turnouts, rest areas).

6. Discourage shoreline uses which curtail or reduce existing free movement
of the public unless such restriction is in the interest of the environment,
public health and safety, or is necessary to a proposed beneficial use.

7. Where feasible relocate existing shoreline transportation facilities such as
rail lines or freeways that are disruptive to public shoreline access or other
shoreline uses or convert such fights-of-way to new public access routes.

Chapter 4 - Goals H-63

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

8. Protect, manage and enhance those characteristics of shoreline roadway
corridors that are unique or have historic significance or aesthetic quality,
for the benefit and enjoyment of the public.

Conservation Element

Goals

I . Develop and implement management practices that will insure a sustained
yield of renewable resources of the shorelines while preserving, protecting,
enhancing and restoring unique and nonrenewable shoreline resources or
features, including forested areas, wetlands and wildlife habitat.

2. Insure that utilization of a resource takes place with the rr@nimurn adverse
impact to natural systems and quality of the shoreline environment.

3. Reclaim and restore areas which are biologically and aesthetically degraded
to the greatest extent feasible while maintaining appropriate use of the
shoreline.

4. Preserve the scenic aesthetic quality of shoreline areas and vistas to the
greatest extent feasible.

Public Access Element

Goals

I . Provide, protect and enhance a public access system that is both physical
and visual, utilizing both private and pubfic lands, which increases the
amount and diversity of public access to the State's shorelines and adjacent
areas, consistent with the natural shoreline character, private rights and
public safety.

2. Integrate public access to shorelines as a part of the (City/County) public
trail system.

3. Prepare and implement a comprehensive public access plan that
incorporates public access into new shoreline development and unifies
individual public access elements into an organized system.

Chapter 4 - Goals B-64

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Recreational Element

Goals

I . Insure optimal recreational opportunities now and in the future in shoreline
areas that can reasonably tolerate during peak use periods active, passive,
competitive or contemplative uses without destroying the integrity and
character of the shoreline.

2. Coordinate with the (City/County) Department of Parks and Recreation to
optimize opportunities for water-oriented recreation.

3. Integrate recreational elements into federal, state and local public access
and conservation planning.

4. Encourage federal, state and local government to acquire additional
shorefine properties for public recreational uses.

5. Insure existing and proposed recreational uses are of a safe and healthy
nature.

6. Consider both active and passive recreational needs in development of
recreational areas.

Historical/Cultural Element

Goals

I . Identify, protect, preserve and restore important archaeological, historical
and cultural sites located in shorelands of the State for educational,
scientific and enjoyment of the general public.

2. Acquire historical/cultural sites through purchase or gift, so as to insure
their protection and preservation.

3. Encourage educational projects and programs that foster a greater
appreciation of the importance of shorefine management, maritime
activities, environmental conservation and maritime history.

Chapter 4 - Goals H-65

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Other Elements

Local governments may elect to place any additional goal statements under
new element headings. Examples of element goal statements that are useful in
certain situations include:

Goals

I .Comprehensive Long Range Planning Element - That supports integration
of other city planning and regulatory efforts with shoreline management
activities. This element may also be used to factor in goals relevant to
Growth Management Act planning and implementation.

2. Community Redevelopment Element - That indicates how shoreline
management activities can support efforts to upgrade residential
neighborhoods, revitalize and restore city waterfronts, etc.

3. Educational Element - That recommends interpretive features, maritime
centers or educational programs that alert people to the importance of
shoreline management.

4. Flood Hazard Management Element - That incorporates goals from a
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Notes to Master Programmers

Long range planning as an additional SMP element has many benefits for
local jurisdictions.

Aere are a variety of long range planning directions ajurisdiction can take,
depending on their particular needs. Sprawling cities can use long range
planning tofocus on urban issues, utilities, capital improvements, parks, open
space and trails. In rural communities, agricultural andflood control issues
may also be plannedfor. Coordination between local comprehensive plans,
implementing Capital Improvement Plans and SMPs is most beneficial.

Chapter 4 - Goals H-66

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 5
General Policies
& Regulations

Introduction

Background and Purpose

General policies and regulations are applicable to all uses and activities
(regardless of SNU environment designation) that may occur along a
jurisdiction's shorelines. Their importance and usefulness cannot be
understated. They effect all other more specific policies and regulations. They
are meant to be woven into your local master program providing the broader
policies and regulations affecting all shoreline uses. If used properly they can
also eliminate redundancy in your SW, by eliminating the need to repeat
regulations over and over for each environment designation.

The policies and regulations found in this chapter can be modified to suit the
needs of various jurisdictions. They are intended to be used in conjunction
with the more specific use and activity regulations found in the following
chapters-

Chapter 5 - General Policies & Regulations H-67

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Format and Contents

This chapter is broken up into thirteen different topic headings and is arranged
alphabetically. Each topic begins with a description of its applicability,
followed by general policy statements and general regulations. The intent of
these model provisions is to be inclusive, making them applicable over a wide
range of environments as well as particular uses and activities. They can be
used directly or modified to include more restrictive language as necessary.

Special Considerations

Shorelines of State-wide Signif"icance

Of special consideration in this chapter are shorelines of state-wide significance
(SSWS). The Act specifically identifies shorelines designated as having state-
wide significance and sets general principals for managing such shorelines.
These principals are best implemented by taking the state-wide interest into
account during the preparation of SMP amendments. This portion of the
Handbook deals specifically with the language of the law and discusses how
the guidelines can be applied. Model language for shorelines of state-wide
significance can be found in the following section.

Background
The State's shorelines have been found to be among the most valuable and
fragile resources of the state and as such attention has focused on their
appropriate utilization, protection, restoration and preservation. Particular
shorelines have been called out in the legislation as shorelines of state-wide
significance, raising their status at both state and local levels. Because these
shorelines are considered major resources for all the people in the state, the
guidelines and master programs must give preference to uses which favor
public and long-range goals. RCW 90.58.020 emphasizes this point when it
says:

"Ae legislation declares that the interest of all people shall be paramount
in the management of shorelines of slate-wide significance. "

What follows from this declaration is that SSWS will be given more scrutiny at
the state level to ensure that their use will comply with requirements of
optimum implementation of the policy of this chapter (RCW 90.58) to satisfy
the state-wide interest (RCW 90.58.090(2)). This pertains to both the writing
of a master program and implementation on these shorelines.

Chapter 5 - General Policies & Regulations H-68

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

Local jurisdictions need to recognize the significance of these specially
designated shorelines and follow closely the guidelines presented by the state
when developing and administering their master program. The key is that local
master programs shall give preference to uses which meet the principles
outlined on the following page.

General Implications for
Shorelines of State-wide Significance
It has not been easy for state and local administrators to implement the SMA's
shorelines of state-wide significance provisions. One reason for this is that
references to SSWS are scattered throughout RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-16.
As a result, SSWS function as a special type of "overlay", applying additional
standards to shorelines that include diverse character and multiple environment
designations. Another reason is that WAC 173-16 does not specifically
describe how provisions for SSWS fit into the structure of a master program.

It is clear that SSWS provisions do have implications for both master program
preparation and the administration of local permit review. First, if an SNIP
amendment proposal involves a SSWS, Ecology has special authority to set
out an alternative proposal that better addresses the Act's objectives )RCW
90.58.090(2)). This provision also gives Ecology the authority to reject any
master program that does not provide for "optimum implementation." This
means that Ecology (and in appeals, the Shorelines Hearings Board [SHB])
will evaluate master program amendment proposals and permit applications on
the basis of optimum protection and utilization from a state-wide viewpoint,
rather than local circumstances. RCW 90.58.190 states that in considering
master program amendment appeals related to SSWS the Shorelines Hearings
Board shall uphold the decision by Ecology unless a local government can
clearly convince the SHB that the decision of the Department is inconsistent
with policies for SSWS set out in RCW 90.58.020.

Priorities Set by the SMA
The Act sets specific priorities for the management of shorelines of state-wide
significance giving preference to uses which adhere to the seven objectives
discussed below. Language in RCW 90.58.020 and WAC 173-16-040(5)
interpret these principles into guidelines for writing master programs. It is
important to remember that the Act fists these objectives in order of
preference. Therefore objective (1) "Protecting state-wide interests over
local", takes priority over (2) "Preserving the natural character of the
shoreline." Listed below are the seven criteriaMth a brief discussion of how
the priorities have been applied in specific situations.

Chapter 5 - General Policies & Regulations H-69

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest.

This means that where a resource of state-wide interest, such as fisheries, is
in jeopardy from some proposed use, state-wide concerns will prevail over
local interests. The local jurisdiction should take every opportunity to
solicit comments and opinions from citizen groups and individuals
representing state-wide interests (e.g. Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Trout
Unlimited, etc.). Appropriate state agencies, universities, colleges and
Native American Nations should also be involved along with comments,
opinions and advice from experts in ecology, oceanography, geology,
limnology, aquaculture and other scientific fields that may be pertinent to
the specific shoreline .

Administratively, the consequence of this guideline is that all state-wide
interests prevail, and any proposed use or master program that does not
recognize and comply with those state-wide interests will be rejected.

2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.

This guideline means that any action that adversely affects the natural
character of the shoreline without enhancing the public interest, will
probably be denied. Numerous Shorelines Hearings Board decisions have
been made against private/community boat launches, bulkheads and the like
where the "natural character" of the shoreline would be altered and where
there was no benefit for the public at large. The intent is to minimize man-
made intrusions on SSWS. Implicit in this guideline is the intent to
upgrade those areas of more intensive development by reducing their
adverse impacts on the natural environment. Urban environments that have
natural qualities or resources should preserve those low-intensity uses
compatible with resource protection while accommodating high-intensity
use in areas already developed. In urban environments this means that
riparian corridors and natural vegetative cover should be preserved
(through appropriate structural setbacks and clearing and grading
regulations) even in this intensive use environment. This guideline also
addresses commercial timber cutting, allowing a maximum of 30 percent of
timber to be selectively cut from lands designated as SSWS.

For the adn-dnistrator, this guideline calls out the importance of the natural
shoreline, as can be seen in the SHB case Ecology and the Attorney
General v. Mason Coun1y and the Hama Hama, Co. Even if the immediate
shoreline was not natural, the water portion of the shoreline was and the
Board determined that it must be preserved for preferred uses that would
prevent damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent
upon use of the shoreline.

Chapter 5 - General Policies & Regulations H-70

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Result in long-term over short-term benefit.

The purpose here is to ensure for future generations the possibility to use
the shorelines either in their natural state or for preferred uses such as those
that are water-dependent or water-related. That is to say, if a mixed-use
development is slated for your urban waterfront, it should not preclude the
possibility of a water-dependent use. An example of this is in the Port of
Seattle's central waterfront redevelopment project proposing mixed-use
development directly over the water. The design of the mixed-use
proposal should not preclude future water-dependent uses, such as a
passenger terminal, and shall be designed to accommodate it. The intent
here is to evaluate short-term economic gains in relation to long-term and
potentially costly impairments to the environment and water-dependent
uses.

4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.

The master program should recognize the importance of the unique or
fragile natural resources found along the shorelines and leave those areas
undeveloped. This guideline extends beyond the natural shoreline to
include the prevention of erosion and sedimentation that would alter the
natural function and habitat of the water body. Any advances in
technology or methodology should be employed to maintain good water
quality. In sensitive areas where it is too difficult to maintain the integrity
of the environment under human use, public access should be restricted.

The administrator of this guideline should be aware that even projects that
are for the greater public good, as in the SHB case Henderson v.
Snohomish County and Barber, the proposed project is subject to scrutiny
on the basis of this objective. In this case, the SHB ruled that if the
proposed campsite is not designed and conditioned to assure preservation
or replacement of trees and vegetation, the pern-iit would not be issued.
Other resources that should be considered may include fish and wildlife
habitat, wetlands, feeder bluffs, accretion beaches, stream bank integrity,
etc. Finally, attributes of a site that promote water-dependent uses are also
resources to be protected. This includes deep-water access, navigability,
adequate water circulation, stable upland areas for support activities, etc.

5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline.

The emphasis here is on providing appropriate public access to all publicly
owned lands including all federal and state agencies holding shorelands,
tidelands and bottom lands, as well as local parks departments and port
districts.

Chapter 5 - General Policies & Regulations H-71

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Master programs should give priority to developing a path/trail or pocket
parks providing water access and views to and along the shorelines
connected to upland parking and adjacent parks facilities. Master program
general provisions for public access should place special emphasis on
providing public access for port district or government-sponsored
developments on shorelines of state-wide significance. For large industrial
sites where direct public access is dangerous or physically undesirable, a
port or government agency can provide substantial off-site public access as
approved by the local government and Ecology.

Administratively, off-site public access should be substituted for on-site
public access only where water-dependent uses and sensitive areas make
public access elements physically infeasible.

It should be noted that the public access objective is placed fifth, lower in
priority than the preservation of natural resources. This means that public
access should not be developed on shorelines of state-wide significance if it
destroys the shoreline's'natural character. Whether or not public access is
compatible with natural resource protection is often a matter of design. In
some cases, such as a sensitive river corridor habitat, this may mean that a
public access trail be set back from the shoreline, perhaps with viewing
platforms or vistas provided at infrequent selective spots. In other cases,
such as a truly pristine high-value wetland, any access may want to be
avoided altogether.

6. Increase public recreational opportunities on the shoreline.

Any master program update that includes the redesignation of
environments on shorelines of state-wide significance should include
planning for the encouragement of recreational use of the shorelines. This
can help insure that areas are reserved for lodging and other related
facilities in upland areas accompanied by provisions for nonmotorized
access to the shorelines.

Here, the administrator needs to recognize the need to include long-range
planning for recreational facilities in their community. Here again, the
master program should clearly state the goals which favor the public and
long-range goals.

While the lowest of the specified use priorities, this emphasizes the
importance of general public use of shoreline through recreation
opportunities.

Chapter 5 - General Policies & Regulations H-72

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.5 8. 100 deemed
appropriate or necessary.

RCW 90.58. 100 describes the procedures and requirements for preparing
an SUR In essence, this criteria directs local governments to follow sound
shoreline management practices as outlined in the SMA.

Figure 5-1. Shorelines of State-wide Significance Illustrating State-wide Coverage

Note: SSWS includes water area, tidelands and -wellands as defined in the
Act (excluding upland areas, the Straits and most of Puget Sound).

Chapter 5 - General Policies & Regulations B-73

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Model Language

The sample language presented for General Policies and Regulations is based
on "best practices" standards specific to each shoreline topic. These sample
provisions have been developed with input from Ecology and other state
resource agencies with expertise, along with provisions from a variety of
master programs presently being implemented by local governments
throughout the state. The sample provisions can be adapted by local
government as appropriate to fit their particular needs.

General Regulations

Notes to Master Programmers

Aefollowing regulations describe the requirementsfor all shoreline uses and
activities.

I .All shoreline uses, and shoreline modification activities including those that
do not require a shoreline substantial development permit (SDP), must
conform to the policies and regulations of this master program.

2. Shoreline modification activities must be in support of an allowable
shoreline use which conforms to the provisions of this master program.
Except as otherwise noted, all shoreline modification activities not
associated with a legally existing or an approved shoreline use are
prohibited.

3. Shoreline uses, modification activities and conditions listed as "prohibited"
shall not be eligible for consideration as a shoreline variance or shoreline
conditional use permit.

4. The "policies" listed in this master program will provide broad guidance
and direction and will be used by the (City/County) in applying the
of regulations".

5. Where provisions of this master program conflict, the more restrictive of
the provisions shall apply unless specifically stated otherwise.

Chapter 5 - General Policies & Regulations H-74

SMF Handbook - 1994 Edition

Archaeological and
Historic Resources

Applicability

Archaeological and historic resources, because of their finite nature, are
valuable links to our past and should be considered whenever a development is
proposed along the state's shorelines. Where such resources are either
recorded at the State Ftistoric Preservation Office and/or with local
jurisdictions, or have been inadvertently uncovered, the following policies and
regulations apply.

Policies

1. Due to the limited and irreplaceable nature of the resource, public or
private uses and activities should be prevented from destroying or
damaging any site having historic, cultural, scientific or educational value
as identified by the appropriate authorities.

Regulations

I . All shoreline permits shall contain provisions which require developers to
inunediately stop work and notify the City/County if any phenomena of
possible archaeological interest are uncovered during excavations. In such
cases, the developer shall be required to provide for a site inspection and
evaluation by a professional archaeologist to ensure that all possible
valuable archaeological data are properly salvaged.

2. Permits issued in areas known to contain archaeological artifacts and data
shall include a requirement that the developer provide for a site inspection
and evaluation by an archaeologist. The permit shall require approval by
the City/County before work can begin on a project following inspection.
Significant archaeological data or artifacts shall be recovered before work
begins or resumes on a project.

3. Significant archaeological and historic resources shall be permanently
preserved for scientific study, education and public observation. When the
City/County determines that a site has significant archaeological, natural,
scientific or historical value, a Substantial Development Permit shall not be

Chapter 5 - Archaeological and Historic Resources H-75

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

issued which would pose a threat to the site. The City/County may require
that development be postponed in such areas to allow investigation of
public acquisition potential and/or retrieval and preservation of significant
artifacts.

4. In the event that unforeseen factors constituting an emergency as defined in
RCW 90.58.030 necessitate rapid action to retrieve or preserve artifacts or
data identified above, the project may be exempted from the pern-dt
requirement of these regulations. The City/County shall notify the State
Department of Ecology, the State Attorney General's Office and the State
Mstoric Preservation Office of such a waiver in a timely manner.

5. Archaeological sites located both in and outside the shoreline jurisdiction
are subject to RCW 2744 (Indian Graves and Records) and RCW 2753
(Archaeological Sites and Records) and shall comply with WAC 25-48 as
well as the provisions of this master program.

6. Archaeological excavations may be pern-dtted subject to the provisions of
this program.

7. Identified historical or archaeological resources shall be considered in park,
open space, public access and site planning, with access to such areas
designed and managed so as to give maximum protection to the resource
and surrounding environment.

8. Clear interpretation of historical and archaeological features and natural
areas shall be provided when appropriate.

Chapter 5 - Archaeological and Historic Resources H-76

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Clearing and Grading

Applicability (see also "View Protection")

One intent of the Shoreline Management Act is to minimize as much as
possible impacts to the ecology of the shoreline and its waters. This is
substantiated by RCW 90.58.020:

"Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and
conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant
damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any
interference with the public's uses of the water. "

Clearing and grading is the activity associated with developing property for a
particular use including commercial, industrial, recreational and residential
uses. Specifically, "clearing" means the destruction or removal of vegetative
ground cover and/or trees including, but not limited to, root material removal
and/or topsoil removal. This includes such activities as clear-cutting or
selective harvest of trees, chipping of stumps and hauling off of shrubs, slash
piles, etc. "Grading" means the physical manipulation of the earth's surface
and/or surface drainage patternwithout significantly adding or removing on-
site materials. This includes removing the duff layer, all surcharging,
preloading and recontouring the ground and may include minor excavation and
filling. Landfill addresses the placement of dry fill on existing dry or existing
wet areas (see Chapter 8 "Landfill").

Both activities, clearing and grading, may increase erosion, siltation,
runoff/flooding, change drainage patterns, reduce flood storage capacity and
damage habitat. Although it is not technically considered "development" which
triggers a substantial development permit, clearing as an activity that impacts
shoreline resources is regulated in order to achieve the design goals and
objectives of the SMA, particularly along SSWS where preservation of natural
shoreline characteristics takes a very high priority. All policies and standards
must be adhered to and a conditional use requirement may be utilized where
appropriate (e.g. in natural and conservancy). Grading is considered
development and will be managed accordingly. For single-family residences,
250 cubic yards of fill may be allowed without a substantial development
perrait provided all policies and regulations are met.

Chapter 5 - Clearing & Grading H-77

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Policies

1 . All clearing and grading activities should be designed and conducted to
n-dnimize impacts to wildlife habitat, sedimentation of creeks, streams,
ponds, lakes, wetlands and other water bodies and degradation of water
quality.

2. Clearing and grading activities in shoreline areas should be limited to the
minimum necessary to accommodate shoreline development. Such
activities should be discouraged in designated (structural) setback areas
and allowed in other shoreline locations only when associated with a
permitted shoreline development.

3. Negative environmental and shoreline impacts of clearing and grading
should be avoided wherever possible through proper site planning,
construction timing and practices, bank stabilization, bioengineering and
use of erosion and drainage control methods as well as adequate
maintenance.

4. Cleared and disturbed sites remaining after completion of construction
should be promptly replanted with native vegetation or, in limited
circumstances, with other species contained in City/County approved plant
lists.

5. All clearing and grading activities should be designed with the objective of
maintaining natural diversity in vegetation species, age and cover density.

6. For extensive clearing and grading proposals, a clearing and grading plan
addressing species removal, replanting, irrigation, erosion and
sedimentation control and other methods of riparian corridor protection
should be required conforming to the standards for the maximum
percentage of site clearing permitted.

Regulations

I . All clearing and grading activities shall be limited to the minimum necessary
for the intended development, including residential development.

2. Clearing and grading within designated shoreline (structural) setback areas
(or vegetation management corridors, depending on how the SNU is
structured) shall not exceed the following maximums (all measurements
taken parallel to the shoreline):

Chapter 5 - Clearing & Grading H-78

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

a. Lots, parcels with up to 200 feet of shoreline frontage: 30 feet
maximum.

b. Lots, parcels with between 201 feet and 500 feet shoreline frontage:
maximum of 15 percent of the lot frontage along a shoreline.

c. Lots, parcels with over 500 feet lot frontage: maximum of 15 percent
of total lot frontage, provided clearing occurs in two or more segments
separated by at least 100 feet of undisturbed area where no one
segment exceeds 75 feet in length along the shoreline.

d. When applying the above clearing and grading standards t 'he following
plant communities shall determine in descending order of preference
where clearing and grading may be allowed. The first plant community
listed indicates the most preferred location for clearing and grading:

i. grass

ii. shrub/scrub

iii. forest

Notes to Master Programmers

Ais language defines clearing and grading limits based on a linear
measurement along the shoreline and applies to required setbacks. Chapter
6, Figure 6-4 illustrates wtother approach based on a percentage of area
within a defined vegetation management corridor. Either approach may be
used depending on local conditions, however, the language and the matrix
used must be consistent.

3. Clearing and grading activities may only be permitted (landward of
required setbacks) when associated with a permitted shoreline
development, PROVIDED that upon completion of construction,
remaining cleared areas shaU be replanted with native species contained in
the City/County approved plant list. Replanted areas shaU be maintained
such that within three-years time the vegetation is fully reestablished.

4. Normal nondestructive pruning and trimming of vegetation for maintenance
purposes shall not be subject to these clearing and grading regulations. In
addition, clearing by hand held equipment of invasive nonnative shoreline
vegetation or plants listed on the State Noxious Weed List is permitted in
shoreline locations if native vegetation is promptly reestabl-ished in the
disturbed area.

Chapter 5 - Clearing & Grading H-79

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. Any significant placement of materials from off-site, (other than surcharge
or preload) or substantial creation or raising of dry upland shall be
considered landfill and shall also comply with the landfill provisions in
Chapter 8, Shoreline Modification Activity Policies and Regulations.

Chapter 5 - Clearing & Grading H-80

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition
40 Environmental Impacts

Applicability

The SMA is concerned with the environmental impacts that both a use and
activity may have on the fragile shorelines of the state. Shoreline and water
quality degradation caused by the introduction of contaminants such as
petroleum products, chemicals, solid waste, domestic or industrial wastewater
and sediment from erosion are all issues that must be addressed.

Policies

1. The adverse impacts of shoreline uses and activities on the environment
should be minimized during all phases of development (e.g. design,
construction, management and use).

Regulations

I .The location, design, construction and management of all shoreline uses
and activities shall protect the quality and quantity of surface and ground
water adjacent to the site and shall adhere to the guidelines, policies,
standards and regulations of applicable water quality management
programs and related regulatory agencies.

2. Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter
any bodies of water or to be discharged onto land.

3. The release of oil, chemicals or hazardous materials onto land or into the
water is prohibited. Equipment for the transportation, storage, handling or
application of such materials shall be maintained in safe and leak proof
condition. If there is evidence of leakage, the further use of such
equipment shall be suspended until the deficiency has been satisfactorily
corrected.

4. All shoreline uses and activities shall be located, designed, constructed and
managed in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to surrounding land
and water uses and is aesthetically compatible with the affected area.

Chapter 5 - EnNironmental Impacts H-81

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. All shoreline uses and activities shall utilize best management practice is
(BNT) measures to minimize any increase in surface runoff and to control,
treat and release surface water runoff so that receiving water quality and
shore properties and features are not adversely affected. Such measures
may include but are not limited to dikes, catch basins or settling ponds,
installation and required maintenance of oil/water separators, grassy
swales, interceptor drains and landscaped buffers.

6. All shoreline uses and activities shall utilize effective erosion control
methods during both project construction and operation.

7. All shoreline uses and activities shall be located, designed, constructed and
managed to avoid disturbance of and minimize adverse impacts to fish and
wildlife resources, including spawning, nesting, rearing and habitat areas
and migratory routes.

8. All shoreline uses and activities shaR be located, designed, constructed and
managed to minimize interference with beneficial natural shoreline
processes such as water circulation, sand and gravel movement, erosion
and accretion.

9. Land clearing, grading, filling and alteration of natural drainage features
and land forms shall be limited to the minimum necessary for development.
Surface drainage systems or substantial earth modifications -involving
greater than 500 cubic yards of material shall be professionally designed to
prevent maintenance problems or adverse impacts to adjacent properties or
shoreline features.

10. All shoreline developments shall be located, constructed and operated so as
not to be a hazard to public health and safety.

11. All shoreline uses and activities shall be located and designed to minimize
or prevent the need for shoreline defense and stabilization measures and
flood protection works such as bulkheads, other bank stabilization,
landfills, levees, dikes, groins, jetties or substantial site regrades.

12. Navigation channels shall be kept free of hazardous or obstructing,uses and
activities.

13. Herbicides and pesticides shaH not be applied or aflowed to directly enter
water bodies or wetlands unless approved for such use by appropriate
agencies (U.S. and State Departments of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington Department of Ecology).

Chapter 5 - Environmental Impacts H-82

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Applicability

Environmentally sensitive areas constitute the most fragile lands which support
resources that are economically and culturally important to the state under the
SMA. They can be natural resources that provide fisheries habitat for example,
or areas that may threaten the health and safety of the public, such as
floodways or unstable bluffs, etc. This section is divided into five categories:
(1) general provisions, (2) geological hazard area provisions, (3) kelp beds,
eelgrass beds, herring spawning areas, smelt spawning areas and other critical
salt water habitats (4) wetland provisions and (5) salmon and steelhead habitat
provisions.

"Environmentally sensitive areas" shall mean those areas with especially fragile
biophysical characteristics and/or with significant environmental resources as
identified in a scientifically documented inventory accomplished as part of the
SEPANEPA process or other recognized assessment. Environmentally
sensitive areas include but are not limited to:

� unstable bluffs

� wildlife habitat areas

� fish breeding, rearing or feeding areas

� wetlands

� estuaries

� dunes

Policies

I . Unique, rare and fragile natural and man-made features as well as scenic
vistas and wildlife habitats should be preserved and protected from
unnecessary degradation or interference.

2. Some areas, because of unique and/or fragile geological or biological
characteristics, should be protected from public access (e.g. wetlands,
dunes, shoregrass, etc.).

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-83

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Shorelines that are identified as hazardous for or sensitive to development
should be discouraged from intensive development.

Regulations

I . All shoreline uses and activities shall be located, designed, constructed and
managed to protect and/or not adversely affect those natural features which
are valuable, fragile or unique in the region and to facilitate the appropriate
human intensity of use of such features, including but not limited to:

a. Estuaries and marshes, bogs and swamps;

b. Fish, shellfish and wildlife habitats, migratory routes and spawning
areas;

c. Kelp beds, eelgrass beds, herring spawning areas and smelt spawning
areas;

d. Accretion shore forms;

e. Natural or man-made scenic vistas or features;

f Unstable bluffs; and

g. Floodways.

2. When a development site encompasses environmentally sensitive areas,
these features shall be left intact and maintained as open space or buffers.
All development shall be set back from these areas to prevent hazardous
conditions and property damage, as well as to protect valuable shore
features.

4. All shoreline development shall be designed in accordance with all
applicable local and FEMA flood control management codes and
regulations, the State Environmental Policy Act and other applicable local
land use codes.

5. Areas with either an existing or high potential for aquaculture activities
shall be protected from degradation by other types of uses which are
located or are proposed to be located vAthin I mile of adjacent uplands. A
conclusive finding that such an adjacent use would result in irreparable
damage to or destruction of an existing aquaculture enterprise shall be
grounds for the denial of such use or activity.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-84

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. The use of herbicides and pesticides shall be prohibited to remove noxious
plants in streams, lakes and wetland areas except where no reasonable
alternatives exist and it is demonstrated that such activity is in the public
interest. A CUP shall be required in such cases. Mechanical removal of
noxious weeds shall be timed and carried out in a manner to minimize any
disruption of wildlife or habitat.

Geological Hazard Areas

Applicability
Geological hazard areas are areas susceptible to severe erosion or slide
activity, such as unstable bluffs, and include areas with high potential for
earthquake activity. They may be identified in GMA Critical Area documents
or the Coastal Zone Atlas. In general, they are not suitable for placing
structures or locating intense activities or uses due to the inherent threat to
public health and safety.

A certain level of erosion is natural to Puget Sound and rivers. Erosion is the
primary source of sand and gravel found on beaches including accretion
beaches (gravel bars, sand pits and barrier beaches). Extensive "hardening" of
feeder bluff areas will eventually starve beaches down drift or current of the
bluff, resulting in lowered beach profiles, channel shifts and the potential for
increased erosion. Changes in the beach substrate may result in habitat
impacts.

Vegetation removal during development of adjacent uplands alters surface
runoff and ground water infiltration patterns and can lead to increased bluff
instability.

Homes and other developments are often constructed very close to the top of
bluffs in order to capitalize on views. In response to accelerated erosion rates,
or on considering the results of normal erosion rates, land owners frequently
turn to bulkheading the toe of the slope.

A bluff is a steep headland, promontory, broad faced bank or cliff running
adjacent to and rising up from the shoreline. For the purpose of measuring
setbacks from the top of a bluff, the following shall apply. A bluff rises up
from the OHWM to the first significant break in slope. The "first significant
break" in slope is a bench at least 30 feet deep. The top of a bluff is measured
from the point where the first significant break in slope occurs.

Much of Puget Sound and some riverine shorelines consist of unstable bluffs.
These steep slopes of unstable materials erode at variable rates depending on
the type of material and intensity and frequency of forces acting on them such

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-85

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

as flood flows or storm waves. In some locations, the high-risk area is a
narrow band near the edge; in others, old landslides or active river channels
may impact a large distance inland.

Policies

I .Development should be prohibited or minimized on unstable or moderately
unstable slopes.

2. Development should be permitted only in locations where no slope
protection is necessary or where nonstructural protection is sufficient for
the life of the project.

3. Clearing vegetation on and within edges of bluffs should be avoided.
Retention of a natural buffer should be encouraged.

4. Construction should be discouraged within a 2:1 slope (a slope that rises I
foot for every 2 feet horizontal) from the base of the bluff

5. Structures should be designed and constructed in a manner that provides
safety for the useful life of the structure and does not require construction
of a retaining wall or bulkhead during that same time span.

6. Subdivision of lots on bluffs should allow sufficient lot depth for
development to occur without need for bulkheading or other structural
stabilization.

7. All sites indicated in the Coastal Zone Alias, local sensitive area maps or
other engineering documents to be on unstable material, river banks or old
landslides shall require a geotechnical report assessing the safety of the site
and addressing drainage, grading and clearing requirements.

Regulations

I .Construction activity shall not increase or result in slope instability or
sloughing.

2. Tree clearing and vegetation removal shall be limited to the minimum
extent necessary to allow construction of the proposed development.

3. Foundations and septic systems shall be placed out of the 2:1 slope area,
unless a soil engineer report indicates that slope stability NO] not be
affected.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-86

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. Surface drainage down the face of the bluff shall be contained in a tight line
(closed, nonleaking pipe) for discharge at the shoreline in such a way that
erosion will not occur.

5. Surface drainage away from the bluff shall also use a tight line or some
other approved method for discharge into a natural drainage course.

6. Stormwater retention systems will be discouraged unless designed by a
licensed civil engineer and a soil or geology engineering report verifies that
slope stability shall not be affected.

7. Proposals for developments on or immediately adjacent to unstable bluffs
shall include the folloiking information in their application:

a. Soils, topography and existing vegetation;

b. Existing drainage patterns and how they may be changed-,

c. Proposed vegetation removal and grading together with an erosion
control plan; and

d. Proposed structure and use locations.

8. A geotechnical report shall be required-when:

a. Activity is within 200 feet of a bluff classified as unstable or having
intermediate stability; or

b. Activity is within 200 feet of the shoreline when the vertical height of
the bank exceeds 20 feet; or

c. Activity is within the 2:1 slope of the toe of the bluff.

9. The geotechnical report shall contain:

a. Soils and erosion rates;

b. Drainage;

c. Vegetation management options;

d. Recommended setback to avoid need for building bulkhead during life
of project;

e. Evaluation and statement on stability and safety of structure; and

f. Evaluation and statement on stability of bluff.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-87

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Kelp Beds, Eelgrass Beds, Herring Spawning
Areas, Smelt Spawning Areas and Other Critical
Salt Water Habitats

Applicability
The Growth Management Act, in Sections 3 6.70A. 060 and 3 6.70A. 170 RCW,
requires local governments to designate and protect critical areas. This
requirement applies both to local governments planning under the Growth
Management Act and all other local governments. The Minimum Guidelines to
Classify Agriculture, Forest, Mineral Lands and Critical Areas, in WAC
365.190.080(5)(a)(4), designate kelp beds, eelgrass beds, herring spawning
areas and smelt spawning areas as critical areas. The minimum guidefines also
designate commercial and recreational shellfish areas as critical areas.

The Department of Fisheries has identified the four critical areas listed above
and the habitats of several other salt water fish as saltwater habitats of special
concern. These additional habitats include Pacific sand lance spawning beds,
rock sole spawning beds, rockfish settlement and nursery areas and lingcod
settlement and nursery areas.

Note: Aese recommendations are only applicable to local governments
which include within theirjurisdiction Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de
Fuca, the Pacific Ocean and associated estuaries, or the Columbia
estuary. Not all of these areas have the habitat types described in these
recommendations. As noted in the definition discussion, local
governments should only include the language applicable to their
jurisdiction. 7he Washington State Department of Community
Development's Planning Data Source Bookfor Resource Lands and
Critical Areas contains data sourcesfor locating kelp beds, eelgrass beds,
herring spawning areas and s7nelt spawning areas. 7he Habitat
Management Division of the Department of Fisheries is developing a
database listing the location of all saltwater habitats of special concern.
Other sources are listed in the additional information section in Chapter
18.

A brief description of critical salt water habitats and a suggested approach to
protecting these resources can be found in Chapter 18, Aquatic Habitats.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Policies

I . Critical saltwater habitats provide critical rearing and nursery areas for
valuable recreational and commercial species. They provide habitat for
many marine plants, fish and animals. These habitats should be protected
because of their importance to the marine ecosystem and the state and local
economy.

2. Critical salt water habitats are:

a. Kelp beds (members of the brown algal family Lan-tinariales, including
Alaria marginata, Alaria nana, Alaria tenuifolia, Egregia menziesii,
Eisenia arborea, Pterygophora californica, Agarum cribosurn, Agarum
fimbriatum, Costaria costata, Cymathere triplicata, Hedophyllum
sessile, Laminaria spp., Pleurophycus gardneri, Dictyoneuropsis
reticulata, Dictyoneurum californicum, Lessioniopsis littoralis,
Macrocystis integfifolia, Nereocystis luetkeana and Postelsia
palmaeforn-tis). Kelp beds are found in marine and estuarine intertidal
and subtidal areas with a depth of up to 15 meters below mean lower
low water (MLLW). The beds can be found on various bottom
materials including rocks, boulders, rn@ixed-fines (mixed sand and mud
with little gravel), mixed coarse (mixed cobbles, gravel, shell and sand)
and cobble.

b. Eelgrass beds (Zoster spp.). Eelgrass beds are found in marine and
estuarine intertidal and subtidal areas. Zostera marina tends to favor
the lower parts of intertidal areas and Zostera japonica, higher elevation
parts. Zostera spp. are generally found no deeper than 4 meters below
mean lower low water (MLLW). Zostera spp. beds can be found on
mud bottoms, sand bottoms and mixed-fine (mixed sand and mud %kith
little gravel) bottoms. Zostera has also been found in subtidal areas
with beds of finer material offshore of mixed coarse (mixed cobbles,
gravel, shell and sand) intertidal areas.

c. Surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) spawning beds. Surf smelt spawning
beds are located in the upper portions of sand or gravel beaches
(intertidal areas) on salt water.

d. Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) spawning beds. Pacific
herring spawning beds include the lower portions of salt water beaches
(intertidal areas), eelgrass beds, kelp beds, other types of salt water
vegetation such as algae and other bed materials such as subtidal worm
tubes.

Chapter 5 - En-si ron mentally Sensitive Areas H-89

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

e. Pacific sand lance (Ammodyies hexapterus) spawning beds. Pacific
sand lance spawning beds are located in the upper portions of sand or
gravel beaches (intertidal areas) on salt water.

f Rock sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata) spawning beds. Rock sole spawning
beds are located in the upper and middle portions of sand or gravel
beaches (intertidal areas) on salt water.

g. Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) settlement and nursery areas. Rockfish
settlement and nursery areas are located in kelp beds, in eelgrass beds,
on other types of salt water vegetation and on other bed materials.

h. Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) settlement and nursery areas. Lingcod
settlement and nursery areas are located on beaches (intertidal areas)
and subtidal areas with beds of sand, eelgrass, subtidal worm tubes or
other bed materials.

i. Shellfish beds. The following shellfish beds are included: the Pacific
oyster (Crassostrea gigas), the Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida), the
razor clam (Silqua patula), the native little neck clam (PLotothaca
staminea), the Manila clam (Venerupis japonica), the butter clam
(Saxidomus giganteus), the Geoduck (Panope generosa). the horse
clam (Schizothaerus nuttalli and SchizothatnjLcagax), the cockle
(Clinocardium nuttalli), the macoma (M coma spp.) and the eastern
L_
soft shell clam Wya arenaria).

1) Pacific oyster beds occur on almost every type of salt water beach
between the high and low tide marks.

2) Olympia oyster beds occur on mud or gravel flats near estuaries or
in tide pools near low tide level.

3) Razor clam beds occur on the intertidal areas of surf-swept sandy
beaches on the open ocean. Beds can be found to several meters
below the intertidal zone in the open ocean.

4) Native little neck clam beds are found on gravel-mud beaches of
protected salt water bays. The clams are concentrated at about the
half-tide level, but occur down to the subtidal level.

5) Manila calm beds occur in muddy gravel on salt water beaches
above the half tide level.

6) Butter clam beds occur on well protected sand-gravel beaches,
chiefly on the lower third of the tidal range. Butter clams have been
found as deep as 10 meters below mean sea level.

Chapter 5 - EnA ron mentally Sensitive Areas H-90

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

7) Geoduck beds occur on sand and mud substrates from intertidal
areas to deep water.

8) Horse clam beds occur on sandy bottoms and gravely bottoms from
extreme low tide into subtidal areas in salt water.

9) Cockle beds occur on sand-mud beaches on salt water in both the
intertidal zone and deep water. Cockle beds are also often found in
eelgrass flats.

10) Macoma beds occur in mud and sand in protected salt water areas.
Their range extends from intertidal areas to water as deep as 50
meters.

11) Eastern soft shell clam beds occur in sand and mud at high tidal
elevations, mainly in estuaries.

3. Critical saltwater habitats are mapped in [Omit this
policy if resources are not mapped.]

4. Except for public or sernipublic facilities where no alternative location is
available uses, activities and structures shall not be located in critical
saltwater habitats.

5. Developments within or adjacent to critical salt water habitats should not
directly or indirectly change the composition of the beach and bottom
substrate. Habitat enhancement and restoration projects may change beach
or bottom substrata when appropriate to restore or enhance habitats.

6. Developments outside critical salt water habitats but which have the
potential to significantly affect these habitats should be located and
designed so they do not create significant negative impacts on critical salt
water habitats.

7. Livestock should be prevented from access to surface water in areas which
drain to shellfish beds listed in policy 1. Livestock may be given access to
surface water for drinking if the watering area is developed to reduce bank
erosion and affects only a limited area of the bank.

8. Where uses, activities, structures and landfills must locate where they will
affect critical salt water habitats, the project should be designed and
constructed to minimize adverse impacts on the environment and the
critical salt water habitats.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-91

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

9. Project proponents should contact the Habitat Management Division of the
Department of Fisheries and the Aquatic Lands Program of the Department
of Natural Resources early in the development process to determine if the
available data show the proposal will occur in a known critical salt water
habitat.

10. When reviewing pen-nits for uses, activities and structures in salt water
areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHAVM), staff should
contact the Habitat Management Division of the Department of Fisheries
and the Aquatic Lands Program of the Department of Natural Resources to
determine if the proposal will occur in a known critical salt water habitat.

11. A project proponent shall conduct a reconnaissance study to determine
whether critical salt water habitats are present within an area affected by a
proposed development as provided below.

a. For areas which may be used by fish which spawn on sand, gravel, or
sand and gravel beaches and shellfish beds, the project proponent shall
conduct a reconnaissance study to determine whether critical salt water
habitats are present within an area affected by a proposed development
if all of the following conditions are met:

1) The proposed use or activity has a significant potential to adversely
affect a critical salt water habitat.

2) The beach which the development or use may affect is the type of
environment in which a critical salt water habitat typically occurs.

3) The existing data available from the resource agencies do not show
that the site is not occupied by a critical salt water habitat.

b. For kelp beds, eelgrass beds, rockfish settlement and nursery areas and
lingcod settlement and nursery areas, a project proponent shall conduct
a reconnaissance study to determine whether critical salt water habitats
are present within an area affected by a proposed development if all of
the following conditions are met.-

1) The proposed use or activity has a significant potential to adversely
affect a critical salt water habitat.

2) The salt water area which the development or use may affect is the
type of environment in which a critical salt water habitat may occur.

c. For all areas, the study should be designed in consultation with the
local government, affected state and federal resource agencies and
affected Indian Nations. The study should take place during the
growing season.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-92

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations

I . Landfills shall not intrude into critical salt water habitats.

2. Bulkheads and shoreline modification and stabikation structures shall not
intrude into critical salt water habitats, except as provided in regulation 5
below. Where an existing bulkhead or structure cannot be removed
because of environmental, safety, or geological concerns, the least
environmentally impacting alternative shall be used. Any replacement
bulkhead or shoreline protection structure shall be as close the existing
structure as possible.

3. Marinas and over-water residences of any type (including floating homes,
houseboats and liveaboards) shall not be located over critical salt water
habitats. These facilities shall be designed and located to avoid impacts to
nearby critical salt water habitats.

4. Floats, rafts, docks and boathouses shall not be located over critical salt
water habitats, except as provided in regulation 5 below. Floats, rafts,
docks, boathouses and associated moorings shall not shade eelgrass, algae
and other saltwater vegetation. Anchoring systems for these structures
shall not adversely affect critical salt water habitats.

5. Industrial docks, commercial and industrial vessel moorage, navigation
channels, breakwaters, jetties, groins and public shoreline protection
structures shall not intrude into critical salt water habitats unless the
proponent shows all of the following conditions are met:

a. An alternative alignment is not feasible.

b. The project is designed to minimize its impacts on critical salt water
habitats and the environment.

c. Any adverse impacts will be mitigated.

d. The facility is in the public interest.

6. Publicly owned recreational facilities such as boat launches shall avoid
critical salt water habitats. Where these areas cannot be avoided, publicly
owned recreational facilities shall be designed to minimize their impacts on
critical salt water habitats and mitigate any adverse impacts.

7. Anchorage and mooring floats shall not be located over critical salt water
habitats.

Chapter 5 - Emironmentally Sensitive Areas H-93

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

8. In-water dredge spoil disposal sites shall be prohibited in critical salt water
habitats or in locations where the disposal of dredge spoil materials is likely
to result in the deposition of sediments on critical salt water habitats.

9. Aquaculture uses shall not be established in or expanded into or over
critical salt water habitats.

10. Except as a habitat improvement or restoration measure, aquatic herbicide
treatments, mechanical removal of vegetation and aquatic pesticide
treatments shall not be used on critical salt water habitats. Where
alternative management methods will not work, Zostera Japonica may be
removed from areas currently used for aquaculture.

11. Bridges, causeways and in-water utility corridors shall not intrude into or
adversely affect critical salt water habitats unless the proponent shows all
of the following conditions are met:

a. An alternative alignment is not feasible.

b. The project is designed to minimize its impacts on critical salt water
habitats and the environment.

c. Any adverse impacts will be mitigated.

d. The facility is in the public interest.

12. Sand, gravel, or other materials shall not be mined or removed from critical
salt water habitats or areas where the activity will adversely affect critical
salt water habitats.

13. Outfalls and discharge pipes shall not be located in critical salt water
habitats or areas where outfall or discharge will adversely affect critical salt
water habitats. unless the proponent shows all of the following
requirements are met:

a. There is no alternative location for the outfall or pipe.

b. The outfall or pipe is placed below the surface of the beach or bed of
the water body.

c. The outfall discharges waterward of the subtidal zone.

d. The disturbed area is revegetated, if it was vegetated before
construction.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-94

SM11? Handbook - 1994 Edition

e. The discharge point(s) on the outfall or discharge pipe is located so the
discharges, including nutrients in the discharge and currents, do not
adversely affect critical salt water habitats.

Wetlands

Note: As with other environmentally sensitive areas, wetlands occupy an
important niche in the shoreline environment, but they have often been
overlooked in the develo ment of shoreline master rogram policies and
p p
regulations due to a lack ofguidelinesfor their protection and
management. Local governments are now encouraged to adopt shoreline
master program policies and regulations, or other development
regulations as required by the Growth Management Act, to protect
wetlands. Any provisions to protect shoreline wetland@ should be
consistent with and at least as protective as other local provisions to
protect wetlands. Local governments are also encouraged to implement
comprehensive wetlands protection programs that include both regulatory
and nonregulatory components.

Applicability
The following provisions apply to all marshes, bogs and swamps and wetlands
delineated according to the 1989 Federal Manual For Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.

Policies

I .Wetlands serve many important ecological and environmental functions,
and help to protect public health, safety and welfare by providing flood
storage and conveyance, erosion control, sediment control, fish and
shellfish production, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, water quality
protection, water supply, education and scientific research. Wetlands
should be preserved and protected to prevent their continued loss and
degradation.

2. Wetland areas should be identified according to established identification
and delineation procedures and afforded appropriate protection consistent
with the policies and regulations of this program.

3. All wetlands should be protected from alterations which adversely impact
them so that there is no net loss of wetland acreage and functions. The
greatest protection should be provided to wetlands of exceptional resource
value, defined as those wetlands that include rare, sensitive or irreplaceable
Is systems such as:

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-95

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

a. Documented or potential habitat for an endangered, threatened or
sensitive species;

b. I-Egh-quality native wetland systems;

c. Significant habitat for fish or aquatic species as determined by the
appropriate state resource agency-,

d. Diverse wetlands exhibiting a high mixture of wetland classes and
subclasses as defined in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification
system;

e. Mature forested swamp communities;

f Sphagnum bogs or fens; and

g. Estuarine wetlands, kelp beds or eelgrass beds.

4. A wetland buffer zone of adequate width should be maintained between a
wetland and any adjacent development to protect the functions and
integrity of the wetland.

5. The width of the established buffer zone should be based upon the
functions and sensitivity of the wetland, the characteristics of the existing
buffer and the potential impacts associated with the adjacent land use.

6. All activities which potentially affect wetland ecosystems should be
controlled within both the wetland and the buffer zone to prevent adverse
impacts.

7. No wetland alteration should be authorized unless it can be shown that the
impact is both unavoidable, necessary and rr@inin-fized and that any
remaining impacts are offset through the deliberate restoration, creation or
enhancement of wetlands.

8. Wetland restoration, creation and enhancement projects should result in no
net loss of wetland acreage and functions. Where feasible, wetland quality
should be improved.

9. Wetlands which are impacted by activities of a temporary nature should be
restored immediately upon project completion.

10. In-kind replacement of functions and values is preferred. Where in-kind
replacement is not feasible or practical due to the characteristics of the
existing wetland, substitute resources of equal or greater ecological value
should be provided.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-96

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

11. On-site replacement of wetlands is preferred. Where on-site replacement is
not feasible or practical due to characteristics of the existing location,
replacement should occur within the same watershed and proxin-@ity.

12. Wetland restoration, creation and enhancement projects should be
completed prior to wetland alteration, where possible. In all other cases,
replacement should be completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity
or development.

13. Applicants should develop comprehensive mitigation plans in order to
ensure long term success of the mitigation project. Such plans should
provide for sufficient monitoring and contingencies to ensure wetland
persistence.

14. Applicants should demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, supervisory
capability and financial resources to complete and monitor the mitigation
project.

15. Proposals for restoration, creation or enhancement should be coordinated
with appropriate resource agencies to -ensure adequate design and
consistency with other regulatory requirements.

16. Activities should be discouraged in wetland buffer zones except where such
activities have no adverse impacts on wetland ecosystem functions or when
necessary to provide for a reasonable use of the property.

17. Wetland buffer zones should be retained in their natural conditions unless
revegetation is necessary to restore the buffer.

18. Wetland buffer zones should be reserved as common open space and
designated as "native growth protection areas" where multiple ownership is
involved and cooperative management is possible.

19. The City/County does not intend to deny all economic use of any property
subject to these policies and regulations, except as the public trust doctrine
would lin-Lit the use of the property. This policy will be implemented
through the appropriate application of the following: project design
standards, transfers of development rights, mitigation and variances.

Regulafions

1. For identifying and delineating a marsh, bog or swamp, applicants shall use
the 1989 Federal Manualfor Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-97

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. No development or activity including removing or disturbing soil, filling,
changing the water level, placing obstructions, constructing a structure,
destroying or altering vegetation or introducing pollutants may be
permitted within a wetland or its buffer unless authorized by a conditional
use permit.

3. Development or activities shall not be authorized in a wetland except
where it can be demonstrated that;

a. The impact is both unavoidable and necessary;

b. Unavoidable and necessary impacts are minin-dzed, and any remaining
impacts are offset through the deliberate restoration, creation or
enhancement of wetlands of equivalent or greater resource value,
including acreage and function;

c. The restored, created or enhanced wetland wifl be as persistent as the
wetland it replaces; and

d. The applicant demonstrates sufficient scientific expertise, supervisory
capability and financial resources to carry out the proposed replacement
activity.

4. For wetlands of exceptional resource value, the applicant, in addition to
complying with the provisions above, shall demonstrate that there is a
compelling public need for the proposed activity or that denial of the
permit would impose an extraordinary hardship on the applicant brought
about by circumstances peculiar to the subject property.

5. In-kind replacement of functions and values shall be provided, unless it is
found that in-kind replacement is not feasible or practical due to the
characteristics of the existing wetland and a greater environmental benefit
can be demonstrated by an alternative. In such cases, substitute resources
of equal or greater ecological value shall be provided.

6. Wetland functions and values shall be calculated using the best professional
judgment of a qualified wetland ecologist using the best available
technology.

7. On-site replacement shall be provided, unless it is found that on-site
replacement is not feasible or practical due to physical features of the
property and a greater environmental benefit can be demonstrated by an
alternative. In such cases, replacement shall occur within the same
watershed and proximity.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-98

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

8. Except as noted in regulation 9 below, at a minimum, wetland acreage shall
be replaced at a ratio of acreage replaced to acreage lost of 1.25: 1. For
wetlands of exceptional resource value, the minimum acreage replacement
ratio shall be 6: 1. Actual replacement acreage will be determined case-by-
case, based on the following criteria:

a. Projected losses or gains in wetland functions and value;

b. Location of replacement wetlands;

c. The time required to reestablish lost functions;

d. The uncertainty of the probable success of the project; and

e. The type of compensation (enhancement proposals shall require twice
the acreage replacement as restoration and creation proposals); and

f, Variety of the wetland type being impacted.

9. Acreage replacement may be authorized at 1: 1 where it is found through
special studies coordinated with agencies with expertise, or through
advance compensation, that no net loss of wetland function results.

10. Replacement wetlands shall be completed prior to or concurrent with
wetland alteration, and immediately after activities that will temporarily
disturb wetlands activities.

11. A compensation plan shall be required for developments or activities which
result in unavoidable and necessary wetland alterations. The plan shall
include the following elements:

a. Baseline information for the impacted wetland and the proposed
replacement site-,

b. Environmental goals and objectives describing the purposes of the
mitigation measures, a description of the site selection criteria and
identification of target evaluation species and resource functions-,

c. Performance standards including specific criteria for fulfilling goals and
objectives and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures;

d. Detailed construction plan including work schedule, revegetation
information, buffers, estimated cost, site plan with contours and
elevation and other information;

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-99

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

e. Monitoring program outlining the approach for assessing a completed
project over a five-year period. A report shall be submitted annually, at
a minimum documenting n-diestones, success, problems and
contingency actions; and

f Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action and any
corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation
indicates project performance standards are not being met.

12. Where restoration, creation or enhancement activities are proposed, the
applicant shaU be required to:

a. File a performance bond in an amount to enable the regulatory
authority to carry out the compensation plan should the applicant fail to
do so; and

b. Compensation areas shall be permanently protected through legal
instruments such as sensitive area tracts, conservation easements or a
comparable use restriction.

13. A wetland buffer zone of 200 feet shall be required adjacent to wetland
areas of exceptional resource value unless a greater distance is required by
other provisions of this program. For all other wetland systems, a wetland
buffer zone of 100 feet shall be required, except that buffers less than 100
feet but no less than 25 feet may be authorized as a conditional use.

14. Wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural condition. Where
buffer disturbance has occurred during construction, revegetation with
native vegetation may be required. Developments and activities shaU not
be allowed within the buffer except for:

a. Minor activities which are found to have no adverse impact on the
wetland functions or integrity;

b. Stormwater management facilities having no feasible alternative
location outside of the buffer; or

c. Linear developments having no feasible alternative location outside of
the buffer.

15. The location of all required buffer zones shall be clearly and permanently
marked on any project site prior to initiation of site work.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-100

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Salmon and Steelhead Habitats

Applicability

In addition to these provisions, several other chapters of this shoreline master
program contain policies and regulations which protect salmon and steethead
habitats. They include the sections on agriculture, forestry, clearing and
grading, wetlands, riparian corridors, vegetation management, shoreline
modification, i6krearn structures, water quality and floodplains. Applicants
should consult these sections as well as this section.

Note: Salmon and steelhead are two of the enduring symbols of the
Northwest. Salmon and steelhead are also an important economic and
recreational resource. A brief description of salmon and steelhead
habitat and a suggested approach to protecting this resource can be found
in Chapter 18, Aquatic Habitats.

Many counties contain extensive and varied salmon and steelhead
habitats. All of the suggestedpolicies and regulations may apply to them.
Some counties and most cities will have a limited number of habitat types.
Aese local governments should include only those suggestedpolicies and
regulations which apply to the habitat types within theirjurisdiction.

Ae Department of Community Development's Planning Data Source
Bookfor Resource Lands and Critical Areas contains data sourcesfor
locating certain salmon and steelhead habitat areas and high-quality
estuarine ecosystems. ne Puget SoundEnvironmental Atlas contains
information on salmon and steelhead habitat areas. Ae Habitat
Management Division of the Department ofFisheries is developing a
database listing the locations of all saltwater habitats of special concern,
includingjuvenile salmon migration corridors and saft water rearing and
feeding areas. Ae Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife have
information on salmon and steelhead habitats. Indian Nations also have
information on salmon and steelhead habitats.

Policies

1. Salmon and steelhead habitats support valuable recreational and
commercial fisheries. These habitats should be protected because of their
importance to the aquatic ecosystem and the state and local economy.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-101

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. Salmon and steelhead habitats are:

a. Gravel bottomed streams creeks and rivers used for spawning;

b. Streams, creeks, rivers, side channels, ponds, lakes and wetlands used
for reafing, feeding and cover and refuge from predators and high
waters;

c. Streams, creeks, rivers, estuaries and salt water bodies used as
migration corridors; and

d. Shallow areas of salt water bodies used for rearing, feeding and refilge
from predators and currents.

3. Salmon and steelhead habitats are mapped in [Omit
this policy if resources are not mapped.]

4. Non-water-dependent or non-water-related uses, activities, structures and
landfills should not be located in salmon and steelhead habitats.

5. Where alternative locations exist water-dependent and water-related uses,
activities, structures and landfills should not be located in salmon and
steelhead habitats.

6. Where uses, activities, structures and landfills must locate in salmon and
steelhead habitats, impacts on these areas should be lessened to the
maximum extent possible. Significant unavoidable impacts should be
mitigated by creating in-kind replacement habitat near the project where
feasible. Where in-kind replacement mitigation is not feasible,
rehabilitating degraded habitat may be required. Mitigation proposals
should be developed in consultation with the affected local government, the
Department of Fisheries, the Department of Wildlife and affected Indian
Nations.

7. Developments which are outside salmon and steelhead habitats but which
have the potential to significantly affect these habitats should be located
and designed so they do not create significant negative impacts on salmon
and steelhead habitats.

8. Bioengineering is the preferred bank protection technique for rivers and
streams used by salmon and steelhead. Also see the Shoreline Modification
Policies and Regulations of this master program. (A set of recommended
Shoreline Modification Policies and Regulations can be found in Chapter 8
of the Handbook.)

9. Floating structures and open pile structures are preferred over landfills or
solid structures in water areas used by salmon and steelhead.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-102

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

10. Open pile bfidges are preferred for crossing water areas used by salmon
and steelhead.

11. Impervious surfaces shall be minimized in upland developments to reduce
stormwater runoff peaks. Structures and uses creating significant
impervious surfaces shall include stormwater detention systems to reduce
stormwater runoff peaks.

12. The discharge of silt into waterways shall be minimized dufing in-water and
upland construction.

13. Adopt-A-Strearn programs and similar efforts to rehabilitate salmon and
steelhead spawning streams are encouraged.

14. Fishery enhancement projects are encouraged where they will not
significantly interfere with other beneficial uses.

15. The agriculture, forestry, clearing and grading, wetlands, fipafian corridors,
vegetation management, shoreline modification, instrearn structures and
water quality sections of this shoreline master program contain policies and
regulations which protect salmon and steelhead habitats. Uses and
activities proposed for shoreline areas should comply with all applicable
policies and regulations of this shoreline master program.

16. Project proponents should contact the Habitat Management Division of the
Department of Fisheries, the Habitat Division of the Department of Wildlife
or affected Indian Nations early in the development process to determine if
the proposal will occur in or adjacent to a salmon and steelhead habitat.

17. When reviewing permits for uses, activities and structures proposed for salt
water areas, fivers and streams, fiver and stream side channels, wetlands
and ponds connected to rivers and streams and shorelines adjacent to these
areas; staff should contact the Habitat Management Division of the
Department of Fishefies or the Habitat Division of the Department of
Wildlife to determine if the proposal will occur in or affect an adjacent
salmon or steelhead habitat. Staff should also contact affected Indian
Nations.

Regulations

I . Structures which prevent the migration of salmon and steelhead shall not
be allowed in the portions of water bodies used by these fish. Fish bypass
facilities shall allow the upstream migration of adult fish. Fish bypass
facilities shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being
trapped or harmed.

Chapter 5 - EnA ron mentally Sensithm Areas H-103

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. Landfills shall not intrude into salmon and steelhead habitats, except as
provided in regulation 3.

3. Landfills may intrude into salt water areas used by salmon and steelhead for
migration corridors, rearing, feeding and refuge only where the proponent
obtains a conditional use permit (CUP) and demonstrates all of the
following conditions are met:

a. The landfill is for a water-dependent or water-related use-,

b. An alternative alignment or location is not feasible-,

c. The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment-,

d. The facility is in the public interest; and

e. If the project will create significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the
impacts are mitigated by creating in-kind replacement habitat near the
project. Where in-kind replacement mitigation is not feasible,
rehabilitating degraded habitat may be required as a substitute.

4. Unless the applicant demonstrates that bioengineering techniques will not
be successful, bulkheads and other shoreline protection structures are
prohibited in salmon and steelhead habitat.

5. Where bulkheads and other shoreline protection structures are allowed, the
toe of the bulkhead or structure shall be located landward of the ordinary
high water mark except as provided in regulation 6 below. Where an
existing bulkhead or structure cannot be removed because of
environmental, safety, or geological concerns, the least environmentally
impacting alternative shall be used. Any replacement bulkhead or shoreline
protection structure shall be as close to the existing structure as possible.
Also see the Shoreline Modification Policies and Regulations and the
bulkhead and shore protection structure policies for Critical Salt Water
Habitats of this master program. (A set of recommended Shoreline
Modification Policies and Regulations can be found in Chapter 8 of the
Hwidbook.)

6. Bulkheads, breakwaters, jetties, groins and other shoreline protection
structures may intrude into salmon and steelhead habitats only where the
proponent demonstrates all of the following conditions are met:

a. An alternative alignment or location is not feasible;

b. The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment;

c. The facility is in the public interest; and

Chapter 5 - EnAronmentally Sensitive Areas H-104

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

d. If the project will create significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the
impacts are mitigated by creating in-kind replacement habitat near the
project. Where in-kind replacement mitigation is not feasible,
rehabilitating degraded habitat may be required as a substitute.

7. Docks, piers, pilings and floats may be located in water areas used by
salmon and steelhead for migration corridors, rearing, feeding and refuge,
provided the facilities use open piling construction. Approach fills shall be
located landward of the ordinary high water mark. Docks, piers, pilings
and floats shall not be located in other salmon and steelhead habitats. The
project shall be designed to minimize its impacts on the environment.

8. Open pile bridges are the preferred water crossing structures over salmon
and steelhead habitats. If a bridge is not feasible, one of the following
water crossing structures may be approved if the impacts are acceptable:
temporary culverts, bottomless arch culverts, elliptical culverts or round
culverts. These structures are listed in priority order, with the first having
the highest preference and the last the lowest preference. In order for a
lower priority structure to be permitted, the applicant must show the higher
priority structures are not feasible. The project shall be designed to
minin-dze its impacts on the environment.

9. Bridges and in-water utility corridors may be located in salmon and
steelhead habitat provided the proponent shows that all of the following
conditions are met:

a. An alternative alignment is not feasible;

b. The project is located and designed to n-@nirniize its impacts on the
environment;

c. Any alternative impacts are mitigated; and

d. Any landfill is located landward of the ordinary high water mark. Open
piling and piers required to construct the bridge may be placed
waterward of the ordinary high water mark, if no alternative method is
feasible.

Notwithstanding regulations 4 and 12, when installing in-water utilities,
the installer may place native material on the bed and banks of the
water body or wetland to reestablish the preconstruction elevation and
contour of the bed. The project shall be designed to minimize its
impacts on the environment.

Chapter 5 - Ensi ron mentally Sensitive Areas H-105

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

10. Dredging which will damage shallow water habitat used by salmon and
steelhead for migration corridors, rearing, feeding and refuge shall not be
allowed unless the proponent demonstrates all of the following conditions
are met:

a. The dredging is for a water-dependent or water-related use;

b. An alternative alignment or location is not feasible;

c. The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment;

d. The facility is in the public interest; and

e. If the project will create significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the
impacts are n-dtigated by creating in-kind replacement habitat near the
project. Where in-kind replacement mitigation is not feasible,
rehabilitating degraded habitat may be required as a substitute.

11. Dredging and the removal of bed materials below the water line is
prohibited within salmon and steelhead spaw-ning areas. River bar gravel
mining may be allowed as provided in regulation 13.

12. River bar gravel mining may be allowed where the proponent demonstrates
all of the following conditions are met:

a. The gravel removed from the river or stream does not exceed the
average annual recruitment of bedload material. Additional gravel may
be removed where the applicant can demonstrate the channel capacity
has been significantly reduced.

b. The gravel is removed from the area between the existing water level
and the permanently vegetated portions of the bank.

c. The project will not cause any adverse impacts on salmon and steelhead
habitat, especially through increased sedimentation.

13. Projects which propose water withdrawals or diversions shall maintain
adequate flows within the water body to maintain salmon and steelhead
habitat, taking into account existing and likely future withdrawals and
diversions.

14. In-water dredge spoil disposal sites shall not be located in salmon and
steelhead habitats.

15. Landfilling, dredging, channelization and other activities which negatively
impact habitat values are prohibited in wetlands, ponds and side channels
which provide refuge or other habitat for salmon or steelhead.

Chapter 5 - Environmentally Sensitive Areas H-106

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

16. Within salmon and steelhead habitats, permanent channel changes and
realignments are prohibited.

17. Aquaculture uses shall not be established in or expanded in salmon and
steelhead habitat, except for areas that are only used for n-dgration
corridors. This regulation only applies to in-water aquaculture uses, not
upland aquaculture uses.

18. The removal of aquatic and riparian vegetation within or adjacent to
salmon and steelhead habitats shall be minin-dzed. Trees which shade side
channels, streams, rivers, ponds and wetlands used by salmon and steelhead
shall be maintained. Areas of disturbed earth shall be revegetated.

19. Unless removal is needed to prevent hazards to life and property or to
enhance fish habitat, large woody debris below the ordinary high water
mark shall be left in the waterway to provide salmon and steelhead habitat.

20. Outfalls within or upstream of salmon or steelhead spawning areas shall be
designed and constructed to minimize disturbance of salmon and steelhead
spawning beds.

mill
` 11h
044 :7.

Chapter 5 - Ensironmentally Sensitive Areas H-107

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Parking

Applicability

Parking is the temporary storage of automobiles or other motorized vehicles.
Except as noted the following provisions apply only to parking that is
It accessory" to a permitted shoreline use. Parking as a "primary" use and
parking which serves a use not permitted in the shoreline jurisdiction is
prohibited.

Policies

I .Parking in shoreline areas should directly serve a permitted shoreline use.

2. Parking facilities should be located and designed to minimize adverse
impacts including those related to stormwater runoff, water quality, visual
qualities, public access and vegetation and habitat maintenance.

3. Parking should be planned to achieve optimum use. Where possible,
parking should serve more than one use (e.g. serving recreational use on
weekends, commercial uses on weekdays).

Regulations

I .Parking as a primary use shall be prohibited over water and within
shoreline jurisdiction.

2. Parking in shoreline jurisdiction shall directly serve a permitted shoreline

use.

3. Parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped to minin-dze adverse
impacts upon adjacent shoreline and abutting properties. Landscaping shall
consist of native vegetation and be planted before completion of the
parking area in such a manner that plantings provide effective screening
within three years of project completion. (Local jurisdictions may want to
establish minimum or maximum height of "screen" and consider specific
view corridors across a site.)

Chapter 5 - Parking H-108

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. Parking facilities serving individual buildings on the shoreline shall be
located landward from the principal building being served, EXCEPT when
the parking facility is within or beneath the structure and adequately
screened, or in cases when an alternate location would have less
environmental impact on the shoreline.

Notes to Master Programmers

For example, it may be preferable to locate a large warehouse wall awayftom
the shoreline along a river corridor with a pedestrian trail in order to reduce
solar shading and the needfor site grading.

5. Parking facilities for shoreline activities shall provide safe and convenient
pedestrian circulation within the parking area and to the shorelines.

6. Parking facilities shall provide adequate facilities to prevent surface water
runoff from contaminating water bodies, using best available technologies
and include a maintenance program that will assure proper functioning of
such facilities over time.

njrY k".1

fwn:--- Big-

Chapter 5 - Parking H-109

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Public Access

Applicability

Shoreline public access is the physical ability of the general public to reach and
touch the water's edge and/or the ability to have a view of the water and the
shoreline from upland locations. There are a variety of types of public access
including picnic areas, pathways and trails (including handicapped), floats and
docks, promenades, viewing towers, bridges, boat launches, street ends,
ingress and egress, parking and others.

Notes to Master Programmers

An important goal of the Shoreline Management Act is to protect and enhance
public access to the State's shorelines. Critical to accomplishing this goal is
the establishment of a Comprehensive Public Access plan which provides a
foundation for determining access requirements and setting shoreline
development guidelines. The result of developing and implementing a
comprehensive plan is the protection and enhancement of shoreline accessfor
the public. A major supreme court ruling ollan v. Coastal Commission
L287
) deals directly with placing conditions on permits and illustrates the
needfor comprehensive planning. Ihe Alollan case points out that permit
administrators should make decisions on a sound legal basis. nere a public
agency requires public access as a permit condition, there must be a rational
connection between the project's impact on public access and the public
access required.

The public trust doctrine gives individual states the responsibility to hold
certain natural resources in trustfor the people and is the foundationfor a
line of court cases defining public access. Aese cases have affirmed that
even though the State has the right to sell lands beneath the waters, the new
property owners must abide by the dictates of the public trust. This applies to
not only navigable waters, but also to certain wetlands subject to the ebb and
floiv of the tides.

For additional information on this subject, see also Shoreline Public Access
Handbook (Ecology Publication #90-6) and Case Studies of Conditional
Public Access in Puget Sound (Ecology Publication #91-4).

Chapter 5 - Public Access H-110

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Policies

1. Public access should be considered in the review of all private and public
developments (including land division) with the exception of the following:

a. One- and two-family dwelling units; or

b. Agricultural/ranching activities; or

c. Where deemed inappropriate due to health, safety and environmental

concerns.

2. Developments, uses and activities on or near the shoreline should not
impair or detract from the public's access to the water.

3. Public access should be provided as close as possible to the water's edge
without adversely affecting a sensitive environment and should be designed
with provisions for handicapped and physically impaired persons.

4. Publicly owned shorelines should be limited to water-dependent or public
recreational uses, otherwise such shorelines should remain protected open
space.

5. Public access afforded by shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights-
of-way should be preserved, maintained and enhanced.

6. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety and to
minimize potential impacts to private property and individual privacy.

7. The public access area should be a comfortable and safe place to visit.

8. There should be a physical separation or other means of clearly delineating
public and private space in order to avoid unnecessary user conflict.

9. Public views from the shoreline upland areas should be enhanced and
preserved. Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean
excessive removal of vegetation that partially impairs views..

Regulations

1. Except as provided in regulations 2 and 3, shoreline substantial
developments or conditional uses shall provide public access where any of
the following conditions are present:

Chapter 5 - Public Access H-111

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

a. Where a development or use will create increased demand for public
access to the shoreline, the development or use shall provide public
access to mitigate this impact.

b. Where a development or use will interfere with an existing public
access way, the development or use shall provide public access to
mitigate this impact. Developments may interfere with accesses on
their development site by blocking access or by discouraging use of
existing on-site or nearby accesses.

c. Where a use which is not a priority shoreline use under the Shoreline
Management Act will locate on a shoreline of the state, the use or
development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact.

d. Where a use or development will interfere with a public use of lands or
waters subject to the public trust doctrine, the development shall
provide public access to mitigate this impact.

The shoreline permit file shall describe the impact, the required public
access conditions, and how the conditions address the impact.

2. An applicant need not provide public access where one or more of the
following conditions apply. 0
a. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist which cannot
be prevented by any practical means;

b. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through
the application of alternative design features or other solutions;

c. The cost of providing the access, easement or an alternative amenity is
unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the
proposed development;

d. Unacceptable environmental harm will result from the public access
which cannot be mitigated; or

e. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access
provisions and the proposed use and/or adjacent uses would occur and
cannot be mitigated.

3. In order to meet any of the conditions "a" through "e" above, the
applicant must first demonstrate and the City/County determine in its
findings that all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, including but
not limited to:

Chapter 5 - Public Access H-112

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

a. Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting
hours of use;

b. Designing separation of uses and activities (e.g. fences, terracing, use
of one-way glazings, hedges, landscaping, etc.); and

c. Developing provisions for access at a site geographically separated
from the proposal such as a street end, vista or trail system.

4. Development uses and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid
blocking, reducing or adversely interfering with the public's physical access
to the water and shorelines.

5. Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities and rights-
of-way shall not be diminished (RCW 35.79.035 and RCW 36.87.130).

6. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public street
and shall include provisions for handicapped and physically impaired
persons, where feasible.

7. Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for
public use at the time of occupancy of the use or activity.

8. Public access easements and permit conditions shall be recorded on the
deed of title and/or on the face of a plat or short plat as a condition running
contemporaneous with the authorized land use, at a minimum. Said
recording with the County Auditor's Office shall occur at the time of permit
approval (RCW 58.17.110).

9. Minimum width of public access easements shall be 25 feet, unless the
administrator determines that undue hardship would result. In such cases,
easement width may be reduced only to the minimum extent necessary to
relieve the hardship.

10. The standard state approved logo or other approved signs that indicate the
public's right of access and hours of access shall be constructed, instaHed
and maintained by the applicant in conspicuous locations at public access
sites. In accordance with regulation 2-a, signs may control or restrict
public access as a condition of permit approval.

11. Future actions by the applicant successors in interest or other parties shaU
not diminish the usefulness or value of the public access provided.

Chapter 5 - Public Access H-113

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shorelines of
State-wide Significance

Applicability

The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated certain shoreline areas as
shorelines of state-wide significance. Within this City/County's jurisdiction
5------ are shorelines of state-wide- significance. Shorelines thus
designated are important to the entire state. Because these shorelines are
major resources from which all people in the state derive benefit, this
jurisdiction gives preference to uses which favor long-range goals and support
the overall public interest.

Policies (in order of preference)

1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest.

a. Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals
representing state-wide interests by circulating the master program, and
any amendments there of affecting shorelines of state-wide significance,
to state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, citizen's advisory committees
and local officials and state-wide interest groups.

b. Recognize and take into account state agencies' policies, programs and
recommendations in developing and administering use regulations and
in approving shoreline perrnits.

c. Solicit comments, opinions and advice from individuals with expertise
in ecology, geology, limnology, aquaculture and other scientific fields
pertinent to shoreline management.

2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.

a. Designate and adn-dnister shoreline environments and use regulations to
minin-dze damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline as a
result of man-made intrusions on shorelines.

b. Upgrade and redevelop those areas where intensive development
already exists in order to reduce adverse impact on the environment
and to accommodate future growth rather than allowing high intensity
uses to extend into low-intensity use or underdeveloped areas.

Chapter 5 - Shorelines of State-wide Significance - H-114

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

c. Ensure that where commercial timber cutting is allowed, as provided in
RCW 90.58.150, reforestation will be possible and accomplished as
soon as practical.

d. Provide for review and approval of subsequent use before commercial
timber land is converted to a new use to ensure adequate buffers and
appropriate site design.

e. Protect and preserve existing diversity of vegetation and habitat values,
wetlands and riparian corridors associated with shoreline areas.

3. Result in long-term over short-term benefit.

a. Evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience of developments
relative to the long-term and potentially costly impairments to the
natural shoreline.

b. In general, preserve resources and values of shorelines of state-wide
significance for future generations and restrict or prohibit development
that would irretrievably damage shoreline resources.

c. Actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating new
development, redevelopment of existing facilities or general
enhancement of shoreline areas.

4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.

a. Nfinimize development activity that will interfere with the natural
functioning of the shoreline ecosystem, including, but not limited to:
stability, drainage, aesthetic values and water quality.

b. All shoreline development should be located, designed, constructed and
managed to avoid disturbance of and minimize adverse impacts to
wildlife resources, including spawning, nesting, rearing and habitat
areas and migratory routes.

c. Restrict or prohibit public access onto areas which cannot be
maintained in a natural condition under human use.

d. Shoreline materials including, but not limited to, bank substrate, sofls,
beach sands and gravel bars should be left undisturbed by shoreline
development. Gravel mining should be severely limited in shoreline
areas.

e. Preserve environmentally sensitive wetlands for use as open space or
buffers and encourage restoration of presently degraded wetland areas.

Chapter 5 - Shorelines of State-wide Significance H-115

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline.

a. Give priority to developing paths and trails to shoreline areas, linear
access along the shorelines and to developed upland parking.

b. Locate development landward of the ordinary high water mark so that
access is enhanced.

6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline.

a. Plan for and encourage development of facilities for recreational use of
the shoreline.

b. Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities on uplands well away
from the shorelines with provisions for nonmotorized access to the
shorefine.

Chapter 5 -Shorelines of State-wide Significance H-116

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Signage

Applicability

A sign is defined as a device of any material or medium, including structural
component parts, which is used or intended to be used to attract attention to
the subject matter for advertising, identification or informative purposes. The
following provisions apply to any commercial or advertising sign directing
attention to a business, professional service, community, site, facility, or
entertainment, conducted or sold either on or off premises.

Policies

1. Signs should be designed and placed so that they are compatible with the
aesthetic quality of the existing shoreline and adjacent land and water uses.

2. Signs should not block or otherwise interfere with visual access to the
water or shorelands.

3. The design of signs should not reduce auto safety or visual aesthetics from
adjacent property.

4. Signs should be of a permanent nature that are linked to the operation of
existing uses and attached to said uses.

Regulations

I . Sign plans and designs shall be submitted for review and approval at the
time of shoreline permit approval.

2. All signs shall be located and designed to -minimize interference with vistas,
viewpoints and visual access to the shoreline.

3. Over-water signs or signs on floats or pilings shall be related to water-
dependent uses only.

4. Lighted signs shall be hooded, shaded, or aimed so that direct fight will not
result in glare when viewed from surrounding properties or watercourses.

Chapter 5 - Signage H-117

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. Signs related to specific on-site uses or activities shall not exceed 32 square
feet in surface area. On-site freestanding signs shall not exceed 6 feet in
height. When feasible, signs shall be flush-mounted against existing
buildings.

6. Temporary or obsolete signs shall be removed within 10 days of elections,
closures of business, or termination of any other function. Examples of
temporary signs include: real estate signs, directions to events, political
advertisements, event or holiday signs, construction signs.

7. Signs that do not meet the policies and regulations of this program shall be
removed or conform within two years of the adoption of this master
program.

8. No signs shall be placed in a required view corridor.

Allowable Signs
The following types of signs may be allowed in all shoreline environments:

1. Water navigational signs, and highway and railroad signs necessary for
operation, safety and direction.

2. Public information signs directly relating to a shoreline use or activity.

3. Off-premise, free standing signs for community identification, information,
or directional purposes.

4. Signs with "changing messages" as long as the information is limited to
time-temperature-date or public messages.

5. National, site and institutional flags or temporary decorations customary
for special holidays and similar events of a public nature.

6. Temporary directional signs to public or quasi-public events if removed
within 10 days following the event.

Prohibited

The following types of signs are prohibited:

1. Signage in view corridors which impair visual access.

2. Off-premises detached outdoor advertising signs.

3. Spinners, streamers, pennants, flashing lights and other animated signs used
for commercial purposes. Highway and railroad signs are exceptions.

Chapter 5 - Signage H-118

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. Signs placed on trees or other natural features.

5. Commercial signs for products services, or facilities located off-site.

7
lji- "jzb-

MW. 1_4'@'

Chapter 5 - Signage H-1 19

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Utilities (Accessory)

Applicability

Utilities have been split into accessory and primary with accessory meaning
utilities that effect small scale distribution services connected directly to the
uses along the shoreline. For example, power, telephone, cable, water and
sewer lines, including stormwater systems, are all considered as utilities
accessory to shoreline uses. They are covered in this section because they
concern all types of development and have the potential of impacting the
quality of the shoreline and its waters.

Policies

I . Utilities are necessary to serve shoreline uses and should be properly
installed so as to protect the shoreline and water from contamination and
degradation.

2. Utility facilities and fight-of-ways should be located outside of the
shoreline area to the maximum extent possible. When utility lines require a
shoreline location, they should be placed underground.

3. Utility facilities should be designed and located in a manner which
preserves the natural landscape and shoreline ecology and minimizes
conflicts with present and planned land uses.

Regulations

I . In shoreline areas, utility transmission lines, pipelines and cables shall be
placed underground unless demonstrated to be infeasible. Further, such
lines shall utilize existing fights-of-way, corridors and/or bridge crossings
whenever possible. Proposals for new corridors in shoreline areas
involving water crossings must fully substantiate the infeasibility of existing
routes.

2. Utility development shall, through coordination with government agencies,
provide for compatible multiple use of sites and rights-of-way. Such uses
include shoreline access points, trails and other forms of recreation and
transportation systems, providing such uses will not unduly interfere with
utility operations or endanger public health and safety.

3. Sites disturbed for utility installation shall be stabilized during and
following construction to avoid adverse impacts from erosion.

Chapter 5 - Utilities (Accesson) H-120

SM7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

Vegetation Management

Applicability

Vegetation management involves both a passive and active management
system. The intent of both systems is to minimize habitat loss and the impact
of invasive plants, erosion, sedimentation and flooding. "Passive" vegetation
management deals with protection and enhancement of existing diverse native
plant communities along all shorelines including rivers, wetlands, lakes and
steep bluffs. "Active" vegetation management involves aquatic weed control
as well as the restoration of altered or threatened shorelines using a technology
called soil bioengineering. Soil bioengineering reestablishes native plant
communities as a dynamic system that stabilizes the land from the effects of
erosion. Vegetation management provisions apply even to those shorelines
and uses which are exempt from a permit requirement.

Notes to Master Programmers

A brief discussion of the underlying principles and the advantages of
bioengineering is appropriate because the technology is a relatively new
science in this country that uses live plant materials as a main structural
component. As they grow, these systems work with the natural environment to
create the permanent protection andpreservation of land. Both biological
and structural elements of the systems mustfunction together in an integrated
and complementary manner, whether the structural elements are natural or
manmade. Ae advantage of soil bioengineering is often found where
conventional stabilization and erosion control methods are limited in benefits,
uneconomical, unsuitable or ineffective. Vegetation also mitigates seasonal
temperature swings of waters, provides habitatfor wildlife, and contributes to
the aesthetic quality of the area This system should be considered when
evaluating any shoreline modification activity (see Chapter 8).

Policies

1. Native plant communities within and bordering state shorelines including,
but not limited to, wetlands, lakes, rivers and unstable bluffs should be
protected and maintained to minimize damage to the Ecology and
environment of the shoreline area.

Chapter 5 - Vegetation Management H-121

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. Restoration of degraded shorelines due to natural or manmade causes
should, wherever feasible, use soil bioengineering techniques to arrest the
processes of erosion, sedimentation and flooding.

3. The design and use of naturally regenerating systems for prevention and
control of beach erosion should be encouraged where:

a. The length and configuration of the beach will accommodate such
systems;

b. Such protection is a reasonable solution to the needs of the specific
site; and

c. Beach restoration/enhancement will accomplish the following
objectives:

i. Recreate or enhance natural shoreline conditions and habitat-,

ii. Reverse otherwise erosional conditions; and

iii. Enhance access to the shore, especially to public shores.

5. Aquatic weed management should stress prevention first. Where active
removal or destruction is necessary, it should be the minimurn to allow
water-dependent activities to continue, minimize negative impacts to native
plant communities, and include appropriate handling or disposal of weed
materials.

Regulations

I . All unique and fragile shorelines shall be protected from degradation
caused by the modification of the land surface within the shoreline area
and/or the adjacent uplands (see Site Specific Environment Designations).

2. Wherever possible, development of commercial, industrial, residential
and/or recreational uses shall be located away from shorelines that have
been identified as unstable and/or sensitive to erosion (see Site Specific
Environment Designations).

3. Restoration of any shoreline that has been disturbed or degraded shall use
native plant materials with a diversity and type similar to that which
originally occurred on-site.

4. Stabilization of exposed erosion prone surfaces along shorelines including
but not limited to rivers, streams and marine systems shall, wherever
feasible utilize soil bioengineering techniques.

Chapter 5 - Vegetation Management H-122

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. The use of commercial nursery stock in the restoration of disturbed or
degrading shorelines shall emulate the previously existing vegetation in
both size, structure and diversity at maturation.

6. Beach enhancement is prohibited:

a. Within spawning, nesting or breeding habitat;

b. Where littoral drift of the enhancement materials will adversely effect
adjacent spawning grounds or other areas of biological significance;

c. If it will interfere with the normal public use of the navigable waters of
the state; and/or

d. Where the activity is in support of a nonconforming use unless such
activities are necessary to maintain shoreline stability and the natural
ecology.

7. Aquatic weed control shall only occur when native plant communities and
associated habitats are threatened or where an existing water dependent
use is restricted by the presence of weeds. Aquatic weed control shall
occur in compliance with all other applicable laws and standards.

8. The control of aquatic weeds by hand pulling, mechanical harvesting, or
placement of aquascreens, if proposed to maintain existing water depth for
navigation, shall be considered normal maintenance and repair and
therefore exempt from the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial
development permit.

9. The control of aquatic weeds by derooting, rotovating or other method
which disturbs the bottom sediment or benthos shall be considered
development for which a substantial development permit is required, unless
it wfll maintain existing water depth for navigation in an area covered by a
previous permit for such activity, in which case it shall be considered
normal maintenance and repair and therefore exempt from the requirement
to obtain a substantial development permit.

10. Where large quantities of plant material are generated by control measures,
they shall be collected and disposed of in an appropriate, identified upland
location.

11. Use of herbicides to control aquatic weeds shall be prohibited except where
no reasonable alternative exists and weed control is demonstrated to be in
the public's interest. A conditional use permit shall be required in such
is case.

Chapter 5 - Vegetation Management H-123

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

View Protection

Applicability

The protection of "scenic vistas" within the shorelines and water bodies is an
important shoreline management objective. Protection of significant views is a
form of public access; the access being visual rather than physical.
Consideration must be given to protection of the visual quality of the shoreline
resource and to maintenance of view corridors to and from waterways and
their adjacent shoreland features.

The protection of views as a shoreline management objective is establ-ished as
set forth in RCW 90.58.320 where it 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 extentfeasible consistent with the overall best
interest of the state and the people generally. "

RCW 90.58.320 also addresses view protection on adjacent lands stating:

"No permit shall be issuedpursuant to this chapterfor any new or
expanded building or structure of more than 35feet above average grade
level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial
number o residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a
master program does not prohibit the same and then onl whenoverriding
Y
considerations of the public interest will be served "

View protection can include preventing view blockage through height
limitations or requifing aesthetic enhancement with landscaping. However,
view protection does not allow for excessive vegetation removal to create
views or enhance partial existing views. Please refer to the Vegetation
Management and Clearing and Grading provisions contained in this chapter.

Policies

I . Development, uses and activities on or near the shoreline should not impair
or detract from the public's visual access to the water.

2. Public views from the shoreline and upland areas should be enhanced and
preserved. Enhancement of views should not be construed to mean
excessive removal of vegetation that partially impairs views.

Chapter 5 - View Protection H-124

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Visual access should be maintained, enhanced and preserved on shoreline
street ends, public utilities and rights-of way and within designated "view
corridors". In City/County, designated view corridors include

Notes to Master Programmers

View corridors offer unobstructed andlor significant views of the shoreline or
shore resources. 7hey may he long and narrow, such as between a major
transportation corridor and the shore, or long andperpendicular to the shore,
such asftom a major public viewpoint.

Regulations

I .Shoreline uses and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid
blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual access
to the water and shorelines except as provided for in Chapter 5,
"Vegetation Management".

2. Public lands such as street ends, rights-of-way and utilities shall provide
visual access to the water and shoreline in accordance with RCW
35.79.035 and RCW 36.87.130 (see Shoreline Public Access Handbook).

3. In providing visual access to the shoreline, the natural vegetation shaR not
be excessivel removed either by clearing or by topping (see Chapter 5
"Clearing and Grading").

4. Development on or over the water shall be constructed as far landward as
possible to avoid interference with views from surrounding properties to
the shoreline and adjoining waters.

5. Marinas with covered boathouses shall limit their height above mean sea
level (see Chapter 6, Figure 6-3 Use-related Development Standards).

6. Development on the water shall be constructed of nonreflective materials
that are compatible in terms of color and texture with the surrounding area.

7. Visual access shall be maintained, enhanced and preserved on shoreline
street ends, public utilities and rights of way and within the following
identified "view corridors (Local jurisdiction to fill in
such identified view corridors.

Chapter 5 - View Protection H-125

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

1 40
Water Quality

Applicability

Water quality is effected in numerous ways by human occupation and
development.of shoreline areas. Typically the increase in impermeable surfaces
as a result of development increases runoff causing higher peak stormwater
discharge at a higher velocity which causes scouring and erosion of stream
banks. Erosion increases suspended solids and carries heavy metals,
household wastes and excess nutrients into the water. Increased nitrogen and
phosphorous enrichment depresses levels of dissolved oxygen. The
degradation of water quality adversely impacts wildlife habitat and public
health.

Maintaining high water quality standards and restoring degraded systems has
been mandated in RCW 90.58.020:

"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. " 0

Water quality is impacted by a variety of uses and modifications and clearly
needs broad policies and regulations to protect the shorelines and the
associated waters of the state.

Policies

I . All shoreline uses and activities should be located, designed, constructed
and maintained to minimize adverse impacts to water quality and fish and
wildlife resources including spawning, nesting, rearing, feeding areas and
migratory routes.

2. The City/County should require reasonable setbacks, buffers and
stormwater storage basins to achieve the objective of lessening negative
impacts on water quality.

3. All measures for controlling erosion, stream flow rates or floodwaters
through the use of stream control works should be located, designed,
constructed and maintained so that net off-site impacts related to water do
not degrade the existing water quality.

Chapter 5 - Water Quality H-126

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. All measures for the treatment of runoff for the purpose of maintaining
and/or enhancing water quality should be conducted on-site before
shoreline development impacts waters off-site.

5. Dredging and filling activities should be conducted to minimize the effect
on water quality from the addition of suspended solids, leaching of
contaminants or disturbance of habitats and should be consistent with
applicable regulatory agency requirements (e.g. Wildlife, Fisheries, Corps.
of Engineers).

6. Agricultural activities such as animal feeding operations feed lot wastes,
retention and storage ponds, manure storage, use of fertilizers and
pesticides and other activities that can impact water quality should be
minimized by implementing best management practices, buffers and
setbacks.

Regulations

I .All shoreline development, both during and after construction, shall
minimize any increase in surface runoff through control, treatment and
release of surface water runoff so that the receiving water quality and shore
properties and features are not adversely effected. Control measures
include but are not limited to dikes, catch basins or settling ponds, od
interceptor drains, grassy swales, planted buffers and fugitive dust controls.

2. The local government and proposed shoreline uses and activities shall
mitigate any reduction in water quality due to erosion of rivers and stream
systems by increasing storage of runoff peaks utilizing the hydraulic storage
capacity of floodways and wetlands.

3. All industrial, commercial, residential, recreational and agricultural uses
shall adhere to all required setbacks, buffers and standards for storage
basins (refer to shoreline use and environment designation regulations for
specific limits).

4. All shoreline development shall comply with the applicable requirements of
the Stormwater Management Manualfor the Puget Sound Basin (Ecology
publication #91-75) or a local government program that meets or exceeds
the requirements of the subject manual.

Chapter 5 - Water Quality H-127

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 6
Environment
Designations

Introduction

The shoreline environment designations established under the Shoreline
Management Act are one of the principal tools available for applying and
tailoring the general guidelines of the Act to local shorelines. Not only does
classi@@ing shorelines into specific designations as recommended in WAC-173-
16-040(4) provide the means of adapting broad policies to shoreline segments
with distinctively different conditions and resources, but it also is a way to
integrate comprehensive shoreline planning into master program regulations.

The process for classifying local shorelines and developing regulations for each
environment is described in Handbook Chapter 3, SNIP Amendment Process.
The recommended procedure involves inventorying shoreline environment
resources and identifying the special resource management needs and shoreline
development opportunities along each shoreline segment. Chapter 10,
Promoting Water-Oriented Uses, details techniques for determining suitabi.lity
of shorelines for different uses. Local comprehensive planning goals, public
access plans and waterfront revitalization can also be incorporated into master
program regulations by setting SMP environment designation regulations that
further these local objectives. Thus, the environment designation process is
most effective when it is developed on a comprehensive basis. It should be

Chapter 6 - EnAronment Designations H-128

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

noted, however, that shoreline management, (including master program goals,
policies and regulations and environment designations) in accordance with
RCW 90.58.340, requires that local governments review their plans,
requirements and ordinances which apply to areas adjacent to shorelines
jurisdiction and modify such so they "achieve a consistent use policy" with the
Act and the local SN4P. This means that local comprehensive plans and
development requirements for adjacent lands must be consistent with the SMA
and local SNP. To help comply with adjacent lands requirements, local
governments should incorporate SMA goals and policies into the local
comprehensive planning process.

Components of the SMP

The environment designations chapter of a shorefine master program should
contain the components identified in Figure 6-1.

Purpose, Designation Criteria,
Management Policies and Regulations

1 .The statement of purpose should describe the shoreline management
objectives of the designation in a manner that distinguishes it from other
designations. A few sentences or brief paragraph is usually sufficient for a
purpose statement (see examples at the end of Chapter 6).

2. The criteria or basis for classifying (i.e. locating) a shoreline within that
designation should be clearly stated (see examples of criteria statements at
the end of Chapter 6).

3. The management policies form the basis of the regulations and should be in
sufficient detail to assist in their interpretation.

4. Regulations translate the management policies into enforceable
requirements and development standards. Environment-specific
regulations commonly address:

a. Preferred shoreline development requirements (where water-dependent,
water-related, water-enjoyment and non-water-oriented uses are
pennitted) and prohibitions.

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-129

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 6-1. Contents of Environment Designations Section

I - List of 2. Common 3. Map
Designations Boundary
Descriptions

0 Urban

10 Rural

� Conservancy

� Natural

4. For Each Designation
5. Matrices
� Purpose of Desig. Environment
� Criteria for Assig.
� Management Policies
Use
2
Category ;D C9 U.
6. Environment Specific P CICIP X
Regulations (If Needed) P C XIC C
X-P X C C
� Site Development Activities D IP p P x
� Screeaing C D C C X
10 Mixed Use C P XIX X
0 Public Access Height 20'30
Etc. Setback 20,iO
Etc.

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-130

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. Type of uses permitted (Note- specifying where specific types of uses
such as marinas, light industrial and laundromats are permitted is an
option but not preferred or mandatory, see discussion below.).
However, broader categories of uses, such as residential, commercial,
industrial, etc. (that are illustrated in a use matrix) need to be supported
with specific policies and regulations.

c. Building height, bulk limits, setbacks and site development standards.

d. Environment specific requirements for vegetation maintenance,
parking, signs, public access and other topics not covered in general
use and activity regulations.

e. Public access requirements that are specific to a particular environment.

Special Tip

An alternate organizational approach to environment specf1c regulations is
to include the regulationsfor each environment in the general and use
regulations rather than place all environment specUic regulations in this
section. In general, if a master program includes a s7nall number of
designations and less sophisticated regulations, it is more efficient to include
them in the general and use specific regulations. If, on the other hand, a
master program must accommodate a diversity of conditions and complex site
development standards, then including a sectionfor environment specific
regulations is advantageous. If the master program includes environment
specific regulations in the environment designation section, then reference
should be routed back to the general and use specific regulations because
both will apply.

The purpose, criteria, policies and regulations for each environment should be
listed in that order for each environment (see examples at the end of Chapter
6).

Shoreline Environment Map and Description

Clear maps showing environment boundaries are essential in administering the
master program.

I . It is required that a map be included within the master program document.
The map, however, can be reproduced (and indexed) in sections to allow a
scale adequate to give property owners a reasonably clear idea of how the
program affects them. The map may be included in a master program's
appendix.

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations - H-131

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. In the City/County office which administers shoreline permits, an up-to-
date and accurate map of the shoreline area and environments must be
maintained. This is necessary both to insure consistent application of the
program and to provide clear guidance to a property owner proposing
development on the shoreline. Although many jurisdictions rely on a
determination by the Planning Director or other official to resolve any
uncertainties in interpretation, some jurisdictions have found that
inconsistent, confusing, or inaccurate maps can lead to lengthy permit
disputes and legal battles. If it is not feasible to accurately designate
individual parcels on a map, it is very important that the text provide a
clear basis for identifying the boundaries or explicit criteria which can be
used to distinguish the environments on the ground. "Common" boundary
descriptions are now being used by many jurisdictions to accurately define
envirorunent boundaries. Common boundary descriptions typically rely on
both martmade and natural features (i.e. roads, bluffs, dikes, etc.) to
delineate environment boundaries. For example, "The urban designation
starts at Taylor Street and runs north to James Street where the suburban
designation begins." In all events the maps should indicate that the
designation boundaries may change as a result of SNIP amendments and
that the common boundaries contained in the SN4P take precedence over
mapped boundaries.

3. Where jurisdiction has been reduced to floodway plus 200 feet, the SMT
map should clearly indicate the areas (floodplains, river deltas, associated
marshes, bogs and swamps) beyond the 200-foot limit that still remain
within shoreline management jurisdiction and what envirorunent
designation applies in this case. 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 rather than the incorrect or outdated map.

4. 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 conservancy designation until the shoreline can be redesignated
through an SN4P amendment. Thus, land which reverts to local control
from federal ownership, such as Forest Service land trades or "discovered"
associated marshes, bogs and swamps wfll be afforded a good degree of
protection until a complete analysis and amendment is processed.

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-132

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Summary Matrices and
Explanatory Illustrations

Matrices or charts summarizing the permitted uses and development standards
of each environment designation are very desirable. Such matrices have
proven exceptionally useful in describing different requirements to potential
permit applicants and in explaining the comprehensive system of designations
to the public. Matrices also provide an excellent "tool" for use in comparing
the regulations amongst the various environments such that they present a
logical shoreline management system. Examples of environment designation
matrices are presented on the following pages. Figure 6-2 shows the preferred
method for indicating use regulations and Figure 6-3 presents the preferred
method for illustrating height and setback requirements. As examples, these
matrices attempt to represent a typical regulatory system. Figure 6-4 addresses
vegetation maintenance corridor standards, illustrating one method for
determining the minimum land area within shoreline jurisdiction that must be a
"Designated Vegetation Maintenance Corridor". Using Figure 6-4, follow the
steps below to determine the required "Designated Vegetation Maintenance
Corridor" for a given shoreline environment.

I . Determine applicable shoreline environment.

2. See Figure 6-4 for minimum width of designated corridor. (For example,
in the natural environment the corridor is 200 feet.)

3. See Figure 6-4 for percentag, of designated vegetation maintenance
corridor that must be left undisturbed. (For example, in the natural
environment, it is 90%.)

4. Preference should be given to leaving undisturbed vegetation closest to the
OHWM.

Environment Designations

The basic system of environment classification recommended in the WAC-173-
16-040(4) consists of four designations: natural, conservancy, rural and urban
(see the examples at the end of this chapter for purpose and criteria of each).
In addition, a local government may elect to establish additional classifications
as warranted. Each new additional environment should be distinct from
existing designations and must have clear purpose, designation criteria and
management policies justifying their need. In addition to the four standard
designations, some examples of new designations (illustrated in the preceding
matrices) include:

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-133

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

1 .An "urban-maritime" designation for shorelines where only water-
dependent uses are regularly permitted.

2. A "suburban" environment applying to shorelines that are not strictly urban
but more intensively developed than a rural setting.

3. An "aquatic" environment to include all water areas and submerged lands.

Other examples of customized environment designations are presented at the
end of this chapter.

Special Tip

New environment designations should be given descriptive names rather than
a name such as "Conservancy T' or "Rural ff". The names could indicate the
type of use (e.g. Urban-Maritime), the environmental condition or objective
(e.g. "Rural Riparian') or the geographic location (e.g. "Urban-Blue Lake)
where the designation applies. Keep in mind that the objective here is not to
create a proliferation of special designationsfor diversity's sake, but to
address special considerations and tailor an environment designationfor the
bestfit.

Figure 6-2. Shoreline Use and Modification Acthity Matrix (page I of 3).

Key

I Golf courses require a CUP in all environments where permitted.
2 Marinas require a CUP.
3 Includes dredge material disposal in deep water as a CUP, otherwise see landfill.
4 Primary intended use policies and standards must also be met, including
residential, commercial, industrial, etc.

P May be allowed subject to permit conditions and provisions contained in SMP.
May be allowed over water if allowed in adjacent upland environments.
C May be allowed as a conditional use.

X Prohibited.

NA Not applicable.
#c May be allowed as a conditional use over water if allowed in adjacent upland
en-vironment.

Chapter 6 - En%ironment Designations H-134

COMMERCIAL

cr
w >
21 z > >
eD 0 0 .0
(a rD F; 0 CD 0 0 K
CD 7
9.
A QQ On riq E. F-
CD
Ica, CD
E@ 0 CD 0 0
CD CL m 0 0.
CD IA E s
R ch n 0
0 0
CD 0
CD CL a
eb 4@
cs

x X 0 X x x X x X X x x X X X x z X NATURAL
I I > I
X v X X X X X X 0 0 0 0 Z -0 CONSERVAN
>

x z RURAL
>

x x X 0 x n 0 n Z C' SUBURBAN
> I

z X URBAN MA
> I

URBAN
> I
z AQUATIC
0 >

FRANSPORTATION

cn 0 C@ M z 0
5 5. 0
0
K
EA
R; a A 0 CD
n En
CD 5' ID
OQ mr
ID r,7 R
00
CD CD
0 c'D 9L CD
M.
CD (A
0
0 co
ep
CD
FD'

eD
M
2

X NATURAL

r) r) CONSERVAN

RURAL

SUBURBAN

M r) URBAN MAR
X X x n X

n -0 n n n URBAN

n r) x
0 z x x X AQUATIC
>

> >
z
0 E. 3.
CD CL �:. =.m
eD g E. A
I'D

CD CD
a
CD
0 CrQW -4
CD 20 "1- 0 (D M K
M. :I tn. eb 0 Er
r" E3 CL
0 CD EA CD
0 a n =5
W
o
13 CD 0 OQ
cr a" CA
m 0 fD
CA CD

e,)
W
CD

cs
CA
r
z z z Z 0 Z@z @Z@z Z@ @z Z@z z Z@
> > > > - > > > > > > > > > > NATURAL

Z
CONSERVANC
> q
q Iq -I I
Z w 0 Z
> Y2 1-1@ > U@ RURAL
1 1 1

z
> q z > 1-2 SUBURBAN
1>I

z Z
> > Y-1 1-12 z z z z z URBAN MA

z tj z z
z tjl z z z
> 1-12 > - I-A > > > > > URBAN

z z z q z z z 1:2 z
> > > > > > > > > > > AQUATIC
Z @zZ IZ1
> rz>l-z>

eD con V) z
19 >
e) (D
0 Er Z
CD 0
w
0
PT,
(IQ pr CD e)
CA CD
d6 CD
2. CD CD tv
(rQ,
:3.
0 A@ CD S: CD
=9
3 CD eD 6 F@ - eb
eD co CD n
(D
ca.
R -=. co
eD (7 0 0 >
0 I-el PT,
0
PT*

CL eD
FA
cr

z z z z z z z z z Z Z Z
> > > > > > > > > > > > > NATURAL

z z z (D
Z Z q Z CONSERVAN
> > > > > > >

z z z Z -,I Z
> > RURAL
C? > > >

z z z z z z q
SUBURBAN
> 1> > >

all LA c@
CD z URBAN MARI
CD . >
--j LA -j
kA t.A I-A C> z AN
> URB,

OL
z z z z z z z z
> > > > > > > > > AQUATIC

-3 ri) 0 0 C
c/) cn CD cn CD
w 0 CD W (D CD
'a Fr rr a: r, - (A 0, W
z z w x a C) g- > z EP 'CID
o 0 CD 0 0 0
CD :3 = r-, 0 CD
pr co
20 A
El F3 CD 0 co

CD
W
CFO' rJQ 6
0 <
n Q CD
eD 0
CD
CD (n
w CD
La. CA
0
E3 5 6@1 V
eD to
Ei,
9
Ell 0.
4b 0

z z z z z z z z z z z NATURAL
> > > > > > > > > > >

Z
> C> CD -P- LA CONSERVANC
C? CR

Z
> t.A .A CD LA LA Un CD RURAL
I q - - c@
z t-A t.A (-A
> CD '.A LA LA CD kA @; 6 6 SUBURBAN

E-h 0 C) C@ CD
tA Z URBAN MARI
tj% cc7D\ "Cl S t-A
:2 1 - I >

4@ 4-
0 CD C, LA t.A LA CD <D 0 0 0 URBAN
CD Cl - - 0
z z @z @z z z z z
z t-j @Z AQUATIC
> > > > > > > > > >

mr
En
CD E-r

z 0
fm
2 a- qr]Q CA

OrQ cr
eb
:2

tv
eD CD
W. M
a CD
CL

CD
NATURAL

0 CD 0 U@l CONSERVAN

RURAL

SUBURBAN
9 Cz

ON
URBAN MARI

Ca URBAN

OL z z z AQUATIC
> >

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 64. Vegetation Maintenance Corridor Standards

ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATU)NN

> U

z
(;ENERAL SITE Q
DEVEL(WINIENT STANDARDS Z U
Designated vegetation maintenance 200' 100, 50' 50' 25' 25' NA
corridor *2

Percent of corridor that must be
left undisuLdW 90 75 50 50 10

KEY

*1 As measured landward Erom OHWK also refer to Geneml Provisions (Clearing and Grading,
Vegetation Management)

NA Not applicable

Designated Vegetation Maintenance Corridor

- - - - - - - - - - - -

r
-:X1904d

PROPERTY

Figure 64 indicates the
land area within the corridor that must
be maintained in natural vegetation.

------------- ----

OHWM

Chapter 6 - En,.ironment Designations H-141

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition
49 Special Considerations

Environment-Specific Use Provisions

Environment designation regulations should include a description of what uses
are permitted in each environment. There are several different approaches
available to accomplish this. The most commonly used method is to fist all of
the use categories (e.g. marinas, agricultural, commercial) which are permitted
in each particular environment. This technique may be refined by placing
special conditions or performance standards on specific uses in the
environment. For example, a marina may be pern-dtted in a conservancy
environment provided there is no covered moorage and no boat repair work
performed. Or. by permitting specific uses in an environment only through a
conditional use permit. A matrix such as Figure 6-2 efficiently summarizes this
information.

If this approach is chosen, the use requirements should be compatible with the
local zoning code to reduce confusion and it may be necessary to revise the
zoning code to accommodate SMP regulations. In any event, it is not
recommended that the zoning ordinance be incorporated into the SMP. There
are four reasons why the master program and the zoning ordinance should be
consistent but independent:

I . Zoning codes generally include extensive, detailed development standards
which apply to development activities outside the scope of shoreline
management and cover an area much broader than the shoreline. To repeat
all such standards for each shoreline designation would create a
voluminous and duplicative SMP.

2. There are often numerous existing zoning classifications along urban
waterfronts, resulting in a complex zoning map. Creating special shoreline
designations for each existing zone failing within shoreline jurisdiction
could result in an unwieldy number of shoreline designations.

3. Shoreline management has an additional unique and in some cases stronger
legal basis than comprehensive land use planning and zoning because the
Shoreline Management Act embodies the principals of the public trust
doctrine and has different legal ramifications relative to the takings issue,
permit review, public access, etc.

4. Specific itemized listings of uses is not necessary in an SMP. Uses are
typically listed by broad use categories (e.g. water-dependent, water-
related, etc.). These categories are then specifically defined in the SMP

Chapter 6 - EnAronment Designations H-142

SMI? Handbook - 1994 Edition

definitions section. This method has also proven effective if the permitted
uses in each environment are also summarized in a matrix as in Figures 6-2,
6-3 and 6-4.

A preferred approach for environment-specific use regulations is to specify
where and under what conditions water-dependent, water-related, water-
enjoyment and non-water-oriented uses are permitted and/or prohibited, but
not set requirements for individual types of uses (see the example "use" matrix
provided). This has the advantage of avoiding the potential for conflict with
the zoning ordinance and eliminates the complexity of regulating speciflc use
types. By focusing on shoreline preferred uses the SNV directly responds to
the SMA objective of giving priority to water-oriented uses. However, this
approach does not directly address the issue of compatibility between shoreline
uses. For example, under the second approach, a pulp mill might be developed
next to a cruise ship terminal or waterfront park unless prevented (or
conditioned) by other provisions in the master program or by the local zoning
ordinance.

Conditional Use Provisions

Some uses may be appropriate within a certain environment only if they meet
certain conditions. In other instances closer review may be necessary to 0
determine if the broader conditions are met. In these cases, the use should be
listed in the SNT as a "conditional use" and require a conditional use permit
(CUP). A master program should clearly explain the review process required
for a conditional use permit.

RCW 90.58.100 (5) states that "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 effect." WAC 173-14-140 states that "The purpose of a
conditional use permit is to allow for greater flexibility in varying the
application of the use regulations of the master program."

Hence SNTs should require shoreline conditional use permits for special uses
that require case-by-case analysis to determine if and when a particular
proposal is consistent with overall shoreline management policies. Shoreline
CUPs are recognized as the appropriate regulatory vehicle for accommodating
use activities which are otherwise out of the norm of uses administered by the

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-143

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

standard shoreline permitting (i.e. Substantial Development Permit [SDP])
process. Uses with'potential for aesthetic, environmental and/or public water
use conflicts, such as over-water and in-water uses and activities, should be
cups.

All conditional use permits are reviewed by the Department of Ecology and are
subject to Ecology approval. Therefore, a local government is assisted by state
review to insure that issues of state-wide interest are met. Conditional use
requirements can be set to accomplish numerous regulatory purposes. Among
them are:

1. Insuring compatibility of different uses in the same environment. Example:
water-enjoyment uses can be allowed in a maritime industrial environment
on the condition that they do not conflict with existing or future industrial
uses.

2. Insuring that site development performance standards are met. Example:
permit can be conditioned on the application of an approved master site
plan demonstrating conformance to objectives stated in the SW.

3. Providing greater control and flexibility in the review of mixed-use projects
where water-enjoyment uses are permitted over water. Example:
permitting water-enjoyment uses over water in a mixed-use project
conditioned on the determination that the use supports public
redevelopment objectives.

4. Identifying special cases where non-water-ofiented uses are allowed on the
shoreline as part of a civic redevelopment area.

5. Insuring that environmental quality is not degraded. Example: dredging
may be allowed as a conditional use only after environmental studies show
no significant destruction of critical habitat.

6. Requiring approved comprehensive planning before implementation of a
large scale project such as a sewage treatment plant or dam.

7. Obtaining the review assistance of Ecology where complex shoreline
management issues are involved such as for diking projects associated with
flood hazard management.

8. CUPs also typically involve a local public hearing requirement (instead of
local administrative approval) insuring appropriate public involvement for
such proposals. CUPs are also useful for uses that typically involve some
complexity and uncertainty as to what shoreline benefits and impacts can be

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-144

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

anticipated (i.e. m@ixed-use development). Uses and activities that can't be
"pigeon-holed" with certainty as to their impacts should be scrutinized as
CUPs on a case-by-case basis.

Classifying Submerged Lands through
Aquatic Environments

Preparing environment regulations for water bodies has been problematic for
several reasons. Extending environment designations waterward from irregular
shorelines often leads to geometric inconsistencies, with portions of the water
area falling within several designations (see Figure 6-5). An exception to this
is predesignated legal boundaries extending into the water such as jurisdictional
boundaries between a City and a County or cases when a jurisdiction's
boundary ends at the OHWM.

&
r-1-\ . .... .....
ma -L
b a R

Q3, ..........
- - --------
55-
- --------------

- ------ 0i n rvancy

........ .. .

..........
------ -------

----- - ---------------

----------- X
D
------- ---------
S urban
- -- - -------

Figure 6-5. Over-water designations based on extension of upland environments can
lead to environment designation inconsistencies.

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-145

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Several jurisdictions have developed an Aquatic environment designation to
address management issues specific to offshore areas. Such a designation can
help resolve the inherent problems associated with applying land-based
designation criteria and management policies to water bodies and uses. The
Aquatic environment also provides a cleaner conceptual framework for
protecting aquatic resources and marshes, bogs and swamps by eliminating the
tendency to think of them as extensions of the uplands and therefore assuming
that upland uses should extend freely into these areas. Aquaculture, wetland
protection and navigation concerns for instance, can thus be handled more
effectively with an Aquatic designation than by an extension of upland
environments.

The major limitation of this approach is that it does not explicitly recognize the
interaction of upland and offshore uses: upland uses have a bearing on what
types of aquatic uses are appropriate and vice versa. For example, a large
scale residential subdivision with docks, swimming beaches and substantial
boating activity might provide the reason to limit the scale of offshore
aquaculture facilities. Alternatively, extensive aquaculture development and/or
a biologically productive area might be a prime reason to restrict adjacent uses.
Regulations for the Aquatic environment ideally address the interface between
land and water uses. Such policies should also recognize that an activity's
distance offshore is a factor in determining its impacts on, and conflicts with,
upland uses. Thus, establishing an aquatic environment requires some method
to differentiate between different portions of the water body in order to
regulate uses and assure compatibility between aquatic and upland uses.

The recommended method to deal with these problems on coastal and
lacustrine shorelines is to establish an aquatic environment designation for all
submerged lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM).
Special environmental protection regulations can then be applied specifically to
all submerged lands and water areas. Uses and activities that depend on
contiguous access from the shoreline such as marinas, docks, outfalls, etc.,
should be permitted only if the use or activity is also permitted in the
nearest adjacent upland environment. If the permit requirements vary
between the aquatic environment and nearest adjacent upland
environment, (for example, conditional use versus permitted outright) the
more restrictive requirements shall apply. The provisions of over-water
construction must then be stated in the regulations for upland environment
designations. For example, in Figure 6-6, the dock shown would be permitted
only if docks are permitted in the urban environment. The dock's permitted
location is fixed between the two dashed lines because that is the section of
water area that is closest to the uplands designated "urban." Of course, many
shorelines possess unusual geometry where boundaries limiting over-water
construction will require clarification. In most cases this can be done with
exceptions to the general principal noted above (see Figure 6-7).

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-146

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

.d0UU &
Subwb
NIL4ar 1@' U

Ar
CI servancy
- --------- - -

Environment

J, r-

-Suburban
Shoreline 0
Use/Activity -2 0 Cr
:) C) <
0 .14k
Piers and Docks P C X P

Others uses, etc.

Key

P = Permitted
C = Conditional Use
X = Prohibited

Figure 6-6. Over-water use (dock) regulations tied to nearest adjacent upland
environmenL In this example, the dock is permitted because it is permitted in both the
Aquatic environment and the Urban environment.

The location of uses and activities that do not require contiguous contact with
the shoreline such as aquaculture, dredging, filling or offshore moorage are
better controfled through regulations that are not tied to the upland
environment. This can be done by setting use or activity regulations for the
specific uses and activities or through aquatic environment regulations. Some
provisions that exemplify this approach are listed below. Depending upon
local circumstances, multiple aquatic environments may be desirable to
recognize diverse aquatic resources (see Figure 6-7).

1. Aquaculture activities shaH not occur within xxx'of a shoreline in the
Natural, Conservancy, or Urban environments and require a conditional use
permit (see Figure 6-8).

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-147

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. Dredging shall not take place in significant marine habitat areas identified
during the environmental assessment for the project. (Significant habitat
areas as defined by the City/County).

3. Uses in the aquatic environment shall not block navigation channels or
restrict access to sections of the shoreline.

r
0

Mae M
C@
Urban Maritime Ca

:Z@

Urban
@.j @Redevelopment_

-J

Figure 6-7. Using more than one aquatic environment

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-148

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

AquaCUItUTe pens or other
L] aquatic use that is not
0 connected to the shoreli

.NC6
CIN,
C3 an

Rural

all C
CZA N

In this case, the regulation sets
a minimum distance between aquaculture
pens and urban, conservancy and natural
environments but does not conflict with
rural environments

Figure 6-8. Setting minimum distances to shoreline emironments from specified
aquatic uses.

Except under unusual circumstances applying aquatic environments to rivers is
not necessary since in-water activities are not typically as intensive (as say
marinas, ports or aquaculture) and not so closely tied to upland based uses.
This is particularly true where a parallel environment designation is apphed
along the river that emphasizes protection and management of riparian
vegetation.

Parallel Environments

Traditional environment designation systems slice the shoreline into
perpendicular segments (Figure 6-9). This allows the development of
regulations to adapt to different environmental conditions and development
opportunities in the individual shoreline segments. A second environment
designation technique supplementing the standard segmental approach is to
divide the shoreline in a linear fashion, creating "parallel" environments as

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations B-149

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

illustrated by Figure 6-10. Parallel environments can establish a "Win-win"
situation, acting to protect the immediate riparian corridor while at the same tie
allowing appropriate development opportunities on the upland side of the
shoreline jurisdiction. Parallel environments, so named because their
boundaries run roughly parallel to the shoreline are useful for many purposes,
including:

I .Creating a riparian corridor environment along rivers to protect fragile
riverbanks (i.e. bluffs) and vegetation.

2. Setting different use requirements for land that is adjacent to the shoreline
and uplands which are separated from the shoreline by a road, railroad,
dike or other barrier.

3. In urban settings, formulating rr@ixed-use provisions that give preference to
water-dependent uses on the land near the shoreline.

4. Retaining the natural character of lake or marine shorelines while allowing
more intensive development of upland areas.

Parallel environment techniques are discussed in Chapter 14 of this Handbook.

Chapter 6 - EnAronment Designations H-150

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 6-9. Typical Enivironment Designations

.0.0.0.090
&

% 10

CO CY

100

CL
r an ,,oO**'OOO
aritim
*# 60

C3 r-1

13
ao

LL7::3

C3 CI0
conservanc

CD
In

CI 00
0
C]0
ant "13 OU
@n0
0, L C]

-/)0 n 0
$ CJ3 Uc::
1 C3 M c
C3 [3
111111iii@w ME
C3 Oc
QC

@E?
C3
Ur n Mariti 0
CD
C:

Chapter 6 - Emironment Designations H-151

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 6-10. Use of parallel environments to achieve better resource protection and
redevelopment opportunities.

Rural

to
0000

%
%

,onto
.00NIO we
10 ------ ---- '060,01000
Itime 0,00 Urban Re elopment D 0

13
D'I

% a Ina

C]
to C
13
rban Re@ @veloprnent CI
C3
(CC] CD

(30

C) 00

0
0
@CJ
@0

C3 E3
t 10
Or
119 123 C
CIO
Fs,
rba M itime 0
@0 C3
0 a
E3
0D )C3
C
C

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-152

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Sample Environment
Designation Provisions

Following are sample provisions relating to six common environment
designations. Each environment begins with a statement of purpose, followed
by a list of designation criteria used to apply the environment designation on
the shoreline. Management policies are later provided as the basis for
determining which uses are allowed in each shoreline environment and for
setting site development standards.

..........
A\

LEI - - - ------7

Chapter 6 - EnAronment Designations H-153

SW Ha.ndbook - 1994 Edition

Urban Environment

Purpose

The Urban environment is an area of high-intensity land use including
residential, commercial and industrial development. The purpose of this
environment is to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines which are either
presently urbanized or planned for urbanization. Development in urban areas
should be managed so that it enhances and maintains the shorelines for a
variety of urban uses, with priority given to water-dependent, water-related
and water-enjoyment uses.

Designation Criteria

Areas to be designated Urban should meet one or more of the following
criteria.

I . Shoreline used or designated for high-intensity commercial, industrial or
recreational use or for multi-fan-ffly residential development;

2. Shorelines of lower intensity use, where surrounding land use is urban and
urban services are available-,

3. Shorelines used for water-oriented and port activities; and

4. Shorelines without biophysical limitations to development such as
floodplains, steep slopes, slide hazard areas, marshes, bogs or swamps,
and/or sensitive areas.

Management Policies

1 . Because shorelines are a finite resource and because urban use tends to
preclude other shoreline uses, emphasis should be given to directing new
development into already developed areas consistent with this master
program.

2. Full utilization of existing urban areas should be achieved before further
expansion is allowed.

3. Reasonable long range projections of regional economic need should guide
the amount of shoreline designated Urban.

Chapter 6 - Enitironment Designations H-154

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. Priority should be given to "water-dependent", "water-related" and "water-
enjoyment" uses over other uses. Uses which derive no benefit fi7om a
water location (e.g. non-water-oriented uses) should be discouraged or
prohibited.

5. Existing non-water-oriented commercial and industrial uses should be
encouraged to relocate to nonwaterfront property.

6. Visual and physical public access should be required. Where possible,
industrial and commercial facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian
waterfront activities. Planning for the acquisition of land for permanent
public access to the water in the Urban environment should be encouraged
and implemented.

7. Aesthetic considerations should be actively promoted by means such as
sign control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and
architectural standards, planned unit developments and maintenance of
natural vegetative buffers.

9. In order to make maximum use of the available shoreline resource and to
accommodate future water-oriented uses, the redevelopment and renewal
of substandard, degraded or obsolete urban shoreline areas should be
encouraged.

9. Developments within the Urban environment should be compatible with
uses and activities in adjacent (including aquatic) environments.

Notes to Master Programmers

Urban Area Subcategories

Manyjurisdictions havefound the Urban environment to be too general to
address the wide range of uses and considerations affecting urban
waterftonts. 7he Urban designation allows so many uses that it does not
provide much guidancefor development. Some jurisdictions have tailored the
Urban environment to their shoreline by creating special Subcategories. If
more than one urban designation is established allowing residential
development, appropriate housing densitiesfor each environment should be
set. Following are descriptions of several approaches commonly used in
designating Urban subcategories.

1. General Urban vs. Urban Residential

One approach is to differentiate primarily residential areas in the Urban
environment areasfrorn urban areas with extensive commercial and
industrial development. Development controls and requirements are then

Chapter 6 - En%ironment Designations H-155

SMI? Handbook - 1994 Edition

tailored to the special needs of residential areas vs. commercial-
industrial waterfronts.

2. Subcategoriesfor Specific Geographic Areas

Another approach used in some jurisdictions is to develop urban sub
categories for specific portions of the shoreline with varying physical or
development characteristics. Seattle's Master Progrwn uses this
approach, for example, to differentiate Lake Union and the Central
Waterfrontfrom other "Urban Stable" shorelines. For Lake Union,
greater emphasis is placed on preserving the mixed-use character and
restoring blighted areas, while the central Waterfront emphasizes
promoting tourist activity and preserving the historic maritime heritage.

3. General Urban Uses vs. Water-dependent Commercial and Industrial
Uses

Special subcategories may be established to differentiate areas with afull
range of urban usesfrom areas reserved specificallyfor water-dependent
uses. 7his approach ensures that the most valuable areasfor water-
dependent commercial and industrial uses will be reservedfor, and not
be consumed by, residential or other non-water-dependentlrelated
development.

4. Developed Urban vs. Future Urban

Finally, masterprograms sometimes differentiate areas which are
characterized by existing urban developmentfrom those which are
designatedforfuture urban expansion. Special considerations for
existing developed areas may include: encouraging redevelopment or in-
fill of blighted or under-utilized urban areas, and establishing flexible
development standards keyed to the actual pattern and characteristics of
existing development. In future urban areas, management policies may
emphasize the needfor compatibility with adjacent shorelines, and
stricter requirements relating to utility infrastructure public access and
preservation of significant natural and culturalfeatures.

Suburban or Rural Residential Environment

Some jurisdictions establish an additional environment to bridge the gap
between Urban and Rural environments. The Suburban or Rural Residential
designation may be appropriate in areas with medium-density residential
development -higher than that allowed in the Rural environment, but less
intense than the range and scale of uses allowed in the Urban environment.

Chapter 6 - EnAronment Designations H-156

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

While this environment can address important local objectives, Suburban or
Rural Residential environments must be used with caution. The Shoreline
Management Act callsfor the prevention of uncoordinated andpiecemeal
development of the state's shorelines. The Growth Management Act also
establishes the goal of reducing sprawling and low-density development
through appropriate conversion o undeveloped land
!f

When deciding whether to apply a Suburban or Rural Residential environment
to a given shoreline, the long term consequences and costs of such action
must be considered Local governments should consider impacts on the
shoreline environment, transportation, publicfacilities and services and the
community'sfuture vision and ability to manage and maintain development at
planned densities.

In recent years, local governments have found that serving Suburban or Rural
Residential areas can be costly to both local government and, ultimately,
shoreline property owners. Suburban densities increase the cost ofproviding
puhlicfacilities and services. Suburban shoreline areas may have adverse
cumulative impacts on shoreline resources. 7hese can include loss of habitat
ftom extensive land clearing and alteration, proliferation of docks and boat
houses and water pollution ftom stormwater runoff andfailing septic tanks.
In marine settings, water pollution is a serious problem because such
developments are often in close proximity to commercial shel@flsh beds. In
marine settings, suburban shorelines can also result in salt water intrusion
due to excessive ground water withdrawalsftom individual wells. On lakes,
water pollution can cause eutrophication with its negative impacts on
swimming, boating andfishing.

Unless carefully managed, suburban or rural residential shorelines may
experience infill and the development of secondary and tertiary lots which
cumulatively impact the water body. Yhis often requires the costly retrofitting
of such areas with urbwi level services including water, sewer and stormwater
facilities. Yhese impacts may be mitigated by maintaining densities which do
not requirefiiture expanded services, clustering development, providingfor
joint use docks, piers and swimming areas, or by designing lots and siting
structures such that lots can be res?ibdivided at greater densities in thefuture
when low cost urban services can be installed and maintained Ais last
strategy can only be used in areas which can sustain urban or near urban
densities. Suburban environments should not he used to subvert the Growth
Management Act's concurrency requirements by allowing the development of
areas which will demand increasedfitture services, but which are not planned
for these needed services. An examplefollows:

Chapter 6 - EnAronment Designations H-157

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Suburban Environment

Purpose
The application of the Suburban environment should be limited to areas
intended to serve as a transition between urban and rural areas or intended to
serve shoreline areas which will be developed at greater intensity than rural
areas due to their suitability as significant recreational shorelines. This
designation includes shoreline areas that presently support low- to medium-
intensity uses, where existing densities permit space for small numbers of
livestock, gardens or wood lots. The Suburban environment is designed to
provide for permanent residential and recreational needs outside urban areas,
where adequate facilities for sewage disposal and water supply can be
provided. Suburban designations should not be applied to shoreline areas that
satisfy the criteria for Urban environment designations.

Designation Criteria
Areas to be designated Suburban should meet one or more of the following
criteria:

1. Areas presently developed or platted for low-density residential uses;

2. Areas zoned for residential development with lot sizes ranging from 1/4
acre (with public sewer and water) to 5 acres. Also included are existing
extensive small, single-lot shoreline developments;

3. Areas which could support and serve the needs of planned unit residential
developments;

4. Areas which could serve as transition zones between urban and rural,
conservancy or natural shoreline areas;

5. Areas having the physical ability to support low- to medium-density
residential uses and associated commercial, recreational and public service
facilities;

6. Areas which are appropriate for low- to medium- intensity recreational
uses compatible with residential and/or small scale agricultural activities
(grazing, small scale crops or gardens);

7. Areas which can provide and have the capabilities to support the necessary
public services, utilities and access to accommodate low- to medium-
density development. Sewage disposal and water supply facilities may be
provided on an individual or community basis or could possibly be
provided via future regional sewer or water systems.

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-158

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Management Policies

1 . Residential and recreational activities of medium intensity in appropriate
shoreline locations are preferred over other land and resource consumptive
development or uses.

2. Developments should be permitted only in those shoreline areas that are
environmentally capable of supporting the proposed use in a manner which
protects and enhances the shoreline environment and its resources.

3. Residential and other developments should be located, sited, designed and
maintained to protect, enhance and be compatible with the subject shoreline
environ.ment.

4. Public access opportunities to shorelines and/or water bodies should be
encouraged for single-family residences and required for other residential
development including short subdivisions, subdivisions and planned unit
developments.

5. Residential and recreational developments should provide shoreline areas
for joint use community, or public open space.

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

7. Commercial development should be limited to uses that serve the
surrounding residential, recreational or agricultural activities and should
not conflict with these activities.

8. Developments within the suburban environment should be compatible with
uses and activities in adjacent (including aquatic) environments.

fh-t-qlafh

Chapter 6 - Environment Designations H-159

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Rural Environment

Purpose

The rural environment is intended to protect agricultural land from urban
expansion, restrict intensive development along undeveloped shorelines,
function as a buffer between urban areas and maintain open spaces and
opportunities for recreational uses compatible with agricultural and forestry
uses.

Designation Criteria

Areas to be designated rural should meet one or more of the following criteria:

I . Areas dominated by agricultural, forestry or low-intensity recreational uses;

2. Areas possessing a high capability of supporting agricultural uses and
compatible forms of development;

3. Areas modified from their natural vegetative cover and surface drainage
patterns but generally supporting low-density development;

4. Areas where residential development is or should be low-density because
of important biological or physical values and functions or limitations,
utility capabilities, access problems and/or potential incompatibility with
other uses;

5. Areas of undeveloped land not appropriate for Natural or Conservancy
environment designations and not planned for significant urban or suburban
development;

6. Areas which serve as buffers between shoreline areas supporting greater
and lesser intensities of use; and

7. Areas possessing valuable sand, gravel and mineral deposits.

Management Policies

1. Areas with a high capabflity of supporting agricultural or forestry uses
is should be protected from incompatible patterns of development and should
be maintained for those uses.

Chapter 6 - Rural Environment H-160

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. New developments in a Rural environment should reflect the character of
the surrounding area by limiting residential density, providing permanent
open space and by maintaining adequate building setbacks from the water
and wetlands.

3. Public and private recreational facilities and uses which are compatible with
agriculture and forestry should be encouraged.

4. Intensive development should not be permitted.

5. Low-density residential development should be allowed when self-
contained or supporting public facilities such as sewer, water and power
are available and where allowing such development vAll not lead to higher
densities in the future.

6. Sand, gravel and mineral extracting should be allowed in suitable areas not
designated as prime agricultural land.

7. Medium- and high-density residential, and industrial and commercial uses
(except agriculture, forestry and mining) should be prohibited.

8. Sensitive shorelines in the Rural environment should be protected through
vegetation management, maintenance and erosion control regulations. 0
9. Developments within the Rural environment should be compatible with
uses and activities in adjacent (including aquatic) environments.

P..., nil

Chapter 6 - Rural Environment H-161

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Conservancy Environment

Purpose

The intent of the Conservancy environment is to protect, conserve and manage
existing natural resources and valuable historic and cultural areas in order to
achieve sustained resource utilization and provide recreational opportunities.
The Conservancy environment is also intended to protect environmentally
sensitive areas which are not suitable for intensive use, such as steep slopes,
flood-prone areas, unstable bluffs, wetlands and areas which cannot provide
adequate sewage disposal. Examples of uses that are appropriate in a
Conservancy environment include dispersed outdoor recreation activities,
timber harvesting on a sustained yield basis, passive agricultural uses such a
pasture and range lands and other related low-intensity uses and activities.

Designation Criteria

Areas to be designated Conservancy should meet one or more of the following
criteria:

I . Areas containing natural resources which lend themselves to management
on a sustained-yield basis, such as commercial forest land and agricultural
land;

2. Areas subject to severe biophysical limitations such as:

a. Steep slopes and landslide hazard areas;

b. Areas subject to severe erosion and feeder bluffs;

c. Unstable banks or bluffs;

d. Flood-prone areas-,

e. Areas with soils that have poor drainage; and

f Geohydraulic shoreforms (e.g. accretion beaches, point bars, spits,
etc.).

3. Areas which play an important part in maintaining the regional ecological
balance such as:

Chapter 6 - Conservancy Environment B-162

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

a. Areas rich in quality and quantity of life forms;

b. Areas important to the maintenance of natural water quality and flow;
and

C. Areas important to maintaining the food chain process (i.e. estuaries,
wetlands, riparian corridors).

4. Areas free from extensive development-,

5. Areas where intensive development or use would interfere with natural
processes and result in significant damage to other resources;

6. Areas of high recreational value; and

7. Areas with extensive or unique historic or cultural resources.

Management Policies

1. Preferred uses in the Conservancy environment are those which are non-
consumptive of the physical and biological resources of the area and
activities and uses of a nonpen-nanent nature which do not substantially
degrade or alter the existing character of the area. Nonconsumptive uses
are those uses which utilize resources on a sustained yield basis while
minimally reducing opportunities for other existing and future uses of the
resources of the area.

2. Activities and uses which would substantially degrade or permanently
deplete the physical or biological resources of the area should be
prohibited.

3. New development should be restricted to that which is compatible with the
natural and biological limitations of the land and water and will not require
extensive alteration of the land-water interface.

4. Development in the Conservancy environment should be designed to
protect the shore process corridor and its operating systems.

5. Activities or uses which would strip the shoreline of vegetative cover,
cause substantial erosion or sedimentation or adversely affect wildlife or
aquatic life should be prohibited.

Chapter 6 - Conservancy Environment H-163

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. Aquacultural, agricultural and recreational activities which will not be
detrimental to the shoreline character, sceni c quality and natural systems
such as littoral drift and geohydraulic processes should be encouraged.
Residential development should be severely restricted to protect such uses
and features.

7. Commercial and industrial uses other than low-intensity agricultural
practices, commercial forestry and extraction of renewable sand, gravel and
mineral resources should be prohibited.

8. Construction of structural shoreline stabilization and flood control works
should be minimized. New developments should be designed to preclude
the need for such works and should be compatible with shoreline
characteristics and limitations.

9. Preservation of resources should have priority over public access recreation
and development objectives whenever a conflict exists.

10. Developments within the Conservancy environment should be compatible
with uses and activities in adjacent (including aquatic) environments.

AWA @.AVo@c4-
'Fe4w_@_4_ W14-

Chapter 6 - Conservancy Environment H-164

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Natural Environment

Purpose

The Natural environment is intended to preserve and restore those natural
resource systems existing relatively free of human influence and those shoreline
areas possessing natural characteristics intolerant of human use or unique
historical, cultural or educational features. These systems require severe
restrictions on the intensities and types of uses pern-dtted so as to maintain the
integrity of the shoreline environment.

Designation Criteria

Areas to be designated Natural should meet one or more of the following
criteria:

1. Wildlife Habitats

a. A shoreline area that provides food, water or cover and protection for
any rare, endangered or diminishing species, or for significant
populations of flora or fauna during critical stages of their life cycle,
and

b. A seasonal haven for concentrations of native animals, fish or fowl,
such as a migration route, breeding site, larval rearing grounds, or
spawning site.

2. Areas of Scientific and Educational Value

a. Areas considered to best represent basic ecosystems and geologic types
that are of particular scientific and educational interest;

b. Shoreline areas which best represent undisturbed natural areas; and

c. Shoreline areas with established histories of scientific research.

3. Areas of Scenic or Recreational Value

a. Those shoreline areas having an outstanding or unique scenic feature in
their natural state;

b. Shoreline areas having a high value for wilderness experience; and

Chapter 6 - Natural Environment H-165

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

c. Areas having a high value in their natural states for low-intensity
recreational use.

4. Other Criteria

a. Areas where human influence and development are minimal;

b. Areas which have been degraded but which are capable of easily being
restored to a natural or near natural condition or are capable of natural
regeneration if left undisturbed; and

c. Other unique natural features relatively intolerant of human use or
development such as: marshes, bogs and swamps, Class I beaches,
spits, white water rapids and waterfalls, virgin timber stands and
wilderness areas.

Management Policies

1. Any use or development which would potentially degrade the natural value
or significantly alter the natural character of the shoreline area should be
severely restricted or prohibited.

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

3. Uses which are consumptive of physical, visual and biological resources
should be prohibited.

4. Physical alterations should only be considered when they serve to protect a
significant, unique or highly valued feature which might otherwise be
degraded or destroyed.

5. Uses and activities permitted in locations adjacent to shorelines designated
Natural should be compatible and should ensure that the integrity of the
Natural environment will not be compromised.

6. Developments within the Natural environment should be compatible with
uses and activities in adjacent (including aquatic) environments.

Chapter 6 - Natural Emironment H-166

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Aquatic Environment

Purpose

The purpose of this designation is to protect the unique characteristics of the
aquatic environment by managing use activities and by assuring compatibility
between upland and aquatic uses. It is designed to promote the wise use of the
natural features and resources of water areas which are substantially different
in character from those of adjoining uplands.

Note: The aquatic environment does not typically include associated
marshes, bogs and swamps because the aquatic environment promotes
water-dependent uses and activities that may conj7ict with protection of
sensitive welland areas. Such areas are better suited to a Natural or
Conservancy environment designation.

Designation Criteria

1. Aquatic areas include:

a. All marine water areas seaward of the ordinary high water mark
including estuarine channels, sloughs and associated marshes, bogs and
swamps;

b. All lakes subject to this program waterward of the ordinary high water
mark; and

c. All rivers and streams designated shorelines of the state.

Management Policies

1. Structures which are not water-dependent and uses which will substantially
degrade the existing character of the area should be prohibited.

2. Developments within the Aquatic environment should be compatible with
the adjoining upland environment.

3. Diverse public access opportunities to water bodies should be encouraged
and developed and should be compatible with the existing shorelines and
water body uses and environment.

Chapter 6 - Aquatic Emironment H-167

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. Aquaculture practices should be encouraged in those tidelands, waters and
beds most suitable for such use.

5. Multiple industries using the Same tideland facilities shall be given
preference over single-industry use.

6. In appropriate areas, fishing and recreational uses of the water should be
protected against competing uses that would interfere with these activities.

7. All developments and activities using navigable waters or their beds should
be located and designed to minimize interference with surface navigation,
to minimize adverse visual impacts and to allow for the safe, unobstructed
passage of fish and animals, particularly those whose life cycles are
dependent on such migration.

8. Deep draft uses, if allowed, should not occur in areas requiring extensive
initial or maintenance dredging.

9. Filling operations should be accomplished in such a manner as not to create
a substantial environmental impact.

10. With exceptions for boat launching areas and other permitted water-
dependent uses, motorized vehicular travel should be discouraged on all
tideland areas.

11. Development of underwater pipelines and cables on first and second class
tidelands will be discouraged except where adverse environmental impacts
can be shown to be less than the impact of upland alternatives; when
permitted, such facilities should include adequate provisions to insure
against substantial or irrevocable damage to the environment.

12. Where the State owns the abutting uplands, priority will be given to joint
development of the uplands and second class tidelands for public use.

13. Abandoned and neglected structures which cause adverse visual impacts or
are a hazard to public health safety and welfare should be removed or
restored to a usable condition consistent with the provisions of this
program.

Chapter 6 - Aquatic Environment H-168

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 7
Shoreline Use
Policies & Regulations

Introduction

Background and Purpose

Shoreline use provisions are more detailed than the general shoreline policies
and regulations. The use policies and regulations apply to specific shoreline
use categories, providing a greater level of detail in addressing shoreline uses
and their impacts. Use policies establish the shoreline management principles
applicable to each use category and serve as a bridge between SNW goals in
the elements section and the use regulations that follow. Use regulations set
physical development and management standards for development of that type
of use.

For planning purposes, it is recommended that master programs make the
distinction between shoreline "uses" which are the ongoing functional result of
development and shoreline modification "activities" which are construction
elements (e.g. landfill, dredging, breakwaters, etc.) that change the physical
character of the shoreline in preparation for or continuance of a use. For legal
purposes both uses and activities are considered "development" (see Chapter
8).

Chapter 7 - Shoreline Use Policies & Regulations H-169

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

Format and Content 40

Provisions for shoreline uses are listed according to the individual use
categories, which typically consist of the following:

1. Agriculture

2. Aquaculture

3. Boating Facilities (marinas, launch ramps, moorage, etc.)

4. Commercial Development (retail, restaurants, offices, etc.)

5. Flood Hazard Management

6. Forest Practices

7. Industry (manufacturing, shipbuilding, wholesale warehousing, cargo
transfer, construction yards, etc.)

8. Instrearn Structures

9. Mining

10. Recreational Development - non boating (parks, trails, golf courses, etc.)

11. Residential Development

12. Transportation Facilities - roads, ferries, private air strips, helipads, etc.

13. Primary use utilities (wastewater treatment, electrical substations, etc.)

Regulations stating where the uses may be located (e.g. over water) on the site
can be stated in this section if applicable. Also, the use section may include a
listing of the environment designation where the use is permitted and special
requirements that vary from environment to environment. However, in most
cases, it will be advantageous to describe where specific uses are allowed as
permitted uses, or as conditional uses, and where special requirements apply in
a matrix in the environment designation section of the SMP (see Chapter 6).

Chapter 7 - Shoreline Use Policies & Regulations H-170

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Model Language

Sample language based on best practices standards for each shoreline use
category is presented below. These sample provisions have been developed
with input from Ecology and other state resource agencies as well as from a
variety of master programs presently being implemented throughout the state.
Local governments can modify the provisions as needed to fit with their
particular needs.

I or ZI
17
IR
ra la

all

A MM" gag

IT.- A-

Chapter 7 - Shoreline Use Policies & Regulations H-171

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

41
Agriculture

Applicability

Agriculture refers to all methods of livestock, crop, vegetation and soil
management. These include but are not necessarily limited to the related
activities of tilling, fertilizer application, soil preparation and maintenance,
harvesting and the control of weeds, plant diseases and insect pests. Also
included are animal husbandry practices associated with the feeding, housing,
maintenance and marketing of animals such as beef cattle, milk cows, breeding
stock, horses and poultry and their by-products. Facilities contained within
this category include, but are not limited to, storage, feed lots, fences and
ditches. Excluded are agricultural processing industries. Uses and activities
associated -%ith agriculture which are identified as separate use activities in this
program, such as Industry, Shoreline Stabilization and Flood Hazard
Management, are subject to the regulations established for those uses in
addition to the standards established in this section.

Notes to Master Programmers

7he Shoreline Management Act exemptsftom the substantial development
permit requirement the construction andpractices normal or necessaryfor
fanning, irrigation and ranching activities, including agricultural service
roads and utilities on wetlands, and the construction and maintenance Of
irrigation structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping
facilities and irrigation channels: PRO TIDED, that afeedlot of any size, all
processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the
contour of the wetlands by leveling orfilling other than that which results
ftom normal cultivation, is not considered normal or necessaryfarming or
ranching activities (see RCW90.58.030 and WAC 173-14). Afeedlotisan
enclosure orfacility used or capable of being usedforfeeding livestock hay,
grain, silage or other livestockfeed but does not include "Jandfor growing
crops or vegetationfor livestockfeeding andlor grazing, nor does it include
normal livestock wintering operations. " Finally,' the Act exempts the
operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains or other
facilities existing on September 8, 19 75, which were created, developed or
utilizedprimarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system.

Although these structures are exemptftom obtaining a substantial
development permit, compliance with all prohibitions, regulations and
development standards of this chapter is still required, including conditional
use and variance permit requirements.

Chapter 7 - Agriculture H-172

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Note: Diking, ditching or draining activities valued over $2,500 and
undertaken after 09108175 are not exempt. Such activities require a
substantial development permit.

Policies

I . Valuable agricultural lands should be protected from incompatible and
preemptive patterns of development so that they may remain in productive
agricultural use.

2. The creation of new agricultural lands by diking, draining or filling
tidelands, tidal marshes and associated marshes, bogs and swamps should
be prohibited.

3. Farm management techniques, operations and control methods should
protect the productivity of the land base by maintaining or improving soil
quality and minimizing soil losses through erosion in accordance with
applicable Soil Conservation Service conservation practice guidelines.

4. A vegetative buffer should be maintained between agricultural lands and
water bodies or wetlands in order to reduce harmful bank erosion and
resulting sedimentation, enhance water quality by slowing and filtering
runoff and maintain habitat for fish and wildlife.

5. Animal feeding operations, retention and storage ponds, feed lot waste and
manure storage should be located out of shoreline jurisdiction and
constructed to prevent contamination of water bodies and degradation of
the adjacent shoreline environment.

6. Appropriate farm management techniques should be utilized to prevent
contamination of nearby water bodies and adverse effects on valuable plant,
fish and animal life from fertilizer and pesticide use and application.

7. Cooperative arrangements should be encouraged between farmers and
public recreation agencies to allow public use of shorelines where it does
not conflict with agricultural operations.

8. The scenic beauty of natural shorelines as well as the historic value of many
rural agricultural landscapes should be protected in agricultural
development.

9. Dairy, poultry and feed lot operators should be encouraged to recycle
animal wastes.

Chapter 7 - Agriculture H-173

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations

1. Agricultural development shall conform to applicable state and federal
policies and regulations including but not limited to the following:

a. Erosion control guidelines and standards of the Soil Conservation
Service and U.S. Department of Agriculture;

b. Feedlot control guidelines of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; (see "Guidelines for Handling Livestock Wastes for Western
Washington", distributed by the Washington State Department of
Ecology in conjunctionwith the United States Environmental
Protection Agency for the Cooperative Extension Service).

c. Washington Pesticide Application Act (Chapter 17.21 RCW);

d. Washington Pesticide Act (Chapter 15.57 RCW);

e. Intrastate Water Quality Standards (Chapter 372.64);

f Interstate Water Quality Standards (Chapter 372.12)-,

g. State Board of Health Water Supply Rules and Regulat ions; and

h. Cooperative Extension Service guidelines cited in the SMA WAC's for
agriculture.

2. Manure lagoons shall maintain a minimum 100-foot setback from any water
body, river, creek, marsh, bog or swamp, and if located in the floodplain
shall be constructed to an elevation I foot above the base flood level
occurring at the site and, if possible, adequately covered.

3. Manure spreading shall be setback from the shoreline a sufficient distance,
no less than 25 feet from the floodway boundary or OHWM whichever is
further landward and otherwise, conducted in a manner that prevents animal
wastes from entering water bodies or wetlands adjacent to water bodies.

4. Confinement lots, feeding operations, lot wastes, stockpiles of manure
solids and storage of noxious chernicals'are prohibited in the floodway or
within 200 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark, whichever is
greater.

5. Within 100-year floodplain boundaries, all liquid manure storage shall be
diked and, if feasible, adequately covered.

Chapter 7 - Agriculture H-174

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. A buffer of natural or planted permanent native vegetation shall be
maintained between areas used for crops or intensive grazing and adjacent
waters and marshes, bogs and swamps. The plant composition and width
of the buffer shall be based on site conditions, including type of vegetation,
soils types, drainage patterns and slope, but shall not be less than 25 feet
measured from the ordinary high water mark. The buffer shall be sufficient
to retard surface runoff and reduce siltation and provide adequate riparian
habitat. New or redeveloped cultivation or grazing sites shall submit a map
indicating buffers.

7. Stream banks and water bodies shall be protected from damage due to
concentration and overgrazing of livestock by providing the following:

a. Suitable bridges, culverts or ramps for stock crossing;

b. Ample supplies of clean fresh water in tanks on dry land for stock
watering; and

c. Fencing or other grazing controls to prevent bank compaction, bank
erosion or the overgrazing of or damage to buffer vegetation.

8. Agricultural practices shall prevent and control erosion of soils and bank
materials within shoreline areas and minimize siltation, -turbidity, pollution
and other environmental degradation of watercourses and wetlands.

9. The burning of weed and grass growth along drainage ditches shall be
allowed if conducted in accordance with the guidelines and regulations of
appropriate agencies.

10. The application of agricultural chemicals shall prevent the direct runoff of
chemical laden waters into water bodies or aquifer recharge areas.
Adequate provision shall be made to minimize their entry into any body of
water.

11. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in the master program.

Prohibited

The following uses are prohibited:

1. The disposal of farm wastes, chemicals, fertilizers and associated containers
and equipment within shoreline jurisdiction is prohibited. However,
organic wastes may be used for fertilization or soil improvement. The
disposal of solid waste, including junk vehicles and equipment, debris and
brush, is also prohibited within shoreline jurisdiction.

Chapter 7 - Agriculture H-175

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. The application of agricultural fertilizers, including animal waste, herbicides
and pesticides, shall be prohibited within 100 feet landward of OHWM.

3. Aerial spraying of fertilizers, chemical. pesticides or herbicides over water
bodies, wetlands, within a floodway and within 200 feet landward of
OHWM is prohibited.

--en

Chapter 7 - Agriculture H-176

SM? Handbook - 1994 Edition

Aquaculture

Applicability

Aquaculture is the farn-drig or culturing of food fish, shellfish or other aquatic
plants and animals in lakes, streams, inlets, estuaries and other natural or
artificial water bodies. Activities include the hatching, cultivating, planting,
feeding, raising and harvesting of aquatic plants and animals and the
maintenance and construction of necessary equipment, buildings and growing
areas. Cultivation methods include but are not limited to fish pens, shellfish
rafts, racks and long lines, seaweed floats and nets and the culture of clams and
oysters on tidelands and subtidal areas. When consistent with control of
poflution and prevention of damage to the environment, aquaculture activities
are a preferred shoreline use (see WAC 173-16-060(2)).

Notes to Master Programmers

Potential locationsfor aquacultural enterprises are relatively restricted
because of water quality, temperature, oxygen content, current and in marine
waters, salinity requirements. The technology associated with some forms of
aquaculture is still experimental and in itsformative stages. Therefore the
policies and regulationsfor aquaculture reflect both the necessityfor some
latitude in the development of this emerging economic water use as well as its
potential impact on existing uses and natural systems.

For the purpose of this section, related uses such as wholesale and retail
sales, processing andproduct storagefacilities are not considered
aquaculture practices. 7hese uses are subject to the commercial use
regulations in addition to the standards established in this section.

Policies

1. Areas with high aquacultural use potential should be identified and
encouraged for aquacultural use and protected from degradation by other
types of land and water uses.

2. Aquaculture activities should be given flexibility to experiment with new
aquaculture techniques.

Chapter 7 - Aquaculture H-177

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Consideration should be given to both the possible positive impacts and the
possible detrimental impacts aquacultural development might have on the
physical environment, on other existing and approved land and water uses,
including navigation, tribal "usual and accustomed fishing grounds", public
access and on the aesthetic qualities of the project area.

4. Aquaculture should not be allowed in the following areas:

a. Areas that have little natural potential for the type(s) of aquaculture
under consideration.

b. Areas that have water quality problems that make the areas unsuitable
for the type(s) of aquaculture under consideration.

c. Areas devoted to established uses of the aquatic environment with
which the proposed aquacultural method(s) would substantially and
materially conflict. Such uses would include but are not limited to
navigation, moorage, sport or commercial fishing, log rafting,
underwater utilities and active scientific research.

d. Areas where the design or placement of the facilities would
substantially degrade the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.

e. Areas where an aquacultural proposal will result in any significant
adverse environmental impacts that cannot be eliminated or adequately
mitigated through enforceable conditions of approval.

f. Areas near national wildlife refuges or critical habitats (as defined in
Chapter 5) where the proposed activity will adversely affect the
refuge/habitat use or value.

5. Preference should be given to those forms of aquaculture that involve
lesserenvirorimental. and visual impacts. In general, projects that require
no structures, submerged structures or intertidal structures should be given
preference over those that involve substantial floating structures. Projects
that require few land-based facilities should be given preference over those
that require extensive facilities. Projects that involve little or no substrate
modification should be given preference over those that involve substantial
modification.

6. In instances where a choice of aquacultural methods are available, or where
two or more incompatible aquacultural projects are proposed in the same
area, the relative environmental impacts of each method or proposal should
be considered. In general, preference should be given to methods listed in
subsection (a), below, over those listed in subsection (b):

Chapter 7 - Aquaculture H-178

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

a. Methods involving no submerged, intertidal or floating structures or
facilities and minimal substrate modification; methods involving
submerged subtidal structures or facilities; methods involving intertidal
structures or facilities.

b. Methods involving floating structures or facilities; methods involving
floating structures with artificial feeding and/or substantial substrate
modification.

7. The countywide density of net-pen and raft culture operations should-be
limited as necessary to minimize cumulative environmental impacts.

8. Experimental aquaculture projects should be limited in scale and should be
approved for a limited (specified) period of time.

9. New shoreline proposals in the vicinity of an experimental aquacultural
project should be restricted or denied if they might compromise the
monitoring and data collection required under the experimental project
permit. All permitted aquacultural projects should be protected from new
development that would be likely to damage or destroy them.

Regulations

I . Applicants shall include in their applications all information needed to
conduct thorough evaluations of their aquaculture proposals, including but
not limited to the following:

a. Species to be reared;

b. Aquaculture m.ethod(s);

c. Anticipated use of any feed, pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics or other
substances and their predicted impacts; .

d. Manpower/employment necessary for the project;

e. Harvest and processing location, method and tin-dng;

f Location and plans for any shoreside activities, including loading and
unloading of the product and processing;

g. Method of waste management and disposal;

h. Environmental assessment, including best available background
information on water quality, tidal variations, prevailing storm wind
conditions, current flows, flushing rates, aquatic and benthic organisms

Chapter 7 - Aquaculture H-179

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

apd probable impacts on water quality, biota, currents, littoral drift and
any existing shoreline or water uses. Further baseline studies may be
required depending upon the adequacy of available information,
existing conditions, the nature of the proposal and probable adverse
environmental impacts. Baseline monitoring shall be at the applicant's
expense unless otherwise provided for;

i. Method(s) of predator control-,

j. Use of lights and noise generating equipment over water that minimizes
interference with surrounding uses; and

k. Other pertinent information deemed necessary by the City/County.

2. The location of floating and submerged aquaculture structures shall not
unduly restrict navigation to or along the shoreline or interfere with general
navigation lanes and traffic or "usual and accustomed fishing locations".
Floating structures shall remain shoreward of principal navigation channels.
Other restrictions on the scale of aquaculture activities in order to protect
navigational access may be necessary based on the size and shape of the
affected water body.

3. No aquatic organism shall be introduced into City/County salt or fresh
waters without prior written approval of the Washington Department of
Fisheries or the appropriate regulatory agency for the specific organism
proposed for introduction. The required approval shall be submitted in
writing to the City/County Planning Department prior to the introduction
or the granting of the permit, whichever comes first.

Unless otherwise provided in the shoreline permit issued by the County, the
repeated introduction of an approved organism in the same location shall
require approval by the City/County only at the time the permit is issued.
Introduction for purposes of this section shall mean the placing of any
aquatic organism in any area within the waters of City/County regardless of
whether it is a native or resident organism and regardless of whether it is
being transferred from within or without the waters of the City/County.

4. Aquacultural. structures and activities that are not water-dependent (e.g.,
warehouses for storage of products, parking lots) shall, be located inland of
the ordinary high water mark, upland of water dependent portions of the
project and shall minimize detrimental impacts to the shoreline.

5. Aquacultural structures and equipment shall be of sound construction and
shall be so maintained. Abandoned or unsafe structures and equipment
shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner. Where any structure
might constitute a potential hazard to the public in the future, the

Chapter 7 - Aquaculture H-180

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

City/County shall require the posting of a bond commensurate with the
cost of removal or repair. The City/County may abate an abandoned or
unsafe structure, following notice to the owner, if the owner fails to
respond in thirty days and may impose a lien on the related shoreline
property or other assets in an amount equal to the cost of the abatement.
Bonding requirements shall not duplicate requirements of other agencies.

6. Legally established aquacultural enterprises, including authorized
experimental projects, shall be protected from incompatible uses which may
seek to locate nearby. Demonstration of a high probability that such an
adjacent use would result in damage to, or destruction of, such an
aquacultural enterprise shaU be grounds for the denial of that use.

7. Operational monitoring may be required if and to the extent that it is
necessary to determine, ensure or confirm compliance with predicted or
required performance. Such monitoring requirements shall be established
as a condition of the permit and shall be conducted at the applicant's
(operator's) expense.

8. No processing of any aquacultural product, except for the sorting or culling
of the cultured organisms and the washing or removal of surface materials
or organisms, shall occur in or over the water after harvest, unless
specifically approved by permit. All other processing and processing
facilities shall be located on land and, in addition to these provisions shall
be governed by the policies and regulations of other applicable sections of
this master program, in particular provisions addressing commercial and
industrial uses.

9. Aquacultural wastes shall be disposed of in a manner that wiU ensure
compliance with all applicable governmental waste disposal standards. No
garbage, wastes or debris shall be allowed to accumulate at the site of any
aquaculture operation.

10. Aquacultural uses and facilities shall be located at least 600 feet from any
national wildlife refuge lands and/or habitats of special significance for
birds or mammals (as identified in recognized reference documents such as
the Washington State Department of Ecology publication, "Washington
Coastal Areas of Major Biological Significance," and/or as determined by
the Washington State Department of Wildlife); provided that fish net-pens
and projects involving substantial substrate modification shall be located
1,500 feet or more from such areas; provided further that lesser distances
may be authorized by permit other than a variance if it is demonstrated by
the applicant that the wildlife resource will be protected and if the change is
supported by the reviewing resource agencies. Greater distances also may
be required if supported by the reviewing resource agencies.

Chapter 7 - Aquaculture H-181

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

11. Hatchery and other aquaculture operations shall be required to maintain a
minimum 50-foot wide vegetated buffer zone along the affected
strearnway, PROVIDED that clearing of vegetation shall be permitted for
essential water access points.

12. Onshore support structures shall meet the height and setback standards
established (see Chapter 6, Figure 6-3 Use-related Development Standards)
except that reduced setbacks may be permitted where necessary for the
operation of hatcheries and rearing ponds.

13. Predator control shall not involve the killing or abusive harassment of birds
or mammals. Approved controls include but are not limited to double
netting for seals, overhead netting for birds and 3-foot high fencing or
netting for otters. The use of other nonlethal, nonabusive predator control
measures shall be contingent upon receipt of written approval from the
National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, as required.

14. Permit applications shall identify all pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics,
vaccines, growth stimulants, anti-fouling agents or other chemicals that the
applicant anticipates using. No such materials shall be used until approval
is obtained from all appropriate state and federal agencies, including but
not limited to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Washington
State Departments of Ecology, Fisheries and Agriculture, as required, and
proof thereof is submitted to the City/County. When feasible, the cleaning
of nets and other apparatus shall be accomplished by air drying, spray
washing or hand washing, rather than chemical treatment and application.

15. For aquacultural projects using over-water structures, storage of necessary
tools and apparatus seaward of the ordinary high water mark shall be
limited to containers of not more than 3 feet in height, as measured from
the surface of the raft or dock; provided that in locations where the visual
impact of the proposed aquaculture structures will be minimal, the
City/County based upon written findings and without requiring a variance
may authorize storage containers of greater height. In such cases, the
burden of proof shall be on the applicant. Materials which are not
necessary for the immediate and regular operation of the facility shall not
be stored seaward of the ordinary high water mark.

16. Proposals for mechanical clam harvesting or other activities that involve
substantial substrate modification through dredging, trenching, digging or
adverse sedimentation shall not be allowed in existing kelp beds or in beds
of native eel grass (Zostera marina) containing more than 2 turions per 1/4
square meter in winter or 3 turions per 1/4 square meter in summer.

Chapter 7 - Aquaculture H-182

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

17. Fish net-pens shall meet, as a minimum, state-approved administrative
guidelines for the management of net-pen cultures; where any conflict in
requirements arises, the more stringent requirement shaU prevail.

18. Fish net-pens shall not occupy more than 2 surface acres of water area,
excluding booming and anchoring requirements.

19. Aquacultural proposals that include net pens or rafts shall not be located
closer than one nautical mile to any other aquacultural facility that includes
net pens or rafts, provided that a lesser distance may be authorized by the
City/County if the applicant can demonstrate to the City/County
satisfaction that the navigational, environmental and aesthetic concerns
expressed in this master program will be protected. If a lesser distance is
requested, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that
the cumulative impacts of the existing and proposed operations would not
be contrary to the policies and regulations of this master program.

20. Except as provided in Regulation # 18 above, aquacultural. developments
approved on an experimental basis shall not exceed 5 acres in area (except
anchorage for floating systems) and five years in duration; provided that
the City/County may issue a new permit to continue an experimental
project as many times as is deemed necessary and appropriate.

2 1. Where necessary to preserve the integrity of any research data collected,
aquaculture developments which would be likely to jeopardize an
experimental aquaculture development shall not be allowed within the same
bay, harbor, or cove with any such aquaculture development (or within 1
mile of such a development if the water body is larger than I square mile in
area) until after the experimental project is granted nonexperimental status
or terminated.

22. For floating culture facilities the City/County shall reserve the right to
require a visual impact analysis consisting of information comparable to
that found in the Department of Ecology's "Aquacultural Siting Study"
1986. Such analysis may be prepared by the applicant, without
professional assistance, provided that it is competently prepared.

23. Any shoreline designated a "shoreline of state-wide significance" with
aquacultural activities proposed in that area shall be first subject to the
policies and priorities contained in Section XXX, shorelines of state-wide
significance, and second to the policies and regulations contained in this
section.

Chapter 7 - Aquaculture H-183

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

24. All aquaculture facilities and accessory uses must conform to the General
Provisions (see Chapter 5) and Environment Designation Provisions (see
Chapter 6), including setback, height and open space standards, stated in
this master program.

@ 0

Chapter 7 - Aquaculture H-184

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Boating Facilities

Applicability

Boating facilities include marinas, both backshore and foreshore, dry storage
and wet-moorage types, boat launch ramps, covered moorage, boat houses,
mooring buoys and marine travel lifts (refer to Glossary for definitions). See
also Chapter 8, Shoreline Modification Activity Policies and Regulations,
"Piers and Docks" for nonmarina associated boating facility provisions.

A marina is a water-dependent use that consists of a system of piers, buoys, or
floats to provide moorage for ten or more boats. For regulatory purposes,
large community moorage facilities, yacht club facilities and camp or resort
moorage areas would also be reviewed as marinas. Boat launch facilities and
supplies and services for small commercial and/or pleasure craft may be
associated with marinas. Backshore marinas are located landward of the
OHWM. There are two common types of backshore marinas, one with wet-
moorage that is dredged out of the land to artificially create a basin; and the
other, a dry moorage which has upland storage with a hoist, marine travel lift
or ramp for water access. Foreshore marinas are located in the intertidal or
offshore zone and may require breakwaters of open type construction (floating
breakwater and/or open pile work) and/or solid type construction (bulkhead
and landfill), depending on the location.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-185

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Accessory uses found in marinas may include fuel docks and storage, boating
equipment sales and rental, repair services, public launching, bait and tackle
shops, potable water, waste disposal, administration, parking, groceries and
dry goods.

Uses and activities associated with boating facilities which are identified in this
section as separate uses (i.e., Piers and Docks, Bulkheads, Breakwaters,
Commercial Development, Industrial Development [ncluding ship and boat
building and repair yards] Jetties and Groins, Dredging, Landfil.1, Utilities and
Transportation Facilities) are subject to the regulations established for those
uses in addition to the standards for boating facilities established in this section.

Notes to Master Programmers

Marinas affect wildlife, fish and shelyish habitats. 7he degree of impact
depends on such factors as the type of construction and design, variety and
number of boats using thefacility and their density and operation
characteristics. WAC 173-16-060-5(a) provides that "in locating marinas,
special plans should be made to protect the fish and shelyish resources that
maybe affected by construction and operation of the facility." WAC173-16
and its revisions point to the needfor "best management practices" to control
runoff andprevent pollutionftom marinas, fuelfacilities and boatyards.

A growing problem for our state's waters is the increase in boater sewage.
Since 1972, federal marine sanitation standards issued by the EPA have
prohibited overboard discharge of untreated sewage wastes into navigable
waters. The U.S. Coast Guard certifies marine sanitation devices, requiring
the discharged effluent to have afecal coliform bacteria count no greater
than 1, 000 organisms per 100 milliliters, and suspended solids no greater
than 150 milligramsper liter. It is illegal to discharge untreatedsewage
anywhere in waters of Washington State. Presently there are moneys
available for installing boat sewage disposalfacilitiesftom the Washington
State Centennial Clean Water Fund, State Parks and Recreation Commission
andIAC.

Another growing concern affecting state waters involves increased residential
use in marinas and other water areas. Over-water residential uses are not
consideredpreferred shoreline uses and are therefore discouraged Shoreline
Management Act Guidelinesfor Development ofMaster Programs,
specifically WA C 173-16-060(8) (d), state that "Residential de velopment over
water should not be permitted " Accordingly, master programs should
contain specific policies and regulations that effectively manage such uses.
Clear definitions (see Glossaty) of "houseboat", Viveaboard", 'floating
home ", "vessel" and "boathouse " are needed to clarify the policies and
regulations that do apply.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-186

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Although new over-water residential uses are strongly discouraged, there are
some situations where existingj7oating homes and liveaboards represent an
established historic use along the waterfront. In those limited circumstances
where such uses are found to be appropriate, they must comply with policies
and regulations contained in the local master program. (For regulations
specific tofloating homes, see "Regulations - Residential Uses" in this section
and "Floating Homes - where permitted" in the Residential development
section).

Policies

I . Boating facilities should be located, designed and operated to provide
maximum feasible protection and enhancement of all forms of aquatic,
littoial or terrestrial life including animals, fish, shellfish, birds and plants,
their habitats and their migratory routes. To the extent possible and
without undermining other considerations, marinas should be located in
areas of low biologic productivity.

2. Boating facilities should be located and designed to minimize adverse
effects upon, and to enhance if possible, beneficial shoreline features and
processes including erosion, littoral transport and accretion shoreforms, as
well as scarce and valuable shore features including riparian habitat and
wetlands.

3. Areas which have been identified as hazardous due to ston-n tides, high
winds or flooding, should not be considered as potential marina sites.

4. Embayments with poor flushing action should not be considered for marina
sites.

5. Regional as well as local needs should be considered when determining the
location of marinas and launch ramps, identifying potential ideal sites near
high-use or potentially high-use areas.

6. Marinas should be located so as to minimize the consumption of limited
shoreline resources by encouraging:

a. The expansion of existing marinas over the addition of new marina
sites,

b. Marinas and launch ramps over the development of individual docking
facilities for numerous private, noncommercial pleasure craft; and

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-187

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

c. The use of boat launching ramps and dry storage of recreational boats
as a favorable alternative to sheltered, year-round wet-moorage of
watercraft.

7. Boating facilities should be located and designed so their structures and
operations will be aesthetically compatible with the area visually affected,
and will not unreasonably impair shoreline views.

8. New marina facilities should be designed to accommodate public access
and enjoyment of the shoreline including provisions for walkways, view
points, rest room facilities and other recreational uses according to the
scale of the facility.

9. Foreshore marinas, wherever possible, should use open-type construction
(floating breakwater and/or open pile work) to prevent degradation of fish
and/or shellfish resources and habitat.

10. Installation and maintenance of accessible boat sewage disposal (pump-out)
facilities should be required and available in convenient locations to all
boaters.

11. Floating homes, houseboats and liveaboards should only be allowed in
those limited circumstances where their environmental and use impacts can
be substantially avoided.

Regulations -- General

I . Boating facility development and/or renovations shall comply with all other
applicable state agency policies and regulations including, but not limited
to: the Department of Fisheries criteria for the design of bulkheads, landfills
and marinas; Federal Marine Sanitation standards (EPA 1972) requiring
water quality certification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section
10); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredging standards (Section 404); and
state and federal standards for the storage of fuels and toxic materials.

Note: Ecology's Water Quality Program provides technical guidance
governing the installation of waste disposalfacilifies at new or expanding
marinas. Contact the Water Quality Program at your local Ecology
regional officefor a copy.

2. The City/County shall require and utilize the following information in its
review of marina proposals:

a. Existing natural shoreline and backshore features and uses, bathymetric
contours (1-foot increments);

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-188

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. Geohydraulic processes and flushing characteristics, volume, rates and
ftequencies,

c. Biological resources and habitats for the backshore, foreshore and
aquatic environments;

d. Area of surface waters appropriated and leased areas;

e. Site orientation; exposure to wind, waves, flooding or tidal/storm
surges; type and extent of shore defense works or shoreline
stabilization and flood protection necessary;

f. Impact upon existing and created demand for shoreline and water uses
including public access and recreation and views;

g. The regional need for additional facilities; and

h. The design of the facilities, including sewage disposal, water quality
controls, provisions for the prevention and control of fuel spillage and a
landscaping plan.

3. Accessory uses at marinas or public launch ramps shall be limited to those
which are water-dependent, water-related or water-enjoyment. Accessory
uses shall be consistent in scale and intensity with the marina and/or launch
ramp and surrounding uses.

4. Shoreline permits for marinas shall be conditioned to require boater
education addressing boater impacts on water quality and other shoreline
resources as well as boater safety.

5. All boating facilities and accessory uses must conform to the General
Provisions (see Chapter 5) and Environment Designation Provisions (see
Chapter 6), including setback, height and open space standards, stated in
this master program.

Regulations -- Location

1. Marinas catering to a large regional demand for permanent moorage shall
locate in heavily populated areas where shorelines are already developed.

2. When new sites are considered, sufficient evidence must be presented to
show that existing marinas are inadequate and cannot be expanded to meet
regional demand.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-189

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Deteriorated urban waterfront areas in need of restoration and where
channel depths are such that commercial activity is no longer feasible shall
be given priority consideration for potential marina sites.

4. Marinas shall be sited to prevent any restrictions in the use of commercial
and recreational shellfish beds. The specific distance shall be determined in
conjunction with the Washington State Department of Ecology and other
agencies with expertise. Criteria for determining the specific distance may
include:

a. the size and depth of the water body;

b. tidal flushing action in the project area-,

c. size of the marina and projected intensity of use-,

d. whether fuel will be handled or stored;

e. expected number of liveaboards;

f existence of a fully operational pump-out or sewer hook-up; and

g. expected or planned changes in adjacent land uses that could result in
additional water quality impacts or sanitary treatment requirements.

5. Marinas and public launch ramps shall locate on stable shorelines where
water depths are adequate to eliminate or minin-dze the need for offshore or
foreshore channel construction dredging, maintenance dredging, spoil
disposal, filling, beach enhancement and other river, lake, harbor and
channel maintenance activities.

6. Marinas and launch ramps shall locate in areas where there is adequate
water mixing and flushing and shall be designed so as not to retard or
negatively influence flushing characteristics. Marinas are permitted in a
constricted body of salt water (width at the entrance less than one-half the
distance from the entrance to the inner most shoreline) only if there is 1
surface acre of water within the constricted body, measured at mean low
water, for each boat moorage (including buoys) within said constricted
body.

7. Boat launches and marina entrances shall not be located closer than 1,000
feet from beaches commonly used for swimming or valuable areas for
commercial or recreational fishing or shellfish collection.

8. Marine railways for boat launching shall be. located on existing grade,
avoiding landfill where feasible, and shall not obstruct access to and along
the shoreline.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities B-190

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Marine Shores

9. Marinas and launch ramps shall not locate at or along:

a. significant littoral drift sectors, including resource material areas, such
as feeder bluffs and accretion beaches, points, spits and hooks;

b. marshes, bogs, swamps and lagoons;

c. estuaries;

d. significant fish and shellfish spawning and rearing areas; or

e. poorly-flushed lagoons and backwaters.

10. Foreshore marinas and launch ramps may be located on or along low
energy drift sectors.

11. Backshore marinas and launch ramps may be located behind closed
accretion beaches, points or low energy driftways. Connecting channels
and theirjetties should be designed to protect natural littoral drift
processes.

a. In the event a marina is constructed landward of the natural preexisting
beach line, there shall be no less than two openings to open water for
ingress/egress and water circulation.

12. When located in designated port areas, marinas shall not extend waterward
of the outer harbor line.

Lake Shores

13. Marinas or launch ramps shall not be permitted on lake beaches (accretion
beach shores) because such natural features are uncommon on lakes and
highly valuable for swimming and general recreation.

14. Backshore lake marinas or launch ramps may be permitted on low-bank
areas if most of the beach and backshore is preserved in its natural
vegetated condition for recreational uses.

Rivers and Stream Banks

15. Marinas shall not locate along braided or meandering river channels where
the channel is subject to change in alignment, or on point bars and other
accretion beaches.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-191

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

16. River marinas and launch ramps shall be located so as not to adversely
affect flood channel capacity or otherwise create a flood hazard.

Regulations -- Design/Renovation/Expansion

I .Backshore marinas or launch ramps shall generally be preferred over
foreshore marinas because they have substantially less impact on shoreline
natural features, vegetation and uses, fisheries and shellfish resources, as
well as less irreversible appropriation of navigable waters.

2. Proposals for marinas shall include launch facilities unless the applicant can
demonstrate the unfeasibility of providing such facilities.

3. Marina design shall provide thorough flushing of all enclosed water areas
and shall not restrict the movement of aquatic life requiring shallow water.

4. The marina design shall minimize interference with geohydraulic processes
and disruption of existing shore forms.

5. Boating facilities shall be designed so their structures and operations will be
aesthetically compatible with or will enhance existing shoreline features and
uses. Boating facilities shall mitigate for adverse development impacts on-
site and to adjacent properties.

6. The perimeter of parking, dry moorage and other storage areas shall be
landscaped to provide a visual and noise buffer between adjoining
dissimilar uses or scenic areas. The permit application shall identify the
size, location and species list of landscaping that will be used stressing
native vegetation.

7. All signs shall adhere to the policies and regulations for signs; EXCEPT
that a marina or launch ramp facility may add no more than one advertising
sign oriented to the water, not exceeding 15 feet in total height (as
measured from OHWM). Signs for fueling facilities shall not exceed 15 feet
in total height. Signs incorporating the pump-out logo, shall be provided
identifying the location of waste disposal facilities, if available.

8. Public access, both visual and physical, shall be an integral part of all
marina development and design commensurate with the particular proposal
and must include the following:

a. Views from upland lots and public view corridors shall be preserved
and or provided with the view corridor not less than 35 percent of the
width of water frontage; EXCEPT that one-half of such requirement
may be satisfied by an abutting street or waterway.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-192

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. Marinas and public launch ramps shall be designed so that existing or
potential public access along beaches is not unnecessarily blocked nor
made dangerous and public use of the waters below the ordinary high
water mark is not unduly impaired.

c. Covered moorage in marinas shall not be constructed where visual
access from public access areas and/or significant numbers of
residences is blocked.

9. Foreshore marinas that must involve solid bulkhead, breakwater, and/or
land fill construction shall meet the following design criteria:

a. Breakwaters built waterward in a perpendicular plane to the shoreline
shall not be allowed as a continuous one-piece structure.

b. The toe of the breakwater may not extend waterward of the 0.0
MLLW tide level or more than 250 lineal feet from MFH-IW.

c. Breakwaters shall be built so that the side slopes shall not be steeper
than 1-1/2-foot horizontal to 1 -foot vertical slope.

d. The opening between a shore breakwater and an isolated breakwater
shall be not less than 20 feet in width as measured at the toe of the
slope.

e. Openings must be maintained at project depth at all times in order to
insure proper circulation and fish passage.

f. Openings may be either offset or in-line design.

g. Openings may also be used as navigational channels.

h. In the event a marina is constructed landward of the natural preexisting
beach line, there shall be no less than two openings to open water for
ingress/egress and water circulation.

i. The opening must be sized (depth and/or width) so as to insure proper
circulation inside the marina configuration and exchange with the
outside bay. To facilitate this exchange, the volume of the tidal prism
(water present between mean low and mean high tide) shall be not less
than 50 percent of the total volume of the basin.

i. The depth of the openings shall be at least as deep as the average depth
of the marina.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-193

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

k. Openings may be baffled to protect the marina against wave action but 41
in no instance should the baffling impede water circulation or fish
movement.

10. Location of fueling stations on docks, floats, and/or the shore shall be
considered on an individual basis and recommendations wi.11 be made as to
its location by the Washington Departments of Fisheries and/or Wildlife.

11. Location of boat waste disposal facilities (pump-outs, dump stations and
toilets) shall be considered on an individual basis with consultation with
Departments of Health, Ecology and Parks as needed.

12. The discharge of untreated sewage and/or toxic material from boats and/or
shore installations shall be prohibited within any marina. Toxic material
herein defined as any material damaging marine life includes but is not
limited to paints, varnishes, detergents, petroleum, bilge waste water, etc.

13. No commercial or sport fish and/or shellfish processing discharge or
discarding of unused bait, scrap fish or viscera shall be permitted within any
marina.

14. Washington State Water Quality Standards shall be strictly adhered to at all
times.

15. Owners and/or operators of marinas shall be liable at all times for any and
all marine life and/or habitat losses incurred during construction and/or
operation of any marina.

16. Approval of general construction practices, including but not limited to
construction methods, timing and materials must be obtained from the
Washington State Departments of Fisheries and/or Wildlife.

17. Upland facilities shall be designed and managed in compliance with
stormwater BMPs in order to minimize or prevent negative impacts to
water quality.

18. Boating facilities shall locate stationary boat waste disposal facilities in
close proximity to boat refuefing locations.

Regulations -- Construction and Materials

1. Dredging in coastal waters for boating facilities shall be limited to the
minimum necessary for new entrance channels to reach basins dredged out
of dry upland areas; for deepening water a few feet in existing and

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-194

SNIT Handbook - 1994 Edition

proposed berthing areas; and for maintenance dredging. Dredging marshes,
bogs and swamps to accommodate new or expanded boating facilities is
prohibited.

2. Landfill in water bodies or marshes, bogs or swamps to create usable land
space for accessory marina uses is prohibited.

3. Where foreshore marinas are permitted:

a. Open-pile or floating breakwater designs are preferred over rip rap or
other solid construction because they cause less damage to natural
shore features and are reversible; and

b. Solid structures shall not be permitted to extend without openings from
the shore to 0.0 tide level (Mean Lower Low Water [MLLW]) and
shall provide for fish passage along the shoreline.

4. Shoreline embankments of all boating facilities shall be stabilized both
landward and waterward of OHWM both during and after construction.

Regulations -- Parking and Storage
1 . Over-water parking facilities are prohibited.

2. No overnight parking shall be permitted in the floodway during the wet
season between November I and May 1.

3. Short-term loading areas may be located at ramps or near berthing areas,
Long-term parking, paved storage and dry moorage areas shall be located
away from berthing areas and at a minimum 100 feet from the OHWM.

4. To the maximum extent possible, marinas and accessory uses shall share
parking facilities, with marina usage given preference.

5. The following parking requirements shall apply:

a. Parking facilities shall provide at a minimum one vehicle space for
every four moorage spaces and for every 400 square feet of interior
floor space devoted to accessory retail sales or service use.

b. Where liveaboards are permitted, parking facilities shall provide at a
minimum one vehicle space for each liveaboard moorage space.

c. At each public or quasi-public launch ramp, ten car and trailer spaces at
least 10 feet by 40 feet shall be provided for each ramp lane.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-195

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- Circulation

1. Marinas and launch ramps shall be located where access streets are
adequate to handle the traffic load generated by the facility and shall be
designed to minimize other circulation and access conflicts. Backing of
trailers on public roads shall be prohibited.

2. Collector roads between marinas and arterial routes shall have all-weather
surfacing and be satisfactory to the City/County in terms of width, safety,
alignment, sight distance, grade and intersection controls.

3. Ingress-egress as well as the use and enjoyment of the water or beach on
adjoining property shall not be unduly restricted or impaired,

Regulations -- Utilities

I . Where moorage is offered in new, expanded or renovated existing marinas,
pump-out, holding and/or treatment facilities shall be provided for sewage
contained on boats and/or vessels. Such facilities shall be located so as to
be conveniently accessible to all boats. The responsibility for the adequate
and approved collection and disposal of marina originated sewage, solid
waste and petroleum waste is that of the marina operator.

2. All marinas shall provide rest rooms and showers for boaters' use. They
shall be kept clean and at a minimum be located within 200 feet from the
dock or pier; there shall be one toilet and hand washing facility for each sex
per fifty moorage sites; signs shall be posted so that the rest rooms are
easily identifiable to the boating public.

3. All pipes, plumbing, wires and cables at a marina site shaH be placed at or
below ground and dock levels.

4. Public boat launch facilities shall provide and maintain rest rooms or
portable toilets and dump stations.

Regulations -- Residential Uses

1. Moorage of floating homes is prohibited, except as provided for under
Residential Development "Regulations - Floating Homes - where
permitted", if applicable.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-196

SNIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. No more than 10 percent of total moorage slips in a marina shall
accommodate liveaboard vessels and houseboats. Where permitted, each
liveaboard or houseboat mooring slip shall be connected to utilities that
provide potable water and wastewater conveyance to an approved disposal
facility.

Regulations -- Management and Operations

1. Marinas shall have adequate facilities and establish posted operational
procedures for fuel and sewage handling and storage in order to prevent
and minimize accidental spillage.

2. Marinas shall have facilities, equipment and established posted procedures
for the containment, recovery and mitigation for spilled petroleum, sewage
and toxic products and debris from maintenance and repair (see Chapter 7,
"Industry", for more specific criteria).

3. Marina operators shall post the following signs where they are readily
visible to all marina users:

a. Regulations pertaining to handling and disposal of waste, including
gray water, sewage and toxic materials-,

b. Regulations prohibiting the use of marine toilets while moored unless
these toilets are self-contained or have an approved treatment device;
and

c. Regulations prohibiting the disposal of fish and shellfish cleaning
wastes, scrap fish, viscera or unused bait in or near the marina waters.

d. Rules and BMPs for boat maintenance and repairs on site.

4. Garbage or litter receptacles shall be provided and maintained by the
marina operator at several locations convenient to users in sufficient
numbers to properly store all solid waste generated on site. This should
include separate receptacles for waste oil and other potentially hazardous
or toxic waste.

5. The dock facilities shall be equipped with adequate lifesaving equipment
such as life rings, hook and ropes.

6. Adequate fire protection shall be required as per the Washington State Fire
Code.

7. Swimming shall be prohibited within marina facilities unless the swimming
area is adequately separated, protected and posted.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-197

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

8. If dredging at marina entrances changes the littoral drift processes and
adversely affects adjacent shores, the marina operator shall be required to
periodically replenish these shores with the appropriate quantity and quality
of aggregate as determined by a geohydraulic study paid for by the
operator and completed to the satisfaction of the Administrator.

9. Ten percent of total slips shall be provided for "transient moorage" (less
than two week stay) when at least one of the following apply:

a. The marina is owned, operated or franchised by a governmental agency
such as a port authority for use by the public;

b. If the marina provides more than 3,000 lineal feet of moorage then 100
lineal feet of transient moorage shall be provided for every 1,000 lineal
feet of moorage.

c. The marina is part of a mixed-use development which includes
restaurants or other water-enjoyment uses.

Regulations -- Boat Launches

I . Launch ramps may be pern-dtted on marine or riverine accretion
shoreforms, provided any necessary grading is not harmful to affected
resources and any accessory facilities are located out of the floodway.

2. Where ramps are permitted, parking and shuttle areas shall not be located
on scarce accretion shoreforms which have high value for general shore
recreation.

3. Launch ramps shall be permitted only on stable nonerosional banks, where
no or a m@inimum number of current deflectors or other stabilization
structures will be necessary.

4. Boat launch ramps may be permitted for individual residences where the
upland slope within 25 feet of the OHWM does not exceed 25 percent
and/or where substantial cutting, grading, filling or stabilization structures
are not necessary.

5. Boat launching ramps, minor accessory buildings and haul out facilities
shall be designed to be in character and scale with the surrounding
shoreline.

6. Ramp structures shall be built from flexible, hinge-segmented pads which
can adapt to changes in beach profiles unless a solid structure is
demonstrated to be more appropriate for the intended level of use.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities B-198

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

7. Ramps shall be placed and kept near flush with the foreshore slope to
minimize the interruption of geohydraulic processes.

8. Boat ramps shall be signed to alert users to the danger of spreading milfbil
and how to control it.

Regulations -- Covered Moorage

I . Marina developers are required to provide a detailed plan for covered
moorage development before permits are granted. Such a plan must
indicate: (a) covered moorage location, size and general design; (b) impact
on shoreline views in the marina and from adjacent private and public
properties; and (c) that the structures will be built to conform to the
City/County building code, withstand stresses from storms and weather or
damage by fire, and that exterior wall and roof coverings shall be of
noncombustible or fire-retardant-treated material and so certified or
labeled.

2. The maximum height for covered moorage is 20 feet above the extreme
high tide level. Maximum allowable area of covered moorage within the
over-water portion of the marina is limited to 10 percent of the over-water
area.

3. Covered moorage is not permitted in areas determined by the City/County
to be of high scenic value or where open water views are important.

4. All covered moorage at a specific marina shall be of similar and/or
compatible design, materials, color, length and height (unless they exceed
the present height limits); and shall be constructed in contiguous groups or
modules as part of the overall project.

5. Where covered moorage is utilized, a public dock shall be provided for
viewing the water and for fishing.

6. All covered moorage shall be constructed of nonreflective neutral material
and colors.

Regulations -- Mooring Buoys

1. Mooring buoys shall be located as close to the shore as possible. They
shall not be located farther waterward than existing mooring buoys unless
the drift of the boat dictates it.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-199

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. Buoys must be discernible under normal daylight conditions at a minimum
of 100 yards and must have reflectors for night time visibility.

3. Only one mooring buoy will be allowed per waterfront lot unless the
Administrator detern-dnes and documents with written findings that there is
a demonstration of greater need. Such demonstration may include a
community park or residential development where lot owners both on and
away from the shoreline share a shoreline open space area.

Chapter 7 - Boating Facilities H-200

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Commercial Development

Applicability

Commercial development means those uses which are involved in wholesale,
retail, service and business trade. Examples include hotels, motels, grocery
markets, shopping centers, restaurants, shops, offices and private or public
indoor recreation facilities. Excluded from this category are residential or
recreational subdivisions, boating facilities and industry.

Uses and activities associated with commercial development which are
identified as separate use activities in this program such as Nfining, Industry,
Boating Facilities, Transportation Facilities, Utilities, Solid Waste Disposal,
Piers and Docks, Bulkheads and Shoreline Stabilization and Flood Protection
are subject to those regulations in addition to the standards for commercial
development established herein.

The General Policies and Regulations (Chapter 5) also apply to all commercial
uses unless otherwise stated.

Policies

1. New commercial development located in shoreline areas should be limited
to those which are water-oriented uses and activities as defined herein.
Commercial development in shoreline areas should be encouraged in
descending order of preference as follows:

a. Water-dependent uses-,

b. Water-related uses; and

c. Water-enjoyment uses.

Non-water-oriented development is strongly discouraged; however, when
permitted, it should not displace water-oriented development in shoreline

areas.

2. Commercial developments should be prohibited over water unless the use
is water-oriented.

3. No commercial development should be allowed in marshes, bogs or
swamps.

Chapter 7 - Commercial Development H-201

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. New commercial development on shorelines should be encouraged to
locate in those areas with existing consistent commercial uses and in a
manner that will minimize sprawl and the inefficient use of shoreline areas.

5. Commercial development should be encouraged to utilize existing
transportation corridors and minimize the number of ingress/egress points.
Ingress/egress should be designed to minimize potential conflicts with and
impact on regular corridor traffic.

6. Commercial development should be required to provide physical or visual
access to the shoreline or other opportunities for the public to enjoy the
shorelines of the state.

7. Multiple use concepts which include open space and recreation should be
encouraged in commercial developments.

8. Commercial development should be aesthetically compatible with the
surrounding area. Structures should not significantly impact views from
upland properties, public roadways or other public areas, and from the
water.

9. The location of commercial developments along shorelines should insure
the protection and preservation of natural areas or systems identified as
having geological, ecological, biological or cultural significance.

10. Commercial development should be discouraged within the I 00-year
floodplain.

Regulations -- General

1. The City/County shall require and utilize the following information in its
review of commercial development proposals:

a. Nature of the commercial activity, (e.g. water-dependent, water-
related, water-enjoyment, non-water-oriented, mixed-use) including a
breakdown of specific components;

b. Need for shoreline location;

c. Special considerations for enhancing the relationship of the activity to
the shoreline;

d. Provisions for public visual and physical access to the shoreline;

e. Provisions to ensure that the development will not cause adverse
environmental impacts; and

Chapter 7 - Commercial Development H-202

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

is f For mixed-use proposals, present alternative mixes of water-oriented
and non-water-oriented uses and activities, structural locations, site
designs and bulk considerations, alternative enhancements for physical
and visual public access to the shoreline (both public and private space)
and other considerations which address the goals and policies of the
SMP.

2. Water-oriented commercial developments may be permitted as indicated in
Chapter 6, Figure 6-2 Shoreline Use and Modification Activity Matrix. In
accordance with said matrix and other provisions of this SMP non-water-
oriented commercial developments may be permitted by CUP only where it
can be demonstrated that:

a. A water-oriented use is not reasonably expected to locate on the
proposed site due to topography, surrounding land uses, physical
features or due to the site's separation from the water;

b. The proposed use does not usurp or displace land currently occupied
by a water-oriented use and will not interfere with adjacent water-
oriented uses; and

c. The proposed use will be of appreciable public benefit by increasing
public use, enjoyment or access to the shoreline.

3. Commercial parking as a primary use is prohibited within 200 feet of the
shoreline.

4. Public access provisions shall conform to the requirements in this program.

5. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program .

Regulations -- Design

I .Commercial development shall be designed and maintained in a neat,
orderly and environmentally compatible manner, consistent with the
character and features of the surrounding area. To this end, the
City/County may adjust the project dimensions and setbacks (so long as
they are not relaxed below minimum standards without a shoreline variance
permit), and/or prescribe operation intensity and screening standards as
deemed appropriate. Need and special considerations for landscaping and
buffer areas shall also be subject to review.

Chapter 7 - Commercial Development U-203

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. All commercial loading and service areas shall be located on the upland
side of the commercial activity or provisions must be made to setback and
screen the loading and service area from the shoreline and water body.

3. Commercial development and accessory uses must conform to the setback
and height standards established in Chapter 6, Environment Designations.

Chapter 7 - Commercial Development H-204

SW Iff andbook - 1994 Edition

Flood Hazard Management

Applicability

Flood hazard management projects are those actions taken with the primary
purpose of preventing or mitigating damage due to flooding. Flood hazard
management projects or programs may employ any or several physical or
regulatory controls including dikes, dams, lakes, engineered floodways,
bioengineering, planning and zoning (land use management). These provisions
also apply to repair and maintenance of flood hazard management systems if
the systems are enlarged or otherwise modified.

Notes to Master Programmers

RCW90.58.100(2)(h) requires shoreline masterprograms to include an
element that implements the statewide interest in preventing and minimizing
flood damages. When local governments revise their shoreline master
programs, they need to include an element to prevent and minimize flood
damages. Local government may be able to meet this requirement by
referencing otherflood hazardplans and regulations donefor the community
such as Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plaits (referred to as
Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plans in Chapter 86 26 RCFP),
floodplain regulations adopted under Chapter 86.16 RC Wand critical areas
planning under the Growth Management Act.

When conductingflood hazard management planning, local governments
should consider both structural and nonstructural measures to prevent and
reduce flood damages. The social, economic and environmental impacts of
proposed measures should be evaluated As part of this evaluation, local
governments should consider whether structuralflood control measures may
lead to additional development infloodolains and reducedflood storage,
resulting in a net increase in potentialflood damages.

"en local governments develop flood hazard management plans they should
update their shoreline master programs to re/7ect this information. Updating
SMPs to take into account these plans can help local governments obtain
permitsfor necessaryflood reduction measures by insuring that they are
consistent with the SMR Of course, any amendments to the shoreline master
program must be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the
regulations adopted to implement the Shoreline Management Act.

Chapter 7 - Flood Hazard Management H-205

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Local governments should also consider adopting thefollowing policies and
regulations. Including this element in shoreline master programs can help
reduceflood damages and reduce the environmental impacts offlood hazard
management projects.

All cities and counties within the Puget Sound Basin are required to adopt a
stormwater program which complies with the applicable requirements of the
Stormwater Management Manual for the Pyget Sound Basin by July 1, 1994.
This requirement is mandated by the 1992 amendments to the 1991 Pyge
Sound Water Quali& Management Plan. 7his program will help prevent
increases inflood damage by requiring new developments which discharge
stormwater directly or indirectly into streams to retain stormwater runoff on
site to maintain the predevelopment peak runoff rate during the 100-year, 24-
hour design storm. Reducing runoffpeaks can reduce downstream flooding
during events which are moreftequent than the design storm. Local
governments outside the Puget Sound Basin should also consider adopting
similar provisions to minimize increasedflood damage downstream ftom new
developments.

Policies

I .Flood hazard management planning should be undertaken in a coordinated
manner among affected property owners and public agencies and should
consider.entire drainage systems or sizable stretches of rivers, lakes or
marine shorelines. Thus, planning should consider the off-site erosion and
accretion or flood damage that might occur as a result of stabilization or
protection structures or activities. Flood hazard management planning
should fully consider nonstructural approaches to minimizing flood
damage.

2. Nonstructural solutions are preferred over structural flood control devices,
and should be used wherever possible, including prohibiting or limiting
development in historically flood prone areas, regulating structural design
and limiting increases in peak stormwater runoff from new upland
development, public education and land acquisition for additional flood
storage. Structural solutions to reduce shoreline damage should be
allowed only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural. solutions would not
be able to reduce the damage.

3. Flood hazard management works should be located, designed, constructed
and maintained to provide:

a. Protection of the physical integrity of the shore process corridor and
other properties which may be damaged by interruptions of the
geohydraulic system;

Chapter 7 - Flood Hazard Management H-206

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. Protection of water quality and natural ground water movement;

c. Protection of fish, vegetation and other life forms and their habitat vital
to the aquatic food chain; and

d. Protection of recreation resources and aesthetic values such as point
and channel bars, islands and other shore features and scenery.

4. Substantial stream channel modification, realignment and straightening
should be discouraged as a means of flood protection.

5. Structural flood control works should not be allowed where they win result
in any of the following:

a. Increased residential, commercial, or industrial development in
undeveloped 100-year floodplains;

b. Loss of significant flood storage capacity in undeveloped 100-year
floodplains;

c. Deflecting or constricting flood flows to a degree which will result in
significantly increased flood heights on unprotected properties.

6. In design of publicly financed or subsidized works, consideration should be
given to providing public pedestrian access to the shoreline for low-
intensity outdoor recreation.

7. SSWS priorities (see RCW 90.58.020) should be considered in the review
of aU flood hazard management developments along shorelines of state-
wide significance.

8. Wetlands should be protected to maintain their capacity to store flood
waters and recharge ground water.

9. Natural drainage ways, creeks,.streams and rivers should be protected to
maintain their capacity to convey stormwater and flood water.

10. City/County should adopt and implement a stormwater management
program which meets the requirements of the Stormwater Management
Manualfor the Puget Sound Basin (Washington State Department of
Ecology Publication #91-75).

11. City/County should consider amending the floodplain regulations adopted
under Chapter 86.16 RCW to include zero rise floodway provisions.

12. Residential, commercial and industrial uses should be discouraged within
40 undeveloped floodplain areas.

Chapter 7 - Flood Hazard Management H-207

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

13. Uses which are less likely to be damaged by flooding should be encouraged
in undeveloped floodplains. These uses include forestry uses, agricultural
uses, open space, overflow parking and recreational uses which do not
require substantial buildings.

Regulations

1. The City/County shall require and utilize the following information during
its review of shoreline flood management projects and programs.

a. River channel hydraulics and floodway characteristics up and
downstream from the project area;

b. Existing shoreline stabilization and flood protection works within the
area;

c. Physical, geological and soil characteristics of the area;

d. Biological resources and predicted impact to fish, vegetation and
animal habitat associated with shoreline ecological systems;

e. Predicted impact upon area shore and hydraulic processes, adjacent
properties and shoreline and water uses; and

f Analysis of alternative flood protection measures both structural and
nonstructural.

2. Conditions of Hydraulic Project Approval, issued by Washington State
Department of Fisheries or Wildlife, may be incorporated into permits
issued for flood protection.

3. The City/County shall require professional design of flood protection
works where such projects may cause interference with normal river
geohydraulic processes, lead to erosion of other upstream and downstream
shoreline properties or adverse effects to shoreline resources and uses.

4. Groins on rivers, streams and lakes may be permitted as a conditional use
subject to environment designation provisions, PROVIDED the applicant
can demonstrate the appropriateness of the designed structure and that
alternative shore protection measures would prove more detrimental to the
geohydraufics and natural resources within the water body.

5. Diking, flood walls and sin-diar structures may be permitted as a conditional
use subject to environment designation provisions PROVIDED:

a. Diking is set back to the edge of the floodway and OHWM;

Chapter 7 - Flood Hazard Management H-208

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. Tim@ing and construction shall be coordinated with the Washington
Department of Fisheries and Washington Department of Wildlife;

c. Diking shall be designed and constructed to meet Soil Conservation
Service technical manual standards and shall, at a minimum, include (1)
layered compaction, (2) removal of debris (i.e. tree stumps, tires, etc.)
and (3) revegetation and maintenance until ground cover is established;
and

d. Appropriate vegetation management actions are undertaken.

6. Flood protection measures shall be planned and constructed based on a
state-approved comprehensive flood control management plan, when
available, and in accordance with Chapter 86.16 RCW and the National
Flood Insurance Program.

7. Flood protection measures that alter, reroute or change the natural water
course of the shoreline may be approved as a conditional use only if it is
demonstrated that other flood protection and planning measures would be
insufficient. Alternative measures to be analyzed shall include
bioengineering techniques, restrictions to development, shoreline setbacks
and comprehensive land use planning.

8. Development and redevelopment within shoreline jurisdiction shall comply
with the applicable provisions of the City/County floodplain regulations
adopted under Chapter 86.16 RCW.

9. Development and redevelopment within shoreline jurisdiction shall comply
with the applicable requirements of the City/County stormwater
management program.

10. Residential, commercial and industrial uses which may be damaged by
flooding are prohibited in undeveloped I 00-year floodplains. In
determining whether a use may be damaged, the local government should
consider its location, its design and the extent to which development has
occurred in the floodplain, and whether access will be available to the use
during flood events.

11. Hospitals, health care facilities, nursing homes and retirement homes are
prohibited within I 00-year floodplains.

12. Residential, commercial and industrial subdivisions and short subdivisions
shall be designed so that each lot will have a building site outside the 100-
year floodplain. Where possible, the building site should be located outside
the 500-year floodplain. The subdivision's internal street system should be
laid out to provide access to each lot which is passable by passenger car
during a 100-year flood event.

Chapter 7 - Flood Hazard Management H-209

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

13. Bridges, culverts and other river, stream and waterway crossings shall be
designed and constructed so they do not restrict flood flows such that flood
elevations are increased. Where a bridge, culvert or other waterway
crossing replaces an existing crossing, the replacement structure shall not
increase flood heights over that caused by the original structure.

14. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Short-term solution; high risk

Another solution; less risk; high cost

Permanent solution; good flood plain management
r

Chapter 7 - Flood Hazard Management H-210

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Forest Practices

Applicability

Forest Practices are uses and activities relating to the grovAng, harvesting and
limited processing of timber. This includes, but is not limited to, (1) site
preparation and regeneration; (2) protection from insects, fire and disease; (3)
silviculture practices such as thinning, fertilization and release from competing
vegetation; and (4) harvesting. Forest practices do not include log storage (see
section on Industfial Activities). Timber cutting, alone, is not a development
subject to a substantial development permit. However, road building or
grading for landings or major fire trails are developments and may require
substantial development permits (see Chapter 7 "Transportation"). Although
some forest practices may not be developments or substantial developments, all
forest practices are uses which must comply with the policies and regulations
of the SNIP, including applicable conditional use and variance permit
requirements.

--------------------- - -----

Chapter 7 - Forest Practices Hm211

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Notes to Master Programmers

Forest practices are primarily regulated by the Department ofNatural
Resources through the Forest Practices Act and Regulations. TheForest
Practices Act, Chapter 76 09 RCW, substantially limits local government
authority to regulate forest practices. In Weyerhaeuser v. KiLIg Co., 91 Wn.
2d 721, 733 (19 79), the Washington State Supreme Court held that the Forest
Practices Act limitations do not apply to local government regulations
adopted under the Shoreline Management Act. So local governments can use
their shoreline master programs to manage and regulate forest practices
within shoreline jurisdiction.

Policies

1 . Timber harvesting practices should be conducted so as not to degrade
existing water quality, quantity and fish habitat and to avoid adverse
impacts to upland wildlife habitat.

2. Logging should be avoided on shorelines with slopes of such grade and/or
soil type that would likely cause serious sediment runoff, unless adequate
restoration and erosion control can be expeditiously accomplished.

3. Special attention should be directed in logging and thinning operations to
prevent the accumulation of slash and other debris in contiguous
waterways.

4. Skid roads and fire trails should be located to minimize the disturbance to
shoreline resources. They should be rehabilitated as necessary to prevent
erosion and import of sediments into contiguous waterways.

5. Shorelines having outstanding scenic views should be left in a substantially
natural condition. Timber harvest in such areas should be limited to
selective cutting which protects scenic views. Such scenic view areas
should be identified in the shoreline inventory.

6. Timber harvest in unique and fragile areas should be prohibited. To the
extent possible, these areas should be identified in the shoreline inventory
or sensitive areas provisions.

7. Reforestation in shorelines should be accomplished as quickly as possible.
Replanting or seeding should be done with native species common to the
area.

Chapter 7 - Forest Practices H-212

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- General

1. All timber harvesting shall be done in compliance with the current rules and
regulations adopted under the Forest Practices Act and the
Timber/Fish/Wild life Agreement or their successor.

2. Cutting in marshes, bogs and swamps is prohibited. Trees shall be
directionally felled away from water, marshes, bogs and swamps. (See
Forest Practice Regulations, WAC 222-16, for timber cutting in wetlands
[adopted in 1992]).

3. Except for snag removal required by the Department of Labor and
Industries, all snags, nonmerchantable trees, down timber and understory
vegetation within a minimum of 50 feet, measured horizontally, of the
ordinary high water mark, or marshes, bogs and swamps shall be left intact.

4. Buffer strips on steep slopes shall be protected by leaving stumps high
enough to prevent any subsequently felled upslope trees from sliding or
rolling into the strips.

5. Wheeled and tractored equipment shall not be allowed within a minimum of
50 feet of the ordinary high water mark and marshes, bogs or swampswith
one exception. Should logs or debris enter the water, and removal be
required by the Departments of Fisheries or Wildlife, equipment may be
used as necessary. Local government shall be notified prior to action and
impacts shall be restricted to the minimum area possible. Disturbed areas
shall be stabilized as required in Regulation #7 below.

6. Site preparation by burning shall be prohibited. Scarification piles are
prohibited. Scarification shall not occur within 50 feet of marshes, bogs,
swamps and the ordinary high water mark.

7. Skid roads, fire trails, abandoned roads and other erosion-prone conditions
caused by timber harvest operations shall be water-barred, as needed, on
completion of the activity. Such areas within 50 feet of a water course or
on slopes exceeding 40 percent shall also be replanted and stabilized, as
necessary, within one year of harvest.

8. Replanting or seeding required under the Forest Practice Rules and
Regulations shall be accomplished within eighteen months of harvest.

9. When timberland is to be converted to another use, such conversion shall
be clearly indicated on the Forest Practice application. Failure to indicate
the intent to convert the timberland to another use on the application will
result in subsequent development proposals being reviewed as a
conditional use. Such failure to declare intent to convert on the application

Chapter 7 - Forest Practices H-213

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

shall provide adequate grounds for denial of subsequent development
proposals for a period of six years from date of Forest Practices application
approval (see RCW 76.09.060(3)(b)(i)). Timber harvest for conversion
purposes shall not be permitted until any required shoreline permits have
been issued for the proposed land divisions or intended subsequent uses.

10. Application of herbicides shall be prohibited within the riparian
management zone (RMZ) as determined on-site under the current Forest
Practices Rules.

11. Application of insecticides shall be allowed within the RMZ only by
conditional use. Permit application shall include documentation of the need
for insecticide and shoreline consequences of no application.

12. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Regulations -- Shorelines of State-wide
Significance

Commercial timber cutting within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark
shall be by selective cutting and shall not exceed 30 percent of the
merchantable trees in any ten-year period. Remaining trees shall be distributed
evenly throughout the shoreline area and shall be representative of the size and
species distribution in the stand prior to cutting. Cutting methods other than
selective cutting shall be by conditional use permit and shall meet the following
additional criteria:

1. Documentation that topography, soil conditions or silviculture practices
necessary for regeneration cause selective logging to be ecologically
detrimental.

2. Other harvest methods which result in clear-cut patches or swaths are
prohibited within 75 feet of the ordinary high water mark, and shall average
no less than 100 feet from the OHWM. Documentation of the stocking
density of merchantable trees throughout the 200-foot shoreline area shall
be provided. This is necessary to show that proposed cutting will not
remove more than 30 percent of merchantable trees.

Note: When stocking densities are fairly uniform throughout the shoreline
area, the leave strip will generally be about 140feet deep measuredftom
the 0HUM and the cutting line will parallel the shoreline. Where
stocking densitiesfor a clear-cut proposal and topography vary, the

Chapter 7 - Forest Practices H-214

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

cutting line may meander to accommodate the 30 percentfigure as well as
the appropriate logging system as long as it meets the requirements above.

3. Documentation that the remaining trees shall be representative of the size
and species present in the stand prior to cutting shall be provided.

4. Cutting more than 30 percent of the merchantable trees is prohibited.

5. Within the remaining stand, all snags (except for snag removal required by
the Department of Labor and Industries), nonmerchantable trees, down
timber and understory vegetation shall be left intact.

Chapter 7 - Forest Practices H-215

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Industry

Applicability

Industry located along the waterfront is typically thought of as port
development but can also include all types of non-water-oriented industrial
uses as well as other water-dependent and water-related uses and activities.
Ports are a specialized subcategory of general industrial uses.

Ports are centers for waterborne traffic and as such have become gravitational
points for industrial/manufacturing firms. The availability of a variety of
transportation options found in ports is particularly attractive to heavy industry
even though they may not specifically require a waterfront location. Because
of the impacts that such activities have on the shoreline environment, industry
and ports are both covered in this section.

Industrial developments are facilities for processing, manufacturing and storage
of finished or semifinished goods. Ports are public enterprises providing
services and facilities for waterborne commerce, airborne commerce and
industrial development dependent upon waterfront locations or attracted to a
port because of the variety of available transportation. Included in ports and
industry are such activities as container ship terminals, log storage, log rafting,
petroleum storage, hazardous waste generation, transport and storage, ship
building, concrete and asphalt batching, tug and barge operations, etc.
Excluded from this category and covered under other sections of the SNP are
boating facilities, piers and docks, mining (including on-site processing of raw
materials), utilities, solid waste disposal and transportation facilities.

oil

Chapter 7 - Industry H-216

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Activities associated with port and industrial development which are identified
as separate use activities in this program, such as Dredging, Landfill,
Transportation Facilities, Utilities, Piers and Docks, Bulkheads, Breakwaters,
Jetties and Groins, Shoreline Stabilization and Flood Protection and Signs, are
subject to the regulations established for those in addition to the provisions for
ports and industry established in this section.

Policies

I .Regional and state-wide needs for industrial facilities should be carefully
considered in reviewing new proposals as well as in allocating shorelines
for such development. Such reviews or allocations should be coordinated
with port districts, adjacent counties and cities and the state in order to
minimize new industrial development which would unnecessarily duplicate
under-utilized facilities elsewhere in the region or result in unnecessary
adverse impacts on other jurisdictions.

2. The few shoreline sites particularly suitable for development such as deep-
water harbors adjacent to firm, dry and level land with access to adequate
rail, highway and utility systems should be reserved for water-dependent or
water-related industrial development compatible with other appropriate
uses and adopted environmental standards.

3. Expansion or redevelopment of existing legally established industrial areas,
facilities and services with the possibility of incorporating mixed-use
development should be encouraged over the addition and/or location of
new or single-purpose industrial facilities.

4. Joint use of piers, cargo handling, storage, parking and other accessory
facilities among private or public entities should be strongly encouraged or
required in waterfront industrial areas.

5. Industrial development should not be located on sensitive and ecologically
valuable shorelines such as natural accretion shoreforms, marshes, bogs,
swamps or estuaries, wildlife habitat areas, nor on shores inherently
hazardous for such development, such as flood-prone and erosion-prone
areas and steep or unstable slopes.

6. New industrial development should be required to provide physical and/or
visual access to shorelines and visual access to facilities whenever possible
and when such access does not cause significant interference with
operations or hazards to life and property.

7. Dry land log storage is preferred over water storage.

Chapter 7 - Industry H-217

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

8. Wherever practical and environmentally beneficial, paved log storage yards
should be encouraged over aggregate-surfaced yards to reduce waste
disposal problems and control and treat resultant runoff.

Regulations -- General

1 . Proposed industrial developments or major expansions shall be consistent
with an officially adopted comprehensive waterfront plan and/or long-range
port development plan if one exists, or, if not, be accompanied by a
regional feasibility analysis.

2. Only water-dependent and water-related industries shall be permitted in the
shoreline jurisdiction.

3. Water-dependent and/or water-related portions of industries shall locate in
legally established and existing, developed port and harbor areas and/or on
Department of Natural Resources - designated first class shorelands and
harbor areas whenever feasible. Proposed developments shall maximize the
use of legally established existing industrial facilities and avoid duplication
of pier and dock facilities before expanding into undeveloped areas or
building new facilities. Proposals for new industrial developments shall
demonstrate the need for expansion into an undeveloped area.

4. New facilities for shallow draft shipping shall not be allowed to preempt
scarce deep draft port sites.

5. Accessory development which does not require a shoreline location shall be
located upland of the water-dependent portions of the development and set
back from the OHWM as set forth in Chapter 6 Environment Designation;
this category includes parking, warehousing, open air storage, waste
storage and treatment or storm runoff control facilities, utilities and land
transportation development.

6. Existing industrial development on shorelines which is neither water-
dependent nor water-related may be permitted as a conditional use to
expand inland from existing structures but not parallel to or waterward of
the OHWM. Waterward expansion of existing non-water-oriented industry
is prohibited.

7. The developer must demonstrate that adequate consideration has been
given to and plans made to mitigate negative environmental impacts
including but not limited to air, water, aesthetics, noise pollution and the
loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

Chapter 7 - Industry H-218

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

8. Water-dependent industry shall be located and designed to minimize the
need for initial and/or continual dredging, filling, spoil disposal and other
harbor and channel maintenance activities.

9. Piers, moorage, slips, floats and launching facilities may be permitted
accessory to industrial development, provided:

a. The facility will serve a water-dependent or water-related use;

b. The facility does not constitute a hazard to navigation; and

c. All other provisions pertaining to these uses are met.

10. Offshore facilities, floating docks and artificial islands for deep water port
expansion shall not be permitted except by conditional use permit, provided
it can be demonstrated that such development or expansion will not
adversely impact the marine environment or diminish the natural
productivity of the estuarine or aquatic system.

11. Sewage treatment, water reclamation and desalinization plants may only be
permitted by conditional use and shall be located where they do not
interfere with and are compatible with recreational, residential or other
public uses of the water and shorelands.

12. Storage and/or disposal of industrial wastes is prohibited within shoreline
jurisdiction, PROVIDED that waste water treatment systems may be
allowed in shoreline jurisdiction only if alternate, inland areas have been
adequately proven infeasible. A performance bond of at least 150 percent
of the fair market value of the estimated cost of a cleanup or rehabilitation
effort may be required.

13. New or expanded facilities for water transport of bulk crude or other forms
of petroleum in vessels over 125,000 dwt shall be prohibited within Puget
Sound.

14. At new or expanded port and/or industrial developments, the best available
facilities practices and procedures shall be employed for the safe handling
of fuels and toxic or hazardous materials to prevent them from entering the
water and optimum means shall be employed for prompt and effective
cleanup of those spills that do occur.

15. Port authorities and industries are encouraged to recycle dredged material
when feasible in areas suitable for disposal of such materials for
agricultural, forestry storage, stockpiling or beautification purposes, with
the intent of restoring natural vegetation or transfer for agricultural,
forestry or landscaping purposes. Such materials may be spread on existing

Chapter 7 - Industry H-219

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

resource lands or may be used to create new agricultural resource land only
if it is demonstrated that spoils are not contaminated with heavy metals or
other toxins.

16. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Regulations -- Design

I . The determinations of which lands are best suited for water-
dependent/water-related industry shall be made on the basis of the
following location criteria:

a. Channel access;

b. Rail access;

c. Major road access;

d. Size of land area;

e. Physical characteristics of site (e.g. grade, soil type, hydrology, etc.);

f, Size of ownership units;

g. Present use and projected growth patterns; and

h. Environmental factors.

2. All new or expanded upland industrial development shall be set back and
buffered from adjacent shoreline properties which are used for
nonindustrial purposes. Buffers shall be of adequate width, height and
plant and soil composition to protect shorelines and such other properties
from visual or noise intrusion, minimize erosion and protect water quality.
New or expanded industrial development shall be set back and buffered
from the shoreline (see Chapter 6) except those water-dependent portions
of the development which require direct access to the water or shoreline
and where any adverse impacts are minimized.

3. Buffers shall not be used for storage of industrial equipment or materials,
nor for waste disposal, but may be used for outdoor recreation if consistent
vAth public access and other provisions of the SMP.

Chapter 7 - Industry 11-220

SAIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. Onshore port and/or industrial development on marine shores (less than 20
feet above mean sea level) shall be flood-proofed for protection against
flood damage from storm tides and surges, and in consideration of long-
term sea level rise.

5. Consistent with other provisions of this SW, ports and/or water-
dependent industry shall provide public access to the shoreline and/or
provide opportunities for public viewing of the industrial activity whenever
feasible and safe.

6. Display and other exterior lighting shall be designed, shielded and operated
to minimize glare, avoid illuminating nearby properties and prevent hazards
for public traffic.

7. Stormwater BUTs shall be followed, see Ecology's Storm-water
Management Manualfor the Puget Sound Basin.

Regulations -- Log Storage

I . Unpaved storage areas underlain by permeable soils shall have at least a 4-
foot separation between the ground surface and the highest seasonal water
table.

2. Berms, dikes, grassy swales, vegetated buffers, retention ponds or other
means shall be used to ensure that surface runoff is collected and
discharged fi7om the storage area at one point, if possible. It shall be
demonstrated that State water quality standards and/or criteria will not be
violated by such runoff under any conditions of flow leaving the site and
entering into nearby water courses. If such demonstration is not possible,
treatment facilities for runoff shall be provided, meeting State and Federal
standards.

3. Offshore log storage, when allowed, shall be located where natural tidal or
current flushing and water circulation is optimal to disperse polluting
wastes.

4. Log storage shall not be permitted in public waters where water quality
standards cannot be met at all times or where these activities are a
hindrance to other beneficial water uses such as small craft navigation.

5. The free-fall, violent dumping of logs into water shall be prohibited. Easy
let-down devices shall be employed for placing logs in the water.

Chapter 7 - Industry H-221

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. Positive bark and wood debris control, collection and disposal methods
shall be employed at log dumps, raft building areas and mill-side handling
zones. This shall be required for both floating and sinking particles.

7. Log dumps shall not be located in rapidly flowing waters or other water
zones where bark and debris controls cannot be effectively provided.
8. Bark and other debris shall be kept out of the water and immediately
removed if accidentally allowed to enter the water.

9. Logs shaR not be dumped, stored or rafted where grounding will occur.

10. Where water depths will permit the floating of bundled logs, they shall be
secured in bundles on land before being placed in the water. Bundles shaU
not be broken again except on land or at millside.

Regulations -- Ship and Boat Building
and Repair Yards

I .The yard shall employ best management practices (13NUs) concerning the
various services and activities they perform and their impacts on the
surrounding water quality. Standards for BNTs are found in Water
Quality Manual: Best Management Practices (see Chapter 19 for
complete references) and will be referred to in the following text as BNW.
The following are required:

a. The yard shall be cleaned on a regular basis to n-dnimize loss of
accumulated debris and sandblasting material to adjacent waters;

b. Catch basins in the drainage system shall be inspected on a monthly
basis and cleaned as necessary;

c. Containers storing dangerous wastes or other liquid shall be placed
inside a building. unless impractical due to site constraints. If placed
outside, BNIP 1.50 (described in Part III) shall be used.

d. Cleanup of spills shall begin immediately. No emulsifier or dispersant is
to be used. Oil and hazardous spills are to be cleaned according to the
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (BNT R.8 and Part
V). Oil containment booms shall be available for immediate usage.

e. Drip pans or other equivalent protective devices shall be required for all
transfers of oil, solvents and paints and for paint mixing (BNT 1.30 in
Part III).

Chapter 7 - Industry H-222

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

f. Paints and solvents shall not be rnixed on floats.

g. Floatable and low-density waste such as wood, plastic, insulation, etc.
shall be removed from the dry-dock floor prior to flooding or sinking,
and from the marina railway carriage and ramp before launching. Large
density items may remain in place when between the wing walls of the
dry-dock.

h. To the degree feasible, dust and overspray shall be prevented from
failing into the water during abrasive blasting and spray painting.
Feasible methods include plastic barriers beneath the hull, between the
hull and dry-dock wingwalls or plastic barriers hung from the flying
bridge of the dry-dock, from the bow or stem of the vessel or from
temporary structures erected for that purpose.

i. The bottom edge of the tarpaulins and plastic sheeting shafl be
weighted during a light breeze. When sandblasting, plywood and/or
plastic sheeting shall be used to cover openings and open areas between
decks, including but not limited to scuppers, railings, freeing ports,
ladders and doorways.

j. Prior to flooding of the dry-dock when a vessel is to be removed,
accessible areas of the dry-dock are to be swept clean of debris. After
a vessel has been removed and the dock raised, the remaining shall be
cleaned.

k. Shipboard cooling and process water shall be directed so as to
minimize contact with spent abrasive, paint and other debris. Dock
hosing shall be minimized when debris is present. When hosing occurs,
methods shall be incorporated to prevent accumulation of debris in the
drainage system.

1. Leaking connections, valves, pipes, hoses and soil chutes carrying
either water or waste water shall be replaced or repaired immediately.

m. Bilge and ballast water discharges shall not cause any visible sheen on
receiving waters and shall not exceed an ofl and grease concentration of
15 milligrams per liter.

n. Ballast water shall not be discharged to state waters if solvents,
detergents, or other additives have been added unless a state water
quality variance has been granted specific to that instance.

o. To the maximum extent practical, all activities are to be enclosed or
covered. All interior drains shall discharge to the sanitary sewer under
pretreatment conditions defined by Metro (BMP R.2 in Part V).

Chapter 7 - Industry H-223

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

p. Above ground storage tanks shall incorporate BMPs to prevent
contamination of surface and ground waters (BMP 1.40 in Part HI).

q. Signs shall be painted on storm drain inlets to indicate that they are not
to receive liquid or solid wastes.

r. Businesses generating Dangerous Wastes shall properly segregate and
dispose the wastes as required by Ecology (BMP RA in Part V).

2. Mobile services shall abide by the applicable BMPs described above. Any
cleaning, surfacing or resurfacing operation occurring over water that may
result in the entry of debris such as paint chips, shall employ tarps
temporarily affixed to the hull above the water line. Prior to removing the
tarps, the accumulated contents shall be removed by vacuuming or an
equivalent method.

Chapter 7 - Industry H-224

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Instream Structures

Applicability

Instrearn structures function for the impoundment, diversion or use of water
for hydroelectric generation and transm@ission (including both public and private
facilities), flood control, irrigation, water supply (both domestic and industrial),
recreational or fisheries enhancement. Both the structures themselves and their
support facilities are covered by this section. This applies to their construction,
operation and maintenance, as well as the expansion of existing strucWres and
facilities.

Policies

1. Location and Design Features

a. Instrearn structures and associated facilities should provide for the
protection and preservation of natural and cultural resources including,
but not limited to, fish, wildlife and water resources, sensitive areas
such as marshes, bogs and swamps, sensitive geologic and geohydraulic
areas and waterfalls, erosion and accretion shoreforms and natural
scenic vistas.

b. Careful consideration should be given to avoiding or minimizing land
and water use conflicts to properties in shoreline jurisdiction and to
properties both adjacent to, upstream and downstream of the proposed
site.

c. Proposals for instrearn structures and associated facilities should give
careful consideration to the design, location, security and construction
of access roads, impoundment structures and reservoirs, penstocks and
power houses to minimize adverse impacts to the shoreline and the
surrounding area.

d. Applications for instrearn structures should clearly document the
suitability of the proposed site for the specific type of development,
including alternative locations. Such site suitability analysis should
thoroughly consider the environmental effects of the proposed facilities
at the primary site and at alternative sites.

e. All diversion structures should be designed to permit natural transport
of bed load materials.

Chapter 7 - Instream Structures H-225

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

f Instrearn structures and their support facilities should be designed to
minimize removal of riparian vegetation and the necessity for massive
shore defense structures.

g. The expansion of legally existing hydroelectric facilities or the
integration of hydroelectric facilities within existing flood control,
irrigation or water supply facilities is preferred over the development of
new facilities. When new sites are considered, sufficient evidence
should be presented to demonstrate that existing facilities are fully
utilized or are not practicably available.

h. All non-water oriented facilities such as staging and storage areas,
switching yards, utility transn-dssion lines and in many cases, power
houses, should be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction. Where
shoreline jurisdiction includes the entire I 00-year floodplain, non-
water-oriented facilities should be located at least 200 feet landward of
the OHWM.

i. In determining the appropriateness of a stream or river for
hydroelectric development, the recommendations and conclusions of
the Northwest Power Planning Council (1988) or equivalent state-
adopted site-ranking study should be considered.

j. Nfitigation should be required for loss of fisheries and wildlife
resources, natural systems including wetlands and sensitive areas. No
net loss in function or value of acreage should occur as a result of
instrearn structures. When required, mitigation measures should be
properly planned and monitored to ensure their effectiveness.

k. Documentation of water fight should be provided where applicable.

1. Instrearn structures and associated facilities should be located and
designed so they do not interfere with public navigation of the water
course including commercial and recreational navigation. Such uses
include barging, rafting, sailboarding, kayaking and canoeing.

m. Instrearn structures and associated facilities should not be located
where they will adversely impact publicly owned lands or waters used
extensively for recreation. Impacts that should be avoided include the
visual impact of the structure or facilities, the intrusion of roads or
utility corridors into undeveloped area used for recreation, reduced
water noise and significant visual impacts from reduced water flows.

Chapter 7 - Instream Structures H-226

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. Public Access and Recreational Considerations

a. Instrearn structures should be designed and constructed to insure public
access to and along the shoreline, in accordance with the public access
policies and regulations contained in this SXT. Existing public access
and recreational opportunities should be retained, enhanced or
replaced.

b. Instream structures should provide trails and other access links as well
as appropriate ancillary facilities, such as parking and sanitary facilities,
etc., if recreational opportunity is created.

c. The nature, time, number of people and area open to public access
should be regulated for the purposes of habitat protection and/or public
safety.

Regulations

1. All permit applications shall contain, at a n-dnimum, the following:

a. A site suitability analysis which provides sufficient justification for the
proposed site. The analysis must fully address alternative sites for the
proposed development.

b. Proposed location and design of powerhouse, penstocks, accessory
structures, utility corridors and access/service roads. Said locations
shall be marked on the ground, and an on-site open public meeting may
be required to facilitate public and other review and comments.

c. Provision for public access to and along the affected shoreline and
proposed recreational features at the site, where applicable.

d. A plan which describes the extent and location of vegetation which is
proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed facifity, and any
site revegetation plan required by this SNT.

e. A hydraulic analysis prepared by a licensed professional engineer which
sufficiently describes the project's effects on strearnway hydraulics,
including potential increases in base flood elevation, changes in stream
velocity and the potential for redirection of the normal flow of the
affected stream.

f Biological resource inventory and analysis which sufficiently describe
the project's effects on fisheries and wildlife resources, prepared by a
professional biologist.

Chapter 7 - Instream Structures H-227

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

g. Provision for erosion control, protection of water quality and fishery
and wildlife resources during construction.

h. Long-term management plans which describe, in sufficient detafl,
provisions for protection of instrearn resources during construction and
operation. The plan shall include means for monitoring its success.

2. Public Access Requirements - In addition to the general public access
requirements in Chapter 5 the folloNking apply:

a. Instrearn structures may be required to provide public access, provided
pubfic access improvements do not create additional adverse
environmental impacts to and along the affected shoreline, nor create a
safety hazard to the public. Public access provisions shall include, but
not be limited to, any combination of trails, vistas, parking and any
necessary sanitation facilities. Required public access sites shall be
dedicated for public use through fee acquisition, or recorded easement.

3. Site Development

a. Erosion and Drainage Control

i. Temporary and emergency erosion control drainage measures, such
as, but not firr@ited to, silt curtains, berms and stormwater catch
basins shall be utilized during construction to prevent shoreline
erosion and siltation of the water body.

ii. Temporary erosion and drainage control devices may be removed
f6flowing construction completion, provided that an approved
erosion control and maintenance plan has been implemented by the
contractor(s).

iii. Materials adequate to immediately correct emergency erosion
situations shall be maintained on-site.

b. Clearing/Excavation Management

i. All debris, overburden and other waste materials from construction
shall be disposed of in such a manner as to prevent their entry into a
water body by erosion, from drainage, high water or other
vectoring mechanisms.

ii. All disposal sites shall be identified by the developer or contractor
prior to construction and shall be approved by appropriate local
authorities.

Chapter 7 - Instream Structures H-228

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

c. Staging and Storage Areas

i. All heavy construction equipment as well as fuel storage and repair
areas shall be located greater than 200 feet from ordinary high
water.

ii. Construction material staging areas shall be located greater than
200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, EXCEPT during
construction and assembly periods.

iii. Service roads shall be of a size which is minimally necessary to
safely accomplish maintenance and repair of the facility, and shall be
designed and located to minimize vegetation removal and erosion
and sedimentation impacts.

iv Hazardous and/or toxic materials storage shall be prohibited within
shoreline jurisdiction and shall be prevented from entering the water
through accidental spillage at staging or storage areas located
outside immediate shoreline jurisdiction.

4. Structural Development

a. Powerhouses/penstocks

i. These shall be designed, located and constructed in such a manner
as to avoid extensive topographical alteration and to minimize or
avoid, as much as possible, impacts to the natural features of the
shoreline.

ii. These structures shall be designed and located to minimize removal
of riparian vegetation and return flow to the stream in as short a
distance as possible.

iii. Penstocks shall be designed, located and constructed so as to
present as low a profile as possible.

iv. Facilities shall be located so as not to adversely impact sites having
historic, cultural, scientific or educational value, as identified by the
appropfiate authorities.

v. All diversion structures shall be designed to permit the natural
transport of bedload materials.

vi. Powerhouses shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the
OHWM, provided that this does not apply to raceways.

Chapter 7 - Instream Structures H-229

SM7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. Improvements

i. On run-of-the-river developments, impoundments shall be located
in such a manner as to minimize impacts to natural scenic values.

ii. Subject to the approval of the appropriate state authority, instrearn
structures shall provide for adequate upstream and downstream
migration of anadromous fish, where applicable.

c. Utility Transmission Lines

i. Where practicable, transrn@ission lines shall be located underground.

ii. Utilities and transmission lines shall be located so as to minin-dze
obstruction or degradation of a scenic view.

d. Mitigation

i. Mitigation shall be required of the proponent for the loss of fish and
wildlife resources and natural systems including wetlands and
sensitive areas. The mitigation required shall be commensurate to
the value and type of resource or system lost. No net loss in
function, value or acreage shall occur from such development.

ii. Where mitigation for loss of natural systems and resources is
required, a mitigation plan shall be prepared by the proponent, and
subject to the approval of the Washington Department of Wildlife
and/or Fisheries, that details the objectives of the mitigation
activities.

ifi. Mitigation activities shall be monitored to determine the
effectiveness of the mitigation plan. Monitoring shall be
accomplished by a third party, subject to the approval of the
City/County and shall have the concurrence of the Washington
Department of Wildlife and/or Fisheries. Results of monitoring
shall be publicly available.

iv. If mitigation is found to be ineffective, corrective action which
satisfies the mitigation objectives will be required of the proponent.

v. If the mitigation is found to be inadequate or if adequate mitigation
is determined to be impossible, then the application will be denied.

5. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Chapter 7 - Instream Structures H-230

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Mining

Applicability

Mining is the removal and primary processing of naturally occurring materials
from the earth for economic use. For purposes of this definition, "processing"
includes screening, crushing, stockpiling, all of which utilize materials removed
from the site where the processing activity is located. Mining activities also
include in-water dredging activities related to mineral extraction. Processing
does not include general manufacturing, such as the manufacture of molded or
cast concrete or asphalt products, asphalt mixing operations, or concrete
batching operations (see "Industry" for standards relating to these uses).

Policies

I . Mining should not be allowed in unique and fragile areas, in prime
agricultural areas or on marine beaches.

2. All practical measures should be taken to protect water bodies from all
sources of pollution, including but not limited to sedimentation and
siltation, chemical and petrochemical use and spillage and storage or
disposal of mining wastes and spoils. Maximum protection should be
provided for anadromous fisheries resources.

3. Mining activities should allow the natural shoreline systems to function
with a minimum of disruption during their operations and should return the
site to as near natural a state as possible upon completion.

4. Mining operations should mirlin-dze adverse visual and noise impacts on
surrounding shoreline areas.

5. Mining activities should be encouraged to locate outside shoreline
jurisdiction.

Regulations -- General

1. Excavation of sand, gravel and other minerals shall be done in strict
conformance to the Washington State Surface Mining Reclamation Act,
Chapter 78.44 RCW, and applicable provisions of the City/County code.

Chapter 7 - Mining H-231

SMF Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. Nfining proposals shall provide the following information as part of an
application for a shoreline permit:

a. Materials to be mined;

b. Quantity of materials to be mined, by type;

c. Quality of materials to be mined, by type. For certain minerals, a
qualified geologist's evaluation may be required;

d. Nfining technique and equipment to be utilized;

e. Depth of overburden and proposed depth of mining;

f. Lateral extent and depth of total mineral deposit;

g. Cross section diagrams indicating present and proposed elevations
and/or extraction levels;

h. Existing drainage patterns, seasonal or continuous, and proposed
alterations thereof including transport and deposition of sediment and
channel changes that may result;

i. Proposed means of controlling/handling surface runoff and preventing
or minimizing erosion and sedimentation including impacts to banks
both upstream and downstream of the excavation-,

j. The location and sensitivity of any affected flood hazard areas and
wetlands-,

k. Subsurface water resources, aquifer recharge areas: origin, depth and
extent;

1. Quality analysis of overburden, excavation material and tailings with
plans for storage, usage or disposition;

m. Nfining plan and scheduling, including seasonal, phasing and daily
operation schedules;

n. Reclamation plan that meets the requirement of this chapter and, at a
minimum, Chapter 78.44 RCW (for surface mining operations only);

o. Screening, earthen berm buffering and/or fencing plans that meet the
requirements of this master program; and

p. Impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat.

Chapter 7 - Mining H-232

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Mning operations shall comply with all local, state and federal water
quality standards and pollution control laws. Operations shall utilize
effective techniques to prevent or minimize surface water runoff, erosion
and sedimentation; prevent reduction of natural flows; protect all shoreline
areas from acidic or toxic materials; and maintain the natural drainage
courses of all streams. Surface water runoff shall be impounded as
necessary to prevent accelerated runoff and erosion.

4. Overburden, mining debris and tailings shall not be placed in water bodies
or floodways and shall be stored and protected in such a manner so as to
prevent or minim@ize erosion or seepage to surface and ground waters.

5. Mining operations shall provide maximum protection for anadromous
fisheries resources, including but not limited to limitations on the periods of
the year during which mining activities may occur.

6. If substantial evidence indicates that mining operations are causing, or
continuation of operation would cause, significant adverse impacts to water
quality or to the geohydraulic functioning of a river, the City/County may
terminate the mining permit or impose further conditions on the mining
operation.

7. In no case shall mining operations impair lateral support and thereby result
in earth movements extending beyond the boundaries of the site.

8. Precautions shall be taken to insure that stagnant or standing water,
especially that of a toxic or noxious nature, does not develop, and that
flooding and evaporation will not lead to the stranding of fish in open pits.

9. Scalping gravel from strearnway bars may be permitted as a conditional
use. No more than one-half of the material may be removed in one mining
season than will predictably be replaced by natural processes during the
subsequent wet season.

10. Excavation of sand, gravel and other minerals by the open pit method (not
including the scalping of strearnway bars) is prohibited within floodways.

11. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Chapter 7 - Mining H-233

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- Setbacks and Buffers

1. A minimum I 00-foot buffer of undisturbed soils and native vegetation shall
be maintained and/or planted between the mining site (including all
accessory facilities) and adjacent properties and abutting bodies of water or
wetlands, provided that the water body buffer requirement may be waived
for approved streamway bar scalping operations. If vegetative screening is
not possible, the City/County may require artificial screening or fencing to
suit the site, operations and shoreline area.

2. Nfining activities, other than mining of river point-bar material, shall be set
back a sufficient distance from water bodies and wetlands to minin-dze
erosion, protect water quality from all possible sources of pollution and
preserve the natural vegetation and aesthetics of the shoreline environment.

3. NEning equipment, works and structures shall be sited and stored as far
landward as feasible from the ordinary high water mark. Nfinimum
setbacks and buffer areas are established in Chapter 6, Environment
Designations. Any facilities located within the 100-year floodplain must be
able to withstand a 100-year flood without becoming hazardous.

Regulations -- Reclamation

I . Reclamation plans shall be submitted with each permit application and shall
provide for reclamation of the site into a use which is permitted by this
program and shall also indicate when reclamation shaU occur. See
Washington State Surface Mining Reclamation Act Chapter 78.44 RCW.

2. In order to insure the future use and viability of shoreline areas subsequent
to mining activities, the reclamation plan shall include the following
provisions to be fulfilled within one year of completed mining operations:

a. All equipment, machinery, buildings and structures not involved in
reclamation activities shall be removed from the site. All equipment
utilized for reclamation shall he removed from the site upon review and
approval of the reclamation as required by state and local agencies.

b. No stagnant or standing water shall be allowed to collect or remain
except as provided in an approved site reclamation plan. Such areas
shall be flood-proofed.

c. Backfill material shall be of natural, compatible materials. Combustible,
flammable, noxious, toxic or solid waste materials are prohibited as
backfill.

Chapter 7 - Mining H-234

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

d. All overburden, waste and nontoxic material storage piles and areas
shall either be leveled, sodded and planted or returned to the excavated
area for reuse as backfill and subsequently sodded and planted.

e. The site shall be rehabilitated so as to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after reclamation.

3. Suitable drainage systems approved by the City/County engineer shall be
installed and maintained if natural, gradual drainage is not possible. Such
systems should collect, treat and release surface runoff, as close to original
flow patterns as possible, and in such a manner as to prevent erosion and
sedimentation.

4. To the extent possible, topography of the site shall be restored to the
contours existing prior to mining activity. Contours of the reclaimed site
shall be compatible with the surrounding land and shoreline area.

5. All banks, slopes and excavation areas containing unconsolidated materials
shall be sloped to no steeper than 2-1/2 feet horizontal to 1 -foot vertical.
All slopes shall be sodded or surfaced with appropriate soil to at least the
depth of the surrounding, undisturbed soil and subsequently revegetated.

6. All banks, slopes and excavated areas of consolidated material shall be
sloped to no steeper than I -foot horizontal to 1 -foot vertical.

7. Slopes of quarry walls shall not have a prescribed slope unless a hazardous
condition is created, whereupon the quarry shall be backfilled and sloped
according to General Regulation #6 above.

8. Revegetation shall consist of compatible, native, self-sustaining trees,
shrubs, legumes or grasses.

9. All toxic and acid-forming mining refuse and materials shall be either
treated so as to be nonpolluting prior to on-site disposal, or removed and
properly disposed of away from shoreline areas.

10. The amount of land and shoreline area being excavated or lying disturbed
and unreclaimed at any time without simultaneous reclamation being
undertaken shall not exceed 10 acres.

Chapter 7 - Mining H-235

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Recreational Development

Applicability

Recreational development provides opportunities for the refreshment of body
and mind through forms of play, sports, relaxation, amusement or
contemplation. It includes facilities for passive recreational activities such as
hiking, photography, viewing and fishing. It also includes facilities for active or
more intensive uses such as parks, campgrounds, golf courses and other
outdoor recreation areas. This section applies to both publicly and privately
owned shoreline facilities intended for use by the public or a private club,
group, association or individual.

Notes to Master Programmers

Yhe recreational aspects common to each of these uses are identified and
addressed For example, a resort will probably contain characteristics of,
and he reviewed under, both the Commercial Development and the
Recreational Development sections. Primary activities such as boating
facilities, subdivisions, motels are not addressed directly in this category.

Uses and activities associated with recreational developments which are
identified as separate use activities in this program, such as Boating
Facilities; Piers and Docks; Residential Development and Commercial
Development, are subject to the regulations establishedfor those uses in
addition to the standardsfor recreation established in this section.

Policies

I . The coordination of local, state and federal recreation planning should be
encouraged so as to mutually satisfy recreational needs. Shoreline
recreational developments should be consistent with all adopted park,
recreation and open space plans.

2. The location and design of shoreline recreational developments should
relate to local population characteristics, density and special activity
demands. Acquisition priorities should consider these needs demands and
special opportunities as well as public transit access and access for the
physically impaired, where planned or available.

Chapter 7 - Recreational Development B-236

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Recreational developments and plans should promote the primacy of
preserving the natural character, resources and ecology of shorelines of
state-wide significance (see use preferences, Chapter 95.58.020 RCW).

4. Recreational developments should be located, designed and operated to be
compatible with, and minimize adverse impacts on, environmental quality
and valuable natural features as well as on adjacent and surrounding land
and water uses. Favorable consideration should be given to proposals
which compliment their environment and surrounding land and water uses,
and which leave natural areas undisturbed and protected.

5. Shoreline areas with a potential for providing recreation or public access
opportunities should be identified for this use and acquired by lease or
purchase and incorporated into the public park and open space system.

6. A variety of compatible recreational experiences and activities should be
encouraged to satisfy diverse recreational needs.

7. The concentration of recreation use pressure at a few points along the
shoreline should be avoided by encouraging development of smaller,
dispersed recreation areas.

8. The linkage of shoreline parks, recreation areas and public access points
with linear systems, such as hiking paths, bicycle paths, easements and/or
scenic drives, should be encouraged.

9. Recreational developments should be located and designed to preserve,
enhance or create scenic views and vistas. Such scenic views should be
identified in the shoreline inventory.

10. Where appropriate, nonintensive recreational uses may be permitted in
floodplain areas.

11. Artificial marine life habitats should be encouraged in order to provide
increased aquatic life for recreation. Such habitats should be constructed in
areas of low habitat diversity and in consultation with the Department of
Fisheries.

12. The use of shoreline street ends and publicly owned lands for public access
and development of recreational opportunities should be encouraged.

13. The use of off-road vehicles should be prohibited in all shoreline areas
EXCEPT where special areas have been set aside for this purpose, and then
only if demand for such use and its location in shoreline areas can be
sufficiently demonstrated through a CUP (see Chapter 6, Figure 6-2
Shoreline Use and Modification Activity Matrix).

Chapter 7 - Recreational Development H-237

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

14. The use ofjet skis and similar recreational equipment should be restricted
to special areas. This activity should be allowed only where no conflict
with other uses and wildlife habitat exists.

15. All recreational developments should make adequate provisions for:

a. Vehicular and pedestrian access, both on-site and off-site-,

b. Proper water supply and solid and sewage waste disposal methods;

c. Security and fire protection;

d. The prevention of overflow and trespass onto adjacent properties,
including but not limited to landscaping, fencing and posting of
property; and

e. Buffering of such development from adjacent private property or
natural area.

16. Trails and pathways on steep shoreline bluffs should be located, designed
and maintained to protect bank stability.

Regulations -- General

1. State and local health agencies have broad regulations which apply to
recreation facilities and ocean beaches which shall be consulted by local
governments when issuing permits (see WAC 173-16-060-2 1 (k)).

2. Valuable shoreline resources and fragile or unique areas such as marshes,
bogs, swamps, estuaries and accretion beaches shall be used only for
nonintensive and nonstructural recreation activities.

3. AJI permanent substantial recreational structures and facilities shall be
located outside officially mapped floodways provided the City/County may
grant administrative exceptions for nonintensive minor accessory uses (e.g.,
picnic tables, tennis courts, etc.).

4. Substantial accessory use facilities, such as rest rooms, recreation halls and
gymnasiums, commercial services, access roads and parking areas shall be
setback from the OHWM unless it can be shown that such facilities are
essentially shoreline-dependent (see Chapter 6 for applicable setback
requirements). These areas may be linked to the shoreline by walkways.

5. For recreation developments that require the use of fertilizers, pesticides or
other toxic chemicals, such as golf courses and play fields, the applicant
shall submit plans demonstrating the methods to be used to prevent these

Chapter 7 - Recreational Development H-238

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

applications and resultant leachate from entering adjacent water bodies.
Buffer strips and, if practical, shade trees shall be included in the
development. The City/County shall determine the maximum,%ridth
necessary for buffer strips but in no case shall the buffer strip be less than
25 feet. The developer shall also be required to leave a chen-dcal-free
swath at least 100 feet in width next to water bodies and wetlands.

6. The use of time-release fertilizers and herbicides shall be preferred over
liquid or concentrate application for lawns grown within shoreline
jurisdiction.

7. Signs indicating the publics' right of access to shoreline areas shall be
installed and maintained in conspicuous locations at the point of access and
the entrance thereto.

8. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Regulations -- Design

1 . In approving shoreline recreational developments, the City/County shall
ensure that the development will maintain, enhance or restore desirable
shoreline features including unique and fragile areas, scenic views and
aesthetic values. To this end, the City/County may adjust and/or prescribe
project dimensions, location of project components on the site, intensity of
use, screening, parking requirements and setbacks, as deemed appropriate
to achieve this intent.

2. Recreational developments shall provide facilities for nonmotorized access
to the shoreline such as pedestrian and bicycle paths. Motorized vehicular
access is prohibited on beaches, bars, spits and stream beds, EXCEPT for
boat launching and maintenance activities.

3. To protect natural resources and adjacent properties, recreational facility
design and operation shall prohibit the use of all-terrain and off-road
vehicles in the shoreline area, EXCEPT where specific areas for such use
are set aside and controlled, and then only when it can be demonstrated
that demand is sufficient to warrant such activity.

4. Proposals for developments shall include a landscape plan that utilizes
primarily native, self-sustaining vegetation. The removal of on-site native
vegetation shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the development
of campsites, selected view points or other permitted structures or facilities
(see Chapter 5 "Clearing and Grading").

Chapter 7 - Recreational Development H-239

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. No recreational buildings or structures shall be built over water, EXCEPT
water-dependent and/or public access structures such as piers, docks,
bridges or viewing platforms may be permitted as a CUP.

6. Proposals for recreational development shall include adequate facilities for
water supply, sewage and garbage disposal. Where sewage treatment
facilities are not available, the appropriate reviewing authority shall limit
the intensity of development to meet city, county and state on-site sewage
disposal requirements.

7. Underwater parks and artificial reefs established in cooperation with state
agencies shall include safety provisions to warn boating traffic of their
location.

8. Artificial reefs shall not contain materials toxic or otherwise hazardous to
humans or fish and wildlife.

9. Recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions, such as screening,
buffer strips, fences and signs, to prevent overflow and to protect the value
and enjoyment of adjacent or nearby private properties and natural areas.

Notes to Master Programmers

Often goffcourses are proposed in proximity to shorelines of state-wide
significance, as defined in the Shoreline Management Act. Goff course
proponents and developers often perceive the shoreline location as an amenity
enhancing the attractiveness of goff courses. In the past, goff courses were
generally viewed as park-like and environmentally benign, relative to other
land use. More recently the negative environmental impacts ofgoff course
development and operation have become widely recognized and studied Most
often these include ground and surface water contamination with chemical
fertilizers and biocides, and destruction of wildlife habitat. Public access to
shorelines may also be lost or significantly reduced Man of these impacts
Y
can be eliminated or minimized through appropriate design, development and
management.

Goff course design, construction and maintenance, along with all other
recreational development, is subject to the General Goals setforth in this
document. Impacts should not negatively effect the natural character,
resources, or ecology of the shoreline, or public access to shorelines of the
state or shorelines of state-wide significance. On degraded shorelines, where
significant components of native riparian vegetahon have been eliminated
andlor where banks are eroding due to loss of vegetation, bank and riparian
enhancement should be included in the goff course design. The chemical
management of goff courses should also be addressed in specific policies.

Chapter 7 - Recreational Development B-240

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- Golf Courses

I Golf courses are a conditional use of shorelines, requiring both shoreline
conditional use and substantial development permits.

2. Golf courses shall be designed with 100-foot setbacks from the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM), as measured on a horizontal plane, for all tees,
greens and fairways.

3. Along shorelines of state-wide significance, fairways, tees and greens shall
be set back 200 feet from the OWFM. Roughs may extend to within 100
feet of the OHWK as measured on a horizontal plane.

4. Non-water-oriented structures associated with golf courses, such as
clubhouses and maintenance buildings, shall be set back 100 feet from
OHWM.

5. Golf course fairways shall not cross streams which are within SMA
jurisdiction. Courses which are proposed to occupy both sides of such
streams should be designed to minimize bridge crossings.

6. Degraded shorelines (as defined in the General Policies section) shall be
revegetated with native grasses, forbs and woody species representative of
undisturbed riparian communities in the immediate area, or those in the
same or similar ecological zones. This revegetation shall occur in, but not
be limited to, the 100-foot setback area.

7. Snags and living trees (i.e. large cottonwoods) shall not be removed within
the I 00-foot (5 0-foot in urban environments) setback unless a professional
forester and the Washington Department of Wildlife area biologist have
determined them to be extreme hazards and likely to faU into a fairway, tee
or green. Snags and living trees within the setback which do not present an
extreme hazard shall be retained.

8. Golf cart routing shall be set back 200 feet from the OWM unless
combined with a public access trail system. If golf cart routing is combined
with public access trails, it shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the
OHWK as measured on a horizontal plane.

9. Water hazards and stormwater drainage basins shall be managed for
wildlife, through appropriate plantings.

10. Wildlife resting or feeding on golf courses located within SMA jurisdiction
shall not be harassed. Signs reminding users of this shall be posted as
needed.

Chapter 7 - Recreational Development H-241

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

11. A chen-dcal management plan designed to eliminate the possibility of
damage to riparian vegetation, wildlife, surface and ground water quality
shall be prepared and implemented for golf courses located in SMA
jurisdiction.

12. Broadleaf and broad spectrum (capable of killing all vegetation) herbicides
shall be used only for spot application with wicking or small spray
equipment on noxious weeds on the applicable (insert name of City/County
noxious weed list) within the 200-foot setback. Hand and mechanical
control of noxious weeds shall be encouraged in the chemical management
plan. All other applicable local, state and federal regulations and label
requirements shall be adhered to in the use of such chemicals.

13. Public access for passive dispersed recreation (as defined in the General
Goals) shall be provided within SMAjurisdiction.

JAI,

Chapter 7 - Recreational Development H-242

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Residential Development

Applicability

Residential development means one or more buildings, structures, lots, parcels
or portions thereof which are designed for and used or intended to be used to
provide a place of abode for human beings, including single-family residences,
duplexes, other detached dwellings, floating homes, multi-family residences,
apartments, townhouses, mobile home parks, other similar group housing,
condominiums, subdivisions and short subdivisions, together with accessory
uses and structures normally applicable to residential uses including but not
lim@ited to garages, sheds, tennis courts, swimming pools, parking areas, fences,
cabanas, saunas and guest cottages. Residential development does not include
hotels, motels or any other type of overnight or transient housing or camping
facilities.

Notes to Master Programmers

The popularity of waierftont property along our marine, river and lake shores
isincreasing. Impacts of clearing and grading onftagile riparian habitats
and shorelines, septic systems on water quality and leaching and runoffftom
lawn and garden chemical applications have a cumulative impact on our
shorelines and associated water bodies. A Ithough an owner-occupied single-
family residence is exempiftom the substantial development permit process, it
still must comply with all of the provisions of this section and of the master
program. Subdivisions and short subdivisions must also comply with all of
the provisions of this section and the master program. All development is
subject to the variance and conditional use requirements andpermit process,
when indicated

Uses andfacilifies associated with residential development which are
identified as separate use activities in this program, such as Boating
Facilities, Piers and Docks, Bulkheads, Shoreline Stabilization and Flood
Protection, Utilities, Landfill and Clearing and grading, are subject to the
regulations establishedfor those uses in addition to any special conditions
relating to residential areas established in this section. The General
Provisions (Chapter 5) and Environment Designation Provisions (Chapter 6)
also apply.

Chapter 7 - Residential Development H-243

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Exemptions

Although a substantial development permit is not required for construction
within shoreline jurisdiction by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a
single-family residence for his own use or the use of his family, such
construction and all normal appurtenant structures must otherwise conform to
this master program. An "appurtenant" means a structure that is necessarily
connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and includes a
garage, deck, driveway, utilities, fences and grading which does not exceed
250 cubic yards (see WAC 173-14-040 (1g)).

Notes to Master Programmers

Each jurisdiction can establish an expanded list of local "normal
appurtenances" with supporting documentation.

The Sho reline Management Act exempts from the requirement to obtain a
substantial development permit the construction of any structure with a fair
market value less than $2,500. Although these structures are exempt from
obtaining a substantial development permit, compliance with the provisions,
prohibitions, regulations and development standards of this program is still
required and may include variance and conditional use permits. Developments
other than a single-family residence including multi-family residential
development, all subdivisions, floating homes and nonexempt accessory
structures are required to obtain a substantial development permit.

Policies

I . Residential development should be permitted only where there are
adequate provisions for utilities, circulation and access.

2. Residential development should be prohibited in environmentally sensitive
areas including but not limited to marshes, bogs and swamps, steep bluffs,
floodways, etc.

3. The overall density of development, lot coverage and height of structures
should be appropriate to the physical capabilities of the site.

4. Recognizing the single purpose, irreversible and space consumptive nature
of shoreline residential development, new development should provide
adequate setbacks and natural buffers from the water and ample open space
among structures to provide space for outdoor recreation, protect natural
features, preserve views and minimize use conflicts.

Chapter 7 - Residential Development H-244

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. Adequate provisions should be made for protection of ground water
supplies, erosion control, drainage systems, aquatic and wildlife habitat,
preservation of geohydraulic processes and open space.

6. Residential development should be designed so as to preserve existing
shoreline vegetation, control erosion and protect water quality, shoreline
aesthetic characteristics, views and normal public use of the shoreline and
the water.

7. Residential developments should provide dedicated and improved public
access to the shoreline in a manner which is appropriate to the site and the
nature and size of the development (see Chapter 5 "Public Access").

8. New residential development and accessory uses should be prohibited
over water, in marshes, bogs or swamps, in floodways and in geologic
hazard areas.

9. New residential development should be encouraged to cluster dwelling
units in order to preserve natural features, minin-dze physical impacts and
reduce utility and road costs.

10. Residential development should not cause significant adverse impacts to or
result in the displacement of other nearby shoreline uses including but not
limited to forestry, agriculture, aquaculture or recreation.

11. Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water supply facilities, should be
provided in accordance with appropriate state and local health regulations.
Storm drainage facilities should be separated ftorn sewage disposal
systems.

12. Preference should be given to joint-use community piers and docks (in lieu
of individual piers and docks for each waterfront lot) in all new
subdivisions and planned residential developments. Joint-use shoreline
facilities should be encouraged (including piers and docks, stair towers and
other facilities).

13. Structures or other developments accessory to residential uses should be
designed and located to blend into the site as much as possible. Accessory
use and structures should be located landward of the principal residence.

Chapter 7 - Residential Development H-245

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- Location and Design

1. Residential development shall not be approved where flood control,
shoreline protection measures or bulkheading will be required to create
residential lots or site area. Residential development shall be located and
designed to avoid the need for structural shore defense and flood
protection works in the foreseeable future.

2. If marshes, bogs, swamps or other unique and fragile features are located
on a development site, clustering (or similar design) of residential units
shall be required in order to avoid any development in such areas.

3. All residential structures, accessory uses and facilities shall be arranged and
designed so as to preserve views and vistas to and from shorelines and
water bodies and be compatible with the aesthetic values of the area.

4. Storm drainage and treatment facilities shall be required by the City/County
for proposals involving five or more dwellings, drainage facilities shall be
separate from sewage disposal and transport facilities and shall include
provisions to prevent uncontrolled and untreated direct entry of surface
water runoff into adjacent waters. Storm drainage facilities may include,
but not be limited to retention ponds, vegetated swales and artificial
wetlands, PROVIDED no adverse impacts to the receiving existing
wetlands would occur.

5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plat or short plat or other shoreline
development approval, the developer shall submit adequate plans for
preservation of shore vegetation and for control of erosion during and after
construction, resulting in permanent shoreline stabilization. Such plans
shall be a part of the shoreline permit, if one is required.

6. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Prohibited

8. Residential development shall be prohibited within floodways, marshes,
bogs and swamps and within other hazardous areas such as steep slopes
and areas with unstable soils or geologic conditions.

9. New residential structures and accessory structures shall be prohibited over
water or floating on the water.

Chapter 7 - Residential Development H-246

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- Common-Line Setback Standards

I .Residential development shall meet the standards established in Chapter 6,
Environment Designations, except as provided in Regulation #2 below.

2. For the purpose of accommodating shoreline views in developed residential
areas, setbacks for residential structures established in Chapter 6 (Figure 6-
3 Use-related Development Standards) may be reduced in the Urban,
Suburban and Rural environments (only), consistent with the following:

a. Where there are existing (legally nonconforming) residences that
encroach on the established setback within 50 feet of either side of the
proposed building site, the required setback of the proposed structure
may be reduced by review and approval of the Administrator. In such
cases, proposed residential structures may be set back (from OHWM)
common to the average of the setbacks of the existing adjacent
residences (see Figure 7-1).

b. In those instances where only one existing nonconforming single family
residence is within 50 feet of the proposed building site, the setback of
the proposed structure may be reduced (with approval of the
Administrator) to the average of the setbacks for the existing adjacent
residence and the applicable setback for the adjacent vacant parcel (see
Figure 7-1).

c. In no case shall the reduced setbacks applied above be less than 15 feet
landward of the OHWM (see Figure 7- 1).

d. Any further setback reduction beyond that allowed in this section shall
require approval of a shoreline variance permit.

Regulations -- Public Access

I .Subdivisions and planned unit developments of five or more waterfront
lots/units shall dedicate, improve and provide maintenance provisions for a
pedestrian easement which provides area sufficient to ensure usable access
to and along the shoreline for all residents of the development and the
general public. When required, public access easements shall be a
minimum of 25 feet in width and shall be in compliance with public access
standards contained herein (see Chapter 5, "Public Access").

Chapter 7 - Residential Development H-247

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Existing NOn-COLiforming
House F-I
Proposed I I.ouse.<--RoofLiae
F]
Existing Non-conforming Imaginary Line Used to
House Determine Setback
15' minimum

S hore I ine (0. H. W. M.)

Proposed I louse Vacant

<--RoofLux

Existing Non-conforming
House Imaginary Line Used to
Determine Setback
_F_
Shoreline (O.H.W.M.)

Figure 7-1. "Common-line" Setback Adjustments for Residential Development

Chapter 7 - Residential Development H-248

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- Accessory Uses

See also regulations pertaining to bulkheads, shore defense works and piers
and docks.

I . Accessory uses that are not appurtenant structures shall be reasonable in
size and purpose and compatible with on-site and adjacent structures, uses
and natural features (see WAC 173-14-040(2)).

2. No accessory structure except swimming pools shall cover more than 150
square feet.

3. New residential subdivision or planned developments containing five or
more waterfront lots, as part of plat approval, shall provide for resident
access to and a location for a joint-use community pier or dock. In the
event any pier or dock facility is provided within a residential waterfront
development, only one joint-use facility shall be constructed. This
condition of approval with required access easements and dedications shall
be identified on the face of the plat. In addition, the community dock
easement shall be recorded with the County Auditor. Where community
dock facilities are provided with plat approval, single-use docks and piers
serving individual waterfront lots shall be prohibited.

4. Accessory structures which are not water-dependent are prohibited
waterward of the principal residence.

Regulations -- Floating Homes (where permitted)

I . Nfinimum area for an individual floating home moorage shall be 2,000
square feet.

2. Floating homes shall not cover in excess of 1,200 square feet of water area,
inclusive of float, decks and roof overhang; and shall not exceed 18 feet in
height.

3. Floating homes shall be connected to an approved sanitary sewer or other
approved upland waste disposal system to ensure compliance with state
water quality standards. Such connection shall convey all gray water (i.e.
galley, bath and shower wastewater) and black water (i.e., sewage)
discharges resulting from floating home operation. All overboard
discharge of wastewater from floating houses is prohibited. -

4. Floating homes shall be located only in marinas, within areas specifically
designated as floating home moorage.

Chapter 7 - Residential Development H-249

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. In order to preserve shallow water habitat, floating homes shall be located
so as to maintain at least 5 feet of water (depth) between the float and the
underlying bedlands at low water.

6. Floating homes shall be prohibited in or adjacent to Natural and
Conservancy environment designations.

7. Floating homes shall also be subject to the applicable regulations for docks
and floats.

8. Floating homes shall comply with Hydraulic Project Approval
requirements.

9. Floating home moorages existing prior to the effective date of this master
program, that do not meet the above regulations, shall have three years
from the effective date of these SIVIP amendments to comply with the
subject floating home regulations.

Notes to Master Programmers

Over-water residential use is not a preferred shoreline use and is to be
discouraged throughout the state (see WAC 173-16-060(8)(d)). Existing over-
water residential use, however, may be allowed to continue in certain
locations due to demonstrated historic use and where water quality standards
arefully complied with. Where existing over-water residential use is allowed
to continue in a particular location, careful consideration must be given to
insuring that other water-dependent uses are not unreasonably displaced by
such use, that adequate protection of water quality andfish and wildlife
habitat is provided, and that the rights of navigation, public access and safety
are protected Existingfloating homes should be allowed only in very specific
and defilned shoreline locations.

Chapter 7 - Residential Development H-250

SW Hmdbook - 1994 Edition

Transportation Facilities

Applicability

Transportation facilities are those structures and developments that aid in land
and water surface movement of people, goods and services. They include roads
and highways, bridges and causeways, bikeways, trails, railroad facilities, ferry
terminals, float plane terminals, heliports and other related facilities.

Notes to Master Programmers

7he various transportfacilities that can impact the shoreline cut across all
environmental designations and all specific use categories. nepoliciesand
regulations identified in this section pertain to any project, within any
environment, that is effecting some change in present transportation facilities.

Policies

1. New roads, railroads and bridges in shoreline jurisdiction should be
minimized, and allowed only when related to and necessary for the support
of permitted shoreline activities. Major new highways, freeways and/or
railways should be located out of shoreline jurisdiction.

2. Road and railroad locations should be planned to fit the topographical
characteristics of the shoreline such that minimum alteration of natural
conditions results. New transportation facilities should be located and
designed to minimize the need for shoreline protection measures and
minimize the need to modify natural drainage systems. The number of
waterway crossings should be limited to the maximum extent possible.

3. Trail and bicycle paths should be encouraged along shorelines where they
are compatible with the natural character, resources and ecology of the
shoreline.

4. When existing transportation corridors are abandoned they should be
reused for water-dependent use or public access.

5. Joint use of transportation corridors within shoreline jurisdiction for roads,
utilities and motorized forms of transportation should be encouraged.

Chapter 7 - Transportation Facilities H-251

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. Abandoned or unused road or railroad rights-of-way which offer
opportunities for public access to the water should be acquired and/or
retained for such use.

7. All debris, overburden and other waste materials from transport facility
construction should be handled, contained and disposed of in a manner
which prevents their entry into adjacent water bodies.

Regulations -- General

I . Transportation facilities and services shall utilize existing transportation
corridors whenever possible, provided that facility additions and
modifications will not adversely impact shoreline resources and are
otherwise consistent with this program. If expansion of the existing
corridor will result in significant adverse impacts, then a less disruptive
alternative shall be utilized.

2. Transportation and primary utility facilities shall be required to make joint
use of rights-of-way and to consolidate crossings of water bodies where
adverse impact to the shoreline can be minimized by doing so.

3. Landfills for transportation facility development are prohibited in water
bodies, marshes, bogs and swamps and on accretion beaches, EXCEPT
when all structural and upland alternatives have been proven infeasible and
the transportation facilities are necessary to support uses consistent with
this program, such landfill may be permitted as a CUP.

4. The following regulation applies to shoreline road ends:

a. RCW 37.79.035 and RCW 35.87.130 prohibits the City/County from
vacating any City/County road which abuts a body of salt or fresh
water unless the street or road is not currently used or suitable for boat
moorage or launching site or for a park, viewpoint, recreation,
education or other public purposes (see RCW legal procedure to vacate
streets).

5. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Chapter 7 - Transportation Facilities H-252

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- Location and Design

I .Major new highways, ffeeways and railways shall be located outside
shoreline jurisdiction, EXCEPT where water crossing is required. These
roads shall cross shoreline areas and water bodies by the shortest, most
direct route feasible unless such route would cause more damage to the
environment.

2. New transportation facilities shall be located and designed to prevent or
minimize the need for shoreline protective measures such as riprap or other
bank stabilization, landfill, bulkheads, groins, jetties or substantial site
grading. Transportation facilities allowed to cross over water bodies,
marshes, bogs and swamps shall utilize elevated, open pfle or pier
structures whenever feasible. All bridges must be built high enough to
allow the passage of debris and provide 3 feet of freeboard above the 100-
year flood level.

3. Shoreline transportation facilities shall be sited and designed to avoid steep
or unstable areas and fit the existing topography in order to minin-dze cuts
and fills.

4. Cut and fill slopes shall be designed at the normal angle of repose or less.

5. Cut, fill and sidecast slopes shall be protected from erosion by mulching,
seeding, compacting, riprapping, benching or other suitable means.

6. Transportation corridors shall, if possible, be located parallel to existing
surface drainage flow.

7. Waterway crossing shall be designed to provide minimal disturbance to
banks.

8. Roads and railroads shall be located to minimize the need for routing
surface waters into and through culverts.

9. Culverts and similar devices shall be designed with regard to the 50-year
storm frequencies.

10. Culverts shall be located so as to avoid relocation of the stream channel.

11. Bridges, crossings, debris grates, culverts and similar devices used by fish
shall meet all requirements set by the State Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife.

Chapter 7 - Transportation Facilities H-253

SAW Handbook - 1994 Edition

12. All transportation facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained to
contain and control all debris, overburden, runoff, erosion and sediment
generated from the affected areas. Relief culverts and diversion ditches
shall not discharge onto erodible soils, fills or side cast materials.

13. Bridge abutments and necessary approach fills shall be located landward of
wetlands or the OHWM for water bodies without wetlands, PROVIDED
bridge piers may be permitted in a water body as a conditional use.

14. Any soil or debris accidentally placed in a water channel during bridge
construction shall be immediately removed by approved methods. All
exposed soils shall be stabilized and revegetate following completion of
construction.

15. Both commercial and individual private float plane and heliport facility
services shall conform to FAA standards, which include fuel, oil spill clean
up, safety and fire fighting equipment and vehicle and pedestrian
separation.

Prohibited

16. Transportation facilities are prohibited in:

a. hazardous areas such as steep slopes or areas with soils subject to
severe erosion or landslides;

b. front of feeder bluffs, over driftways or on accretion shorefon-ns; or in

c. areas where river channel direction and alignment is subject to change.

17. Roads, railroads and other transportation facilities are prohibited over
water, EXCEPT to serve water-dependent or public uses consistent with
this program when inland alternatives are infeasible, including unavoidable
water crossings.

Regulations -- Setbacks

1. Except where water crossing is necessary, roads, railroads and other
transportation facilities permitted shall be located landward of

a. estuaries and their wetlands-,

b. erosion or accretion shoreforms and associated drift sectors and
backshore marshes; and

c. officially designated fish, shellfish and wildlife habitats.

Chapter 7 - Transportation Facilities H-254

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. All roads and railroads, if permitted parallel to shoreline areas, shall be
adequately setback from water bodies (see Chapter 6) and shall provide
buffer areas of compatible, self-sustaining vegetation. Shoreline scenic
drives and viewpoints may provide breaks periodically in the vegetative
buffer to allow open views of the water.

Regulations -- Construction and Maintenance

1 . Overburden, debris and other waste materials from both construction and
maintenance activities, including drainage ditch clearing, shall not be
deposited into or sidecast on the shoreline side of roads or in water bodies
wetlands, estuaries, tidelands, accretion beaches and other unique natural
areas. Such materials shall be deposited in stable locations where reentry
and erosion into such areas is prevented.

2. All shoreline areas disturbed by facility construction and maintenance shall
be replanted and stabilized with compatible, self-sustaining vegetation by
seeding, mulching or other effective means immediately upon completion
of the construction or maintenance activity. Such vegetation shall be
maintained until established by the agency or developer constructing or
maintaining the road.

3. The City/County shall give preference to mechanical means rather than the
use of herbicides for roadside brush control on City/County roads in
shoreline jurisdiction. If the situation requires the use of herbicides, they
shall be applied to noxious weeds only, so that chemicals do not enter
adjacent water bodies or damage or kill beneficial native shoreline
vegetation.

4. No machinery shall operate within a stream bed except in compliance with
a hydraulics permit issued by the Washington State Department of Fisheries
and/or Washington State Department of Wildlife.

5. The following design and construction methods shall be followed for road
building during forestry operations and/or other low technology road
construction: (See also Forest Practice Regulations, Chapter 222-24
WAC.)

a. Roads shall be designed to minimize the number of waterway crossings
and avoid unnecessary duplication of road systems by making
maximum use of existing rights-of-way. Where roads traverse land in
another ownership, but could adequately serve the operation, attempts
shall be made to negotiate with the owner for use of such roads before
constructing new roads

Chapter 7 - Transportation Facilities H-255

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. Running surface widths shall be kept to a minimurr@ not exceeding 26
feet for two-lane roads and not more'than 20 feet for single-lane roads.

c. All culverts shall be adequate in size and design to carry the maximum
anticipated flow and shall be kept clear of obstructions. The minimum
size for culverts shall be 15 inches in diameter.

d. Embankment fills shall:

i. be constructed and compacted in layers no more than 2 feet thick;

H. consist of inorganic material with no buried slash or debris beneath
the running surface; and

iii. not encroach upon a 100-year floodplain so as to reduce its storage
capacity or disturb riparian vegetation.

e. End-haul construction is required whenever side casting would deposit
materials within a I 00-year floodplain.

f All bridges shall be high enough to allow all anticipated debris and high
water flows to pass freely beneath.

g. Where aggregate earthen materials are used for paving or accumulate
on bridges, curbs shall be installed when necessary to contain the
surface materials.

h. At least one end of each stringer bridge shall be secured to prevent it
from being washed away during high water.

0 0 ego

Chapter 7 - Transportation Facilities H-256

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Utilities (Primary)

Applicability

Utilities are services and facilities that produce, transmit, carry, store, process
or dispose of electric power, gas, water, sewage, communications, oil and the
like. The provisions in this section apply to primary use and activities such as
solid waste handling and disposal, sewage treatment plants and outfalls, public
high-tension utility lines on public property or easements, power generating or
transfer facilities, gas distribution lines and storage facilities. See Chapter 5,
"Utilities" for on-site accessory use utilities.

Solid waste disposal means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling,
leaking or placing of any solid or hazardous waste on any land area on or in the
water.

Solid waste includes all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid
wastes, -including garbage, rubbish, ashes, industfial wastes, wood wastes and
sort yard wastes associated with commercial logging activities, swill,
demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and parts of vehicles,
household appliances and other discarded commodities. Sofid waste does not
include sewage, dredge material or agricultural or other commercial logging
wastes not specifically listed above (see Chapter 7 "Landfill", "Dredging",
"Forest Management" and "Agriculture").

Policies

1 . Utilities should utilize existing transportation and utility sites, fights-of-way
and corfidors whenever possible, rather than creating new corridors. Joint
use of fights-of-way and corridors should be encouraged.

2. Utilities should be prohibited in marshes, bogs and swamps, estuaries,
critical wildlife areas or other unique and fragile areas unless no feasible
alternatives exist.

3. New utifity facilities should be located so as not to require extensive
shoreline protection works.

4. Utility facilities and corridors should be located so as to protect scenic
views. Whenever possible, such facilities should be placed underground or
alongside or under bridges.

Chapter 7 - Utilities (Primary) H-257

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. Utility facilities and rights-of-way should be designed to preserve the 10
natural landscape and to minimize conflicts with present and planned land
uses.

6. Solid waste disposal activities and facilities should be prohibited in
shoreline areas.

Regulations -- General

1. Applications for installation of utility facilities shaH include the following:

a. Description of the proposed facilities;

b. Reason(s) why the utility facility requires a shoreline location;

c. Alternative locations considered and reasons for their elimination;

d. Location of other utility facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project
and any plans to include the facilities of other types of utilities in the
project;

e. Plans for reclamation of areas disturbed both during construction and
following decommissioning and/or completion of the primary utility's
useful life;

f. Plans for control of erosion and turbidity during construction and
operation; and

g. Identification of any possibility for locating the proposed facifity at
another existing utility facility site or within an existing utility right-of-
way.

2. Utility development shall, through coordination with local government
agencies, provide for compatible, multiple use of sites and rights-of-way.
Such uses include shoreline access points, trail systems and other forms of
recreation and transportation, providing such uses will not unduly interfere
with utility operations, endanger public health and safety or create a
significant and disproportionate liability for the owner..

3. Utility lines shall utilize existing rights-of-way, corridors and/or bridge
crossings whenever possible and shall avoid duplication and construction of
new or parallel corridors in all shoreline areas. Proposals for new corridors
or water crossings must fully substantiate the infeasibility of existing
routes.

Chapter 7 - Utilities (Primary) H-258

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. Existing solid waste disposal and transfer facilities shall be expeditiously
phased out and rehabilitated.

5. The following utility facilities, which are not essentially water-dependent,
are prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction unless authorized by conditional use
permit and where it can be shown that no alternatives exists:

a. water system treatment plants;

b. sewage system lines, interceptors, pump stations and treatment plants,

c. electrical energy generating plants (except for instrearn structures),
substations, lines and cables-,

d. petroleum and gas pipelines; and

6. New solid waste disposal sites and facilities are prohibited.

7. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Regulations -- Location and Design

1. New utility lines including electricity, communications and fuel lines shall
be located underground, except where the presence of bedrock or other
obstructions make such placement infeasible. Existing above ground lines
shall be moved underground during normal replacement processes.

2. Transmission and distribution facilities shall cross areas of shoreline
jurisdiction by the shortest, most direct route feasible, unless such route
would cause significant environmental damage.

3. Utility facilities requiring withdrawal of water from streams or rivers shall
be located only where minimum flows as established by the Washington
Department of Fisheries can be maintained.

4. Utility developments shall be located and designated so as to avoid or
minimize the use of any structural or artificial shore defense or flood
protection works.

5. Where major facilities must be placed in a shoreline area, the location and
design shall be chosen so as not to destroy or obstruct scenic views.

Chapter 7 - Utilities (Primary) H-259

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. Utility development shall utilize required setback areas (see Chapter 6) to
provide screening of facilities from water bodies and adjacent properties.
Type of screening required shall be determined by the City/County on a
case-by-case basis.

7. Underground (or water) utility lines shall be completely buried under the
river bed in all river or stream crossings EXCEPT where such lines can be
affixed to a bridge structure and EXCEPT for appropriate water or sewage
treatment plant intake pipes or outfalls.

8. All underwater pipelines transporting liquids intrinsically harmful to aquatic
fife or potentially injurious to water quality are prohibited, unless no other
alternative exists. In those limited instances when permitted by conditional
use, automatic shut-off valves shall be provided on both sides of the water
body. -

9. Construction of utilities under water or in adjacent wetlands shall be timed
to avoid fish migratory and spawning periods.

10. Landfilling in shoreline jurisdiction for utility facility or line development
purposes is prohibited. Permitted crossings shall utilize pier or open pile
techniques.

11. Power generating facilities must comply with all provisions stated in this
master program (see Chapter 7 "Instream Structures").

12. Power generating facilities shall be a conditional use in all shoreline
environments.

13. Clearing of vegetation for the installation or maintenance of utilities shall
be kept to a minimum and upon project completion any disturbed areas
shall be restored to their preproject condition.

Chapter 7 - Utilities (Primary) H-260

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 8
Shoreline Modification
Activity Policies &
Regulations

Introduction

Background and Purpose

Shoreline modification activities, referred to in this Handbook as "activities"
are those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the
shoreline area. Typically, activities are related to construction of a physical
element such as a dike, breakwater, dredged basins, landfill, etc., but they can
include other actions such as clearing, grading, application of chemicals, etc.
Shoreline modification activities usually are undertaken in support of or in
preparation for a shoreline "use." For example, landfill (activity) required for a
cargo terminal (industrial use) or dredging (activity) to allow for a marina
(boating facility use). A single use may require several different shoreline
modification activities. For example, a marina and boatyard development may
involve a breakwater, dredging, clearing and grading and landfill.

Chapter 8 - Shoreline Modification Activities H-261

SM? Handbook - 1994 Edition

Activity policies and regulations are intended to prevent or mitigate the
negative environmental impacts of proposed shoreline modification consistent
with the goals of the SMA. A proposed development must meet all of the
regulations for both applicable uses and activities as well as the general and
environment designation regulations. Speculative shoreline modifications not
tied to or required for a specific proposed use are generally prohibited in
shoreline management.

The distinction between shoreline uses and modification activities has proven a
useful one because uses generally are ongoing and the policies and regulations
related to them must deal with functional relationships inherent in the
individual uses. Activities represent a physical alteration of the shoreline so
activity regulations deal with physical impacts.

In the 1992 session, the Legislature amended RCW 90.58.100(6) to require
that shoreline master programs include standards for the protection of single
family residences and appurtenant structures from damage or loss due to
shoreline erosion. The standards are to govern decisions on substantial
development perrnits for bulkheads and nonstructural. methods of erosion
protection. The standards must provide for shoreline erosion protection
methods which achieve effective and timely protection against damage to
single family residences and appurtenant structures. The standards must
include a preference for measures to protect single family residences occupied
before January 1, 1992 where the proposed erosion control measure is
designed to minin-dze harm to the natural shoreline environment. The
Legislature apparently wants uniform standards for erosion protection. It is
important to note that the provisions of 90.58.100(6) are principles local
governments must use in developing shorefine master program amendments,
not standards for reviewing individual permits or exemptions.

If bulkheads or other measures to protect single family residences and their
appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion require substantial development
perrnits, local governments must expeditiously process the permit application.
The public comment period is reduced from 30 to 20 days. The local
government must decide whether to approve or deny the substantial
development permit within 21 days of the last day of the public comment
period. The local government must send a copy of the permit decision to
anyone who requests a copy within 2 days of the decision. Any local
goverrunent appeals must be decided within 30 days. These requirements are
contained in RCW 90.58.140(13)(a). These requirements only apply to
substantial development permits. Conditional use permits and variances must
follow the generally applicable time periods in RCW 90.58.140(4).

Ecology is responding to the law in three ways. First, Ecology is conducting a
three year study of marine shoreline erosion and methods of controlling
erosion. This study was requested by Thurston, Pierce and Mason counties.

Chapter 8 - Shoreline Modification Acti%ities H-262

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

This study also responds to the legislative direction to develop master program
standards. The study is funded by a special grant from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the Coastal Zone
Management Act. Contractors have been hired and the study is underway.
For more information on this study or to get on the study newsletter mailing
list, please contact Doug Canning or Hugh Shipman, Shorelands and Coastal
Zone Management Prograrn, Washington Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box
47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7689. Doug Canning's number is (206) 407-
678 1. Hugh Shipman's number is (206) 407-6780.

Second, when the study is complete, Ecology will develop recommended
standards. Ecology does not recommend that local governments adopt any
new standards until the study is complete in 1995.

Third, Ecology will develop regulations implementing this change in the
Shoreline Management Act.

Local governments should do the following:

1. Process permits for erosion control for single family dwellings
expeditiously.

RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(ii) and WAC 197-14-040(l)(c) exempt normal
protective bulkheads common to single family dwellings from the
requirement to obtain a shoreline permit. These exempt bulkheads must
still comply with the requirements in WAC 197-14-040(l)(c) and local
government shoreline master programs. A bulkhead can comply with these
requirements and protect appurtenant structures when the bulkhead is
needed to protect a single family residence, the bulkhead is located at or
near the ordinary high water mark, and the appurtenant structures are
located near the single family residence.

However, if a bulkhead or other erosion control measure to protect a single
family residence or appurtenant structure requires a substantial
development permit because it is not exempt, the local government must
follow the expedited permit processing procedures in RCW
90.58.140(13)(a) and summarized above. These requirements supersede
the time limits in local government shoreline master programs and were
effective on July 11, 1992.

2. Adopt new single family and appurtenant structure erosion protection
standards when the study is done. Ecology will prepare model standards.
After the standards are prepared, local governments must amend their
master programs to include the standards with appropriate changes to
account for local needs.

Chapter 8 - Shoreline Modification Acti%ities H-263

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Format and Contents

The format for the shoreline modification activities section parallels that of the
use provisions, namely:

� Applicability Statement: Defining terms and describing the conditions
and activities under which the provisions apply.

� Policies: Setting broad guidelines on which regulations are based.
These should be written to assist in the interpretation of the regulations.

� Regulations: Definitive development standards describing the physical
and procedural requirements to which the applicable activity must
conform.

U
Ilk,

@j L

X
1001
4 4 P

ilk

VAr th

Chapter 8 - Shoreline Modification Activities H-264

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Model Language

Below is presented sample language for a typical SMP shoreline modification
activities section. Local governments are encouraged to modify the sample
provisions as appropriate to fit their particular conditions.

General Shoreline
Modification Provisions

Applicability

Shoreline stabilization and flood protection are actions taken primarily to
address erosion impacts to upland property and improvements caused or
associated with current, flood, wake or wave action. These actions include
structural and nonstructural methods including but not limited to: riprap,
bulkheads, jetties, groins, beach nourishment and bioengineering/vegetative
management methods. These provisions should be used for all shoreline
modifications activities whether such proposals address a single property or
multiple properties. Flood hazard management activities should also be
reviewed under the provisions of the Flood Hazard Management section of
Chapter 7, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations.

Policies

I . Riprapping and other bank stabilization measures should be located,
designed and constructed primarily to prevent damage to existing
development. All new development should be located and designed to
prevent or minirnize the need for shoreline stabilization measures and flood
protection works. New development requiring shoreline stabilization
should be discouraged.

2. Stabilization and protection works which are more compatible with
ongoing shore processes and more flexible for long-term strearnway
management and more natural in appearance such as vegetative
stabilization should be encouraged over structural means such as concrete
revetments or extensive riprap.

Chapter 8 - Shoreline Modification Activities H-265

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Structural solutions to reduce shoreline damage should be allowed only
after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions would not be able to
reduce the damage.

4. Use of car bodies, demolition debris, concrete rubble, scrap building
equipment or appliances for shoreline stabilization should be prohibited.

5. Substantial stream channel direction modifications, realignment and/or
straightening should be discouraged as a means of shoreline stabilization
and flood protection.

6. The design of stabilization or protection works should provide for the long
term multiple use of strearnway resources and public access to public
shorelines. In the design of publicly financed or subsidized works,
consideration should be given to providing public pedestrian access to
shorelines for low-intensity outdoor recreation.

7. Natural features such as snags, stumps or uprooted trees which support
fish and other aquatic systems, should be left undisturbed.

8. Shorelines existing in their natural state should be preserved in their
natural state, free of shoreline modification.

9. All flood protection measures should be placed landward of the natural
floodway boundary, including marshes, bogs and swamps which are
associated with the water body proper.

10. Beach restoration/enhancement using naturally regenerating systems for the
prevention and control of beach erosion should be required rather than
bulkheads and other structures where:

a. The length and configuration of the beach will accommodate such
systems;

b. Such protection is a reasonable solution to the needs of the specific
site; and

c. Beach rest oration/enhancement will accomplish one or more of the
following objectives:

i. Recreate or enhance natural shoreline conditions;

ii. Create or enhance natural habitat;

iii. Reverse otherwise erosion prone conditions;

iv. Enhance access to the shoreline, especially to public shorelines.

Chapter 8 - Shoreline Modification Activities H-266

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations

I . All applicable federal and state permits shall be obtained and complied with
in the construction and operation of shoreline stabilization and flood
protection works.

2. All new development activities shall be located and designed to prevent or
minimize the need for shoreline stabilization and flood protection works,
such as bulkheads, riprap, landfills, levees, dikes, groins, jetties, or
substantial site grading.

3. The City/County shall require and utilize the fal-lowing information, in
addition to the standard permit information requirements contained in
WAC 173-14-110, during its review of shoreline stabilization and flood
protection proposals:

a. Purpose of project;

b. Hydraulic characteristics of the shore within 1/2 mile on each side of
the proposed project;

c. Existing shoreline stabilization and flood protection devices within 1/2
mile on each side of the proposed project-,

d. Construction material and methods-,

e. Physical, geological and/or soil characteristics of the area;

f Predicted impact upon area shore and hydraulic processes, adjacent
properties, shoreline and water uses; and

g. Alternative measures (including nonstructural) which will achieve the
same purpose.

4. The City/County shall require and utilize the following information, in
addition to the standard permit information requirements contained in
WAC 173-14-110, in its review of all shoreline modification proposals:

a. Construction materials (e.g. type, dimensions, design);

b. Method of construction (e.g. source of backfill, erosion controls);

c. Location of project relative to toe and crest of uplands and upland
structures;

Chapter 8 - Shoreline Modification Activities H-267

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

d. For marine waters: the ordinary high water mark, mean higher high
and extreme high water levels such as the highest recorded level or the
100-year flood elevation. For freshwater: the ordinary high water
mark of the I 00-year flood level.

e. Net direction of littoral drift changes and tidal currents (if any),-

f. General direction and speed of prevailing winds;

g. Profile rendition of beach and uplands;

h. Beach type, slope and material;

i. Uplands type, slope and material;

j. Soil types (S.C.S.);

k. Physical or geologic stability of uplands; and

1. Potential impact upon area shore processes, adjacent properties and
upland stability.

5. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection measures shall not be designed
and constructed in such a manner as to result in increased channelization of
normal stream flows.

6. River and stream channel direction modification, realignment and
straightening are prohibited unless they are essential to uses that are
consistent with this program and the only feasible method available.

7. Flood control diking shall be landward of the floodway (100-year
frequency) and any marshes, bogs, swamps, associated or directly
interrelated and interdependent with the river.

8. Upon project completion, all disturbed shoreline areas shall be restored to
as near preproject configuration as possible and replanted with native
grasses, shrubs, and/or trees in keeping with existing bank vegetation. If
native species cannot be obtained, acceptable substitutes may be used for
stabilization purposes.

9. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection works are prohibited in
wetlands and on point and channel bars. They are also prohibited in
salmon and trout spawning areas except for fish or wildlife habitat
enhancement.

10. Dikes and levees shall be limited in size to the height required to protect
adjacent lands from the predictable annual flood.

Chapter 8 - Shoreline Modification Acti%ities H-268

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

11. The City/County shall require dedication and improvement of linear public
access along new dikes when it determines such access to be in the public
interest.

12. Use of car bodies, scrap building materials, asphalt from street work, or
any discarded pieces of equipment or appliances for the stabilization of
shorelines shall be prohibited.

13. All shoreline modification activities (or state the particular, e.g.
breakwaters) must be in support of an allowable shoreline use that is in
conformance with the provisions of this master program. All shoreline
modification activities not in support of a conforming allowable use are
prohibited, unless it can be demonstrated that such activities are necessary
and in the public interest for the maintenance of shoreline environmental
resource values.

14. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Chapter 8 - Shoreline Modification ActiAties H-269

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shoreline Stabilization

The following shoreline stabilization methods are organized from "soft" to
"hard". The use of "soft" methods is the preferred "best practices" choice
when considering shoreline stabilization.

Policies and regulations are included for the following shoreline stabilization
measures:

1. Beach Restoration and Enhancement

2. Bioengineering

3. Revetments (Riprap)

4. Bulkheads

5. Breakwaters, Jetties, Rock Weirs and Groins

6. Dikes and Levees

Chapter 8 - Shoreline Stabilization H-270

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Beach Restoration and Enhancement

Applicability
Beach enhancement is the alteration of terrestrial and tidal shorelines along
with submerged shorelines for the purpose of stabilization, recreational
enhancement, and aquatic habitat creation or restoration using native or similar
material. The materials used are dependent on the intended use. For
recreation purposes various grades of clean sand or pea gravel is often used to
create a beach. To restore or recreate a shore feature or an underwater aquatic
environment such as a reef may require a rock matrix and/or combination of
other materials appropriate for the intended environment.

Policies

I . All beach enhancement projects should ensure that aquatic habitats, water
quality and flood holding capacity are not degraded by the action.

2. Where possible, choose self maintaining enhancement designs over those
dependent on regular maintenance.

3. Require supplementary beach nourishment where structural stabilization
works are likely to increase impoverishment of existing beach materials at
or downdrift from the project site.

4. Beach enhancement should not extend waterward more than necessary to
achieve the intended results.

Regulations

I . Beach enhancement may be permitted when the applicant has demonstrated
that no significant change in littoral drift or river currents will result which
will adversely affect adjacent properties or habitat.

2. Natural Beach Restoration/Enhancement

a. Design Alternatives. Design alternatives shall include the best available
technology such as, but not limited to:

i. Gravel berms, drift sills, beach nourishment and beach enhancement
when appropriate-,

ii. Planting with short-term mechanical assistance, when appropriate.
All plantings provided shall be maintained.

Chapter 8 - Beach Restoration and Enhancement H-271

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. Design Criteria. Natural beach restoration/enhancement shall not-

L Detrimentally interrupt littoral drift, or redirect waves, current or
sediments to other shorelines;

fi. Result in any exposed groin-like structures; Provided: small "drift
sill" groins may be used as a means of stabilizing restored sediment
where part of a well planned beach restoration program;

iii. Extend waterward more than the minimum amount necessary to
achieve the desired stabilization;

iv. Create "additional dry land"; and

v. Disturb significant amounts of valuable shallow water fish/wildlife
habitat without appropriate mitigation of the impacts.

c. Natural Beach Restoration Construction Standards.

i. The size and/or mix of new materials to be added to a beach shall
be as similar as possible to that of the natural beach sediment, but
large enough to resist normal current, wake or wave action at the
site.

ii. The restored beach shall approximate, and may slightly exceed, the
natural beach width, height, bulk or profile (but not as much as to
obviously create additional dry land);

3. Beach enhancement is prohibited within spawning, nesting or breeding
habitat that would be adversely effected by it and also where littoral drift of
the enhancement materials adversely effects adjacent spawning grounds or
other areas of biological significance.

4. Beach enhancement is prohibited if it significantly interferes with the
normal public use of the navigable waters of the state without proper
mitigation of the identified impacts.

5. All shoreline modification activities shall be in support of a shoreline use
that is in conformance with the provisions of this master program unless it
can be demonstrated that such activities are necessary and in the public
interest for the maintenance of shoreline environmental resources.

6. AH shoreline modification activities must conform, to the General
provisions (see Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions
(see Chapter 6) stated in this master program.

Chapter 8 - Beach Restoration and Enhancement H-272

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Bioengineering

Applicability
Bioengineering is the term given to the practice of using natural vegetative
materials to stabilize shorelines and prevent erosion. This may include use of
bundles of stems, root systems, or other living plant material; soft gabions,
fabric or other soil stabilization techniques; and limited rock toe protection
where appropriate. Bioengineering projects often include fisheries habitat
enhancement measures such as anchored logs or root wads in project design.
Such techniques may be applied to creeks, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and marine
waters. Bioengineering may also be applied in upland areas away from the
immediate shoreline.

The use of bioengineering as a shoreline stabilization technique is seen as an
alternative to riprap, concrete and other structural solutions. It provides
habitat while maintaining and preserving the natural character of the shoreline.
Bioengineering is the preferred "best practices" choice when considering
shoreline stabilization. Combining bioengineering techniques with armored
revetments is also encouraged over singularly employing riprap or other types
of armored revetment. Many jurisdictions are considering enhancement of
existing riprap shorelines to restore lost riparian/shoreline habitat and public
values.

Policies

1. All bioengineering projects should ensure that water quality, fish and
wildlife habitats and flood holding capacity are not degraded.
Bioengineering projects should be designed and scheduled to minin-Lize
impacts to natural resources and to optimize survival of new plantings.

2. Whenever possible, the design of bioengineering projects should
incorporate self-maintaining vegetation and materials over those requiring
routine maintenance.

3. Bioengineering projects should extend no further waterward than is
necessary to achieve intended results.

4. Shoreline stabilization through bioengineering should use native vegetation
wherever possible.

5. Bioengineering projects should include buffers, fencing and/or other
measures to avoid disturbance of the project site by livestock and vehicles.

Chapter 8 - Bioengineering H-273

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. Structural soil stabilization components including riprap, should be kept to
a minimum in such projects and designed to last only until vegetation is
well established. Bioengineering projects do not typically rely on long-term
structural (bank hardening) measures.

7. Bioengineering projects should follow recommended best management
practices for establishing/restoring vegetation in shoreline and riparian
areas. Guidance from the Soil Conservation Service, the State
Departments of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Ecology and local Conservation
Districts should be considered in project designs.

Regulations

I .The City/County shall require and utilize the following information, in
addition to the standard pern-dt information requirements contained in
WAC 173-14-110, in its review of all bioengineering projects.

a. proposed timing of all construction phases of the project,

b. flow analysis, addressing hydrology and hydraulics and identifying
expected flood flows compared with proposed timing of construction
activities,

c. existing soil types, bank materials and analysis of slope stability,

d. proposed materials that will be used on-site including rock size, shape
and quantity, plant materials, soil preparations that provide optimal
planting mediums for the vegetation proposed, areas to be seeded, and
fencing,

e. existing and proposed slope profiles, including location of ordinary high
water mark,

f. design of transition areas between bioengineering site and adjacent
properties (both up and downstream of project),

g. documentation (including photos) of existing pre-construction shoreline
characteristics.

2. All bioengineering projects shall use a diverse variety of native plant
materials including trees, shrubs and grasses, unless demonstrated infeasible
for the particular site.

Chapter 8 - Bioengineering H-274

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

0 3. All cleared areas shall be replanted following construction and irrigated (if
necessary) to ensure that within three years time all vegetation is fully
reestablished. Areas which fail to adequately reestablish vegetation shall be
replanted with approved plant materials until such time as the plantings are
viable.

4. Bank protection in the form of a buffer zone shall be provided for a
minimum of three years. The buffer zone shall exclude livestock, vehicles,
and/or other activities that could disturb the site. The most effective buffer
z6ne protection measure is fencing.

5. All bioengineering projects shall be monitored and maintained as necessary.
Areas damaged by pests and/or the elements shall be promptly repaired.

6. All construction and planting activities shall be scheduled to minimize
impacts to water quality and fish and wildlife aquatic and upland habitat
and to optimize survival of new vegetation.

119

V- -,-/r

Chapter 8 - Bioengineering H-275

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Revetments (Riprap)

Applicability
A revetment is a sloped shoreline structure built to protect an existing eroding
shoreline or newly placed fill against waves, wakes, currents, or weather.
Revetments are most commonly built of randon-dy placed boulders (riprap), but
may also be built of sand-cement bags, paving or building blocks, gabions
(rock filled wire baskets), or other systems and materials. The principal
features of a revetment, regardless of type, are:

1. Heavy armor layer;

2. Filter layer; and

3. Toe protection.

This section deals specifically with the modification activity of revetments. For
additional policies and regulations see Shoreline Stabilization, "General
Shoreline Modification Provisions" in this chapter.

Policies

1 .The use of armored structural revetments should be limited to situations
where it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions such as
bioengineefing, setbacks and buffers or any combination thereof will not
provide sufficient shoreline stabilization.

2. The construction and maintenance of revetments should not result in the
loss or reduction of shoreline environmental resource values. If a loss or
reduction cannot be avoided, mitigation should be provided.

3. Revetments should be designed, improved and maintained to provide
public access whenever possible.

Regulations -- General

I .All forms of revetments shall be constructed and maintained in a manner
that does not reduce water quality and/or fisheries habitat.

2. Design of the proposed revetment shall incorporate proper consideration
of

a. Data on local geophysical conditions;

Chapter 8 - Revetwents (RipRap) H-276

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. Data on stream flow, velocity, and/or flood capacity; and

c. Effects on adjacent properties.

3. Bank revetments, where permitted, shall be placed at the extreme edge or
bank of the shoreline.

4. Design of revetments shall include and provide improved access to public
shorelines whenever possible and appropriate.

5. Revetments must be in support of an allowable shoreline use that is in
conformance with the Provisions of this master program, unless it can be
demonstrated that such activities are necessary and in the public interest for
the maintenance of shoreline environmental resources.

6. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Regulations -- Riprap

I . Riprap shaH be constructed using techniques and materials that wiH
enhance natural shoreline values and functions, including fish and wildlife
habitat, water quality, vegetation and aesthetics. The following techniques
and materials shall be used:

a. Riprap material shall consist of clean quarried rock, free of loose dirt
and any pollutants, and shall be of sufficient size and weight to prevent
movement by wave or current action. Tires, automobile bodies, scrap
metal, paper products and other inappropriate solid waste materials,
shall not be used for riprap.

b. Use of downed logs, snags or rock-work to enhance habitat and to
provide a more natural appearance to the shoreline shall be
incorporated into the design where appropriate.

c. Where on-site environmental conditions allow, vegetation shall be
integrated into the riprap design to reduce erosion, provide cover,
shade and habitat and improve the natural appearance of the shoreline,
consistent with the applicable vegetation management provisions of this
master program.

Regulations -- Design

1. When permitted, the siting and design of revetments shall be performed
using appropriate engineering principles, including guidelines of the U.S.
Soil Conservation Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Chaptcr 8 - Revetments (RipRap) H-277

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. If an armored revetment is employed the follo%king design criteria shall be
met (see Figure 8-1):

a. The size and quantity of the material shall be limited to only that
necessary to withstand the estimated energy intensity of the hydraulic
system;

b. Filter cloth must be used to aid drainage and help prevent settling; and

c. The toe reinforcement or protection must be adequate to prevent a
collapse of the system from river scouring or wave action for the
anticipated life of the project.

3. The area shall be restored as nearly as possible to preproject condition
including replanting with native species and maintenance care until the
newly planted vegetation is established.

Vegetation

Topsoil

Rlprap
11114 Me
Filter Cloth

Too Protection

Figure 8-1. Example design criteria for riprap revetments

Chapter 8 - Revetments (RipRap) H-278

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Bulkheads

Applicability
Bulkheads are walls usually constructed parallel to the shore whose primary
purpose is to contain and prevent the loss of soil caused by erosion or wave
ac tion. Bulkheads may also be termed seawalls, however in common usage,
the term seawall is generally reserved for more massive pubfic works structures
along the open coast. Bulkheads are generally fighter in structure and are
either public or private.

They are typically constructed of poured-in-place or precast concrete, steel or
aluminum sheet piling, wood or wood and structural steel combinations.
Bulkheads may either be thin structures penetrating deep into the ground or
more massive structures resting on the surface. A typical rock bulkhead is
shown in Figure 8-2. A typical concrete bulkhead is illustrated in Figure 8-3.

Area of DeW
Gravel MJl

Filler Fabric

Face ot Bank

Quarry Slorie

Figure 8-2. Typical Rock Bulkhead

Chapter 8 - Bulkheads H-279

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Vegetation

Topsoil'

Fill

Toe Protection

Concrete Bulkhead
vnth Footing

Figure 8-3. Typical Concrete Bulkhead

Uses and activities related to bulkheads which are identified as separate use
activities in this program, such as Flood Control Management, Landfill,
Residential Development, Commercial Development and Industry, are subject
to the regulations for those uses in addition to the standards for bulkheads
established in this section.

Exemptions
The Shoreline Management Act exempts the construction of a normal
protective bulkhead common to an existing single family residence from the
substantial development permit requirement. However these structures are
required to comply with all the policies, prohibitions and development
standards of this master program and of this section. To qualify for the RCW
90.58.030 (3)(e)(ii) and WAC 173-14-040 (1)(c) exemption from the shoreline
substantial development permit requirement, and to assure that such bulkheads
will be consistent with this program, a statement of exemption should be

Chapter 8 - Bulkheads H-280

SAIT Handbook - 1994 Edition

obtained from the City/County before commencing construction of any
bulkhead (see Chapter 9, Administration and Enforcement, for a general
discussion of exemptions). WAC 173-14-040 (1)(c) states that:

A "normal protective " bulkhead is constructed at or near the ordinary
high water mark to protect an existing single family residence and isfor
protecting landfrom erosion notfor the purpose of creating land "ere
an existing bulkhead is being replaced, it shall be constructed nofurther
waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessaryfor construction of
newfootings.

Policies

I . Defense works of natural materials such as protective berms, beach
enhancement or vegetative stabilization are strongly preferred over
structural defense works, of materials such as steel, wood, or concrete,
because the former have less adverse and cumulative impacts on shore
features and habitats. Proposals for structural solutions including
bulkheads should demonstrate that natural methods are unworkable (see
Chapter 7 "Flood Hazard Management" for regulations relating to
nonstructural defense works).

2. Owners of property containing feeder bluffs should generally be
discouraged from constructing bulkheads, particularly in areas not already
developed or not already subject to shoreline modification.

3. Bulkheads should be located, designed and constructed primarily to
prevent damage to existing development and n-dnimize adverse impacts to
natural processes. New development requiring bulkheads and/or similar
protection should be discouraged.

4. Shoreline uses should be located in a manner so that bulkheading is not
likely to become necessary in the future.

5. Where bulkheading is necessary and appropriate, affected property owners
and public agencies should be encouraged to coordinate bulkhead
development for an entire drift sector or homogeneous reach in order to
avoid exacerbating erosion on adjacent properties.

6. The cumulative effects of allowing bulkheads along segments of shoreline
should be evaluated prior to granting individual permits or exemptions.

7. Bulkheads should not be approved as a solution to geohydraulic or
geophysical problems such as mass slope failure, sloughing, landslides, etc.
caused by factors with an upland origin.

Chapter 8 - Bulkheads H-281

SNW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- General

1. Bulkhead design and development shall conform to all other applicable
state agency policies and regulations including the Department of Fisheries
criteria governing the design of bulkheads.

2. Natural materials and processes such as protective berms, drift logs, brush,
beach feeding or vegetative stabilization shall be utilized to the maximum
extent possible.

3. The City/County shall require and utilize standards found in the "General
Shoreline Modifications Provisions" Regulations section of this chapter in
its review of bulkhead proposals.

4. Bulkheads shall be allowed only when evidence is presented which
conclusively demonstrates that one of the following conditions exist:

a. Serious wave erosion threatens an established use or existing
building(s) on upland property;

b. Bulkheads are necessary to the operation and location of water-
- dependent and water-related activities consistent with this master
program, PROVIDED that all alternatives have proven infeasible (i.e.
use relocation, use design, nonstructural shore stabilization options)
and that such bulkheads meet other policies and regulations of this
chapter; or

c. Proposals for bulkheads have first demonstrated that use of natural
materials and processes and nonstructural solutions to bank
stabilization are unworkable in protecting existing development.

5. Gabions (wire mesh filled with concrete or rocks) shall not be used in
bulkhead construction where alternatives more consistent with this
program are feasible, because of their limited durability and the potential
hazard to shore users and the shoreline environment.

6. The construction of a bulkhead for the primary purpose of retaining or
creating dry land that is not specifically authorized as a part of the permit
shall be prohibited.

7. Use of a bulkhead to protect a platted lot where no structure presently
exists is prohibited.

8. Bulkheads are prohibited for any purpose if they will cause significant
erosion or beach starvation.

Chapter 8 - Bulkheads H-282

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

9. All bulkheads must be in support of an allowable shoreline use that is in
conformance with the provisions of this master program unless it can be
demonstrated that such activities are necessary and in the public interest for
the maintenance of shoreline environmental resources.

10. All bulkheads must conform to the General Provisions (see Chapter 5) and
the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6) stated in this
master program.

Mote: If erosion is part of the natural ecology of the shoreline then
stabilization will not be permitted.

Bulkheads and other engineered structures significantly degrade fish and wildlife
habitat as well as other features of shoreline ecology.

Chapter 8 - Bulkheads H-283

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- Location Criteria

1 .Bulkheads shall not be located on shores where valuable geohydraulic-
hydraulic or biological processes are sensitive to interference and critical to
shoreline conservation, such as feeder bluffs, marshes, wetlands or
accretion shoreforms such as spits, hooks, bars or barrier beaches.

2. Bulkheads are to be permitted only where local physical conditions such as
foundation bearing material, surface and subsurface drainage are suitable.

3. On all shorelines, bulkheads shall be located landward of the OHWK
landward of protective berms (artificial or natural) and generally parallel to
the natural shoreline. In addition:

a. On marine accretion beaches, bulkheads shall be set back a m@inimum of
25 feet landward of the OHWM, and shall parallel the natural shoreline.

b. On bluff or bank shorelines where no other bulkheads are adjacent, the
construction of a bulkhead shall be as close to the bank as possible and
in no case shall be more than 3 feet fi7orn the toe of the natural bank.

c. Bulkheads may tie in flush with existing bulkheads on adjoining
properties, provided that (1) the adjoining bulkheads were built at or
near the OHWM and (2) the new bulkhead does not extend more than
three feet waterward of OHWM at any point. If there is an existing
bulkhead on only one of the adjacent properties, the proposed bulkhead
may tie in flush with the adjacent bulkhead at or landward of the
OHWM and shall be contoured to minimize the land area waterward of
the required setback, which shall be met on the side not abutting an
existing bulkhead.

4. Replacement bulkheads may be located irnmediately in front of and
abutting (sharing a common surface) an existing bulkhead provided that
replacement bulkheads shall not be authorized abutting an abandoned or
neglected bulkhead or a bulkhead in serious disrepair that is located more
than three feet waterward of OHWM. Replacement of such bulkheads
shall be located at OHWM.

Regulations -- Design

1. Bulkheads shall be sited and designed consistent with appropriate
engineering principles.

2. When a bulkhead is required at a public access site, provision for safe
access to the water shall be incorporated into bulkhead design.

Chapter 8 - Bulkheads H-284

SMI? Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Bulkheads shall be designed with the minimum dimensions necessary to
adequately protect the development for the expected life of the
development.

4. Stairs or other permitted structures may be built into a bulkhead but shall
not extend waterward of it.

5. Bulkheads shall be designed to tpern-dt the passage of surface or ground
water without causing ponding or saturation of retained soil/materials.

6. Adequate toe protection consisting of proper footings, a fine retention
mesh, etc., shall be provided to ensure bulkhead stability without relying on
additional riprap.

7. Materials used in bulkhead construction shall meet the following standards:

a. Bulkheads shall utilize stable, nonerosional, homogeneous materials
such as concrete, wood, rock riprap or other suitable materials which
will accomplish the desired end with the maximum preservation of
natural shoreline characteristics.

b. Beach materials shall not be used for fill behind bulkheads unless it is
specifically authorized by the permit and then only when it is
demonstrated that leaving the material on the beach would be
detrimental to shoreline resources.

8. Fill behind bulkheads shall be limited to an average of I cubic yard per
running foot of bulkhead. Any fifling in excess of this amount shall be
considered landfill and shall be subject to the provisions for landfill and the
requirement for obtaining a shoreline substantial development permit.

Chapter 8 - Bulkheads H-285

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Breakwaters, Jetties, Rock
Weirs and Groins

Applicability
Breakwaters are protective structures usually built off shore to protect harbor
areas, moorage, navigation, beaches and bluffs from wave action. Breakwaters
may be fixed (e.g., rubble mound or rigid wall), open-pile or floating.

Jetties are structures generally built singly or in pairs perpendicular to the shore
at harbor entrances or river mouths to prevent the shoaling or accretion of
littoral sand drift. Jetties also protect channels and inlets from storm waves
and cross-currents.

Rock weirs and groins are structures built seaward perpendicular to the shore
for the purpose of building or preserving an accretion beach by trapping littoral
sand dfift. Generally narrow and of varying lengths, groins may be built in a
series along the shore. Jetties are buflt to prevent accretion in channels and/or
inlets while groins preserve and promote accretion to occur along stretches of
shoreline.

Policies

1. Professional design is required because of the complexity of modif@@g
water movement and littoral drift systems that extend well beyond the
project boundafies.

2. Breakwaters, jetties and groins should provide public access or multiple
use opportunities to increase public use and enjoyment of the shorefines
where such access is safely compatible with the structure.

3. To the extent practicable, breakwaters should be open-pile or floating
structures anchored in place so as not to impede longshore sand and gravel
transport and fish movement or destroy subtidal habitat.

4. Jetties should generally be discouraged because they partially or totally
block shore processes, are generally irreversible in nature and often require
an ongoing and costly dredging or beach feeding program to alleviate
erosion or accretion problems.

Chapter 8 - Breakwaters, Jetties, Rock Weirs, Groins H-286

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. Rock weirs and groins not designed as part of an overall system approach
should generally be discouraged because they purposefully trap and accrete
beach forming materials yet erode downdrift beaches or banks which may
have adverse effects on other shore resources and users. However, rock
weirs or groins may have a beneficial effect when designed as part of a
larger planned system intended to minimize the overall need for shore
modification activities.

6. Proposals not requiring the use ofjetties, breakwaters or groins should be
preferred over developments requiring the use of breakwater, jetty or groin
structures.

7. Protection of the area@s scenic and aesthetic resources should be given
serious consideration in the review of proposals for breakwaters, jetties,
rock weirs and groins.

8. Jetties and groins should be located, designed and constructed primarily to
prevent damage to existing developments. New development requiring
such structures should be discouraged.

Regulations -- General

I . The design of breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and groins shall conform to
all applicable requirements established by the Washington Departments of
Fisheries and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

2. The City/County shall require and use the following information during its
review of proposals for breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and groins:

a. Purpose of the structure;

b. Net and seasonal direction and quantities of littoral drift, tidal currents
(if any); and

c. Seasonal wind data, wind rose.

The following additional information is required for groins:

d. Profile of uplands;

e. Beach type, slope and materials-,

f. Uplands types, slope and materials;

g. Soils types (S.C.S.)2-

h. Physical or geological stability of uplands; and

Chapter 8 - Breakwaters, Jetties, Rock Weirs, Groins H-287

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

i. Predicted impact on area shore processes, adjacent properties and
upland stability.

3. Proposals for groins, jetties and solid breakwaters shall notify, by
registered mail, all shoreline landowners within the same drift sector. If it
is not possible to make a reasonable determination of the drift sector, all
shoreline land owners within I mile of the project proposal shall be
notified.

4. All breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and groins must be in support of an
allowable shoreline use that is in conformance with the provisions of this
Master program unless it can be demonstrated that such activities are
necessary and in the public interest for the maintenance of shoreline
environmental resources.

5. All breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and groins must conform to the General
Provisions (see Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions
(see Chapter 6) stated in this master program.

Breakwaters

6. Breakwaters shall be prohibited in lakes.

7. Breakwaters shall only be permitted by conditional use for navigational
purposes, industrial activities and marinas as an integral component of a
harbor, marina or port where water-dependent uses are located seaward of
the existing shoreline and where protection from strong wave action is
essential.

8. Open-pile or floating breakwaters shall be the only type allowed unless it
can be shown that solid breakwaters will have no significant adverse effect
on the aquatic biology and shore processes or that such adverse effects can
be adequately mitigated.

Jetties, Rock Weirs and Groins

9. Jetties, rock weirs and groins shall only be permitted by conditional use for
navigational purposes, industrial activity, marinas, erosion control, fisheries
or habitat enhancement and public beach management as integral
components of an overall resource management plan.

10. Jetty, rock weir, or groin development which would result in a net adverse
impact on adjacent and nearby properties and shorelines shall be prohibited.

11. Groins are prohibited for the purpose of gaining access across tidal areas
to deep water unless integral to a public access project.

Chapter 8 - Breakwaters, Jetties, Rock Weirs, Groins H-288

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- Design

I . Proposed designs for new or expanded breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and
groins shall be designed and certified by a registered civil engineer.

2. Breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and groins shall be designed and
constructed in a manner which will prevent detrimental impacts on water
circulation, sand movement and aquatic life. The design shall also minimize
impediments to navigation and to visual access from the shoreline.

3. The design of new breakwaters, groins and jetties shall incorporate
provisions for public access such as sightseeing and public fishing it is
determined such access is feasible and desirable.

4. Materials used for the construction of breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and
groins shall exhibit the qualities of long-term durability, ease of
maintenance and compatibility with local shore features processes and
aesthetics. The use of solid waste, junk or abandoned automobiles, asphalt
or any building demolition debris is prohibited.

5. Floating breakwaters shall be used in place of solid, rubble mound types
wherever they can withstand anticipated wave action in order to maintain
sand movement and protect fish and aquatic habitat.

6. The effect of proposed breakwaters, jetties, rock weirs and groins on sand
movement shall be evaluated during permit review. The beneficiaries
and/or owners of large scale defense works which substantially alter,
reduce or block littoral drift and cause new erosion of downdrift shores
shall be required to establish and maintain an adequate long term beach
feeding program either by artificially transporting sand to the downdrift
side of an inlet with jetties or by artificial beach feeding in the case of
groins, breakwaters and rock weirs.

Chapter 8 - Breakwaters, Jetties, Rock Weirs, Groins H-289

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Dikes and Levees

Applicability
Dikes and levees are manmade earthen embankments utilized for the purpose
of flood control, water impoundment projects, or settling basins.
Exemptions
The SNIA exempts the operation and maintenance of any system of dikes,
ditches, drains or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975 which were
created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or
diking system from substantial development permit requirements (RCW
90.58.030 (x)).

Note: See also Chapter 7 "Flood Hazard Management "for relevant
policies and regulations pertaining to systems of dikes and levees.

Policies

I .Dikes and levees should be located, designed, constructed and maintained
so that they will not cause significant damage to adjacent properties or
valuable resources, and so that the physical integrity of the natural shore
process is maintained.

2. Dikes and levees should be permitted only when the purpose or primary
use being protected is consistent with this program and when they can be
developed in a manner compatible with the multiple use of the floodway
and associated resources, such as wildlife habitat, water quality, aesthetics,
recreational resources and public access.

Regulations -- General

I .Dikes and levees shall be designed, constructed and maintained in
accordance with Hydraulic Project Approval and in consideration of
requirements resource agency recommendations.

2. Dikes and levees shall protect the natural processes and resource values
associated with strearnways and deltas including but not limited to wildlife
habitat.

3. Dikes and levees shall be limited in size to the minimum height required to
protect adjacent lands from the protected flood stage as identified in the
applicable comprehensive flood control management plan.

4. Dikes and levees shall not be constructed with material dredged from the
adjacent wetland or strearnway area unless part of a comprehensive flood
and habitat plan and then only by conditional use.

Chapter 8 - Dikes and Levees H-290

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. Dikes and levees shall not be placed in the floodway except for current
deflectors necessary for protection of bridges and roads.

6. Public access shall be provided in accordance with public access policies
and regulations contained herein. Improved trail systems along diked or
leveed shorelines are preferred.

7. Dikes and levees shall only be authorized by conditional use permit and
shall be consistent with the comprehensive flood control management plan,
or if no plan yet exists, with an overall watershed and drainage basin
management systems approach.

8. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Regulations -- Design

1. Dikes and levees shall be setback at convex (inside) bends to allow streams
to maintain point bars and associated aquatic habitat through normal
accretion. Where bank dikes have already cut off point bars from the edge
of the floodway, consideration should be given to their relocation in order
to lower flood stages and current velocities.

2. Where dikes are necessary in intermediate gradient floodways to protect
fringe areas, tangent diking is preferred over bank levees. Dikes and levees
shall be located near the tangent to outside meander bends so that the
stream can maintain normal meander progression and utilize most of its
natural flood water storage capacity.

3. Proper diversion of surface discharge shall be provided to maintain the
integrity of the natural streams, wetlands and drainages.

4. Underground springs and aquifers shall be identified and protected.

5. The outside face of dikes shall be sloped at 1-1/2 to I (horizontal to
vertical) or flatter and seeded with grass and/or native vegetation.
Landscaping and buffer areas may be required.

Chapter 8 - Dikes and Levees H-291

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Dredging and Dredge
Material Disposal

Applicability

Dredging is the removal or displacement of earth or sediments such as gravel,
sand, mud or silt and/or other materials or debris from any stream, river, lake
or marine water body and associated shorelines and wetlands. Dredging is
normally done for specific purposes or uses such as for constructing and
maintaining canals, navigation channels, turning basins, harbors and marinas,
for installing submarine pipelines or cable crossings, or for dike or drainage
system repair and maintenance. Dredging may also be used to mine for
aggregates such as sand and gravel.

Dredge material disposal is the depositing of dredged materials on land or into
water bodies for the purpose of either creating new or additional lands for
other uses or disposing of the by products of dredging.

Alote: Dredge material disposal on land within shoreline jurisdiction is
also subject to the landfill policies and regulations of this program.

Exemptions

Pursuant to WAC 173-14-040, the following actions are exempt from the
requirement for a shoreline substantial development permit, but may still
require a conditional use or variance permit.

1. Operations, maintenance or construction of canals, waterways, drains,
reservoirs or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or
developed as part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making
use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground
water from the irrigation of lands;

2. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains or other
facilities existing on September 8, 1975 which were created, developed or
utilized primarily as part of an agricultural drainage or diking system.

3. Normal maintenance and repair of an existing facility which may include
maintaining an existing navigational channel or other dredged facility fcir
the purpose of periodically restoring a previously authorized configuration.

Chapter 8 - Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal H-292

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Note: Actions exemptftom Substantial Development Permits are still
required to comply ivith the Shoreline Management Act and all of the
applicable provisions of CiolCounty Shoreline Master Program.
Dredging proposals should be carefully revie-wed by the CitylCounty to
determine whether or not the activity is exemptfrom the requirementfor a
Substantial Development Permit and to insure that the proposed action is
consistent with the intent, policies and regulations of the Act and this
program.

Policies

I . Dredging and dredge material disposal should be located and conducted in
a manner which minimizes damage to existing ecological values and natural
resources of the area to be dredged and of the disposal site.

2. Dredging of bottom materials for the primary purpose of obtaining the
material for fill or other purposes is strongly discouraged.

3. Dredging operations should be planned and conducted to minimize
interference with navigation and adverse impacts to other shoreline uses,
properties and values.

4. Dredge material disposal in water bodies should be discouraged, except for
habitat improvement or where depositing dredge material on land would be
more detrimental to shoreline resources than deposition in water areas.

5. Long range regional plans should be developed for the disposal and use of
dredged material particularly in areas where maintenance of navigation
channels is routine and continuous. Dredge disposal sites in water areas
should be identified in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. EPA and the State Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources,
Wildlife and Fisheries.

6. Selection of unconfined, open water disposal sites should follow the
process developed in the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
(PSDDA) and be incorporated into DNR WAC 332-30-166 Open Water
Disposal Sites, where applicable.

7. The long-term environmental impact of disposal at open water disposal
sites should be monitored by the shoreline management permittee of a site.
The permittee should provide for long-term environmental monitoring and
any necessary remedies. Periodic reports on site use and environmental
impact should be submitted to the local shoreline administrator.

Chapter 8 - Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal H-293

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

8. When dredge material has suitable organic and physical properties,
dredging operations should be encouraged to recycle dredged material for
beneficial use in beach enhancement, habitat creation, aggregate or clean
cover material at a landfill (where appropriate).

9. Dredging and dredge material disposal operations should be periodically
reviewed for consistency with the SMP.

10. Dredged material containing chemicals at concentrations high enough to
0
cause significant harm to resident biota should not be placed at unconfined
open-water disposal sites.

Regulations -- General

1. Applications for shoreline dredging and dredge material disposal shall
provide the following types of information:

a. Physical, chemical and biological assessment of the proposed dredged
material applicable to the particular dredging site. Information needed
will vary depending upon:

ii. Existing biological communities or resources in the area;

iii. The possibility of significant sediment contamination; and

iv. The suitability of the proposed dredge disposal site.

b. Specific data to be considered include:

i. Physical - Grain size, clay, silt, sand or gravel as determined by
sieve analysis.

ii. Chemical - Including conventional parameters, metals and organics.

iii. Biological - Bioassays useful in determining the suitability of
dredged material for a selected disposal option.

b. Dredging volumes, methods, schedule, frequency, hours of operation
and procedures-,

c. Method of disposal, including the location, size, capacity and physical
characteristics of the disposal site, transportation method and routes,
hours of operation, schedule;

d. Stability of bedlands adjacent to proposed dredging area;

Chapter 8 - Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal H-294

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

e. Hydraulic analyses, including tidal fluctuation, current flows, direction
and projected impacts. Hydraulic modeling studies are required for
large scale, extensive dredging projects, particularly in estuaries, in
order to identify existing geohydraulic-hydraulic patterns and probable
effects of dredging-,

f, Assessment of water quality impacts; and

g. Biological assessment including migratory, seasonal and spawning use
areas.

2. In evaluating permit applications for any dredging project, the adverse
effects of the initial dredging, subsequent maintenance dredging and dredge
disposal that will be necessary shall be considered. Dredging and dredge
disposal shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that the proposed
actions will not:

a. Result in significant and/or ongoing damage to water quality, fish,
shellfish and other essential marine biological elements; and

b. Adversely alter natural drainage and circulation patterns, currents, river
and tidal flows or significantly reduce flood water capacities.

3. Proposals for dredging and dredge disposal shall include all feasible
mitigating measures to protect marine habitats and to minimize adverse
impacts such as turbidity, release of nutrients, heavy metals, sulfides,
organic material or toxic substances, dissolved oxygen depletion,
disruption of food chains, loss of benthic productivity and disturbance of
fish runs and important localized biological communities.

4. Dredging and dredge disposal shall not occur in marshes, bogs or swamps,
except as authorized by conditional use permit provided the wetland does
not serve any of the valuable functions of wetlands identified in this master
program or during the permit review process including, but not limited to,
wildlife habitat and natural drainage functions, and/or enhances theWildlife
habitat, natural drainage and/or other valuable functions.

5. Dredging and dredge disposal shall be carefully scheduled to protect
biological productivity (e.g. fish runs, spawning, benthic productivity, etc.)
and to m@inin-@ze interference with fishing activities. Dredging activities
shall not occur in areas used for commercial fishing (e.g. drift net, crabbing,
etc.) during a fishing season unless specifically addressed and mitigated for
in the permit.

Chapter 8 - Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal H-295

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. Dredging and dredge disposal shall be prohibited on or in archaeological
sites which are listed on the Washington State Register of Ustoric Places
until such time that they have been released by the State Archaeologist.

7. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Regulations -- Dredging

1. Dredging waterward of the ordinary high water mark shall be permitted
only:

a. For navigation or navigational access;

b. In conjunction with a water-dependent use of water bodies or adjacent
shorelands-,

c. As part of an approved habitat improvement project;

d. To improve water quality;

e. For raining and/or mineral extraction, as provided in the regulations on
mining; or

f In conjunction with a bridge, navigational structure or wastewater
treatment facility for which there is a documented public need and
where other feasible sites or routes do not exist.

g. To improve water flow and/or manage flooding only when consistent
with an approved flood/stormwater comprehensive management plan.

2. When dredging is permitted, the dredging shall be the minimum necessary
to accommodate the proposed use.

3. Dredging shall utilize techniques that cause minimum dispersal and
broadcast of bottom material.

4. New dredging activity is prohibited in the following locations:

a. In estuaries except by conditional use permit,

b. Along net positive dfift sectors and where geohydraulic-hydraulic
processes are active and accretion shore forms would be damaged,
altered or irretrievably lost;

Chapter 8 - Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal H-296

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

c. In shoreline areas vAth bottom materials that are prone to significant
sloughing and refilling due to currents or tidal activity; which result in
the need for continual maintenance dredging;

d. In habitats identified as critical to the life cycle of officially designated
or protected fish, shellfish or wildlife; or

5. Dredging for the primary purpose of obtaining material for landfill is
prohibited.

6. Dredging to construct canals or small basins for boat moorage or
launching, water ski landings or swimming holes is prohibited.

Regulations -- Dredge Material Disposal

I .Disposal of dredged material may be accomplished at approved contained
upland disposal sites.

2. Individual disposal operations shall comply with Department of Natural
Resources leasing practices, Ecology Water Quality Certification process
and the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers permit requirements.

3. Unconfined, open-water disposal of dredged material in Puget Sound shall
only occur at sites identified through the process defined in the PSDDA
report and incorporated in DNR WAC 332-30-166 Open-Water Disposal
Sites.

4. Review of applications for use of a disposal site shall be based upon the
criteria and guidelines established in the PSDDA report, where applicable.
It shall be the responsibility of the disposal permittee to assure that disposal
of dredged material and management of the disposal site comply with
permit conditions and with the PSDDA report, where applicable.

5. Yearly status reports shall be prepared and submitted by the dredge
disposal permittee to the local shoreline administrator. The reports shall
state the quantity of material dumped, characterize the quality of the
material, and review any factors necessary to verify continued compliance
with the shoreline permit.

6. Depositing dredge materials in water areas shall be allowed only by
conditional use permit for one or more of the following reasons:

a. For wildlife habitat improvement;

b. To correct problems of material distribution adversely affecting fish and
shellfish resources;

Chapter 8 - Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal H-297

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

c. For permitted beach enhancement;

d. When the alternative of depositing material on land is demonstrated to
be more detrimental to shoreline resources than depositing it in water
areas, or

e. In approved open-water disposal site as identified in (cite applicable
disposal plan [e.g. PSDDA]).

7. New in-water disposal sites shall be identified consistent with the following
criteria:

a. The site is in an area protected from significant storms, tidal and
submarine currents, stratification and turbulence that would cause
shifting and dispersal of dredged material, unless specifically designed
and permitted as a dispersal site;

b. The area is proven to be biologically, chemically and physically
degraded by past dredge disposal or other activities, and water quality
and biological productivity will not be degraded further;

c. Disposal will not interfere with geohydraulic-hydraulic processes;

d. The dredged material has been analyzed by qualified personnel and
found to be minimally or nonpolluting;

e. Dredge disposal will not impede water and tidal current flows or
adversely affect flood water flows and capacities;

f Aquatic life will not be adversely affected; and

g. The site and method of disposal meet all requirements and
qualifications of applicable regulatory agencies.

8. Disposal, if allowed in water, shall utilize techniques that cause the least
dispersal and broadcast of materials unless specifically designed and
approved as a dispersal site.

9. Use of dredge materials for beach enhancement shall be conducted so that:

a. Except where specifically designed and intended, erosion or deposition
downstream from the disposal site is minimized. Erosion of the
dredged material shall not smother marsh or other shallow productive

areas.

Chapter 8 - Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal H-298

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. To the extent possible, the volume and frequency of dredged material
disposal maintains a stable beach profile. Dredged material shall be
graded at a uniform slope and contoured to reduce cove and peninsula
formation and to minimize stranding ofjuvenile fish (see also "Beach
Enhancement").

10. Ocean disposal shall be conducted so that:

a. The material deposited at a site is compatible with the benthic
populations and other uses of the area;

b. Interference with commercial fishing and other established uses is
minimized; and

c. Disposal is strictly confined to the designated disposal sites.

11. Flow-lane disposal shall be conducted so that:

a. Disposal shall not occur under freshwater flow and tidal conditions
where the predominant sediment transport at a site is up river; and

b. Use of the disposal site does not interfere with fishing activities by
causing major changes in the circulation patterns or bottom
configuration of the disposal site.

12. Land disposal sites shall adhere to the following conditions:

a. Containment dikes and adequate settling basins shall be built and
maintained so that the site's discharge water carries a minimum of
suspended sediment. Required basins shall be designed to maintain at
least I foot of standing water at all times to encourage proper settling;

b. Proper diversion of surface discharge shall be provided to maintain the
integrity of the natural streams, wetlands and drainages;

c. Runoff water shall be controlled so as to enter a waterway through
grassy swales or other treatment features that assures protection of
water quality and other envirorunental resources.

d. Underground springs and aquifers shall be identified and protected-,

e. The outside face of dikes shall be sloped at 1-1/2 to I (horizontal to
vertical) or flatter and seeded with grass and/or native vegetation.
Landscaping and buffer areas may be required;

f Sites shall be adequately screened from view. Dredge disposal in
shoreline areas shall not impair scenic views; and

Chapter 8 - Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal U-299

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

g. Dredge materials deposited upland and not part of a permitted dike or
levee shall constitute landfill, and when deposited within the jurisdiction
of this master program, shall comply with the landfill regulations.

13. Near shore or upland disposal of dredge materials shall not be located
upon, adversely affect, or diminish:

a. Estuaries, wetlands, or significant plant communities;

b. Prime agricultural land except as enhancement-,

c. Natural resources including but not limited to sand and gravel deposits,
timber, or natural recreational beaches and waters except for
enhancement purposes;

d. Designated or officially recognized wildlife habitat and concentration
areas;

e. Water quality, quantity and drainage characteristics; and

f. Public access to shorelines and water bodies.

14. Where required, revegetation of land disposal sites shall occur as soon as
possible in order to retard wind and water erosion and to restore the
wildlife habitat value of the site. Native species and other compatible
plants shall be used.

15. Proposals for disposal in shoreline jurisdiction must show that the site will
ultimately be suitable for a use permitted by this master program.

16. Disposal of dredged materials shall occur on the smallest possible land area
consistent with the standards above in order to minimize the quantity of
land that is disturbed, unless dispersed disposal is authorized as a condition
of permit approval (e.g. soil enhancement, etc.).

17. The City/County may impose reasonable limitations on dredge disposal
operating periods and hours and may require provision for buffer strips at
land disposal or transfer sites in order to protect the public safety and other
shore users' lawful interests from unnecessary adverse impacts.

Chapter 8 - Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal H-300

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Landfill

Applicability

Landfill is the placement of soil, sand, rock, gravel, existing sediment or other
material (excluding solid waste) to create new land, tideland or bottom land
area along the shoreline below the OHWM, or on wetland or upland areas in
order to raise the elevation. Any landfill activity conducted within shoreline
jurisdiction must comply with the following provisions.

Notes to Master Programmers

If this definition is used it is important to clarify when in-water and upland
landfill is allowed and to define the limits of backfill allowed relative to
bulkheadprojects, etc. See Chapter 5, "Clearing and Grading"forfurther
discussion of &y on dryfill or "raising land elevation".

Policies

I .Landfills waterward of OHWM should be allowed only when necessary to
facilitate water-dependent and/or public access uses which are consistent
with this master program.

2. Shoreline fills should be designed and located so that there will be no
significant damage to existing ecological systems or natural resources, and
no alteration of local currents, surface water drainage or flood waters
which would result in a hazard to adjacent life, property and natural
resource systems.

3. In evaluating fill projects, such factors as potential and current public use
of the shoreline and water surface area, navigation, water flow and
drainage, water quality and habitat should be considered and protected to
the maximum extent feasible. Further, the City/Cou-nty should assess the
overall value of the landfill site in its present state versus the proposed
shoreline use to be created to ensure consistency with the Act and this
master program.

Chapter 8 - Landfill H-301

SNW Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. The perimeter of landfills should be designed to avoid or eliminate erosion
and sedimentation impacts, both during initial landflil activities and over
time. Natural appearing and self-sustaining control methods are preferred
over structural methods.

5. Where permitted, landfills should be the minimum necessary to provide for
the proposed use and should be permitted only when tied to a specific
development proposal that is permitted by this master program.
Speculative landfill activity should be prohibited.

6. Sanitary landfills should not be located in shoreline jurisdiction.

Regulations -- General

1. Applications for landfill permits shall include the following:

a. Proposed use of the landfill area;

b. Physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the fill material;

c. Source of landfill material-,

d. Method of placement and compaction;

e. Location of landfill relative to natural and/or existing drainage patterns
and wetlands.

f. Location of the landfill perimeter relative to the OHWM;

g. Perimeter erosion control or stabilization means; and

h. Type of surfacing and runoff control devices.

2. Landfill waterward of OHWM or in marshes, bogs and swamps shall be
permitted as a conditional use only and:

a. In conjunction with a water-dependent or public use permitted by this
master program-,

b. In conjunction with a bridge or navigational structure for which there is
a demonstrated public need and where no feasible upland sites, design
solutions, or routes exist;

c. As part of an approved beach restoration project; or

d. For fisheries, aquaculture, or wildlife habitat enhancement projects.

Chapter 8 - Landfill H-302

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Pile or pier supports shall be utilized whenever feasible in preference to
landfills. Landfills for approved road development in floodways or
wetlands shall be permitted only if pile or pier supports are proven
infeasible.

4. Landfills are prohibited in floodplains except where it can be clearly
demonstrated that the geohydraulic characteristics and floodplain storage
capacity will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life
or property. Landfills are prohibited in floodway, except when approved
by conditional use permit and where required in conjunction with a
proposed water-dependent or other use, specified in Regulation #2 above.

5. Environmental review of proposed landfills shall be accomplished
concurrently with review of the intended use, and the threshold
determination concerning the need for an environmental impact statement
shall be based on this combined project review.

6. Landfill shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that the proposed
action will not:

a. Result in significant damage to water quality, fish, shellfish and/or
wildlife habitat-, or

b. Adversely alter natural drainage and circulation patterns, currents, river
and tidal flows or significantly reduce flood water capacities.

7. Landfills may be permitted only in conjunction with a specific development
already permitted by this master program or as proposed (i.e. permit
applied for) simultaneously with such development. Speculative landfills
are prohibited.

8. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Regulations -- Design and Construction

1. Where landfills are permitted, the landfill shall be the minimum necessary to
accommodate the proposed use.

2. Where existing public access is reduced, greater public access as part of the
development project shall be provided.

Chapter 8 - Landfill H-303

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Landfills shall be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent,
minimize and control all material movement, erosion and sedimentation
from the affected area. Perimeters of permitted land fill projects shall be
designed and constructed with silt curtains, vegetation buffer areas or other
methods and appropriately s'loped to prevent erosion and sedimentation
both during initial landfill activities and afterwards. Such containment
practices shall occur during the first growing season following completion
of the landfill. Design shall incorporate use of natural appearing and self
sustaining control methods unless they can be demonstrated to be infeasible
due to existing environmental conditions such as currents, tides and
weather.

4. Fill materials shall be sand, gravel, soil, rock or similar material. Use of
polluted dredge spoils, solid waste and sanitary landfill materials are
prohibited.

5. Landfills shall be designed to allow surface water penetration into ground
water supplies where such conditions existed prior to fiH.

6. The timing of landfill construction shall be regulated so as to minimize
damage to water quality and aquatic life.

7. Landfill on dry land shall not result in substantial changes to surface water
drainage patterns off the project site and onto adjacent properties.

W
-WA

W
L

Chapter 8 - Landfill H-304

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Piers, Docks, Floats & Buoys

Applicability

Piers and docks are structures which abut the shoreline and are used as a
landing or moorage place for commercial and pleasure craft. Piers are built on
fixed platforms above the water, while docks float upon the water.

Recreational floats are also addressed in this section. These floats are
anchored off shore platforms used for water-dependent recreational activities
such as switriming and diving.

Piers and docks are utilized for commercial, industrial and recreational
purposes. Often they are mixed serving several uses. Because of this,
regulations concerning specific uses that may employ a pier or dock will be
located in that specific section. For instance, piers and docks containing more
than 10 moorage spaces are considered marinas and are addressed in the
"Boating Facilities" Provisions.

In limited instances where floating homes are allowed outside marinas, piers,
docks, floats and buoys associated with a floating home are regulated by this
section.

Exemptions

Docks for private, non commercial pleasure craft, common to a single family
residence, and costing less than 2,500 dollars are exempt from the requirement
for a shoreline substantial development permit pursuant to RCW 90.58.030(3-
e-vii) and WAC 173-14-040(h). The City/County will review all proposals for
piers and docks to determine if

1. The proposal is or is not exempt from the requirement for a substantial
development permit-,

2. The proposal is suitably located and designed and that all potential impacts
have been recognized and mitigated; and

3. The proposal is consistent with the intent, policies and regulations of the
Act, RCW 90.58.140(l), and this master program.

Chapter 8 - Piers, Docks, Floats & Buoys H-305

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Note: Littoral drift is a signicant factor affecting the design and
location of piers and docks. Piers are often preferred over docks in areas
where there is a high-level of littoral drift. Some cities and counties have
completed drift sector analyses to identify these areas in advance, and
thereby facilitate project review.

Restricting the size of residential boat docks insures that they won't be used as a
loop hole to build over-water residences.

Chapter 8 - Piers, Docks, Floats & Buoys H-306

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Policies

1. Multiple use and expansion of existing consistent piers, wharves and docks
should be encouraged over the addition and/or proliferation of new
facilities. Joint-use facilities are preferred over new single-use piers, docks
and floats.

2. The use of mooring buoys should be encouraged in preference to either
piers or docks (see Chapter 7 "Boating Facilities").

3. Piers, docks, floats and mooring buoys should be designed to cause
minimum interference with navigable waters and the public's use of the
shoreline.

4. Piers, floats and docks should be sited and designed to mininfize possible
adverse environment impacts, including potential impacts on littoral drift,
sand movement, water circulation and quality and fish and wildlife habitat.

5. Piers and docks should allow for a maximum of littoral drift and should
minimize interference with basic geohydraulic-hydraulic processes.

6. Pier and dock projects are encouraged to provide for public docking,
launching and recreational access.

7. Local programs and coordinated efforts among private and/or public
agencies should be initiated to remove or repair failing, hazardous or
nonfunctioning piers and docks and restore such facilities and/or shore
resources to a natural and/or safe condition.

8. Use of natural nonreflective materials in pier and dock construction should
be encouraged. When plastics and other non biodegradable materials are
used, precautions should be taken to ensure their containment.

9. The proposed size of the structure and intensity of use or uses of any dock,
pier, and/or float should be compatible with the surrounding environment
and land and water uses.

Chapter 8 - Piers, Docks, Floats & Buoys H-307

SM? Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- General

1. Proposals for piers or docks shall include at a minimum the following
information:

a. Description of the proposed structure, including its size, location,
design and any shoreline stabilization or other modification required by
the project-,

b. Ownership of tidelands, shorelands and/or bedlands;

c. Proposed location of piers, floats, buoys or docks relative to property
lines and OHWM; and

d. Location width, height and length of piers or docks on adjacent
properties within 300 feet.

2. In areas identified as having a high environmental value for shellfish, fish
fife or wildlife, piers and docks shall not be allowed except where
functionally necessary to the propagation, harvesting, testing or
experimentation of said marine fisheries or wildlife, unless approved by
conditional use permit and only when it can be conclusively established that
the dock or pier will not be detrimental to the natural habitat or species of
concern.

3. Piers, floats, buoys and docks shall not significantly interfere with use of
navigable waters.

4. The length of piers and docks shall be fin-dted in constricted water bodies to
assure navigability and protect public use. Piers and docks may be
prohibited where necessary to protect navigation, public use or habitat
values.

5. Piers and docks on river shores are prohibited along braided or
meandering river channels or where the river channel is subject to change in
direction or alignment.

6. All piers and docks shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound
condition. Abandoned or unsafe docks and piers shall be removed or
repaired promptly by the owner. Where any such structure constitutes a
hazard to the public, the City/County may, following notice to the owner,
abate the structure if the owner fails to do so within ninety days and may
impose a lien on the related shoreline property in an amount equal to the
cost of the abatement.

Chapter 8 - Piers, Docks, Floats & Buoys H-308

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

7. All shoreline development must conform to the General Provisions (see
Chapter 5) and the Environment Designation Provisions (see Chapter 6)
stated in this master program.

Regulations -- General Design
and Construction Standards

I .Pilings must be structurally sound prior to placement in the water.

2. Piles, floats or other members in direct contact with water shall not be
treated or coated with biocides such as paint, or pentachlorophenol. Use
of arsentate compounds or creosote treated members is discouraged and
shall only used in accordance %kith the following provisions:

a. In freshwater, untreated wood, precast concrete or other nontoxic
alternatives shall be used unless the applicant can demonstrate that no
feasible alternative to toxic treatments is available which will provide
the structural characteristics necessary for the project.

b. In saltwater areas characterized by significant shellfish populations or in
shallow embayments with poor flushing characteristics, untreated
wood, precast concrete or other nontoxic alternatives shall be used
unless the applicant can demonstrate that no feasible alternative to toxic
treated wood is available which will provide the structural
characteristics necessary for the project. In all cases where toxic
treated products are allowed, products, methods of treatment and
installations shall be limited to those that are demonstrated as likely to
result in the least possible damage to the environment based on current
information.

3. No over-water field applications of paint, preservative treatment or other
chemical compounds shall be permitted except in accordance with best
management practices set forth in the marina section of this master
program.

4. Piers shall utilize the minimum number of pilings necessary, favoring large
spans on fewer pilings over smaller spans on more pilings.

5. Pilings employed in piers or any other structure shall have a minimum
vertical clearance of I foot above extreme high water.

6. All docks shall include stops which serve to keep the floats off the bottom
of tidelands at low tide or water level.

Chapter 8 - Piers, Docks, Floats & Buoys H-309

SN[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

7. If a bulkhead-Re base is proposed for a fixed pier or dock where there is
net positive littoral drift, the base shall be built landward of the ordinary
high water mark or protective berms.

8. When plastics or other nonbiodegradable materials are used in float, pier or
dock construction, precautions shall be taken to insure their containment.

9. Overhead wiring or plumbing is not permitted on piers or docks.

10. Lighting should be the minimum necessary to locate the dock at night and
should focus downward to rninirnize glare.

Regulations -- Joint-Use Community
Recreational Piers, Docks and Floats

I . All hotels, motels and multi-family residences proposing to provide
moorage facilities shall be required to construct a single, joint-use moorage
facility provided that the City/County may authorize more than one joint
use moorage facility if a single facility would be inappropriate or
undesirable given the specific conditions of the site. No more than one slip
for every two units shall be allowed.

2. Joint-use facilities are encouraged in-lieu of individual moorage facilities.

3. Proposals for joint-use community piers and docks shall demonstrate and
document by contract or covenant that adequate maintenance of the
structure and the associated upland area will be provided by identified
responsible parties.

4. Recreational floats shall be located as close to the shore as possible. They
shall not be located farther waterward than existing floats and established
swimming areas.

5. Floats must be built so that the deck surface is I foot above the water's
surface and they must have reflectors for nighttime visibility.

6. Single property owner recreational floats shall not exceed 64 square feet.

7. Multiple property owners floats shall not exceed 96 square feet.

Chapter 8 - Piers, Docks, Floats & Buoys H-310

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- Commercial/Industrial
Facilities

These standards apply to piers and docks intended for any commercial or
industrial use other than commercial moorage of boats in marinas (see Chapter
7 "Boating Facilities", "Commercial Development" and "Industry").

I . Piers and docks wi]l be permitted to the outer harbor line or combined U.S.
Pier head/Bulkhead Line for water-dependent and for multiple use facilities
if the majority use is water-dependent and public access can safely be
provided. The length should be no more than that required for the draft of
the largest vessel expected to moor at the facility. Maximum size of the
pier or dock shall be no greater than necessary to serve the intended use,
and will be determined by the City/County on a case-by-case basis.

2. Substantial development permits for docks or piers serving single
commercial or industrial enterprises shall not be granted until adjacent
commercial and/or industrial enterprises have been contacted regarding
their water access needs and could realistically make use of a single
moorage facility. Where joint use is feasible, permits for individual
facilities shall not be granted.

3. Facilities and procedures for receiving, storing, dispensing and disposing of
oil and other toxic products shall be designed to insure that such oil and
other toxic products are not introduced into the water body.

4. Bulk storage for gasoline, oil and other petroleum products for any use or
purpose is prohibited on piers and docks. Bulk storage means non
portable storage in fixed tanks.

5. Storage for boat fueling facilities shall be located landward of the OHWM
and meet the applicable policies and regulations for utilities (accessory and
primary), commercial and industrial development.

6. Spill clean up facilities shall be available for prompt response and
application at all piers and docks involved in oil and hazardous products
transfer.

Chapter 8 - Piers, Docks, Floats & Buoys H-311

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations -- Residential

1. Number

a. New subdivisions with shoreline frontage shall be required to provide
community use docks if any docks are proposed.

b. For lots existing at the time this program is adopted, no more than one
private, non commercial dock for residential or recreational purposes is
permitted for each shoreline lot or parcel or contiguous group of lots or
parcels in one ownership.

2. Use of Piers vs. Docks

a. On river shorelines, only docks shall be permitted. Such facilities shall
be securely anchored to pilings to allow for changes in river level and
shall be able to withstand 100-year frequency flooding, or be
seasonably removable.

b. The use of docks shall be required in preference to piers in areas where
scenic values are high.

3. Size

a. Length: Maximum length of a pier or dock shall be the minimum
necessary to accomplish moorage for the intended boating use and shall
be only so long as to obtain a depth of 4 feet of water as measured at
mean low water in marine waters or as measured at ordinary low water
in fresh water shorelines at the landward limit of the moorage slip.

b. Width: For private, single use docks, maximum length parallel to
shore of the "T" end shall not exceed 10 feet. Maximum width of the
walkway shall not exceed 4 feet and eight 8 feet at the immediate
landing area deck.

c. For community piers and docks, maximum width and length will be as
determined by the City/County on a case-by-case basis.

d. Height: Dock shall not exceed 3 feet in height above OHWM on the
landward side and shall extend above the water surface one I foot at all
other locations.

Chapter 8 - Piers, Docks, Floats & Buoys H-312

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

4. Side yard Setbacks: Docks shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from
side property lines, EXCEPT that community piers and docks may be
located adjacent to or upon a side property line when mutually agreed to by
contract/covenant with the owners of the adjacent property, a copy of
which must be recorded with the County Auditor and filed with the
application for permit.

5. Density (see also Boating Facilities regulations for facilities with more than
ten moorage spaces).

a. Community docks and piers shall include no more than one moorage
space per dwelling unit or lot.

Chapter 8 - Piers, Docks, Floats & Buoys H-313

SMF Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 9
Administration &
Enforcement

Introduction

The best shoreline master program is of little use if it is not effectively
administered. The more clearly that responsibilities and procedures can be
spelled out in this section, the more smoothly existing and new staff can "pick
up the ball and run". There will be less chance for major procedural glitches
and, most importantly, it will help insure more thorough review and evaluation
of proposed actions or violations.

Local government has the primary responsibility for administering the SMA
(see RCW 90.58.050). Consequently, specific details can vary greatly from
one jurisdiction to the next.

In setting permit procedures, local governments should take into account
many important needs. They include environmental protection, efficient
permitting, public involvement, protection of public and private rights,
protection of nearby properties and the staff and expertise available to the
community. Local governments use different procedures for various types
of uses and activities to appropriately balance these needs. For example,
many local government shoreline master programs provide that the planning
staff (e.g. the Shoreline Administrator) decides permits for uses and

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-314

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

activities with little potential for environmental impact and community
concern. No hearing is usually required for such projects.

Developments and uses with greater potential adverse impacts are classified
as conditional uses. Conditional uses require a hearing and are decided by a
hearing examiner, a local shorelines hearings board or board of adjustment,
or the city or county legislative body. In deciding which body to give the
decision making responsibility for conditional uses and variances, local
governments should consider the following: First, city and county
legislative bodies are typically very busy. Requiring them to review and
approve all conditional use permits and variances, particularly in a large
jurisdiction, may result in substantial permitting delays and additional work
for an already overworked legislative body. Second, city and county
legislative bodies are primarily policy makers. They establish policy by
adopting shoreline master programs (SMPs) and approving SMP
amendments. Deciding permits is an administrative function. It may be
better to assign the responsibility for conditional uses and variances to an
existing body with permitting expertise, such as a hearing examiner.
Ultimately, the decision on which body should decide permits is a local
decision, and one that Ecology will respect.

Some communities also have a local appeals process. Local governments
have the authority to provide for appeals from local permit decisions.
However, it is important to remember that the Shoreline Management Act
provides a built in appeals process to the Washington State Shorelines
Hearings Board. This appeal is available in the case of all decisions to
approve or deny shoreline permits.

Local appeals provide additional protection to residents and property
owners. They also give local legislative authorities the power to review the
decisions of staff or hearings examiners. On the down side, they can
introduce additional delays into the permitting process.

So local appeals processes must be carefully considered. Local appeals are
preferable to having every permit approved by both staff or a hearing
examiner and a city council or county commission. If a local government
decides to adopt a local appeals process they should limit the appeal period
to a short period of time, five days is suggested. Only one level of local
appeal should be provided.

By appropriately classifying uses, streamlining permitting for uses and activities
with minor environmental and social impacts, and ensuring that uses and
activities with the potential for significant impact receive more intense review,
local governments can speed permitting and concentrate resources where
intense review is necessary. The uses designated as substantial development

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-315

SMII? Handbook - 1994 Edition

permits and conditional uses will vary fi7om community to community, as will
the processes, but it is important that each community achieve a balance that
makes sense for that community and that protects the state-wide interest in
shoreline areas.

Model Provisions

General

There is hereby established an administrative system designed to assign
responsibilities for implementation of the shoreline master program ("master
program" or "SMP") and shoreline permit review, to prescribe an orderly
process by which to review proposals and permit applications, and to ensure
that all persons affected by this master program are treated in a fair and
equitable manner.

Administrator

A. The City/County Manager, Planning Director, Public Works Director, etc.,
or his/her designee, hereinafter known as the Administrator, is vested with:

1. Overall administrative responsibility for this shoreline master program;

2. Authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny shoreline
substantial development permits and permit revisions in accordance
with the policies and provisions of this master program;

3. Authority to grant statements of exemption from shoreline substantial
development permits; and

4. Authority to determine compliancewith RCW 43.2 1 C, State
Environmental Policy Act.

B. The duties and responsibilities of the Administrator shall include:

1. Specifying the required application forms and submittal requirements
including the type, details and number of copies for substantial
development, conditional use and variance permits. At a minimum, the
application shall include the information required in WAC 173-14-110
or its successor.

2. Advising interested citizens and applicants of the goals, policies,
regulations and procedures of this program.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-316

SM7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Making administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and
regulations of this program and the Shoreline Management Act.

4. Collecting applicable fees.

5. Determining that all applications and required information and materials
are provided.

6. Making field inspections, as necessary.

7. Reviewing, insofar as possible, all provided and related information
deemed necessary for appropriate application needs.

8. Determining if a shoreline substantial development permit, conditional
use permit or variance permit is required.

9. Conducting a thorough review and analysis of shoreline Substantial
Development Permit applications making written findings and
conclusions and approving, approving with conditions, or denying such
permits.

10. Submitting variance and conditional use permit applications and making
written recommendations and findings on such permits to the
City/County Council for their consideration and official action.

11. Assuring that proper notice is given to appropriate persons and the
public for all hearings.

12. Providing technical and administrative assistance to the City/County
Council as required for effective and equitable implementation of this
program and the Act.

13. Providing a summary report of the shoreline management permits
issued during the past calendar year to the City/County Council in
February of each year. The report should include findings and
conclusions on significant administrative determinations and appeals,
identification of problem areas, emerging issues and recommendations
on how the master program can be improved.

14. Investigating, developing and proposing amendments to this program
as deemed necessary to more effectively and equitably achieve its goals
and policies.

15. Seeking remedies for alleged violations of this program, the provisions
of the Act, or of conditions of any approved Shoreline Permit issued by
the City/County.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-317

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

16. Coordination of information with affected agencies.

17. Forwarding shoreline permits to Ecology for filing or Ecology action.

City/County Hearings
Examiner/City or County Legislative Body

A. The City/County Hearings Exam@iner/Legislative Body is vested with
authority to:

I . Approve, approve with conditions, or deny shoreline variance and
conditional use permits after considering the findings and
recommendations of the Administrator; PROVIDED that any decisions
on this matter made by the Hearings ExaminerALegislative Body may be
further appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board as provided for
in the Act-,

2. Decide local administrative appeals of the Administrator's actions and
interpretations; and

3. Approve any revisions or amendments to the master program in
accordance with the requirements of the Act and related WACs.

B. The duties and responsibilities of the Hearings ExaminerALegislative Body
shall include:

I . Consideration of variances, conditional uses and administrative appeals
of the Administrator's actions on regular meeting days or public
hearings.

2. Review of the findings and conclusions for permit applications or
appeals of the Administrator's actions and interpretations.

3. Approval, approval with conditions, or denial of shoreline variance and
conditional use permits.

4. Conducting public hearings on appeals of the Administratoes actions,
interpretations and decisions.

5. Basing all decisions on shoreline permits or administrative appeals on
the criteria established in this master program.

6. At the discretion of the Council, requiring any applicant granted a
shoreline permit to post a bond or other acceptable security with the
City/County conditioned to assure that the applicant and/or his

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-319

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

successors in interest shall adhere to the approved plans and all
conditions attached to the shoreline permit. Such bonds or securities
shall have a face value of at least 150 percent of the estimated
development cost including attached conditions. Such bonds or
securities shall be approved as to form by the City/County Attorney.

7. Reviewing and acting upon any recommendations of the Administrator
for amendments to or revisions of this Program. The Council shall
enter findings and conclusions setting forth the factors it considered in
reaching its decision. To become effective any amendments to the
Program must be reviewed and adopted by the Department of Ecology,
pursuant to RCW 90.58.190 and Chapter 173-19 WAC.

County Tax Assessor

As provided for in RCW 90.58.290, the restrictions imposed upon the use of
real property through the implementation of the policies and regulations of the
ACT and this master program shall be duly considered by the County Assessor
and the County Board of Equalization in establishing the fair market value of
such properties.

Permit or Exemption Required before
Undertaking Development or Activities

A. Permits Required.

1. A development, use, or activity shall not be undertaken within the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW,
and this shoreline master program unless it is consistent with the policy
and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act, applicable state
regulations and this shoreline master program.

2. A substantial development shall not be undertaken within the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW and
this shoreline master program unless a shoreline substantial
development permit has been obtained and the appeal period has been
completed and any appeals have been resolved and/or the applicant
given permission to proceed by the proper authority. "Substantial
Development" shall be defined as it is defined by the Shoreline
Management Act and supplementing provisions of the Washington
Administrative Code. The following developments shall not require a
substantial development permit:

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enfomcment H-319

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

a. Any development where the total cost or fair market value,
whichever is greater, is less than $2,500 and does not materially
interfere with the normal public use of the waters or shorelines of
the State.

b. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or
developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements.
"Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a
decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition.
"Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state
comparable to its original condition within a reasonable period after
decay or partial destruction except where repair involves total
replacement which is not common practice or the total replacement
would cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or
environment.

c. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-
family residences. A "normal protective" bulkhead is constructed at
or near the ordinary high water mark to protect a single family
residence and is for protecting land from erosion, not for the
purpose of creating land. Where an existing bulkhead is being
replaced, it shall be constructed no farther waterward of the
existing bulkhead than is necessary for the construction of new
footings.

d. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from
damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and
inm-@inent threat to the public health, safety, or the environment
which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow
full compliance with this chapter.

e. Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming,
irrigation and ranching activities, including agricultural service
roads and utilities on wetlands, construction of a bam or similar
agricultural structure and the construction and maintenance of
irrigation structures including but not limited to head gates,
pumping facilities and irrigation channels: Provided, that a feedlot
of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial
nature, alteration of the contour of the wetlands by leveling or
filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall
not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching
activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable
of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage or other
livestock feed, but sh" not include land for growing crops or
vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include
normal livestock wintering operations.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-320

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

f. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel
markers and anchor buoys.

g. Construction on wetlands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser
of a single family residence for his or her own use or for the use of
his/her family, which residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet
above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the
State agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other
than requirements imposed pursuant to this Ordinance. "Single-
family residence" means a detached dwelling designed for and
occupied by one fan-ffly including those structures and developments
within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance.
An "appurtenance" is necessarily connected to the use and
enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of
the perimeter of a marsh, bog, or swamp. Normal appurtenances
include a garage; carport; deck; patio; driveway; utilities; fences;
and grading which does not exceed 250 cubic yards (except to
construct a conventional drainfield when additional filling and
grading may be allowed). Construction authorized by this
exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water
mark.

h. Construction of a dock designed for pleasure craft only, for the
private, non-commercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract
purchaser of a single-family residence, the cost of which does not
exceed $2,500.

i. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways,
drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter
created or developed as part of an irrigation system for the primary
purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and
artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands.

j. The marking of property lines or comers on state owned lands,
when such marking does not significantly interfere with the normal
public use of the surface of the water.

k. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains,
or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975 which were
created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural
drainage or diking system.

1. Any project with a certification from the Governor pursuant to
Chapter 80.50 RCW.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-321

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. If a development, use or activity is listed as a conditional use by this
shoreline master program, such development, use, or activity shall not
be undertaken within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act,
Chapter 90.58 RCW and this SM? unless a shoreline conditional use
permit has been obtained and the appeal period has been completed and
any appeals have been resolved and/or the applicant given permission
to proceed by the proper authority.

4. If a development, use or activity cannot comply with the regulations of
this SMP, a shorelines variance must be obtained before
commencement of development or construction or beginning the use or
activity.

5. If a project includes uses or activities that include both permitted and
conditional uses or a variance is required, the permit shall be heard and
decided by the Hearing Exan-dner/City or County Legislative Body
using the procedures, requirements and criteria for a conditional use
and/or variance.

6. See WAC 173-14-050 or its successor for a description of how the
permit requirements apply to developments undertaken prior to the
passage of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.

7. See WAC 173-14-062 or its successor for a description of how the
permit requirements apply to Federal Agency projects.

B. Exempt Developments, Uses and Activities.

I . No exempt development, use, or activity shall be undertaken within the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW and
this SUT unless a statement of exemption has been obtained from the
Administrator.

2. The request for the statement of exemption shall be in writing, on forms
required by the Administrator, and include the information required by
the Administrator. In the case of an emergency, the Administrator may
waive this requirement and authorize the use or activity orally or in
writing.

3. The Administrator shall decide a request for a statement of exemption
within ten calendar days of receiving the request.

4. The statement of exemption shall be in writing unless an oral
emergency statement of exception is given as proved in B(2) above. If
an oral emergency statement of exemption is given, the Administrator
shall reduce it to writing and send it to the applicant as soon as
possible.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-322

SM? Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. The Administrator shall decide requests for a statement of exemption
based on the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act, the
applicable provisions of the Washington Administrative Code and the
provisions of this SMP. If there are any conflicts between the
Shoreline Management Act or the Washington Administrative Code
and this SMP, the Shoreline Management Act or the Washington
Administrative Code shall control except that where the Washington
Administrative Code grants local governments the authority to more
specifically define exempt uses and activities those definitions contained
in subpart A(2) of this section shall control.

6. Those uses and activities which are exempted from the requirement to
obtain a substantial development permit by subpart A(2) of this section
above are exempt from the requirement to obtain a shoreline permit
unless they are listed as conditional uses or cannot comply with the
regulations of this SMP, then a shorelines conditional use permit or
variance is required.

7. The exemptions in subpart A(2) above are to be construed narrowly.

8. Exempt developments and activities shall comply with the Shoreline
Management Act and the SMP. The Administrator shall condition
statements of exemption to ensure the exempt development or activity
complies with the Shoreline Management Act and the SMP.

9. Whenever a development falls with the exemptions from the
requirement to obtain a shorelines permit and development is subject to
a U.S. Corps of Engineers Section 10 permit under the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899 or a Section 404 permit under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, the Administrator shall prepare a letter
addressed to the applicant and Ecology, exempting the development
from the substantial development permit requirements of chapter 90.58
RCW. The exemption shall be in substantially the same form as the
exemption format in WAC 173-14-115 or its successor. This letter
shall substitute for the statement of exemption required by B(1) above.

Fees

A fifing fee in an amount established by the City/County Legislative Body by
resolution shall be paid to the City/County at the time of appfication. After the
fact permit fees will be triple the normal amount.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-323

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Permit Application

The Administrator shall provide the necessary application forms for shoreline
substantial development, conditional use and variance permits. The applicant
shall provide, at a minimum, the following information as required in WAC
173-14-110:

A. Site Plan drawn to scale and including:

1. Site boundary;

2. Property dimensions in vicinity of project;

3. Ordinary high water mark;

4. Typical cross section or sections showing:

a. existing ground elevation

b. proposed ground elevation

c. height of existing structures

d. height of proposed structures

5. Where appropriate, proposed land contours using five-foot intervals in
water area and 10-foot intervals on areas landward of ordinary high
water mark, if development involves grading, cutting, filling, or other
alteration of land contours;

6. Show dimensions and location of existing structures which will be
maintained;

7. Show dimensions and locations of proposed structures; parking and
landscaping;

8. Identify source, composition and volume of fill material;

9. Identify composition and volume of any extracted materials, and
identify proposed disposal area;

10. Location of proposed utilities, such as sewer, septic tanks and drain
fields, water, gas and electricity;

11. If the development proposes septic tanks, they must comply with local
and state health regulations;

12. Shoreline designation according to the master program; and

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-324

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

13. Show which areas are shorelines and which are shorehes of state-wide
significance.

B. Vicinity Map

I . Indicate site location using natural points of reference (roads, state
highways, prominent landmarks, etc.).

2. If the development involves the removal of any soils by dredging or
otherwise, identify the proposed disposal site on the map. If disposal
site is beyond the confines of the vicinity map, provide another vicinity
map showing the precise location of the disposal site and its distance to
nearest city or town.

3. Give brief narrative description of the general nature of the
improvements and land use within 1,000 feet in all directions from
development site.

C. Adjacent Land Owners

1. Provide names and addresses of all real property owners within 300
feet of property where development is proposed.

D. Completed Application

1. Completed application and supporting documents for each 9horeline
pern-dt shall be submitted to the Administrator for processing and
review. Any deficiencies in the appfication or documents shall be
corrected by the applicant prior to further processing.

Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Process

A. Applicability. This section applies to all applications for shorelines
substantial development permits.

B. Purpose. A shoreline substantial development permit is a mechanism
through which the City/County can determine if a proposed project
complies with the State of Washington Shoreline Management Act (SMA),
Chapter 90.58 RCW and the City/County Shoreline Master Program. To
ensure compliance with the SMA and the SMP, special conditions on the
development may be required.

C. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Review Procedure.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-325

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

1 . The applicant shall submit a completed application, a site plan, the
required fees and a SEPA Checklist, if required, to the Administrator.
The applicant may be any natural or artificial person.

2. The Administrator shall review the application and determine if it is
complete. The application shafl not be deemed filed untH the
Administrator determines the application is complete and afl required
fees are paid. If the application is not complete, the Administrator shall
contact the applicant and request the needed information or fee.

3. Within five days of the filing of the application, the Administrator shall
provide a copy of the application to the SEPA responsible official who
makes SEPA determinations for shoreline permit applications.

4. SEPA review shall be conducted as provided by the City/County SEPA
policies and regulations. To make permitting more efficient, the
required SEPA notices should be included with the shorelines notice
when possible. The SEPA documents should be circulated with permit
documents where possible as provided in 5(c) below.

5. After a SEPA exemption, SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance, or
SEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement is issued for an
application; the Administrator shall publish a notice of the shorelines
application on same day of the week for two consecutive weeks.

a. The notices shall include the information required by WAC
173-14-070 or its successor.

b. If the application is not exempt from SEPA and no prior SEPA
notice has been given, the notices shall include the SEPA
determination and a note to the effect that comments on the SEPA
determination and SEPA documents may be made at the hearing.

c. The Administrator shall mail notice of the application to the
applicant, the property owner and each person identified by the real
property records of City/County as the owner of real property
within 300 feet of any boundary of the subject property and of any
contiguous property owned by the owner of the land on which the
proposal will be sited.

d. Failure to receive a properly mailed notice shall not affect the
validity of any testimony or the legality of any action taken.

e. The Administrator shall send a copy of the SEPA documents, the
application and site plan to State of Washington Department of
Ecology, Environmental Review Section, P. 0. Box 47703,
Olympia, Washington, 98504-7703. The Administer shall also send

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-326

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

a copy of the SEPA documents and the application and site plan to is
any local, state, or federal agency which, in the opinion of the
administrator, may be affected by the project or is an agency with
jurisdiction under SEPA. The appfication shaU be circulated to the
agencies on or before the day of the second publication of the
notice of shorelines application. If the SEPA documents have
already been circulated, this step is not required.

f. An affidavit or affidavit(s) attesting that the notice has been
properly published and properly mailed shall be completed and
included in the application file.

Notes to Master Programmers

RCW90.58.140(4) provides that notice of shoreline substantial developments
shall be given by publishing notice of the application on the same day of the
weekfor two consecutive weeks in a legal newspaper ofgeneral circulation
within the area in which the development is proposed and any one of the
following.-

1. Mailing notice of the application to all persons who own property within
300feet of the project;

2. Posting the notice in a conspicuous manner on property on which the
project is proposed; or

3. Any other manner deemed appropriate by local authorities.

7he local government shoreline master program should specify the notice the
local government will use. These sample procedures provide for mailing
notice to property owners within 300feet (see Item 5c above), but any other
method authorized by RCW 90.58.140(4) may be included in the SMP and
used by the local government.

6. On the day of the second publication of the notice of the shoreline
application, the public comment period begins. During this comment
period, the City/County will receive written comments on the proposed
application. The City/County will not make a decision on the permit
until after the end of the comment period.

a. A thirty-day public comment period shall be given for shoreline
permits, except as provided in b below.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-327

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. The public comment period shall be twenty days for substantial
development permits for limited utility extensions or erosion
protection measures to protect a single-family residence and
appurtenant structures. RCW 90.58.140(13)(b) defines a limited
utility extension as the extension of natural gas, electricity,
telephone, water, or sewer service where all of the following are
met:

i. The extension is categorically exempt under the Washington
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (see WAC 197-11 -
800(24) for the utility improvements which are categorically
exempt under SEPA);

ii. The extension will serve existing uses that are in compliance
with the Shoreline Management Act; and

iii. The project does not involve the construction of more than
2,500 linear feet of utility lines or pipes within shoreline
jurisdiction.

7. After the thirty-day comment period has ended, the Administrator shall
decide the application.

a. The Administrator shall decide the application within fifteen days of
the end of the comment period unless the applicant and any adverse
parties agree in writing to an extension of time. All extensions must
be to a specific date.

b. For substantial development permits for lin-dted utility extensions or
erosion protection measures to protect a single-family residence and
appurtenant structures, the Administrator shall decide whether to
approve or deny the application within twenty-one days of the last
day of the public comment period whether or not the applicant has
granted a time extension.

c. Decisions on applications for shorelines substantial development
pen-nits shall be based on the decision criteria in subsection G
below. The applicant has the burden of proof to show the proposal
complies with the decision criteria and all applicable requirements.
See RCW 90.58.140(7).

d. The Administrator may place conditions on the proposal.

e. The Administrator may require additional information if necessary
to decide the permit.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-328

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

f The Administrator shall adopt findings of fact and conclusions
which support the decision and any required conditions. The
findings of fact and conclusions should be included in the
Administrator's final order.

g. The permit, whether approved or denied, shall be in the form
required by WAC 173-14-120 or its successor.

8. The decision of the Administrator and the findings of fact and
conclusions shall be reduced to writing and mailed to the applicant,
Ecology and the Washington State Attorney General. The permit must
be received by Ecology within eight days of the date of the decision.

a. The Administrator shall mail the applicant the original of the
completed permit form and the findings of fact and conclusions.

b. The Administer shall mail Ecology and the Attorney General the
completed permit form, the findings of fact and conclusions and the
other information required by WAC 173-14-090 or its successor.
The required information is listed in a separate section below.

c. Within eight days of the date of the decision, the Administrator
shall also mad the completed permit form and the findings of fact
and conclusions to any person who requested notice of the decision
on the permit.

d. For a limited utility extension or erosion protection measure to
protect a single-family residence and appurtenant structures
only: If anyone requests a copy of the permit decision during the
twenty-day comment period for the substantial development permit,
the Administrator shall mail the completed permit form and the
findings of fact and conclusions to any persons requesting it within
two days of the decision.

D. Thirty-Day Appeal Period.

1. On the day the permit or variance (whether approved or denied) and
other information required by WAC 173-14-090 or its successor are
received by Ecology and the Attorney General, the thirty-day appeal
period begins. Ecology generally sends a letter to the Administrator
and the applicant informing them of the date the application was
received.

2. During the thirty-day appeal period, the local government decision on
the permit may be appealed to the Washington State Shorelines
Hearings Board as provided by RCW 90.58.180 and Chapter 461-08
WAC.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-329

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

E. Commencement of Activity. If a permit is approved, the applicant or any
other party authorized to conduct activities or uses by the decision shall not
begin construction, development, or any authorized use or activity until
after the thirty-day appeal period established by subsection D above is over
and any appeals concluded. Construction or use may occur during the time
a judicial appeal is underway provided: (1) the permit was approved by the
local government and the State of Washington Shorelines Hearings Board
and (2) permission is granted for the construction, use or activity under
RCW 90.58.140(5)(b) or its successor.

F. Effect of Decision.

1. The decision of the Administrator on the application is the final
decision of the City/County.

2. The Administrator's decision shall not be reconsidered, except as a new
application.

G. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Decision Criteria. The
Administrator may approve or approve with conditions or modifications an
application for a shoreline substantial development permit if the
Administrator finds the development proposal is consistent with aU of the
following criteria.

1. The proposal is consistent with the policies and procedures of the
Shoreline Management Act of 197 1, as amended.

2. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of WAC 173-14 or its
successor.

3. The proposal is consistent with the City/County Shoreline Master
Program.

4. The cumulative impact of additional past and future requests for like
actions in the area will not result in substantial adverse effects on the
shoreline environment and shoreline resources.

5. The proposal complies with all other applicable requirements, criteria
and standards of the City/County.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-330

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Notes to Master Programmers

7he Washington Supreme Court held that the Shoreline Management Act
requires local governments to consider the cumulative impacts of the
proposed development and similar developments on the environment when
deciding and conditioningpermits. Hayes v. Yount, 87 Wash. 2d 280, 284-88,
552 P. 2d 1038, 1043 (19 76).

Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Review Process

A. This section applies to all applications for shoreline conditional use permits
and shoreline variances. Where a development includes several uses or
activities and one or more uses or activities require a shoreline conditional
use permit, all uses and activities shall be processed and decided following
the shoreline conditional use procedures.

B. Purposes.

1. The purpose of a shoreline conditional use permit is to allow greater
flexibility in the application of the use regulations of the shorefine
master program in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW
90.58.020. Conditional use permits should be granted in a
circumstance where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of
the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. Where necessary, special
conditions may be required on the development or on the use of land or
water.

2. The purpose of a variance is strictly limited to granting relief from
specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the
applicable SNIP where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances
relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the
master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or
thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020.

C. Conditional Use Permit and Variance Review Procedure.

1. The applicant shall submit an application, any required fees, and a
SEPA Checklist, if required, to the Administrator. The applicant may
be any natural or artificial person, including associations.

a. The Administrator shall review the application and determine if it is
complete. The application shall not be deemed filed until the

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-331

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Administrator determines the application is complete and all
required fees are paid.

b. The Administrator may establish deadlines for applications.

c. The Hearing Exan-dner/City or County Legislative Body may limit
the number of applications to be considered at a meeting -as part of
the rules of procedure.

2. Within five days of the filing of the application, the Administrator shall
provide a copy of the application to the SEPA responsible official who
makes SEPA determinations for shorelines conditional use permit and
shorelines variance applications.

3. SEPA review shall be conducted as provided by the City/County SEPA
policies and procedures.

a. To make permitting more efficient, the required SEPA notices
should be included with the shorelines notices when possible. The
SEPA documents should be circulated with permit documents
where possible as provided in 5(c) below.

b. For conditional uses and variances, Ecology is an agency with
jurisdiction. This means that a SEPA Detern-dnation of
Nonsignificance requires a fifteen-day comment period. The
fifteen-day comment period shall be given during the thirty-day
shoreline permit public comment period.

Notes to Master Programmers

Having the SEPA and shoreline permit public comment periods run during the
same time allows the local government to include the SEPA notice in the
shoreline notice, to reduce permit processing time over having separate SEPA
and shoreline public comment periods, and to save money because of reduced
staff limefor giving notice and reducedpublication costs.)

4. After a SEPA exemption, SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance, or
SEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement is issued for an
application; the Administrator shall schedule a public hearing for the
next Hearing Exan-dner/City or County Legislative Body meeting where
the application can be accommodated, notice given and the thirty-day
comment period allowed to occur.

5. The Administrator shall publish a notice of the shorelines application on
the same day of the week for two consecutive weeks.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-332

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

a. The notices shall include the information required by subsection
G(I).

b. The Administrator shall mail notice of the application to the
applicant, the property owner and each person identified by the real
property records of City/County as the owner of real property
within 300 feet of any boundary of the subject property and of any
contiguous property owned by the owner of the land on which the
proposal will be sited.

c. The Administrator shall send a copy of the SEPA documents, the
application and site plan to State of Washington Department of
Ecology, Environmental Review Section, P. 0. Box 47703,
Olympia, Washington, 98504-7703. The Administer shall also send
a copy of the SEPA documents and the application and site plan to
any local, state, or federal agency which, in the opinion of the
administrator, may be affected by the project or is an agency with
jurisdiction under SEPA. The application shall be circulated to the
agencies on or before the day of the second publication of the
notice of shorelines application. If the SEPA documents have
already been circulated, this step is not required.

6. On the day of the second publication of the notice of shorelines
application, a thirty-day comment period begins. During this comment
period, the City/County will receive written comments on the proposed
application. The City/County will not make a decision on the permit
until after the end of the comment period.

7. The Administrator shall prepare a staff report identifying the approval
criteria, providing available information on the application, analyzing
the proposal, making a recommendation on the proposal, making
recommended findings of fact and conclusions and including any other
information or recommendations which the Administrator believes are
appropriate. The Administrator shall send a copy of the staff report to
the applicant and the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative
Body at least seven days before the public hearing on the application.

Notes to Master Programmers

"ile not required by law or regulation, staff reports are valuable aids to
applicants and decisions makers because they identify the approval criteria
and whether the proposalfils the criteria. Considering staff reports in permit
processing procedures is important if a local government has staff available
to prepare the reports.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-333

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

8. After the thirty-day comment period has ended, the Hearing
Examiner/City or County Legislative Body shall conduct a public
hearing on the application. The public hearing shall be conducted as
provided in subsection H. At the hearing, the Hearing
Examiner/members of the City or County Legislative Body may request
such additional information as is reasonably necessary to evaluate the
application.

9. After the public hearing has concluded, the Hearing Examiner/City or
County Legislative Body shall decide the application.

a. The decision may be made at the same public meeting as the pubfic
hearing or at another public meeting. The Hearing Examiner/City
or County Legislative Body shall decide the application within
thirty-two days of the initial public hearing date unless the applicant
and any adverse parties agree in writing to an extension of time.

b. Decisions on applications for shorelines conditional use permits
shall be based on the decision criteria in subsection D. Decisions on
applications for shorelines variances shall be based on the decision
criteria in subsection E and the limitation on the authority to grant
shoreline variances in subsection F.

c. The applicant has the burden of proof to show the proposal
complies with the decision criteria and all applicable requirements.
See RCW 90.58.140(7).

d. The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body may
condition the proposal.

e. The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body shall adopt
findings of fact and conclusions which support the decision and any
required conditions. The findings of fact and conclusions should be
included in the final order.

10. The decision of the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body
and the findings of fact and conclusions shaU be reduced to writing and
mailed by the Administrator to the applicant, Ecology and the
Washington State Attorney General. The permit must be received by
Ecology within eight days of the date of the decision.

a. The permit, whether approved or denied, shall be in the form
required by WAC 173-14-120 or its successor.

b. The Administrator shall mail the applicant the original of the
completed permit form and the findings of fact and conclusions.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-334

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

c. The Administer shall mail Ecology and the Washington State
Attorney General the completed permit form, the findings of fact
and conclusions and the other information required by WAC
173-14-090 or its successor. The required information is fisted in a
separate section below.

d. Within eight days of the date of the decision, the Administrator
shall also mail the completed permit form and the findings of fact
and conclusions to any person who requested notice of the decision
on the permit.

11. Department of Ecology Review of Approved Permits/Variances.

Ecology shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny all shoreline
conditional use permits and shoreline variances approved by local
governments. Ecology's decision must be made within thirty days of
the date the permit or variance and other information required by WAC
173-14-090 or its successor are received by Ecology and the
Washington State Attorney General. Ecology wfll sent a letter to and
the applicant informing them of the decision on the permit or variance.

12. Thirty-day Appeal Period.
a. If the permit or variance was denied by the local government, the is
thirty-day appeal period begins on the day the denied permit or
variance and other information required by WAC 173-14-090 or its
successor are received by Ecology and the Washington State
Attorney General. Ecology generally sends a letter to the
Administrator and the applicant informing them of the date the
application was received.

b. If the permit or variance was approved by the local govemment, the
thirty-day appeal period begins on the day the permit or variance is
approved or denied by Ecology.

c. During the appeal period, the local government and/or Department
of Ecology decision on the permit may be appealed to the
Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board as provided by RCW
90.58.180 and Chapter 461-08 WAC.

13. Commencement of Activity.

If a permit is approved, the applicant or any other party authorized to
conduct activities or uses by the decision shall not begin construction,
development, or any authorized use or activity until after the thirty-day
appeal period established by subsection I I (b) above is over and any
appeals concluded. Construction or use may occur during the time a

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-335

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

court appeal is underway provided: (1) the permit was approved by the
local government and the State of Washington Shorelines Hearings
Board and (2) permission is granted for the construction, use or activity
under RCW 90.58.140(5)(b) or its successor.

14. Effect of Decision.

a. The decision of the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative
Body on the application is the final decision of the City/County,

b. The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body decision
shall not be reconsidered, except as a new application.

D. Conditional Use Permit Decision Criteria.

I For uses which are listed in this SNP as conditional uses in the
environment in which they are proposed to be located; the Hearing
Exan-@iner/City or County Legislative Body may approve or approve
with conditions or modifications an application, subject to approval by
Ecology, if the decision maker finds the applicant has demonstrated the
development proposal is consistent with all of the following criteria.

a. The proposed use or activity is consistent with the policies of RCW
90.58.020 and the policies of the SNP: provided, that conditional
use permits should also be granted in a circumstance where denial
of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated
in RCW 90.58.020.

b. The proposed use or activity will not interfere with the normal
public use of public shorelines.

c. The proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible
with other allowed uses with the area.

d. That the proposed use will cause no unreasonably adverse effects to
the shoreline environment in which it is to be located.

e. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.

f. In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be
given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like
actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were
granted for other developments in the area where similar
circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also
remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not
produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-336

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

g. The proposal complies with all other applicable requirements,
criteria and standards of the City/County.

2. For uses which are not listed as pennitted or conditional uses in this
SNP, the Hearing Exam@iner/City or County Legislative Body may
approve or approve with conditions or modifications an application,
subject to approval by Ecology, if the decision maker finds the
applicant has demonstrated the development proposal is consistent with
all of the following criteria.

a. The proposed development meets aU of the criteria in subsection
(1) above.

b. Extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the
property in a manner consistent with the use regulations of the
SNT.

c. The use is not specifically prohibited by the SNT.

E. Variance Decision Criteria.

1. The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body should
approve variances in a circumstance where denial of the application
would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW
90.58.020. In all instances extraordinary circumstances shaU be shown
and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.

2. Applications for variances where the development authorized by the
variance will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark,
except within marshes, bogs or swamps, may be approved or approved
with conditions or modifications by the Hearing Examiner/City or
County Legislative Body, subject to approval by Ecology, if the
decision maker finds the applicant has demonstrated compliance with
all of the following criteria and subsections (1) and (4) of this section.

a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
standards set forth in this SNV precludes or significantly interferes
with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by
the SNT.

b. That the hardship described in 2(a) above is specifically related to
the property, and is a result of unique conditions such as irregular
lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the SNP,
and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own
actions.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-337

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

c. That the design of the project is compatible with other allowed
activities and uses in the area and will not cause adverse effects to
adjacent properties or the shoreline environment.

d. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not
enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and is the minimum
necessary to afford relief.

e. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.

3. Applications for variances where the development authorized by the
variance will be located either waterward of the ordinary high water
mark or within marshes, bogs or swamps, may be approved or
approved with conditions or modifications by the Hearing
Examiner/City or County Legislative Body, subject to approval by
Ecology, if the decision maker finds the applicant has demonstrated
compliance with all of the following criteria and subsections (1) and (4)
of this section.

a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
standards set forth in this SNP precludes a reasonable use of the
property not otherwise prohibited by the SNT.

b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under
(2)(b) through (e) of this section.

c. That the publicrights of navigation and use of the shorelines'will
not be adversely affected.

4. In the granting of all variances, the Hearing Examiner/City or County
Legislative Body shall consider the cumulative impact of additional
requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were
granted for other developments in the area where sin-dlar circumstances
exist, the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the
policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse
effects to the shoreline environment.

F. Limitation on Authority to Grant Variances.

The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body shall not grant a
variance for the following purposes.

I . To allow a use other than a use specifically listed as a permitted use or
conditional use in the shoreline environment in which the subject
property is located. Variances shall not be approved to allow an
unlisted or unclassified use in any location. A conditional use permit
may be used to allow an unlisted use. See subsection D(2).,

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-339

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. Any provision of the SNT which by the terms of the SNT regulations
is not subject to a variance.

3. Any adn-dnistrative or procedural provision of the SUR

G. Notice of Application and Public Hearing.

1. Content of the Public Notice.

a. The notice shall include the informatiod required by WAC
173-14-070 or its successor.

c. The date, time and place of the public hearing.

d. A statement of the right of any person to participate in the public
hearing as provided in Section 11.65.120 and the ways they may
participate.

2. Failure to receive a properly mailed notice shall not affect the validity
of any testimony or the legality of any action taken.

3. Affidavits of Public Notice. An affidavit or affidavit(s) attesting that
the notice has been properly published and properly mailed shall be
completed and included in the application file.

4. If the hearing date is changed for any reason and the hearing has not be
opened by the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body, a
new notice shall be given which includes the date, time and place of the
public hearing. The notice shall be mailed and published at least ten
days before the new hearing. Notice shall be given in the same manner
as the notice for the original hearing.

H. Conduct of Public Hearings.

1. Who may participate? Any person may participate in the public
hearing.

2. How to Participate. Any person may participate in the public hearing in
either or both of the following ways.

a. By submitting written comments to the Administrator before the
public hearing. The Administrator shall transmit all written

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-339

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

comments received before the public hearing to the Hearing
Examiner/City or County Legislative Body no later than the public
hearing.

b. By submitting written comments or making oral comments to the
Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body at the public
hearing.

3. Hearing Record.

a. The Administrator shall make an electronic sound recording of each
hearing. The Administrator shall retain the electronic sound
recording of the hearing for six months.

b. When ever practicable, all documentary evidence presented at a
hearing as well as all other types of physical evidence shaU be made
a part of the record of the proceedings and shall be kept by the
Administrator for six months.

4. Continuation of Hearing.

The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body may continue
the hearing until a subsequent meeting and may keep the hearing open
to take additional information up to the point the decision is made. No
further notice of a continued hearing need be given unless a period of
nine weeks or more elapses between hearing dates.

5. Time Limits.

The Hearing Exarniner/City or County Legislative Body may place
reasonable and equitable limitations on testimony, the presentation of
evidence and arguments and questions so the matter at issue may be
heard and decided without undue delay.

Required Information When Forwarding
Permits to Ecology and Attorney General

The Administrator shall mail Ecology and the Washington State Attorney
General the following information for each permit application (whether the
permit is approved or denied):

A. A copy of the original application.

B. A copy of the affidavits of public notice.

C. A copy of the site plan.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-340

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

D. A copy of the vicinity map.

E. A copy of the completed permit form (whether the permit is approved or
denied).

F. A copy of the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body's final
order, which should include the findings of fact and conclusions. If the
findings of facts and conclusions are in a separate document, that should be
included as well.

G. Any SEPA documents for the project.

H. Any staff report prepared for the permit.

Permit Time Limits

The City/County may issue permits with termination dates of up to five years,
with the option to extend a permit for an additional year. If a permit does not
specify a termination date, the following requirements apply.

A. Substantial Progress Towards Completion of Project Required within Two
Years.

I . Substantial progress towards completion of a permit shall be
undertaken within two years of the date the local government approves
the permit. Substantial progress shall include all of the following,
where applicable: The making of contracts; signing of notice to
proceed; completion of grading and excavation; and the laying of major
utilities; or, where no construction is involved, commencement of the
activity.

2. The Administrator may authorize one time extension of up to one year.
The decision shall be based on reasonable factors which would justify
the extension. The request for the extension must be filed with the
Administrator before the end of the time limit. Before deciding the
request for the extension, the City/County shall give notice to the
applicant, all parties of record and Ecology.

B. Approved Permits Terminate in Five Years.

1. The authorization granted by an approved permit to construct any
structure or conduct any use or activity shall terminate five years after
the date the permit is approved by the City/County.

a. Where an approved permit authorizes the construction of a
structure or facility, the use and maintenance of the structure or

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-341

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

facility may continue after the five period provided the structure
was completed during the five year time limit or any approved
extension.

b. Where an approved permit authorizes a use or activity which does
not require a structure, such as mining or maintenance dredging, the
use or activity shall cease at the end of the five year limit or any
extension granted under subsection B(2) of this section below.

2. The Administrator may authorize one time extension of up to one year.
The decision shall be based on reasonable factors which would justify
the extension. The request for the extension must be filed with the
Administrator before the end of the time limit. Before deciding the
request for the extension, the Administrator shaU give notice to the
applicant, all parties of record and Ecology.

C. Time Periods Do Not Run During Appeals. The time periods in
subsections A and B of this section shall not include the time during which
a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of
reasonably related administrative appeals or litigation.

D. Revisions to permits may be authorized after the original permit has
expired under subsection B of this section, provided that this procedure
shall not be used to extend the original permit time requirements.

E. Where a permit is conditioned, the conditions shall be satisfied prior to
occupancy or use of a structure or prior to commencement of a
nonstructural activity provided that an alternative compliance limit may be
specified in the permit.

Revision of Permits

When an applicant desires to revise a permit, the applicant must submit
detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes. If the Administrator
determines that the revisions proposed are within the scope and intent of the
original permit, consistent with WAC 173-14-064, the Administrator may
approve the revision. "Within the scope and intent of the original permit"
means all of the following:

A. No additional over-water construction is involved, except that pier, dock
or float construction may be increased by 500 square feet or 10 percent,
whichever is less;

B. Ground area coverage and height is not increased more than 10 percent;

C. Additional structures do not exceed a total of 250 square feet;

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-342

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

D. The revision does not authorize development to exceed height, setback, lot
coverage, or any other requirement of the City/County Shoreline Master
Program;

E. Additional landscaping is consistent with conditions (if any) attached to the
original permit;

F. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and

G. No Substantial adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project
revision.
If the sum of the proposed revision and any previously approved revisions do
not meet the criteria above, an application for a new shoreline permit must be
subn-fitted. If the revision involves a conditional use or variance which was
conditioned by the Department of Ecology, the revision also must be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Ecology (see WAC 173-14-064).

A City/County or Department decision on revision to the permit may be
appealed within thirty days of such decision, in accordance with RCW
90.58.180 and WAC 173-14-064.

Construction allowed by the revised permit that is not authorized under the
original permit is undertaken at the applicant's own risk until the expiration of
the appeals deadline.

Assurance Device

In appropriate circumstances, the decision makers approving a permit may
require a reasonable performance assurance device to assure compliance
with the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act, the SMP, any permit
conditions and the permit application as approved.

A. The assurance device may be a bond, non-revocable letter of credit,
set-aside letter, assignment of funds, certificate of deposit, deposit account,
or other readily accessible source of funds in a form acceptable to the
City/County Attorney. Interest from any interest-bearing form of
assurance device will accrue to the benefit of the depositor.

B. The assurance device shall specify the date and time by which the work
which it guarantees shall be completed. The assurance device shall specify
the date and time by which the City/County can negotiate the device to
obtain the fiinds to do the work it guarantees. In all cases the date and
time for negotiation shall be at least sixty days after the deadline for the
completion of the work.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-343

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

C. Amount of Assurance Device. The Public Works Department shall
determine the amount of the assurance device as follows:

I .For a performance device the amount will be one 150 percent of the
cost of the work or improvements covered by the assurance device
based on estimated costs immediately following the expiration of the
device together with the City's/County's cost of obtaining funds from
the assurance device and administering the project.

2. For a maintenance device the amount will not be less than 20 percent of
the cost of replacing the material covered by the assurance device based
on estimated costs on the last day covered by the device together with
the City's/County's cost of obtaining funds from the assurance device
and administering the project.

3. In each case where the City/County requires or allows an applicant to
establish an assurance device, the owner of subject property shall give
the City/County a signed notarized irrevocable license to run with the
property to allow the employees, agents, or contractors of the
City/County to go on the subject property for the purpose of inspecting
and, if necessary, doing the work or making the improvements covered
by the assurance device. The applicant shall file this license writh the
Administrator.

D. Release of Assurance Device.

I .After the work or improvements covered by a performance assurance
device have been completed to the satisfaction of the City/County or, at
the end of the time covered by a maintenance assurance device, the
applicant may request the City/County to release the device.

2. The City/County shall release such device as expeditiously as possible
after receipt of a request for release, if the work or maintenance time
period is finished.

E. Use of Proceeds - Notice to Property Owner.

If during the period of time covered by a maintenance assurance device or
after the date by which the required work or improvements are to be
completed under a performance assurance device, the Administrator
determines that the work or improvements have not been complied with,
he/she shall notify the applicant. The notice must include the following
information:

1. The work that must be done or the improvement that must be made to
complywith the requirements and permit assurance device.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-344

SM7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. The amount of time that the applicant has to commence and complete
the required work or improvements.

3. That, if the work or improvements are not commenced and completed
within the time specified, the City/County will use the proceeds of the
assurance device to have the required work or improvements
completed.

F. Use of Proceeds -Work by the City/County.

If the work or improvements covered by the assurance device are not
completed within the time specified in the notice given under subsection E
above, the City/County shall obtain the proceeds of the device and do the
work or make the improvements covered by the device. The City/County
may either have employees of the City/County do the work or make the
improvements or have a contractor do the work or make the
improvements.

G. Use of Proceeds - Refund of Excess, Charge for all Costs.

The property owner is responsible for all costs incurred by the City/County
in doing the work and making the improvements covered by the assurance
device. The City/County shall release or refund any proceeds of a
performance device after subtracting all costs for doing the work covered
by the device and the costs of obtaining the proceeds of the device. The
owner of subject property shall reimburse the City/County for any amount
expended by the City/County that exceeds the proceeds of the device. The
City/County shall have a hen against the subject property for the amount of
any excess.

H. Itemized Statement.

In each case where the City/County uses any of the proceeds of the device,
it shall give the owner of the subject property an itemized statement of all
proceeds and funds used.

Appeals of Administrative Decisions

A. Applicability and Limitation on Appeals.

I . This chapter applies to all requests to review administrative decisions
and orders made by the Administrator and all other City/County staff
under the SNIP.

2. Decisions by the Administrator to approve, deny or to approve
substantial development permits with conditions are not administrative

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-345

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

decisions under the terms of this section, and shall not be appealable to
the Hearing Exam@iner/City or County Legislative Body. These
decisions may be appealed to the Washington State Shorelines Hearings
Board as provided in RCW 90.58.180 and Chapter 461-08 WAC.

B. Appeal Process.

I . Any person adversely affected by any administrative decision (e.g.
determinations if permits are required, interpretation of regulations,
identifying required fees, etc.) may appeal such decision to the Hearing
Examiner/City or County Legislative Body. The appellant shall submit
the following to the Administrator:

a. A brief written statement containing the following information.

i. The statement must indicate the facts that establish the
appellant's right to appeal the decision.

ii. The statement must identify explicit exceptions and objections
to the decision being appealed or identify specific errors in fact
or conclusion.

iii. The statement must state the requested relief from the decision
being appealed.

iv. The name and address of the person(s) appealing the decision.

v. Give the address and use, if any, of any property involved in the
appeal.

b. Any fee set for appeals.

c. Any other information as is reasonably necessary to make a decision
on the appeal.

d. Time within which an Administrative Appeal must be Filed.

A written statement appealing the decision must be filed with the
Administrator no more than ten days from the date the decision is
mailed or otherwise becomes effective. Activity commenced before
the expiration of this appeal period based on an appealable decision
or action is at the sole risk of the person taking the action.
City/County and any of the City/County's officers, agents, or
employees shall not incur any liability or risk.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-346

SNW Handbook - 1994 Edition

e. Appeal Stays All Enforcement of Decision or Order Appealed.

The filing of an appeal stays all actions by the Administrator or
other City/County official seeking enforcement or compliance with
the order or decision being appealed, unless the Administrator
certifies to the Hearing Exarniner/City or County Legislative Body
that (because of the facts stated in the certificate) a stay would, in
the opinion of the Administrator, cause imminent peril to life or
property. In that case, proceedings shall not be stayed except by
order of the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body or
a court, issued on application of the party seeking the stay, for due
cause shown after notice to the Administrator. The stay is lifted
after the decision of the Hearing Exan-flner/City or County
Legislative Body.

2. The Administrator shall review the subn-dttal and determine if it is
complete. The appeal shall be considered filed when the statement is
submitted and all required fees are paid. If incomplete, the appeal
statement may be completed by the appellant after it is filed.

3. After the request for review is filed and complete, the Administrator
shall schedule a public hearing for the next Hearing Exarniner/City or
County Legislative Body meeting where the appeal request can be
accommodated and notice given. The Administrator shall provide
notice of the hearing as provided in Subsection D below.

4. The Administrator shall prepare a written report on the decision being
appealed setting forth the facts and conclusions on which the decision is
based. The Administrator shall mail the written report to the appellant
at least ten days before the hearing date. The Administrator shall mail
the appellant's written statement and the Administrator's written report
to the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body at least five
days before the hearing date.

5. The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body shall conduct a
public hearing on the application. All written material received shall be
presented to the board and members of the public shall have the right to
present written and oral testimony. At the hearing, members of the
Hearing Exan-@iner/City or County Legislative Body may request such
additional information as is reasonably necessary to evaluate the appeal.
The Hearing Exan-@iner/City or County Legislative Body may place
reasonable and equitable limitations on testimony, the presentation of
evidence and arguments and questions so the matter at issue may be
heard and decided without undue delay.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-347

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. After the public hearing has concluded, the Hearing Exan-dner/City or
County Legislative Body shall decide the appeal.

a. The decision may be made at the same public meeting as the public
hearing or at another public meeting. The Hearing Examiner/City
or County Legislative Body shall vote on the appeal within thirty-
two days of the initial public hearing date unless the appellant
agrees in writing to an extension of time.

b. Decisions on appeals shall be based on the decision criterion in
subsection C.

c. The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body may
reverse or affirm (wholly or partly) or may modify the order,
decision, requirement, or determination appealed and may condition
the relief granted on an appeal to ensure compliance with the
City/County Shoreline Master Program.

d. The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body shall adopt
findings of fact and conclusions which support the decision on the
appeal and any required conditions.

7. The decision of the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body
and the findings of fact and conclusions shall be reduced to writing and
mailed to the appellant by the Administrator within seven days of the
date of the decision.

8. Effect of Decision.

a. The decision of the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative
Body on the appeal is the final decision of the City/County.

b. The Hearing Exan-dner/City or County Legislative Body decision
shall not be reconsidered, except as a new appeal.

c. The decision of the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative
Body on the appeal may be appealed to the Superior Court vAthin
thirty days of the date the Hearing Examiner/City or County
Legislative Body makes the decision.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-349

SMIP Handb ook - 1994 Edition

9. Commencement of Activity.

The appellant or any other party authorized to conduct activities or
uses by the decision may commence activity or obtain other required
approvals authorized by the decision of the Hearing Examiner/City or
County Legislative Body on the appeal immediately after decision on
the appeal by the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body.
Activity commenced before the expiration of the appeal period
provided in subsection 8 above is at the sole risk of the applicant or
other party. City/County and any of the City/County's officers, agents,
or employees shall not incur any liability or risk.

C. Appeal Decision Criterion.

In deciding appeals, the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative
Body shall consider only the merits of the appeal as it relates to the specific
terms, phrases, or sections of the SMP in question and shall not consider
the merits of the proposal or the property affected by the decision.

D. Public Hearing Notice.

1. Content of the Public Notice. The Administrator shall prepare notice
for all public hearings and include the following information.

a. The name of the appellant and, if applicable, the project name.

b. If the appeal involves specific property, the street address of the
subject property and a description of the property in non-legal
terms sufficient to identify the location.

c. A brief description of the decision which is being appealed.

d. A brief description of the issues as stated in the appeal.

e. The date, time and place of the public hearing.

f. A statement of the fight of any person to participate in the pubfic
hearing and the ways they may participate.

2. Time of Notice. The Administrator shall mail and publish the notice at
least ten days before a hearing.

3. Means of Notice. The Administrator shall provide notice for all pubfic
hearings in the Mowing manner.

a. Publishing notice of the public hearing in a legal newspaper of
general circulation within the City/County.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-349

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

b. Mailing notice of the public hearing to the appellant and any
affected project proponent.

c. Failure to receive a properly mailed notice shall not affect the
validity of any testimony or the legality of any action taken.

E. Limitation on Refiling Appeals. After a final decision on an appeal, the
Administrator shall not accept any further appeals for substantially the
same property involving substantially the same issues within one year from
the date of the decision.

Permit Revocation

A. This section applies to requests or decisions to revoke shorelines
substantial development permits, conditional use permits and variances.

B. The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body shall have the
power to revoke or modify approved shorelines substantial development
permits, conditional use permits and variances.

C. Decision Procedure for Revocation.

1 . City/County staff or any other persons who are aggrieved by activities
undertaken under a shoreline permit may request in writing that the
Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body revoke or modify
the permit.

2. The Administrator shall schedule a public hearing for the next Hearing
Exam@iner/City or County Legislative Body meeting where the review
can be accommodated and the required notice given.

3. Notice of Public Hearing.

a. The Administrator shall publish a notice of the revocation hearing
at least ten days before the hearing date.

b. The Adn-dnistrator shall mail notice of the hearing to the party to
which the permit was issued, the owner of the property for which
the permit was issued, the person or persons who requested the
Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body revoke the
permit and any persons who requested notice of the hearing in
writing at least ten days before the hearing date.

c. The notice shall include the following information.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-350

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

i. The name of the permit holder and, if applicable, the project
name.

ii. The street address of the subject property and a description of
the property in non-legal terms sufficient to identify the
location.

iii. A brief description of the issues.

iv. The date, time and place of the public hearing.

v. A statement of the right of any person to participate in the
public hearing by providing written statements before or at the
hearing and orally at the hearing.

4. The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body shall hold a
public hearing before deciding whether to revoke or add conditions to
the permit or variance. Any person can submit written statements or
speak. The duration of public comments may be equitably limited. At
the hearing, members of the Hearing Examiner/City or County
Legislative Body may request such additional information as is
reasonably necessary to evaluate the whether the permit or variance
should be revoked.

5. After the public hearing has concluded, the Hearing Examiner/City or
County Legislative Body shall decide whether to revoke modify, or add
conditions to the permit.

a. The decision may be made at the same public meeting as the public
hearing or at another public meeting. The Hearing Examiner/City
or County Legislative Body shall vote on the revocation within
thirty-five days of the initial public hearing date.

b. The decision shall be based on the decision criteria in subsection D.

c. If the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body decides
to revoke the permit, the decision maker may require restoration or
reclamation of the property and may set time limits for the
completion of these activities.

d. The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body shaU adopt
findings of fact and conclusions which support the decision and any
required conditions.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-351

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. The decision of the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body
and the findings of fact and conclusions shall be reduced to writing and
mailed by the Administrator to the permit holder, the property owner,
Ecology and the Washington State Attorney General within seven days
of the date of the decision.

7. Effect of Decision.

a. The decision of the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative
Body on the application is the final decision of the City/County.

b. The decision of the Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative
Body on the revocation may be appealed to the Washington State
Shorelines Hearings Board as provided in RCW 90.58.180 and
Chapter 461-08 WAC.

c. If the Hearing Exan-@iner/City or County Legislative Body revokes
the permit, all activity authorized by the shall immediately cease,
unless the decision maker grants a period of time to complete the
activity or reclaim the site or a court authorizes continued operation
during an appeal.

D. Criteria for Revocation.

The Hearing Examiner/City or County Legislative Body may revoke or
modify a permit if the decision maker finds that one or more of the
following criteria are met.

1. The permit approval was obtained by fraud.

2. The permit is being exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of
approval or in violation of law.

3. The use or activity for which approval was granted is being exercised
so as to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.

Nonconforming Development

Nonconforming development is a shoreline use or structure which was lawfWly
constructed or established prior to the effective date of the act or the master
program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present
regulations or standards of the master program or policies of the act. In such
cases, the following standards shall apply.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement B-352

SNIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

A. Nonconforming development may be continued provided that it is not
enlarged, intensified, increased, or altered in any way which increases its
nonconformity;

B. A nonconforming development which is moved any distance must be
brought into conformance with the master program and the Act;

C. If a nonconforming development is damaged to an extent not exceeding 75
percent replacement cost of the original structure, it may be reconstructed
to those configurations existing immediately prior to the time the structure
was damaged, so long as restoration is completed within one year of the
date of damage, with the exception that, single-famfly nonconforn-dng
development may be 75 percent replaced if the building permit is obtained
within one year of the date of damage.

D. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve consecutive months or
for twelve months during any two-year period, any subsequent use shall be
conforming; it shall not be necessary to show that the owner of the
property intends to abandon such nonconforming use in order for the
nonconforming fights to expire-,

E. A nonconforming use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use,
regardless of the conforming or non-conforming status of the building or
structure in which it is housed; and

F. An undeveloped lot, tract, parcel, site, or division which was established
prior to the effective date of the act and the master program but which
does not conform to the present lot size or density standards may be
developed so long as such development conforms to all other requirements
of the master program and the act.

Enforcement and Penalties

The choice of enforcement action and the severity of any penalty should be
based on the nature of the violation and the damage or risk to the public or to
public resources. The existence or degree of bad faith of the persons subject to
the enforcement action, the benefits that accrue to the violator and the cost of
obtaining compliance may also be considered. The City/County may take
enforcement alone or jointly with Ecology. Ecology may also act alone.

A. Civil Penalty

1. Action.

The City/County Attorney shall bring such injunctive, declaratory, or
other actions as are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-353

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

shorelines of the state in conflict with the provisions of the Act and this
master program and to otherwise enforce the provisions of the Act and
the master program.

2. Non-Compliance.

Any person who fails to conform to the terms of a permit issued under
this master program or who undertakes a development or use on the
shorelines of the state without first obtaining any permit required under
the master program or who fails to comply with a cease and desist
order issued under regulations shall also be subject to a civil penalty not
to exceed $ 1,000 for each violation. Each permit violation or each day
of continued development without a required pern-dt shall constitute a
separate violation.

3. Aiding and Abetting.

Any person who, through an act of commission or omission proceeds,
aids, or abets in the violation shall be considered to have comn-dtted a
violation for the purposes of the civil penalty.

4. Notice of Penalty.

The penalty provided for in this section shall be imposed by a notice in
writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by
personal service, to the person incurring the same from the
City/County. The notice shall include the "content of order" specified
in subsection F. Regulatory Order.

5. Remission and Joint Order.

Within thirty days after the notice is received, the person incurring the
penalty may apply in writing to the City/County for remission or
mitigation of such penalty. Upon receipt of the application, the
City/County may remit or mitigate the.penalty only upon a
demonstration of extraordinary circumstances, such as the presence of
information or factors not considered in setting the original penalty.
Any penalty imposed pursuant to this section by the City/County shall
be subject to review by the City/County Council. In accordance with
RCW 90.58.050 and RCW 90.58.210(4), any penaltyjointly imposed
by the City/County and the Department of Ecology shall be appealed to
the Shorelines Hearings Board. When a penalty is imposed jointly by
the City/County and the Department of Ecology, it may be remitted or
mitigated only upon such terms as both the City/County and the
Department agree.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-354

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. Regulatory Order.

Content of order shall set forth and contain:

a. A description of the specific nature, location, extent and time of
violation and the damage or potential damage; and

b. A notice that the violation or the potential violation cease and desist
or, in appropriate cases, the specific corrective action to be taken
within a given time. A civil penalty under this section may be
issued with the order and same shall specify a date certain or
schedule by which payment will be complete.

7. Effective Date.

The cease and desist order issued under this subsection shall become
effective immediately upon receipt by the person to whom the order is
directed.

8. Compliance.

Failure to comply with the terms of a cease and desist order can result
in enforcement actions including, but not limited to, the issuance of a
civil penalty.

B. Delinquent Permit Penalty.

Permittees applying for a permit after commencement of a use or activity
may, at the discretion of the City/County be required, in addition, to pay a
delinquent permit penalty not to exceed three times the appropriate permit
fee paid by the permittee. A person who has caused, aided, or abetted a
violation within two years after the issuance of a regulatory order, notice of
violation, or penalty by the City/County or the Department against said
person may be subject to a delinquent permit penalty not to exceed ten
times the appropriate permit fee paid by the permittee. Delinquent permit
penalties shall be paid in full prior to resuming the use or activity.

C. Property Lien.

Any person who fails to pay the prescribed penalty as'authorized in this
section shall be subject to a lien upon the affected property until such time
as the penalty is paid in full. The City/County Attorney shaU file said hen
against the affected property at the office of the County Assessor.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-355

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

D. Mandatory Civil Penalties.

Issuance of civil penalties is mandatory in the following instances:

I . The violator has ignored the issuance of an order or notice of violation.

2. The violation causes or contributes to significant environmental damage
to shorelines of the state as determined by the City/County.

3. A person causes, aids, or abets in a violation within two years after
issuance of a similar regulatory order, notice of violation, or penalty by
the City/County or the Department against said person.

E. Minimum Penalty Levels

1. Regarding all violations that are mandatory penalties, the minimum
penalty is $250.

2. For all other penalties, the minimum penalty is $100.

F. General Criminal Penalty.

In addition to incurring civil liability under Section A, any person found to
have willfully engaged in activities on the shorelines of the state in violation
of the provisions of the Act or the master program shall be guilty of a gross
misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100 nor
more than $ 1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than
ninety days for each separate offense, or by both such fine and
imprisonment. Provided, that the fine for each separate office for the third
and all subsequent violations in any five-year period shall be not less $500
nor more than $ 10,000.

G. Violator Liabilities - Damages, Attorney's Fees/Costs.

Any person subject to the regulatory program of the Act or the master
program who violates any provision thereof or permit issued pursuant
thereto shall be liable for all damage to public or private property arising
from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its
condition prior to violation. The City/County Attorney shall bring suit for
damages under this section on behalf of the City/County. Private persons
shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this section on their
own behalf and on the behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability
has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by a
violation, the court shall make provisions to assure that restoration will be
accomplished within reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In
addition to such relief, including money damages, the court in its discretion
may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-356

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

H. Development and Building Permits.

No building permit, septic tank permit, or other development permit shaU
be issued for any parcel of land developed or divided in violation of the
master program. All purchasers or transferees of property shaIl comply
with provisions of the Act and the master program and each purchaser or
transferee may recover his damages from any person, firm, corporation, or
agent selling, transferring, or leasing land in violation of the Act or the
master program, including any amount reasonably spent as a result of
inability to obtain any development permit and spent to conform to the
requirements of the Act or the master program as weU as cost of
investigation, suit and reasonable attorney's fees occasioned thereby. Such
purchaser, transferee, or lessor may, as an alternative to confo his
rmIng
property to these requirements, rescind the sale, transfer, or lease and
recover cost of investigation and reasonable attorney's fees occasioned
thereby from the violator.

Master Program Review

Thi's master program shall be reviewed not less than every five years and
adjustments shall be made as are necessary to reflect changing local
circumstances, new information or improved data and changes in State statutes
and regulations. This review process shall be consistent with WAC 173-19
requirements and shall include a local citizen involvement effort and pubuc
hearing to obtain the views and comments of the public.

Amendments to the Shoreline Master Program

The provisions of this shoreline master program may be amended as provided
in RCW 90.58.120, 90.58.200 and Chapter 173-19 WAC. Any person,
including the City/County, may submit an application for an amendment to the
Administrator together with any required fee. Any amendment to local SNIPs
must satisfy the requirements of the State Envirorunental Policy Act (Chapter
43.2 IC RCW) and Chapter 197-11 WAC. The City/County Legislative Body
shall approve, modify, or deny applications for amendments. The applicant has
the burden of proof As provided by state law, amendments or revisions to
shoreline master programs are not effective unless approved by the Washington
State Department of Ecology.

The proponent must demonstrate that proposed amendments to shoreline
master program environments (i.e. shoreline master program environment
redesignations) are consistent with the criteria set forth in the shoreline
environment designation criteria of this SNT and WAC 173-16-040(4).

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-357

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

is The Administrator shall send a copy of any locally approved amendment and
the information required by WAC 173-19-062 or its successor to Ecology
within fourteen days of the date of the City or County Legislative Body
decision. If Ecology denies or modifies the proposed amendment, the local
government may appeal the decision to the State of Washington Shorelines
Hearings Board as provided in RCW 90.58.190 and Chapter 461-08 WAC.

Severability

If any provisions of this Master Program, or its application to any person or
legal entity or parcel of land or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of
the Master Program, or the application of the provisions to other persons or
legal entities or parcels of land or circumstances, shall not be affected.

Conflict of Provisions

Should a conflict occur between the provisions of this SMP or between this
SMP and the laws, regulations, codes or rules promulgated by any other
authority having jurisdiction within the City/County, the most restrictive
requirement shall be applied, except when constrained by federal or state
law, or where specifically provided otherwise in this SNIP.

Inspections

Whenever it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the
provisions of this ordinance or whenever the Administrator has reasonable
cause to believe that there exists in any building, or upon any pren-dses, any
condition which makes such a building or premises nonconforming the
Administrator may enter such building or premises. If the building or premises
is occupied, the Administrator shall first present proper credentials and demand
entry, and if the building or pren-dses is unoccupied, the Adn-finistrator shall
first make reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge
or control of the building or premises and demand entry. If such entry is
refused, the Administrator shall have recourse to every remedy provided by
law to secure entry, including administrative search warrants. The City/County
Attorney shall provide assistance to the Administrator in obtaining
administrative search warrants or other legal remedies.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-358

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Employees Not Personally Liable for
Enforcement Acts

Any employee charged with the enforcement of this SNP, acting in good faith
and without malice for the City/County in the discharge of duties, shall not
hereby render himself/herself liable personally and is hereby relieved from all
personal liability for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a
result of any act required or by reason of any act or omission in the discharge
of duties. Any suit brought against the employee, because of such act or
omission performed by him/her in the enforcement of any provisions of this
SNIP, shall be defended by the City/County until final termination of the
proceedings.

Determining Days for Time Limits in this SMP

I . Day means a calendar day beginning at midnight and ending on the
following n-ddnight.

2. When counting the number of days for notices required by this SUT, the
day a notice is mailed, posted, or published is not counted but the day of
any hearing is counted. The day of the hearing shall be counted as an
entire day, even though the hearing takes place before midnight@ and an
entire twenty-four hour period has not passed.

3. When counting the number of days or years for other time lin-dts
established by this title, the day a decision is made is not counted in
computing the time limit.

Lot Area and Setback Measurement

1 . Public and privately owned rights of way and access or transportation
easements shall not be considered as part of the lot or as being within the
lot lines for the purposes of determining the lot size, lot area, or the area of
the site.

2. Setbacks shall be measured at right angles from the appropriate lot line or
the ordinary high water mark to the wall of the structure(s); provided that
where a structure without a wall faces the appropriate lot fine, the setback
shall be measured to the post(s) or, if the building has no posts, a point that
is 2 feet under the roof overhang measured from the drip line of the roof.
Where a lot, as defined in this ordinance, consists of more than one lot of
record or platted lot, the term "appropriate lot line" shall mean the lot lines

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-359

SMI? Handbook - 1994 Edition

which form the boundaries of the entire contiguous ownership or as much
of the ownership as is necessary to comply with the requirements of this
ordinance. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to allow the illegal
division of land.

3. Structures, walls, decks, patios and sight obscuring fences shall not be
included within the area of a setback for setbacks which are measured from
the ordinary high water mark.

Transfer of An Approved Permit or Variance

An approved permit or variance may be transferred from the original applicant
to any successors in interest to the applicant for the property for which the
permit or variance was approved provided that all of the conditions and
requirements of the approved permit or variance shall continue in effect as long
as the use or activity is pursued or the structure exists unless the terms of the
permit are modified in accordance with the applicable provisions of this
shoreline master program.

Miscellaneous Provisions

1. Nothing is this SNT shall obviate any requirement to obtain any permit,
certificate, license, or approval from any State agency or local government.

2. Specific provisions of this SMT shall not be construed or limited by the
wording or phrasing of the section titles or headings under which they fall.

Chapter 9 - Administration & Enforcement H-360

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 10
Promoting
Water-oriented Uses

Introduction

WAC 173-16-040-(4) states that: "Because shorelines suitable for urban uses
are a lin-fted resource, emphasis should be given to development within already
developed areas and particularly to water-dependent industrial and commercial
uses requiring ftontage on navigable waters."

This can be accomplished most effectively by reserving portions of the
shoreline for water-oriented uses through environment-specific use regulations.
For example, a master program may dictate that only water-oriented
commercial or industrial uses be permitted in certain sections of waterfront
most suitable for these uses. Encouraging water-dependent, water-related and
water-enjoyment uses in this manner requires that areas most suitable for
specific water-oriented purposes be identified and a comprehensive strategy for
regulating a range of uses be developed.

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-361

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

This chapter presents some tools and resources for preparing shoreline master
programs that encourage diverse water-oriented development on shorelines.
These tools include:

0 Updated definitions of water-oriented uses

* Generalized physical requirements for water-oriented uses

0 Guidelines for setting water-dependency requirements

Water-dependent, Water-related
and Water-enjoyment Uses

In order to give priority to those uses which rely upon a water location, all
shoreline uses are classified into one of four categories; "water-dependent,"
"water-related", "water-enjoyment" (all "water-oriented" uses) and "non-
water-oriented." Shoreline policy use and environment designation regulations
can then be written relative to these categories. Clear, consistent definitions
for these classifications are critical for shoreline management because many
permitting decisions regarding allowable uses, shoreline modifications (e.g.
landfill) and mixed-use projects depend upon whether or not a proposed use is
water-dependent, water-related, etc.

A survey of local jurisdictions indicated that there is a wide diversity of opinion
regarding which uses are water-dependent or water-related. Inconsistent and
unclear interpretation of these terms results in difficulties in project review at
the state and local level. There are several factors complicating attempts to
clearly categorize uses as water-dependent, water-related or non-water-
oriented and to develop policies related to the siting of these uses within the
shoreline area.

� Some portions of an activity may depend upon the water while others
do not (e.g. for cargo loading the crane area may be actually water-
dependent but the storage area and the clerical offices may not be).
Thus, there is a need to apply definitions to portions of uses.

� General land use classifications (e.g. warehousing, commercial offices,
energy generation plants, etc.) are not useful in defining water-
dependency because they are too broad. Water-dependent and non-
water-oriented examples may be found within these traditional land use
classifications.

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-362

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Different water-dependent uses require different locations relative to
the shoreline. Some activities must be over water or in the water (e.g.
aquaculture piers). Others must be adjacent to the shoreline (e.g. cargo
loading terminal), still others must be proximate to the shoreline (e.g.
cargo handling area).

The following definitions of these terms reflect current practice and Shorelines
Hearings Board decisions.

lzrnonad e-
10 15

Examples of water-dependent, water-related and water-enjoyment uses Oeft to right@

Water-dependent Use

Water-dependent use means a use or portion of a use which can not exist
in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the
intrinsic nature of its operations.

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-363

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Examples of water-dependent uses may include:

� Cargo terminal loading area

� Ferry and passenger terminals

� Barge loading

� Ship building, repair and servicing

� Dry docking of ships

� Aquaculture

� Float plane sheds

� Tugboat services

� Log booming

� Towboat operations

� Marinas

� Sewer outfalls

� Water intake structures

This interpretation best represents the intent of the SMA as well as decisions
by the Shorelines Hearings Board and will be most useful in writing and
administering master programs. It is also consistent with the definition of
water-dependency adopted by the Washington Department of Natural
Resources (RCW 79.90.465). Its specificity will be most useful in setting
requirements that pertain to the protection of the shoreline by relating
restrictions to shoreline construction and filling directly to strict water-
dependency with clear exceptions within the master program.

It should be noted that the concept of water-dependency can apply to any
category of use (e.g. commercial, industrial, recreational, etc.). For example,
some commercial or recreational uses such as diving platforms can be water-
dependent.

Water-dependency designations should only be given to those portions of an
operation that are demonstrably dependent upon the water or the shoreline
edge. For example, a pulp mill dock for loading logs or finished product
transported by water is water-dependent, but the mill is not, nor is a related

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-364

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

storage area. The dry-dock of a ship-building yard is water-dependent but
warehousing of ship parts is not. Thus, water-dependent uses are quite limited.
These classifications should be considered water-dependent under usual
conditions.

Water-related Use

The distinction between water-dependent and water-related uses is important
because it recognizes a class of uses which does not intrinsically require a
waterfront location but benefits economically fi7om proximity to the shoreline
or directly support water-dependent uses. Many uses such as warehousing,
seafood processing and ship parts storage and assembly areas do not require
direct shoreline access but obtain substantial benefit from proximity to the
waterfront and enhance the viability of water-dependent uses.

Distinguishing between water-dependent and water-related uses enables master
programs to give top priority to water-dependent activities and, at the same
time, encourage water-related uses in a variety of ways. For example, a master
program may permit water-dependent uses on over-water construction in a
certain environment classification and allow water-related uses on upland sites.
Also, the concept allows the more accurate classification of large developments
such as pulp mills or fishing boat terminals where some of the components are
water-dependent and other parts are water-related. The following definition
includes two criteria for identifying water-related uses as well as the concept of
economic benefit from a waterfront location as noted in the SHB decisions:
Yount and Department of Ecology and Attorney General v. Snohomish County
and Hayes, SHB No. 108; Adams v. City of Seattle, Department of Ecology
and Attorney General, SHB No. 156.

Water-related use means a use or portion of a use which is not
intrinsically dependent upon a waterftont location but whose economic
viability is dependent upon a waterftont location because:

1. Of ajunctional requirementfor a waterftont location such as the
arrival or shipment of materials by water or the needfor large
quantities of water, or

2. 7he use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-
dependent commercial activities and the proximity of the use to its
customers makes its services less expensive andlor more convenient.
Exwnples include manufacturers of ship parts large enough that
transportation becomes a significantfactor in the product's cost,
professional services primarily serving water-dependent activities,
utility lines serving water-dependent activities and storage of water-
transported goods.

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-orientcd Uses H-365

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Uses which obtain an economic advantage from the shoreline due simply to its
amenity factor (e.g. restaurants, hotels) should not be considered water-related
(see water-enjoyment). Uses generally considered water-related include:

� Fabrication of ship parts and equipment providing that proximity of the
activity to its customers on the waterfront can be demonstrated to be
an advantage because of transportation costs or other functional
factors.

� Warehousing of goods transported by water providing the economic
distribution of those goods is dependent upon storage or handling at
the point of unloading.

� Assembly of water transported parts providing that the economic
advantage of assembling at point of entry can be demonstrated.

� Support services of fish hatcheries functionally proximate to the water
element operation.

� Seafood processing plants if fish or products are brought to the site by
water.

� Paper and wood products mills if materials or products are water
transported.

� Oil refineries if petroleum materials or products are shipped by tanker.

� Salvage yards if materials are taken from water or if salvage includes
ship or marine equipment.

� Energy generation plants if materials are transported by water or if
large quantities of water are needed for cooling Or generation.

� Construction materials plants (concrete, etc.) if materials or products
are transported by water.

� Construction of modular buildings specifically intended to be
transported by barge.

� Storage of logs transported by water.

� Utility fines serving waterfront uses.

� Intermodal transport when water transport is part of the service.

Sewage treatment plants and rail service yards in general are not considered
water-related.

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-366

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

It is clear that many decisions regarding water-related status must be made on
a case-by-case basis and that the bulk of commercial activities located along
the waterfront may be water-related rather than water-dependent. Since the
water-related classification is so broad and includes major industrial activities,
prioritizing land for water-related activities becomes an important aspect of
urban shoreline master program planning. The water-related classification will
be useful for developing requirements aimed at furthering water-oriented
commerce. However, the application of this classification will require careful
review.

Water-enjoyment Use

RCW 90.58.020 addresses, and Chapter 173-16 WAC, Shoreline Management
Act Guidelines for Development of Master Programs, section 0604(a),
specifies that "priority should be given to those commercial developments
which are particularly dependent on their location and/or use of the shorehnes
of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for
substantial number of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state". The term
lowater-enjoyment" is used to signify those uses which provide an opportunity
for substantial number of people to enjoy the shoreline. The following
definition which sets criteria for evaluating whether or not a particular use
applies is recommended.

Water-enjoyment use means a recreational use, or other usefacilitating
public access to the shoreline as the primary characteristic of the use; or
a use that providesfor recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the
-shorelinefor a substantial number ofpeople as a general characteristic of
the use and which through the location, design and operation assures the
public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the
shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use, the use must be
open to the general public and the shoreline oriented space within the
project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use thatfosters
shoreline enjoyment.

Primary water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to parks,
piers and other improvementsfacilitating public access to shorelines of
the state; and general water-enjownent uses may include but are not
limited to restaurants, museums, aquariums, scientificlecological reserves,
resorts and mixed-use commercial; PROVIDED, that such uses conform
to the above water-enjoyment specifications and the provisions of the
masterprogram.

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-367

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Water-oriented Use

Water-oriented use is a term that includes an water-dependent, water-
y
related or water-enjoyment use. In other words, a water-oriented use
includes all of the above.

Non-water-oriented Use

Non-water-oriented uses describe all those uses which have little or no
relationship to the shoreline and are not consideredpriority uses under
the Shoreline Management Act. Any use which does not meet the
definition of water-dependent, water-related or water-enjoyment is
classified as non-water-oriented Examples include professional offices,
automotive sales or repair shops, mini-storage facilities, multi-fivnily
residential and condominium development, department stores and gas
stations.

Adding public access features to a non-water-oriented use does not necessarily
change the use to a water-oriented use. A non-water-oriented use, such as a
retail shop, may be found acceptable for a shoreline location if it provides for
substantial numbers of the public to enjoy the shoreHne, but in these instances
the project would have to provide a significant amount of public benefit -- a
simple walkway allowing passage along the water may not be sufficient.
Instead, substantial public facilities such as picnic tables, benches and the like
wifl most likely be needed and considerably more shoreline space will have to
be dedicated for public use. For a large development, a requirement that a
public park be provided would not be an unreasonable requirement.

Figure 10-1 illustrates water-dependent (W-D), water-related (W-R), water-
enjoyment (W-E) and non-water-oriented (N-W-0) uses.

Special Tip

The term "non-water-dependent " should not be used except in the rare
circumstance where you wish to specify all but water-dependent shoreline
uses.

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-368

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Port associated Ship repair Proposed Maritime Museum
warehousing (W-R) (W-D) (W-E) w/ historic ship
moorage(W-D)
Industries w/out Restaurant Park (W-E)
water access (N-W-0) (W-E) Commercial offices (N-W-0)

Fireboat station

ireboat moorage
(W-D)

Marinas (W-D)

Marina storage (W-R)

Cargo transfer (W-R)

Tank farm (W-R) Oil pier (W-D) Proposed passenger ferrry terminal
(W-D)
Proposed Hydroplane Museum (W-E)

Figure 10-1. Examples of water-dependent (W-D), water-related (W-R), water-
enjoyment (W-E) and non-water-oriented (N-W-O) uses.

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-369

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Physical Requirements of
Water-dependent Uses

The primary master program tool for giving priority to water-oriented uses is a
set of master program policies and regulations that encourages water-oriented
uses and restricts non-water-oriented uses. These provisions could be applied
uniformly across the urban shoreline environment. However, it is
advantageous to refine this approach by requiring water-dependent activities
only in those areas most suited for them and to write use requirements that
encourage specific use types such as cargo teirminals, marinas, waterfront
parks, etc., in specified districts that have compatible environmental conditions
and support facilities. To accomplish this, a comprehensive shoreline program
is necessary that identifies the most suitable areas for the different shoreline
uses and recommends a set of regulatory measures (the shoreline master
program being the most prominent) and civic actions to implement its
objectives.

Chapter 3 of this Handbook presents a process for comprehensive waterfront
planning that includes:

I . Inventorying shoreline characteristics that affect waterfront development.

2. Identifying the requirements for potential water-oriented uses.

3. Determining the suitability of specific shoreline areas for various shoreline

uses.

4. Determining the development potentials of each shoreline area.

5. Formulating a waterfront development/management strategy on which
master program provisions and capital improvement programs can be
based.

In recent years, several cities including Bellingham, Aberdeen, Everett,
Olympia, Oak Harbor, Tri-Cities, Seattle and others have undertaken
comprehensive shoreline planning efforts. One resource that would have
assisted these projects is a listing of the physical requirements for various
water-dependent uses. With such a listing, the capability of various shorelines
to accommodate specific uses could more easily be determined.

Figure 10-2 presents the physical requirements and environmental constraints
for typical water-oriented uses. Two caveats should be noted. First, physical
requirements can vary widely for certain uses. Obviously, there are several
different types of shipbuilding, marine construction and aquaculture activities
within these broader use categories. New technologies are changing the

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-370

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

requirements over time. Also, many of the uses such as marinas and parks
could vary widely in size. The figures can only indicate typical sizes for
existing facilities in Washington. Secondly, figure 10-2 is not specific enough
for individual site planning, which requires analysis of the specific situation. It
is intended for comprehensive and conceptual level planning only.

14
&-

L;-j

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-371

Figure 10-2. Generalized physical requirements for specific water-oriented uses (page I of 5).

Cargo Terminal Tug & Barge Major Ship Commercial Boat Terminals
(Container) Terminal Building Building & (up to 100'
Repair Vessels)

Pier depth 50' 25' 50' 25' 20'-50'
(in feet below M.L.L.W.)

Pier Length (feet) 8001+ 400' 1200' 250' 100,

Minimum Land Area 25 acrestberth I acre 10 acres 2 acres 2 acres
Required (acres)
Desirable Land 100 acres Site-specific 20 acres 5 acres 10 acres
Area (acres)

Submerged Land Area 5 acres Varies 10 acres I acre 10 acres
Required (acres)
Wave Protection Not required Required Desirable Required Required
(rcquired/not required/
may be required)

Access Requirements
(required/desirable/not req.)
Highway Desirable Not required Not required Not required Not required

Arterial Truck Route Required Desirable Required Desirable Desirable

Arterial Required Required Required Required
Rail Required Not required Required Not required Not required
Proximity to Airport Not required Desirable Not required Not required
Compatible with No Possibly No No Possibly
Residences

Compatible with Water- Possibly Yes No No Yes
enjoyment/Recreation
Activities

Benefits from Proximity to No No No No Possibly
Tourist/Commercial Activities

Other Required Facilities Public utilities Utilities
or Conditions

Parking Requirements I/Cmploycc I/employee + I/employee + I/cmployee + 2/boat
(spaces/unit) visitors visitors visitors
Notes Lights: Heavy
impacts to
residences

Noise: 24-hour
operations

H-372

Figure 10-2. Generalized physical requirements for specific water-oriented uses (page 2 of 5).

Cruise Ship Auto Ferry Passenger Recreational Dry Land
Ship Terminal Terminal Ferry Terminal Marina Boat Yard
Boating Services
Pier depth 35' 26' 26' 10, 15'
(in feet below M.L.L.W.)
Pier Length (feet) 800, NA NA 20'-60' 40'

Minimum Land Area 3 acres 2 acres I acre Varies I acre
Required (acres)
Desirable Land 6 acres 5 acres 2 acres 2 times water Varies
Area (acres) area
Submerged Land Area 6 acres 2 acres I acre Avg: 24 Yes
Required (acres) berthtacre
Wave Protection Not required May be required May be required Required Yes
(required/not required/
may be required)

Access Requirements
(required/desirable/not req.)
Highway Required Required Desirable Desirable Desirable

Arterial Truck Route Required Required Desirable Desirable Desirable
Arterial Required Required Required Desirable Required
Rail Not required Required Not required Not required Not required
Proximity to Airport Required Not required Not required Not required Not required
Compatible with Possible Yes Yes Yes Possibly
Residences

Compatible with Water- Yes Yes Yes Yes Possibly
enjoyment/Recreation
Activities

Benerits from Proximity to Yes, required Yes Yes Yes Possibly
Tourist/Commercial Activities

Other Required Facilities Hotel & Transit bus Transit bus Boating Hoist or travel
or Conditions visitors services service connections services lift
desirable

Parking Requirements Project-specific 200 + stalls + 20 + stalls I spacel. 5 1 spacel.5
(spaces/unit) (Min.) (h&n.) berths to I berths to I
spacell berth space/I berth

Notes Links to other Provide public
passenger utilities
access critical

Compatible
with public
access and
parks

H-373

Figure 10-2. Generalized physical requirements for specific water-oriented uses (page 3 of 5).

Public Fishing Car-top boat Water-oriented
Piers Launch Sites Parks

Pier depth 30'
(in feet below M.LLW.)
Pier Length (feet) Varies/16'min.

NUnimum Land Area 10'-20'easement from
Required (acres) ROW
Desirable Land Depends on access Parking controls area
Area (acres)

Submerged Land Area I acre 10'-20'(W) easement 5 acres (min.)
Required (acres)
Wave Protection Not required May be required Not required
(required/not required/
may be required)

Access Requirements
(required/desirable/not req.)
Highway Not required Not required Not required
Arterial Truck Route Not required Not required Not required
Arterial Not required Desirable Desirable

Rail Not required Not required Not required
Proximity to Airport Not required Not required Not required
Compatible with Adequate parking & Yes w/adequate Yes, if beaches are
Residences screening parking posted and parking
adequate
Compatible with Water- Yes, except nearby Yes Not w/fishing, boating
enjoyment/Recreation boating
Activities

Benefits from Proximity to Yes, e.g. parks No No
Tourist/Commercial Activities assignments, ferries
Other Required Facilities Bait and tackle shop Water access at all Dive shop and
or Conditions near by tides changing room
desirable

Parking Requirements 1/2 # of anglers Depends on usage Depends on usage
(spaces/unit)
Notes Benefits from varied No, or low bank Access to water via
water depth & shoreline desirable; hard beach, steps,
substrate avoid mud/silt subtidal ladders or ramps

Artificial reefs for fish Stepped bulkhead or Area needs to be
enhancement narrow ramp desirable secure from boat
traffic

H-374

Figure 10-2. Generalized physical requirements for specific water-oriented uses (page 4 of 5).

Large Fishing Fish Log Petroleum Marine
Boat Terminals Processing Terminal Terminal/ Construction
(Factory Trailers) Tank Farm Yard
Pier depth 50' 35' 35-40' 40-80' 15,
(in feet below ]VULL.W.)
Pier Length (feet) 300'+ 500' x 75' 750' 400-6001

Minimum Land Area 10 acres 4 acres 20 acres 20 acres 2 acres
Required (acres)

Desirable Land 10 acres 6 acres 40-100 acres 40 acres 4-6 acres
Area (acres)

Submerged Land Area Access Access Access Access 1-2 acres
Required (acres)
Wave Protection Possibly Required Possibly Possibly Yes
(required/not required/
may be required)

Access Requirements
(reqttired/desirable/not req.)
Highway Desirable Desirable Desirable Possibly Desirable
Arterial Truck Route Required Required Required Required Required

Arterial
Rail Not required Not required Not required Required Desirable

Proximity to Airport Desirable Not required Not required Not required

Compatible with Possibly No No No No
Residences

Compatible with Water- Possibly Possibly No No Possibly
enjoymcnt/Recreation
Activities

Benefits from Proximity to No Possibly No No No
Tourist/Commercial Activities

Other Required Facilities Spill
or Conditions containment

Parking Requirements I/outfitting I/employee NA NA
(spaces/unit) employee

Notes Port of Seattle Log trucks Block views.
is considering impact road Tanks could be
as part of cond. on buried.
harborfront uplands
redevelopment

H-375

Figure 10-2. Generalized physical requirements for specific water-oriented uses (page 5 of 5).

Grain Terminal Public Boat Aquaculture Aquaculture
Launch (Fish) (Shellfish)

Pier depth 65'NA 8760' under pens Minimum access
(in feet below M.L.LW.)
Pier Length (feet) 800-1400 NA 20'-50' Minimum access

Minimum Land Area 10 acres Varies 1/2 acre 1/2 acre
Required (acres)

Desirable Land 10+ acres Varies 2 acres 2 acres
Area (acres)
Submerged Land Area 5 acres Minimal 5-30 acres 5-30 acres
Required (acres)
Wave Protection May be required Required Buoys Not required
(required/not required/
may be required)

Access Requirements
(required/desirable/not req.)
Highway Desirable Desirable Desirable Desirable
Arterial Truck Route Required Desirable Desirable Desirable

Arterial Required Desirable Desirable

Rail Required Not required Not required Not required
Proximity to Airport Not required Desirable Desirable
Compatible with No Possibly Possibly Yes
Residences w/screening

Compatible with Water- Yes Yes Possibly Possibly
enjoyment/Recreation
Activities

Benefits from Proximity to No Possibly Retail Retail
Tourist/Commercial Activities
Other Required Facilities Low current on
or Conditions rivers
Parking Requirements I car & trailer I stall/empl. I stall/empl.
(spaces/unit) spaces per lane
Notes Dust-generating Great demand for
these
Structure can block Generates peak
views traffic & parking
demand

H-376

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

General Guidelines for Setting
Water-dependency Requirements on
Urban Waterfronts

If a jurisdiction has an urbanized shoreline suitable for water-dependent uses,
at least a portion of that shoreline should be reserved for water-dependent
uses. The easiest way to accomplish this is to use sub-classifications -of the
urban environment designation. The following guidelines outline a general
approach to setting water-dependency use regulations in urban environment
designations.

A. Top priority should be given to those areas with deep draft shipping
capabilities that are suitable for industry and commerce. SMPs should limit
uses to water-dependent uses, water-related uses supporting the water-
dependent uses, or public access. This can be done by creating an "urban-
maritime" environment with such requirements. Other uses can be
permitted as auxiliary or conditional uses. If other uses are allowed,
11 primacy" can be given to water-dependent uses in case there-are any
questions of compatibility. This means that water-dependent uses such as a
boat paint shop can be built even though they n-dght impact adjacent non-
water-dependent uses. Current water-dependent activity areas should be
retained unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.

B. Areas where large-scale industrial and commercial uses are not feasible but
which are suitable for smaller-scale water-dependent activities (e.g.
recreational boating, small-scale fishing and boat repair) should require that
new shoreline development emphasize water-dependent uses by one of the
methods below:

I .Permitting water-depend--nt uses solely- or
7

2. Requiring that a portion (percentage) of the development be water-
dependent by encouraging n-@xed-use projects that combine water-
dependent uses with public access and water-enjoyment or limited non-
water-oriented uses; or

3. Requiring that a designated portion or percentage of shoreline of the
suitable area be reserved for water-dependent uses; or

4. Conditioning non-water-dependent uses so they do not displace
existing water-oriented uses and/or are located so that they do not
preclude future water-dependent uses suitable for the site. For

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-377

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

example, the conditions might require that a resort complex be set back
from the water a sufficient distance to allow future cruise ship, or
passenger ferry moorage.

Special Tip

7he differences in physical requirements between small craftlrecreational
boatingfacilities and large cargolshipbuilding activities oftenfonn a natural
separation between these two ranges of uses. 7he shallow water depth that
prohibits larger vesselsfacilitatesfloal and breakwater constructionfor
marinas.

C. There may be a third condition where the suitability for most water-
dependent uses is limited because:

I . Little or no upland area exists nearby.

2. Other uses such as the central business district (CBD) or residential
neighborhood make large industry intrusive.

3. Heavy wave action limits small boat use.

4. Lack of access or traffic congestion prevent efficient activities.

5. Proximity to the CBD with demand for pedestrian-oriented uses.

6. Environmental conditions make dredging, filling or other shoreline
modifications impractical.

7. Opportunity for civic redevelopment using shoreline as a public amenity
is a community goal.

D. In these cases where suitability of water-dependent uses is limited,
opportunities for water-dependent activities should be sought and
incorporated into the development. A special environment designation can
be developed with less stringent water-dependency requirements.
Examples of SNIP requirements include:

1. Requirement for providing moorage on all development directly on the
shoreline.

2. Incentives for n-@ixed-use development incorporating substantial water-
dependent uses.

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-378

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Requiring public access for all projects in the environment. Access
requirements should be specific in intent and include design
specifications.

4. Restricting development to water-oriented use on the ground level
and/or waterfront side of the development.

Chapter 12 discusses master program techniques local governments can use to
encourage a broad spectrum of water-oriented activities on their waterfronts.

Another important way to encourage water-oriented uses on the waterfront is
to classify existing non-water-oriented uses in areas suitable for water-
dependent development as non-conforming uses. This means that the existing
uses would be "grand fathered" (allowed to remain on the shoreline) but not be
allowed to expand. By setting clear requirements that existing non-conforming
uses not be allowed to expand in an environment designation where water-
oriented uses are given priority, a master program can prevent the further
encroachment of inappropriate activities into key maritime
commercial/industrial sites.

Chapter 10 - Promoting Water-oriented Uses H-379

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 11
Master Program
Provisions for
Mixed-use Projects

Definition and Objectives

Mixed-use projects are developments that combine water-dependent uses with
water-enjoyment uses and/or non-water-oriented uses. Mixed-use
developments can be a tool for achieving increased water-dependent activities,
civic revitalization and public access on the shoreline. To encourage mixed-
use projects that achieve a public benefit, special provisions can be included in
a master program that offer a potential developer incentives or more latitude
than normal master program requirements. In return, the developer's proposal
must include elements that further the objectives of the Shoreline Management
Act and benefit the public. Implicit in the concept of n-dxed-use provisions is
that additional development incentives must be justified by increased and long-
term public benefit resulting from the project and that the public benefit must
relate to the SMA objectives. Generally, in mixed-use projects the water-
oriented uses and non-revenue recreation uses are "subsidized" by the
economic advantages of the other uses in the sense that the water-oriented uses
could not be econon-dcally developed without support from viable non-water-
oriented uses.

Typical benefits and incentives that are balanced in mixed-use projects are
described below.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-380

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shoreline Management
Objectives for Mixed-use Projects

A. Giving priority to water-dependent uses by:

1 . Including significant water-dependent development as part of a mixed-
use project; or

2. Reserving a portion of the site for development of water-dependent
development; or

3. Providing facilities that support on-site or adjacent water-dependent
activities (e.g. support services for fishing industry).

B. Giving the public greater opportunities to enjoy the shoreline by:

1. Including water-enjoyment uses as part of the project; and

2. Integrating significant public access elements into the project; and

3. Providing special design elements or features such as view corridors,
natural shoreline landscaping, etc.

C. Protecting a natural resource by:

1. Including a protected habitat area as part of the project; or

2. Enhancing the biological qualities of a degraded or polluted site.

Development Incentives For Projects
Which Serve SMP Objectives

A. Greater height or development intensity than normally permitted under the
SNTI

B. Greater range of potential permitted uses;

C. Greater potential for over-water construction as a conditional use; and

D. Greater flexibility in site design standards.

Chapter 11 - Mixcd-use Projects H-381

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Mixed-use Development Issues

The Urban Waterftont Policy Analysis produced by the Washington State
Department of Ecology in 1986 addressed the following issues related to
mixed-use projects:

L Methods to weigh the project's public benefit against its potential impacts
and how to incorporate public input into the decision process.

2. A process to "negotiate" design elements and use requirements. Typically,
reviewers and development applicants need to be able to mutually resolve
numerous planning and design issues such as amenities of use, public
access design, urban design controls, integration with local surroundings,
parking and circulation, etc.

3. Ensuring that the water-dependent use is not abandoned after the project is
developed, leaving essentially a non-water-dependent project on the
shoreline.

4. Evaluating whether or not the "subsidy" of water-dependent or recreational
uses is legitimate and necessary.

5. Involving the Washington Department of Ecology and the Washington
Department of Natural resources, (if DNR is involved as land owner) into
the initial stages of the review process.

6. Ensuring that the project does not set an undesirable precedent that can be
copied in other areas.

IfT_

4
r

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-382

SMI? Handbook - 1994 Edition

This chapter describes more specific master program techniques for mixed-use
projects, focusing on problems and examples related to the above issues that
have arisen during the past few years.

In addition, the SMA and WAC 173-16 objectives, along with Ecology permit
review experiences in recent years, indicate policy guidelines that set certain
limitations or constraints on SMP mixed-use provisions, which are discussed
below.

Specifying Where Mixed-use
Projects Are Permitted

The most effective way to reduce the chance of an inappropriate mixed-use
proposal, or to avoid setting a dangerous precedent for proposals in
incompatible locations is to state specifically where on the shoreline mixed-use
projects are permitted. Unless there is an unusual situation, mixed-use projects
should be restricted to urban environments, as they fit with the objective of
Ilensur[ing] optimum utilization of the shorelines within urbanized areas by
providing for intensive public use and by managing development so that it
enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of urban uses" (see WAC
173-16-040(4)(4)). Within the urban environment, mixed-use projects should
be restricted to those areas where:

1. An intensive mix of uses would not conflict with established or potential
water-dependent uses.

2. Development would not damage an important environmental resource.

3. Mixed-use development would not occupy a shoreline that is a unique
resource for a major water-dependent activity (such as a large site with
deep water and rail access that is suitable for a container cargo yard, log
shipment facility, major boat building shop, etc.).

4. There is a nearby urban center, large population, unique activity or special
amenity that would benefit from more intense shoreline development.

5. More intensive shoreline use fits with state and local public policies and
planning objectives.

Restricting mixed-use projects to appropriate locations along the shoreline has
the additional benefit in that the master program site design standards and
permit conditions can be tailored to take maximum advantage of those
shorelines.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-383

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Potential locations for mixed-use projects can be specified in SMPs in any one
of the ways described below:

I .Define a special environment designation such as "urban mixed-use" where
mixed-use projects are permitted and the special n-dxed-use provisions
apply; or

2. Indicate the sections of the shoreline to which the mixed-use provisions
apply. This method is useful when there are only a few specific properties
or points along the shoreline that are suitable for mixed-use projects; or

3. List specific conditions that must exist at a site to be considered for a
mixed-use project. Conditions n-dght include a more specific statement of
those geographical limitations described above. Because it is based on a
performance standard, this technique is more subject to interpretation and
therefore less preferred than the other two approaches above. It should
only be used if the mixed-use provisions themselves are very specific and
provide strong controls during the review process.

Special Tip:

Potential locationsfor mixed-use projects should be one of the items
considered during the shoreline inventory and suitability analysis (see
Chapter 3, SMP Amendment Process).

Specifying Requirements and
I n-centives for Mixed-use Projects

Master program provisions for mixed-use projects should list the general
objectives and specific requirements that the project must meet in order to
qualify as an acceptable tr@ixed-use project. A key element in mixed-use
projects is, of course, the water-dependent and water-enjoyment uses. It is
clear that many decisions regarding water-related status must be made on a
case-by-case basis and that the bulk of commercial activities located along the
waterfront may be water-related rather than water-dependent or water-
enjoyment uses. If mixed-use projects do not include either or both of these
uses they are not truly mixed-use projects. Adding public access elements
(such as a boardwalk) or environmental mitigation (such as wetland
enhancement) to a proposal does not make it a mixed-use project.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-384

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

V:RF Special Tip:

If the local government's development objectivefor a specific section of
shoreline is public access or environmental enhancement, then these elements
should be conditions placed on any development permit Ae master program
may also provide incentives such as greater intensity or a wider range of uses
with the increase ofpublic access or environmental enhancement Specific
standardsfor meeting these conditions are open simpler than mixed-use
provisions, which involve a wider range of options and variables.

Below are listed several examples of methods to specify the type and amount
of water-dependent or water-enjoyment uses. (The term "water-oriented" is
used to specify water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment uses.) In
essence, the provisions are formulas for setting the amounts and locations of
non-water-oriented and water-oriented uses. V&ch type of formula is most
appropriate depends upon local conditions.

Figure I I -I illustrates Fisherman's Tern-drial in Seattle, a mixed-use project
with water-dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment and non-water-oriented
uses. The City of Seattle's SNT determined the location and quantity of non-
water-oriented uses.

ill IM
0

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-385

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Small ssel Repair 2 5,060 SF'

'F- Expansion Area
NW Dock Staglngi 0.000 sr-

New NW Doci 150'-Wide
Net Repair 8,000 SF

Vessel Storage 12,000 SF
J

- - - - - - -- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -7-
EqJip. $@orag. 28.000
35 @1. Wide Work Area Utu Do k Widening
Roaclwa@ 30 Ft.

iY!
i P
Fish Auction 201, 0 S
0
Otfl@ces Above 4 1., LOSL
I

Potential Site Fislhrrnve@'s t
Memorial

J- 1-1
New Restaurant at 8,0 00-S 11. 4@
10,500SF Office Seconanooi@ -T-
aii 8,000 SF OfIJ
New 11,000 SF Rot

4 000 SF Coffee Shop 2.500 SF Tavarn
9:000 SF Qffice Second Floor

Offices & a"

C-2 Bldg. Ground.PL, Commercial
New 2nd FL. Offices at 15.000 SF

Ne"et Shed 18.000 -11 E- si

Figure 11-1. Fishermen's Terminal in Seattle. A mixed-use project with water-
dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment and non-water-oriented uses. The location
and quantities of non-water-oriented uses were set by Seattle's SMEP.
SF
I D @-SF
;@F
L

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-386

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Formulas for Setting Water-oriented
Use Requirements

Five methods for reserving portions of new development for water-oriented
uses are described below.

A. Require that a certain percentage of a building's ground floor area be
water-oriented. Example: "A minimum of 85 percent of the total ground
floor building area of all structures shall be water-oriented uses" (see
Figure 11-2).

Non-water-onented use

8
5% (e.g.) of all ground floor building
... area must be water-dependentOTwater
enjoyment uses

--------------- - -

Water-dependent uses 2aly
over water

- ------------ - - -

--------------

200' Jurisdiction -------------
a
;=@er-der@ndent use
0 er wat

r. :.. - 7.

Cross section
Figure 11-2. Mixed-use formula based on a maximum percentage of the building's
ground floor area being non-water-oriented.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects B-387

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

B. Base the required amount of water-oriented uses on a percentage of site
area (see Figure 11 -3). Example: Non-water-oriented uses are permitted
when:

I .The non-water-oriented commercial uses occupy no more than 15
percent of the dry land area of the site.

2. The uses are located on site to accommodate water-dependent, water-
related or water-enjoyment uses that are included as part of the
development proposal or are existing on the site. Parking required for
each use shall be incorporated as part of the land area for that use.

Note: Master programs should indicate how the amount of required
parking is calculated on the site. 7hese types ofprovisions are usefulfor
large master-planned sites.

C. Designate a parallel environment that applies to all submerged land and, if
desired by local government, all dry uplands within 100 feet of the
shoreline (see Figure 11 -4).

Note: With thisformuld, a property owner would be encouraged to
develop a mixed-use project to get maximum use of hislher site.

-Z W"W

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-388

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

*Non-water-oriented use may occupy up to 15 % of lot

Office (non-water-oriented)

Parking serving offices is counted as non-
water-oriented land area Restaurant (water-
enjoyment)

-------------

--------- -----
-- ------------------

7tin

cm:r>

------ - ------

............... 6

*85 % of lot reserved for water oriented uses

Note that this provision would calculate the
% of entire shoreline lot area, not just within
the 200' of the shoreline. The regulations
could also be written to apply just to the 200'
jurisdiction.

Figure 11-3. Mixed-use formula based on a percentage of land area.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-389

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

-- - - - ---------- --- -- ----
200'
Water-oriented uses required in this
area

---------------
--------------------

..........

.. .............. - - --------------

Parallel environment (called urban-
maritime or other name to denote
water-oriented use requirements)
..............
...............
-----------
where water-ofientation is required
- - - - - - - - --
. ... . . . . . . . . . . .

------------------

-----------------
---------------------

---------- ------

.............
..............

. .........
-------- - --------

Boat house

...............
............................................. .
...................
..........
...... ......
------------------
..... ...... .........
............ --------------
Upland Shoreline parallel
environment environment

Section

Figure 114. Mixed-use provisions using parallel environments that require water-
oriented uses.
'A@@

-----------

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-390

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

D. Use the parallel environment technique in "C" above and allow the property
owner the option of building I square foot of site area in the shoreline
environment for every square foot of site area of water-oriented use in the
upland environment. No non-water-oriented use should be permitted over
water. In some cases they may be permitted as conditional uses. See
discussion on conditional uses below. No parking or access roads serving
the non-water-oriented uses should be allowed in the shoreline environment
(see Figure 11-5).

Note: Since this type of mixed-use provision allows a great number of
possible types of site design variables, it is recommended that option "D"
be allowed only as a conditional use.

..................... ater-dependent use only over water

Non-water-oriented use developed at
same time as water-dependent use as
!Non-Water-Oriented part of mixed-use master plan

M M% - - - - - - Water-oriented development must
-precede or be concurrent with
. . . .. ...... ---------- non-water-oriented development

ate - I nte
Dev ent

--------------
..............
-oriented uses in upland
Water
XXX environment in greater amount
than the non-water-on'ented uses
in the shoreline environment

200' Jurisdiction
7 01

Figure 11-5. Mixed-use provisions allowing non-water-oriented uses if the uses are set
back from the shoreline.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-391

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

E. Specify where non-water-ofiented uses are allowed. Port Townsend has
recently formulated a mixed-use development provision for allowing non-
water-oriented uses on the interior of an over-water building if water-
oriented uses occupy the remainder of the building envelope. A possible
regulation might be worded: Non-water-oriented uses not exceeding 15
(e.g.) percent of total building area, are pern-dtted over-water as conditional
uses, provided that they are separated from the shoreline, dock or pier by a
water-oriented use and a continuous public access pathway (see Figure I I-
6).

----- --------

----------

Zw@
Pier Structure

Public access and moorage required
around perimeter of pier

----- ------------
-----------

---- - -----

------------------
-- - ------ - ------- ------------- - -

Water-oriented use
Non-water-oriented use allowed if
a viable water-oriented use separates
the water from the non-water-oriented use

......................

LAL

- - - - ---------
---- ------

Figure 11-6. Illustration of mixed-use pro-visions requiring that non-water-oriented uses
be separated from the shoreline by public access and a water-oriented use.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-392

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

F. Moorage Requirements. Reserve moorage space for vessels by specifying
the amount and type of moorage facilities for over-water construction.
The following moorage requirements are from the Seattle Shorehne Master
Program Central Harborfront Environment.

LE: CITY OF SEATTLE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM

23.60.700 Moorage Requirements

A. Developments in the UH Environment shall provide moorage on a regular
basis either through:

1. Using moorage as an integral part of their operation; or

2. Leasing their moorage for use by commercial or recreational
watercraft; or

3. Actively advertising the availability of transient moorage.

B. To facilitate moorage, developments shall provide either:

1. Cleats on the two sides of the pier sufficiently strong for the moorage
of vessels 100 feet in length; or

2. Floats, for moorage of smaller vessels, that are at least 1,800 square
feet with a minimum width of 6 feet; or

3. Alternative moorage facilities providing an equivalent amount of
moorage, as determined by the Director.

C. To facilitate access to moorage, developments shall provide:

1. A pier apron of a minimum width of 18 feet on each side and the
seaward end of the pier or wharf, and

2. Railings and/or ramps designed to permit access to the pier apron or
roadway from moored ships and boats.

3. Requiring a specific amount of moorage space per one I square foot of
development. Example: At least 50 linear feet of mooring floats or
berthing pier with at 20 feet of water depth below MLLW shall be
L provided per 1000 square feet of gross building floor area.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-393

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

40 Site Development Standards
for Mixed-use Projects

Since mixed-use projects encourage more intense development and a variety of
activities, it is often usefW to require special site design standards that further
public objectives. Site design standards in the form of conditions on mixed-use
projects can relate to public access, height and view blockage, landscaping and
environmental protection. Below are listed typical site design standards that
should be considered in preparing mixed-use development provisions.

Note: Such standards can be writtenfor any type of development but
since mixed-use is essentially a bonusforpublic benefit, the standards can
be more extensive and speci/11c. 7he requirements below are presented as
examples. 7he numbers and dimensions mayor may not apply.

A. Public Access

1. Requiring specific public access elements such as a public pathway 12
feet wide along the waterward perimeter of all over-water structures
except where limited by a water-dependent use.

2. Requiring a public access path to the waterward side of all non-water-
oriented uses and specifically stating that no non-water-oriented use
shall limit the public's ability to access the shoreline.

3. Requiring special facilities for activities such as bicycles, children's play
area, etc.

4. Requiring 10 linear feet of public seating per 100 linear feet of shoreline
or square feet of required public open space.

5. Requiring 45 percent of the site be retained as public open space or that
25 percent of all over-water structures be public open space, and
further requiring the public open space not be separated from the
shoreline by buildings or parking.

B. Height, Bulk and View Blockage

1. Requiring that buildings over 35 feet above NUIHW be set back 30 feet
from the OHWM for every foot above 35 feet and requiring that the
setback area be used for public open space.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-394

SMI? Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. Requiring that all developments with buildings over 35 feet high
provide a view corridor from the nearest public street right-of-way (R-
O-W) to the water of at least 20 percent of the width of that building as
measured parallel to the public R-O-W.

C. Landscaping and Environmental Protection

I . Requiring that significant native (indigenous) vegetation be
retained/restored.

2. Requiring that 30 percent of the lot be placed in landscaped open
space.

3. Placing landscaping standards on parking lots. (For example: one tree
and 150 square feet of landscaped berm with ground cover per every
three parking stalls).

4. Screening of all parking lots from the shoreline.

5. Requiring environmental enhancement as an element of development
(this should be specific to conditions where mixed-use projects are
permitted).

Techniques for Reviewing
Mixed-use Projects

Balancing the public benefits and developer advantages inherent in a mixed-use
development is often difficult because of the number and complexity of the
issues involved. Even specific use formulas for water-oriented uses and site
development standards for mixed-use developments are subject to
interpretation. Therefore, a special review process for local evaluation of
mixed-use projects is recommended. Also, it should be made clear in the
policy statements preceding the mixed-use regulations that mixed-use
provisions are incentives granting a developer greater flexibility only if he or
she meets local government's objectives for providing a public benefit as well
as the letter of the requirements. As such, the option for a mixed-use project
does not constitute a development "right". The onus is clearly on the
developer to meet the requirements as interpreted by the local government
during review.

There are three general models for a mixed-use review process described
below. Opportunity for public involvement in the decision making should be
provided in all of the processes.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-395

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Local Review Based on Site Development
Proposals

The first model requires that the applicant provide the reviewing body with a
preliminary site development plan illustrating how the mixed-use requirements
are met. The submittal requirements and review process will vary from
government to government depending upon the complexity of the mixed-use
regulations. At a minimum, the required submittal package should include:

I .Calculations showing that the percentages or quantities of required uses are
met.

2. Schematic plan of public access elements and areas proposed for dedication
to public.

3. Parking, landscaping, open space areas in plan.

4. Required setbacks and/or view corridors.

5. Description of uses in enough detail to ascertain that they are water-
dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment or non-water-oriented.

6. Other environmental documentation as required by state and local
regulations.

The local government can determine the review process for mixed-use
regulations under this model so long as the process meets the minimum WAC
173-14 permit processing requirements (see Shoreline A&Wnistrator's
Manual). It may be that the preliminary site review foHows a procedure
similar to a local planned unit development or special design review district.

Conditional Use Permit

If the local government's n@ixed-use provisions are designed to allow maximum
flexibility or to be adaptable to a wide variety of shoreline conditions, then the
review process must give the local reviewing body and the Department of
Ecology greater control in negotiating the specifics of the development
proposal. This can be done using the conditional use process in WAC 173-14
and described in the Shoreline A&ninistrator's Manual. The conditional use
permit process requires Ecology review and approval before the permit is
granted. Although the conditional use permit takes longer than the normal
process, it allows local jurisdictions several advantages.

1. Mxed-use project provisions can be more flexible and allow a greater
range of development options.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-396

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. It provides local jurisdictions technical assistance and support from
Ecology during review.

3. It enables local jurisdictions to consider mixed-use projects in a greater
variety of settings and shoreline conditions.

4. Conditional uses require a public hearing.

Conditional Use Permit Required in Special
Situations

Another option for designing a mixed-use permit process is to use the process
described in the local review process above, except in specified conditions; for
example, on shorelines of state-wide significance or for projects proposing
water-enjoyment uses on over-water construction. It is recommended that
mixed-use projects require a conditional use permit when:

1. Master program mixed-use regulations are not stated in a specific formula
for evaluating quantities and types of uses.

2. Mixed-use projects are allowed in environmentally sensitive areas.

3. Mixed-use projects are allowed in a wide variety of shoreline conditions.

4. Mixed-use projects can allow over-water construction for other than a
water-dependent use.

5. Mixed-use projects are allowed in an environment designation -that is
suitable for maritime industry (see Chapter 10, Promoting Water-oriented
Uses.)

Insuring the Permanence of
Water-oriented Uses

One of the most difficult problems inherent in a mixed-use project is insuring
that the water-dependent, water-related or water-enjoyment use is not
abandoned and the space converted to non-water-oriented uses. Although
there are no easy ways to enforce the continuance of a water-oriented use that
is not economically viable, there are some ways to inhibit the conversion of
shoreline space to non-water-oriented uses.

The first method is to state in the master program that those areas reserved for
water-oriented uses shall not be used for non-water-oriented use and that

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-397

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

occupancy permits shall not be granted for non-water-oriented uses in
designated areas if the conditions of the shoreline permit are not met.

A second enforcement method that falls clearly within the shoreline substantial
development permit process is to include a general regulation in the master
program that requires all new non-water-oriented development be in
conformance with past conditions placed on mixed-use projects on that site.
This means that the amount of water-oriented uses required by previous
permits must be at a given site if any further non-water-oriented development
is to occur.

An important requirement to include with any set of mixed-use provisions is
that the water-oriented portion of the project be operational Pdor to the
granting of an occupancy permit for the non-water-oriented use. It is also
useful to have any covenants required under the pern-dt recorded as a deed
restriction on the title report. This will ensure that the requirements WHI
continue even if the property is sold.

Limitations on Mixed-use Projects

While n-dxed-use provisions can result in the relaxation of some shoreline
master program regulations in order to encourage water-oriented development,
there are some shoreline management practices that will not be approved at the
state level unless there are extreme and unusual circumstances.

1. Non-water-oriented and water-enjoyment uses shall not be developed over
-water or in existing structures except as a conditional use subject to
Ecology review. (See Chapter 12, Encouraging Waterfront
Redevelopment in Special Situations).

2. The priorities of RCW 90.58.020 shall apply to mixed-use developments
on shorelines of state-wide significance.

Checklist for Master Program
Mixed-Use Provisions

The following outline summarizes the issues that should be addressed in mixed-
use provisions and presents options for approaches to addressing them. It is
also intended as a summary of this chapter's major points.

A. Identify where mixed-use provisions apply.

1. Only in specified locations; (or)

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-398

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. Only in specified environment designations; (or)

3. Only where specified conditions occur; (or)

4. Combination of the above.

B. Define use requirements for the quantities and types of uses (water-
oriented and non-water-oriented) and geographic and site conditions
placed on each type of use.

1. Requirements for water-oriented uses based on:

a. Percentage or quantity of a building's ground floor area devoted
to water-oriented uses; (or)

b. Percentage of land area devoted to water-oriented uses; (or)

c. Maximum percentage of land area allowed for non-water-oriented
uses plus significant water-oriented development requirements.

C. Develop moorage capability by:

1. Requiring moorage facilities on all over-water structures; (and/or)

2. Developing moorage facilities based on a formula for development
intensity; (or)

3. Other.

D. Set special design standards that increase public benefit from mixed-use
projects (when permitted).

1. Additional legally dedicated and maintained public access or open
space; (and/or)

2. Bonuses for environmental enhancement; (and/or)

3. View protection requirements; (and/or)

4. Other.

E. Define the review process which gives the local government control to
weigh public benefits and development incentives by:

1. A local special review procedure similar to planned unit development
or design review district permit process; (or)

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H-399

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. A process that requires a formal conditional use permit with Ecology
approval required; (or)

3. A local special review process such as (a) above which requires a
conditional use pern-k if the developer pursues specific options that are
of state-wide importance (e.g. non-water-oriented development over.
water).

F. Include provisions to inhibit conversion of water-oriented uses to non-
water-oriented uses once the project is completed by:

I . Prohibiting occupancy of non-water-oriented uses in areas reserved for
water-dependent uses; (or)

2. Conditioning all future non-water-oriented development on the site
contingent on adherence to the requirements of the previous mixed-use
permit.

G. Write policy statements to guide permit review including:

I . Statement that the mixed-use provisions are options for development
bonuses based on public benefit and are subject to local government
and state review and approval; (and)

2. Clear, objective statements for mixed-use projects that emphasize uses
that require a waterfront location and the significant opportunity for
people to enjoy the shoreline; (and)

-3. Criteria for evaluating public benefit of a project based on the goal
statements above to be used in evaluating mixed-use permit
applications.

Chapter 11 - Mixed-use Projects H400

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 12
Encouraging
Waterfront
Redevelopment in
Special Situations

Introduction

By giving priority to those uses which are dependent upon a shoreline location,
the SMA and its supporting WAC 173-16 guidelines discourage non-water-
oriented development on the shoreline and mandate restricting over-water
construction unless its primary purpose is for water-dependent or public uses.
These general restrictions can conflict with local government's waterfront
redevelopment efforts. For example, some cities may wish to permit a non-
water-oriented hotel or office building on the shoreline to add activity to their
central waterfront. In other cases, allowing water-enjoyment uses such as
restaurants or resorts over the water would help entice more development into
the downtown. This chapter presents some methods for taking advantage of
special opportunities for shoreline redevelopment while remaining consistent
with shoreline management objectives.

Chapter 12 - Waterfront Redemlopment H-401

SM7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

Mixed-use Projects

Mixed-use projects which combine water-oriented uses with non-water-
oriented uses are a proven way of increasing shoreline development in urban
areas. The concept for mixed-use provisions is that in return for including
water-oriented uses and public access features in the-project, the
developer is granted special bonuses that allow more intense
development, a greater range of non-water-oriented uses or more
extensive over-water construction. In most cases, the non-water-oriented
uses subsidize and support the water-oriented activities so that the shoreline
management objectives are satisfied. Special SUT provisions encouraging
mixed-use projects can be complex and are usually tied to specific sites or
opportunities along an urban waterfront. Techniques for preparing SNV
mixed-use project provisions are discussed in detail in Chapter 11 of this
Handbook.

Historic Structures

Ustoric waterfront structures represent a limited but important group of
cultural resources. Older buildings, bridges and industrial elements generally
require ongoing maintenance and in many cases, have outfived their original
purposes. Unless they can be adapted to new uses, many wifl likely fall into
disrepair. Therefore, it may be appropriate to allow non-water-oriented uses in
historic buildings on the shoreline and, in some cases, in historic wharf
structures constructed over water.

As a general policy guideline, Ecology will give consideration to master
program amendments which permit non-water-oriented use in historic
structures provided that the following conditions are met.

� The structures are historic landmarks on the local, state or national
registries.

� The non-water-oriented use does not displace an existing water-
dependent use.

� The structure is brought up to the maintenance standards and historic
restoration required by its registration.

� Adequate public access is established.

An important aspect of this guideline is that, since it applies to a finite number
of existing structures with unique circumstances, the policy does not set a

Chapter 12 - Waterrront Redevelopment H402

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

precedent that can be repeated indiscriminately. Also, this policy is consistent
with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources'WACs governing
lease conditions.

Constrained or Unusual
Shoreline Areas

In many cities, the shoreline is separated from the downtown by train tracks,
steep cliffs or freeway viaducts, constraining the usefulness of the property. In
these cases, development of the waterfront for water-oriented uses is severely
limited by access and buildable area and yet the shoreline may represent an
untapped resource near a large population of potential users. Where the
creation of new land or over-water uses would result in greater public
enjoyment of the shoreline through water-oriented uses and pubfic access,
Ecology may consider master program conditional use provisions that permit
creating land or over-water construction for a variety of shoreline uses. The
local governments wishing to redevelop such a shoreline should confer with
Ecology Shorelands staff regarding the possibility of preparing more inclusive
use provisions.
0 In order to be considered favorably by Ecology, provisions for over-water
construction or landfill on urban shorelines for other than water-dependent
uses must demonstrate that:

1. Urban shoreline use will be severely limited by physical conditions unless
the provisions are enacted.

2. There will be no significant negative environmental impact or loss of
resources resulting from proper enforcement of the provisions.

3. The provisions further the local government's urban redevelopment plans
and are complemented by capital improvements such as roads and utilities
to support the new development.

4. The development will not displace current water-dependent uses or
preclude future water-dependent uses.

5. There will be a net public benefit from projects permitted by the proposed
provisions.

6. The provisions are applicable only to a specific location or section of
shoreline.

Chapter 12 - Waterfront Redevelopment H403

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

AD uses proposed for over-water construction or on new fill, other than water-
dependent uses, should be pennitted only as conditional uses. Mixed-use
provisions that require inclusion of water-oriented uses in a project may be a
useful method to frame regulations that give developers and local governments
more latitude in areas that are difficult to develop.

Central Waterfront
Redevelopment Districts

The central waterfronts of many Washington communities represent excellent
sites for civic revitalization efforts. Often, the maritime industrial uses have
moved away from the central harborfront due to lack of space, changes in the
industry or restricted access, leaving the urban shoreline underutilized. With
the new emphasis on revitalizing downtowns through public improvements and
high amenity multi-use development, central waterfronts in cities ranging in
size and character from Seattle and Everett, to Aberdeen, Oak Harbor and the
Tri-Cities are seen as key opportunities for recreational, commercial and civic
development.

WAC-173-16-040 supports intense mixed-use shoreline redevelopment in
urban environments so long as priority is given to water-oriented uses and
public access. However, there are many instances where intensive urban
redevelopment can conflict with shoreline management principles. Some
examples are:

� Displacing water-dependent uses with non-water-oriented commercial
development.

� Constructing extensive parking in the shoreline jurisdiction to serve
commercial uses.

� Developing exclusive water-enjoyment uses or non-water-oriented uses
over the water.

� Developing residential communities on the water that will ultimately
conflict with nearby recreational or maritime industrial uses.

� Destruction of shorelines and shallow water habitat and vegetation.

If master program provisions are prepared specifically to resolve apparent
conflicts between high intensity development and general shoreline
management principles, then greater site planning flexibility can be achieved,
potentially resulting in more attractive shoreline development that offers
greater shoreline use and benefit to the public.

Chapter 12 - Waterfront Redevelopment H404

SM7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

The recommended approach to promote greater flexibility in master program
provisions for revitalizing central waterfronts is the designation of a special
shoreline environment such as an "urban central harborfront" or "urban
redevelopment" environment for the redevelopment area and to prepare
regulations in that designation that deal specifically with the key issues fisted
above. The following sections discuss concepts for dealing with use,
regulations and site development standards for an urban environment
designation encouraging intense multi-use redevelopment.

Water-dependent Use Regulations

Use regulations in an "urban redevelopment" environment must stifl address
the WAC guideline giving priority to uses that require waterfront locations or
that offer people the opportunity to enjoy the shoreline. This can be done in
several ways.

I . By comprehensively planning the city's urban shoreline resources and
designating specific areas for maritime industrial uses. Seattle has used this
technique effectively by creating six separate urban environments with
varying water-dependency provisions. On the central waterfront, where
space and access constraints limit industrial activities, the SW does not
require water-dependent uses but does require moorage facilities on over-
water construction (see Figure 12- 1).

In order to relax requirements for water-oriented and water-enjoyment uses
on the shoreline, the local government should be prepared to demonstrate
that a shoreline suitability analysis and comprehensive planning effort has
reserved suitable shoreline areas for maritime uses and/or the shorelines in
urban redevelopment environments are not suitable for water-dependent
industry (see Handbook Chapter 10, Promoting Water-oriented Uses).

2. Through mixed-use project provisions, mixed-use projects that combine
water-oriented shoreline uses with non-water-oriented uses can add interest
and diversity to a waterfront. Chapter I I discusses techniques for
preparing mixed-use SNIP requirements.

3. Permitting non-water-oriented uses in registered historic structures as
discussed in the section above.

4. Focusing on water transportation. Passenger ferries, shuttle boats, tour
services and float planes are becoming more attractive transportation
options as Washington's ground transportation links become more clogged.
Redevelopment districts in urban areas should accommodate this future
need.

5. Providing transient moorage and/or public fishing piers.

Chapter 12 - Waterrront Redevelopment H405

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

BuTid-aBTe-Area One Parcel Scope 1 -50 -0

ed .1
P, -4d h, S.b ... I.- C b-I..
';e "-
do, 1@. 9-11
Th,=-,d -A- b. W-le .. .......
0-. W- .,2.
C-

T.. -5-
11101 1,1b 1, E---V - 160 7: ..... ... .. ..... ...... .. ... .
2 6 -."Id h I-
W fil, G-- W, -.11 b, .1 .,Cr
d

--r.% C-- r@ L-0

Site Plan

-u.d,,d

1:@-_.-d b,

Partial Section s,.,., .,a -o

Figure 12-1. Seattle's Master Program allows over-water, non-water-oriented uses on
the central watcrfrout as it has reserved other areas for water-dependent uses and
required moorage and public acem on A piers.

Chapter 12 - Waterfront Redevelopment H-406

SM7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

Parking

Extensive parking to serve public uses is often a necessary evil on shorelines,
especially where easy public access from the city center is blocked by distance,
steep grades or physical barriers. Parking requirements in redevelopment
districts should be based on a careful study of real, not perceived, needs.
Before extensive parking is developed, the following alternatives should be
evaluated:

1 .Transit service/shuttle bus;

2. Water transportation;

3. Improved pedestrian links to upland parking; and

4. Joint-use parking (e.g. parking for offices during the week, and a boat
launch, marina or park during the weekend). In fact, joint-use parking
opportunities can be a motivation for mixed-use development.

Parking in shoreline jurisdiction should be limited to accessory use parking for
permitted uses only. Where possible parking should be built on the landward
side of structures and well-screened.

Over-water Uses

There may be limited sites on the central waterfront where permitting water-
enjoyment uses over the water can realize significant public benefit, especially
where these uses are tied to a comprehensive public access and/or water
transportation system. Ecology may consider water-enjoyment uses over
water as a conditional use if the location and conditions for approval are clearly
stated. The public benefit of such a provision and the specific reasons for
allowing over-water construction must be clearly identified. Impacts to
shallow water habitat must also be considered. Special public access features
or free transient moorage may be required as a condition in exchange for over-
water construction.

Public Access

A public access system and a mix of recreational facilities are essential
ingredients in any successful central waterfront revitalization. SNIP provisions
should include specific public access requirements for all development in
redevelopment districts, especially water-enjoyment and non-water-oriented
uses. Figure 12-2 illustrates an example of specific public access provisions
with landscaping and pedestrian use standards. Another provision that should

Chapter 12 - Waterfront Redevelopment H407

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

be added is "Developments with non-water-oriented and water-enjoyment uses
must not prevent public access to the water and must provide continuous
public access between the use and the shorefine."

Creative public access provisions should be explored that require specific
public access improvements for large-parcel development such as plazas,
artwork, viewing areas, interpretive kiosks, etc. This is most effectively done
when tied to a comprehensive public access plan (see Chapter 3, SM?
Amendment Process and Chapter 17, Public Access). The use of off-site
public access mitigation improvements or funds represents another opportunity
for implementing waterfront redevelopment district pubfic access
improvements. Many communities require port districts to provide public
access on new development projects. Sometimes the operations or location of
large industrial facilities such as log storage yards or container terminals
preclude useful public access. In this case, the public access requirement can
be transferred to another site such as a waterfront park or central waterfront
area. Port-funded view towers, esplanades, interpretive displays, decks or
other amenities in a redevelopment district can be an effective way to
accomplish public access objectives, especially when there is a conceptual fink
to port activities, such as a view of the working harborfront, interpretive
display or other public information element. However, off-site access should
be used only when on-site access is not an option (see Chapter 17, Public
Access).

;@14

Chapter 12 - Waterrront Redevelopment H-408

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shore I; n resior ell hancement or
habila are . construction or over-
at Cr boardualk

30' fardscaped SCIb3 cJ, Landscap 04003
shall emphasize native materials from
signature palette pla nIlist.Screen
40@ all building races %ithoui u-indown
and parkinti! areas
00 00 L

J@hwclinc Restoration

02
0

L C1,
Ilh,,,,clinc restoration N,.c. Diairorm
o asi -4

0
C9,

Shorclinr restoration Cons[ru@
rr a 20'x20' (min ) gazebc. or vcie'.0"
Plaifor7 Consdiructior, or a bathing
beach with son QD' Ions! min )

50' landscaped building and Parking 11 44 .9
lot setback Shoreline TC510TOtion
Landscaping shall be i(h nati,c mate-
riot! from sign3ture plant list
V6'. 7
6
50' building and parking lot setback C.3
landscaped -/picnic and possi@c rec-
rcaiion features Ne- fishing pier V
extending a minimum or 50'
into the water Landscaping N,
shall emphasize noti@c materials from
signature palette list except for la@n rcsIDr:oIj?r, and Ian sea c 7
picnic and recreation areas planin, Plus picnic are. or 0 21h
s Un 0@1 access to shorelint edpe /s,

Figure 12-2. Example of site specific public access improvements as a condition of
substantial development permits.

Chapter 12 - Waterfront Redevelopment H409

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 13
Riparian Corridor
Management

Introduction

Rivers and lakes differ from coastal shorelines in several respects that create
special issues and call for unique shoreline management techniques. Because
rivers form linear corridors, they are especiafly important ecological systems
linking habitats as well as providing migrating routes for wildlife. Rivers often
are the spine of larger ecosystems of associated wetlands, river valleys and
estuaries. The same linear configuration which makes rivers so valuable also
renders them especially delicate because the connecting habitat corridor can be
broken at any point and pollution or environmental degradation anywhere
along its course can have an effect throughout the system. Lakes are equally
sensitive as links within a larger river system or as diverse ecosystems that
provide a focus for surrounding areas.

Development pressure is increasing along many of the state's river corridors.
Effective river-oriented shoreline management and environmental protection is
especially critical in eastern Washington. Communities east of the Cascades
are experiencing increased and rapidly changing development trends.

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H410

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

� Large scale recreational and resort development, particularly on the
Columbia, Snake and Spokane rivers;

� Increased residential and retirement community development oriented
to river shorelines;

� Growth of port district development; and

� Use of riverfronts as the focus of civic revitalization efforts in cities
such as East Wenatchee, Clarkston, Tri-Cities and Spokane.

Coupled with this increased development pressure is the fact that the river
courses in dryer climatic zones are especially critical wildlife habitat corridors.
Hundreds of the state's vertebrate species are dependent upon the riparian
environment for their food, weather protection and cover. Moreover, the river
corridors support an integrated ecosystem of codependent plant and animal
communities.

This chapter describes special considerations and techniques for preparing
master program regulations for river corridors and includes "special tips" for
this process and " recommendat ions" for key regulatory topics.

Determining
Shoreline Jurisdiction

The Shoreline Management Act requires local governments to define shoreline
jurisdiction along rivers in either of the two ways below.

I . The area 200 feet from OHWM or floodway whichever is greater plus all
wetlands (marshes, bogs and swamps) in the 100-year floodplain (see
Figure 13-1, Option 1);

2. All or any portion of the I 00-year floodplain as long as it includes all of
those areas failing within Option I above (see Figure 13-1, Options 2 and
3).

Figure 13-1 illustrates the floodway and the floodplain and these options.
Option I represents the minimum amount of area that may be included within
shoreline jurisdiction.

Chapter 13 - Itiparian Corridor Management H411

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Special Tip

Including the entire 100-yearfloodplain in shoreline managemenijurisdiction
has thefollowing advantages:

� Accommodates complete meandering river ecosystems so that changes
in the river bed itself will not affectjurisdictional boundaries
� Automatically places shoreline management protection on the land
areas surrounding wetlands in the floodplain. This allows greater
control of the wetland edges, linkage to the water body or drainage
system, water quality and quantity entering and exiting the wetlands.
� Does not immediately require as extensive inventory of wetlands
because each substantial development in thefloodplain must applyfor
a shoreline permit. At that time, a specific welland analysis can be
required
� Allows more comprehensive shoreline management of the entire
floodplain.
� Carries the legal and administrative status associated with a state
regulation, including the attendant support with respect to the public
trust doctrine, public access andfunding sources.

Limiting shoreline jurisdiction to the 200-foot floodway and all associated
marshes, bogs and swamps, which will include wetlands in the 100-year
floodplain, requires that wetlands in the floodplain be inventoried and recorded
so that the shoreline jurisdiction be established and sensitive areas identified.
Permit applications in the floodplain can then be evaluated quickly as to
whether or not a wetland will be affected by the proposed development. The
major advantage of this option is that proposed developments that do not
include wetland areas and which are not within 200' of the floodway do not
require a shoreline permit, although such projects may require flood permits
and SEPA review.

Amplitude

--------- ------------- - -----------

Meander Belt
Center Line
----------- --- --- ... ... ........

-- ------------ ------ --- ----
-------- ------------- - ---------

t@L@ L
--- --- --- ---

------------ -------

River Meander Belt.

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H412

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 13-1. Options for determining shoreline jurisdiction on rivers (Page 1 of 4).

FLOODWAY & FLOODPLAfN BOUNDARIES

77.

River 'X.

Wetiand

Floodway

L-J loo Yr. Floodplal

Dike

Floodplain is synonymous with 100-year floodplain and means that land area susceptible to being
inundated by stream derived waters with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
given year. The lin@t of this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a
reasonable method which meets the objectives of the SMA (WAC 173-22-030 (2)).

The floodway is those portions of the area of a river valley lying strearnward from the outer limits
of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur %ith
reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annuafly, said floodway being identified, under
normal conditions, by changes in surface sod conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative
ground cover conditions. The floodway does not include lands that can reasonably be expected to
be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license
from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state. The limits of the
floodway are based on flood regulation ordinance maps or by a reasonable method which meets the
objectives of the SMA (WAC 173-22-030 (3)).

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H-413

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 13-1. Options for determining shoreline jurisdiction on rivers (Page 2 of 4).

OPTION I

Shoreline Jurisdiction

A:.

River

Wetiand

Floodway

r----
--1 100-Yr. Floodplain

200 Feet on either Side of the Floodway

Dike

Shoreline Jurisdiction includes all lands within 200'of floodway or OH-W11 (whichever is greater),
plus all marshes, bogs and swamps in the 100-year floodplain.

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H414

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 13-1. Options for determining shoreline jurisdiction on rivers (Page 3 of 4).

OPTION 2

Shoreline Jurisdiction

7@& River

Wetland

Floodway

L----11 100-Yr. Floodplain

200 Feet on either Side of the Floodway

Dike

Shoreline jurisdiction includes all lands within 1-00' of floodwav or OHNN'N4 (whichever is greater),
plus the entire I 00-year floodplain.

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H415

SMI? Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 13-1. Options for determining sboretine jurisdiction on rivers (Page 4 of 4).

OPTION -3

Shoreline Jurisdiction

L..... .....

River

Wetiand

Floodway

r----
.i 100-Yr. Floodplain

200 Feet on either Side of the Floodway

Vi Dike

Shoreline jurisdiction includes all lands within 200'of flood@%ay or 01-Rk N1 (@%hiche%er is greater).
all marshes, bogs and svcarnps in the 100-year floodplain, Plus other portions, of the I 00-%ear
floodplain as desiunated by the local L'o-ernment

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H416

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

From a holistic perspective, planning for the entire floodplain makes the most
sense when natural systems such as wetlands and wildlife habitat areas are
interconnected by drainage ways and ground water aquifers.

Since the SMA allows the inclusion of any or all of the 100-year floodplain
within shoreline jurisdiction, in addition to the 200-foot strip plus all floodplain
wetlands, there are other possible jurisdictional configurations that may be
advantageous. For example, a local government may elect to include a buffer
strip of specified width around all floodplain wetlands for greater protection.
Another approach would be to include specified drainage systems that are
critical for water quality or flood control. Finally, strips of land between
wetland areas and the river corridor could be placed within shoreline
jurisdiction to serve public access. See Figure 13-1 (option 3) on previous
page.

Special Tip

Measuring Stream Flow: Urban development can increase runoff into
streams, increasing their peakflow. In some cases, this can bring new
streams within the 20 cfsflow criteriafor inclusion within shoreline
managementjurisdiction. 7here may also be streams that have not had an
accurate flow measurement. If there is a question whether or not a strewn
meets the 20 cfsflow requirement, the local acbninistralion should contact the
Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelands Program to request a
stream flow analysis, (the Department has contracted with the U S.-
Geological Surveyfor a long-tenn study to reevaluate all 20 cfs points on
watersheds throughout the state. 7his project should be completed in the mid
90S).

Physical CriteriaJor Boundary Determination: If there is a question of
whether or not a lake or river shoreline is within shoreline management
jurisdiction, the physical criteriafor shoreline designation stated in WA C
173-18 and -20 prevail over otherforms of boundary determination. Zhis
means that if a shoreline or wetland meets the criteria of these WA C chapters,
then it is within SAIA jurisdiction.

Finding the Ordinary High Water Mark: The "ordinary high water mark"
(OHWV) is defined in RCW 90.58.030 as "Yhat mark that will befound by
examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action
of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in all ordinary
years as to mark upon the soil a character dislinciftom that of the abutting
upland, in respect to vegetation. " Yhus, the 0HWV is determined by visual
inspection of the river bank and can move as the river course changes over
time (see Shoreline Administrator's Many Chapter 3, Determining SMA
Jurisdiction Boundaries).

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H417

SM7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

Hoodways Referenced as Shoreline Boundaries: Sometimes a dYkd or
mappedfloodway is used as the boundaryftom which the 200-foot shoreline
area is measured In order to qualify as the edge of afloodplain and
floodway, a dike must extend at least as high as the I 00-yearflood elevation
plus 3jeet (FFMA requirement).

"Herb, you left your OHWM around the tub again!"

Coordination with Fisheries
Regulations and Forest Management
Practices

The Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife should be
contacted so that provisions for protecting or enhancing streambed and
fisheries habitats can be consistent with its policies.

The Washington State Forest Practices Rules and Regulations (Chapter 222-
30-020 WAC) calls for the establishment of a "Riparian Management Zone"
(RMZ) defined as a specified area along Type I waters (by definition these are
shorelines of the state) and other smaller water bodies. Forest practice
regulations set out specific measures that are to be taken to protect water

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H418

SNP Handbook - 1994 Edition

quality and fish and wildlife habitat, including the retention of a specific
quantity and type of trees. WAC-222-30-020 through -060 includes shoreline
protection regulations. The guidelines for calculating the average width of an
RMZ for Type I waters states that the RMZ must average a minimum of 50
feet in width from the shoreline.

Public Access and Recreational
Development

As mentioned above, rivers are increasingly becoming the focus of recreational
development. The Shoreline Management Act explicitly Usts as priority uses
public access and those activities that allow individuals to enjoy the shoreline.
However, it places a higher priority on preservation of natural resources,
particularly along shorelines of state-wide significance. In some areas, parks,
shoreline trails and other features can be developed without impacting the
natural shoreline environment. In other cases, trails and park amenities must
be set back from the shoreline to protect sensitive habitats. The shoreline
inventory should identify those sections of the shoreline where trails and other
public access features can approach the water's edge without causing.harm.
Provisions should be included to close sensitive habitat areas during breeding
or spawning periods, and for general revitalization, if necessary. The
regulations for environment designations should set standards for public access
along specific sections of the shoreline.

Floodplain Management

In recent years Washington's state and local governments have focused
increased attention on floodplain management. Severe flooding and rapid
development have made citizens and public officials more aware of the
interrelated and difficult challenges as well as the critical importance of flood
damage protection, stormwater management, resource protection and
comprehensive planning. The focus must be on managing the hazards that are
related to flooding since realistically it is impossible to strictly "control" floods.
The State of Washington has enacted state statutes establishing programs to
assist local governments in undertaking flood hazard management activities.

In 1991, the Department of Ecology published the handbook titled
Comprehensive Planningfor Flood HazardManagement which presents a
framework for floodplain planning and numerous resource management and
shoreline n-dtigation recommendations relevant to preparing SMPs for rivers.
The handbook stresses an ecologically sound approach to flood hazard

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H419

SNIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

management that emphasizes nonstructural methods including land use
controls, flood-proofing and on-site stormwater management practices.
Comprehensive Planningfor Flood Hazard Management also discusses the
planning techniques to satisfy Chapter 86-16 RCW (minimum requirements of
the National Flood Insurance Program) and Chapter 86.26 RCW (Flood
Control Assistance Account Program [FCAAP]). Procedures to combine
FCAAP and CZM funds to better integrate flood hazard management and
shoreline management are presented. Cities and counties preparing for SNIP
updates for rivers and floodplain shoreEnes are encouraged to contact the
Department of Ecology Shorelands Program to obtain a copy of
Comprehensive Planningfor Flood Hazard Management.

Flood Hazard Management Activities

Flood hazard management
In,olves a vmiety of
engineering, environmental
protection and planning
measures. I.Asted below are
some of them.

Better management of upper
watershed runorf from
J forestry and agricultural lands.

Maintenance of natural stream
channel.

Erosion protection.

Restriction of development in
flood7one areas.

. . . . . . . . "I fing of key

Flood warning system

Use of wedands to reduce
peak flows.

Use of flood plains for public
ace.

Public acquisition or sites
13 where flood protection is not
1:1 cost effective.

@--On-site surface water
management of new upland
development.

Engineered struciural
improvements where
necessary.

Comprehensive flood hazard management measure&

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management B420

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Chapter 86.16 RCW requires local governments to prepare floodplain
regulations which meet the n-dnimurn requirements of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) and Chapter 86.16 RCW. Local governments
submit their floodplain regulations to the Washington State Department of
Ecology for approval. Local requirements may meet or exceed the States
minimum floodplain regulations. Nearly all jurisdictions within floodplains
have adopted the minimum floodplain regulations.

The Washington State Flood Control Assistance Account Program
(established by Chapter 86.26 RCW) provides grants to local governments for
comprehensive flood hazard management planning and maintenance projects.
Completion of a state-approved Comprehensive Flood Control Management
Plan (CFCMP [a.k.a. Comprehensive Floodplain Management Plan or
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan]) as per Chapter 173-145
WAC is required to continue to be eligible for FCAAP funds for maintenance
projects. The Plan's goal is to reduce the hazards of flooding. Plans typicafly
include technical data on the watershed, location and identification of specific
flood problem areas, description of flood damage history, description of
potential flood damages, a thorough assessment of alternatives including an
analysis of environmental impacts and an evaluation of solutions and prioritized
recommendations (see Chapter 173-145 WAC for a complete description of
required plan elements).

Comprehensive Flood Hazard
Management Plan

Local governments will find information developed in the Comprehensive
Flood Control Management Plan (referred to as "Plan" in this section) helpful
in determining appropriate shoreline jurisdiction and shoreline designations.
Plans (prepared pursuant to Chapters 86.16 and 86.26 RCW) may also serve as
a basis for the updating or amendment of existing SMPs, particularly for rivers.
A 1991 amendment to the SMA establishes a new element for master
programs. Chapter 90.58. 100 (h) RCW requires an element that gives
consideration to the state-wide interest in preventing and minimizing flood
damage. A Plan can express the symbiotic relationship between the FCAAP
process and the local SMP. The comprehensive floodplain management plan
process, with its emphasis on flood hazard reduction, can provide an important
conceptual framework and technical base for developing local SMPs.
Conversely, the local SMP is a strong regulatory tool in reducing flood hazards
through managing uses within the floodplain. Furthermore, the state statutes
encourage coordinated integration of and require consistency between
floodplain management and shoreline management.

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H421

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

In the past, conflicts have arisen from floodplain management planning's
emphasis on structural flood control measures (for example, dikes, levees and
flood walls). These measures were often contrary to shoreline management's
emphasis on resource management. The FCAAP program's shift in emphasis
to a comprehensive balance between structural and nonstructural measures
(flood-proofing, development restrictions in floodways, etc.) reduces the
likelihood of this conflict continuing to occur.

Human use of rivers and floodplains encompasses a broad range of
environmental, public and private objectives. Floodplain management seeks to
incorporate the full range of comprehensive planning tools to achieve those
objectives, including the following:

I . Shoreline master program regulations that restrict inappropriate
development and encourage compatible land uses.

2. The acquisition of flood sensitive areas for compatible land use such as low
impact recreational activities and wildlife habitat.

3. Land use zoning and site development standards that are responsive to
flood protection issues such as the requirement for on-site
detention/retention systems.

4. Forestry management and agricultural practices that reduce runoff and
attenuate peak flows.

5. The use of existing dikes and levees for recreational trails and public access
to water as part of park and recreation plans.

6. Designing transportation facilities to reduce their impact on the watershed.

7. Protection and creation of wetlands for stormwater storage and
biofiltration as well as fish and wildlife habitats.

8. Stormwater management planning that requires individual or cooperative
retention/detention systems.

9. Carefully designed structural flood control projects that reduce, as much as
possible, negative impacts to adjacent shorelines and other public
objectives.

10. Retrofitting/flood-proofing of existing structures.

Consequently, comprehensive floodplain management planning provides an
excellent framework to systematically address those elements of other planning
activities normally carried out by local governments.

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H422

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Flood Hazard Management
and Local SMPs

For the past 20 years, the SMA has proven to be an effective tool in
protecting, utilizing and enhancing Washington State's shorelines.
Coordination between a local SMP and its corresponding Comprehensive
Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) is crucial and advantageous for
several reasons:

� SMP provisions should regulate flood control projects to insure that
they do not detract from SMA goals.

� An SW can be a strong regulatory tool in controlling flood-
exacerbating development in the floodplain.

� Flood hazard management is an important concern in writing SMP
provisions, with shoreline use, resource protection and environmental
quality important shoreline management goals to factor into a CFHMP.

Shoreline master planning mirrors comprehensive floodplain management
planning in both process and concept. Both involve public participation,
inventory of existing conditions, goal setting, exploration and analysis of
alternatives, and both processes are comprehensive in nature.

Local governments may find it both efficient and cost effective to adopt a joint
approach to shoreline and floodplain management planning. Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) funds for preparing SMPs can be combined with FCAAP
funds so that the work for both a CFCMP and an SMP update can be
undertaken concurrently. This gives local jurisdictions a fiscal as well as a
strategic reason to coordinate programs. Local agencies are encouraged to
consult with Ecology staff on joint-funding opportunities.

C04

Chapter 13 - Piparian Corridor Management H423

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shoreline Master Program Issues

Comprehensive nonstructural flood hazard management techniques, including
local flood hazard ordinances, acquisition of flood-prone properties, resource
management regulations and environmental protection measures dovetail nicely
with the requirements and intent of local SWs.

Consequently, SNTs should include the following elements related to flood
hazard management.

I . State where structural flood hazard management measures are allowed or
prohibited; and, under some circumstances, set standards for specific
locations (see Handbook Chapter 7, "Flood Hazard Management").

2. State standards for riparian vegetation management (see Handbook
Chapter 5, "Clearing and Grading").

3. Restrict development in floodplains. There are several ways to address this
issue. The most powerful is to set the master program use regulations in
accordance with strong flood hazard control practices. The Growth
Management Act mandates the protection of frequently flooded areas
through development regulations, of which the SMP is one example (see
ESHB 1025 Section 21).

4. Allow only flood-compatible uses in flood-prone areas.

5. Encourage a variety of stormwater management techniques and measures
(on-site, subregional, regional) (see the Department of Ecology's
Stormwater Management Manualfor the Puget Sound Basin).

6. Clearly favor nonstructural methods such as land use controls, natural
retention systems and upland on-site runoff control measures over diking,
flood walls and other engineering solutions that destroy the natural
hydrological and biological processes.

7. Set standards for flood control projects to minimize their impacts.

8. Call for the shoreline management -objectives to be included in all flood
control planning and stormwater management programs.

9. SMP administrative procedures should have clear, concise language
addressing flood control projects or actions which require permits or are
specifically exempted ftom the substantial development permit process
(e.g. maintenance, repair and emergency work).

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H424

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Special Tip

Flood control construction that enlarges a dike or other structure,
substantially alters a stream course or removes significant vegetation goes
beyond the definition of repair and maintenance and should be subject to the
permit requirements of the shoreline master program.

Recommendations for Master

0 0
Programming Riparian Systems

I . Master programs should clearly describe SMP jurisdictional boundaries.
The local government should prepare a map delineating shoreline
jurisdiction. If the shoreline jurisdiction is established at 200 feet fi7orn the
OHWM (or floodway) plus aU marshes, bogs and swamps in the floodplain,
then all marshes, bogs and swamps in the floodplain should be identified
and mapped.

2. Parallel environmental designations and strict setback requirements for
development and altering vegetation should be used to protect significant
habitat corridors. Parallel environment designations are preferred as a
means of providing stronger, more continuous protection and should be
used for sensitive riparian corridors, especially east of the Cascades and on
shorelines of state-wide significance. However, precise clearing and
grading regulations, and riparian vegetation management regulations
should also be incorporated in the SMP to protect the riparian corridor.

3. Public access should be encouraged along riparian systems but not to the
detriment of environmental quality. Public access and shoreline recreation
plans should include environmental analysis to insure that damage to
habitat areas does not occur.

4. Public access should be a condition of aU large-scale development e.g.
residential, conunercial, recreational, resort and golf course projects.

5. Master programs for river shorelines should include provisions specifying
that structural flood control measures are a conditional use based on need
and the lack of alternative nonstructural flood control techniques.
Channeling and flood walls should be permitted only where natural flood
control measures and restrictions to development on the floodplain are not
an option.

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H425

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. Use regulations should specify preservation and/or establishment of native
vegetation for all erosion control and shoreline modifications, including
revegetation and landscaping within a specified setback determined from
environmental analysis. This can be most effectively done through paraHel
environment designations. The preservation and/or revegetation with
native plant materials within the parallel designation should be a condition
of all permits on shorelines of state-wide significance, and for most permits
along the immediate shoreline state-wide. This approach reinforces both
the high-priofity preferred uses protecting the natural character, resources
and ecology of shorelines and the restoration goals for degraded shorelines.

7. Riparian management zones and policies as well as fisheries and wildlife
habitat protection measures should be identified during the process of
updating master programs by coordinating with the applicable state and
federal agencies.

8. All shorelines within national forests, and other federal and Native
American lands should be assigned an environment designation so that if
the property is sold to another entity or developed through private
concession, the applicable environment designation and associated
regulations will be in place.

Chapter 13 - Riparian Corridor Management H426

SNY Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 14
Parallel Environment
Designations

Introduction

WAC 173-16-040 (4) calls for local jurisdictions to classify their shorelines
into different "environment designations." Master program regulations for
each designation can then account for different environmental conditions and
use opportunities found in each designation. The most common practice has
been to divide shorelines laterally into segments with differing characteristics as
shown in Figure 14- 1. While this segmented technique is useful for a variety of
situations, it is sometimes advantageous to classify the shoreline jurisdiction
into designations that run parallel to the shoreline or that reflect specific
environmental conditions or physical features. These may include steep bluffs,
dikes, roadways, rail lines and other well-defined features that exist in the
shoreline environment.

Chapter 14 - Parallel Environment Designations B427

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 14-1. Typical Environment Designations

ur
1010
CO Cy

11-0

WSW
rban OWO
aritim. tO -4
.......... 1) D

E0
%

Conservanc C3 C30
........ C3

C2
C3 C3 C2
C3 C3

C
FR-u
,

ant 0
lu C:,

k -,j 0 n a
CL-

0M
0 L
C3
n c3c:
LO E=t::3 gB
0 0
L7::-] 0C3
@O0
U an Mariti C-D
CD
>
C
C

Cbapter 14 - Parallel Environment Designations H-428

SNIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 14-2 illustrates an example of the use of parallel environment
designations. Parallel environment designations can accomplish a variety of
objectives, including (the letters below correspond to examples shown in
Figure 14-2):

(a) Protecting sensitive shoreline areas; for example, a master program may
designate a "riverine conservancy" environment extending 100 feet from
the shoreline of the specified river to protect shoreline vegetation, critical
wildlife habitats and shaded streambeds.

(b) Differentiating shoreline use areas; 6r example, the area within 100 feet of
the shoreline might be restricted to water-oriented uses while areas upland
of this boundary carry no shoreline use preference requirement.

(d) Setting buildings back from key shoreline areas.

(e) Permitting more intensive development in upland areas along the landward
side of a public road in shoreline jurisdiction.

Some of these objectives can be accomplished with shoreline setback
regulations. However, parallel environment designations have several key
advantages:

1. A parallel environment clearly establishes policies that support
environmental protection regulations whereas an urban designation with
setback requirements does not have that same internal consistency.

2. A parallel environment establishing a linear corridor emphasizes an
integrated set of policies and regulations that work together to provide
optimum resource protection.

3. Since setbacks are not always supported by the integrated policies and
regulations, they are not as forceful or defensible regarding resource
protection and are more subject to compromise due to variances and
conditional use permits.

4. Environment boundaries can follow a natural or man-made physical feature
such as the ridge of a side slope or edge of a roadway, dike or railway
(easily located on the ground).

5. Parallel designation boundaries are more in harmony with the
characteristics of the existing shoreline, producing finked and compatible
shore vs. upland designations.

Chapter 14 -Parallel Environment Designations H-429

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Rural
%
%
% %
% solo
000

YA
400

---- ---- ---

go to

60 Urban Re elopment

C3
% 0
%
C:100 E,
40 k
C,

C
C:I CI0
Urban Rerovelopment
7
C3

0 C3
17
C3 C3

oil
sl- C] 00
CIO
0

-,j 0
a3 ac:
13 C3

"T
0
MC

"C
rba M itime
23

Figure 14-2. Use of parallel environments to achieve better resource protection and
redevelopment potcntiaL

Chapter 14 - Parallel Environment Designations H430

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

Parallel environment designations can be useful in managing urban waterfronts
as well as lake shorelines and riverine corridors. This chapter presents
examples of the use of parallel environments in these situations.

Parallel Environments on Urban
Shorelines

The technique of classifying urban shorelines in parallel has several applications
in urban situations. Because environment boundaries can follow roadways,
steep banks, property lines or other physical or geographic features that are not
necessarily a set distance away from the shoreline, they provide a flexible way
to distinguish between different conditions on upland areas. For example,
development can be restricted through a conservancy environment on the
waterward side of a roadway but allowed in the urban environment on the
upland side (see Figure 14-3).

Environment designation boundary set by
edge of road (NOTE: It may be
advantageous to set at edge of existing
pavement rather than R.O.W. to prevent
further encroachment.)

............ .....

..........
............ ..... .....

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Street R.C
Shoreline parallel environment Upland Environment
(some variation of conservancy L - - - - - - - - - - - -- *..
environment restricting construction
to protect views and natural
shoreline condition) -

Figure 14-3. Parallel environment used to preserve open shoreline on waterward side of
roadway.

Chapter 14 - Parallel En-wironment Designations H431

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Water dependency use requirements can also be fine-tuned using parallel
environments. For example, use requirements for water-dependent or water-
enjoyment uses within 100 feet of the shoreline can be tied to parallel
designations. See Chapter 11, Master Program Provisions for Mixed-use
Projects, for further discussion of this technique.

Height limits, view corridors and public access elements can also be made
requirements of a parallel environment that runs along the shoreline. For
example, an "urban view" environment that runs along the waterward side of a
road could require view corridors and restrict building height (see Figure 14-
4).

Vie%% corridor and height restriction to
urban -iew" parallel crivironmeni

Height limit
above road

Cross section

0'a

.10
CO

CX,

Figure 14-4. Example of a parallel corridor used to reduce view impacts.

Chapter 14 - Parallel EnAronment Designations B432

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Parallel Environments on Coastal
and Lacustrine Shorelines

As noted earlier, parallel environment designations are an especially effective
tool in natural resource management. Boundaries along lakes and coasts can
be set by natural features such as steep slopes or by a specified setback
dimension from the ordinary high water mark or bluff.

For example, the "Conservancy Steep Slope" environment illustrated in Figure
14-5 is tied to the slope of the land. Specialized parallel environments can be
used to:

I .Prevent destructive clearing, grading and erosion near lakes and marine
shorelines.

2. Establish a natural vegetation or visual buffer strip around the perimeter of
a residential lake so that the natural visual qualities of the lake are not
destroyed.

3. Strengthen protection of the shoreline's wildlife habitat characteristics, (e.g.
roosting and nesting areas, watering spots, shallow water feeding areas)
which are critical features of the water's edge.

4. Protect the perimeter areas around wetlands located within shoreline
jurisdiction. This is especially true when a large portion of the 100-year
floodplain is within shoreline jurisdiction.

5. Protect lakes and coastal shorelines from contaminated runoff (for
example, culverted storm drainage outfalls can be prohibited within a
parallel environment).

Chapter 14 - Parallel Emironment Designations H433

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shoreline parallel environment Upland environment

Setback to protect edge of
slope (width specified in
regs.)

Point determined by where slope
exceeds "a"% (e.g. 15% slope)

.............
i@@ .....................................................................
V". ............ . .... ............
.............
..........
............

............. .............

. .......... ......

............
200' jurisdiction

Figure 14-5. Cross section illustrating use of parallel environment to protect steep
slopes.

Parallel Environments on Riparian
Shorelines

Riparian corridors, areas of trees, shrubs, forbs and grasses found along
shorelines, are critical habitats for the majority of vertebrate wildlife and many
fish species on both sides of the Cascades. For riparian systems where
continuity of the natural habitat is especially critical, there is often an
advantage to designating the shoreline environments in parallel. This allows
setting specific environmental protection requirements along the critical
shoreline area throughout the length of the river corridor. This parallel
environment can include all lands within a given distance from the OHWK the
edge of a designated floodway, from the top of a defined bank, or on the
waterward side of a manmade feature such as a road, dike or railway.

Normally, a corridor designation should either be "natural" or "conservancy" or
a similarly protective tailor-made alternative. A "natural" classification would
be most appropriate if the riparian system warrants restoration or preservation
L/

in a condition free of human influence because it includes a unique resource or
is intolerant of intensive human use. Natural is also the appropriate

Chapter 14 - Parallel Environment Designations H-434

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

environment designation along shorelines that have a pristine or near-pristine
riparian native plant community in areas of otherwise rural or urban land use.
Conservancy is best applied to maintain the existing character of a shoreline
while allowing some specified uses. For example, a conservancy environment
is appropriate where river corridors, public access and habitat management
objectives can be balanced.

Several considerations should be addressed in establishing the width of the
parallel environment. The environment should be wide enough to:

1. Provide shade where necessary to aquatic life.

2. Retain significant plant communities.

3. Prevent unnatural shoreline erosion.

4. Provide habitat and buffers for wfldlife sufficient to retain existing species.

5. Prevent impacts to the shoreline environment from actions on adjacent land
such as timber harvesting, clearing, grading or other forms of development.

6. Accommodate public access where compatible with the conservation goals.

The supporting regulations that apply to these parallel environments should be
carefully tailored to protect the biological or physical quafities of the shoreline
and uplands. Vegetation maintenance provisions are especially important in
these situations. It is also useful to give the parallel designations a descriptive
name such as "Conservancy-River Corridor" or "Natural-Hafl's Creek Estuary"
to indicate the purpose or geographical area that applies. A descriptive name
also helps to prevent confusion with other environment descriptions. Figure
14-6 illustrates a river-conservancy corridor.

:J,

Chapter 14 - Parallel En%ironment Designations H435

SNIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 14-6. Parallel environment used to create riverine conservancy corridor.

This environment
could be "rural",
"suburban" etc.

A%\

d
efte-,
woce Set".
DISta ov
In @05dvqoo
bI r02L efoe COV

Co
OtIheV evkvIrooMe.

Chapter 14 - Parallel Environment Designations H-436

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 15
Shoreline
Modification Activities

Introduction

Shoreline modification activities are those actions that modify or change the
physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline. Chapter 8 presents model
language for shoreline modification activities such as breakwaters, jetties,
beach enhancement, etc. Chapter 8 also describes the difference between a
shoreline use and a modification activity and why such a distinction is
important. Besides the organizational points expressed in Chapter 8, there are
several factors to consider in regulating shoreline modification activities, which
are briefly summarized below.

Shorelines are dynamic systems. Builders, home owners and even engineers
and planners have learned through painful experience that shorefine
environments are both fragile and dangerous. Because shoreline environments
are a balance of large and changing forces, disruption to these balanced forces
can have unforeseen and sometimes catastrophic consequences. Not only is
the delicate interplay between geologic, hydrologic and biologic systems easay
damaged, but also a shoreline modification at one point along a shoreline can
have disastrous impacts to other areas far from the construction site. For
example, an upstream river levee can exacerbate flooding in the downstream
lowlands. Similarly, restricting the natural flow of sediment along a beach can

Chapter 15 - Shoreline Modification Activities H437

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

cause destructive erosion to another section of shoreline. Often, engineered
structures such as bulkheads or concrete channels present a hard, non-resifient
surface for the power of wave action to work against. Over time, hard
structures can be weaker than less costly nonstructural solutions.

Realization of these facts has led to new directions in the management of
shoreline modification activities. For planning purposes, "shoreune
modification activities" is a broad term encompassing a wide range of actions
that modify the physical configuration, processes or qualities of the shoreline
area. Shoreline modification activities are usually undertaken in support of or
in preparation for a shoreline "use" e.g. a bulkhead/landfill for a marina (see
Chapter 8). Modification activities include beach enhancement, breakwaters,
jetties, groins, rock weirs, dikes, levees, dredging, landfill, bulkheads,
revetments (riprap, etc.) and other bank stabilization actions (bioengineering,
etc.). Understanding the larger overall system in which each of these types of
activities may have an effect or impact is paramount to managing the shorefine
for long-term, sustained public benefit and environmental protection.

a 0.

Chapter 15 - Shoreline Modification Activities H438

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

The Larger Picture and the
Planning Process

One of the easiest pitfalls in reviewing specific shoreline modification projects
is to overlook the larger shorescape issues in favor of focusing on the
immediate problem at hand. How will the proposal fit into the ongoing
interactive processes between landscape and water bodies that shape what we
call the shoreline? A simple planning process should be undertaken for each
modification action proposed in the dynamic shoreline corridor. First, an
inventory of the specific natural system in which the proposal is located needs
to be developed, and the dynan-Lics vrith respect to the system determined.
Second, the full range of alternatives for a proposal needs to be evaluated.
Avoiding a future conflict by redesigning a subdivision, for instance, is much
preferable to later mitigating the impacts of a series of poorly located homes.
Relocation of poorly sited structures may also be an alternative which in the
long-run is cheaper and less environmentally damaging. If structures or
modifications are warranted, what is the range of alternatives and what are the
direct impacts, and cumulative impacts? Third, if there are unavoidable
impacts, can the impacts be mitigated, will the mitigation work, and can it be
enforced?

-1 q

Chapter 15 - Shoreline Modirication Activities H439

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Identifying Natural Systems and Processes

Although marine shores, riverfront property and lakeside lots appear to be
different situations, the same types of forces are at work in the dynamic
shoreline area. Bank failure, sloughing, erosion, toe undercutting, flooding and
wave damage occur with regularity wherever moving water and shoreline
development coincide. It is imperative that we understand and inventory the
natural system processes in each of these envirorunents if we are to
successfully plan for their long-term reasonable and appropriate use. It should
also be emphasized that the impact, indeed cumulative impacts, are not just
confined to disturbing the geohydraulic processes, but also seriously affect the
biological health, water quality and aesthetics of the shoreline.

The inventory process may take several forms depending upon the level of
information and the decisions which are pending. In the simplest form, a
permit or exemption application may be submitted to a planning department
initiating review of the site and surroundings. Given the short time frame in
which a decision must be made, only the most immediately available
information can be considered together with observations made in the field.
Data on general trends and stability conditions can often be gleaned from
comparison of old and more recent aerial photos, the Coastal Zone Atlas of
Washington, Net Shore Drift Studies and related technical references fisted in
Chapter 19. Following the guidance and evaluation techniques described in
several technical papers listed in Chapter 19, notably "Shoreline Bluff and
Slope Stability: Management Options" Ecology Technical Paper, the planner
inspecting a site in the field should be able to identify the type and magnitude
of development situation relative to the natural system process in which it is
located. Without the benefit of more detailed and precise data, a cautious
approach in determining setbacks is warranted.

Given a longer time frame, the inventory process could take on a much more
comprehensive and accurate format. For example, a marine erosion bluff and
accretion beach system could be precisely mapped and studied to identify
critical factors such as hydrology, soil composition, geologic strata, sediment
transport quantities and rates, bluff erosion rates, etc. Based on an analysis of
improved empirical data, best management practices and land use standards
could be developed through a planning process with the community to protect
the long-term integrity of the natural system while recognizing and allowing
reasonable methods for individuals, preferably as a community, to protect their
private property.

Such a system-based planning approach would provide policies and standards
tailored to individual communities which are immediately affected by changes
in the system. Com-munity education about the interconnectedness of
developmental events within a system might emphasize the point that the

Chapter 15 - Shoreline Modification Activities H-440

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

creation of one person's bulkhead might mean the dernise of a neighboring
person's beach. In conjunction with the local jurisdiction, a management plan
could be developed which includes technical data and recommendations, a
community vision for the area and proposed shoreline policies and standards.

Playing with a Full Deck

Rather than being put in a reactive role responding piecemeal to shoreline
modification applications and actions within a particular river reach or
marine/lake drift cell, a local government that is equipped with a special
resource management plan (inventory, analysis, alternatives evaluation,
recommendations) is in a position to work with the community to establish and
implement a long-term management strategy. A complete range of alternatives
should be evaluated and innovative approaches, options and combinations of
techniques explored. These approaches include:

1. Prevention as a Priority

a. The first rule in mitigating for adverse impacts is to avoid the situation
altogether if feasible. This is by far the most economical and
environmentally-sound approach in the short- and long-term. Not
locating in the floodway or on an eroding beach or steep bluff prevents
0 creation of the problem in the first place, although it may be difficult to
convince a developer or property owner. Relocating or changing land
uses to more compatible types may also be an option. Having an
inventory and a management plan -for critical habitat and/or hazardous
areas raises awareness and community support for protective measures
and may make acceptance by individuals easier.

2. Emphasis on Nonstructural Solutions

a. Utilizing bioengineering techniques rather than hard structures at the
shoreline and adjacent banks/bluffs.

b. Combining bioengineering techniques with scaled-down structural
methods to mitigate impacts and provide some additional benefits.

3. Nfitigating Structural Solutions

a. Allowing only necessary structures with demonstrated system-wide
benefit and minimized impact.

b. Requiring mitigation and enhancement of habitat.

c. Requiring maximum setbacks for structural approaches (revetments,
bulkheads, etc.).

Chapter 15 - Shoreline Modification Activities H-441

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

d. Employing setback dikes along rivers and streams to permit the natural
meander process.

Recognition and Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

Whatever alternative or option is being considered, an evaluation of the
impacts of the proposal as if other similar properties were developed within the
particular natural system should be carried out. In addition, analyzing what the
off-site impacts of a given proposal might be, such as transferring an erosion
problem to a downstream neighbor, should provide an impetus for developing
a system-wide management plan.

Final stable
do slope
COTO, Exposed

Fixed zone

Shore process corridor

Long-term effects of bulkheading.

Chapter 15 - Shoreline Modification Activities H-442

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shoreline Master Program
Recommendations

In order to take advantage of many of these approaches effectively, master
program guidance should be explicitly expressed in clear policies and
regulations, preferable in an SNIP chapter specifically addressing shoreline
modification activities. There are several ways that these approaches can be
written into a master program, including:

I .Establishing goals and policies that put all shoreline modification activities
within a proper context in relation to natural system processes. The
Conservation Element in Chapter 4, Goals, is a prime place to insert a goal
for developing special resource area management plans which recognize
and protect specific resource areas such as marine drift cells. Setting
policies in the General Shoreline Modification Provisions (Chapter 8)
which recognize the public benefits of maintaining natural processes such
as littoral drift, river gravel transport, feeder bluff activity, etc. and that
discourage unnecessary interference with such phenomena should also be
accomplished.

2. Describing all shoreline modification activity regulations in a unified and
consistent manner so that they are considered within a system context and
relative to each other (see Chapter 8).

3. Setting general requirements for shoreline modifications that require that
there be a demonstrated need for a shoreline modification and, if a need is
demonstrated, that the least intrusive modification technique be used.
Chapter 8 contains suggestions for provisions that apply to all shoreline
modifications. They include the requirement that all shoreline modification
activities shall support an allowed shoreline use, and emphasize the
employment of nonstructural techniques.

4. Establishing specific standards for each type of activity e.g. beach
enhancement, revetments, bulkheads, rock weirs, groins, dikes, etc. (see
Chapter 8 ).

5. Clearly identifying perrait and exemption parameters. Ajthough all
shoreline modification activities must comply with the SNIP policies and
standards, a few select activities are exempt from the substantial
development permit requirement. Notably, a "normal protective bulkhead"
constructed at the OHWM to protect an existing single-family residence
fi7orn erosion. A variance or conditional use permit may still be required.
This exemption is to be narrowly construed and shall not be allowed for
undeveloped property, subdivisions, or multi-farnily structures. -An SDP

Chapter 15 - Shoreline Modirication Activities H443

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

exemption may also be granted for activities which qualify as "normal
maintenance and repair" (WAC 173-14-040 (b)). Two related points
which may assist in the management of shoreline modification activities are:

a. Requiring that the project proponent apply for a written exemption.
Many shoreline modification activities such as clearing and grading or
bulkheading of single-family residential properties may not require a
substantial development pern-dt. However, these activities stil.1 faU
within the purview of the Shoreline Management Act, and are regulated
even though they do not require a substantial development pern-dt. To
help insure that environmentally destructive practices are minimized,
many jurisdictions require that the project proponent apply for an
exemption in writing. The application for an exemption includes much
of the information required for a permit so that the project reviewer can
evaluate whether or not the proposal will meet SMI` requirements.
Mitigation or project modification may be required to keep the activity
within the parameters of the exemption. In this way, local governments
can establish records, monitor and secure greater control and
consistency over incremental activities that have great impact over
time. (See sample exemption form in the Shoreline A&ninistrator's
Manual, Appendix 6).

b. Requiring a conditional use for all residential bulkheads and related
shoreline modification actions proposed within identified critical areas.
Residential bulkheads, revetments, groins, etc. cause difficult and wide-
ranging problems along many shorelines because of cumulative
biological impacts and because they can ultimately result in the erosion
of the shoreline and destruction of the development they were designed
to protect. Also, they can prevent the normal migration of sediment
and can impact beaches in other sections of the shoreline. They are
particularly a problem in semi-rural and suburban shorelines where
continuous bulkheads and similar armored treatments can extend for
n-dles, altering the character and dynamic functions of a long stretch of
the shoreline. A normal protective bulkhead for an existing single-
family residence is generally exempt from the substantial development
permit process but not from the variance or a conditional use permit
process, if required by a local master program. Requiring a conditional
use permit for residential bulkheads and other shoreline armoring can
give local governments control over their location, design and
installation and greater consideration of cumulative impacts. It also
allows local jurisdictions to deny new bulkheads and revetments if they
are not necessary and serve only to extend shoreline property
waterward.

Chapter 15 - Shoreline Modification Activities H-444

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. New techniques for shoreline enhancement and restoration. Environmental
scientists, planners and engineers are constantly developing new
approaches to treating shorelines that are more consistent with natural
processes. Bremerton has recently developed an SNIP section on beach
enhancement that has proven effective, and the new King County flood
hazard management plan includes several suggestions for bioengineering
techniques. As experience with these methods grows, their acceptance as
an alternative to expensive engineering structures will expand. Check with
the Shorelands Program for information on new techniques. (See Chapter
19 for references and available materials).

Special Tip

Definition of Landfill. The Handbook defines landfill as the placement of
soil, sand, rock, gravel, existing sediment or other material (excluding solid
waste) to create new land, tideland or bottom land area along the shoreline
below the OHWM, or on upland areas in order to raise the elevation. If this
definition is used, it is important to clarify when in-water and upland landfill
is allowed and to define the limits of backfill allowed relative to bulkhead
projects, etc.

Definitions of Clearing and Grading. Yhe difference between clearing and
grading has caused some confusion. Aefollowingdefinitions can help
clarify the issue.

Clearing means the destruction or removal of vegetative ground cover andlor
trees including, but not limited to, root material removal andlor topsoil
removal. Yhis includes such activities as clear cutting or selective harvest of
trees, pulling out of stumps, hauling off of shrubs, slash piles, etc.

Grading means the physical manipulation of the earth's surface andlor
surface drainage pattern without significantly adding or removing materiaL

Chapter 15 - Shoreline Modification Activities H445

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 16
Advance Compensation
and Environmental
Mitigation Planning

Introduction

This chapter provides a brief discussion of off-site Mitigation and mitigation
banking. Appendix B contains a more detailed discussion of both individual
off-site mitigation and mitigation banking, including model master program
language and examples.

Because mitigation banking is a relatively new shoreline management concept,
the discussion of mitigation banking here and in Appendix B is intended as a
resource rather than a set of Department of Ecology-sanctioned
recommendations. Ecology's response to mitigation proposals continues to be
on a case-by-case basis.

As development pressures increase on our state's shorelines, more and more
projects will be proposed in areas with valuable natural resources.
Consequently, the conflict between economic development and environmental
protection will continue to grow. State and federal policy currently attempts
to avoid this conflict by discouraging development in areas with valuable

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation H446

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

natural resources or requiring on-site mitigation for development impacts.
However, there are situations where necessary and appropriate development
cannot avoid impacts to natural resources. In these cases it may be desirable to
mitigate the project's impacts by creating, restoring or enhancing shoreline
resources off-site. This is often referred to as off-site compensation or off-site
mitigation.

The two primary off-site mitigation strategies are individual, case-by-case
projects and comprehensive mitigation banking (see Figure 16-1). Individual
off-site mitigation projects involve replacing a resource with a similar and
functionally equivalent resource at another site. Mitigation banking is the off-
site creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of a natural resource to
compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts associated with future
development. Mitigation banks provide a relatively large mitigation site to
collectively compensate in advance for many, usually unrelated, development
projects. Each development project qualifying for the use of the bank
contributes to bank creation and maintenance costs. Only after the bank is
established (mitigation delivered) may development move forward.

Environmental mitigation banks represent the newest resource protection
mechanism being considered by state and local governments today. This
approach is in response to increasing evidence that case-by-case compensatory
mitigation may not fully compensate for lost resource functions and values.
However, both approaches have significant limitations. The science of
of creating" complex environmental resource landscapes is in only the very early
stages of development. It has been difficult to demonstrate that off-site
mitigation actually creates a resource with the equivalent function and value of
the lost resource. Nor has it been easy to insure that created resources are
maintained over time. Studies also indicate limited compliance with individual
off-site mitigation requirements.

At the same time, the effectiveness of mitigation banking has not been
demonstrated conclusively. Because it is a new concept, and several years are
required to create a mitigation bank, it is too early to assess existing programs,
but so far mitigation banking programs have experienced many of the same
technical difficulties as individual compensatory projects.

Chapter 16 - Off-Site EnAronmental Mitigation H-447

SAR Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 16-1. Approa'ches to Off-site Mitigation

Individual off-site mitigation
Environment enhanced actions must provide a resource
to compensate equal in quantity 'area) and
for project B quality (value and function)
to that of the lost resource.

Environment enhanced
to compensate
for project A

A PORT
PO T
DEVELOPMENT

B MARINA Off-site mitigation action tied to
DEVELOPMENT individual development proposals.
DEGRADED ESTUARY The mitigation actions should be
C DEVELOPED in place prior to project permit.
AT LATER DATE

PORT Mitigation and Projects Proceed
Individual Off-Site Mitigation Projects

SITE A C.HANNELED AND Mitigation bank created by
DIKED RIVER enhancing ecological qualities Mitigation bank must represent
and monitoring conditions. a significant regional resource.

T-
SIT(E C
%J

Existing Conditions

FUTURE A
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS

C
Comprehensive plan with mitigation --/I
banking program that identifies COMPREHENSIVE MITIGATION 0nce mitigation bank is established,
development projects, environmental BANKING PROGRAM AREA individual projects may proceed
actions and maintenance/ and be charged against the bank.
administrative procedures.
Comprehensive Banking Plan Bank Established - Projects Proceed

t
Comprehensive Mitiga ion Banking

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation H-448

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Individual Off-site Mitigation

The State Environmental Policy Act Rules (WAC 197-11-768) defines
mitigation as.-

1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;

2. 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;

3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;

4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action;

5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and/or

6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.

The order of mitigation actions listed, from most direct and complete to the
least direct, implies an order of preference from I (high preference), to 6 (low
preference). This means a selected mitigation action will be considered
appropriate in satisfying SEPA requirements only if the mitigation actions of
higher preference are not feasible or are ineffective.

In these cases, shoreline enhancement, restoration, or creation may more than
offset a project's impact to produce a net environmental benefit. Also,
enhancing, restoring or creating a high-quality shoreline resource off-site may
be more desirable than mitigating for impacts to a low-quality,shoreline
resource on-site. Off-site mitigation actions might include:

� Breaching an estuarian dike to create a salt marsh;
� Cleaning up or. capping contaminated sediments and restoring the
shoreline to its natural condition;

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation H-449

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

0 Restoring a beach to its natural conditions; or

0 Reestablishing a dune system.

Typically, off-site mitigation is considered on a project by project basis. This
approach has produced some successes but, in general, has several limitations.

Without clear rules or guidelines for off-site mitigation, it is difficult for project
proponents and regulatory agencies to reach agreement. Agencies must
determine whether they are setting a precedent that could result in abuse, and
project proponents must know agency expectations and procedural
requirements in order to develop a responsive proposal.

Natural resource enhancement, restoration and creation efforts have not always
been successful. Since resource replacement is technically demanding and
subject to a number of variables, the only way to ensure mitigation success is
to establish and monitor the resource prior to permit issuance for the base
project.

Individual off-site mitigation projects do not necessarily further a
comprehensive "natural systems" approach to resource management.
Establishing an isolated resource, even if technically successful, may not
contribute to the shoreline system impacted by the project. Long-term,
regional resource management concerns can only be addressed through
comprehensive shoreline planning.

The shortcomings of off-site mitigation can be overcome to a certain extent by
better defining the process, goals, policies and priorities which guide off-site
mitigation projects. Policies and regulations outlining the procedures and
criteria for considering off-site mitigation as a means to satisfy SEPA and other
resource protection requirements may be included in the Environmental
Impacts section of the SNV's General Policies and Regulations. The SNIP
policies and regulations should address each of the following points.

Adhere to the priorities set by SEPA for mitigation.
Off-site mitigation should be considered only after all reasonable measures to
avoid, minimize, rectify, or reduce project impacts are considered and
determined to be infeasible and only after on-site mitigation is determined to be
infeasible.

Establish procedures for ensuring the long-term success of the resource.
Because shoreline enhancement, restoration and creation efforts are technically
demanding, mitigation should be delivered and the success of the mitigation
demonstrated pfior to approval of the base project. Off-site mitigation success
must be documented through an evaluation of physical and biological
conditions prior to and after the completion of the mitigation action. The

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation H450

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

resource must be legally and physically protected through covenants,
conservation easements or other means to ensure the resource Will be
maintained in perpetuity.

Insure mitigation efforts are integral to reestablishing a connected
shoreline system.
The quantity (area) and quality (functions and values) of the replacement
resource should be greater than the quantity and quality of the lost resource.
Nfitigation efforts also should be integral to reestablishing a connected
shoreline system.

There are two approaches to this requirement. The first approach establishes
SN1P criteria for determining when off-site mitigation is suitable. This gives
project proponents the flexibility to propose a variety of off-site mitigation
alternatives. However, it provides the applicant little direct guidance in
mitigation site selection and proposal preparation. Nor does this parcel-by-
parcel method necessarily ensure the mitigation will be part of a connected
shoreline system.

Advance comprehensive mitigation planning is the second and preferred
approach for determining the suitability of mitigation alternatives. The local
jurisdiction adopts an area-wide. (watershed, shoreline, etc.) plan that identifies
suitable development and off-site mitigation receiving sites. A comprehensive
shoreline enhancement plan is most effectively developed in the early stages of
an SNIP amendment process, when shoreline environment designations are
being reviewed.

The SNT should outline, in general terms, procedures to resolve these issues
during permit review. Off-site mitigation proposals necessarily will be
carefully examined by the Department of Ecology and other resource agencies.
Procedures should be included that assure early involvement of the resource
agencies. Designation of off-site mitigation as a conditional use is appropriate
because of the case-by-case considerations required for these projects and
because it assures Ecology's involvement in the project.

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation H451

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Mitigation Banking

The Department of Ecology Shorelands Program has undertaken two studies
regarding mitigation banking. The first study, Wetlands Mitigation Banking,
looked at mitigation banking from a purely wetlands perspective. The 1991
report, titled WetlandMitigation Banking (Castelle et al.), prepared as part of
the first study, forms the basis of much of the information in Appendix B.

The second study, Shoreline Environmental Mitigation Banking, identified
issues, opportunities and procedures for establishing and administering
shoreline mitigation banks. The study attempted to depart from previous
mitigation banking studies by addressing mitigation banking for all types of
shoreline resources, not just wetlands, and building on past studies to examine
"real world" obstacles to mitigation banking implementation. This study
included -the formation of a Task Force representing both public and private
interests and a survey which was administered to over 500 organizations across
the state in an attempt to gather information regarding mitigation banking. the
results of the survey were not statistical but did indicate a high level of
awareness of, and interest in, mitigation banking as a resource management
tool. Respondents also expressed reservations regarding the concept, citing
numerous technical, administrative and political obstacles. Despite the limited
scope of the study, several findings and recommendations did emerge from the
research and Task Force participation. These are summarized below.

There is a growing need for off-site compensatory mitigation banking.

The need for flexible, innovative environmental mitigation planning which
successfully balances development needs and environmental values is growing.
Planners throughout Washington are confronting off-site mitigation every day
in cases where on-site mitigation for unavoidable development impacts may be
infeasible or undesirable from a natural resources perspective.

New shoreline development associated with the ever-changing economy of
water-dependent uses must be accommodated somewhere and such
development will often incur unavoidable environmental impacts. Shoreline
planning has tended to concentrate intensive shoreline development in urban
centers where competition for shoreline resources and limited space for water-
dependent uses leave little room for on-site mitigation. Furthermore, the
Growth Management Act advocates concentrating new development in
existing urban areas, placing even greater pressure on our urban shorelines.

It has been difficult to demonstrate that created resources are equivalent in
function and value to lost resources. Lacking a comprehensive environmental
enhancement plan, individual off-site and on-site mitigation projects result in
scattered, low-quality natural resources that are not representative of what was

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation H452

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

historically a larger resource system. Nor has it been easy to insure that
individually created resources are maintained over time. Studies indicate
limited compliance with individual off-site mitigation requirements and in some
cases, the mitigation is never delivered. In Washington State, it is estimated
that only about 10 percent of wetland losses permitted under the Section 404
permit process are actually mitigated (Rylko and Storm 199 1). Furthermore, a
study of 40 mitigation projects conducted in south Florida indicated that only
10 percent of the forty mitigation projects were successfiit (Erwin 1991).

Approximately one-third of governments and organizations responding to a
1993 Department of Ecology survey regarding off-site mitigation indicated that
they had been involved in off-site mitigation projects. Forty-one of sixty-nine
respondents indicated that their organization had considered mitigation banking
as a resource management tool and fifty-one out of sixty-nine respondents
indicated that mitigation banking was potentially useful.

Mitigation Banking is one approach to protecting, enhancing, restoring, and/or creating
shoreline systems.

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation B453

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Mitigation Banking is being pursued as a viable resource management
tool throughout the nation and within Washington State.

The US. Army Corps of Engineers' Institute for Water Resources is reviewing
wetlands mitigation banking to determine the potential of this concept for
achieving national wetlands goals, to determine its applicability to Corps of
Engineers' programs and projects and to formulate and design a demonstration
program for potential authorization and implementation by the Corps. The
study has completed an initial inventory of wetland mitigation banks and has
just,initiated detailed case history documentation for twenty-five banks.
Currently, there are at least one hundred banks in an active or planning status,
with a potential for several additional banks to become operational each month
(Brumbaugh and Reppert 1992). An Interim Report on the first phase of this
study is scheduled for completion in the Fall of 1993.

In Washington State, several banking studies and activities are occurring,
including:

� Washington Sea Grant has funded a University of Washington proposal
to research mitigation banking entitled Strategiesfor Aquatic
Environments by Hershman, Schauman and Witherspoon.

� Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT) is pursuing a
banking program to mitigate ongoing construction projects. DOT is
working now with resource agencies and other participants in drafting a
memorandum of agreement that will form the basis of an
implementation program.

� The firm of Biringer and Ebert is developing a private bank site (the
Biringer Berry Farm) in the City of Everett.

� The City of Renton is creating a wetland bank to compensate for future
development at various sites.

� The Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAW) is a
comprehensive, intejurisdictional resource management plan based on
the concept of mitigation banking. The plan involves Icing County, the
City of Auburn and the City of Kent. The Plan is being prepared
currently and is modeled after the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (City of
Eugene 1992).

Mitigation banking offers resource management opportunities.

Ecology acknowledges that mitigation banking, in concept, addresses many of
the pitfalls associated with individual off-site mitigation projects. However, as
a new, and relatively unproven concept it should be pursued cautiously and

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation H454

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

only with the intent of improving the current situation. Following are
some of the potential benefits of mitigation banking.

1. Demonstration of mitigation success prior to project impacts.

2. Opportunity to design restoration and creation projects as pilot projects.

3. Potential for the creation of sustainable systems which are more resilient to
change rather than continued resource fragmentation. Opportunity to
locate banking sites where there is greater likelihood of project success,
both in near-term and in long-term perspective.

4. Opportunity to develop the techniques necessary to repair or replace
natural resources lost from accidents (e.g. oil spills) or natural
catastrophes. Also to improve ability to undertake voluntary efforts to
create and restore natural systems.

5. Ability to reduce mitigation ratios (down to 1: 1) commensurate with
reduction in environmental risks and lag time in establishing functioning
systems.

6. Fewer costly delays involved in development review and approval of
individual site-by-site mitigation plans.

7. Opportunity to address resource protection from a much more
comprehensive "systems" perspective (regional, watershed, etc.). Ideally, a
banking program should be based on, a comprehensive environmentat
enhancement plan.

8. Opportunity for collective intedurisdictional actions.

9. Economy of Scale Advantages: A large, regionally based bank may be
potentially easier to manage than many small sites. A larger site also may
be more stable and have greater resource value and diversity.

Despite opportunities, mitigation banking must first address
inherent problems.

The following issues must be resolved before a mitigation bank can be
established.

1. Long-term protection and maintenance of theresource.

2. Insuring that the resulting bank resource is better than the resource lost in
terms of area, function and value.

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation H455

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Establishing realistic criteria for the bank's use, including a system of
"credits" tied to environmental values and a process to determine what
projects qualify for bank use.

4. Insuring that the public's interests are protected through an open pubhc
decision-making process.

5. Coordinating other applicable regulatory and resource agencies in the
process.

There are certain situations which may be particularly suited for
mitigation banking.

It is important to note that there is no model for mitigation banking. Banks
may be appropriate in a variety of situations. The following conditions may
indicate suitability for mitigation banking.

1. Intense competition for shoreline and/or other land resources.

2. Large-scale restoration projects are planned or are currently ongoing. For
example, the cleanup of Commencement Bay in Tacoma, Washington.

3. A significant proportion of a jurisdiction's land base is constrained by
environmental conditions. For example, the West Eugene [Oregon]
Wetlands Plan was developed because Eugene's primary industrial
development area was severely restricted by the presence of wetlands.

4. Regional resource planning efforts, for example watershed planning, are
planned or are currently ongoing.

Comprehensive regional environmental enhancement planning provides
the best approach to mitigation banking.

Mitigation banking will have the greatest chance of success if implemented on
a regional basis.

In general terms, a comprehensive environmental enhancement plan (CEEP)
identifies a strategy for protecting, enhancing, restoring and/or creating a
region's natural resources based on community input and scientific study.
Local governments and potential bank operators are strongly encouraged to
base mitigation banking programs on a CEEP for several reasons.

1. A CEEP provides the opportunity to identify the extent of resources that
n-dght be lost under current development projections.
is

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation H456

SMI? Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. A CEEP establishes resource protection priorities based on a
comprehensive natural resource inventory and assessment. By approaching
a region's resources as a whole or as "system", the plan can identify which
resources should be protected, enhanced, restored and/or created. This
approach ties resources together into a connected system and fills the gaps
within the region's spectrum of resource types.

3. The CEEP process provides opportunities for ongoing land planning.

4. The CEEP process can be designed to include broad participation by
property owners, the development community, environmental groups, state
and federal agency representatives, tribes and other interested citizens.

5. Broad public participation allows community -values to be incorporated into
resource protection goals.

6. Scientific criteria can be established for determining when off-site
mitigation is appropriate and when "in-kind" mitigation is appropriate. For
example, if a CEEP identifies salt water wetlands as a very high value
resource, then the enhancement of a degraded salt water wetland may,
under certain conditions, be justified as mitigation for impacts to non-
associated, isolated wetlands.

7.. A comprehensive resource inventory allows the determination of relative
resource values. This is necessary for establishing the currency proscribed
in the mitigation bank's memorandum of agreement (MOA) and insuring
that bank transactions result in a net environmental benefit in terms of
resource quantity (area) and quality (value and function).

8. CEEPs can meet a range of community objectives. For example, a
comprehensive wetlands protection plan can protect rare plants, provide
open space along a regioes major streams, provide for water quality
improvements, reduce the risk of flooding, meet state and federal wetland
protection requirements and provide for economic development.

9. A regional approach provides economy of scale advantages: one large
bank site may be easier to manage over time than many small sites.

10. Provides opportunities for multi-use (or multi-obj ective) of the bank which
can increase funding opportunities.

11. Priorities for shorelines of state-wide significance emphasize a regional
approach.

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation H-457

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

If mitigation banking is to be a useful shoreline management tool in
Washington State, a number of obstacles must be overcome.

First, existing environmental protection regulations and permit review
procedures discourage comprehensive mitigation banking. Because it carries
opportunities for abuse and because it departs from the straightforward, "hold
the line" resource protection stance, agencies are slow to consider the concept.

Moreover, banking requires coordination of all applicable resource agencies
and local governments each with their own interests and jurisdictions. All must
be satisfied before a program can proceed. Since mitigation banking requires
breaking new.ground, in effect experimenting, a mitigation banking program
must navigate through the same regulatory web designed to prote& natural
systems. Because mitigation banking is complicated, that web of regulations
and procedures is especially complex.

Second, better scientific information is needed. The concept of mitigation
banking has been applied almost exclusively to wetlands. Shorelines are
complex natural systems. Research is needed to improve our knowledge of
environmental enhancement and restoration. There is a critical need for a body
of experience to guide future banking efforts. @

Third, funding is a serious problem. Mitigation banking requires considerable
expenditure well in advance of development projects, and the success of the
program is never certain, it seems unlikely that private interests will be able to
provide the resources and accept the risks a banking program will entail. In
effect, compensatory banking is a long-term, relatively high-risk investment.
Large state or federal agencies (e.g. WSDOT, the EPA), major ports, non-.
profit organizations (land trusts) or a unique private situation may be the most
likely funding sources.

Fourth, the concept must be discussed within the larger public forum.
Ultimately, mitigation banks will affect the distribution of resources and must
be predicated on public acceptance and approval. Since public participation
will be an important part of mitigation bank development, interested citizens
should have a voice in framing the policies supporting those efforts.

Fifth, education is essential. It must be clear that mitigation banking is not a
shortcut or panacea. However, resource managers must acknowledge the risks
of the current system (that it has achieved limited success) and take a "leap of
faith" regarding new mitigation alternatives.

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation H459

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

The Washington State Department of Ecology is in a position to provide
the leadership needed to pursue mitigation banking in Washington State.

Leadership is needed to coordinate regulatory procedures, foster scientific
research, pursue funding and provide guidance regarding administrative and
management practices.

Ecology cannot take an operational position on mitigation banking that win
influence department decisions because, as currently conceived, the concept is
still in its experimental stages and it carries the potential for abuse and is locally
unproven. However, Ecology does embrace, in principle, the concept and will
take an active role in exploring its potential through controlled experimentation
and interagency efforts in hopes that an understanding can be reached
consistent with SMA goals and other resource management efforts.

Before advocating mitigation banking as a viable resource management tool,
the department must insure that banking programs are not merely used as a
way to, circumvent current regulations and that they are worth the major
investments they require.

Despite these limitations, the concept of mitigation bankingis worth pursuing
because of its potential to solve key resource management/development
conflicts, and,provide a comprehensive resource planning approach'.

Any mitigation banking position taken by the Department of Ecology
would be based on a resource management perspective and the following
assumptions.

I A higher level of natural resource protection is the fundamental reason for
pursuing mitigation banking. The primary impetus is NOT development
expediency.
2. Resourceenhancement, restoration or creation must take place prior to
development.

3. The mitigation bank must respond to a comprehensive environmental
enhancement plan.

4. Compensatory mitigation policies do not supplant SEPAmitigation
guidelines and priorities.

5. The mitigation bank effort must involve citizens, local government and
resource agencies.

Chapter 16 - Off-Site Environmental Mitigation, H-459

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPT'E'R' 17
Public Access.

Introduction

The Washington Administrative Code chapter p roviding guidelines for master
program development, WAC 173-16-040 (4) (iv), states that:

"In the master program, priority is also to be given to planningfor public
visual andphysical access to water in- the urban environment Identifying
needs andplanningfor the acquisition of urban landforpiermanentpublic
access to the water in the urban environment should he accomplished in
the masterprogram. -To enhance waterftont and ensure maximumpublic
use, industrial and commercialfacilities should be designed to permit
pedestrian waterftont activities. Where practicable, various access points
ought to be linked to non-motorized transportation routes, such as bicycle
and hikingpaths.

The provision of public access along shorelines hasresulted in several master
program issues:

How can public access be most effectively planned to optimize public
benefit?@

When can public access be a substitute for water-dependent. or water-
related uses?

Chapter 17 - Public Access H460

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

� When should public access be required?

� What implementation techniques are useful in achieving public access
objectives?

Chapter 17 addresses these questions. Additionally, the Department of
Ecology publication, An Evaluation ofPublic Access to Washington's
Shorelines Since the Enactment of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, by
James Scott, is a valuable reference and includes master programming and
policy recommendations. Suggestions for design and construction details can
be found in the Shoreline Public Access Handbook, Ecology publication #90-
06.

Public access provisions can present complex legal issues in certain
circumstances. Local governments should periodically review their public
access provisions to ensure they comply with current legal standards. While
Ecology has information on suggested public access provisions, responsibility
for legal review rests with the local government and their legal counsel.

Comprehensive Access Plan

Public access improvements are most effective when they are coordinated to
provide a spectrum of recreation and educational experiences and linked to
each other and to other focal points in the community. Therefore, public
access improvements and master program requirements should be strategically
integrated through a public access plan. Such a plan not only organizes the
public planning and capital improvement efforts, it also provides a rationale for
private development access requirements. Requiring development to provide
shoreline access has a stronger legal basis if these policies are tied to a
comprehensive strategy to enhance the public's use of the shoreline because a
stronger connection can be drawn between an individual requirement and
impacts which must be mitigated. For example, a comprehensive waterfront
access plan can identify where access will be most usefW, demonstrate how
private efforts can tie into public projects, specify how various private
developments can be linked together, and/or be used as a basis to decide which
areas require specific standards. Mile examples in this chapter highlight urban
shores, sirnilar application can be made to rural areas.

Access plans have been useful in revitalizing urban waterfronts, garnering
public support and furthering urban design goals because they are visual in
presentation and positive in direction rather than solely regulatory. They also
compliment the regulatory aspects of master programs and can provide a basis
for master program standards.

Chapter 17 - Public Access H-461

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

A successful public access plan should ideally contain the following elements
and should incorporate public improvements (such as trails and parks),
regulatory requirements and design standards for private developments:

0 Pedestrian connections

0 Relation of pathways to land uses and development patterns

0 Districts of differing access requirements (e.g. districts where shoreline
access is required, where it can be a substitute for water-dependent
uses, where it is not necessary, etc., type of access required)

* Identification of special opportunities, including view access

0 Relation to recreational facilities, parks, etc.

0 Design and signage standards

0 Public/private implementation strategy

0 Safety criteria

0 Automobile parking

0 Connections to bicycle trails

* Standards for private development (e.g. setback, landscaping, etc.)

0 Standards for providing privacy for adjacent residents

An access plan can either be a part of the shoreline master program or a
separate document referred to in the master program. A separate document
has the advantage of being more easily modified and utilizing an appropriate
format. It is sufficient in Department of Ecology permit review for local
administrators to document whether or not the proposed project meets the
adopted access plan and to refer to the plan!s provisions. If a separate access
plan document is used, however, the master program should contain minimum
access design standards and indicate where access is required. Some
jurisdictions have included abbreviated portions of the public access plan as an
appendix to the master program. The plan should include both a map and
language which establishes the criteria and standards. It could be developed in
phases, with a conceptual plan and general goals coming first, supplemented by
more detail as time is available.

Chapter 17 - Public Access H-462

SAO Handbook - 1994 Edition

Several towns and cities have developed access plans for a portion or all of
their urban waterfronts; these include Seattle, Everett, Oak Harbor, Port
Townsend, Port Angeles, Bremerton, Kirkland, Tacoma and Olympia. Several
cities have also initiated successful public access and recreation projects
resulting from or in addition to such planning efforts. Examples include
Percival Landing in Olympia, Elliott Bay Park and Waterfront Park in Seattle,
the Port Angeles Civic Pier, Ruston Way in Tacoma, Riverfront Park in
Spokane and Columbia Park in Kennewick and Richland. These and other
projects have generally been key factors in stimulating desirable development
along urban shorelines and have played important roles in revitalizing their
locales.

Public Access as a Requirement for
Non-water-oriented Uses

Public access should not be a substitute for water-oriented use requirements.
The access plans should indicate specifically where public access is used as a
provision for permitting non-water-oriented uses and this provision should also
be reflected in the master program use requirements. Public access should be a
component of all "water-enjoyment" uses. The master program should set
definite standards for the design of the access which should cover:

1. Connection to public ROW;

2. Hours and restrictions to access;

3. Legal mechanism for insuring that access will be established permanently
(easement, etc.) and maintained;

4, Signage;

5. Connection to pedestrian or bike trail;

6. Requirements for site enhancements such as seating, landscaping, viewing
platforms, opportunity to reach the water's edge, lighting, interpretive
displays, etc.

Public Access on Industrial Sites

The public's fascination with the waterfront has always been quite strong.
Industrial waterfronts, especially those with a variety of human activities and
historical or cultural associations, are valued as an important public amenity as
well as a critical economic resource.

Chapter 17 - Public Access H463

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Industrial activities and recreational visitors, however, fall into apparent
conflict for several reasons. Many ports and maritime industries fear that
public access improvements such as pathways, piers, viewpoints, boat moorage
or parks will interfere wit 'h work activities, compromise security or threaten
individual safety. Often, industrial activities produce noise, glare, fumes, or
other conditions that make them incompatible with waterfront attractions such
as parks, restaurants and retail shops. Also, public access improvements in the
past have tended to "clean up" or "beautify" the waterfront to the detriment of
the messy but lively work-a-day character that provided the waterfront's
original attraction.

These apparent conflicts are the basis of the most challenging issues in the
planning and design of public access elements and mixed-use projects on
industrial waterfronts, and pose the following design questions:

How can public access be added to industrial sites without interfering
with work or compromising security?

What are some ways visitors' safety can be assured inactive industrial
areas?

How can the working waterfront's visual character be maintained while
providing attractive amenities for visitors?

Several projects from across the state have incorporated the following
solutions:

Observation Points.

View tow' ers, periscopes and elevated platforms are useful in providing views
of industrial activities and have proven successful in areas such as Percival
Landing in Olympia and Pier 48 viewpoint in Seattle. Interpretive displays
explaining what is seen is also an attractive feature. Such viewpoints are
considered viable alternatives to trails or paths into dangerous industrial sites.

In her research on public access in industrial areas, Susan Emst-Corser found
that such observation points were used more heavily when they were close to
other public attractions or were located on pedestrian/bicycle trails.

Design of Improvements

Promoting public access on industrial sites can be a
, particularly difficult
challenge,butthe 'effort can.be successful if attention is paid to site design.
The Port of Seattle's Fishermen's Terminal complex is a good example, since it

Chapter 17 - Public Access H464

SNIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

includes both a wide range of industrial activities and serves as a popular
visitor's destination. Aspects of the design which make it successful include:

1. Separating visitor circulation and parking from industrial traffic;

2. Concentrating visitor attractions in one part of the site;

3. Providing a strong attraction that focuses visitors attention (at Fishermen's
Terminal, the restaurants and central plaza served this purpose);

4. Reinforcing safety signage with design cues such as paving, fighting'and
site amenities to indicate where visitors are welcome;

5. Restricting bicycle traffic to indicated areas and providing safe lanes where
they are allowed; and

6. Designing architectural and site elements to reinforce the activity's
utilitarian character. For example, at Fishermen!s Terminal, the building
was designed with metal siding and simple forms in response to the
architecture of the warehouses and net sheds.

The terminal was successful in meeting both its industrial and public access
goals. The greatly expanded fishing fleet facilities have functioned
exceptionally well and the terminal has become an active visitors destination,
attracting between 95 and 125 people per hour on summer weekends.

The project illustrates that industrial waterfronts can be the setting for exciting
recreational opportunities and important civic attractions. It substantiates the
premise that combining recreational and commercial uses along a harbor can, if
properly planned, enhance economic viability of all uses and maximize the use
of shoreline resources. Visitor safety, impacts on industrial work and
compatibility of shoreline uses are concerns that must be addressed, but which
can often be solved.

Fishermen's Terminal also illustrates several elements in the design process that
are key to successfully integrating public access with industrial activities. They
are:

I . Working directly with the in dustrial businesses to lower apprehensions
regarding increased public access and seeking solutions that benefit both
visitors and workers.

2. Considering public access and use compatibility issues throughout the
program, master planning and design process. Continuity within the design
team through these work phases is recommended.

Chapter 17 - Public Access H-465

SN[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Careful site planning to separate incompatible uses and provide adequate
circulation. Separate vehicle access and parking for visitors reduces impact
to work activities.

4. Including elements in the project that benefit workers and industrial
activities as well as the visiting public. Better circulation and parking,
convenient commercial services, improved lighting and new site amenities
can upgrade conditions for the existing industrial uses.

5. Using signing and visual cues to orient and direct visitors. Non-verbal
design elements such as pavement markings, lighting and site furniture can
help to control visitor circulation.

6. Respecting the work-a-day qualities of the industrial setting. Not only
does a low-key design approach help preserve the working waterfront's
authentic character, it also indicates that visitors should respect the
workers' needs and reiterates that the site is a working area first, and
secondly a public attraction.

Incorporating Public Access Into Environmental
Mitigation

Many industrial developments require that environmental impacts be mitigated
by on-site environmental improvements such as the creation or enhancement of
wetlands, beaches.' lagoons, dune environments or other biological resources.
In some cases, public access improvements such as nature trails, canoe
launches, observation decks or fishing piers can be incorporated into the
environmental enhancement measures. The combination of environmental and
public access mitigation can, if done well, save money and utilize shorelines
more efficiently. The Southwest Harbor Development being proposed by the
Port of Seattle points out some of the opportunities and challenges of such an
approach.

The Southwest Harbor project is driven by the need for expanded terminal
space which may require filling along the shoreline. If this occurs, significant
environmental enhancement will be required in the form of low-angle beach
creation, environmental clean up and biofiltration of runoff. One scheme to
accomplish all of these requirements is to create an "atoll" breakwater with a
pathway that protects-the sensitive shallow beach intertidal zone. The path will
also prove a destination attraction with a unique view of the city, the river and
the surrounding habitat. Drainage systems can be developed to treat runoff as
well as provide upland habitat that is separated but visible from the walkway.
At the same time, the interconnectedness of development, toxic sediment clean
up measures, public access features and ha bitat mitigation actions means that
all of the engineering and regulatory problems for each of the elements must be

Chapter 17 - Public Access H466

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

solved together. This greatly complicates the work process but offers much
greater rewards if the project is successful.

Off-site Public Access

As a matter of policy, on-site public access mitigation is preferred over off-site
public access improvements because unless carefully planned, off-site
mitigation does not truly compensate for the loss of the public's right to access
the shoreline. However, there are cases where on-site public access cannot be
accommodated for safety, security, compatibility, or site planning reasons. The
general requirements for public access (see Chapter 5) acknowledge these
conditions and allow off-site public access when they are not possible on-site.
Note that these exceptions to on-site public access requirements generally
apply to water-dependent industries only.

For two reasons, a public access plan that indicates key public access locations,
pedestrianibike routes and special features is necessary to insure successful off-
site access. First, it considers the broad spectrum of shoreline access resources
so that the relative importance of each site can be evaluated. Second, it
identifies potential public access features which may be developed as off-site
compensation. The Port of Seattle's Duwarnish Waterway Public Access Plan
offers a good example of a plan that coordinated proposed Port development
with a comprehensive series of projects to improve access throughout the
waterway. Public access improvements were timed to development actions in
a agreement that allows the Port to proceed with orderly development on the
river harbor.

Public Access in Environmentally
Sensitive Areas

There may be situations where providing public access conflicts with
environmental protection of wetlands and critical wildlife habitats. In such
cases, protection of the resource generally has priority. Damage to critical
areas is sometimes cited as a reason for not providing public access. However,
often times the two objectives can be accomplished through careful design.,

Wetland protection usually requires that a buffer be maintained around the
designated area. Public access can sometimes be accommodated; in other
cases, it can threaten a buffer. Boardwalks, platforms, vegetation screening
and setbacks can all be utilized to mitigate the impacts of public access on a
sensitive area. The model language in Chapter 5 makes allowances for not
requiring public access where environmental harm will occur. However, the
regulation also requires that all reasonable alternatives to mitigate that impact

Chapter 17 - Public Access H467

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

be explored, so that an apparent conflict between public access and
environmental protection should not be taken as a necessarily irreconcilable
conflict.

Public Access Design Standards

Thus far, the discussion in Chapter 17 has dealt with physical access but the
SMA addresses visual access as well. Design standards to preserve views,
provide sunlight and air, control height and building density, regulate signage
and enhance urban design character are used by various jurisdictions. The
complexity and format for these differ greatly.

The most specific directions in the Shoreline Management Act and supporting
WACs regarding design standards deal with view blockage. This concern for
view protection translates into the need for master programs to regulate height
a,nd side yard (or view corridor) requirements. In addition, front yards (facing
the street) and rear yards (facing the water) are often specified in order to
prevent a visual narrowing of the street corridor and to provide a setback from
the water. Besides maintaining views of the water, height and bulk (bulk
meaning the size of building as determined by side yard setbacks) are useful in
regulating the scale of shoreline developments and in preventing undesirable
shade and shadow patterns.

It is important to note that the WAC directions pertain primarily to view
blockage or degradation and not to design, style or purpose. Master program
standards for signs, other than signs for public access elements, need not be
concerned with issues such as color, materials or graphic designs. These types
of controls, if desired, should be included in the City or County's signage,
zoning or design review ordinance. Likewise, design standards for building
materials and architectural design elements standards should not be included in
master programs except as they relate to public access improvements.

Location and size of parking lots are important considerations relating to both
use requirements and design standards. Screening and landscaping of parking
may be included in SMP provisions. Also, design standards for public access
points and view corridors should be included where applicable.

Providing Flexibility and Specificity in Design
Standards

Design standards must be specific enough to facilitate project review with
predictable results. At the same time, design standard flexibility is desirable to
take into account unique site conditions or to allow deviations or variables that

Chapter 17 - Public Access H468

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

would result in development more favorable to the public. Several methods to
deal with these two objectives have been developed and are described below.

Refining design standards according to parallel subareas.
Just as parallel subareas (e.g. aquatic, shoreline and uplan d lots) can be used to
refine use requirements, they can also be helpful in formulating more effective
design standards. For example, in a given zone, the height limits might be 15
feet for aquatic areas, 3 5 feet for shoreline lots and 5 5 feet for upland lots.
This type of refinement could be very useful in preventing view obstruction and
maintaining smaller-scale development at the shoreline.

Refining design standards by setting a hierarchy of
requirements from general standards to use-specific or area-
specific standards.
The Seattle Master Program sets both general development standards that are
applicable throughout all shorelines and standards that vary from
subenvironment to subenvironment. Signage standards are covered under
general development standards while height and bulk standards are set for each
individual subenvironment (e.g. urban maritime, urban commercial, etc.).
Some master programs assign height and bulk to individual shoreline areas.
The proposed Seattle Shoreline Master Program further divides the Urban
Harborfront Environment Subclassification into subareas with height limits
specified for each area. Finally, greater heights are allowed in specified areas if
water-dependent uses are developed according to the water-dependency
provision. Thus, additional height is used as an incentive with water-
dependency but only according to very specific conditions.

Allowing exceptions to design standards if they meet specified
performance criteria.
The Tacoma Shoreline Master Program incorporates a technique for allowing
exceptions to design criteria. For example, a rear setback can be reduced from
the requirement stated in the code if approved by the Hearing Examiner and
the City Council. To be approved, it must be shown that, a) one of several
benefits will accrue by granting the exception or that the required setback is
unnecessary by site condition; and b) that the redirection of a setback will not
result in any of the negative impacts described in this section. Finally, the
Hearing Examiner and the City Council may place conditions on the substantial
development permit to ensure compliance with the master program objectives.

In summary, local SNIPs should include design standards for height, side yard
setbacks (view corridors), front yard setbacks and rear yard setbacks (shoreline
setbacks). They should also. include signage standards that address view
degradation or blockage . Standards for size and location of parking lots

Chapter 17 - Public Access B469

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

should also be set either as use requirements or design standards. Cities and
counties should consider a variety of options in developing provisions for
flexibility and specificity in design standards.

Writing Specific Public Access
Provisions

The model language for general public access provisions presented in Chapter
5 is a good starting point for a city or county SNIP. However, provisions can
be added to provide greater specificity in terms of required public access
improvements for different shoreline segments, additional design standards for
public access areas including view corridors and open space. Below are
presented some examples of SW provisions that provide direction to property
owners and permit reviewers. These are not intended as model language but as
examples of local implementation. Dimensions, features and other provisions
will vary from one situation to the next.

Standards for a Continuous Public Esplanade

The following excerpt from the City of Tacoma's Foss Waterway Public
Access Plan is an SNIP recommendation for a continuous esplanade.

ExAMrLE: CITY OF TA mA Foss WATERWAY PUBLic AcCESS PLAN
A condition of all shoreline permits in the S-8 district shall be the construction
of the following public access improvements:
A continuous, unobstructed, publicly accessible esplanade or boardwalk
fronting directly on the shoreline edge. The esplanade or boardwalk will be a
minimum of 15 feet wide with a 20-foot average width. Site amenities such as
benches, lights and landscaping will be included as a part of the esplanade or
boardwalk construction. NOTE: The esplanade section in the Wheeler-
Osgood Waterway may be a minimum of 8 feet wide, but it must be set within
a required 25-foot wide (m@inimum) vegetation maintenance zone. Native
vegeta ion, (ground cover, shrubs and/or trees) shall be established and
maintained within this area.

Chapter 17 - Public Access H470

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Public Access Trail Standards Adjacent to
Environmentally Sensitive Areas

The following graphic from Everett's SNP illustrates an example of trail
development in sensitive areas.

Spur path:
6' wide (min
boardwalk or pathway

4 A-

25' (min.)
I setback
@Min.)L for Sensitive Area
rPaved' sens ""
trail area Cor ., Iietermined by Everett Planning Dept.

50' (min.) setback
to de%eloped structure Schematic
jor as determined b v
Everett Planning Dept.) Section

6.(min.) path or
ardAalk

r
50 @@back

Main
trail

12' 25' (min spur path
min. (c-,ry 1000't)

Sensitive Area
V

Figure 17-1. Example of trail development in sensitive areas.

Chapter 17 - Public Access H471

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Reference to Public Access Plan Standards

The following example illustrates how public access plans may be referenced in
an SUP. Note that a minimum standard is stated explicitly.

CITY OF EVERETT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM

Requirements for Development on Port Gardner Harborfront
All developments on the Port Gardner Harborfront south and west of the
Alverson Street Bridge shall adhere to the standards and intent of the "Everett
Harborfront Public Access Plan". At a minimum, 0 on-site public access
improvements shall include a dedicated paved walkway at least 15 feet wide or
as indicated in the Harborfront Public Access Plan and include the on-site
improvements shown in the plan. The rafling, pavements, landscaping and
other site improvements shall meet or exceed the standards in plan as
determined by the Everett Planning Department. The public access
improvements shall be connected to other sections of the Plan's public access
route.

Provision For Off-site Public Access
Improvements

The City of Everett's SM? allows compensatory off-site public access
improvements so long as they conform to the adopted access plan. Note that
such a provision is effective only when it is found in a comprehensive public
access plan.

CITY OF EVERETT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM

Off-Site Public Access Requirements
If the City of Everett determines that on-site development is not feasible
because of conditions stated under Regulation I -a through I -e, (I a-e is the
same as the model language regulation in Chapter 5), then the City may permit
the applicant to substantially contribute to a significant off-site public access-
recreation feature included in the Everett Harborfront Public Access Plan.
Significant public access/recreation features in the Plan include Harborfront
View Park, Boat Launch Park, Forest Park (shoreline area), Jetty Island, BN
Station Viewpoint and the proposed 13th Street Public Access site. The City
of Everett shall determine the amount and terms of the public access
contribution.

Chapter 17 - Public Access H472

SM[P Handbook - 1994 Edition

View Corridor, Pedestrian Circulation and Open
Space Requirements

The City of Tacoma@s proposed access standards for the Thea Foss Waterway
include provisions for view corridors, pedestrian levels from the street to the
shoreline, parking dedicated to public access and open space for large parcels.

Crry OF TAcomA Foss WATERWAY PuBmc AcCESS PLAN
View Corridor Requirements
1 . A side yard/view corridor of 30 percent of the width of the site is required
under existing regulations. In addition to this existing regulation, at least
50 percent of this side yard/view corridor shall be dedicated to hardscape,
low-growing vegetation, open space, or site amenities other than parking.
2. A pedestrian circulation link from street right-of-way to the public
esplanade or boardwalk, parking lot and building entrance shall be provided
for each- development and be a minimum of 15 feet wide. It is desired that
required pedestrian circulation link be adjacent to the sites off-street
parking and/or view corridor.
3. One parking space for the first 20 parking spaces and one for each 50
thereafter shall be set aside and appropriately marked for public access
only.
4. Developments on sites over one acre in land area or with over 500 linear
foot frontage shall include additional public open spaces or plazas equal to
at least 5 percent of total property area. Such public spaces shall include
landscaping and site amenities such as benches and lighting.
15. A public access easement for the above requirements shall be provided to
the City. Public access easements and per mit conditions shall be recorded
on the deed of title and/or on the face of the plat or shore plat as a
condition running in perpetuity with the land. A prohibition against
"hostile" signs and locking gates shall be pan of the access easement.

Parking Lot Screening

The following example of screening deals with several of the parking lot design
issues near public access sites. However, parking lots can provide expanded
views over the cars to the shore. In such cases, screening should be kept low
and trees placed to minimize view blockage.

Chapter 17 - Public Access H473

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

ExANTLE: CITY OF TAcomA Foss WATER'wAy PuBLic AccEss PLAN

Parking Lot Screening Requirements
1 . Parking shall be screened from the street and esplanade by a three-foot-
high landscaped screen or a three-foot-high brick or solid fence, allowing
for proper sight distance at accesses. Such landscaping shall provide 50
percent screening at time of planting, and should achieve 100 percent
screening within three years after planting. At minimum, ground cover
shall be used in conjunction with a wall or fence.
2. Landscaping equal to 15 percent of the paved vehicular area shall be
installed.
3. One medium-growing tree, 30 to 50 feet at maturity, shaU be required for
every 1,500 square feet of paved vehicular area.
4. Parking lot planted beds shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide. Perimeter
planting beds adjacent to parking spaces shall be a minimum of 6 feet wide.
5. Parking lot lighting shall not exceed 20 feet in height.
6. Parking lots shall contain pedestrian connections to the public esplanade or
boardwalk, building entrances, public circulation fink. Pedestrian
connections shall either be a raised sidewalk, or minimally, composed of a
different material from the parking lot. Pedestrian connections must be at
least 5 feet wide, excluding vehicular overhang.
7. Wherever walkways abut driving surfaces, a change of grade shall be used
to create a visual separation between the walkway and the driving surface.
At minimum, different paving materials shall be used.
18. Parking shall be located on the streetside of any building within 200 feet of
the shoreline, or on a separate lot. Outside the shoreline district, if parking
is limited by the project site and cannot be contained on the streetside of
the building, a minimum landscaped buffer of 20 feet adjacent to the
esplanade shall be provided and maintained. Such buffer area shall contain
landscaping including medium-growing trees and site amenities. Such
buffer area shall also provide for direct pedestrian access from the.parking
area to the public esplanade or boardwalk.
9. Angled street parking, where it conflicts with public transportation needs,
shall be prohibited within the shoreline district.
10. There shall be no parking requirement for the Foss Waterway S-8/10
Shoreline District, and no parking spaces other than currently required by
Chapter 13.06 of the Land Use Regulatory Code may be instafled.
Exceptions for unusually special cases may be granted by the Land Use
Administrator.

Chapter 17 - Public Access H-474

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Reference to Design Standards

Design standards may be referred to in a public access plan as in the following
example.

EXAMPLE:

All required public access improvements shall be constructed and landscaped
according to the standards stated in the City's adopted Shoreline Public Access
Plan and shall be approved by the City.
The City. of Everett's SNIP requires a site development plan showing
landscaping and site design be submitted during permit review.

Local governments may include requirements as in the following example.

EXAMPLE: SHORELINE ACCESS EASEMENTS
All shoreline access easement areas shall be landscaped in accordance with the
site development plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the City.
All accessway pavements shall be asphalt, concrete or unit paving suitable for
foot and bicycle traffic. Boardwalks for foot traffic only are preferred for spur
paths through envirom''nentally sensitive areas. Property owners and
developers are encouraged to integrate accessway paving and design elements
into their site improvements.

Cbapter 17 - Public Access H475

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 18
Aquatic Habitats

Introduction

Many valuable aquatic habitats are located within shoreline jurisdiction. This
chapter briefly describes some of the important habitats and an approach local
governments can consider in protecting those habitats. This chapter also
includes model comprehensive plan policies that could be used in conjunction
with the suggested shoreline master program policies and guidelines in this
Handbook. Most of the terms used in this chapter are defined in the glossary
of this Handbook.

Recommended critical salt water habitat and salmon and steelhead policies and
regulations can be found in Chapter 5, Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations.

As used in this chapter, critical salt water habitats are kelp beds (members of
the brown algal family Laminariales including Alaria marginat Alaria nan
Alaria tenuifolia, Egregia menziesii Eisenia arbore Ptefyjzophora californic
Agarum cribosum, Agarum fimbriatu Costaria costat Cymathere idplicat
Hedophyllurn sessile Laminaria spp., Pleurophycus gardneri DiMoneuro is-
reticulat Dictyoneurum califamicurn- Lessioniopsis littoralis Macropysti
intewifoli Nereopystis luetkeana, and Postelsia Ralmaefbrm@is), eelgrass beds
(Zostera spp.), surf smelt MyRomesus Dretiosus spawning beds, Pacific
herring (Clupea harengg5j@allasi) spawning beds, Pacific sand lance
(Ammod3qes hexapterus) spawning beds, rock sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata)
spawning beds, rockflsh (aebastes spp.) settlement and nursery areas, lingcod

Chapter 18 - Aquatic Habitats H476

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

(Ophiodon elongatus) settlement and nursery areas, and the beds of the
following shellfish: the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas), the Olympia oyster
(Ostrea lurida), the razor clam Silqua patula), the native little clam
rotothaca staminea), the Manila clam (venerupis japonica , the butter clam
Saxidomus giganteus), the Geoduck (Panope generosa), the horse clam
Schizothaerus nuttalli and Schizotha@@ca @ax), the cockle Clinocardium
nuttalli , the macoma (N4Lcoma spp.), and the eastern soft shell clam (M a
j --y
grenaria).
Salmon and steelhead habitats include gravel bottomed streams, creeks and
rivers used for spawning; streams, creeks, rivers, side channels, ponds, lakes
and wetlands used for rearing, feeding and cover and refuge from predators
and high water; streams, creeks, rivers, estuaries and shallow areas of salt
water bodies used as migration corridors; and salt water bodies used for
rearing, feeding and refuge from predators and currents.

Kelp Beds, Eelgrass Beds, Herring
Spawning Areas, Smelt Spawning
Areas and other Critical Salt Water
Habitats

The Growth Management Act, in Sections 3 6.70A. 060 and 3 6.70A. 170 RCW,
requires local governments to designate and protect critical areas. This
requirement applies both to local governments planning under the Growth
Management Act and all other local governments. The Minimum Guidelines to
Classify Agriculture, Forest, Mineral Lands, and Critical Areas (WAC
365.190.080(5)(a)(4)) designate kelp beds, eelgrass beds, herring spawning
areas and smelt spawning areas as critical areas. The minimum guidelines also
designate commercial and recreational shellfish areas as critical areas. So local
governments should consider identif g and protecting these areas.

The Department of Fisheries has identified the four critical areas fisted above
and the habitats of several other salt water fish as saltwater habitats of special
concern. These additional habitats include Pacific sand lance spawning beds,
rock sole spawning beds, rockfish settlement and nursery areas and fingcod
settlement and nursery areas. Juvenile salmonid habitats are also identified by
the Department of Fisheries as saltwater habitats of special concern. Because
of the overlap between the critical areas species and the other saltwater
habitats of special concern, this chapter addresses all of the species.

Chapter 18 - Aquatic Habitats H477

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

All of these areas are important salt water habitats that support valuable
species. Kelp and eelgrass beds provide habitat for plants, fish, shellfish, sea
birds and sea mammals. Herring spawn in and on kelp beds, eelgrass, beds and
other types of marine vegetation. Herring and surf smelt support a limited
commercial fishery and are an important food fish for salmon, marine fish, sea
birds and marine mammals. Surf smelt are also the basis for a recreational
fishery. The Pacific sand lance is eaten by many fish species which are the
basis for commercial and recreational fisheries, such as lingcod. Lingcod, rock
sole and rockfish support commercial and recreational fisheries. Shellfish also
support commercial and recreational fisheries.

These important and sensitive habitats are threatened by a variety of activities.
Bulkheading can cover spawning beaches. Bulkheads can also lead to the
erosion of spawning beaches. Bulkheads can reduce the erosion of material
from feeder bluffs which builds up beaches. Currents and tides remove
material from beaches. Unless this material is replaced, the beach may erode
and the types of material on the beach may change. These changes may make
a beach unsuited to spawning. Bulkheads also intensify wave action on the
beach, leading to changes in beach material and erosion. Landfills can cover
spawning beaches, algae and marine vegetation. Dredging can remove algae
and marine vegetation and deepen the bottom to depths below which they can
grow. In-water structures can shade algae and marine vegetation, killing them.
Silt from dredging construction runoff, logging runoff and road building can
hinder the growth of algae and marine plants or kill them by reducing the
sunlight available to them. Silt and other fine materials can smother kelp and
eelgrass beds. Nutrient enrichment can increase free-floating algae, reducing
sunlight available to eelgrass and other marine plants. The introduction of non-
native species, such as Spartina, can also displace valuable marine plants.
Stormwater runoff, improperly functioning on-site sewage systems and point
source discharges can pollute shellfish beds, rendering the shellfish unsafe for
human consumption. Sources of pollution, even if located far upstream, can
adversely affect shellfish beds.

It is important to note that most salt water areas have significant habitat value.
For example, mud flats are important sources of food for aquatic life. Salt
water ecosystems are not well understood. As research progresses, more
critical habitats may be discovered. Those salt water habitats which are not
classified as critical are also important and should be managed to ensure their
continued productivity.

Chapter 18 - Aquatic Habitats H-478

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Salmon and Steelhead Habitats

Salmon and steelhead are two of the enduring symbols of the Northwest.
Salmon and steelhead are also important economic and recreational resources.

During their life cycle, salmon and steelhead use many of the state's shorelines.
Salmon and steelhead spawn in gravel-bottomed streams and rivers. In the late
summer or fall, the female salmon digs a redd in which she deposits her eggs.
Steelhead spawn in the winter and spring, also depositing the eggs in a r 'edd.
The male salmon and steelhead fertilize the eggs as they are deposited. The
female salmon and steelhead cover the eggs with gravel.

If the eggs are to survive, the redd cannot be covered with silt, disturbed, or-
dewatered. While salmon and steelhead evolved to tolerate some natural
stream instability, human activities exceed these limits. Development, road
building and cultivation can increase siltation. Increased silt in rivers and
streams can cover redds, reducing the flow of oxygenated water to the eggs,
suffocating them. Human activities can also increase runoff peaks by
constructing impervious surfaces,, channelizing streams, armoring river and
streambanks and removing forest cover. Increased runoff peaks can wash out
redds or result in higher waters levels. This causes fish to spawn on higher
portions of the streambed which then dry out when the storm subsides.

The eggs hatch and the young salmon and steelhead emerge from the gravel in
the winter and spring. Depending on the species, the young spend varying
amounts of time in the stream. The salmon and steelhead depend on the
stream for food and protection. Strearnside vegetation provides cover from
predators and insects which the fish eat. Water temperatures are also
important to the survival of salmon and steelhead. Streamside vegetation,
especially trees, moderate water temperatures. Removal of strearnside
vegetation can reduce salmon and steelhead survival. Some species also
depend on side channels, wetlands and ponds connected to rivers and streams.
These species seek refuge in these areas during high-water events.

The salmon and steelhead then migrate down the streams and rivers. During
their journey, they need pools in which to hide and rest.

When the young salmon and steelhead reach salt water, they must adjust to
changes in salinity. They must also continue to feed. Salmon and steelhead
use shallow salt water areas as migration corridors, rearing areas and feeding
areas.

Chapter 18 - Aquatic Habitats H-479

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shallow areas have an important role in both saltwater and freshwater.
Shallows protect juvenile salmon and steelhead from predators. Shallows are
also productive areas for marine plants and algae. These shallow water
habitats can be lost through bulkheading and landfilling. Bulkheading also
contributes to the loss of shallow water habitat through erosion. Waves and
currents move material from beaches and shallows into deep water. By
reducing the erosion of shorelines which feed beaches and shallows, bulkheads
contribute changes in the beach material and the erosion of beaches and
shallows. Bulkheads can also lead to beach erosion by intensifying wave action
on,beaches in front of the bulkhead.

The salmon and steelhead migrate out to sea and five in the open ocean for two
to five years. They then complete the cycle by returning to spawn in the rivers
and streams in which they were hatched.

Because of the wide range of habitats used by salmon and steelhead,
comprehensive policies are necessary to ensure their continued viability.
Chapter 5 contains policies and regulations local governments should consider
including in their shoreline master programs to protect salmon and steelhead.
The shoreline master program is the appropriate mechanism to protect these
species because it protects aquatic areas and their immediate uplands.

Recommended Approach

Because critical salt water habitats are located within salt water areas, the local
government's most appropriate regulatory mechanism is the shoreline master
program. The local comprehensive plan could include a policy which
references the local shoreline master program. The substantive policies and
regulations would then be included in the master program., The local
government should also adopt the master program policies and regulations by
reference in the critical areas regulations. Alternatively, these recommended
policies and regulations could also be included in comprehensive plans and
critical areas ordinances. For salmon, steelhe a*d and shellfish, a basin wide
approach will be needed to protect the water quality on which the shellfish rely.
This will require the use of other land use controls in addition to the shoreline
master program.

Local governments may only have some of the critical salt water habitats and
salmon and steelhead habitats recommended for protection. So local
governments should edit the definitions and suggested policies and regulations
to exclude those protected resources not found within their jurisdiction.

Chapter 18 - Aquatic Habitats H480

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

The Department of Fisheries has concluded that methods do not currently exist
to successfully develop in-kind replacement mitigation for surf spawning areas
and marine vegetation. This means that developments which modify or destroy
these habitats permanently decrea se the supply of certain fish. These fish
species are important to other marine fish and wildlife, commercial fishers and
recreational fishers. Consequently, these recommendations focus on directing
development away from these areas.

Local governments should consider a two-part approach to identifying critical
salt water habitats. First, the local governments should obtain the best .
available inventory information and map it. Second, where developments
would impact marine waters which may support critical salt water habitats and
the project has the potential to impact resources, the proponent should conduct
a reconnaissance study to determine if any critical salt water habitats are
present.

By mapping this information, the local government gives applicants notice that
the resource may be present at a specific site. This reduces applicant costs and
allows applicants to identify development constraints early in the development
process. This makes it more likely that negative impacts can be avoided.

Comprehensive data identifying critical salt water habitats and salmon and
steelhead habitats are not available for most jurisdictions. This means that
even if the available data do not show that a critical habitat is present, the
habitat may be present if the site is biologically suitable. Where a use or
activity is proposed which may negatively impact critical habitat, the proponent
should contact resource agencies to see if additional data are available. The
Department of Fisheries Habitat Management Division is preparing a database
identifying the location of various salt water habitats. The Department of
Natural Resources is also developing an geographic information system (GIS)
containing data on salt water habitats. Some projects will require a Hydraulics
Project Approval (HPA) from the Department of Fisheries Habitat
Management Division. A consultation can sometimes take place as part of the
EPA application process. Information on the location of salmon and steelhead
habitats may be available from affected Indian tribes as well.

If the prop osal has a significant potential to adversely affect critical salt water
habitats or salmon and steelhead habitats, the local government should require
the applicant to conduct a reconnaissance study to determine whether the
habitat is actually present. The study should be designed in consultation with
the local government, affected state and federal resource agencies and affected
Indian tribes. Recommended shoreline master program Policy #4 (page H-
483) should describe the typical location of critical saltwater habitats.

Chapter 18 - Aquatic Habitats H481

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Some seagrasses are annuals and die back in the winter. So reconnaissance
studies should take place during the growing season (June through
September). In addition, the distribution of eelgrass may change within a given
area. Eelgrass may grow in an area, die back, and then regrow. The absence
of eelgrass at any -one time cannot be taken as determinative that a critical salt
water habitat does not occur in that area.

Mapping the resources requires a substantial up-front investment by the local
governments. If the local government does not have the resources to map
critical salt water habitats, it can still use the second and third steps to protect
the habitats.

A similar approach is recommended for salmon and steelhead habitats. First,
the local governments should obtain the best available inventory information
and map it. Second, where developments could impact salmon and steelhead
habitats, the project proponent should contact resource agency staff to
determine if more recent information is available.

The habitat maps may be included in the shoreline master program, a critical
areas map series, or comprehensive plan documents. If the areas are not
mapped as part of the shoreline master program, the location of the maps
should be indicated in the master program. Some local governments may wish
to map these areas generally in the comprehensive plan or critical areas map
series and more specifically in the shoreline master program. The habitats can
be mapped on paper maps, mylars, overlays or computerized GIS systems.'
The maps should be reproducible.

After mapping or otherwise identifying critical salt water and salmon/steelhead
habitats, local governments should review the nearby upland shoreline
designations to ensure they are compatible with the in-water resources. As
noted in the introduction, upland uses can significantly affect salt water and
salmon/steelhead habitats and salmon and steelhead habitats. Upland shoreline
designations and master program provisions which are consistent with
protecting these resources are important. In addition, local governments can
help manage cumulative impacts on salt water and salmon/steelhead habitats by
evaluating the uses and activities allowed in shoreline areas which may affect
critical salt water habitats. Local governments can then take steps to avoid the
potential negative impacts.

Chapter 18 - Aquatic Habitats H482

SP" Handbook - 1994 Edition

Recommended Comprehensive Plan
Policies

I .Critical saltwater habitats provide critical rearing and nursery areas for
valuable recreational and commercial species. They also provide habitat
for many marine plants, fish and animals. These habitats should be
protected because of their importance to the marine ecosystem and our
economic well-being.

2. Salmon and steelhead habitats support valuable recreational and
commercial fisheries. These habitats should be protected because of their
importance to the aquatic ecosystem and our economic well-being.

3. Critical saltwater habitats and salmon and steelhead habitats are managed
as provided for in the shoreline master program.

4. Critical saltwater habitats and salmon and steelhead habitats are mapped in
(Omit this policy if the local government
decides not to map the habitat types.)

Additional Information

Alice Lee or Peter Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal
Zone Management Program, Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box 47690,
Olympia, Washington 98504-7690. Alice Lee's telephone number is (206)
407-6524, SCAN 407-6524. Peter Skowlund's telephone number is (206)
407-6522, SCAN 407-6522.

Department of Community Development, Planning Data Source Bookfor
Resource Lands and Critical Areas, pages 141-50 (1991). Stateof
Washington Department of Community Development, Growth Management
Division, Ninth & Columbia Building, P. 0. Box 48300, Olympia, Washington
98504-8300. Telephone (206) 753-4317. Telephone (206) 753-4317.

Washington State Department of Fisheries, Habitat Management Division,
P.O. Box 3155, Olympia, Washington 98504-3155. Telephone (206) 902-
2534, SCAN 902-2534. Note: These numbers may change when the
Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife merge, effective July 1994.

Washington State Department of Wildlife, Habitat Division, 600 Capital Way
North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091. Telephone (206) 753-3318, SCAN
234-3318.

Chapter 18 - Aquatic Habitats H483

SNY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Tom Mumford, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Lands,
P. 0. Box 47027-7024, Olympia, Washington 98504. Telephone (206) 902-
1079.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Puget Sound Environmental Atlas,
(1987 and 1992). Available from most Puget Sound Area libraries and county
and regional planning departments.

Washington Coastal (Floating) Kelp Resources: Port Townsend to
Destruction Island is available from Therese Swanson, Shorelands and Coastal
Zone Management Program, Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box 47690,
Olympia, Washington 98504-7690. Telephone number (206) 407-6789, SCAN
407-6789.

Washington State Department of Health, Environmental Health Programs,
Office of Shellfish Programs, P. 0. Box 47824, Olympia, Washington 98504-
7824. Telephone (206) 753-5992. For information on the location of
commercial shellfish beds.

Shellfish Protection Team, Planning Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box 47690, Olympia,
Washington 98504-7690. Telephone number for Jay Shepard is (206) 407-
7283, SCAN 407-7283. Technical assistance on shellfish protection.

Chapter 18 - Aquatic Habitats H-484

SMW Handbook - 1994 Edition

CHAPTER 19
Technical References

Chapter 3: SMP Amendment
Process

1. Fisher, Roger, William Ury and William Patton. 199 1. Getting to Yes:
Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.

Chapter 5: General Policies and
Regulations

Clearing and Grading

1. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program. July 1985. Shoreline Bluff and Slope Stability:
Technical Management Options. By Douglas Canning. Shorelands
Technical Assistance Paper #2.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H485

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

(Aimed at local government officials, this paper contains sections on "Slope
Failure: Its Nature and Causes" and "Management Options" which
discusses the use of clearing and grading codes and bluff setbacks as means
of minimizing erosion.)

Environmental Impacts

1. Rau, John, and David Wooten, eds. 1980. Environmental Impact
Analysis Handbook. McGraw-I-lill.

(Includes methods of analysis for air, noise, energy, water quality,
vegetation and wildlife impacts.)

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

1. Gray, Donald H. and Andrew T. Leiser. 1982. Biotechnical Slope
Protection andErosion Control. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

(copy at Washington State Library.)

2. Canter, Larry and Loren IFE11. 1979. Handbook of Yariablesfor
Environmental Impact Assessment. Ann Arbor Science.

(A comprehensive listing of variables pertaining to environmental review in
water resources planning.)

3. Conservation Foundation. 1980. Coastal Environmental Management:
Guidefinesfor Conservation ofResources and Protection Against Storm
Hazards. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

4. Washington State Department of Wildlife. 1987. Yhepathbetween
habitat and development -a pamphlet onfish, wildlife and environmental
laws.

(Descriptions of different types of habitat, summary of state and federal
laws which protect habitat, description of different types of projects and
what the permits, conditions are.)

5. Washington State Departments of Wildlife and Fisheries. So you want to
work in the water. SIHL. Pamphlet.

(Describes hydraulics approval process.)

6. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1985. Forest Riparian Habitat
Study Phase I Report. Ecology Publication #85-3. HQL.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H486

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

7. Washington State Department of Ecology. July 1985. Shoreline Bluff and
Slope Stability: Technical Management Options. By Douglas Canning.
Shorelands Technical Assistance Paper #2. SBL.

8. Washington State Department of Ecology. December, 198 1. Streambed
Assessments, Habitat Evaluations, Beneficial Use sand Recommendation
Towards Enhancement of Stream Ecosystems Within the City of Kent. By
Bruce M. Bortz with Kent Planning Department.

(Identifies sensitive areas, gives methodology for assessment procedure.)

9. Phipps, James B., et. al. 1978. Pacific Ocean beach erosion and accretion
report. Aberdeen, WA.: Grays Harbor College. (HQL)

(Discusses erosion control, accretion.)

10. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program. 1989. Proposed Shoreline Master Program
WetlandProvisions. (SBL).

11. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. June, 1986. Issue Paper: Habitat
and Wetlands Protection. (SBL)

12. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program. July, 1985. Shoreline Bluff and Slope Stability:
Technical Management Options. By Douglas Canning. Shorelands
Technical Assistance Paper #2.

13. American Society of Planning Officials (now American Planning
Association). 1975. Performance Controlsfor Sensitive Lands. By
William Toner and Duncan Erley.

14. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal
Zone Management. July, 1975. Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone.
By Roy Mann Associates.

15. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal
Zone Management. November, 1976. Natural HazardManagement in
Coastal Areas. By Gilbert E. White et. al. Boulder, Colorado.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H487

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

(Describes application of the Coastal Zone Management Act to natural
hazards to minimize losses in the coastal zone. Hazards discussed,
delineated and analyzed in light of public policy include hurricane, flood,
coastal erosion, landslide, earthquake, tsunami, volcano, avalanche and
land subsidence. Problems are discussed by states also. Problems and
recommendations are presented.)

16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May, 1988. Wetlands Development and
Restoration. Huntsville Division Control No. 276.

(Contains sections "Shore Erosion Control with Salt Marsh Vegetation"
and "Plant Tolerance to Flooding" among others)

17. King County Planning Division. 1981. WetlandPlants ofKing County
and the Puget Sound Lowlands. Seattle,WA. (SHL).

18. Washington State Department of Community Development's Planning
Data Source Bookfor Resource Lands and Critical Areas. March 19,
1991 (DCD)

19. An interagency cooperative publication by: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and U. S.D. A. Soil and Conservation Service. January 10, 1993.
Federal Manualfor Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.

20. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. February, 1987. Puget Sound
Environmental Atlas. L-866 Vol. I & 2 C.10.

Public Access

1. Washington State Department of Ecology. April, 1982. Aesthetics and
ViewProtection. In Adjacent Lands Guidance,43-50.

2. California Coastal Commission. 1982. Designing Accessways.

(Coastal access standards element of the California Recreation Plan.)

3. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal
Zone Management. January, 1976. Coastal Recreation: A Handbookfor
Planners andManagers. By Robert B. Ditton and Mark Stephens.
Washington, D.C.

(Provides a basic understanding of recreation supply and demand, impacts
and management considerations. Recommendations are made for
integrating a recreation element into a long-term coastal zone management
program. The report describes a user-resource recreation planning

Chapter 19 - Technical References H488

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

approach as well as some basic recreation planning assumptions and
available management tools. Also discussed are: (1) coordination with
other governmental agencies having recreation responsibilities; (2) public
access; (3) the role of the recreation sector; and (4) classification" of coastal
recreation activities, a bibliography and selected recreation contacts.

4. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal
Zone Management. November, 1978. Shoreftont Access andIsland
Preservation Study. Ed. Richard S. Weinstein. Washington, D.C.

(Project director, David Brower. An historical and legal overview of these
topics. A model shorefront access planning process is proposed and the
variety of tools and techniques states may use to acquire access is
described.)

5. University of California and Southern California Programs. 1980.
Recreational Access to the Coastal Zone: Proceedings of a Forum.

6. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1983. Public Access to
Washington's Shorelines Since Passage of the Shoreline Management Act:
An Evaluation. By James W. Scott.

7. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program. February, 1990. Shoreline Public Access
Handbook. Ecology Publication #90-6. (SBL)

8. Washington State Department of Ecology. September 20, 1990. Case
Studies of, Conditional Public Access in Puget Sound. Ecology Publication
#91-4.

Signage

1. City of Olympia Ordinances. Charter 18.56: SIGNS. (SBL)

2. Washington State Department of Ecology. March, 1989. Shoreline Public
Access Handbook. By Jim Scott.

3. Washington State Department of Ecology. April 19, 1985. Shoreline
Public Access Sign Manual.

Vegetation Management

1. American Fisheries Society. 1988. A training in stream rehabilitation.
Candy, OR. (WQL)

Chapter 19 - Technical References H489

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. METRO. 1989. About Aquatic Plants. Pamphlet. (SEEL)

3. An evaluation of bottom barriersfor control of Eurasian mi6foil. (WQL
H796)

4. Illinois State Department of Conservation. 1988. Aquatic weeds - the
identification and methods of control. Fishery Bulletin No. 4.
Springfield, IL. (WQL)

5. Gray, Donald H. and Andrew T. Leiser. 1982. Biotechnical Slope
Protection andErosion Control. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

(Copy at Washington State Library.)

6. Kent Planning Department. 198 1. Streambed assessments, habitat
evaluations, beneficial uses and recommendations towards enhancement
of stream ecosystems within the City ofKent. By B.M. Bortz. Kent, WA.
(WQL)

7. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985. Management ofwildlifie andfish
habitats inforest ofwestern Oregon and western Washington. By E.P.
Brown. Portland, OR. (WQL)

Recommended by Wildlife - they use it. It is also computerized and can be
accessed through the Wildlife Non-game Program.

8. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1987. An evaluation of a
floating mechanical rototillerfor Eurasian water mi@fbil control.
Olympia, WA. (SBIL)

9. Jewett, Nora. October, 1988. Controlling the Wiley Milfbil: Notes to
Shoreline Administrators. Coastal Currents. (SHL)

10. Washington State Department of Wildlife, Habitat Management Division.
1980. Suggestionsfor StreambankRevegetation in Western Washington.
By Thomas Juelson. (SHL)

11. Washington State Department of Ecology and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. 1982. Baseline inventory of rare,
threatened and endangeredplant species communities along Washington's
Pacific coast. By Linda K Kunze et. al. Olympia, WA. (HQL).

12. Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. May, 1979. Oregon's
Coastal Beaches and Dunes: Impacts, Uses andManagement
considerations. By Carl Lindberg and Christianna Crook.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H490

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

13. Oregon-Washington Interagency Wildlife Commission. 1979.
Management of Riparian Ecosystems (zones) for Fish and Wildlife in
Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington. (WQL).

14. Washington State Department of Ecoloyg. Miffibil. Pamphlet (SEL).

15. Washington Water Research Center. 1983. Refinement of control and
management methodologyfor Eurasian water miffibil in the Pend Oreille
River. Pullman, WA. (WQL).

16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1988. Aquaticplant identification and
herbicide use guide. By H.E. Westerdahl. Technical Report A-88-9.
Washington, D.C. (WQL).

17. Washington State Department of Game. 1980. Suggestionsfor
StreambankRevegetation in Western Washington. By T.C. Juelson.

(Revegetation suggestions are provided to. improve riparian habitat quality
and reduce erosion. Includes list of native plants.)

18. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. September, 1989. Important
Features of Riparian Vegetation and Riparian Management Zones. In
Protecting Fish and Wildlife Habitat in Puget Sound

(Draft paper.)

19. What We Know About Large Trees that Fall into Streams and Rivers. In
From the Forest to the Sea: A Story ofFallen Trees, By C. Maser, et. al.
Pacific Northwest Research.

View Protection

See Public Access

Water Quality

1. Environmental Toxicology International. 1989. Bibliography on
Environmental Effects of Urban Runoff. (WQP)

(Library call # G-2076).

Chapter 19 - Technical References H491

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Characteristics of
Nonpoint Source Urban Runoff and its Effects on Stream Ecosystems. By
Donald B. Porcella. Corvalis, OR.

(Library call # EPA 600/3 80-032)

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1987. . Guide to
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. Washington D.C.

A guide to the techniques now available for controlling nonpoint pollution.
It offers a discussion of best management practices to reduce nonpoint
source pollution for activities related to agriculture, construction, urban
runoff, silviculture and mining.)

4. Puget Sound SensitiveArea Study: FinalReport. A208 Planning Study
conducted by the Wash. State Department of Ecology. April 1981 - Dec.
1983.

5. Puget Sound Stormwater Management. July, 1989. Erosion and
Sedimentation Control. Section 1, Draft #2. DOE.

(One of four technical manuals being prepared by DOE for use by local
jurisdictions in stormwater planning, other draft. (SHL) Draft

6. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. October 19, 1988. Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority Management Plan.

(See "Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows" section, pp. 126-141.)

7. U. S. Environemental Protection Agency, Water Planning Division. 1983.
Results o the Nationwide Urban RunoffProgram. Vol. I of Final report.
)f
Washington, D.C.

(Library. call 4 G-1020, location WQP)

8. Hamann, Richard. 1987. Selected, Annotated Bibliography - Coast
Resource Management. Gainesville, Florida. Sea Grant.

(call # L-878, location SHL)

9. Washington State Department of Ecology, METRO, et. al. December,
1988. Biofiltration Systemsfor Storm Runoff Water Quality Control. By
Richard R. Homer.

(Report presents results of a comprehensive investigation of these status of
biofiltration for storrawater quality control.)

Chapter 19 - Technical References H492

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

10. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program. 1988. Urban Runoff Water Quality: Effects and
Management Options. By Douglas Canning. Shorelands Technical
Assistance Paper #4.

(Aimed at local administrators, this report addresses three alternatives for
storm runoff water quality management in Washington state: detention and
retention basins; grassed swales; and wetlands.)

11. Runoff and Stream-channel Changes Following Urbanization in King
County, Engineering Geology in Washington, Vol II. Washington Division
of Geology, Earth Resources Bulletin 78: p. 639-650.

12. Urban Land Institute. 1982. Water Resources Protection: A Handbook
ofMeasures to Protect Water Resources in Land Development. By J.
Toby Tourbier and Richard Westmacott.

13.1988. Understanding andApplying Stormwater Management Techniques,
Madison, WI.: University of Wisconsin.

(Library. call # G- 107 1, location WQP)

14. American Water Works Association. 1985. UrbanRunoff. Pollution
Sources, Control and Treatment. In Nonpoint Source Pollution Reprints.
By R. Field. Bethesda, MD.

(G-992, location SW)

15. Washington State Department of Ecology. July, 1986. Viability of
Freshwater Wetlandsfor Urban Surface Water Management and Nonpoint
Pollution Control. An Annotated Bibliography.

16. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Management
Division. 1983. Washington State Stormwater Management Plan. By
Glenn Grace. Ecology Publication #83-3.

17. Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture, A Soil Conservation Service.
1982. Sediment transport, water quality and changing bed conditions.
Tucannon River, Washington. Spokane, WA. (WQL)

18. Mullikin, E.B. 1984. An Ounce ofProtection - A groundwater protection
handbookfor local officials. Ground Water Coordinating Committee,
Vermont. (WQL).

Ground water protection techniques.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H493

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

19.METR0. 1978. Local optionsfor surface water management and stream
preservation. Technical appendix no. 6. (WQL)

Water quality problems, technical solutions to runoff and stream problems,
management programs.

20. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June, 1976. A Perspective on Floodplain
Regulationsfor Floodplain Management. By John Kusler.

(Emphasis on nonstructural measures such as development controls for
floodplain management.)

2 1. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. March, 198 1.
Evaluation of the Economic, Social and Environmental Effects of
Floodplain Regulations.

(Examines structural, nonstructural and "do-nothing" alternatives.)

22. Jones.and Stokes Associates. Aug. 1, 1984. Nonpoint Source Pollution
Management. Alternatives Assessmentfor Burley andMinter Watersheds,
Pierce andKitsap Counties, Washington.

(See sections on "Erosion and Sedimentation" and "Stonnwater" pp. 73-
88.)

23. Mar, Brian W. 1983. Major Elements of StormwaterManagementfor
Water Quality Control. Environmental Engineers and Science, Civil
Engineer. Univiversity of Washington.

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Methodologyfor Analysis
ofDetention Basinsfor Control of Urban Runoff Quality. By Eugene D.
Driscoll, et. -al. Washington, D.C.

(call # EPA 440/5 87-001, location WS)

25. Daily, L.K. 1983. Opera 'tion ofDetention Facilitiesfor Urban
Stormwater Quality Enhancement. Water Resources Series Technical
Report 79. University of Washington, Department of Engineering. Seattle,
WA.

26. De Groot, William, ed. 1982. Proceedings of the Conference on
Stormwater Detention Facilities: Planning, Design, Operation and
Maintenance. New York, NY.: American Society of Civil Engineers.

(call # C-991, location WS)

Chapter 19.- Technical References H494

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

27. American'Water Resources Association. 1988. Proceedings of the
Symposium on Nonpoint Pollution, 1988 - Policy, Economy, Management
andAppropriate Technology. By Vladimir Novotny.

(Call # G-2060, location WQP)

28. I(ing County Department of Public Works. May, 1979. Storm Drainage
Control - Requirements and Guidelines. Seattle, WA.

(Call# G- 1209. Location HWL)

29. American Society. 1985. Stormwater Detention Outlet Control
Structures. New York, NY.

(Ecology Library, call # C-990, location WS)

30. Whipple, W. 1983. Stornnvater Management in Urbanizing Areas.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall

(This book is a blending of basic engineering design criteria with planning,
administrative and environmental considerations.)

3 1. Snohomish County Metropolitan Municipal Corporation/King County 208,
Areawide Waste Management Planning Study. 1977. Stormwater
Management Procedures andMethods: A Manual ofBest Management
Practices. ByUR.S. Consultants.

32. Washington State Department of Ecology. Design Criteriafor Gravity
Oil/Water Separators. Ecology Publication #82- 1.

33. Washington State Department of Ecology. February1992. Stormwater
Management Manualfor the Puget Sound Basin. Ecology Publication
#91-75.

3 4. Washington State Surface Mining Reclamation Act. Chapter 78.44 RCW,
Surface Mining.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H495

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Chapter 6: Environm ent
Designation

Policies and Regulations

Introduction

1. Canter, Larry and Loren 11ill. 1979. Handbook of Variablesfor
Environmental Impact Assessment. Ann Arbor Science.

(A comprehensive listing of variables pertaining to environmental review in
water resources planning.)

2. Toner, William and Duncan Erley. 1975. Performance Controlsfor
Sensitive Lands. American Society of Planning Officials (now American
Planning Association).

Chapter 7: Shoreline Use Policies
and Regulations

Introduction

1. Clark, Delores, Hugh Converse, Orville T. Magoon, Dallas Miner and L.
Thomas Tobin, eds. July 11-13, 1989. Proceedings of the Sixth
Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. Charleston, SC.

Agriculture

1. Washington State Department of Ecology. March, 1979. Dairy Waste
Water Quality Management Plan. Ecology Publication #95-217. Section
208.

2. Washington State Department of Ecology. Water Quality Guide:
Recommended Pollution Control Practicesfor Homeowners and Small
Farm Operations. Rev. by Joy P. Michaud. Technical Assistance paper
#87-30.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-496

SM? Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Washington State Department of Wildlife. 1985. Irrigation andFish.
Olympia, WA. (SBL)

Defines problems related to the limited water resource that is vital to both
agricultural and fish production. EPA, Fish habitat, Irrigation, Screen of
Diversions.

4. Hallbert, G.R. 1,986. From hoes to herbicides: agriculture and
groundwater quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
November - December.

5. McKamey, B. 1987. The institutional obstacles to control of surface water
pollution from agricultural nonpoint sources in western Washington.
Master's Thesis, Olympia, WA.: The Evergreen State College. (WQL)

6. Snohomish County N ETRO and King County METRO. September, 1977.
Farm Water Quality Management Manual. By URS Consultants.

Aquaculture

I .Island County Planning Department. June, 198 1. Island County Regional
Aquaculture Study. By Fisheries Production and Systems Planning and
Dick Tracy Associates.

2. Washington State Department of Fisheries. 1983. Aquaculture in Puget
Sound, Its Potential and Its Possible Environmental Impact. By Eric
Hurlbert.

3. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1981. Washington Coastal
Areas ofMajor Biological Significance. By J. S. Isakson.

Boating Facilities

1. Washington State Department of Fisheries. May, 198 1. Biological
Considerationsfor the Siting and Design ofMarinas and Affiliated
Structures in Puget Sound - Technical Report 60. By Rick Cardwell and
Robert Kooms.

2. Goodwin, Robert F., ed. 1989. BoatingMoorage in the 90s. Washington
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Services Publication. University of
Washington.

(Proceedings of a conference, Oct. 19-21, 1988, Everett, Wash.)

Chapter 19 - Technical References H497

SNY Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April, 1985. CoastalMarinas
Assessment Handbook. Atlanta, Georgia. is

(This is a handbook of information and guidance for the environmentally
sound development and regulation of coastal marinas. The handbook
provides assistance and identifies options for the resolution of
environmental, institutional and engineering issues associated with coastal
marina development. Contains state-of-the-art information.)

4. Washington State Department of Social Health Services, Office of
Environmental Health Programs, Health Services Division. September,
1981. Environmental Health Guidelinesfor Marina Development and
Operation.

(includes guidelines for marina location, water supply, restroom facilities,
sewage disposal, sewage pump-out facilities, solid waste collection,
bulkheads and landfills, electrical wiring and general safety.)

5. Giannio, Steven P. and Hsiang Wang. 197 1. Engineering Considerations
for Marinas in Tidal Marshes. University of Deleware, College of Marine
Studies. Newark, Delaware.

(Includes an examination of problems, impacts and potential solutions for
locating marinas in a marsh environment. Concludes with a composite
marina design that would permit a marina to be constructed in a marsh
system yet retain or even enhance its environmental value.)

6. New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection. Impacts of
Marina Activities of the Estuarine Environment of the New Jersey. By
Thomas Verman and Robert Connell, Jr.

7. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control,
Division of Water Resources. 1989. Locating, Planning andDesigning
Marinas: A Guidebookfor Permit Applications in Delaware.

8. Washington State Department of Social Health Services, Shellfish Section.
March, 1989. Model Ordinance Establishing Rules andRegulationsfor
Sewage Disposalftom Vessels with Liveaboards at Marinas.

9. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. September, 1982.
Developing a Marina in New Jersey. By Rovers, Golden and Halpern.

(Includes an analysis of marina impacts and recommendations for project
design.)

10. Northwest Marine Trade Association. April 6-7, 1977. Proceedings of
Moorage Workshop. Edited by Robert F. Goodwin and Caroline Tobin.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H499

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

11. Washington State Department of Social Health Services. May, 1989.
Puget SoundMarina andBoater Study.

12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. October, 1980. Recreational SmallBoat
Moorage Study - Puget Sound andAdjacent Waters. Washington.

13. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program. April, 1984. Shelyish Protection Strategy. By
Robert Saunders.

14. Layton, Jefrey. 1989. Siting New Marinas. In Boating andMoorage in
the 90s. Edited by Robert Goodwin.

15. Chumra, H.G.S. and N.W. Ross. 1978. The Environmental Impacts of
Marinas and Yheir Boats: A Literature Review the Management
Considerations -Marine Memorandum 45. Marine Advisory Service,
University of Rhode Island, Marine Advisory Service.

16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District). October, 1980.
Recreational Small BoatMoorage Study: Puget Sound andAdjacent
Waters, Washington.

17. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, Office of Coastal
ZoneManagement. August, 1976. Coastal Facility Guidelines.

(Includes a case study on marina development, and discusses management
considerations in locating, planning and designing marinas.

Commercial

1. Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use. May, 1984. An
Assessment of the Future Needs of Water-Dependent Uses in Seattle.
Seattle Shoreline Master Program Revision Project.

(Requirements for water-dependent uses, mixed uses, harbor area
requirements.)

2. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1983. Erosion and
sedimentation controlpractices: an annotated bibliography. Annapolis,

3. Washington State Department of Ecology. Design Criteriafor gravity
oilAvater-separators. Ecology Publication #82-1.

4. Goodwin, Robert, ed. 1988. WaterftontRevitalizationfor Smaller
Communities. University of Washington, Sea Grant.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H499

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

(Public policies and plans for waterfront revitalization, harborwide
planning.)

5. Washington State Department of Ecology. June, 1986. Public Policies
and Plansfor Waterftont Revitalization. By John Owen. Ecology
Publication #87-12.

6. Urban Land Institute. 1976. Mixed-Use Developments: New Ways of
LandUse. Technical Bulletin 71.

Flood Control Management

1. U.S. Water Resources Council. 1981. Cooperative Flood Loss
Reduction: A Technical manualfor Communities and Industty. By
James.H.Owen. WashingtonD.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

2. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981. Design Guidelinesfor
Flood Damage Reduction - FEMA 15. WashingtonD.C.: AIAResearch
Corporation.

(Contains information on nonstructural. measures to control flooding.)

3. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Floodplain Management. 1986. Floodplain
Management Handbookfor Local Administrators.

4. U.S. Water Resources Council. September, 198 1. Floodplain
Management Handbook. By James H. Owen and Glenn R. Wall.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

(Handbook describes a range of structural and nonstructural flood control
measures for both riverine and coastal shorelines.)

5. Guidelines on Community Local Flood Warning and Respo nse Systems.
Hydrology Subcomittee of the Federal Interagency Advisory Committee on
Water Data. August, 1985.

6. Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood HazardAreas: A Guidebookfor
Local Officials - FEMA-116. Association of State Floodplain Managers,
FEMA. 1987.

7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, A Perspective on Floodplain Regulations
for Floodplain Management, prepared by John Kusler, June, 1976. 156
pp.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-500

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

(Emphasis on nonstructural measures such as development controls for
floodplain management.)

8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
Shore Protection Manual, Vols. 1, 11 and Iff, Third Edition, 1977.

(Volume II deals with planning and analysis of proposed projects including
consideration and environmental impacts.)

9. U .S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Evaluation of the
Economic, Social, and Environmental Effects of Floodplain Regulations,
March, 1981. 68 pp.

(Examine structural, nonstructural and "do-nothing" alternatives.)

Forest Management

1 . An Assessment of the Adequacy of Washingtods Forest Practices Rules
and Regulations in Protecting Water Quality - Technical report 208 Forest
Tractices Assessment. August 1980 also, "Summary Report 208" October
1980. (SHL).

2. Annual Survey of Ongoing Research on the Impact of Forest Management
Practices on Water Quality and Utility - 1982. Technical Bulletin No. 373,
July 1982. NCASI. (SHL)

3. Cumulative Effects of Forest Practices on the Environment: A State of the
Knowledge. Washington Forest Practices Board. February, 1984.

4. Washington Forest Practices Rules and Regulations. Washington State
Forest Practices Board. January, 1988.

5. Forest Practices Act and Regulations - is now (June 1993, RCW 76.09 and
WAC 222).

Industry

I . An Assessment of the Future Needs of Water-Dependent Uses in Seattle.
Seattle Shoreline Master Program Revisions Project. 1984. Department
of Construction and Land Use, Seattle, WA. May, 1984. (SHL)

(Requirements for water-dependent uses, mixed-uses, harbor area
regulations.)

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-501

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. American Petroleum Institute Task Force Report on Oil Spills, June 14,
1989. (SBL)

(Oil spill prevention recommendations, response to spills, oil catastrophic
spill research and development opportunities.)

3. California Resources Agency, Report of the California Interagency
Tanker TaskForce. October, 1978. Sacramento, CA.

(This document draws together information on tanker traffic and operation
in order to aid tanker safety and pollution abatement. Three major
categories cover anchor 'operations, terminal and port operations and oil
spill clean up and liability.)

4. City of Seattle, Water Quality: Best Management Practices Manual. June
30, 1989.

(Instructions for dealing with issues pertaining to commercial and industrial
business that handle toxic materials, storage, containment, transfer are
addressed.)

5. Critical Materials Handbook. Water QualityManagement Program ('208)
Coordination Office and Technical Advisory Committee. 1985. Spokane,
WA. (WQL)

(Critical materials concept, BMPs for prevention and control of spills.
Appendix C has structural containment design concepts.)

6. Washington State Department of Ecology, Contingency Planfor Response
to Spills of Oil andHazardous Substances. May, 1988. (Deals with
responsibility, organization, plans, operation response, spill response.)

7. Washington State Department of Ecology, Design Criteriafor Gravity
OillWater Separators. WDOE 82- 1, January 1982.

(Provides technical information for determining stormwater runoff and
rainfall intensity duration for several cities across the state.)

8. Washington State Department of Ecology, Guidelines to Prevent, Control
and Contain Spillsform the Bulk Storage of Petroleum Products. WDOE
83-8, Aug. 1983.

(Suggested Containment procedures, contacts for regional WDOE
departments. (SBL)

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-502

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

9. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1983. Guidelines to Prevent,
Control and Contain Spills from the Bulk Storage of Petroleum Products.
Vv`DOE 83-8.

10. Goodwin, Robert, ed. 1988. Waterftont revitalizationfor smaller
communities. University of Washington. Sea Grant, Seattle, WA. (HQ)

(Public policies and plans for waterfront revitalization).

11. Proposed Changes in Harbor Area Use Policy. 1983. Department of
Natural Resources. (HQ)

12. Water Quality Best Management Practices, for City of Seattle, June 30,
1989. (SHL)

(BMPs for industry - some apply to water-related/dependent industries.)

Instream Structures

1. Maine Land and Water Resources Council, Recommended State Policies
for Hydropower Development in Maine, October, 1981. 56 pp.

2. Northwest Power Planning Council, Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program Adopted November 15, 1982.

(See Section 12, Future Hydroelectric Development, for federal standards
relating to hydroelectric facilities.)

3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1980. Analysis of Environmental Issues
Related to Small Hydroelectric Development.

(Series of manuals. The initial manual was published in July, 1980.)

4. Washington State Department of Ecology. Criteriafor Sewagefor Works
Design. Ecology Publication 478-5. Revised October, 1985.

Mining

See Water Quality

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-503

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Recreational

1. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal
Zone Management. January, 1976. Coastal Recreation: A Handbookfor
Planners andManagers, By Robert B. Ditton and Mark Stephens,
Washington, D.C.

(Provides a basic understanding for recreation supply and demand, impacts
and management considerations. Recommendations are made for
integrating a recreation element into a long-term coastal zone management
program. The report describes a user-resource recreation planning
approach as well as some basic recreation planning assumptions and
available management tools. Also discussed are: (1) coordination with
other governmental agencies having recreation responsibilities; (2) public
access; (3) the role for the private sector; and (4) classification of coastal
recreation activities, a bibliography and selected recreation contacts.

2. Ground Water Monitoring Review, Winger 1990. Monitoring Ground
Waterfor Pesticides at a Go6r Course - A case study on Cape Cod,
Massachusetts. By Scott W. Horsely and John A. Moser,

(A thorough hy drogeologic investigation programs recommended and a
ground water monitoring program developed.)

3. The Golf Superintendent. Vol. 41, No. 2 pp. 26-28, Feb. 1973. Pesticides
in Your Future. By William M. Hoffinan.

4. The Environmental Protection Agency. April, 19 8 5. Final Report on the
Results of a National Survey ofPesticide Usage on Go@f Courses in the
US. conducted in July - Sept. 1982. By Richard E. Kriner. EPA 0593
C.2.

5. Turfgrass Fertilizers - Post Application Fate of Nitrogen: A Literature
Review. 1985. Prepared by M.P. Klety, J.A. Long and O.M. Scott. and
Sons Co. Published by O.M. Scott and Sons Co., Marysville, Ohio.

6. National Forest Landwape Management Ski Areas Vol. 2, Chapter 7.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service #617.

7. Goy'Course Development. Selected References. Dec. 1989. ULI -The
Urban Land Institute Development Information Service, Information
Packet #320.

8. Turfgrass Infonnation File, Tudgrass Information Center, Library 20-212,
Michigan State University. East Lansing, Mi.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-504

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Residential

1. Associated General Contractors of Washington. 1988. Waste disposal
and erosionlsediment control methods. Association of General
Contractors of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Discusses how construction affects water quality and what steps can be
taken to reduce these effects.

2. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1985. Construction erosion
control. By Douglas Canning. Shorelands Technical Assitance Paper #3.
(SHL)

3. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1985. Shoreline bluff and
slope stability - technical management options. By Douglas Canning.
Technical Assistance Paper #2. (SHL)

4. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1985. Shore erosion
protection - onshore structural methods. By Douglas Canning.
Shorelands Technical Assistance Paper #1. (SHL)

5. City of Lynnwood, Washington. Scriber Lake Watershed Protection:
Household Practices. By URS Consultants.

6. Department of Social Health Services. 1987. On-site septic system and
ground water pollution: Problems, solutions, unknowns. In Proceedings
ofNorthwest Nonpoint Source Pollution Conference. By C. Cogger.
Olympia, WA. pp. 58-74.

7. Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A PracticalManual
for Planning andDesigning Urban BMPs. By T.R. Schueler.
Washington, D.C.

8. Washington State Department of Ecology. Water Quality Guide:
Recommended Pollution Control Practicesfor Homeowners and Small
Farm Operations. By Joy P. Michaud. Ecology Publication #87-30.

9. Clark County Conservation District. 198 1. Erosion and runoff control
guide for construction in Clark County. Vancouver, WA.(WQL)

@10. Federal Emergency Management Administration. January, 198 1. Design
and Construction Manualfor Residential Buildings in High Hazard
Areas.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-505

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

11. Ying County Department of Public Works. 1986. Surface water design
manual. Ying County, Seattle, WA.

(For engineers and developers - discusses policy, performance criteria and
standards for development controls. Water quality and erosion control
standards and operation and maintenance requirements for surface water
projects.)

12. Maryland Coastal Zone Program. 1979. Environmental andEconomic
Effects ofResidential Development on Mayor Peninsula, Anne Arundle
County, Maryland. By Mitre Corporation.

(Provides a checklist of environmental impacts associated with residential
development and recommends mitigation measures. Designed to serve as a
guidebook for local governments.)

13. METRO, Water Quality Division. 1984. A suppliers guide to erosion
control materials. Seattle, WA.

14. METRO. 1984. Lake management handbook. Seattle, WA. (WQL)
Guidance to Lake communities about measures to protect.

15. U.S. Environemental Protection Agency. March, 1980. Select Topics in
Stormwater Management Planningfor New Residential Developments. By
Robert Berwich, et al. Cincinnati, OH.

(library. call # EPA 600/2 80-013).

16. Thurston Regional Planning Council. 1979. Shoreline erosion - a guide to
Shoreline erosion protection. (HQL)

17. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1985. Urban Runoff Water
Quality: Effects andManagement Options. Shorelands Technical
Assistance Paper #4.

Transportation Facilities

1. Washington State Department of Transportation. 1988. Highway Water
Quality ManuaIM22-15.

(Guide for DOT engineering personnel provides policies and methods to
predict and reduce water quality degrading from highways.)

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-506

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Utilities Primary

See Instream Structures

Chapter 8: Shoreline Modification
Activity Policies and Regulations

Shoreline Modification

1. The Conservation Foundation. 1980. Coastal Environmental
Management: Guidelinesfor Conservation ofResources and Protection
Against Storm Hazards. Washington., D.C.

(Handbook describes the ecological features and potential storm hazards
associated with various coastline environments. Community management
policies and implementation guidelines are discussed.) (SHL)

2. Conservation Foundation. 1980. Coastal Environmental Management:
Guidelinesfor Conservation of Resources and Protection Against Storm
Hazards. WashingtonD.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

3. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program. 1986. Construction Erosion Control: By Douglas
J. Canning. Shorelands Technical Assistance Paper #3.

4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 198 1. Low-Cost Shore Protection: A
Guide for Engineers and Contractors.

(One of a series of three handbooks published by the Corps which
discusses in detail the successes and failures of various shoreline
stabilization methods. see also, "Low Cost Shore Protection: A Guidefor
Local Governments" and "Low Coast Shore Protection: A Property
Owner's Guide") (SHL)

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July, 1989. Miller Bay: A Case
for Cumulative Impact Assessment By Lytitia Paramenter.

(This paper evaluates the effects of in-water structures, including piers and.
bulkheads, in Miller Bay in Kitsap County.)

6. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1978. Puget Sound Shore
Erosion Protection Study. By Thomas Terich.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-507

SNW Handbook - 1994 Edition

(Covers some structure and nonstructural methods of reducing erosion.
Sections on "Erosion Control Techniques," pp. 8-12 and "Erosion
Abatement Advice," pp. 36-47. See (SBL)

7. Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. January, 198 1. Regulations to
Reduce Coastal Erosion Losses. By D.A. Yanggen.

(Report discusses the role that local zoning and subdivision regulations can
play in reducing losses as a result of erosion along Wisconsin! s Great Lakes
coast.)

8. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program. June 198 5. Shore Erosion Protection: On-Shore
Structural Methods. Shorelands Technical Assistance Paper #1. By
Douglas Canning.

(This paper provides technical guidance to local government officials and
helps them to understand the processes of shore erosion, some shore
protection alternatives, the design considerations for structural shore
protection, and the environmental impacts of improper shore protection.

9. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1989. Shoreline Modifications.
In Shoreline Public Access Handbook. Section XIII., pp. 87-90.

10. Shoreline Structures Design and Construction Standards Compendium
City of Seattle, Department of Community Development, Environmental
Management Div. June 1977 (SHL)

11. Washington Sea Grant Program. 1983. Yhe Coast ofPuget Sound. Its
Processes and Development. By John Downing. University of
Washington.

(This book contains section on "Controlling Coastal erosion")

Beach Enhancement

1. Marine shore resource analysis - shoreline dynamics (beach enhancement
program). Seattle, WA. Publisher Wolf Bauer. 1978. (HQL)

(Beaches, shoreline protection, marine environment.)

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-508

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Breakwaters, Jetties and Groins

1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May, 1975. Guidelinesfor the
Environmental Impact Assessmentfor Small Structures and Related
Activities in Coastal Bodies of Water. By Mitre Corporation. McLean,
Virginia.

(Presents information to assist in the identification and analysis of impacts
related to permit applications for riprap, bulkheads, groins, mooring piles,
dolphins and ramps, dredging, outfalls, submerged lines and pipes and
aerial crossings. For each of the above hea dings there is a detailed
definition, description of main uses, analysis of construction methods and
case study describing typical impacts. Tables and information permit
analysis of impact magnitudes based on the'size of the project. A detailed
description of environmental factors precedes the impact assessment
segments. Several useful appendices on erosion, runoff, water and air
quality and navigation are included.)

2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services. Biological
Impacts ofMinor Shoreline.

3. Structures on the Coast Environment.- State of the Art Review. Volumes I
and 2. March, 1980.

(Volume I is a summary of literature on breakwaters, jetties, groins,
bulkheads, revetments, tamps, piers and pilings, buoys, harbors for small
craft, bridges and causeways. Volume 2 is the bibliography.)

Bulkheads

1. Washington Department of Fisheries. Adopted February 5, 197 1. Criteria
Governing the Design ofBulkheads, LandFills andMarinas in Puget
Sound, Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fucafor Protection ofFish and
Shel@yish Resources. Guidelines.

2. North Carolina Sea Grant College Program. 1981. A Homeowner's Guide
to Estuarine Bulkheads. UNC-SA-81-11.

3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Low Cost Shore Protection (3
volumes): (1) A Property Owner's Guide; (2) A Guidefor Local
Government Officials; and (3) A Guidefor Engineers and Contractors.
See also references listed under Breakwaters, Jetties and Groins and Shoreline
Stabilization and Flood Protection.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-509

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Levies and Dikes

1. State of California, The Resource Agency, The Reclamation Board.
February, 1988. Interim Guidefor Vegetation on Flood Control Levees
Under Reclamation BoardAuthority.

(These guidelines provide standards for inspecting and managing levee,
levee toe and berm vegetation. See Marcia Geidel, Washington State
Department of Ecology, for copy.)

Dredging and Dredge Spoil Disposal

1 . Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Unconfined Open- Water
Disposalfor Dredged Material, Phase II. North and South Puget Sound.
March, 1989. (SHL)

(This DEIS evaluates alternatives considered in identifying preferred sites
for disposal of dredged material in north and south Puget Sound, including
Olympia, Port Townsend, Port Angeles, Anacortes, Bellingham. Five
multi-user disposal sites are identified for use based on site selection
process considering alternative sites.)

2. Conjined Disposal of Contaminated Sediments - Documentation of
Standards Development. Final Report. November, 1989. Sediments Unit.

3. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Reports. 1986-1988.

A collection of reports and technical studies (sediment contamination
issues) which comprise the combined federal and state planning effort to
manage the disposal of dredged material in the Puget Sound. Available
from the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, Seattle District Office, Attn:
PSDDA Study Director, or at Washington State Department of Ecology
Headquarters.

4. Washington State Department of Ecology. August, 1982. Guidelinesfor
Issuing Water Quality Certificationsfor Dredging and Discharge of
DredgedMaterial. Ecology Publication #82-13.

5. Washington State Department of Ecology. September, 1989.
Management Plan Report: Unconfined Open-Water Disposal of Dredged
Material Phase II (North and South Puget Sound) EPA Region 10.

6. Williamson, K.J., et.al. March, 1977. Dredging in Estuaries: A Guidefor
Review ofEnvironmental Impact Statements. Oregon State University.

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-510

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. December, 1978. Dredge Material
Research Program, "Guidelinesfor DredgedMaterial Disposal Area
Reuse Management. "

8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. September,
1980. Impacts of Navigational Dredging on Fish and Wildlife: A
Literature Review,

Revetments

1. Washington State Department of Ecology. June, 1985. Shoreline Erosion
Protection: On Shore Structural Methods. By Douglas Canning.
Shorelands Technical Assistance Paper #1. Seattle Metro, Construction
and Water Quality 1977.

(Revetments, Bulkheads, Design and Planning considerations.) (Design and
construction considerations of both massive rigid revetments ) and
alternative erosion control devices (Jetted willow poles, jacks,
revegetation, etc.)

Chapter 19 - Technical References H-511

Appendixes

w A S H I N G T 0 1 S 7 A T E
0 E P A N T M E I T 0 F
@@E C 0 L 0 G Y

Shorelands & Coastal Zone
Management Program

93-104C

Appendix A

Integrating Growth Management
with Shorelines Management:
Local Options

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Introduction

Washington State has a strong tradition of local-state partnerships in land use and
environmental planning. The Shoreline Management Act, celebrating its twentieth
birthday in 1991, is a cooperative local-state program. The Growth Management Act is
also a cooperative local-state program.
The Department of Ecology Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program prepared
this technical assistance report to answer questions from local government planners on
shorelines management and growth management. The paper has three additional goals.
First, to help local governments planning under the Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70A) by identifying issues they may wish to consider, sources for additional
information, and funding sources that might be used to help implement the Growth
Management Act. Second, to improve administration of the Growth Management Act and
the Shoreline Management Act by improving consistency between comprehensive plans
and shoreline master programs. And third, to reduce potential conflicts between
comprehensive plans, development regulations, and shoreline master programs.
The Department of Ecology prepared this issue paper under its authority to develop
guidelines for the management of shorelines and adjacent lands under the Shoreline
Management Act. This paper is provided only for technical assistance purposes.
This technical assistance paper focuses on shoreline master programs and comprehensive
planning. The Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program of the Washington
Department of Ecology produces the Shoreline Management Guidebook which describes
how to prepare and administer shoreline master programs. This technical assistance paper
was coordinated with the Washington State Department of Community Development.
The paper is intended as a companion to the technical assistance papers prepared by the
Washington State Department of Community Development.
The following section summarizes current information available on the relationship
between comprehensive plans and shoreline master programs. The third section describes
shoreline policies and issues local governments should consider when developing their
comprehensive plans and methods local governments can use to incorporate these issues
into their comprehensive planning process. The fourth section describes ways of avoiding
conflicts between comprehensive plans and shoreline master programs. The fourth section
also describes methods local governments can use to integrate comprehensive plans and
shoreline master programs. The fifth section briefly describes Department of Ecology
grant programs which can fund certain types of planning activities.
For additional copies of this technical assistance paper please contact Peter Skowlund,
Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of
Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690. Telephone (206) 438-7430,
SCAN 585-7430.

Appendix A H-512

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

The author would like to extend his thanks to the Department of Ecology staff, especially
Thomas Mark, the project manager, and Peter Skowlund. The author would also like to
thank the local government planning staff, state agency staff, and others who reviewed
drafts of this paper and offered suggestions. The author also thanks the Thurston
Regional Planning Commission and the Municipal Research and Services Center for the
use of their libraries. As always,'the responsibility for any mistakes is the authoes.

Relationship Between the Comprehensive
Plan and the Shoreline Master Program

A local government comprehensive plan contains a commun ity's vision of its future. This
vision should be based on a realistic analysis of problems, potentials, and opportunities.
Local governments need to include a state perspective in this analysis. This state
perspective is reflected in the Growth Management Act's comprehensive planning goals
found in RCW 36.70A.020. For local governments with shorelines areas within their
jurisdiction, the community vision should also include the policies of the Shoreline
Management Act.
The community's vision in the comprehensive plan should be reflected in functional plans,
special area plans, and implementing regulations. This includes shoreline master
programs. The Department of Ecology encourages local governments to amend their
shoreline master programs so they are consistent with their comprehensive plans. Of
course, the amendments cannot be approved unless they comply with the Shoreline
Management Act, guidelines, and regulations.

Summary of the Shoreline Management Act and the
Growth Management Act

This section first discusses the Shoreline Management Act, then the Growth Management
Act, and finally the relationship between shoreline master programs and comprehensive
plans. Figure I illustrates the relationships between the Shoreline Management Act and
shoreline master programs. The figure shows the relationship between the Growth
Management Act and comprehensive plans and development regulations. Figure I also
shows the relationships between comprehensive plans developed under the Growth
Management Act, RCW 36.70A, and shoreline master programs. The following
subsections discuss the relationships shown in Figure 1.

Shoreline Management Act
The people of the state of Washington adopted the Shoreline Management Act to provide
for a cooperative local government-state government program to manage shoreline areas.
The Shoreline Management Act encourages the appropriate development of shorelines and
is the protection of shoreline resources. The Shoreline Management Act is based on the

Appendix A H-513

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

State of Washingtods police power under the state constitution and the state's duty to
manage the shorelines and tidelands for the benefit of the public consistent with the public
trust doctrine.
The Shoreline Management Act is needed to carry out the state's public trust
responsibilities. The Shoreline Management Act also recognizes the joint local-state
interest in shorelines. This joint interest results because the environmental, economic, and
recreational resources of shorelines extend beyond local government boundaries. State
involvement in shorelines management helps insure shoreline policies are coordinated
where local governments manage parts of the same waterbody. The state provides
technical assistance to local governments preparing and implementing shoreline policies.
The state also helps local governments consider state-wide interests when managing
resources which affect the entire state. Because of these joint interests, the Shoreline
Management Act in RCW 90.58.020 establishes a state policy for the management of
shorelines.
Under the cooperative program established by the Shoreline Management Act, local
governments have primary responsibility for administering the Act. Local governments
inventory shoreline areas and resources. Local governments prepare Shoreline Master
Programs in compliance with the Act and implementing regulations adopted by the
Department of Ecology. Local governments decide applications for shorelines
development projects. Local governments have independent and joint enforcement
responsibility with the Department of Ecology.
The Department of Ecology reviews local shoreline master programs and shoreline master
program amendments. The Department of Ecology approves those programs and
amendments which follow the policy of the Shoreline Management Act and the guidelines.
The Department of Ecology reviews all permits approved by local governments. The
Department of Ecology must approve shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline
variances before they are valid.

Appendix A H-514

0 0 0
SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure I
Relationship between Comprehensive Plans and Regulations
under the
Growth Management Act and the Shoreline Management Act

State Planning Goals (RCW 36.70A.020) Shoreline Management Act Policies
(RCW 90.58.020)
dw
Procedural County-wide
Criteria/Minimum Planning
Guidelines Policies
Shoreline Guidelines

Comprehensive
Plan

a Plans 1+-+FFunctional Plans Development Regulations Ma
Program
F 'Subare Shoreline ste

Six Year Stre Critical Off icial
Ro et 8' d Areas/Wetlan Maps
qri Plans
Downtown Zon Goals/Po
Zo
E Water -J Lanc dsi
Neighborh I I Subdivision learing Regulations
E Stormwater FecGrading
Urban Waterfront
Revitalization Capital Facilities
Park & TRecre@afion Key
Other ublic Access P1 Required Consistency 1110
Other Required Consistency for Adjacent Lands - - - - - - - -
*44

,h
, ensive

Appendix A H-515

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

State agencies must comply with the Shoreline Management Act and adopted shoreline
master programs. State agencies must get shoreline permits for development activities
under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act.
The Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act are complimentary.
The Shoreline Management Act focuses on shoreline resources of regional and state
importance, and, therefore, includes significant state oversight. The Growth Management
Act focuses on community-wide land use planning. Shorelines may be affected by
development outside of shoreline jurisdiction and development near or within waterbodies
too small to-be under thejurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. Local
government planning under the Growth Manage ment Act can help lessen these impacts.

Growth Management Act
The Legislature passed the Growth Management Act to help local governments to better
manage growth. In RCW 3630A.020, the Legislature adopted thirteen state land use
goals to guide the preparation of local comprehensive plans.
The Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, requires all local governments to identify
natural resources lands and critical areas. Natural resource lands include agricultural
lands suitable for the long term production of agricultural products, forest lands suitable
for the long term production of forest products, and lands suitable for the long term
production of minerals, including sand and gravel. Critical areas include wetlands, critical
aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded
areas, and geologically hazardous areas. All local governments must protect critical areas.
Local government not required and not choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A must make
their development regulations consistent with their comprehensive plans by July 1, 1992.
The Growth Management Act requires that counties with populations which exceed
50,000 people and where the population increased by more than ten percent in the
previous ten years prepare and adopt comprehensive plans and development regulations.
Counties which experienced population increases of more than twenty percent in the
previous ten years must also prepare and adopt comprehensive plans and development
regulations. Those counties which meet the 20 percent growth criteria can decide not to
plan under the Growth Management Act. Any other county can choose to plan under
RCW 36.70A. Oties in all three types of counties must also adopt comprehensive plans
and development regulations. The local governments must adopt comprehensive plans by
July 1, 1993 and development regulations which are consistent with comprehensive plans
by July 1, 1994.
The comprehensive plans must be consistent with county-wide planning policies adopted
by the county in cooperation with the cities. The comprehensive plans are to include land
use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, rural, and transportation elements. County
comprehensive plans must designate urban growth areas. The urban growth areas include
cities and unincorporated areas which are or win be developed at urban densities. These
areas are to be large enough to accommodate the countys projected twenty year urban
population.

Appendix A H-516

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

After preparing comprehensive plans, local governments update their existing
development regulations, such as zoning ordinances, or prepare new development
regulations to implement their comprehensive plans. Local government development
regulations must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The Department of Community Development adopts procedural guidelines to guide the
development of comprehensive plans. The Department of Community Development also
provides grants and technical assistance to local governments. The Department of -
Community Development is authorized to resolve disputes between cities and counties
over urban growth boundaries.
Local governments proposing to adopt comprehensive plans, development regulations, or
amendments to plans or development regulations under RCW 36.70A must notify the
Department of Community Development of their intent to adopt at least sixty days before
final adoption. State agencies may provide comments to the local governments during the
public review process before adoption.
State agencies must follow adopted county-wide planning policies and comply with local
comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted under RCW 36.70A. State
agencies must obtain local permits.
Once adopted by local governments, comprehensive plans are presumed valid. Local
government comprehensive plans and implementing regulations may be appealed to one of
three regional Growth Planning Hearings Boards. If a Growth Planning Hearings Board
finds a comprehensive plan is not in compliance with the Growth Management Act, it is
remanded. back to the local government.

Relationships between Shoreline Master Programs and Comprehensive
Plans

The Department of Ecology recognizes that the new comprehensive plans developed by
local governments under the Growth Management Act may improve upon shoreline policy
decisions in existing shoreline master programs. This is most likely to be the case for
those jurisdictions which have not recently updated their shoreline master programs.
The.Department of Ecology encourages local governments to make their shoreline master
programs consistent with their new comprehensive plans where the plans adequately
incorporate shorelines policies and concerns. Like all master program amendments, these
amendments must comply with the Shoreline Management Act, related regulations
(WACs), and be approved by the Department of Ecology. Coastal Zone Management
grants may be available to assist eligible local governments in updating their shoreline
master programs. These grants are described on page 47 of this paper.
Shoreline master programs are adopted and enforced both by local governments and the
Washington State Department of Ecology. When adopted by the Department of Ecology,
master programs become state regulations. This joint local and state adoption and
enforcement means shoreline master programs are not local government development
regulations as defined by the Growth Management Act. Therefore, the Growth
Management Act's requirement that local government development regulations comply

Appendix A H-517

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

with comprehensive plans does not apply to shoreline master programs. In addition, local
governments are not required to adopt new shoreline master programs by July 1, 1994.
Section 4 of the 1991 amendments to the Growth Management Act requires state
agencies to comply with local comprehensive plans and development regulations prepared
under RCW 36.70A. Section 4, however, does not amen d the Shoreline Management
Act. Nor does the general provision of Section 4 override the Department of Ecology's
specific authority to review and approve or disapprove shoreline master program
amendments based on the Shoreline Management Act and the regulations implementing
the Act, Therefore, the Department of Ecology must consider local government
comprehensive plans when reviewing shoreline master programs and shoreline master
program amendments. Where a proposed shoreline master program or amendment
conflicts with the Shoreline Management Act, the guidelines or the regulations, the
Department of Ecology retains the authority to amend or deny the proposed shoreline
master program or amendment.
The Shoreline Management Act and local government shoreline master programs are
generally minimums that local governments can exceed with other ordinances. The
Shoreline Management Act, in RCW 90.58.340, requires that local governments and state
agencies review their plans, regulations, and ordinances which apply to areas adjacent to
shorelines jurisdiction and modify these plans, regulations, and ordinances so they "achieve
a consistent use policy" with the Act and the shoreline master programs. This means that
local government comprehensive plans and development regulations for adjacent lands
must be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and local government shoreline
master programs. Figure 1 shows these requirements with double lines. To help in
complying with the adjacent lands requirements, local governments should incorporate
Shoreline Management Act policies into the comprehensive planning process. Local
governments should also review existing shoreline master program policy decisions when
developing their comprehensive plans.

Why Local Governments Should Incorporate Shoreline
Concerns into Their Comprehensive Planning Process

Shorelines play a key role in many communities. Shorelines are valuable economic, social,
and ecological resources for local communities. Ports are major employers in many
communities in both eastern and western Washington. Water-enjoyment uses, such as
restaurants and hotels, are also significant employers in many communities. Waterfront
parks on the ocean, sounds, rivers, and lakes are important social and recreational areas.
Salt water bodies, freshwater bodies, riparian areas, and adjacent uplands are important
natural resource areas and habitats.
For these reasons, local governments often consider shoreline areas and resources in their
comprehensive planning process. The Department of Ecology hopes this paper will
provide information to aid their efforts and reduce the time and cost of preparing
comprehensive plans.

Appendix A H-518

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

A second reason to incorporate shorelines considerations into the comprehensive planning
process is that local governments will want to amend their shoreline master programs to
reflect their new comprehensive plans and development regulations. By incorporating
shorelines concerns into the comprehensive planning process, these amendments' to
shoreline master programs will be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. The
Department of Ecology will agree to amendments to shoreline master programs to reflect
comprehensive plans which adequately address shoreline issues. The state will follow
these amendments in making shoreline decisions.
Incorporating shoreline policies and policy decisions into comprehensive plans and then
updating shoreline master programs based on the comprehensive plan will result in
consistent plans and regulations. Consistent plans and development regulations will make
local government administration of plans and development regulations easier, more
economical, and help insure that developments achieve local goals. This is so because the
documents will not conflict and will work well together.
Consistent comprehensive plans, development regulations, and shoreline master programs
will improve predictability for property owners. This will help local communities
encourage the type of development they want and help reduce the costs of getting
development approvals.
Incorporating shorelines concerns into local comprehensive plans will result in better
comprehensive plans. The shorelines factors will help make the planning process
comprehensive and ensure a broad range of issues are considered.
The Department of Ecology can provide technical assistance.' This technical assistance'
includes the Shoreline Management Guidebook. The Shoreline Management Guidebook
is available from Peter Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, State of Washington Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box 47690,
Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 585-7430. The
Department of Ecology also holds periodic shorelines management conferences. The
Department of Ecology will hold mini-workshops on shoreline management for local
governments on request. Department of Ecology staff will also answer questions on
shorelines management issues over the phone or by letter. For any of these services call or
write the above address.
The Department of Ecology can provide financial assistance for amendments to shoreline
master programs. Please see the description of financial assistance programs in Section V
beginning on page 47.
Amending shoreline master programs can also help insulate local governments against
takings claims. Because shoreline master programs are reviewed and approved by the
state, local governments may have less liability for takings claims where the decision is
based on shoreline master program policies and regulations. I
In addition, because the Shoreline Management Act helps implement the public trust
doctrine, courts may be more likely to take the doctrine into account when determining if
land use restrictions result in a taking. However, the public trust doctrine can be asserted
anytime a local government regulation protects a public trust resource. The public trust

Appendix A H-519

SNY Handbook - 1994 Edition

doctrine provides that when the state conveys tidelands or shorelines owned by the state at
the time of statehood. to public or private owners, a legal servitude applies to those lands
unless the state explicitly extinguishes the servitude. The servitude limits the private use
of lands under navigable waters conveyed by the state to uses compatible with public trust
rights such as navigation and fishing. Local governments and the state may authorize uses
which would affect the servitude through the Shoreline Management Act under certain
circumstances.
In Orion Corp. v. Washington, 109 Wash. 2d 621, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987), the Washington
State Supreme Court found that to determine whether a local shoreline master program
had resulted in a taking, the uses prohibited by the master program had to be uses
permitted under the public trust doctrine for a taking to have occurred. If the prohibited
uses were incompatible with the public trust doctrine, then the local and state governments
had not taken private property rights. This is so because the state conveyed the property
to the owner with public trust doctrine limitations.

Shoreline Policies and Issues to Address
in Comprehen sive Plans

The first part of this section describes methods local governments have used to
incorporate shoreline policies and issues into local comprehensive planning processes.
The second section describes the shorelines policies and issues local government should
consider during the comprehensive planning process.

How to Incorporate Shoreline Policies and Concerns
into Comprehensive Planning under the Growth
Management Act

Local governments often include shorelines policies and issues in their comprehensive
planning processes. When and to what extent shorelines policies and issues are
incorporated depends on the jurisdiction, the extent of shorelines resources in the
jurisdiction, and the type of plan being developed. The key to cost-effectively
incorporating shorelines issues is to include them as an integral part.of the planning
process, rather than adding them on at the end.
Figure 2 illustrates one approach to the comprehensive planning process. This approach
begins with data gathering and analysis. The local government then works with the
community to identify its preferred future. The local government next works with the
community to prepare goals, alternatives, and policies. After the comprehensive plan is
adopted by the local government, implementing regulations are prepared. Communities
using a similar process would include Shoreline Management Act policies and the policy
decisions in the existing shoreline master program in the inventory and analysis step.
When comparing alternatives, they would include shoreline policies as some of the

Appendix A H-520

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

comparison criteria. After preparing and adopting development regulations, the local
government would update its existing shoreline master program to reflect the new
comprehensive plan and development regulations.
The specific ways local governments include shoreline policies and considerations into
their comprehensive planning processes are not important. What is important is that the
local government consider them. Local governments have used the following methods to
consider shorelines issues and concerns.
Include shorelines areas and resources in inventories. The Growth Management Act
requires. local governments to inventory natural resource lands, such as land suitable for
long term agriculture and forestry, and critical areas such as wetlands, aquifer recharge
areas, and fish and wildlife habitats. Many of these areas are in shoreline areas and local
governments will inventory them as a matter of course. Local governments should also
consider inventorying other shoreline information such as shoreline master program
environment designations and water-dependent and water-related uses.
Address shorelines issues and policies in an analysis of trends and issues. Local
governments often analyze and forecast community trends when preparing a
comprehensive plan. This analysis can help local governments spot problems and
opportunities. For example, changes from industrial to commercial uses in shoreline areas
may indicate opportunities for shorelines redevelopment and increased public waterfront
access. If the area is a deep water shoreline, this trend may also indicate the need to
reserve some suitable shorelines as a working waterfront. Local governments generally
include the analysis in issue papers or comprehensive plan chapters distributed to citizen
advisory committees and planning commissions.
Include shorelines factors in land capability or suitability analysis. Local
governments often base comprehensiveplan land use designations in part on the physical
suitability of land for development. Local governments often consider factors such as soil
suitability, water and sewer capacities, street and road capacities, the presence of
wetlands, and existing uses. Shoreline factors local governments should consider include
shoreline master program environments, flood plains, access to deep water shipping
channels, fish and wildlife habitats, and riparian vegetation. Local governments often map
these factors on map overlays or use computerized geographic information systems (GIS)
to display and analyze these factors.
Shorelines Subcommittees. In certain communities shorelines issues can be time
consuming but important parts of the comprehensive planning process. Some'
communities have established subcommittees of interested persons to consider alternatives
and resolve the issues. While subcommittees may require a significant staff commitment,
they can be useful.
Consult with the Department of Ecology on draft comprehensive plans and draft
implementing regulations. The Growth Management Act requires local governments to
notify the Department of Community Development sixty days before final adoption of
comprehensive plans and implementing regulations. This is a good opportunity to ask the
Department of Ecology to review plans and development regulations. This peer review
can help a local government address potential problems before adoption. Department of

Appendix A H-521

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Ecology review will make it easier for local governments to amend their shoreline master
programs to make them consistent with newly adopted comprehensive plans. This is so
because the Department will have had an opportunity to identify and resolve any problems
during the comprehensive planning process. The Department of Ecology encourages
consultation as early in the process as is convenient for local governments.
The Growth Management Act authorizes state agencies to review and comment on draft
local government comprehensive plans during the public comment period. The
Department of Ecology will review and comment on draft comprehensive plans. The
Department of Ecology will also review and comment on draft environmental impact
statements prepared for draft comprehensive plans.

Shoreline Policies and Issues to Incorporate into
Comprehensive Planning under the Growth
Management Act

Use Policies and Issues

Reserve appropriate shoreline areas for water-dependent, water-related, and
water-enjoyment uses.
Summary. Shoreline areas are among Washington state's most attractive development
sites. The growth pressure facing Washington has been especially strong in shoreline
areas. This competition for shoreline sites means that local governments should reserve
areas for uses that require or benefit substantially from waterfront locations.
The Shoreline Management Act policies designate uses to which local governments are to
give priority when allocating uses in shoreline areas. The policies in RCW 90.58.020
provide that in the limited situations when local governments authorize shoreline
alterations, the following uses shall have priority: single family residences, ports, shoreline
recreational uses (including parks, marinas, piers, and other public access improvements),
industrial and commercial uses which require a shoreline location or use shoreline
resources, and other developments which will provide an opportunity for substantial
numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.
Not all shorelines are suitable for these priority uses. When allocating uses in the
comprehensive plan and development regulations, local governments should consider the
policies of the Shoreline Management Act, the suitability of the shorelines for specific
uses, and community goals.
For Additional Information. The Shoreline Management Act, including the policies in
Section 90.5 8.020, the Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, and the Urban
Waterfront Policy Analysis Addenda to the Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990 (see
Addendum 2) are available from Peter Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box 47690, Olympia,
WA 98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.

Appendix A H-522

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Provide for the continued operation and appropriate expansion of existing ports and
provide for land uses on adjacent lands which facilitate the operation and expansion
of existing ports.
Summary. Ports are one of the priority uses established by the Shoreline Management
Act. In Washington state, ports are typically located on Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan
de Fuca, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and the Columbia River. Efficient ports are
essential to the continued growth and development of the Washington state economy.
However, the development of new ports has major environmental impacts. New ports are
also very costly and may not be competitive with ports outside the state. Providing for the
efficient operation of existing ports and the expansion of existing ports when needed to
meet increased demand will have significant economic and environmental benefits.
Local government comprehensive plans can provide for ports in four ways. First, existing
ports in appropriate locations should be designated for continued use as ports and
industrial areas and developed for water-dependent and water-related uses. Second, areas
within and adjacent to appropriately sited ports should be designated to meet the projected
future expansion needs of the port where consistent with the natural resources of the area.
Third, the land use designations for lands adjacent to existing appropriately sited ports
should be compatible with the noise, glare, dust, and other impacts generated by port
activities. Fourth, local government comprehensive plans should protect and enhance rail
corridors and truck traffic links to ports so ports remain efficient.
For Additional Information. The Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, the Urban
Waterfront Policy Analysis Addenda to the Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990 (see
Addendum 2), and the -Urban Waterftont Policy Analysis, publication number 87-12, are
available from Peter Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box 47690, Olympia, WA
98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 58.5-7430.
Protect rural, conservancy, and natural shoreline areas.
Summary. Local government shoreline master programs typically designate shorelines
areas as one of four or five main shoreline environments. These environments are similar
to broad zoning districts in that they contain purpose statements, allowed uses and
activities, and development standards.
The urban environment is the most intense. It allows the most extensive modification to
the shoreline and water. Most ports are within urban or maritime (a type of urban)
environments. The suburban environment generally provides for intense shoreline
modification, with less in-water types of development. Suburban designations are often
oriented towards residential, park, and water-enjoyment uses. Rural environments
generally provide for natural resource based uses such as agriculture and forestry and
moderate to large lot residential uses. Rural environments generally provide significant.
protection for aquatic areas and riparian vegetation. Conservancy environments protect
shoreline areas and may allow for aquaculture, low intensity agriculture, and similar
natural resource uses on a sustained yield basis. Natural shorelines provide the highest
level of resource protection. Only very limited uses, such as passive recreation and

Appendix A H-523

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

wildlife preserves, are allowed in most natural environments. Some local governments
have aquatic environments for large open water areas such as Puget Sound, bays, and
large lakes when aesthetics, navigation, and fisheries considerations predominate.
Rural, conservancy, and natural shoreline environments are intended to protect important
in-water and shoreline habitats. Local governments should periodically review their
shoreline master programs to ensure important natural resources are identified and
protected.
Uses and activities outside of shorelines jurisdiction can have significant negative impacts
on shoreline resources. Local government comprehensive plans and development .
regulations can lessen impacts on shorelines by minimizing erosion from land clearing,
reducing storm water runoff, and designating adjacent lands for compatible uses.
For Additional Information. The Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, Shoreline
Master Program Handbook (see Chapter 6) and WAC 173-16 (see WAC 173-16-040(4)
for a description of the four major shoreline environments) are available from Peter
Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,
Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone (206)
438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.
Protect the productive capacity and resource values of urban and suburban
shorelines.
Summary. While urban and suburban shoreline environments experience the most intense
development, they can also have valuable natural resources. Urban and suburban
shorelines are also important as fish and wildlife migration routes. Salmon and steelhead
must swim through many urban and suburban shoreline areas on their way from spawning
beds to the sea and back again. Riparian vegetation and wetlands in urban and suburban
areas are valuable and should be protected. This is especially true in shorelines of
state-wide significance where protection of natural resources is Shoreline Management
Act priority. Uses and activities within and outside of shoreline jurisdiction can have
significant negative impacts on these valuable natural resources.

Appendix A H-524

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure 2
Generalized Comprehensive Planning Process
With Opportunities to incorporate Shoreline Management Act Policies

Conduct inventories, analyze trends, and prepare"what If' forecasts.
Include inventory of shoreline areas and resources.
Include analysis of shoreline trends, concerns, and Issues.

Develop consensus on community future and Identify goals and objective

Formulate, test, and compare alternatives.
Test against state planning goals (RCW 36.70A.020), state shoreline policies (RCW 90.58.020),
county-wide planning policies, the community's preferred future, and community goals and objectives.
Some communities conduct SEPA review at this stage.

Compare preferred alternative with:
trends, forecasts, state planning goals, state shoreline policies, county-widle planning policies,
the communities preferred future, and community goals and objectives.

FPrepare and adjust the pla@n:e@lements.

Adopt the comprehensive plan.
Some communities conduct SEPA review at this, stage, before the Vanning
commission makes a recommendation to the legislative authority.
Consult with state and federal agencies, including the Department of Ecology Shorelands
Program,during the public comment period before adoption..

Prepare development regulations to implement comprehensive plan.
Development regulations must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and other development regulations.
Adjust the development regulations as needed.

F-Adopt the development re:g:u@J@ations.
I
Implement the plan through public improvements, other incentives
where appropriate, and development regulations.

Evaluate and adjust plans and implementing measures.

Source: modified from F. So & J. Getzels, THE PRACTICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING, 12-13 (1988).

Appendix A H-525

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Local government shoreline master programs can identify and protect the water and
shoreline features necessary to protect these resources. Local government comprehensive
plans and development regulations can lessen the impacts on shorelines by minimizing
erosion from land clearing, reducing storm water runoff, and designating adjacent lands
for compatible uses.
For Additional Information. The Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, Shoreline
Master Program Handbook (see Chapter 6) and WAC 173 -16 (see WAC 173-16-040(4)
for a description of the four shoreline environments) are available from Peter Skowlund,
Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of
Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN
585-7430.

Protect sanctuaries and similar areas.

Summary. Local, state, and federal agencies have designated land and water areas as
wildlife sanctuaries, wildlife habitat areas, and natural heritage areas. Some rivers are
state or federal wild and scenic rivers. Private organizations, such as the Nature
Conservancy and community land trusts, acquire and manage land and water areas for
similar purposes. Local governments should consider these areas when determining the
land uses and intensities the comprehensive plans and development regulations will allow
on nearby lands.

Protect shoreline visual assets and visual access to the shoreline.
Summa ry. Shoreline views are one of the elements that make Washington state a
desirable place to live. The Shoreline Management Act provides for the protection of
shoreline views and aesthetics. Local governments may include a design element in their
comprehensive plans or prepare a separate design plan for the community or part of the
community. When preparing a design element or design plan, local governments should
consider protecting shoreline visual assets and providing visual access to the shoreline.
Typically the policies of a design element or design plan relating to shoreline visual assets
and visual access can be implemented through specific policies and regulations in the
community shoreline master program.
For Additional Information. General information related to shoreline master programs
and visual assets and visual access may be found in the Shoreline Management
Guidebook, 1990, Shoreline Master Program Handbook (see Chapter 5) and the Urban
Waterftont Policy Analysis, June 1986, publication number 87-12, (see Chapter 5) both
available from Peter Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA
98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.
Encourage uses and densities on adjacent lands that reinforce the policies of the
Shoreline Management Act and shoreline master programs.
Summary. Development outside of shoreline jurisdiction can affect shoreline resources.
Section 90.58.340 of the Shoreline Management Act requires that local government land
use policies for lands adjacent to shoreline areas be consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act and local government shoreline master programs. The Department of

Appendix A H-526

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Ecology has defined the term adjacent lands to include "those lands immediately adjacent
to and abutting lands under permit jurisdiction extending landward to the extent necessary
to control direct and significant impacts to the shorelines and to implement the
management policy articulated in the Shoreline Management Act, the guidelines, and the
master program. The inland extent will necessarily vary with the particular management
objectives for the shoreline setting." Examples of adjacent lands include lands abutting the
shoreline jurisdiction area and non-shoreline streams tributary to shoreline waterbodies
which affect shoreline water quality.
As the definition of adjacent lands indicates, the key criterion for determining if land use
policies reinforce the shoreline provisions is whether significant negative impacts are
avoided. In making this determination, local governments should consider whether
adjacent uses are compatible with shoreline uses and whether development standards are
adequate to reduce impacts on shoreline resources.
Compatibility includes two elements. First, will uses on adjacent land uses negatively
impact shoreline uses or the shoreline environment. These impacts may include noise,
glare, traffic, siltation, storm water runoff, or discharges from upland septic systems into
water bodies. The second element is whether upland uses will interfere with shoreline
uses. For example, residential uses next to a port may prevent the efficient operation of
,port facilities.
Development standards can increase compatibility by reducing impacts on shoreline uses
and protecting shoreline environments. Providing a sewer system and a storm water
collection and treatment system to upland residential areas can make residential areas
compatible with shoreline environments sensitive to water pollution. Similarly, industrial
performance standards may make certain industrial uses compatible with some
conservancy shoreline areas.
For Additional Information. General information related to adjacent lands may be
found in the Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, Shoreline Administrator's Manual
(see Chapter 2) available from Peter Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia,
WA 985,04-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.
Plan public utilities and transportation facilities so they reinforce the overall land
use pattern and the shoreline environment designations.
Summary. An effective land use strategy includes both regulations and incentives. The
regulations include zoning, or similar land use controls, sensitive area regulations,
subdivision regulations, and shoreline master programs. Incentives include public
facilities, such as. water, sewer, storm water, and transportation systems. Providing urban
public facilities in areas designated for development and not providing urban public
facilities in areas designated for resource use or protection reinforces local government
development regulations.

Appendix A H-527

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

The Growth Management Act requires that comprehensive plans direct both development
regulations and public facilities. In designating the levels and types of public facilities for
various areas, local governments should consider the Shoreline Management Act policies
and the policy decisions made in local government shoreline master programs.
For Additional Information. The Shoreline Management Act (including the policies in
Section 90.5 8.020) and the Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, Shoreline Master
Program Handbook (see the environment purpose and indent statements and management
policies in Chapter 6) are available from Peter Skowlund, Management Section,
Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box
47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.
Maintain and restore riparian vegetation in shoreline areas and on tributary
streams and waterways which affect shoreline resources.
Summary. The Growth Management Act, in RCW 36.70A. 170 and RCW 36.70A. 160,
requires local governments to designate critical areas, including wetlands, fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas, and open space corridors useful for recreation, wildlife
habitats, and connecting critical areas. RCW 36.70A.060(2) requires local governments
to protect critical areas.
The riparian vegetation along rivers and streams is often a critical area. Riparian
vegetation provides bird and wildlife habitat. Riparian vegetation provides food materials
which fall into rivers and streams providing food for aquatic organisms. Riparian
vegetation shades rivers and streams, lowering their temperature. This shade is important
to fish survival. Riparian vegetation and the streams and rivers often provide corridors for
fish and wildlife to move between various areas with the seasons and during their life
cycles. Riparian vegetation is important in both eastern and western Washington. For
these reasons, local governments should protect riparian vegetation not only on shoreline
rivers and streams, but also on water bodies which are tributary to shoreline rivers and
streams.
The Yakima Greenway Plan protects riparian vegeta tion, fish and wildlife habitat,
connects habitat areas, and provides for public access and recreational use of the river.
The plan is an example of planning for regional shoreline resources. The greenway covers
Yakima County and several cities.
For Additional Information. The Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, Urban
Waterftont Policy Analysis Addenda (see Addendum Number 1) is available from Peter
Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,
Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone (206)
438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.
Use parallel environments and other appropriate methods along waterways to
protect habitat and recreation areas.
Summary. One technique to protect riparian vegetation and other types of linear habitats
is the parallel zone or parallel shoreline environment. A parallel shoreline environment
designates the river or stream and the adjacent riparian vegetation as conservancy or
natural. This environment would contain development standards designed to protect

Appendix A H-528

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

aquatic resources and riparian vegetation. The balance of the shoreline jurisdiction area
would be in a shoreline environment which allows more intense development. Zoning can
accomplish the same ends by using a riparian protection zone or by designating rivers,
streams, and riparian vegetation as an environmentally sensitive area. Local government
comprehensive plans should include policies to guide the use of parallel shoreline
environments or similar zoning techniques.
For Additional Information. The Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, Urban
Waterftont Policy Analysis Addenda (see Addendum Number 1) is available from Peter.
Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,
Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone (206)
438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.

Wetlands Policies
Consider state and federal wetland protection policies in shoreline areas, adjacent
lands, and wetlands and water courses tributary to shoreline areas which affect
shoreline resources.

Summary. Protecting wetlands prevents damage to both the human and the natural
environment. Wetlands reduce flood damages by storing flood waters and reducing flood
peaks. Wetlands prevent erosion by slowing water velocities and buffering uplands from
storm waves. Wetlands help maintain water quality by filtering out sediments, nutrients,
and other pollutants. Wetlands can serve as aquifer recharge areas, maintaining the
quantity of groundwater available for residences, industry, and agriculture. Wetlands
pond surface water and then discharge it over a longer period of time, making more
surface water available for in-stream uses and out of stream uses such as agriculture.
Wetlands provide important fish and wildlife habitat. Wetlands provide communities with
open space. Wetlands provide people with recreational opportunities. Filling, draining, or
other alterations of wetlands can result in'the loss of these functions.
Because of the important functions of wetlands, the Growth Management Act requires all
local governments to identify and protect wetlands. The Department of Community
Development's Minimum Guidelines (WAC 365-190-080(l)) encourage local
governments to follow Washington State Executive Orders 89- 10 and 90-04. The
Minimum Guidelines also recommend local governments consider the Department of
Ecology's Model Wetlands Protection Ordinance when developing their regulations.
The Executive Orders direct state agencies to use their existing authorities to manage and
'protect wetlands. Executive Order 89-10 adopted a state agency goal of no net loss of
wetland acreage and functions. This means that state agencies are to prevent the loss of
wetlands where possible within their existing authorities. If wetland losses are
unavoidable, replacement wetlands are to be provided. The order also directs state
agencies to use their existing authorities to encourage a long term gain in wetland
resources.
The Executive Orders directed the Department of Ecology to prepare a Model Wetlands
Protection Ordinance. The key elements of the Model Wetlands Protection Ordinance
include wetland protection goals, the Washington State four tiered wetland rating system,

Appendix A H-529

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

a mitigation policy with specific replacement mitigation ratios, buffer standards, and
density transfer provisions allowing wetland owners to increase the density allowed on
their upland areas. The Department of Ecology also recommends that wetland programs
include public education, incentives (such as open space taxation) to encourage private
wetland retention, restoration of wetlands, and public acquisition of key wetlands for open
space and other uses.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, in Element W-4.1 of the 1991 Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan, recommends that local governments in the Puget Sound
Basin adopt comprehensive wetland protection programs. These programs include
designating wetlands for protection in land use plans; encouraging wetlands preservation
through public acquisition, land trusts, and encouraging private owners to maintain
wetlands; restoring degraded wetlands; education; and wetlands regulations which include
a goal of no net loss, a wetlands rating system, mitigation requirements, and wetland
buffer zones.
The local government comprehensive planning under the Growth Management Act is an
opportunity to establish consistent wetland protection provisions for the community.
Local governments determine their wetland policies in the comprehensive plan. Their
development regulations will then implement these policies. Local governments may
choose to include wetland protection provisions in a zoning ordinance, a sensitive areas
ordinance, a separate wetland protection ordinance, or some other document. The
department encourages local governments to make the wetland protection regulations in
their shoreline master programs consistent with their other wetland protection provisions
where these provisions comply with the minimums required under the Shoreline
Management Act. Integrating sensitive areas ordinances and shoreline master programs is
described on pages 44 and 45 of this paper.
For Additional Information. The Model Wetlands Protection Ordinance can be
obtained free from Peggy Clifford, Wetlands Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA
98504-7690, telephone (206) 459-6916, SCAN 585-6916.
The following publications are available from the Publications Office, Department of
Ecology, P. 0. Box 47600, Olympia, Washington, 98504-7600, telephone (206)
438-7474. Washington's Wetlands, publication number 88-24, free; Wetlands Regulations
Guidebook, publication number 8 8-25, free; Wetlands Preservation: An Information and
Action Guide, publication number 90-5, free; Washington Hydric Soils Guidebook,
publication number 90-20, free; At Home with Wetlands: A Landowners Guide,
publication number 90-3 1, free; A Guide to Conducting Wetlands Inventories, publication
number 89-60, $16.00.
The Wetlands Section loans wetland education video tapes and traveling displays on
wetlands to local governments. Call (206) 438-7538 or (206) 459-6674 for information.
The Wetlands Section provides technical assistance to local governments. The Wetlands
Section can perform wetland site evaluations, provide expert testimony at local hearings
and in legal proceedings, help develop wetland protection policies and ordinances, and

Appendix A H-530

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

provide training for wetland identification and boundary delineation. Contact Bill
Leonard, Wetlands Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,
Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690,'telephone (206)
438-7161, SCAN 585-7161.
As part of this year's triennial review of the Washington State's surface water quality
standards, the Department of Ecology proposed adopting water quality criteria specifically
designed to protect wetlands. These proposals include adding wetlands to the definition
of the surface waters of the state, including a definition of wetlands, identifying
characteristic uses of wetlands, and adopting narrative and numeric water quality criteria
to protect these uses. A wetlands mitigation section is also included in the proposed
standards. The proposed standards will apply to Clean Water Act - 401 certifications,
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, water quality
standard modification permits, and all other current applications of surface water quality
standards. For more information contract Perry Lund, Wetlands Section, Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia,
WA 98504-7690, telephone (206) 493-9405, SCAN 585-9405.
The Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, Shoreline Master Program Handbook
includes model wetland policies in Chapter 5. The Shoreline Management Guidebook is
available from Peter Skowlund, Management Section, Shorel ands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA
98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.
Element W-4.1 of the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan is available
from Steve Tilley, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, P. 0. Box 40900, Olympia, WA
98504-0900, telephone (206) 439-9300, 1-800-54-SOUND, or SCAN 585-9300.
Consider the impacts of vertical land movement and sea level rise on coastal and
Puget Sound wetlands including the need to provide migration buffers for these
wetlands.
Summary. Vertical land movement is the change in the elevation of the land surface due
to geological change. In Washington State, the north and south coast areas are rising and
the central coast areas are stable or subsiding slightly. - In the Puget Sound region, the
Bellingham and San Juan Island areas are stable. The rest of Puget Sound is subsiding
with the rate increasing from the northwest to the southeast. The greatest local rate of
subsidence is at Tacoma. The land along the north side of the lower Columbia is rising.
In areas where subsidence is occurring, the relative sea level is rising.
Global warming is likely to accelerate sea level rise in the 21st Century. The combination
of vertical land movement and accelerated sea level rise will have substantial effects on
coastal and Puget Sound wetlands. As the sea level rises, wetlands in estuaries and river
deltas become flooded. Some wetlands will become open water areas. Others will change
in type from less salty to more salty wetlands. Increased erosion from higher tides will
reduce wetlands. If buffers are provided adjacent to wetlands, wetlands will migrate up
slope. This will allow wetlands to continue their shore protection and fish and wildlife
habitat functions. If migration buffers are not provided, wetland losses will accelerate.

Appendix A H-531

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Local governments should consider providing wetland migration buffers in their land use
plans, development regulations, and shoreline master programs.
For Additional Information. Sea Level Rise in Washington State:
State-of-the-Knowledge, Impacts, and Potential Policy Issues is available from Douglas
J. Canning, Planning Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,
Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone (206)
459-6785, SCAN 585-6785.
Protect kelp and eelgrass beds.
Summary. Kelp and eelgrass beds are important habitats and food sources for aquatic
organisms. These beds are found in intertidal and submerged areas of Puget Sound, the
Pacific Ocean, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and the Columbia River estuary. The Growth
Management Act requires that kelp and eelgrass beds be included in inventories of critical
areas. The local government shoreline master program is the most appropriate mechanism
to protect and manage kelp and eelgrass beds.
For Additional Information. Department of Community Development, PlanningData
Sourcebookfor Resource Lands and Critical Areas, 1990, Section on Kelp and Eelgrass,
pages 141-46.

Shoreline Public Access

Provide public access to the shorelines.
Summary. Well designed public, shoreline access can have significant public and private
benefits. Public shoreline access can help meet local recreational needs. Public shoreline
access can help increase public support for water quality improvements by showing local
residents the benefits of improved water quality. Public shoreline access can help reduce
congestion and excessive use pressure on beaches and waterways by allowing the use of
additional areas. Public shoreline access can encourage the revitalization of blighted
waterfront areas. Public shoreline access can attract customers to private businesses, such
as restaurants and hotels.

Many local governments have included policies encouraging or requiring public shoreline
access in their comprehensive plan, a shoreline access plan, or a public trails plan. Local
governments also include policies describing the public shoreline access areas they will
purchase in these plans. Often these public access policies provide that sites should be
connected to walking and biking trails. Local governments should consider public
waterfront access when preparing their comprehensive plans.
For Additional Information. The Shoreline Public Access Handbook, February 1990,
publication number 90-6, is available from James Scott, Planning Section, Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia,
WA 98504-7690, telephone (206) 459-6781, SCAN 585-6781. The -Shoreline
Management Guidebook, 1990, Shoreline Master Program Handbook (see Chapter 5)
and the Urban Waterftont Policy Analysis, June 1986, publication number 87-12, (See
Chapter 4) are available from Peter Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and

Appendix A H-532

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia,
WA 98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.

Flood Plain Policies

Consider state and federal flood plain policies in shoreline areas, adjacent lands, and
water courses tributary to shoreline areas which affect shoreline resources.
Summary. The Growth Management Act requires that local governments identify and
protect frequently flooded areas. The Department of Community Development's
Minimum Guidelines (WAC 365-190-080(3)) require local governments to identify, at a
minimum, the Federal Emergency Management Agency designated I 00-year flood plain.
RCW` 86.16 requires local governments to prepare flood plain regulations which meet the
minimum requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and RCW 86.16.04 1. The
local government then provides a copy of the regulations to the Flood Plain Management
Section of the Washington State Department of Ecology for approval. The Flood Plain
Management Section must also review amendments to these regulations. Nearly all
jurisdictions with flood plain areas have adopted the minimum required regulations. The
state requirements are n@iinimums and local government flood plain regulations may exceed
these requirements.
For Additional Information. Chapter 86.16 RCW, Chapter 173-158 WAC, the Model
Flood Plain Management Ordinance, and the Federal Flood Insurance Program regulations
are available from the Flood Plain Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA
98504-7690, telephone (206) 459-6796, SCAN 585-6796.
Consider Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plans prepared under the
Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP).
Summary. The Growth Management Act, in RCW 36.70A.070(l), requires that local
governments review drainage, flooding, and storm water runoff issues in their
comprehensive plan land use elements. The Growth Management Act, in RCW
36.70A.070(3), also requires local governments to inventory .existing capital facilities and
forecast future capital facilities needs.
The Washington State Flood Control Assistance Account provides grants to local
governments to repair and improve public flood control facilities. Local governments
must be preparing or must have completed a Comprehensive Flood Control Management
Plan to be eligible for Flood Control Assistance Account grants. Flood Control
Assistance Account grants can also fund the preparation of Comprehensive Flood Control
Management Plans.
The goal of Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plans is to reduce flood damages.
Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plans typically include technical data on flood
frequencies and damages, areas subject to flood hazards, the meander belts of rivers,
non-structural alternatives, and other technical data. Local governments may find this
data useful in designating critical areas, identifying areas suitable for development in
comprehensive plans, and preparing land use elements under the Growth Management

Appendix A H-533

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Act. Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plans may also include local government
policy decisions on areas that should be developed, the intensity of development, and
improvements required to protect flood prone areas from flood damages. Local
governments should integrate these policy decisions into the land use and capital facilities
elements of their comprehensive plans. The most effective strategy is to discourage
development in flood prone areas. In addition, Comprehensive Flood Control
Management Plans should be consistent with adopted comprehensive plans.
The Shoreline Management Act encourages local governments to include optional flood
damage reduction elements in their shoreline master programs. If local governments have
adopted flood damage reduction elements, they should consider the policy decisions in the
element when preparing comprehensive plans under the Growth Management Act.
For Additional Information. The Flood Plain Management Section maintains a list of
jurisdictions which have prepared Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plans.
Contact: Flood Plain Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management
Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone
(206) 459-6792, SCAN 585-6792; (206) 459-6796, SCAN 585-6796; and (206)
438-7569, SCAN 585-7569. Comprehensive Planningfor FloodHazards Management,
Publication Number 91-44, is available from Marcia Geidel, Flood Plain Management
Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Ecology,
P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone (206) 459-6792, SCAN 585-6792.

Water Quality Policies
Consider river basin plans as they apply to shoreline areas, adjacent lands, and
water courses tributary to shoreline areas which affect shoreline resources.
Summary. The Growth Management Act, in RCW 36.70A.070(l), requires that local
governments include water quality protection measures, including measures to protect and
improve Puget Sound water quality, in their comprehensive plan land use elements. Local
governments and state agencies may have prepared basin and other water quality plans
describing water quality problems in your jurisdiction and recommending actions.
Considering these plans can help reduce the cost and complexity of comprehensive
planning under the Growth Management Act.
Puget Sound local governments have prepared Early Action NatershedNon-point Source
ControlAction Plans. Puget Sound local governments are also preparing Watershed
Action Plans on an ongoing basis. The Hood Canal Coordinating Council, which includes
the local governments with jurisdiction over Hood Canal, prepared the Hood Canal
Management Plan. The Nisqually River Task Force prepared the Nisqually River
Management Plan. Other local governments have prepared basin and sub-basin plans
funded with EPA/Department of Ecology Section 2050) grants and Department of
Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund grants.
Pacific County shows how water quality plans can help in preparing comprehensive plans
under the Growth Management Act. Pacific County prepared the Willapa Bay Water
Resource Management Plan in cooperation with those who use the bay and lands within

Appendix A H-534

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

the basin. The county is incorporating applicable policies from the plan into its
comprehensive planning under the Growth Management Act.
For Additional Information. For information on jurisdictions which have prepared basin
plans contact Dayl Ann Stratton, Water Quality Management Section, Water Quality
Program, Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600,
telephone (206) 438-7065, SCAN 585-7065.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority maintains a list ofjurisdictions which have
prepared Early Action Watershed Non-point Source Control Action Plans and Watershed
Action Plans. Contact Kathy Minsch, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, P. 0. Box
40900, Olympia, WA 98504-0900, telephone (206) 493-9300, 1-800-54-SOUND, or
SCAN 585-9300.

Consider land clearing and soil disturbance controls and non-point runoff control
measures for shoreline areas, adjacent lands, and streams and waterways which
affect shoreline resources.

Summary. Many of the river basin plans recommend that local governments adopt land
clearing, erosion control, and other non-point pollution controls to protect surface and
ground water quality. Adoption of these measures in land use elements and development
regulations can help local governments comply with the Growth Management Act. RCW
36.70A.070(l) of the Growth Management Act requires that local comprehensive plan
land use elements review storm water run-off and provide for water quality protection
measures, including measures to protect and improve Puget Sound water quality.
For Additional Information. Information on Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
erosion control is available from Helen Pressley, telephone (206) 43 8-7089, SCAN
585-7089, or Pat Hartingan, telephone (206) 493-9454, SCAN 585-9454. Address:
Stormwater Unit, Water Quality Program, Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box 47600,
Olympia, WA 98504-7600.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority's Managing Non-Point Pollution: An
Management Action Planfor Puget Sound Watersheds, can be obtained from Kathy
Minsch, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, P. 0. Box 40900, Olympia, WA
98504-0900, telephone (206) 493-9300, 1-800-54-SOUND, or SCAN 585-9300. This
handbook contains information on the sources of non-point water pollution and strategies
local governments can use to prevent non-point pollution.
If additional water quality planning is needed, the Centennial Clean Water Act grant
program and the EPA/Department of Ecology 2050) Water Quality Planning Grant
program may be able to provide funds. The programs are described in Section V
beginning on page 47.
Consider the Department of Ecology/Puget Sound Water Quality Authority storm
water regulations for Puget Sound.
Summary. In addition to complying with the Growth Management Act's water quality
provisions, Puget Sound local governments will soon have to comply with the Department
of Ecology's and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority's Puget Sound Storm Water

Appendix A H-535

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Program. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires states to regulate storm
water discharges from large communities. The Department of Ecology and the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority are preparing regulations to implement this federal
requirement and the Puget Sound Water QualiV Management Plan. The proposed
regulations require Puget Sound local governments to adopt requirements to control
storm water runoff from new development and redevelopment. Local governments should
consider incorporating these provisions into comprehensive plans, development
regulations, and shoreline master programs.
For Additional Information. Information on the Puget Sound Stormwater Program is
available from Peter Birch, telephone (206) 438-7076, SCAN 438-7076. A model
ordinance for complying with the Puget Sound Stormwater Program requirements will be
available in early 1992 from Ann Wessel, telephone (206) 438-7077, SCAN 585-7077, or
Melanie Vorass, telephone (206) 438-7058, SCAN 585-7058. The address for all of the
above is: Storm water Unit, Water Quality Program, Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box
47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600.
Information on the Puget Sound Stormwater Program is also available from Kevin
Anderson, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, P. 0. Box 40900, Olympia, WA
98504-0900, telephone (206) 493-9300, 1-800-54-SOUND, or SCAN 585-9300.
Consider the cumulative impacts of discharges to surface and ground water in
comprehensive plans.
Summary. During the comprehensive planning process, local governments should
consider the cumulative effects of discharges to surface and ground water bodies from
development. This analysis can be done when preparing plans, comparing comprehensive
plan alternatives, or during State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of a
comprehensive plan. While many individual surface water discharges require state
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, the permits are issued
on a case-by-case basis. In addition, regulated discharges combine with unregulated
discharges. The comprehensive planning process provides the opportunity to consider the
cumulative effects of development on surface and ground water. Surface water discharges
include storm water runoff, sewage treatment plants discharges, and industrial and
commercial point discharges. Ground water discharges include storm water runoff and
on-site septic systems.
After considering the cumulative effects of surface and ground water discharges, local
governments may decide to provide additional public facilities to sensitive sites or to
reduce the land area allocated to uses which produce high levels of surface or ground
water discharges. For example, local governments may decide to extend sewer and storm
water collection and treatment systems to serve areas with a high potential for adverse
impacts on ground water. Based on preliminary analysis, local governments may also
identify a need for additional water pollution control planning.
For Additional Information. If additional water quality planning is necessary for a
jurisdiction, funding may be obtained from the Centennial Clean Water Act grant. program
and the EPA/Department of Ecology 2050) Water Quality Planning Grant program. The
programs are described in Section V beginning on page 47.

Appendix A H-536

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Consider Ground Water Management Area Plans as they apply to shoreline areas,
adjacent lands, and water courses tributary to shoreline areas which affect shoreline
resources.
Summary. The Growth Management Act, in RCW 36.70A..170 and RCW 36.70A.060,
requires local governments to identify and protect aquifer recharge areas. The Growth
Management Act, in RCW 36.70A-070, also requires local governments to protect ground
water quality and quantity in the land use elements of local comprehensive plans.
The Department of Ecology, in cooperation with local governments, is preparing 15
Ground Water Management Area Plans in the Puget Sound basin, Blaine in Whatcom
County, Clark County, the Methow Valley, and Deer Park in Spokane County. Ground
Water Management Area Plans identify the extent of the aquifer, the aquifer recharge area,
threats to the aquifer, and measures to protect the aquifer. These plans can help local
governments meet their Growth Management Act responsibilities. For example, Island
County is using a recently completed Ground Water Management Area Plan to identify
and protect aquifer recharge areas. Local governments should consult any plan prepared
or in process for their jurisdiction.
For Additional Information. Information on Ground Water Management Area Plans
can be obtained from Doug Ruston, Water Resources Program, Department of Ecology,
P. 0. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, telephone (206) 459-6120, SCAN
585-6120.

Public Trust Doctrine

Consider incorporating public trust doctrine concepts and public trust uses as
appropriate.
Summary. The public trust doctrine applies to tidelands and other navigable waters
granted to the state by the federal government at statehood. The public trust doctrine
Emits the use of these tidelands and shorelines to uses compatible with public trust uses.
Public trust uses include navigation, fishing, boating, swimming, water skiing, and other
related recreational uses. Local govemments and the state may authorize uses which
would affect the public trust uses through the Shoreline Management Act under certain
circumstances. It is also possible that state courts will extend the reach of the public trust
doctrine to other areas, as have courts in other states.
Local governments should consider incorporating public trust doctrine concepts into their
comprehensive plans, development regulations, and shoreline master programs to reduce
the chances that regulating the areas to which the public trust doctrine applies may be
found to be takings and to promote public trust uses. The term "taking" refers to a court's
finding that a land use regulation violates the state or federal constitution. In Orion Corp.
v. Washington, 109 Wash. 2d 621, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987), the Washington State Supreme
Court held that to determine whether a local shoreline master program had resulted in a
taking, the uses prohibited by the master program had to be uses allowable under the
public trust doctrine. If the prohibited uses were incompatible with the public trust
doctrine, then the local and state governments had not taken private property rights.

Appendix A H-537

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Local governments can include the public trust doctrine in two ways. First, local
governments can include regulations to provide for and protect public trust uses in
shoreline master programs and local development regulations. Second, local governments
can including policy statements in their comprehensive plan and shoreline master program
policies providing that the development regulations which advance public trust doctrine
interests are intended to implement the doctrine.
For Additional Information. The Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, Shoreline
A&ninistrator's Manual, (See Chapter 1) is available from Peter Skowlund, Management
Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Ecology,
P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.

Shoreline Redevelopment and Restoration
Encourage the revitalization of blighted urban waterfronts.
Summary. Industrial land requirements have undergone substantial change in the past
decades. Changes in nearby land uses have affected certain sites suitability for industrial
uses. These and other changes in land use patterns have resulted in blighted urban
waterfronts. Increased demands for public access to the water and water-enjoyment uses
have resulted in uses that can help revitalize certain blighted areas. In prepanng
comprehensive plans, local governments should consider the revitalization potential of
blighted urban waterfronts.
Revitalizing blighted urban waterfronts may require analysis and policy guidance on
coordinated public and private investments beyond the scope of the comprehensive plan.
Many local governments, including Bremerton, Bellingham, Clarkston, Hoquiam, Pasco,
Port Orchard, Raymond, Richland, Tacoma, and Vancouver have prepared urban
waterfront revitalization plans. These plans focus on revitalizing and increasing public
access to urban waterfronts.
For Additional Information. The Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, Shoreline
Master Program Handbook, Urban Waterftont Policy Analysis Addenda, Addendum
Number 4 and the Urban Waterftont Policy Analysis, June 1986, publication number
87-12, (See Chapter 5) are available from Peter Skowlund, Management Section,
Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box
47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.
Encourage the restoration of damaged shoreline areas.
Summary. Some shoreline areas have been degraded by past activities. Examples
include former industrial waterfronts, silt damaged streams, and eutrophic lakes.
Local government comprehensive plans can promote voluntary resto ration efforts such as
the Adopt-A-Stream and Adopt-A-Beach programs. These programs encourage
individuals and groups to restore streams and beaches by removing trash and
reconstructing damaged habitat. Some local governments have staff working with
volunteers on these programs. Local government comprehensive plans can identify
certain public beaches, streams, and waterways for publicly funded restoration. Local
government comprehensive plans or shoreline master programs can include policies

Appendix A H-538

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

encouraging or requiring private restoration of shorelines when certain types of shoreline
development occur.
For example, Thurston County is using U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation
Ecosystem Program grant funds to help private landowners restore streams in south
Thurston County. The City of Tacoma acquired land for parks and walkways and
restored the shoreline as part of the Ruston Way redevelopment plan.
For Additional Information. Information on the Adopt-A-Stream and Adopt-A-Beach
programs is available from the Adopt-A-Stream Foundation, Post Office Box 5558,
Everett, Washington, 98206, telephone (206) 338-3487.
The Flood Control Assistance Account Grant program can fund restoration projects which
are part of projects to restore stream flood carrying capacity or to maintain other types of
public flood control works. See Section V on page 47 below.
The Centennial Clean Water Act grant program can fund projects with a primary focus on
water quality improvement which have restoration components. See Section V on page
47.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Ecosystem Program provides funds to
create wetland and riparian habitats on private land. The program can fund up to 30
percent of the project cost. Some of the match can be in-kind services and donations.
The property on which the habitat is created must be covered by a ten year conservation
easement. For more information contact the Conservation Ecosystem Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 3704 Griffin Lane South East, Suite 102, Olympia, Washington'
98501-2192, telephone (206) 753-9440.

Master Planned Resorts

Designate master planned resorts in locations consistent with the shoreline master
program, the maintenance and enhancement of shoreline resources, and the
revitaUation of blighted shorelines.
Summary. The 1991 amendments to the Growth Management Act allow counties
planning under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) to allow new master planned
resorts outside of urban growth areas. Because of the amenities of shoreline areas, some
of these resorts are likely to be sited within shoreline jurisdiction. Master planned resorts
also have the potential to help restore blighted shoreline areas. When developing
comprehensive plan policies, designating potential sites, and siting these resorts, local
governments should consider shoreline master programs and the maintenance and
enhancement of shoreline resources.

For Additional Information. The Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, Shoreline
Master Program Handbook, (see Chapter 7) and the Shoreline Yanagement Guidebook,
1990, Urban Waterftont Policy Analysis Addenda (see Addendum Numbers 1, 3, and 4)
available from Peter Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA
98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.

Appendix A H-539

SW Handbwk - 1994 Edition

Urban Growth Areas

Local governments should include appropriate urban and suburban shoreline
environments within urban growth areas. Local governments should exclude
extensive areas of conservancy and natural shorelines from urban growth areas.
Local governments should redesignate appropriate shorelines as rural, conservancy,
and natural shorelines.
Summary. The Growth Management Act, in RCW 36.70A.110, requires counties
planning under RCW 36.70A to designate urban growth areas. Local governments should
include appropriately designated urban and suburban shorelines needed to meet the
demands for urban land within urban growth areas. Local governments should generally
exclude extensive areas of conservancy and natural shorelines from urban growth areas.
After setting urban growth areas, local governments should consider redesignating urban
and suburban shoreline environments outside urban growth areas to a more appropriate
environment, such as rural or conservancy. For salt water counties, Coastal Zone
Management Act grants can help fund this effort. The Coastal Zone Management Act
grant program is described in Section V on page 48.
Where shorelines have important recreational, habitat, wildlife corridor, or other natural
resource values, local governments should designate the waterbody, wetlands, and the
riparian vegetation strip conservancy or natural, even if it is within an urban growth area.
Local governments should consider designating these areas as natural resource and
recreation areas under Section 36.70A. 160 of the Growth Management Act. Local
governments should use parallel environments where appropriate to protect important
shoreline resources.

For Additional Information. The Shoreline Management Guidebook, 1990, Shoreline
Master Program Handbook (See Chapter 6) and the Shoreline Management Guidebook,
1990, Urban Waterftont Policy Analysis Addenda (see Addendum Number 1) are
available from Peter Skowlund, Management Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA
98504-7690, telephone (206) 438-7430, SCAN 585-7430.

Coastal Hazards

Summary. The Growth Management Act, in RCW 36.70A. 170 and 36.70A.060,
requires all local governments to identify geologically hazardous areas and adopt
development regulations to minimize the affect of geologically hazardous areas on
development. The Department of Community Development Minimum Guidelines, WAC
365-190-080(4), define geologically hazardous areas to include areas subject to erosion,
landslide hazards, and damage from earthquake caused slope failures.
When identifying geologically hazardous areas, local governments should consider
shoreline erosion, slope stability, and seismic risk. Depending on the degree of risk, local
governments should preclude development, require special engineering solutions, or
designate areas for lower development densities.

Appendix A H-540

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Local governments should provide for setbacks for clearing and grading and construction
from the top of unstable slopes based on the degree of instability plus a margin of error.
For eroding shorelines, local governments should provide for setbacks from eroding
shorelines based on a formula of fifty times the annual average erosion rate plus a margin
of safety, and discourage shoreline hardening such as the construction of bulkheads or the
placement of riprap.
Local governments should also consider the existing rate of vertical land movement in the
requirements for the engineering and construction of coastal facilities and land uses. They
should also consider accelerated sea level rise in conceptual planning f6r coastal facilities
and land uses. The terms vertical land movement and accelerated sea level rise are defined
in Appendix 1. Current trends in vertical land movement and accelerated sea level rise are
described on page 22 of this paper.
For Additional Information. Marine Shoreline Erosion: Structural Property Protection
Methods, 199 1; Shoreline Bluff and Slope Stability: Management Options, 199 1; Coastal
Accretion and Erosion in Southwest Washington State: 19 77-198 7, 1990, Ecology Report
Number 90-2 1; Yhe Effect of Seawalls and Other Hard Erosion Protection Structures
upon Beaches (an annotated bibliography and summary), 1990; Sea Level Rise in
Washington State: State-of-the-Knowledge, Impacts, and Potential Policy Issues (which
provides technical information on sea level rise), 1990; Sea Level Rise Policy Alternatives
Study: Volume 1, Alternative Policy Responsesfor Accelerated Sea Level Rise and 7heir
Impacts and Volume 2, An Analytical Review of State and Federal Coastal Management
Systems and Policy Responses to Sea Level Rise, 1990, Ecology Report Number 90-40
(which provides policy alternatives); and Sea Level Rise Planning, Engineering, and
Construction Policiesfor Shorelands-Funded Projects, 1990; are available from Douglas
J. Canning, Planning Section, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,
Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690, telephone (206)
459-6785, SCAN 585-6785. Mr. Canning also has a list of-additional Department of
Ecology reports on coastal erosion and sea level rise.
Copies of the Washington Coastal Zone Atlas may be reviewed in most Puget Sound
county Planning Department or Public Works Department offices and larger Puget Sound
public libraries.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority prepared the Puget SoundAtlas in 1987. The
Puget SoundAtlas is available in most county Planning Departments or Public Works
Departments and larger Puget Sound public libraries. The Puget. Sound Water Qual ity
Authority is currently updating the Puget SoundAtlas. The atlas was completed in June
1992 and update copies sent to all current holders of the atlas. For an updated copy of the
Puget SoundAtlas please contact the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, P. 0. Box
40900, Olympia, WA 98504-0900, telephone (206) 493-9300, 1-800-54-SOUND, or
SCAN 585-9300.

Appendix A H-541

SW Handbwk - 1994 Edition

Methods of Integrating Comprehensive
Plans, Shoreline Master Programs, and
Development Regulations

Avoiding Conflicts Between Plans, Development
Regulations, and Shoreline Master Programs

Consistent comprehensive plans, development regulations, functional plans, and shoreline
master programs will result in more consistency and predictability for property owners,
ensure that community goals are achieved, and encourage coordination between local
government agencies and local and state governments. The Department of Ecology
encourages local governments to make their shoreline master programs consistent with
adopted comprehensive plans which adequately address shoreline policies and issues.
Conflicts between comprehensive plans, shoreline master programs, and development
regulations can be reduced by consciously assigning responsibility between the land use
documents. The community decides the function of each of the documents in the
community's land use guidance system. This allocation will vary from community to
community. A good allocation meets the communitys needs, eliminates needless
duplication between documents, and results in consistent policies and regulations.
Comprehensive plans often describe the relationship between the community's various land
use documents and their functions.

Preparation of the Comprehensive Plan
Under the Growth Management Act, the local government comprehensive plan is the key
to a consistent and predictable land use guidance system. Local and state government
decisions on regulations and incentives are based on the comprehensive plan.
In preparing the comprehensive plan, local governments should consider incorporating the
policies of the Shoreline Management Act and the policy decisions made in their current
shoreline master program in their comprehensive planning processes. Section HI of this
paper beginning on page 10 describes ways local governments can include shoreline issues
and policy decisions into the comprehensive planning process.

Evaluate Interim Development Regulations for Consistency and Update
or Prepare New Development Regulations
After preparing the comprehensive plan, RCW 36.70A.060 of the Growth Management
Act requires local governments to review natural resource lands and critical areas
designations and interim development regulations for consistency with the comprehensive
plans. The Growth Management Act, in RCW 36.70A. 120, also requires local
governments to prepare development regulations to implement the adopted comprehensive

Appendix A H-542

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

plans. The development regulations must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. In
some cases this will involve updating existing development regulations. In other cases,
new development regulations may be required.
Local governments may regulate developments through various provisions including
shoreline master programs, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) regulations, sensitive area ordinances (SAOs), wetland
protection ordinances, flood hazard regulations, and building codes. Local governments
should evaluate these regulations to ensure they are consistent with the comprehensive
plan and accomplish the functions the comprehensive plan specifies for each document.
Local governments should also compare these regulations to ensure they are consistent
with each other. Unnecessary duplication may be eliminated by combining regulations and
deleting duplicative requirements from some documents and then. cross referencing
provisions in another document.
For example, some local governments include their wetland protection regulations in their
sensitive area ordinances. The sensitive area ordinance can be included in the general
provisions of their zoning ordinances. The shoreline master program then includes
wetland protection policies and regulations specific to the areas within,shoreline
jurisdiction. These may include provisions to protect kelp and eelgrass beds, salt water
marshes, and other specific resources under shoreline jurisdiction. The local governments
then coordinate the shoreline master program wetland requirements with the wetland
regulations in the zoning ordinance.
Other regulations can then cross reference these provisions. To illustrate, the local
government subdivision ordinance references the wetland requirements in the zoning
ordinance and shoreline master program. The subdivision ordinance then requires that all
lots include a building site outside of any wetland areas, as defined in the zoning ordinance
and shoreline master program, and that the general extent of the wetland areas be shown
on the final plat.
These techniques, if appropriate to the community, can reduce duplication, increase
consistency, and make the regulations easier to use. The techniques local government
choose to use will vary depending-on their situation.

Evaluate Functional and Subarea Plans for Consistency
RCW 36.70A. 120 also requires local government activities and capital budget decisions to
conform to the comprehensive plan. This requires local governments to review their
functional plans to insure they are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Functional
plans include water and sewer plans, Six Year Street and Road Plans, capital improvement
and capital facilities plans, surface water plans, drainage plans, flood control management
plans, park and recreation plans, public access plans, public trail plans, bike plans, and
waterfront redevelopment plans.
Subarea plans must also be consistent with adopted local comprehensive plans. Subarea
plans include downtown redevelopment plans, community and neighborhood plans,
waterfront revitalization plans, and river basin plans.

Appendix A H-543

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Evaluate Shoreline Master Program Policies and Regulations for
Consistency
Local governments should review their shoreline master programs for consistency with
their adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations. The Growth
Management Act does not contain a specific definition of the term consistency.
Consistency will likely be defined through procedural criteria implementing the Growth
Management Act, local government policy and practice, and the decisions of the Growth
Planning Hearings Boards. The following recommendations for evaluating consistency are
provided for areas within shoreline jurisdiction and then for lands adjacent to shoreline
jurisdiction.
Consistency for Areas within Shoreline Jurisdiction.
Local governments should consider the following factors when reviewing consistency
between comprehensive plans, development regulations, and shoreline master programs
for the area within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act.
Consistency between Plan Designations and Shoreline Environments.
Shoreline master program environments should be consistent with comprehensive plan
designations and development regulations, especially zoning districts. Shoreline master
programs are typically broad. Most local governments have two to eight shoreline
environments. Shoreline environments also typically have broad categories of permitted
and conditional uses. The preferred practice is to classify commercial and industrial uses
by terms such as water.;.dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment and
non-water-oriented commercial and industrial uses. Local government zoning more finely
regulates the uses allowed on a specific site to prevent use confficts. When determining
consistency between plan designations, zones, and shoreline environments, local
governments should focus on the purpose and intensity of the plan designation, the zoning
district, and the shoreline environment rather than comparing fists of permitted and
conditional uses.

Urban shoreline master program environments are generally most appropriate for uplands
without significant development constraints within urban growth areas. Suburban
shoreline master program environments may be appropriate within urban growth areas
where the densities are consistent with the comprehensive plan densities for the urban
growth area. For areas within urban growth areas which have significant natural resource
values, recreation values or development limitations, a conservancy or even natural
shoreline environment is appropriate. These areas.are good candidates for parallel
shoreline environments.
Areas outside urban growth areas should generally be designated rural, conservancy, or
natural. Aquatic environments are appropriate for large water bodies both within and
outside urban growth areas. New master planned resorts within shoreline jurisdiction
should generally either be within an urban shoreline environment or a conditional use
within rural or conservancy shoreline environments.

Appendix A H-544

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Density and Development Intensity. The density and intensity of development allowed
by shoreline master programs should be consistent with the density and intensity of
development allowed by comprehensive plans and implementing regulations for the areas
within shoreline jurisdiction. Densities, lot coverages, impervious surface ratios, or floor
area ratios (FARs) allowed by shoreline master programs and local government
development regulations should fall within the ranges allowed by the comprehensive plans.
Development Standards. Development regulations and shoreline master programs
should protect shoreline areas from direct and significant impacts. These impacts may
include non-point pollution, noise, glare, and land use incompatibilities. In addition,
Shoreline master program policies and regulations typically include shoreline specific
development standards which are not included in other development regulations. These
may include setbacks from the ordinary high water mark, in-water disposal regulations,
and standards for fills.
Policy Implementation. The text of the shoreline master program combined with the
other development regulations which apply to the area within shoreline jurisdiction should
be sufficient to implement the comprehensive plan policies.
Planned Public Facilities. The public facilities planned for areas within Shoreline
Management Act jurisdiction should be consistent with the comprehensive plans and
shoreline master programs.
Shoreline Master Program Environments Should be Consistent with Natural
Resource Lands, Critical Area Designations, and Open Space Corridors. Shoreline
master program environments should be consistent with the local government's natural
resource land and critical areas designations. Local circumstances vary, but local
governments should consider the following recommendations.
Wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and fish and wildlife habitat areas are generally
consistent with natural and conservancy shoreline master program environments.
Frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas are generally consistent with
natural, conservancy, and rural shoreline master program environments. Where frequently
flooded areas are included within an urban growth area, the portion outside a floodway
may be consistent with the urban shoreline environment.
Agricultural lands of long term commercial significance and forest lands of long term
commercial significance are generally consistent with conservancy and rural shoreline
environments. Mineral resource lands of long term commercial significance may be
consistent with rural or urban shoreline environments depending on the intensity of use
and the types of accessory uses allowed. Where comprehensive plans or development
regulations only provide for mineral resource removal as an accessory to agriculture,
forestry, or aquaculture uses, mineral resource lands may also be consistent with the
conservancy shoreline environment.
Open Space Corridors identified under RCW 3 6.70A. 160 are generally consistent with
natural, conservancy, and rural shoreline master program environments. When local
governments designate open spacecorridors within urban growth areas, they may wish to
use parallel environments designating the waterway, wetlands, and riparian areas

Appendix A H-545

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

conservancy and the balance of the uplands within shoreline j urisdiction urban or
suburban.

Coordinate with Adjacent Local Governments. Local govenunents should consult
with nearby local governments which have responsibility for managing shoreline
waterbodies which cross jurisdictional boundaries. Local governments should make their
comprehensive plan designations, development regulations, and shoreline environments
and regulations consistent for shoreline waterbodies across jurisdictional boundaries where
the resources and other circumstances are similar. The county-wide planning policies
adopted under the Growth Management Act may include provisions to help coordinate
plans across jurisdictional boundaries.
Procedures. Shoreline master program and development regulation processes should be
designed to allow optional consolidated hearings where feasible. The processes should
also be designed to allow concurrent processing of permits.
Consistency for Adjacent Lands.
Local governments should consider the following factors when reviewing consistency
between shoreline master programs and the comprehensive plans and development
regulations for adjacent lands. The term adjacent lands is defined in Appendix 1. The
Department of Ecology's Adjacent Lands Guidance report recommended that adjacent
lands include lands adjacent to shoreline jurisdiction the development of which may affect
shoreline areas and rivers and streams not covered by the Shoreline Management Act but
tributary to shoreline streams, lakes, and salt water areas.
Plan and Development Regulation Designations for Adjacent Lands. Comprehensive
plan designations and development regulations should protect shorelines from land use
incompatibilities. Comprehensive plans and development regulations should provide a
transition from sensitive shoreline areas to intense upland uses. For example, a light
industrial zone may be compatible with a sensitive river shoreline where the uses allowed
near the shoreline do not generate noise, cause glare, and. have no risk of toxic spills.
More intense industrial- uses can then be allowed landward of these low impact uses.
In some cases preferred shoreline uses may be incompatible with less intense uses on
adjacent lands. Comprehensive plans and development regulations should provide for
adjoining uses which are compatible with these uses or for a transition from these intense
uses to less intense upland uses.
Development Standards. Comprehensive plans and development regulations should
protect shoreline areas from direct and significant impacts. These impacts may include
non-point pollution, and, for sensitive shoreline areas noise and glare. Local governments
should consider buffers, limits on outdoor lighting, non-point 'pollution controls (including
construction erosion controls), and other development standards to protect sensitive
shoreline areas.
Planned Public Facilities. The public facilities planned for adjacent lands should be
consistent with the comprehensive plan and shoreline master programs. In some cases
these may require the extension of public facilities. An example is an area where urban or
suburban densities are planned for uplands adjacent to commercial shellfish beds. This

Appendix A H-546

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

would require the extension of sewers and the construction of a storm water collection
system and storm water treatment measures to protect water quality. In other cases, such
as designated forest land adjacent to a conservancy shoreline, the planned public facilities
should be consistent with these low intensity uses.

Integrating Comprehensive Plans, Development
Regulations, and Shoreline Master Programs

Local governments in Washington state have twenty years of experience integrating
comprehensive plans and shoreline master programs. This section describes some of the
techniques usedby local governments and their advantages and disadvantages.
Perhaps the key to successfully integrating shoreline master programs, comprehensive
plans, and development regulations is to consciously assign responsibility between the land
use documents. The community decides the function of each of the documents in the
community's land use guidance system. This allocation will vary from community to
community. A good allocation meets the community's needs, eliminates needless
duplication between documents, and results in consistent policies and regulations.
Comprehensive plans often describe the relationship between the community's various land
use documents and their functions.

Shoreline Master Programs as Special Area Plans
Many local governments treat shoreline master programs as special area plans and special
area regulations. The comprehensive plan identifies the future development of the
shorelines in general terms.
The community then prepares a shoreline management strategy, either as part of the
comprehensive plan's conservation element, part of the shoreline master program, or as a
separate plan. A shoreline management strategy is an integrated program to develop and
protect shoreline areas. The strategy builds on the shoreline future identified in the
comprehensive plan. The shoreline management strategy coordinates shoreline and
community-wide regulations, government and private redevelopment activities, and public
service, transportation, and public facility improvements.
Water, sewertransportation, and public access plans id entify community-wide public
improvements. These plans also tie together public improvements proposed in plans
developed for specific areas, such as the shoreline management strategy.
Shoreline master programs contain specific goals and policies for the shoreline. The
master programs also focus on shoreline resources and opportunities. For example,
shoreline master programs should identify specific salmon passage needs to allow salmon
to swim from the ocean to the spawning grounds, standards to protect riparian habitats,
the allocation of land for water-dependent and related-uses, and waterfront public access.
Shoreline master programs should include shoreline specific regulations such as setbacks
from the ordinary high water mark. Shoreline master programs should include general

Appendix A H-547

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

policies and regulations coordinating the master program with community-wide
regulations, such as sensitive areas regulations.
Shoreline master program environments regulate uses by general use categories such as
water-dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment, and non-water-oriented commercial
and industrial uses. The shoreline master program should also specifically regulate
shoreline activities. such as dredging and fills. Zoning should address compatibility
between specific types of uses. Development regulations, including zoning, subdivision,
and sensitive areas regulations, should address community-wide resources and issues.
Advantages. The requirements for shorefine areas are clear. Duplication between
documents is reduced. Property owners only need to refer to the documents covering
their project.
Disadvantages. Community staff and property owners proposing complex shoreline
projects must refer to three documents. As plans, development regulations, and shoreune
master programs are amended over time, they may become inconsistent if not reviewed
regularly and amended when necessary to maintain consistency with the other land use
documents.

Including a Shorelines Sub-Element in the Conservation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan
Shoreline goals and policies can be included in the conservation element of the
comprehensive plan. This can vary from including a few policies to set the direction for
future shoreline development to including all of the shoreline master plan goals and
policies in the comprehensive plan.
Everett adopted its shoreline master program goals and policies as the shoreline element of
the comprehensive plan. King County, which adopted the shoreline goals and policies as
an element of the county comprehensive plan, publishes the policies as a separate shoreline
master program. This makes it clear what pol-icies are shoreline policies and allows them
to be included with the regulations to explain the regulation's intent.
Advantages. Shoreline policies and the other community policies can be closely
coordinated and are more likely to remain consistent with the comprehensive plan policies.
Disadvantages. The Shoreline Management Act provides that shoreline master program
policies are regulatory. Putting them with general plan policies may confuse staff and
property owners into thinking they are not regulatory. Separating policies from
regulations may result in less use of policies. Separating policies from regulations may
make regulations more difficult to implement because the policies which underlie them are
not nearby. Shoreline policies must be clearly identified. Otherwise local governments
may amend them without having the Department of Ecology adopt them. Unless adopted
by the Department of Ecology, pol-icies and regulations are not part of the shoreline
master program and, although adopted by local governments, are not legally recognized.

Appendix A H-548

SNY Handbook - 1994 Edition

A Development Ordinance with Chapters which contain the Shoreline
Master Program
Development ordinances or land use codes put all of a community's land use regulations in
one document. Development guides put all of a community's land use goals, policies, and
regulations in same document. The intent is the same in both cases, to make all land use
requirements easily accessible. In addition, development guides try to reinforce the tie
between policies and regulations by putting the policies and regulations into the same
document. Redmond has a development guide which includes shoreline goals and
policies. Bellevue has a development code which includes shoreline regulations.
Advantages. All regulations are in the same place. For development guides, the policies
may get more attention because they are included with the regulations in development
guides. Shoreline policies and the other community policies can be closely coordinated
and are more likely to remain consistent with the comprehensive plan policies.
Disadvantages. The Shoreline Management Act provides that shoreline master p rograin
policies are regulatory. Putting them with general plan policies may confuse staff and
property owners into thinking they are not regulatory. Shoreline policies and regulations
must be clearly identified. Otherwise local governments may amend them without having
the Department of Ecology review and adopt them. Unless adopted by the Department of
Ecology, policies and regulations are not part of the shoreline master program.
Development ordinances and development guides are large documents and can be
confusing to the public. Developers and property owners have more experience using
separate comprehensive plans, development regulations, and shoreline master programs.
Having them all together may confuse developers and property owners who have not
worked with combined documents before.

Include Shoreline, Master Program Provisions, Applicable
Comprehensive Plan Provisions, and Development Regulations in a
Single Document for a Limited Geographic Area
A local government could prepare a development guide for a limited part of the
community. This document could include shoreline master program provisions, applicable
comprehensive plan provisions, and development regulations.
This technique is most appropriate in certain situations. These include communities with
limited shoreline areas. Communities with one or two shoreline areas which face
substantial development pressure. Communities trying to encourage development or
redevelopment in certain geographical areas. And communities which apply special
development regulations to certain areas. Unless all community regulations are included
in the document, the advantages of an integrated document may be lost.
Advantages. The advantages of a development guide for a limited area can be achieved
with a smaller document. All regulations are in the same place. The policies may get
more attention because they are included with the regulations. Shoreline policies and the
other community policies can be closely coordinated and are more likely to remain

Appendix A H-549

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

consistent with the comprehensive plan policies. Property owners with projects outside
the areas where the integrated document applies would not need to use the document.
Disadvantages. The number of planning documents is increased rather than decreased.
The Shoreline Management Act provides that shoreline master program policies are
regulatory. Putting them with general plan policies may confuse staff and property owners
into thinking they are not regulatory. Shoreline policies and regulations must be clearly
indicated. Otherwise local governments may amend them without having the Department
of Ecology review and adopt the policies and regulations. Unless adopted by the
Department of Ecology, policies and regulations are not part of the shoreline master
program. Development ordinances and development guides are large documents and can
be confusing to the public. Developers and property owners are used to separate
comprehensive plans, development regulations, and shoreline master programs. Having
them all together may confuse developers and property owners who have not worked with
them before.

Including a Non-regulatory Overlay in the Comprehensive Plan or
Development Regulations
Local governments can include a non-regulatory shorelines overlay in the comprehensive
plan or development regulations. The overlay is a plan designation or overlay zone which
is shown on the comprehensive plan or zoning map. The overlay does not contain any
regulations. The plan designation or overlay zone alerts staff and property owners that the
shoreline master program also applies to the property. The shoreline master program
would be a separate document.
Westport includes a non-regulatory shorelines designation on its comprehensive plan map.
King County is considering using a "-P" suffix designation for certain properties within the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. As used in King County, a -P suffix is a
notation added to the zoning map. A -P suffix lets property owners know a special
requirement, in this case the shoreline master prograrn, applies to the property. A
subscript on the -P suffix identifies the type of limitation.
Advantage. This alerts staff and property owners that the shoreline master program also
applies to the property.
Disadvantage. Adding a designation to a complex plan map or zoning map may make the
maps harder to work with.

Integrating Sensitive Areas Regulations with Shoreline Master Programs
Sensitive area regulations are one technique local governments use to comply with the
Growth Management Act requirement to protect critical areas from inappropriate
development. Sensitive area regulations typically regulate development in wetlands, flood
plains, geologically hazardous areas, and aquifer recharge areas community-wide. Some
of these areas fall within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act and others do
not.

Appendix A H-550

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

The extent to which local governments incorporate these requirements into shoreline
master programs varies. King County has incorporated large parts of its sensitive area
regulations into its shoreline master program. Kirkland included very general sensitive
area regulations in its shoreline master program with detailed sensitive area regulations in
its zoning code.
Where local governments have adequate sensitive area regulations which apply
community-wide, they may incorporate general sensitive area policies and regulations in
their shoreline master programs. These policies and regulations must be sufficient for the
state'to carry out its responsibilities to protect sensitive areas under the Shoreline
Management Act and other existing authorities. Allowing local governments to include
general sensitive area policies in their shoreline master programs is intended to encourage
local governments to adopt sensitive area regulations.
Advantages. Duplication between shoreline master programs and other regulations is
reduced. Local governments can adjust sensitive area regulations without the approval of
the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology, through the general sensitive
area policies and regulations, can condition or deny shoreline conditional use permits and
shoreline variances as needed.

Disadvantages. If local governments adopt general regulations in their shoreline master
programs, local governments could amend the more detailed sensitive area regulations,
resulting in less protection for environmentally sensitive areas both within and outside
shoreline jurisdiction. The general sensitive area requirements may confuse property
owners because the general regulations give less guidance. The general regulations are
more difficult to administer because they give staff less guidance. If a property owner
claims the application of the detailed sensitive area regulations resulted in a taking, the
local government may not be able to use the shoreline master program to limit their
liability even though a shoreline permit was required. This is so because the master
program only contains general sensitive area regulations and the court may conclude the
restrictions did not result from the shoreline master program policies or regulations.
Carefully drafted shoreline policiesand regulations may lessen the potential for this result.

Centralized Permit Services

A common way local governments have integrated development regulations and shoreline
master programs is through centralized permit services. This is sometimes called one-stop
permitting. Centralized permit services range from a central location where a staff person
directs permit applicants to the correct department to single counter where all permit
applications are accepted. For more information see Streamlining Land Use Regulation:
A Guide Bookfor Local Governments, American Planning Association, 1980.
Advantage. Centralized permit services can reduce confusion and aid property owners
and developers in obtaining permits.

Appendix A H-551

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Disadvantages. If a single department reviews permits for all departments,
implementation of development requirements may suffer. Some jurisdictions have one
permit counter with cross trained employees who answer questions and accept
applications. They then have individual departments review the permit applications.

Integrated Permitting
Integrated permitting means using existing permits to trigger other reviews as a substitute
for requiring multiple permits. For example subdivision, shorelines, and building permits
could trigger review under a wetlands protection ordinance rather than requiring a
separate wetlands permit.
Advantage. The number of permit applications and permits required for a particular
project is reduced.
Disadvantages. Unless the system is carefully designed, some reviews may be
overlooked. Certain permits and approvals are required by state law and cannot be
integrated with -other permits or approvals.

Simultaneous Review of Multiple Permits
Simultaneous permit review means reviewing multiple permits at the same time. Because
the preparation of some permits is costly, simultaneous review should be optional in case
applicants decide to apply for permits one at a time to reduce risk.
Advantage. Simultaneously reviewing multiple permits reduces total permit processing
time.

Disadvantages. Simultaneous review may increase financial risk for property owners.
Simultaneous review may be difficult for small staffs because they lack the staff to review
the permits simultaneously.

Combined Public Hearings
Where a common decision maker decides a permit, such as a hearing examiner, some local
governments combine the public hearings required for the same project. Again, because
the preparation of some permits is costly, combined public hearings should be optional in
case applicants decide to apply for permits one at a time to reduce risk.
Advantage. Combined public hearings for the same project reduces total permit
processing time and permitting costs.
Disadvantages. Combined public hearings may increase financial risk for property
owners. Combined public hearings may be difficult for small staffs to manage.

Appendix A H-552

SM7 H."dbook - 1994 Edition

Diversifying Funding Sources

Comprehensive planning can be costly. Local governments are experiencing significant
competition for budget funds. The following Washington Department of Ecology grant
sources may be able to fund certain planning projects. For additional information on these
funding sources call or write the contact.
Grant and loan programs are constantly changing. For information on all state grants and
loans consult the current edition of State Agency Assistancefor Local Governments
available from Paula Fairchild, Association of Washington Cities, 1076 South Franklin,
Olympia, Washington, 98501, telephone (206) 753-4137, SCAN 234-4137. The report is
$30.00 for non-members and free to cities and towns.
For current information on Washington State Department of Ecology grants and loans
consult the current issue of Sources. Sources is published quarterly. To get on the
Sources mailing list send a note with your name, agency, and mailing address to Annie
Phillips, Washington State Department of Ecology, P. 0. 47600, Olympia, WA,
98504-7600.

The Intergovernmental Public Facilities Finance Committee (IPFFC) holds an annual
two-day conference each fall to publicize state and federal grant programs. For more
information on the conference see the July 1991 issue of Sources or call Mary Crandafl,
Washington State University, 7612 Pioneer Way, Puyallup, Washington 98371-4998,
telephone (206) 840-4575.

Growth Management Funding

Local goverru-nents planning under the Growth Management Act currently receive funds
from the Washington State Department of Community Development. All acknowledge
that these funds are not sufficient to fully fund the necessary work. One way to deal with
this problem is to leverage Growth Management Act grant funds with other funds. The
Washington State Department of Ecology has several grant programs which can fund
certain types of planning activities undertaken to comply with the Growth Management
Act. Local governments may be able to use Growth Management funds to match
Department of Ecology grant programs under certain circumstances.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Section 306
Grants

Eligible Jurisdictions: Cities, counties, and regional planning agencies in the 15 counties
which front on salt water. These counties are Clallam@ Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson,
King, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston,
Wahkiakarn, and Whatcom.
Type of Funding: Grants.

Appendix A H-553

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Local Match: Fifty percent.
Eligible Activities: Shoreline master program revisions, shoreline planning, and special
studies oriented to shoreline areas and resources.

Application Period: January 10 to Feb 20, 1993.
Amount of Funds Available: Approximately $400,000.

Written Information Available: 306A Grant Guidelines.
Contact: Steve Craig, Washington State Department of Ecology,P. 0. Box 47690,
Olympia, Washington, 98504-7690, telephone: (206) 459-6780, SCAN 585-6780.

Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP)
Grants

Eligible jurisdictions: Cities, counties, and other government agencies responsible for
flood management.
Type of Funding: Grants.
Local Match: Seventy-Five percent for comprehensive flood plain management plans.
Eligible Activities: Comprehensive flood plain planning activities. The maintenance of
flood protection works is eligible for funding. Projects to maintain and repair flood
protection works which also include habitat restoration and enhancement is eligible for
funding.
Application Period: Before the beginning of each biennium.
Amount of Funds Available: Up to $4 million each biennium.
Written Information Available: Application packets and program regulations.
Contact: Chuck Gale, telephone: (206) 439-7569, SCAN 585-7569. Marcia Geidel,
telephone: (206) 459-7592, SCAN 585-7592. Tim D'Acci, telephone: (206) 459-6796,
SCAN 585-6796. The address for the contacts is: Washington State Department of
Ecology, P. 0. 47690, Olympia, WA, 98504-7690.

Centennial Clean Water Fund (CCWF) Grants and
Loans

Eligible Jurisdictions: Cities, counties, regional planning agencies, Indian tribes, and
other public bodies.
Type of Funding: Grants and loans.
Local Match: Seventy-five percent for activities.

Appendix A H-554

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Eligible Activities: Planning for water pollution control, including non-point pollution
control, ground water protection, lake protection planning, and watershed planning.
Growth Management Act planning activities which have a surface or ground water quality
focus may be eligible for funding under this program.
Application Period: January to February 1993.
Amount of Funds Available: Approximately $45 million.
Written Information Available: Brochure and grant application packets.
Contact : Helen Bresler, Washington State Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box 47600,
Olympia, Washi@gton, 98504-7600, telephone: (206) 459-6096, SCAN 585-6096.

Federal 2050) Grants

Eligible Jurisdictions: Cities, counties, regional planning agencies, Indian tribes, and
other public bodies.
Type of Funding: Grants.
Local Match: Seventy-five percent.
Eligible Activities: Planning for water quality protection. Growth Management Act
planning which has a water quality focus may be eligible for funding under this program.
Application Period: January to.February 1993.
Amount of Funds Available: Approximately $334,000.
Written Information Available: Grant application packets.
Contact: Helen Bresler, Washington State Department of Ecology, P. 0. Box 47600,
Olympia, WA, 98504-700, telephone: (206),459-6096, SCAN 585-6096.

Definitions

Adjacent Lands: Those lands immediately adjacent to and abutting lands under Shoreline
Management Act permit jurisdiction extending landward to the extent necessary to control
direct and significant impacts to the shorelines and to implement the management policy
articulated in the Shoreline Management Act, the guidelines, 'and the master program. The
inland extent will necessarily vary with the particular management objectives for the
shoreline setting. Source: Department of Ecology, Adjacent Lands Guidance report,
1981.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan: A generalized coordinated land use policy statement of
the governing body of a county or city that is adopted under RCW Chapter 36.70A.
Source: RCW 36.70A.030(4). Note: Certain local governments in Washington state can
adopt comprehensive plans under other planning enabling acts.

Appendix A H-555

SMIP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Conservancy Shoreline Master Program Environment: A geographical area
designated in a shoreline master program and needed to meet the present or future
recreational needs of the community or characterized by severe biophysical limitations
including areas of steep slopes presenting erosion or slide hazards, areas prone to
flooding, and areas which cannot provide adequate water supplies or sewage disposal
capacity to support rural intensities of development.
Critical areas: Critical areas include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands;
(b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically
hazardous areas. Source: RCW 36.70A.030(5).
Development Guide: An official local government land use document which includes
many or all of a community's land use goals, policies, and regulations in the same
document.

Development Regulations: Any controls placed on development or land use activities by
a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, official controls, planned
unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances.
Source: RCW 36.70A.030(7).
Development Ordinance: An official local government land use document which
includes all of a community's land use regulations in one document.
Functional Plan: A plan for a public facHity or public system which identifles current
facHities, future needs, and ways of meeting those needs. Functional plans include water
and sewer plans, Six Year Street and Road Plans, capital improvement and capital
facilities plans, surface water plans, parks and recreation plans, public access plans, trail
plans, bike plans, and waterfront redevelopment plans.
Natural Shoreline Master Program Environment: A geographical area designated in a
shoreline master program and characterized by unique natural or cultural features
considered valuable in their natural or original condition and relatively intolerant of
intensive human use.

Parallel Shoreline Master Program Environment: Two or more shoreline master
program environments which are designated parallel to the shoreline. Typically, a
resource protection environment is applied to the area immediately adjacent to the
shoreline. An environment which allows a greater level of development is applied to the
area between the other environment and the Shoreline Management Act jurisdictional
boundary.
Riparian Vegetation: The plants and plant communities which grow on the banks of
rivers, lakes, and salt water bodies. Riparian vegetation generally requires the water body
for survival and is a transition from upland areas to wetlands and waterbodies.
Rural Shoreline Master Program Environment: A geographical area designated in a
shoreline master program and characterized by intense agricultural and recreational uses
and those areas with a high capability to support active agricultural practices and intense
recreational development.

Appendix A H-556

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shoreline Environment or Shoreline Master Program Environment: A geographical
area designated in a shoreline master program which typically includes a purpose
statement, allowed uses and activities, and development standards. The shoreline
environment for a given area is based on the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the
shoreline area and the goals of the community. Shoreline environments include natural,
conservancy, rural, urban, aquatic, and maritime environments. Not all shoreline master
programs include all of these environments.
Subarea Plan: A plan to guide the development of a part of a local government's
jurisdiction. Sometimes called a community plan.
Shoreline Master Program: The comprehensive land use plan for the area under the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, 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.
Source: RCW 90.58.030(3)(c).
Urban Growth Area: A geographical area consisting of cities and unincorporated areas
characterized by or planned for urban development densities and intended to
accommodate the projected urban population growth for the next twenty years. Urban
growth areas are cooperatively identified by cities and counties and designated in a county
comprehensive plan prepared under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A).
Urban Shoreline Master Program Environment: A geographical area designated in a
shoreline master program and characterized by high-intensity land uses including
residential, commercial, and industrial expansion, or planned to accommodate urban
expansion.
Vertical Land Movement: The change in the elevation of the land surface due to
geological change. Vertical land movement is sometimes referred to as the existing rate
of sea level rise where the land surface is subsiding. Accelerated sea level rise is the
increase in sea level resulting from global warming.
Water-Dependant Use: A use or portion of a use which cannot exist in any other
location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations.
Examples of some water-dependent uses include: marine cargo docks and loading areas,
ferry terminals, boat ramps, swimming areas in lakes and rivers, aquaculture, marinas,
water intakes, and outfafls. Source: Shoreline Management Guidebook Urban
Waterftont Policy Analysis Addenda, Addendum Number 2, 1990.
Water-Related Use: A use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent upon a
waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location
because:
a. Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of
materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or
b. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent commercial
activities and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less
expensive or more convenient.

Appendix A B-557

SNY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Examples include manufacturing ship parts large enough so that transportation becomes a
significant factor in the product cost, utility lines serving water-dependent activities, the
storage or warehousing of water transported goods, seafood processing plants,
manufacturing or processing facilities which receive or ship goods by water transportation,
and intermodal transport when water transport is part of the service. Source: Shoreline
Management Guidebook, Urban Waterftont Policy Analysis Addenda, Addendum
Number 2, 1990.
Water-Enjoyment Use: a recreational or similar use facilitating public access to the
shoreline as a primary character 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
character of the use and which through location, design, and operation assures the public's
ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a
water-enjoyment use, the use must be open to the public and the shoreline-oriented space
within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that foster shoreline
enjoyment.
Examples include: public waterfront parks, public use beaches, aquariums available to the
public, retail businesses housed in structures designed to take advantage of a waterfront
location through views of the water, displays oriented to pedestrian traffic which is
connected to shoreline access improvements, enhancement of pedestrian amenities, or
other similar design features. Source: Shoreline Management Guidebook, Urban
Waterftont Policy Analysis Addenda, Addendum Number 2, 1990.
Water-Oriented Use: Any water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment use.
Source: Shoreline Management Guidebook, Urban Waterftont Policy Analysis Addenda,
Addendum Number 2, 1990.
Non-Water-Oriented Use: A use which is not water-dependent, water-related, or a
water-enjoyment use.

Appendix A H-558

Appendix B
Suggested Techniques for
Compensatory Mitigation Planning

SMT Handbwk - 1994 Edition
Introduction 40

Appendix B supplements Chapter 16, Advance Compensation and Environmental Mitigation
Planning, by presenting a discussion of the issues surrounding mitigation planning and
suggesting processes for implementing a compensatory mitigation program. Two approaches
to off-site mitigation are described: individual projects and mitigation banking. Historically,
individual off-site mitigation projects have encountered a number of problems. Too often off-
site mitigation is delivered after development has incurred on-site impacts and the off-site
mitigation does not produce the hoped for results. For this reason, mitigation banking, in
which the mitigation is based on a regional resource management plan and is delivered prior to
development, is the preferred approach. However, mitigation banking is in itself a new and
largely unproven concept in Washington State and requires large, long term investment
therefore both approaches are presented.

Because environmental mitigation banking is a relatively new shoreline management concept,
Appendix B is intended as a resource rather than a set of Department of Ecology-sanctioned
recommendations. Ecology's response to mitigation proposals continues to be on a case-by-
case basis.

Individual Off-Site Mitigation Projects
The State Environmental Policy Act Rules (WAC 197-11-768) defines mitigation as:

I . Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;

2. 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;

3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;

4. Reducing or elin-dnating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action;

5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments; and/or

6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.

The order of mitigation actions listed, from most direct and complete to the least direct,
implies an order of preference from I (high preference) to 6 (low preference). This means a
selected mitigation action will be considered appropriate in satisfying SEPA requirements only
if the mitigation actions of higher preference are not feasible or are ineffective. The
Governor's Wetlands Executive Order 90-04, section 12, further clarifies this point by listing

Appcndix B H-559

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

the same 6-point SEPA definition for mitigation and stating that state agencies shall consider
the 6 actions in order of preference from 1 (high) to 6 (low).

The priority for environmental mitigation actions establishes state-wide shoreline management
policy which encourages off-site environmental mitigation only if on-site mitigation measures
are not feasible. However, situations may occur where on-site mitigation for unavoidable
impacts is either not feasible or not desirable from a natural resources perspective. New
shoreline development associated with the ever changing economy of water-dependent uses
must be accommodated somewhere and such development will often incur unavoidable
environmental impacts. Shoreline planning has tended to concentrate intensive shoreline
development in urban centers where development pressure and limited shoreline area leave
little room for on-site mitigation.

At the same time, shifts in maritime economies have left vacant previously industrial
shorelines. In these cases, shoreline enhancement, restoration, or creation may more than
offset a project's impact to produce a net environmental benefit, Also, enhancin& restoring or
creating a high-quality shoreline resource off-site may be more desirable than mitigating for
impacts to a low-quality shoreline resource on-site. Off-site mitigation actions might include:

0 Breaching an estuarian dike to create a salt marsh;

0 Cleaning up or capping contaminated sediments and restoring the shoreline to
its natural condition;

0 Restoring a beach to its natural conditions; or

0 Reestablishing a dune system.

To clarify compensatory mitigation measures, the following definitions are recommended:

"Enhancing" or "enhancement": Improving existing shoreline conditions in terms of
ecological functions.

"Restoring" or "restoration": Returning a degraded or former shoreline to a more natural
condition.

"Creating" or Prcreation ": The construction of a new shoreline environment where none
previously existed historically.

Typically, off-site mitigation is considered on a project by project basis. This approach has
produced some successes but, in general, has several limitations.

Without clear rules or guidelines for off-site mitigation, it is difficult for project proponents
and regulatory agencies to reach agreement, Agencies must determine whether they are
setting a precedent that could result in abuse, and project proponents must know agency
expectations and procedural requirements in order to develop a responsive proposal.

Appendix B H-560

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Natural resource enhancement, restoration and creation efforts have not always been
manding and subject to a number of
successful. Since resource replacement is technically de
variables, the only way to ensure mitigation success is to establish and monitor the resource
pfLor to permit issuance for the base project.

Individual off-site mitigation projects do not necessarily further a comprehensive "natural
systems" approach to resource management. Establishing an isolated resource, even if
technically successful, may not contribute to the shoreline system impacted by the project.
Long-term, regional resource management concerns can only be addressed through
comprehensive shoreline planning.

The shortcomings of off-site mitigation can be overcome to a certain extent by better defining
the process, goals, policies and priorities which guide off-site mitigation projects. Policies and
regulations outlining the procedures and criteria for considering off-site migitation as a means
to satisfy SEPA and other resource protection requirements may be included in the
Environmental Impacts section of the SNT's General Policies and Regulations. The SNIP
policies and regulations should address each of the following points:

1. Adhere to the priorities set by SEPA for mitigation. Off-site mitigation should be
considered only after all reasonable measures to avoid, minin-dze, rectify, or reduce
project impacts are considered and determined to be unfeasible and only after on-site
mitigation is determined to be infeasible.

2. Establish procedures for ensuring the long-term success of the resource. Because
shoreline enhancement, restoration and creation efforts are technically demanding,
mitigation should be delivered and the success of the mitigation demonstrated prior to
approval of the base project. Off-site mitigation success must be documented through
an evaluation of physical and biological conditions prior to and after the completion of
the mitigation action. The'resource must be legally and physically protected through
covenants, conservation easements orother means to ensure the resource will be
maintained in perpetuity.

The SNT should outline, in general terms, procedures to resolve these issues during
permit review. Off-site mitigation proposals will be carefully examined by the
Department of Ecology and therefore should require a conditional use permit. This
will enable Ecology to be involved during project formulation and will help avoid
costly permit appeals.

3. Insure mitigation efforts are integral to reestablishing a connected shoreline
system. The quantity (area) and quality (functions and values) of the replacement
resource should be greater than the quantity and quality of the lost resource.
Mitigation efforts also should be integral to reestablishing a connected shoreline
system.

Appendix B H-561

SNW Handbook - 1994 Edition

There are two approaches to this requirement. The first approach establishes SNIP
criteria for determining when off-site mitigation is suitable. This gives project
proponents the flexIbility to propose a variety of off-site mitigation alteratives.
However, it provides the applicant little direct guidance in mitigation site selection and
proposal preparation. Nor does this parcel-by-parcel method necessarily ensure the
mitigation will be part of a connected shoreline system.

Advance comprehensive mitigation planning is the second and preferred approach for
determining the suitability of mitigation alternatives. The local jurisdiction adopts an
area-wide (watershed, shoreline, etc.) plan that identifies suitable development and off-
site mitigation receiving sites. A comprehensive shoreline enhancement plan is most
effectively developed in the early stages of an SMP amendment process, when
shoreline environment. designations are being reviewed (See Handbook Chapter 2,
Shoreline Master Program Organization).

79@

Individual off-site mitigation and mitigation banking provide opportunities to restore degraded
shorelines.

Appendix B H-562

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Summary
The SAD can be a useful toot in outlining procedures for evaluating off-sitemitigation
proposals. Off-site mitigation policies and regulations may be included in a subsection of the
General Policies and Regulations dealing with environmental impacts (see Handbook Chapter
5, General Shoreline Policies and Regulations). The policies and regulations should address
or include the following:

I . A statement that the SEPA priorities for mitigation shall still apply.

2. A statement that within shorelines jurisdiction, off-site mitigation shall be approved for
water-oriented projects only.

3. A method to insure that off-site mitigation shall be integral to a connected shoreline
system by:

a. Establishing criteria to make this determination; or

b. Referencing a comprehensive environmental enhancement plan (or component
of a comprehensive plan) that identifies (i) development sites which may utilize
off-site mitigation and (ii) off-site mitigation receiving sites; or

C. Identifying shorelines or shoreline environment designations where (i) off-site
mitigation shall be permitted (ii) and where off-site mitigation receiving sites
shall be permitted.

(Note: options b or c are preferred)

4. A statement that off-site mitigation shall be approved as a "conditional use" only.

Following are model policies and regulations for off-site mitigation.

Mode I Language for Individual Off-site Mitigation

Policies
I . Off-site mitigation.should be considered only for water-oriented uses proposed on
Urban shorelines and only if the following conditions are met: Note: this is an
example of restricting off-site mitigation to a single shoreline environment
designation. It may be appropriate to restrict off-site mitigation to a geographic
region such as a watershed or particular shoreline area

a. Off-site mitigation results in a more valuable resource in terms of quantity
(area) and quality (functions and values) than on-site mitigation by:

i. Enhancing, restoring, or creating, a shoreline resource of greater value
(in terms of quantity and quality); or

Appendix B H-563

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

ii. Creating a uniqu e shoreline resource; or

iii. Reestablishing an integral element of the City/County's connected
shoreline system.

b. Off-site mitigation is part of a comprehensive environmental enhancement plan
to protect, enhance, restore or create the City/County's shoreline system.

C. The following alternative mitigation measures are not feasible or are less
desirable from a natural resources perspective.

i. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action;

ii. 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;

iii. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment-,

iv. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.

2. Off-site environmental mitigation should conform to the following criteria.

a. Off-site mitigation should be permitted only for water-oriented uses proposed
on shorelines designated Urban Maritime or Urban Multi-use (or state
shoreline locations where projects may use off-site mitigation). Off-site
mitigation receiving sites should be designated Urban Estuarine (or state
shoreline locations where off-site mitigation may be permitted).

b. Off-site mitigation should be permitted only as a conditional use subject to
Ecology approval.

C. Off-site mitigation should be delivered and the success of the mitigation
demonstrated prior to the approval of the base project.

d. The off-site mitigation site should be legally and physically protected through
covenants, conservation easements or other means to ensure the resource Will
be maintained in perpetuity.

3. Off-site mitigation policy is intended to recognize and protect the economic
significance of water-oriented uses on the City/County's industrial waterfront while
protecting and enhancing valuable shoreline resources (state area). (Include brief
statement of the general environment management intent.)

Appendix B H-564

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Regulations
1 Off-site environmental mitigation shall be permitted only as a conditional use.

2. Off-site mitigation shall be permitted only for water-oriented uses proposed on
shorelines designated _ (state shoreline environment designation or shoreline
locations). Off-site mitigation receiving sites shall be permitted only on shorelines
designated _ (state shoreline environment designation or shoreline
locations).

3. All shoreline development proposals utilizing off-site mitigation shall be subject to the
following requirements.

a. Off-site mitigation shall be delivered and the success of the mitigation
demonstrated prior to approval of the base project.

b. Off-site mitigation success must be documented through an evaluation of
physical and biological conditions prior to and after the completion of the
mitigation action. Documentation procedures shall be as by agreement with
the City/County and Ecology.

C. Prior resource enhancement, restoration or creation shall not necessarily satisfy
mitigation requirements unless specifically stated by agreement with the
City/County and Ecology.

d. The off-site mitigation site shall be protected legally and physically through
covenants, conservation easements or other means as by agreement with the
City/County and Ecology to ensure the resource is maintained in perpetuity.

4. Off-site mitigation proposals shall meet the following criteria.

a. Priorities for shorelines of state-wide significance as stated in RCW 90.58.020.

b. The off-site mitigation shall result in a more valuable resource in terms of
quantity (area) and quality (functions and values) than on-site mitigation
alternatives.

C. The off-site mitigation shall be an element of a comprehensive environmental
enhancement plan approved by the City/County and Ecology and/or create a
unique shoreline resource (this provision is applicable when a comprehensive
compensatory mitigation plan for the jurisdiction has been prepared).

d. Off-site mitigation shall be permitted only if the following alternative mitigation
measures are not feasible or are less desirable from a natural resources
perspective.

i. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action;

Appendix B H-565

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

ii. 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;

iii. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment; and

iv. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.

5. Off-site environmental mitigation shall be permitted only after City/County and
Ecology approval of a project-specific mitigation plan including at a minimum, the
following:

a. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the impacted shoreline and
proposed mitigation site. The assessment shall include wetland delineation,
existing wetland acreage, vegetative, faunal and hydrologic conditions,
relationship to other water bodies, soil and substrate conditions, topographic
elevations, existing and proposed adjacent conditions, wetland buffers and
shoreline setbacks and ownership.

b. A written report identifying the goals and objectives of the mitigation project,
and indicating the likelihood o f success based on available literature and/or
experience to date.

C. Performance standards in the form of specific criteria for evaluating whether or
not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been met, and for
determining when any contingency plan should be undertaken.

d. Detailed construction plans and written specifications including theproposed
construction schedule;

e. A monitoring progrwn for tracking construction and evaluating the completed
mitigation project, including sampling and measurement techniques, a protocol
for evaluating the monitoring data, and requirements for reporting.

f A contingency plan identifying potential courses of action, and any corrective
measures to be taken when monitoring indicates that the project performance
standards are not being met.

9. Comments on the overall adequacy of the mitigation project by any federal,
state, regional or local agency including tribes, having any special expertise or
interest with respect to any environmental impacts of the project.

Appendix B H-566

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Mitigation Banking

Introduction

Environmental mitigation banks involve the off-site protection, enhancement, restoration,
and/or creation of natural resources to compensate for unavoidable adverse impacts
associated with future development activities. The concept of mitigation banking was
developed in the early 1980s as a mechanism to compensate for unavoidable habitat losses
primarily- associated with the federal Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) and Section 404
(Clean Water Act) permit programs for wetland development projects.

In 1991, the Washington State Department of Ecology undertook a wetland mitigation
banking study. The report, entitled WetlandMitigation Banking, prepared by Andrew J.
Castelle and others, was intended to provide the basis for future feasibility discussions on
wetlands mitigation banking in Washington. This report surveys existing programs, describes
the elements in -a mitigation bank, and makes specific recommendations for assessing wetland
mitigation banking options in Washington. Although focused specifically on wetlands, many
of the reports conclusions are relevant to other shoreline environments and the study itself
forms the basis for this section of Appendix B.

Mitigation banking differs from most compensatory mitigation projects in that mitigation
banking is a program created by resource agencies, port districts, large development entities
or conservation organizations to provide a relatively large compensatory mitigation site to be
used to collectively compensate for many, usually unrelated, development projects. More
traditional compensatory, mitigation measures typically involve individual projects, and are
implemented by developers.

An important feature of mitigation banking is that all compensation is constructed "up front,"
that is, before impacts to existing wetlands or shoreline resources occur. The majority of
individual compensation projects are constructed either concurrently with or following
development activities, resulting in functional losses over time until the compensation site
reaches maturity. The intent of mitigation banking is to eliminate the uncertainty of success
and time lag between resource loss and full compensation for those losses. Like individual
off-site mitigation projects, mitigation banking may be implemented only if higher priority
mitigation measures (e.g. avoidance, n-dnimization, rectifying, etc.) are not feasible.
Mitigation banking is intended also to improve mitigation planning and implementation by
increasing public agency involvement.

Another important feature of the mitigation banking concept is that mitigation efforts are
planned as a whole, where the most suitable sites are identified, acquired and restored in
advance of impact. Because the bank is planned and developed as a whole, the details of
mitigation can be incorporated into the existing environment, resulting in a more logical and
natural system. The banking program also must account for long-term maintenance of the
resource as well as respond to future development pressure, emerging shoreline use patterns
and the broader issues of the public trust doctrine.

Appendix B H-567

SNY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Mitigation banking should not be confused with "fee-in-lieu" programs in which developers
are assessed an impact fee, that agencies use to create compensation projects. Fee-in-lieu
programs typically do not compensate for environmental impacts up ftont.

Advantages and Disadvantages
of Mitigation Banking
Proponents have suggested that mitigation banks provide several advantages over the
traditional project-specific approach. For example, mitigation banks can expedite the
regulatory process, reduce the costs of mitigation and permit large, otherwise cost-prohibitive
projects to be completed. Some authors report that large environmental restoration projects
that can be accomplished through mitigation banks are more effective than several small
compensatory projects in various locations. Arguably, larger projects provide more habitat,
are easier to create, and prevent some of the cumulative impacts (for example habitat
fragmentation) associated with many small, scattered mitigation projects.

Although there may be advantages to mitigation banking, there are also many potential
disadvantages. Opponents of mitigation banking argue that involved agencies invest a great
deal of time and money in developing the bank, and that the costs may never be recovered.
Because the banking site is developed (and therefore paid for) prior to permitting any of the
projects which will be credited towards the bank, and because there is no guarantee that a
sufficient number of developers will apply for mitigation credits with the bank, it is possible
that the bank operator will never recover the initial investment nor the. continuing maintenance
and monitoring costs.

There are also several ecologically-based arguments against mitigation banking. For example,
the same problems which have contributed to low success rates for individual compensation
projects will also exist for mitigation banking programs. In addition, the spatial redistribution
of resource types in the landscape and the potential for habitat trade-offs (for example,
creating emergent habitat as compensation for forested wetland losses) may result in a
reduction of native plant and animal species diversity.

Elements of a Mitigation Banking Program
Early mitigation banking studies focused primarily on wetlands, however, mitigation banking
may be useful for other shoreline resources such as beaches, intertidal habitat, or riparian
corridors, etc. Moreover, the current emphasis on wetlands is relevant to shoreline
applications because many applicable shoreline areas such as estuaries and riparian corridors
include "associated" wetlands.

Summarized below are the elements integral to a successful mitigation banking program as
described in the 1991 Washington State Department of Ecology report on Wetland Mitigation
Banking (cited here as the Mitigation Banking Study) and the 1992 ACOE "Partnerships in
Restoration Workshop" (Mitigation Banking Session). As diagrammed in Figure B-1 the
tasks to create and maintain a mitigation bank can be divided into "technical" and

Appendix B H-569

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure B-1. Elements of a Mitigation Bank

IMPETUS

Administrative
Elements

INITIATION
Goals

PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION
� Environmental STRATEGY
priorities 0 Policies
� Area boundaries * Administration
� Site * Regulatory
framework
-7

BANK DESIGN MEMORANDUM
r & PERMITTING f OF AGREEMENT:]
FINANCING I

CONSTRUCTION

EVALUATION

BANK ESTABLISHMENT

Appendix B H-569

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

"administrative" elements. The technical elements include the scientific, developmental,
financial or physical issues associated with bank establishment. The administrative elements
involve establishing the bank's regulatory and managerial framework. As the diagram
illustrates, the tasks follow two interdependent tracks. Ideally, the tasks roughly follow in
sequence, starting with goals and objectives and proceeding to long term management
activities. However, recent experience has indicated that the initiation of a bank project may
begin at other points in the process. For example, the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) banking program began by developing an implementation strategy
and a memorandum of agreement. The Biringer Berry Farm proposal began by exploring the
technical and regulatory issues of a specific site.

Because mitigation banks require resource value determinations and public expenditure, public
participation will be an important component of bank establishment. Public participation is
most effective early in the project, notably in setting goals and objectives, developing a
comprehensive resource plan and implementation strategy, and reviewing the memorandum of
agreement. At a minimum, representatives from public groups should play an active role in
these steps and should be involved in overseeing the long term maintenance of the resource.

Each bank element is described below in greater detail. Example projects are provided to
illustrate basic concepts. For additional information regarding the examples consult the
bibliography at the end of the Appendix.

Program Goals
Establishing goals is the first task in developing a mitigation banking program. Goals are
broad statements of philosophy which establish program direction and are the basis for the
program's specific policies and recommended actions. Perhaps the most common goal of
mitigation banking programs is to achieve no net loss of resource quantity (area) or quality
(values and functions). Another goal may be to increase greater regional acceptance of
mitigation banking as a resource management tool by facilitating increased interagency
involvement.

A mitigation bank!s goals might. include:

1. To restore and enhance existing habitat types to prevent a net loss of-functional and
habitat values.

2. To preserve and/or create particular habitat types for specific desirable, threatened, or
endangered species.

3. To consolidate many small, otherwise unmitigated shoreline or wetland development
projects into one compensation site.

4. To balance shoreline or wetiand preservation and development interests, and to
expedite the permit review process.

Appendix B H-570

SMW Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. To preserve bank resources in perpetuity through long-term monitoring and
management.

6. To promote cooperation and administration among the various regulatory authorities.

7. To protect and enhance water quality.

8. To achieve national and local requirement of "no net loss" of environmental resources
in both quantity (area) and quality (value and function)

9. To create an interconnected system of environmental resources within a stable,
ecologically sound system with a high likelihood for long term survival.

10. To promote the multiple use of protected resources for activities such as recreation
and education while ensuring that the functions and values are maintained or enhanced.

Mtigation banks are not intended to allow developers to avoid stringent alternatives analysis;
this may be the biggest fear of regulatory agencies who are concerned that without such
analyses, otherwise avoidable impacts will occur.

Planning

Comprehensive Environmental Enhancement Planning
In general terms, a comprehensive environmental enhancement.plan (CEEP) identifies a
strategy for protecting, enhancing, restoring and/or creating a regiods natural resources based
on community input and scientific study. Local governments and potential bank operators are
strongly encouraged to base mitigation banking programs on a CEEP for several reasons.

e A CEEP provides the opportunity to identify the extent of resources that might be lost
under current development projections.

9 A CEEP establishes resource protection priorities based on a comprehensive natural
resource inventory and assessment. By approaching a region's resources as a whole or as
"system", the plan can identify which resources should be protected, enhanced, restored
and/or created. This approach ties resources together into a connected system and fills the
gaps within the region's spectrum of resource types.

0 The CEEP process can be designed to include broad participation by property owners, the
development community, environmental groups, state and federal agency representatives,
tribes and other interested citizens.

* Broad public participation allows community values to be incorporated into resource
protection goals.
0 Scientific criteria can be established for determining when off-site mitigation is appropriate 0
and when "in-kind" mitigation is appropriate. For example, if a CEEP identifies salt water

Appendix B H-571

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

wetlands as a very high value resource, then the enhancement of a degraded salt water
wetland may, under certain conditions, be justified as mitigation for impacts to non-
associated, isolated wetlands.

e A comprehensive resource inventory allows the determination of relative resource values.
This is necessary for establishing the currency proscribed in the mitigation barWs
memorandum of agreement (MOA)and insuring that bank transactions result in a net
environmental benefit in terms of resource quantity (area) and quality (value and function).

0 CEEPs can meet a range of community objectives. For example a comprehensive
wetlands protection plan can protect rare plants, provide open space along a regioWs
major streams, provide for water quality improvements, reduce the risk of flooding, meet
state and federal wetland protection requirements and provide for economic development.

* Provides opportunities for multiple uses of the bank which can increase funding
opportunities.

* Priorities for Shorelines of State-wide Significance emphasizes a regional approach.

EXAWLE: WEST EUGENE WETLANDSPLAN

The West Eugene Wetlands Plan (1992), prepared by the City of Eugene, Oregon is one
example of the CEEP process. Eugene, Oregon is located in Lane County at the southerly
end of the Willamette Valley. Eugene is the second largest city in Oregon with a population
of 200,000, people. The West Eugene Wetlands Study and resultant Wetlands Plan (Plan)
were undertaken when significant wetlands were discovered in Eugene's primary industrial
development area. An extensive community participation process allowed the community to
be involved during the scientific study and formulation of the Plan.

Inventories of habitat value, wetland boundaries and wetlands functions and values were
conducted. It was determined that there were wetlands of greater and -lesser value. The Plan
recommended development of the lower value wetlands but because the loss of these lower
value wetlands must be mitigated, the Plan proposed the creation of a system of restored and
enhanced wetlands ("mitigation bank") to compensate for the loss of the lower value
wetlands. The Plan approaches mitigation in a comprehensive manner where resulting efforts
satisfy federal and state wetland law and achieve other community needs and objectives such
as providing additional flood control storage, water quality enhancement features, improved
wildlife habitat and educational and recreational needs. Figure B-2 illustrates a comprehensive
f
approach to resource management where wetlands within a drainage basin are identified or
protection, development, or enhancement prior to development impacts.

The Plan utilizes the wetland mitigation bank concept as the primary means for implementing
the mitigation program. With this approach, mitigation efforts are planned as a whole where

Appendix B H-572

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

the most suitable sites are identified, acquired and restored in advance of wetland impact.
This concept benefits the natural resource system by comprehensively planning restoration
efforts while also benefiting the development community by providing greater certainty in the
development process. The bank system performs the mitigation requirements for individual
users where the details of compensation are preplanned, constructed and maintained by a
public or private nonprofit agency.

To satisfy individual impact requirements, users purchase mitigation credits from the bank,
thus eliminating uncertainty and saving valuable time and resources.

Because the bank is planned and. developed as a whole, the details of mitigation can be
incorporated into the existing environment, resulting in a more logical and natural system.
The bank is proposed to have sufficient capacity to serve the mitigation needs of the West
Eugene Wetland Study Area and the community as a whole.

EXAWLE: CITY OF RiENToN MITIGATION BANK

The City of Renton is currently undertaking a mitigation banking program that, although much
less comprehensive than the West Eugene example is based on a resource planning approach.

As part of requirements under the GMA, the City of Renton prepared a critical areas
inventory. The results of the wetland portion of the inventory concluded that the City had
basically three types of wetlands: (1) very high quality wetlands and (2) medium high quality
wetlands and (3) very low quality wetlands. This three category system is different from the
usual four categories identified by many jurisdictions. The largest percent of wetlands were
very low quality wetlands, with the second most frequent wetland occurrence that of high
quality wetlands. In addition, the very low quality and the very high quality wetlands were
both generally located in the Green River Valley.

The Valley had been historically a rich farming plain with existing wetlands. However, in
1979, before the value of wetlands was recognized, The City had allowed some 800 acres of
land to be filled. The fill was imported, impermeable glacial till. If the filled parcels remained
vacant, rainwater collected producing perched wetlands, the lower quality wetlands. These
wetlands, scattered across the filled areas, fit the COE definition of wetlands. In addition in
the same area, some large historic wetlands remain, having not been filled. These are high
quality wetlands with great habitat values, important flood storage value to the City and
aquifer recharge importance, as well as other wetland functions. Scientific evidence indicates
that if the glacial till were removed in the Valley area, that historical wetlands could
reestablish themselves in these excavated areas. The historical seedbed is still present, the
original hydrology is present and hydric soils are still there.

In development terms, the presence of the perched wetlands on the filled parcels substantially
reduces the development potential of the parcels, even though full infrastructure is availabl
service these parcels.

Appendix B H-573

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Figure B-2 Conceptual Comprehensive Wetlands Management Plan.

---- --------- -------------------------------------------------------------------

A-- 0
Stud Area boundary
:----------------------------------y---------------------------------------------------

A-1 -k-
-k- A-- -.k- --k-
North Oranch 5pur
-k- A-- -k- A-- -k- -k-
-k- A::- A-1 AL -k- A-1 --k- -k- --L
-NL A-- -i-l A--
k -+-- -k-
-A-
-4- -4:L A-

77
North Fork Titan Creek
f3oq Road

Titan
Creek

Maroh Road

------------- Titan Creek Basin
Wetland Recommendations

----------------------------- ---------------

Protected

Developed

Enhanced
Upland mitigation sites

----------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------

Appendix B H-574

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

The city held focus group meetings with property owners, wetland regulators, environmental
groups and citizens. A strong consensus emerged from the property owners to fill the smaller
wetlands up to the then COE regulation of one acre per site. Regulators, environmental
groups and citizens believed that re-establishment of historical wetlands could work, however,
they wanted full protection through successful completion, i.e. smaller wetlands could be filled
if the assurance of success would be present for the re-establishment of historic wetlands.

The City then wrote its wetlands ordinance setting up the frame work for the bank. The
SEPA mitigation priority sequencing was written into the ordinance, i.e. avoidance,
minin-dzation, etc. had to be, considered first before a banking situation could be tried. Ratio
replacement, monitoring and re-establishment plans were required in the ordinance for any
banking situation. All properties had to be within the same drainage basin.

Crucial to the development of the bank was finding a suitable piece of property to use as the
bank site. Enter Glacier Park Company, mandated by its parent company to liquidate its land
holdings in the Valley. Two of their properties had existing high quality wetlands adjacent to
generous areas of fill which could be removed to reestablish new wetlands. Other parcels
were restricted by low quality wetlands leaving little industrially developable land. Glacier
Park donated the two large parcels to the City. In exchange, the City agreed to issue Glacier
Park permits to fill up to one acre of low quality wetlands on each of their six remaining
parcels. The City also assumed the obligation of mitigating the impacts to the six acres. of
wetlands likely to be filled after these properties sold.

Basically, the City came to the following agreement with GPC:

1. GPC would donate to the City parcels with partially filled and not filled wetlands in
exchange for the right to fill five acres of wetlands on six other properties.

2. A total of 56 acres was donated,. encompassing 26-30 wetlands. The donated land is
essentially the Mitigation BanWs first "deposit". The City will allow other property
owners within a specified area to use the Mitigation Bank to offset the fill of wetlands.

3. The City may require other property owners which use the Mitigation Bank to pay the
City a specified amount of money. The City will own and operate the bank. The
mitigation banking plan is currently in draft form. An engineering/planting plan for re-
establishment of the wetlands is also being developed.

The City Council approved the acquisition of the site and the mitigation bank concept, and
executed a wetlands mitigation banking agreement with Glacier Park on May 18, 1992.
T eC ouncil's decision to acquire the site was the most critical step in the implementation
of this progressive approach to wetland mitigation.

Appendix B H-575

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Funding for the mitigation plan was another crucial ingredient in establishing a successful
wetlands mitigation bank program. The City's Storm Water Utility allocated funds to finance
a wetland restoration plan for the site, based on estimated savings from beneficial flood
storage functions performed by potential future wetlands. Since the inception of the mitigation

banking concept in April 1991, the City has acquired property for the bank, assembled an
interdepartmental team to manage the creation of a mitigation plan, and will hire a consultant
to draft the wetland restoration plan and banking system, (debits, credits and management of
accounts.) The estimated date of completion for the wetland restoration plan, which includes
a site analysis, conceptual master plan, and monitoring and maintenance plan, is August 1,
1993 with start up of the mitigation program to follow. The City intends to operate, maintain
mo tor the mitigation site in perpetuity. The mitigation banking plan is currently in draft
form.

A brief discussion of some key areas in the mitigation bank planning process follow.

Establishing the Planning Area
Ideally, the planning area should be based on natural systems considerations rather than
jurisdictional boundaries. Setting study area boundaries to watershed boundaries, for
example, may make the most sense. A regional CEEP also might provide an excellent
opportunity forinter jurisdictional cooperation. It is important to note that the
implementation of off-site mitigation is not a foregone conclusion. Indeed, the plan may
conclude that mitigation banking is appropriate in very limited portions of the study area, only
or not at all.

Site Identification/Selection
Site identification and selection begin with establishment of selection criteria. Because
banking programs often seek to balance economic growth with natural resource protection,
selection criteria are best determined by a cooperative review team comprised of agencies,
developers, conservation groups, property owners and others. Examples of selection criteria
include: (1) regional environmental resource loss trends; (2) predicted rates of loss; (3)
regional goals for restoration or preservation of various environment types; and (4) habitat
diversity and creation or enhancement of habitat for desirable species. However, perhaps the
most important factors influencing site identification and selection are the program goals and
objectives. For example, if a goal is to establish more estuarine habitat, then the site selection
process will be directed by that intent.

Selecting mitigation bank sites requires an analysis of the types, distribution and values of
shoreline resources within the region considering bank program implementation. This analysis
is conducted in stages. First, a thorough resource inventory must be performed so that all

Appendix B H-576

SNW Handbook - 1994 Edition

resources are identified. In some cases this will have been accomplished as part of
Washington State Growth Management Act compliance. This is important not only to locate
candidate banking sites, but also to evaluate the number, type and total area of shoreline
resources existing in the study area to which alterations may be permitted in the future.
Without this information, the necessary size of the banking site cannot be established.

Inventory data are used to determine the types of resources which may be created at a
mitigation bank site. This information accomplishes two purposes by identifying environments
to which alterations may be allowed in the future, and by identifying potential banking sites.
Highly rated environments are not candidates for alteration, and therefore are not
incorporated into mitigation banks. This is because the risk of degradation to highly rated
environments or shorelines from bank construction and other disturbances is too great. Low
value shoreline resources, however, are the most likely environments to which alterations may
be permitted. Because the risk to low rated shorelines-from construction is proportionally
low, these areas may also be good candidates for banking sites. In any event, the "credit"
given to the compensatory effort must be a function of the bank!s environmental qualities after
enhancement minus the site's environmental qualities prior to enhancement.

After the resource inventory is completed and resource ratings for shoreline projects are
assigned, potential banking sites are identified. Site identification is constrained by availability
of areas possessing the required characteristics that will support the desired environment.
Shoreline resources, including wetlands, occur in specific geographic positions on the
landscape such as river deltas, bay shorelines, lake shores and coastal areas and are part of a
continuum of ecosystems which are in dynamic equilibrium. Shorelines are important
transitional zones between aquatic and upland habitat types. As such, they cannot be created
everywhere; their existence depends on a multitude of specific land form, hydrologic and
ecological processes. Hence sites are limited to areas that possess specific physical, chemical
and biological characteristics.

Specific site identification and selection recommendations are as follows:

1. Environmental resource inventories, including field verification and assigning ratings to
all shoreline resources, should be performed.

2. Low-value resource areas should be identified.

3. High quality shoreline resources should neither be used for banking sites nor for
development sites.

4. The ideal banking site would restore a shoreline resource to historic natural conditions.

5. Preference should be placed on selecting sites that will support an environment which
is functionally equivalent to the environment likely to be impacted by development.

6. Regional differences within Washington State should be recognized. At a minimum,
the state could be divided into eastern and western washington. Differences should
also be recognized between marine, river and lake shorelines.

Appendix B H-577

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Implementation- Strategy
The proposed batiles adn-@istrative framework is best conceived in parallel with the physical
planning work, since the scientific regulatory and procedural issues are so intertwined. The
conceptual implementation strategy developed at this point should identify:

I . The participants and their role in the banking process;

2. Under what conditions the bank may be used;

3. The regulatory procedures required by the resource agencies;

4. The system of currency for bank operation;

5. Method of financing construction and evaluation; and

6. Provisions for long-term maintenance.

These issues are best addressed through a committee which includes members of the
interested public, resource agencies, local governments, affected Native American Tribes and
project proponent. Dedicated technical staff will most likely be needed to organie the
committee and provide information and support.

An example of such a process is provided by the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) proposal for a mitigation program.

WSDOT is currently pursuing a program in which compensatory mitigation banks can be
established prior to wetland impacts associated with road improvements.. Because WSDOT's
project programming is so far in the future, there is time to establish a bank prior to applying
for the necessary permits. The process that WSDOT has begun emphasizes coordination
between regulatory agencies and setting up the administrative process and regulatory
procedures for establishing the banks. Rob Tiedeman was the consultant assisting the
department. Several two day retreats were. held to set up a framework agreement between all
participants, including the State Departments of Ecology, Wildlife and Fisheries, EPA, and
other federal agencies. An Oversight Committee (Committee) consisting of key agency
representatives was established that will govern the bank operations. A draft Memorandum of
agreement has been prepared and is currently in review. Key elements of the draft MOA
include:

I . The SEPA mitigation priority sequencing is still in place. That is (1) Avoidance, (2)
Minimization, etc.

2. Relationship of Authorities to the agreement. Regulatory agencies retain autonomy for
their review process.

3. Responsibilities of the Oversight Committee. The Committee will govern the bank.

4. Criteria for bank site selection.

Appendix B H-578

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

5. System of currency, credits and debits. The value of the resource is a function of area
using the Ecology wetland rating system..

6. Monitoring protocol.

7. Resource maintenance.

Public participation W`111 be done on a case by case basis with the local communities.

Memorandum of Agreement
The purpose of the implementation strategy is a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Below
are outlined some of the key elements in an MOA.

MOAs are legally binding agreements, usually between agencies with regulatory and/or vested
interests (for example, the Washington Departments of Ecology, Wildlife, and Fisheries).
These documents specify the roles, duties and responsibilities of each of the parties and often
include:

I . Specific criteria for use, such as determination that the projects re design, on-site
mitigation and other off-site mitigation alternatives are inappropriate or unfeasible-,

2. Inclusion of, or reference to, comprehensive regional plans and/or other planning
documents with similar and related goal objectives;

8 L U E R VF-P,

Memorandum of Agreement

What - we the criteria for use of the mitigation
bank? What am the responsibilities of earit
team member? What types of projects are eligible?
Who - will operate the banX review procedures,
and insure long-term maintenance?
When - will developments be permitted to use
M the bmW
Where - will the, bank site be locawd? Where
will development sites be permitted?

How - will decisions be made and bank credits
calculated? How will the bank be monitored
and maintained?

The Memorandum of Agreement outlining bank operating procedures is the cornerstone of any
mitigation bank.

Appendix B H-579

SAP Handbook - 1994 Edition

3. Definition of the obligations and responsibilities of the participants;

4. Establishment of an interagency bank overview team;

5. Definition of the decision making and conflict resolution processes;

6. Identification of who will hold the title or other legal agreement for bank land(s);

7. Geographic limits of sites eligible to use the bank;

8. Establishment of the size of the bank;

9. Identification of the standardized methodology to be used in evaluating credits and
debits (as well as the accounting process);

10. Specification of the resource types that are eligible to be offset by the bank; and

11. Establishment of monitoring and evaluation procedures for mitigation projects and any
related adjustments in bank management or credits.

Mitigation Bank Operator
The mitigation bank operator is the legal entity established to develop the mitigation bank
program and to create and maintain environmental resources at the mitigation bank site. The
bank operator is responsible for the day-to-day management of the bank site as well as the
long-term integrity of the resource. The operator's duties include monitoring the biological,
chemical and physical conditions of the created resource, and summarizing the results in
reports to be reviewed by resource agencies, environmental groups and development
associations. If the bank operator is an agency, it may also be the operatoes responsibility to
issue permits to allow resource alterations for which compensation will be Made within the
banking system.

Nfitigation bank operators are responsibile for maintaining bank resources in perpetuity. The
mitigation banking study makes the following recommendations regarding the selection of a
mitigation bank operator.

1. A coalition of regulatory agencies and local governments can be the bank operator.
Local governments may act as the lead agency, and provide regular maintenance and
monitoring; state and/or federal agencies should be used in a supervisory and review
capacity.

2. MOAs should be used to specify responsibilities of each member of the bank operator
coalition.

3. Environmental groups should become involved. Qualified members could be trained
to perform monitoring and maintenance in the created habitat. Without direct
environmental group involvement,, there cannot be sufficient influence to balance that

Appendix B H-580

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

of the development community, however volunteers are not a substitute for
government and agency act-ions.

Establishment and Use of Credits and Currency
Compensatory mitigation banking somewhat resembles a conventional bank account. The
following description of the establishment and use of mitigation banking credits is excerpted
from a 1988 US. Fish and Wildlife Service Report (#88(41)) by C. Short.

A developer undertakes measures to create, restore, orpreservefish and wildlife
habitat in advance of an anticipated needfor mitigation for projected construction
impacts. Ae benefits attributable to these measures are quantified, and the
developer receives mitigation creditsfrom the appropriate regulatory andlor
planning agencies. 7hese credits are placed in a mitigation bank accountfrom
which withdrawals can be made. When the developer proposes a project involving
unavoidable losses offish and wildlife resources, the losses (debits) are quantified
using the same method that was used to detennine credits, and a withdrawal equal
to that amount is deducted (creditedfrom the bank). This can be repeated as long
as mitigation credits remain available in the bank.

Entities besides developers could sponsor mitigation banks. Expanding public facilities
(schools, treatment plants, roadways, pipelines, etc.) also may impact shorelines. In these
instances, agencies such as public works and transportation departments may wish to create
mitigation banks.

Mitigation credits are the "currency" of a banking program. The mitigation banking study
recommends the following points regarding the use of mitigation banking credits.

1 . Credit allotment should be based on specific resource functional values or an
established resource criteria.

2. A standard environmental evaluation technique, should be used to assess resource
functional values.

3. Wherever feasible, shoreline functional values should be quantified. While some other
shoreline functions are difficult to quantify, others such as water quality and wildlife
usage can be measured.

4. Mi tigation fee banking should be considered only if large sums of money can be
committed at the outset of the program and only if some means can be established of
ensuring that money will continue to be available for the life of the bank site.

Criteria for Use
Mitigation banking programs are designed to compensate for permitted resource losses in
those instances when on-site mitigation is either unfeasible or undesirable from an
environmental resources perspective. Shorelines or wetlands which may be altered as part of

Appendix B H-581

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

a mitigation banking program are often identified prior to the creation of the bank site
(although the alterations are not permitted until well after the bank site has been created,
restored or enhanced and proven successful). The mitigation banking study summarizes the
criteria which are used for determining which areas may be considered for inclusion'in a
mitigation banking system.

Criteria for use determines which shorelines or wetlands may be altered and subsequently
compensated for at the mitigation banking site. The study makes the following
recommendations regarding establishing criteria for use.

I . Only projects that have unavoidable and necessary impacts should be considered for
incorporation in a banking program.

2. Only projects which meet all regulatory requirements.should be considered for
incorporation in a banking program.

3. All feasible and ecologically sensible means of on-site compensation must be explored
before incorporation into a banking system is considered.

4. Eligible development sites should be comprised of the same habitat type(s) as the bank
site, so that compensation will be accomplished in-kind.

5. Eligible development sites should be in the vicinity of the compensation site. Ideally,
the candidate environments and the bank site should be located in the same drainage
basin, especially if water quantity and quality issues are of primary importance.

6. If habitat availability is the primary concern, then the candidate sites should be near
enough to the bank site so that wildlife can become established at the bank site, but far
enough away so that development activities do not adversely impact the bank site.

7. Candidate development sites should be small, isolated and preferably degraded (hence,
of low value) to such a degree that permitting alterations to the shoreline or wetland in
It exchange" for one large, high value environment is ecologically desirable.

Long-term Management
A mitigation bank operator is responsible for the short-term management of a banking
program, from creating the banking program to constructing the compensation site, issuing
credits and maintenance and monitoring of the site until all credits have been issued.

Once all credits have been issued, ongoing mitigation banking activities include monitoring,
maintenance and remedial actions. Without these measures, compensatory mitigation may be
only temporary and thus ineffective.

The long-term mitigation bank manager may either be the original bank operator or a public
agency, port district or conservation group, but the bank must be preserved as part of the
public trust.

Appendix B H-582

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

One advantage of retaining the original bank operator as the long-term manager is that the
original operator would be familiar with the bank site and its history (including any problems
which have occurred). The funding mechanism, monitoring and maintenance protocol and
procedures for reporting to regulatory agencies will be well established by the time all
mitigation credits are issued. A disadvantage of retaining the original bank operator for public
agencies may be the inability of the program to absorb unexpected cost increases.

It may be advantageous for an environmental group to become the long-term manager
because much of the labor is performed on a volunteer basis, so incremental increases in costs
will not limit their activities as much as it would an agency. However, volunteers can lose
interest and there may be no mechanism to guarantee their long-term involvement.

When the long-term manager is a public agency, there may be a greater public cost if the
expenses for bank operation increase beyond those levels which are calculated when the
credits were issued. When the long-term manager is an environmental group, then unexpected
public expenses are not as likely to be incurred. This is partly because most environmental
groups have considerably lower operating costs than do public agencies. In addition,
entrusting long-term management to conservation groups results in a greater perceived and
realized involvement for the environmental community. This is important, especially in areas
where environmental groups oppose the implementation of mitigation banking programs.

In order to provide regulatory compliance during that period in which mitigation credits are
being issued, and to provide for the long-term ecological succ'ess of the bank site, the short-
term operator team could include representatives of the conservation group to which long-
term management will be entrusted. Thus continuity in monitoring, maintenance and remedial
action will be preserved in perpetuity.

A mitigation bank must have a legal means to protect the resource.

Appendix B H-583

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Long-term management of mitigation banks begins when all mitigation credits have been
issued and long term preservation procedures approved. Long-term management activities
center on monitoring, maintenance and remedial actions. The following recommendations are
,made for long-term mitigation bank operation.

L. Both public agencies and conservation groups or land trusts should be involved with
mitigation bank management.

2. Public agency involvement should decrease after all mitigation credits are issued, but
agencies should always be responsible for overseeing regulatory compliance.

3. Conservation group involvement should increase as the banking program enters the
long-term management phase. Monitoring, maintenance and remedial actions should
be their responsibility from the outset of the program.

Bank Permitting and Design
Once a site has been selected and the basic administrative procedures and organization
outlined in an implementation 'strategy, work can begin on the bank site's design and
permitting. The Biringer Berry Farm proposal provides a local example of this process.

ExAmPLE: BHUNGER BERRY FARm

The firm of Biringer and Ebert has developed a plan to create a 363 acre intertidal salt marsh
and associated wetlands in the City of Everett. The firm has engaged Reid Middleton and
Pentec; Environmental to provide potential cost effective site designs to revert the property
back to a tidally influenced wetland. Upon obtaining permits, the firm's objective is to market
land to area developers in need of quality off-site mitigation for wetlands displaced or altered
by their developments. The entire site could also be transferred to a public or private entity.
The project has already received a DNS and a Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional
Use Permit from the Snohomish County Planning Department.

The Biringer Farm is located on the northern portion of Spencer Island in the lower
Snohomish River Delta. The site is east of Interstate 5, bordered by Union Slough to the
south and Steamboat Slough to the north and west. The site has been used as agricultural
land for the past 20 years or more, is considered to be prior converted corpland, and produces
crops that include strawberries, vegetables, seeds, and trees. Features of the site include 350
acres of privately owned diked farmland, 2.5 acres of waterfront on Steamboat Union
Sloughs, and proximity to adjacent county and state owned wetlands and marshes.

The proposal compliments recommendations made in the Snohomish River Wetlands
Management Plan and the Snohomish County Public Worles Comprehensive Flood Control
Management Plan (1990). Figure B-3 illustrates the project site.

Appcndix B H-584

SMP Handbook - 1994 Edition

ld$@'@.. psed
w 01- ", ,
-iY
ec irAiqqkit
41,; ft
29@
COY mwa 4 tate
4M,,r

WIce Peek Wet

3.3 -:@, ----------
32
34

140 it
h Eibejr@,,
9 1

- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -

7
_PreteCt e-,"
;Z7 - - ..., V
-,Z-i 41@1 I @k,
6 5 3
North S K:
ir(@R, I't ii Id@
Witf*d ut 1,

0
(@J

ncer
"T
j

. ..... . ............... ..... IsImd'
qtt@r
R E:T T..

0.
WA,
Ndrthweii E*q!'@-

South@Spencmr

BIRI
363,,,AcreS
Restora

SC*
)NO to

Figure B-3. The Biringer Berry Farm is a proposal to revert approximately 365 acres of existing
farmland to its former habitat as an intertidal wetland. The proposal compliments recommendations
made in the Snohomish River Wetlands Management Plan and the Snohomish County Public Work's
Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan (1990). Graphic prepared by Pentec: Environmental
beT.

and Reid Middleton and provided courtesy of Biringer and Ebert.

Appendix B H-585

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Financing
Procuring funds to establish a mitigation bank is one of the most difficult hurdles in the
process. Essentially, a mitigation bank is a long-term investment and unless there are unusual
circumstances, it takes public sector funds to initiate a banking program.

Financing options for wetlands restoration programs were examined in two publications:
Review of Wetland Restoration Programs and Financing State Wetlands Programs, prepared
by Apogee Research, Inc. for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources Ft.
Belvoir, Virginia. Though these programs are focused on wetlands, not necessarily shoreline
resources or mitigation banking per se, the publications offer some useful information
regarding resource protection program financing.

The first publication identified sixty-eight programs that conduct or facilitate wetland
restoration or creation and explores the potential to link the implementation of these programs
to compensatory mitigation as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The
second publication is organized to provide information on what states are doing to protect
wetlands, how to pay for these activities using alternative financing mechanisms, and how to
evaluate which alternative financing mechanisms are appropriate.

Non regulatory programs play a significant role in state wetlands protection by promoting
public and private stewardship to protect and manage wetlands resources. Non regulatory
programs include acquisition programs, public land management and government programs
providing incentives or technical assistance for private land management to promote wetlands
functions. Acquisition programs include: fee simple acquisition, easements, acquisition by
private, non-profit organizations (Nature Conservancy, The Trust for Public Lands), private
land management and government programs promoting private land management for example
tax advantages or subsidies offering incentives. The Washington State Ecosystems
Conservation Program provides cost-share funding and technical assistance to landowners for
upland wildlife restoration and wetland, riparian and endangered species habitat restorations;
other federal and state agencies and landowners are partners contributing funds or in-kind
services. The program is funded by allocations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
through annual appropriations to wildlife refuges.

Alternative financing mechanisms include: fees, taxes, waterfowl or habitat stamps, "sin"
taxes, fines and penalties, bonds, lottery revenues, voluntary contributions, income tax
checkoffs and matching funds.

Michigan, new jersey, Oregon, Maine, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Louisiana all have permit
application fees related to development activities affecting aquatic resources. Permit
application fees typically cover the cost of regulating the resource but do not generate funds
for purchase, creation, restoration or enhancement activities.

In New Jersey, if off-site mitigation options are not feasible, the permittee must make a
monetary donation to the Wetland Mitigation Bank created by New Jersey's 1987 Freshwater
Wetlands Protection Act.

Appcndix B H-586

SN7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

Tennessee maintains a dedicated fund for the acquisition of wetlands and bottornland
hardwood forests financed through a portion of the state's property transfer tax which is
deposited in the Wetlands Acquisition Fund.

State and federal grants will be another source of funds for mitigation banks. As the concept
of mitigation banking becomes more widely accepted such projects may become eligible for a
variety of state and federal grants. For example, the recently introduced Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) identifies mitigation banks as projects eligible for
funding. The EPA and the Department of the Interior funded some of the upfront cost of
wetlands purchase as part of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Following is a partial fist of
potential funding sources at the federal, state and local levels. Note that the following fist
does not constitute an endorsement of mitigation banking on the part of any of these
organizations.

Federal Sources

1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
a. Land and Water Conservation Fund
b. Urban Wetlands Initiative
C. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Fund
d. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Fund
2. North American Wetland Conservation Act
3. Bonneville Power Administration/Northwest Power Planning Council (for Washington
Counties adjacent to the Columbia River)
4. Community Development Block Grant Funds
5. Water Resources Conservation Fund
6. Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
7. North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
8. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Development Act
9. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

State Sources

1. Coastal Zone Management Funds
2. Flood Control Assistance Account Funds
3. Centennial Clean Water Funds
4. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC)
5. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA)

Local Sources
1. Local Improvement District
2. Systems Development Charge/Impact Fee
3. Storm-water Utility
4. Property Tax
5. Water-control district
6. Dedicated Revenue source

Appendix B H-587

SMT Handbook - 1994 Edition

EXAMPLE: TnE WEsT EuGENE WETLANDS PLAN

The West Eugene Wetlands Plan will be funded primarily by (1) securing state and federal
funds,.(2) insituting a local, city-wide stormwater utility, (3) sale of "credits" in the regional
mitigation bank, and (4) private contributions through or to nonprofit organizations or
foundations.

The City secured $3,000,000 in funding over two years through the Department of the
Interior's Land and Water Conservation Fund. The fund was established in 1964 for
conservation and outdoor recreation projects. The funds are allocated through the US Fish
and Wildlife Service initially sought a federal sponsor in the the US Fish and Wildlife Service
but the agency determined that the Plan was too "urban" to fit the agency's mission. BLM
ultimately became the Plan's federal sponsor.) (2) Oregon Senator Marc Hatfield (a senior
Senator who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee) who worked on obtaining funding
for the project for several years and (3) a local coalition which included the City, the County,
The Nature Conservancy, BLM, COE, and the Division of State Lands. The coalition makes
a showing in Washington D.C. annually to report progress on local activities and to lobby for
funding. The local coalition, which involved all interested parties early in the process, was a
big selling point for the plan. The City also retains full time lobbyists in Washington D. C
(Bjorklund, personal communication, 7/19/93).

An effective support building tool for the West Eugene plan was taking people, including local
elected officials, interest groups, environmental groups, chamber of commerce, legislators,
state and federal agency people, and congressional delegates on tours of the City's most
valuable wetlands sites. The tours were led by people who knew the sites and their values
we , and the political factors that were most important to the project (Bjorklund, personal
communication, 7/19/93).

Shoreline Master Program Tools
For jurisdictions anticipating the development of an environmental mitigation banking
program, Shoreline Master Program regulations can be a useful tool. Each of the elements
identified in the 1991 Mitigation Banking Study, has an implication for shoreline management
and the Master Program can provide policy and/or regulatory direction for their
implementation. In some cases, such as the comprehensive inventory and location of bank
sites, the SNIP amendment process will include important planning information or a shoreline
use perspective. The following are suggestions for ways in which SNT regulations can direct
formulation of each of the mitigation banking program elements. Suggested environmental
mitigation banking provisions are presented at the end of this chapter. The provisions may be
included under a "Environmental Mitigation Banking" subheading under the "Environmental
Impacts" section of an SMP's General Provisions.

Appendix B H-588

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Program Goals and Objectives
SMP provisions for mitigation banking should, at a minimum further the goals recommended
by the 1991 mitigation banking study plus any others developed by the local advisory
committee. This will serve notice that the banking program is not established merely to aid
developers.

Site Identification and Selection
The comprehensive planning effort involved in an SMP amendment wiH help in identifying
potential mitigation bank sites as well as potential shorelines areas where banking credits may
be appropriate. An SMP may identify where a bank may be located by either designating a
specific site or by identifying environment designations where a bank may be appropriate.
SMP policies and regulations should also include performance criteria that help in evaluating
bank sites.

Bank Operator
The SUP should call for the designation of a bank operator and require that a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) be signed by involved parties and approved by the Department of
Ecology. It may be advisable to permit the establishment of a mitigation banking program
with a designated site as a conditional use only. Since it is critical that the bank be developed
and its value demonstrated prior to any credits being issued, and since the Department of
Ecology will be involved in any permits granted through the banking program, the Department
should be included in any MOA.

Establishment and Use of Credits and Currency
Determining the method of credit allocation and impact evaluation is a complex technical
issue. It will be advantageous to allow flexibility in determining the credit system unless a
specific study is undertaken prior to the SMP amendment. The suggested language includes
some non-specific policies for credit systems.

Criteria for Use
SMP provisions should set general policy guidelines and, in some cases, regulatory standards
for the use of bank credits in development projects. Since determining whether or not
banking credits are appropriate in mitigating a development project, it may be advisable to
require that all projects involving the use of mitigation bank credits obtain a "conditional use"
permit. In this way the Department of Ecology's technical services will be available and the
Department will be involved early in the permit evaluation.

Mitigation Options
The SMP regulations should clearly state that off-site mitigation shall be permitted only where
avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts or reducing the impacts on-site are
either unfeasible or undesirable from a natural resources perspective. Effective on-site
mitigation is preferred to off-site mitigation, even when a mitigation bank is available.

Appendix B H-589

SM7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

Long Term Management
SNIP policies and regulations should require that some mechanism for long term maintenance
of the resource and contingency measures be established. The terms of this long term
management strategy should be stated in the MOA and should be subject to Department of
Ecology approval. If possible, the SMP should identify conditions that trigger the application
of contingency measures.

Construction, Maintenance, Monitoring and Reporting
Since new techniques for these activities are constantly emerging and vary with the type of
shoreline or wetland environment, the requirements for construction and scientific work
should be stated in general terms. The suggested language for this element is placed in the
policies section to provide guidance rather than a strict regulatory standard.

Model Language for Environmental Mitigation Banking
The Department of Ecology's recommended Shoreline Master Program provisions for
environmental mitigation banking are currently evolving. These provisions represent the most
recent policies developed by the Department.

Policies
1 . Shoreline environmental mitigation banking programs should pursue the following
objectives:

a. To protect and enhance existing shoreline resources and to prevent a net loss
of shoreline resource quantity (area) and quality (functions and values);

b. To restore and/or create shoreline resources which are integral to a connected
shoreline system;

C. To insure that off-site mitigation shall be integral to a connected shoreline
system;

d. To aggregate many shoreline development projects into one compensation site;

e. To balance natural resource preservation and development interests; expediting
the shoreline permit review process;

f. To preserve bank environments in perpetuity through long-term monitoring
and management; and

9. To promote cooperation and administrati on among the various regulatory
authorities.

Appendix B H-590

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

2. All mitigation bank sites should be:

a. Of ample size, as determined by the program goals;

b. Ecologically linked with proxim al natural areas;

C. Isolated or buffered from disruptive adjacent land uses; and

d. Available for acquisition;

e. Selected on the basis of a natural resource inventory and a comprehensive
environmental enhancement plan;

f Evaluated according to set criteria developed in the program planning.

3. The procedures and administration of the mitigation banking program should be
clearly'stated in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or similar device. The
Washington State Department of Ecology and City/County should be participants in
the agreement.

4. Unless there is another overriding concern, a coalition of regulatory agencies and local
governments should be the bank operator. Local governments should act as the lead
agency, and provide regular maintenance and monitoring; state and/or federal agencies
should be used in a supervisory and review capacity.

a. MOAs should be used to specify responsibilities of each member of the bank
operator coalition.

b. Environmental groups should be involved. Consideration should be given to
training qualified members to perform bank monitoring and maintenance.

C. Funding for creating the banking program should be provided by those groups
who apply for permits to alter shoreline resources.

5. The allocation of credits should adhere to the following principles:

a. Credit allotment should be based on the net increase in specific ecological
functional values provided through creation, restoration or enhancement of the
bank site.

b. A standard environmental evaluation technique, should be used to assess
natural system functional values.

C. Wherever feasible, ecological functional values should be quantified.

Appendix B H-591

SAW Handbook - 1994 Edition

6. Bank credits should be considered only for projects which demonstrate on-site impacts
have been avoided, minimized, rectified, or reduced through design; mitigation of the
project site is unfeasible due to conflicting uses; or the project requires a shoreline
location to fulfill its purpose.

7. Both public agencies and conservation groups or land trusts should be involved with
mitigation bank management.

a. Public agency involvement should decrease after all mitigation credits are
issued, but agencies should always be responsible for overseeing regulatory
compliance.

b. Conservation group involvement should increase as the banking program
enters the long-term management phase. Monitoring, maintenance and
remedial actions should be the responsibility of a conservation group from the
outset of the program.

8. Construction and management practices should incorporate current best management
practices.

9. A plan for the regular monitoring of the bank should be established.

10. Bank reporting standards should be established which include the following:

a. A summary of the progress of the banking program to provide a means for
concerned groups other than the bank operator to assess the relative success of
the site, and to document potentially successful mitigation strategies which
others may wish to emulate. The methods and results of the monitoring
protocol should be summarized in reports which should be made available to
regulatory agencies, researchers, conservation groups, developer associations
and the general public.

11. A contingency plan should be established in the event that the bank program is not
meeting its objectives. If all success criteria are not being met, all or portions of the
contingency plan should be pursued.

Regulations
I . Environmental mitigation bank sites shall:

a. Be selected on the basis of an environmental resource inventory and
comprehensive environmental enhancement plan.

b. Be selected on the basis of objective specified criteria.

C. Not be a high value natural resource (state appropriate classification).

Appendix B H-592

SN7 Handbook - 1994 Edition

d. As much as possible, be functionally equivalent to those resources likely being
impacted by development.

e. As appropriate, recognize regional environmental management issues related to
type of resource, diversity of habitat and geographic patterns.

f Be of ample size, as determined by the program goals;

9. Be ecologically linked with proximal natural areas;

h. Be isolated or buffered from disruptive adjacent land uses.

2. The procedures, responsibilities, administration and financing of a mitigation banking
program shall be specified in a memorandum of agreement (MOA) or other legal
instrument. The MOA or other instrument must specify:

a. The name and responsibilities of the bank operator;

b. Specific criteria for use, such as determination that project re design, on-site
mitigation and other off-site mitigation options are unfeasible or undesirable
from a natural resources perspective;

C. Inclusion of, or reference to, a comprehensive environmental enhancement plan
and/or other planning documents with similar and related goal objectives;

d. Definition of the obligations and responsibilities of the participants;

e. Establishment of an interagency bank overview team;

f. Definition of the decision making and conflict resolution processes;

9. Identification of who will hold the title or other legal agreement for bank
land(s);

h. Limits of the use of the bank to a specific geographic area; establishment of the
site of the bank;

i. Identification of the standardized methodology to be used in evaluating credits
and debits (as well as the accounting process);

j. Specification of the shoreline resources that are eligible to be offset by the
bank;and

k. Establishment of monitoring and evaluation procedures for mitigation project
and any related adjustments in bank management or credits;

1. Mechanism for the long term preservation and maintenance;

Appendix B H-593

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

M. Funding and financing of the program.

n. That bank credits may be used only after bank creation has proven successful.

3. The criteria for mitigation credit allotment shall be approved by the Department of
Ecology.

4. The establishment of a designated mitigation bank site shall be approved by conditional
use only.

5. All projects utilizing mitigation banking to mitigate environmental impacts shall require
a conditional use permit.

6. Projects eligible for mitigation banking shall meet the following criteria:

a. Only projects that have unavoidable and necessary impacts should be
considered for incorporation in a banking program.

b. Only projects which meet all regulatory requirements should be considered for
incorporation in a banking program.

C. All feasible and ecologically sensible means of on-site compensation must be
explored bef6re incorporation into a banking system is considered.

d. Candidate shorelines or wetlands should perform the same or less valuable
habitat function as the bank site, so that compensation will be accomplished in-
kind.

e. The candidate wetlands or shoreline to be developed should be in the vicinity
of the compensation (bank) site or in a location that is functionally equivalent
so that the bank site can accomplish the same function as the development site.

f If habitat availability is the primary concern, then the candidate sites should be
near enough to the bank site so that wildlife can become established at the bank
site, but far enough away so that development activities do not adversely
impact the bank site.

9. Candidate environments should be small, isolated. and preferably degraded
(hence, of low value) to such a degree that permitting alterations to these
shorelines or wetlands in "exchange" for one large, high value wetland is
ecologically desirable.

Appendix B H-594

Bibliography

Apogee Research, Inc. 1993. Alternative Mechanisms for Compensatory Mitigation: Case
Studies and Lessons About Fee-Based Compensatory Mitigation. Apogee Research,
Inc. for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources Ft. B elvoir,
Virginia.

Apogee Research, Inc. 1993. Review of Wetland Restoration Programs. Apogee Research,
Inc. for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources Ft. Belvoir,
Virginia.

Apogee Research, Inc. 1990. Financing State Wetlands Programs. Apogee Research, Inc. for.
Office of Wetlands Protection U.S. Environmental Progrection Agency.

Bjorkland, Neil,, City of Eugene, Oregon, Department of Planning and Community
Development. Telephone Conversation July, 19, 1993.

Brumbaugh, R. and R. Reppert. 1992. Wetlands Mitigation Banking Demonstration Study
and Status Summary. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources.

Castelle, A.J., C.. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S..Mauerman, M.
Bentley, D. Sheldon, and D. Dole. 1992. Wetland Mitigation Replacement Ratios:
Defining Equivalency. Adolfson Associates, Inc. for Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Publ. No.
92-08.

Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, (eds.). 7 1992.
Wetland Mitigation Replacement Ratios: An Annotated Bibliography. Adolfson
Associates, Inc. for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington
State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Publ. No. 92-09.

Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, (eds.). 1992. Wetland
Buffers: An Annotated Bibliography. Adolfson Associates, Inc. for Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia, Publ. No. 92-11.

Castelle, AJ, C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, T.
Erickson, S. S. Cooke. 1992. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Adolfson
Associates, Inc. for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington
State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Publ. No. 92- 10.

Castelle, A.J., S. Luchessa, C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. metz, S. meyer, and M. Witter.
199 1. Wetland Mitigation Banking. Adolfson Associates, Inc, for Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia.

Appendix B H-595

City of Eugene, Oregon, Planning and Development Department, Planning Division. 1992.
West Eugene Wetlands Plan.

City of Roseburg, Oregon, Community Development Department. 1992. Draft Newton Creek
Wettand Conservation Plan.

Erwin, K. 199 1. An Evaluation of Wetland Mitigation in the South Florida Water
Management District Volume 1. Kevin L. Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc. for South
Florida Water Management District.

Reppert, R. 1992. Wetlands Mitigation Banking Concepts: Wetlands Mitigation Banking
Demonstration Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Support
Center Institute for Water Resources Policy and Special Studies Division. IWR
Report 92-WM[B-1.

Rylko, Michael and L. Storm. 199 1. How Much Wetland Mitigation Are We Requiring? Or is
No Net Loss a Reality? In Proceedings: Second Annual Meeting on Puget Sound
Research.

Appendix B H-596

SAO Handbook - 1994 Edition

Glossary

Accessory use - Any structure or use incidental and subordinate to a primary use or
development.

Accretion - The growth of a beach by the addition of material transported by wind and/or
water. , Included are such shoreforms as barrier beaches, points, spits, hooks and tombolos.

Act - The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter WAC 173-14-030(l)
WAC).

Adjacent lands - Lands adjacent to the shorelines of the state (outside of shoreline
jurisdiction). The SMA directs local governments to develop land use controls (i.e. zoning,
comprehensive planning) for such lands consistent with the policies of the SMA, related rules
and the local shoreline master program (see Chapter 90.58.340 RCW).

Administrator - The City/County Manager, Planning Director, Public Works Director, etc. or
his/her designee, charged with the responsibility of administering the shoreline master
program.

Agriculture - The cultivation of the soil, production of crops, and/o r raising of livestock,
including incidental preparation of these products for human use.

Alluvium - Unconsolidated fragmented material deposited by streams in river beds,
floodplains, lakes, fans at the foot of mountain slopes and estuaries.

Anadromousfish - Species, such as salmon, which are born in fresh water, spend a large part
of their lives in the sea and return to freshwater rivers and streams to procreate.

Appurtenance - A structure or development which is necessarily connected to the use and
enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water
mark and also of the perimeter of any marsh, bog, or swamp. (On a state-wide basis, normal
appurtenances include a garage, deck, driveway, utilities, fences and grading which does not
exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards [except to construct a conventional drainfield]) (see
WAC 173-14-040(lg)).

Aquaculture - The cultivation of fish, shellfish, and/or other aquatic animals or plants,
including the incidental preparation of these products for human use.

Archaeological - Having to do with the scientific study of material remains of past human life
and activities.

Glossary H-597

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Average grade level - The average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the
lot, parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed building or 0
structure; provided that in case of structures to be built over water, average grade level shall
be the elevation of ordinary high water. Calculation of the average grade level shall be made
by averaging the elevations at the center of all exterior walls of the proposed building or
structure (WAC 173-14-030(3)).

Backshore - The accretion or erosion zone, located landward of the line of ordinary high tide,
which is normally wetted only by storm tides. It may take the form of a more or less narrow
storm berm (ridge of wave heaped sand and/or gravel) under a bluff or it may constitute a
broader complex of berms, marshes, meadows, or dunes landward of the line of ordinary high
tide. It is part of the littoral drift process along its seaward boundary.

Beach - The zone of unconsolidated material that is moved by waves, wind and tidal currents,
extending landward to the coastline.

Beach enhancementlrestoration - Process of restoring a beach to a state more closely
resembling a natural beach, using beach feeding, vegetation, drift sills and other nonintrusive
means as applicable.

Beachfeeding - Process of replenishing a beach by delivery of materials dredged or excavated
elsewhere.

Beach scarp - A steep slope produced by wave erosion.

Benthic organism - Organisms that live in or on the bottom of a body of water.

Berm - A linear mound or series of mounds of sand and/or gravel generally paralleling the
water at or landward of the line of ordinary high tide. Also, a linear mound used to screen an
adjacent activity, such as a parking lot, from transn-dtting excess noise and glare.

Best available technology (BAT) - The most effective method, technique, or product available
which is generally accepted in the field, and which is demonstrated to be reliable, effective and
preferably low maintenance.

Bioassay - Bioassays are laboratory tests involving exposure of select organisms to a sampling
of material to determine the potential for acute or chronic effects from such exposure.
Bioassays are typically run on potentially contaminated materials proposed for in-water
disposal, however, testing protocols are also available to assess dredged material proposed for
upland disposal.

Biofiltration system - A storm water or other drainage treatment system that utilizes as a
primary feature the ability of plant fife to screen out and metabolize sediment and pollutants.
Typically, biofiltration systems are designed to include grassy swales, retention ponds and
other vegetative features.

Biota - The animals and plants that live in a particular location or region.

Glossary H-598

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Boathouse - A structure designed for storage of vessels located over water or in upland areas.
Boathouses should not be confused with "houseboats".

Boat launch or ramp - Graded slopes, slabs, pads, planks, or rails used for launching boats by
means of a trailer, hand, or mechanical device.

Bog - A wet, spongy, poorly drained area which is usually rich in very specialized plants,
contains a high percentage of organic remnants and residues and frequently is associated with
a spring, seepage area, or other subsurface water source. A bog sometimes represents the
final stage of the natural process of eutrophication by which lakes and other bodies of water
are very slowly transformed into land areas.

Breakwater - Offshore structure aligned parallel to shore, sometimes shore-connected, that
provides protection from waves.

Buffer area - A parcel or strip of land that is designed and designated to permanently remain
vegetated in an undisturbed and natural condition to protect an adjacent aquatic or wetland
site from upland impacts, to provide habitat for wildlife and to afford limited public access.

Bulkhead - A solid wall erected generally parallel to and near the ordinary high water mark for
the purpose of protecting adjacent uplands from waves or current action.

CERCL4 - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
("Superfand"); 1986 amendments are known as Superfand Amendments and Reauthorization
Act or SARA.

Channel - An open conduit for water either naturally or artificially created, but does not
include artificially created irrigation, return flow, or stockwatering channels (WAC 173-14-
030(8b)). See also stream.

Chord diking - A means of utilizing small dikes or berms setback from the strearnway of a
river far enough to allow for the natural meandering and side channel formation to occur
within the diked off corridor.

Clean Water Act - The primary federal law providing water pollution prevention and control;
previously known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. See 33 USC 1251 et seq.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations.

Clearing - The destruction or removal of vegetation ground cover, shrubs and trees including,
but not limited to, root material removal and/or topsoil removal.

Coastline - The line where terrestrial processes give way to marine processes, tidal currents,
wind waves, etc.

Commercialfeedlot - see Feedlot.

Glossary H-599

SMEP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Community structure - A building, dock, or other structure which is intended for the common
use of the residents of a particular subdivision or community. It is not intended to serve as a
public facility.

Cottage indust?y or business (home occupation) - A commercial or light industrial use which
is commonly conducted within a residence and/or appurtenance, which does not require the
construction of any new structures, parking areas, signs, etc. and which does not generate
significant additional traffic, noise, fumes, or glare.

Covered moorage - Boat moorage, with or without walls, that has a roof to protect the vessel.

Critical saltwater habitats - Kelp beds (members of the brown algal fan-dly Laminariales
including Alaria marginat Alaria nana, Alaria tenuifoli Egregi menziesii, Eisenia arborea,
Ptejygophora Lalifornica, A6ru @qribosum, Agaru firribriaturn, Costaria costat CyMath
triplicata, Hedophyllum. sessile Larninaria s p., Pleurophycus ggLdneri, Dimoneuro is-
p PL
reticulata, DiMoneurum. califbrnicun@ Lessioniopsis littoralis Macrocystis integrifolia.
Nereocvstis luetkeana and Postelsia plarnaeformis , eelgrass beds (Zostera spp.), surf smelt
(H u Clu ea harengus Rg.Ilasi) spawning
@Tomesus RrtfiqL-O spawning beds, Pacific herring QT
beds, Pacific sand lance (AmmodZes hexapterus) spawning beds, rock sole (Lepidopsetta
bilineata) spawning beds, rockfish (aebastes spp.) settlement and nursery areas, and lingcod
(Ophiodon tlonggtus) settlement and nursery areas.

CZWP - Coastal Zone Management Plan.

Degrade - To scale down in desirability or salability, to impair in respect to some physical
property or to reduce in structure or function.

Delta - see River Delta.

Development - A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures;
dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading;
driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature
which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters of the state subject to
Chapter 90.58 RCW at any state of water level (RCW 90.58.030(3d)).

DNS - Determination of Nonsignificance, under SEPA.

Dolphin - A cluster of piles bound together.

Downdrift - The direction of movement of beach materials.

Dredge spoil - The material removed by dredging. Same as Dredge Material.

Dredging - Excavation or displacement of the bottom or shoreline of a water body.
Dredging can be accomplished with mechanical or hydraulic machines. Most dredging is done
to maintain channel depths or berths for navigational purposes; other dredging is for shellfish
harvesting or for cleanup of polluted sediments.

Glossary H-600

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Drift sector - A particular reach of marine shore in which littoral drift may occur without
significant interruption, and which contains any and all natural sources of such drift, and also,
any accretion shoreform(s) accreted by such drift. Each normal drift sector contains these
shore process elements: feeder bluff or estuary, driftway, littoral drift and accretion
shoreform.

Drift sills - Small groins which hold sediments in place without blocking longshore drift.

Driftway - That portion of the shore process corridor, primarily that lower backshore and the
upper intertidal area, through which sand and gravel are transported by the littoral drift
process. It is the critical link between the feeder bluff and the accretion shoreform.

Dune - A hill or ridge of sand piled up by the wind and/or wave action.

EA - Environmental Assessment, under SEPANEPA.

Ecology (WDOE) - The Washington State Department of Ecology. Use of "Ecology" or
"WDOE" is preferred over "DOE" to avoid confusion with the federal Department of Energy.

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement.

Emergency - An unanticipdted and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the
environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance
with the master program. Emergency construction is construed narrowly as that which is
necessary to protect property from the elements (RCW 90.58.030(3eiii) and WAC 173-14-
040(ld)).

Enhancement - Alteration of an existing resource to improve or increase its characteristics and
processes without degrading other existing functions. Enhancements are to be distinguished
from resource creation or restoration projects.

Erosion - The wearing away of land by the action of natural forces.

Estuary - The zone or area of water in which freshwater and saltwater mingle and water is
usually brackish due to daily mixing and layering of fresh and salt water. Estuarine shores are
rich in aquatic and other bird and animal life, and in their natural condition are the most
productive of all shoreline habitats in terms of the marine food chain.

Exemption - Certain specific developments as listed in WAC 173-14-040 are exempt from the
definition of substantial developments are therefore exempt from the substantial development
permit process of the SMA. An activity that is exempt from the substantial development
provisions of the SMA must stiff be carried out in compliance with policies and standards of
the Act and the local master program. Conditional use and/or variance permits may also still
be required even though the activity does not need a substantial development permit (RCW
90.58.030(3e); WAC 173-14-030(6) and -040).

Glossary H-601

SNP Handbook - 1994 Edition

Extreme low tide - means the lowest line on the land reached by a receding tide (RCW
90.58.030(2a)).

Factory built housing - A single family residential structure constructed in a factory of factory
assembled parts and transported to the building site in whole or in units which meets the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code. The completed structure is not a
mobile/manufactured home.

Fair market value - The expected price at which the development can be sold to a willing
buyer. For developments which involve nonstructural operations such as dredging, drilling,
dumping, or filling, the fair market value is the expected cost of hiring a contractor to perform
the operation or where no such value can be calculated, the total of labor, equipment use,
transportation and other costs incurred for the duration of the permitted project (WAC 173-
14-030(7)).

FCAAP - Flood Control Assistance Account Program.

FCZMA - Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

Feeder bluff, erosional bluff - Any bluff (or cliff) experiencing periodic erosion from waves,
sliding or slumping, whose eroded earth, sand or gravel material is naturally transported
(littoral drift) via a driftway to an accretion shoreform. These natural sources of beach
material are limited and vital for the long term stability of driftways and accretion shoreforms.

Feedlot - An enclosure or facility, of any size, used or capable of being used for confinement
feeding of livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for
growing crops or pasture for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal
livestock wintering operations (RCW 90.5 8.03 0(3 eiv); WAC 173 -14-040(l e)).

Fetch length - The horizontal distance along open water over which the wind blows and
generates waves.

Floating home - A structure designed and operated substantially as a permanently based over
water residence. Floating homes are not vessels and lack adequate self-propulsion and
steering equipment to operate as a vessel. They are typically served by permanent utilities and
semipermanent anchorage/moorage facilities. See also houseboat.

Floodplain - Synonymous with 100-year floodplain. The land area susceptible to being
inundated by stream derived waters with a I percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in
any given year. The limits of this area are based on flood regulation ordinance maps or a
reasonable method that meets the objectives of the SMA (WAC 173-22-030(2)).

Floodwa
.y - Those portions of the area of a river valley lying strearnward from the outer limits
of a watercourse upon which flood waters "are carried during periods of flooding that occur
with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified,
under normal conditions, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality
of vegetative ground cover conditions. The floodway does not include lands that can

Glossary H-602

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained
by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political
subdivision of the state. The limits of the floodway are based on flood regulation ordinance
maps or by a reasonable method which meets the objectives of the SMA (RCW
90.58.030(2g); WAC 173-22-030(3)).

FONSI - Finding of No Significant Impact, under NEPA.

Foreshore - In general terms, the beach between mean higher high water and mean lower low
water.

Forestpractices - Any activity conducted on or directly related to forest land and relating to
growing, harvesting, or processing timber. These activities include but are not limited to:
road and trail construction, final and intermediate harvesting, precommercial thinning,
reforestation, fertilization, prevention and suppression of disease and insects, salvage of trees
and brush control. See WAC 222-16-010(21).

Gabions - Structures composed of masses of rocks, rubble or masonry held tightly together
usually by wire mesh so as to form blocks or walls. Sometimes used on heavy erosion areas
to retard wave action or as foundations for breakwaters or jetties.

Grading - The physical manipulation of the earth's surface and/or drainage pattern in
preparation for an intended use or activity.

Grassy Swale - A vegetated drainage channel that is designed to remove various pollutants
from storm water runoff through biofiltration.

Guidelines - Those provisions contained in Chapter 173-16 WAC entitled "Shoreline
Management Act Guidelines for Development of Master Programs". The Guidelines were
adopted 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. This state law also provides criteria to local
governments and the Washington State Department of Ecology in developing and amending
master programs.

Groin (also referred to as a spur dike or rock -weir) - A barrier-type structure extending from
the backshore or stream bank into a water body for the purpose of the protection of a
shoreline and adjacent upland by influencing the movement of water and/or deposition of
materials.

Habitat - The place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and
grows.

Height - The distance measured from the average grade level to the highest point of a
structure: Provided, That television antennas, chimneys and similar appurtenances shall not be
used in calculating height, except where it obstructs the view of a substantial number of
residences on areas adjoining such shorelines (or the master program provides otherwise):

Glossary H-603

SAW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Provided further, That temporary construction equipment is excluded in this calculation
(WAC 173-14-030(9)).

High energy riverine - This term includes river systems with dry summer/heavy winter
flowing, and excludes flash flooding rivers with extreme event channel formation.

Hook - A split or narrow cape of sand or gravel which turns landward at it's outer end.

Houseboat - A vessel, principally used as an over water residence. Houseboats are licensed
and designed for use as a mobile structure with detachable utilities or facilities, anchoring and
the presence of adequate self-propulsion and steering equipment to operate as a vessel.
Principal use as an over-water residence means occupancy in a single location, for a period
exceeding two months in any one calendar year. This definition includes liveaboard vessels.

HPA -Hydraulic Project Approval. The permit issued by the Washington State Departments
of Fisheries or Wildlife pursuant to the State Hydraulic Code Chapter 75.20.100-140 RCW.

Hydric soils - Generally, soils which are, or have had a history of being, wet long enough to
periodically produce anaerobic conditions, thereby influencing the growth of plants (WAC
173-22-030(5)).

Hydrophytes - Those plants capable of growing in water or on a substrate that is at least
periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content (WAC 173-22-030(5)). 0
In-kind replacement - To replace wetlands, biota or other organisms with substitute flora or
fauna whose characteristics closely match those destroyed, displaced or degraded by an
activity.

Interestedparty - Synonymous with "party. of record", and means all persons who have
notified local government of their desire to receive a copy of the final order on a permit under
WAC 173-14-070 (WAC 173-14-030(12)).

Intertidal - The substratum from the extreme low water of spring tides to the upper limit of
spray or influence of ocean-driven salts. It includes all land that is sometimes submerged, but
sometimes exposed to air. Source: M. N. Dethier, A Marine andEstuarine Habitat
Classocation System for Washington State 10 (Department of Natural Resources,
Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1990).

Jetty - A structure(s) usually projecting out into the sea at the mouth of a river for the purpose
of protecting a navigation channel, a harbor or to influence water currents.

Lacustrine (also lacustrian) - Of, on, or pertaining to lakes.

Lake - A body of standing water in a depression of land or expanded part of a river, including
reservoirs, of twenty (20) acres or greater in total area. A lake is bounded by the ordinary
high water mark or, where a stream enters a lake, the extension of the elevation of the lake's

Glossary H-604

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

ordinary high water mark within the stream (RCW 90.58.030(ld); WAC 173-20-030; WAC
173-22-030(4)).

Levee - A large dike or embankment, often having an access road along the top, which is
designed as part of a system to protect land from floods.

Liberal construction - A legal concept instructing parties interpreting a statute to give an
expansive meaning to termsand provisions within the statute. The goal of liberal construction
is to give full effect in implementing a statutes requirements. See RCW 90.58.900.

Littoral - Living on, or occurring on, the shore.

Littoral drift - The mud, sand, or gravel material moved parallel to the shoreline in the
nearshore zone by waves and currents.

Liveaboard vessel - See !'houseboat".

Marine travel lift - A mechanical device that can hoist vessels off trailers and transport them
into the water. Often associated with dry land moorage.

Marine railway - A set of steel rails running from the upland area into the water upon which a
cart or dolly can carry a boat to be launched.

Marshes - Soft, wet area periodically or continuously flooded to a shallow depth, usually
characterized by a particular subclass (monocotyledons) of grasses, cattails and other low
plants.

Marshes, Bogs and Swamps - Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems
where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining plant and animal communities
and soil development. Such lands must have one or more of the following attributes: a) at
least periodically, the land supports predominately hydrophytes; and/or b) the substrate is
predominately undrained hydric soil (WAC 173-22-030 (5)). See also hydrophyte, hydric soil.

Mean higher high tide (MHHT) - The arithmetic mean of the higher of two daily high tides
calculated from the most recent nineteen-year tidal cycle.

Merchantable trees - All live trees 8 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) and larger
unless documentation of current, local market conditions are submitted and accepted by the
local jurisdiction indicating nonmarketablility. "Merchantable trees" shall not include trees
smaller than 4 inches DBH.

MWen - An ancient refuse heap. Since much of what archaeologists have discovered about
the past is based on what man has lost or discarded as no longer useful, middens are a very
valuable source of material.

Mitigation - The process of avoiding, reducing, or compensating for the environmental
impact(s) of a proposal. See WAC 197-11-768.

Glossary H-605

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Mobilelmanufactured home - A residential unit on one or more chassis for towing to the point
of use and designed to be used with a foundation as a single family dwelling unit on a year
around basis. A commercial coach, recreational vehicle or motor home are not
mobile/manufactured homes.

Mooring buoy - A floating object anchored to the bottom of a water body that provides tie up
capabilities for vessels.

Mulching - The addition of organic materials (e.g. woodchips, sawdust, straw, grass clippings,
or compost, etc.) to bare soils or in planting beds.

Multi-family dwelling (or residence) - A building containing two or more dwelling units,
including but not limited to duplexes, apartments and condominiums.

Natural riparian habitat corridor - The streamside environment designed and maintained
primarily for fisheries and wildlife habitat, water quality improvements and secondarily for
flood control works, while allowing controlled public access to avoid damage to the resource.

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider
environmental factors when making decisions, especially for development proposals of a
significant scale. As part of the NEPA process, EISs are prepared and public comment is
solicited.

NFIP - National Flood Insurance Program.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Nonconforming development - A shoreline use or structure which was lawfully constructed or
established prior to the effective date of the applicable SNWSNIP provision, and which no
longer conforms to the applicable shoreline provisions (WAC 173-14-055(l)).

Normal maintenance - Those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a
lawfully established condition (WAC 173-14-040(lb)). See also normal repair.

Normalprotective bulkhead - A bulkhead, common to single-family residences, constructed at
or near the ordinary high water mark to protect an existing single-family residence, and which
sole purpose is for protecting land from erosion, not for the purpose of creating new land
(WAC 173-14-040(lc)).

Normal repair - To restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition
within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction except where repair involves total
replacement which is not common practice or causes substantial adverse effects to the
shoreline resource or environment (WAC 173-14-040(lb)). See also normal maintenance.

OCS - Outer Continental Shelf.

Glossary H-606

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Off-site replacement - To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental reources away
from the site on which a resource has been impacted by a regulated activity.

OHWM, Ordinary High Water Mark - That mark that will be found by examining the bed and
banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and
so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that
of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it
may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits
issued by a local government or the department: Provided, That in any area where the
ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water
shall be the fine of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh
water shall be the line of mean high water. See RCW 90.58.030(2)(b) and WAC 173-22-
030(6).

On-site replacement - To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental reosurces at or
adjacent to the site on which a resource has been impacted by a regulated activity.

Out-of-kind replacement - To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental resources
with substitute wetlands whose characteristics do not closely approximate those destroyed or
degraded by a regulated activity.

Oil separator - Specialized catch basins that are designed to trap oil and other materials
fighter than water in the basin while allowing the water to escape through the drainage syste m.
Commonly employed in parking lots and streets.

Perched beach - A beach or fillet of sand retained above the otherwise normal profile level by
a submerged dike or sill.

Percolation - Water seepage through spaces between sediment particles or through porous
structures.

Perforatedpipe - Plastic pipe containing an array of holes used to facilitate drainage of
otherwise impervious soils.

Periodic - Occurring at regular intervals.

Person - An individual, partnership, corporation, association, organization, cooperative,
public or municipal corporation, or agency of the state or local governmental unit however
designated (RCW 90.58.030(ld)).

Pocket beach - An accretion beach which does not depend on littoral drift accretion. It
depends on the erosion of immediately adjacent sources. In rare instances a pocket beach may
also be a berm beach.

Point - A low profile shoreline promontory of more or less triangular shape, the top of which
extends seaward. A point may be the wavecut shelf remnant of a headland bluff or a purely
accretional deposit which began as a hooked spit and became a point by subsequently closing

Glossary H-607

SNW Handbook - 1994 Edition

the lagoon gap between the headland and the tip of the hook. Points are characterized by
converging berms that normally enclose a lagoon, marsh, or meadow, depending on the point's
stage of development.

Port - Any harbor area which is largely devoted to marine commerce, shipping and cargo
handling or a special purpose unit of local government created for the purpose of managing
port related lands, facilities and activities.

Practicable alternative - An alternative that is available and capable of being carried out after
taking into consideration short-term and long-term cost, options of project scale and phasing,
existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. It may include an area
not owned by the applicant which could reasonably have been or be obtained, utilized,
expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity.

Public interest - The interest shared by the citizens of the state or community at large in the
affairs of government, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected such as
an effect on public property or on health, safety, or general welfare resulting from a use or
development (WAC 173-14-030(14)).

RCW- Revised Code of Washington.

Recreational vehicle - A vehicle licensed, designed and operated for recreational purposes as
temporary living quarters, which has a means of self-propulsion or is readily towable by a car
or pickup truck, and is not used as a residence in any one location for extended periods of
time (i.e. more than three months).

Residential development - Development which is primarily devoted to or designed for use as a
dwelling(s).

Restoration - To revitalize or reestablish characteristics and processes of a wetland or habitat
diminished or lost by past alterations, activities, or catastrophic events.

Reveiment - Facing of stone, concrete, etc., built to protect a scarp, embankment, or shore
structure against erosion by waves of currents.

Riparian - Of, on, or pertaining to the banks of a river.

Riparian management zone - A specified area alongside a shoreline where specific measures
are set out in the Forest Practice Regulations to protect water quality and fish and wildli&
habitat. The zone is a minimum of 25 feet wide, measured horizontally from the ordinary high
water mark, and can be up to 100 feet wide depending on the width of the stream and the
width of the wetland vegetation adjacent to the stream (see WAC 222-30).

Riprap - A layer, facing, or protective mound of stones placed to prevent erosion, scour, or
sloughing of a structure or embankment; also, the stone so used.

Glossary H-608

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

River delta - Those lands formed as an aggredational feature by stratified clay, silt, sand and
gravel deposited at the mouths of streams where they enter a quieter body of water. The
upstream extent of a river delta is that limit where it no longer forms distributary channels
(WAC 173-22-030(7)).

Runoff - Water that is not absorbed into the soil but rather flows along the ground surface
following the topography.

Salmon and Steelhead Habitats - Gravel bottomed streams, creeks, and rivers used for
spawning; streams, creeks, rivers, side channels, ponds, lakes, and wetlands used for rearing,
feeding, and cover and refuge from predators and high water; streams, creeks, rivers,
estuaries, and shallow areas of saltwater bodies used as migration corridors; and salt water
bodies used for rearing, feeding, and refuge from predators and currents.

Salt tolerant vegetation - Vegetationwhich is tolerant of interstitial soil salinities greater than
or equal to 0.5 parts per thousand.

Scarification - Loosening the topsoil and/or disrupting the forest floor in preparation for
regeneration.

Seawall - A structure separating land and water areas primarily to prevent erosion and other
damage by wave action. Generally more massive and capable of resisting greater wave forces
than a bulkhead.

Seaward - To or toward the sea.

Sediment - The fine grained material deposited by water or wind.

Selective timber cutting - Removing individual trees scattered throughout the subject area.
The unharvested trees should be as evenly distributed as possible throughout the shoreline
area and should be representative of the species and size classes of the preharvest stand.

SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) - SEPA requires state agencies, local governments
and other lead agencies to consider environmental factors when making most types of permit
decisions, especially for development proposals of a significant scale. As part of the SEPA
process, EISs may be required to be prepared and public comments solicited.

Setback - A required open space,specified in shoreline master programs, measured
horizontally upland from and perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark.

Shoreline environment designations - The categories of shorelines established by local
shoreline master programs in order to provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use
regulations within distinctively different shoreline areas. The basic recommended system
classifies shorelines into four distinct environments (natural, conservancy, rural and urban).
See WAC 173-16-040(4),

Glossary H-609

SNY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shorelinejurisdiction - The term describing all of the geographic areas covered by the SMA,
related rules and the applicable master program. Also, such areas within a specified local
government's authority under the SMA. See definitions of "shorelines", "shorelines of the
state", "shorelines of state-wide significance" and "wetlands, jurisdictional".

Shoreline Master Program (SW) - The comprehensive use plan and related use regulations
which are used by local governments to administer and enforce the permit system for shoreline
management. Master programs must be developed in accordance with the policies of the
SMA, be approved and adopted by the state, and be consistent with the rules (WACs)
adopted by Ecology.

Shoreline permit - A substantial development, conditional use, revision, or variance permit or
any combination thereof (WAC 173-14-030(13)).

Shorelines - All of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs and their associated
uplands, together with the lands underlying them, except those areas excluded under RCW
90.58.030(2)(d). See RCW 90.58.030 (2)(d) and WAC 173-18, 173-19 and 173-22.

Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) - A six member quasi-judicial body, created by the SMA,
which hears appeals by any aggrieved party on the issuance of a shoreline permit, enforcement
penalty and appeals by local government on Ecology approval of master programs, rules,
regulations, guidelines or designations under the SMA. See RCW 90.58.170; 90.58.180; and
WAC 173-14-170; 173-14-174.

Shorelines of state-wide signi/licance - A select category of shorelines of the state, defined in
RCW 90.58.030(2)(e), where special policies apply. See RCW 90.58.020.

Shorelines of the state - Shorelines and shorelines of state-wide significance.

Sign - A board or other display containing words and/or symbols used to identify or advertise
a place of business or to convey information. Excluded from this definition are signs required
by law and the flags of national and state governments.

Single-family residence (SFR) - A detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family
including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a
normal appurtenance (WAC 173-14-040(lg)).

Slash - The organic debris which is produced by logging operations.

SMA - The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW, as amended.

Soil bioengineering - An applied science that combines structure, biological and ecological
concepts to construct living structures that stabilizes the soil to control erosion, sedimentation
and flooding using live plant materials as a main structural component.

Glossary H-610

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Spit - An accretion shoreform which extends seaward from and parallel to the shoreline. They
are usually characterized by a wave-built berm on the windward side and a more gently
sloping, muddy or marshy shore on the leeward side. A curved spit is normally called a hook.

Stream - A naturally occurring body of periodic or continuously flowing water where: a) the
mean annual flow is greater than twenty cubic feet per second and b) the water is contained
within a channel (WAC 173-22-030(8)). See also channel and tidal water.

Streamway - A general term describing the bed and banks of a stream.

Structure - A permanent or temporary edifice or building, or any piece of work artificially
built or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether installed on,
above or below the surface of the ground or water, except for vessels (WAC 173-14-03015)).

Subdivision - The division or redivision of land, including short subdivision for the purpose of
sale, lease or conveyance.

Substantial development - Any development of which the total cost or fair market value
exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars, or any development which materially interferes
with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state; except as specifically
exempted pursuant to RCW 90.58.030(3e) and WAC 173-14-040. See also definition of
"development" and "exemption".

Subtidal - Any substratum that is constantly submerged. Source: M. N. Dethier, A Marine
and Estuarine Habitat Classification Systemfor Washington State 11 (Department of Natural
Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1990).

Surge plains - Riverine areas where salt water meets freshwater, extending upstream as far as
tidal influence.

Swamp - A depressed area flooded most of the year to a depth greater than that of a marsh
and characterized by areas of open water amid soft, wetland masses vegetated with trees and
shrubs. Extensive grass vegetation is not characteristic.

Terrestrial - Of or relating to land as distinct from air or water.

Tidalflats - Marshy or muddy areas of the seabed which are covered and uncovered by the
rise and fall of tidal water.

Tidalprisin - The volume of water present between mean low and mean high tide.

Tidal range - The difference in height between consecutive high- and low- tides.

Tidal water - Includes marine and estuarine waters bounded by the ordinary high water mark.
Where a stream enters the tidal water, the tidal water is bounded by the extension of the
elevation of the marine 6rdinary high water mark within the stream (WAC 173-22-030(9)).

Glossary H-611

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Tidelands - Land on the shore of marine water bodies between the line of ordinary high tide
and the fine of extreme low tide.

Tombolo - A causeway-like accretion spit that connects an offshore rock or island to the main
shore, or to another island.

Undrained hydric soils - Those soils which are wet long enough to periodically produce
anaerobic conditions, thereby influencing the growth of plants. See WAC 173-22-030(5).

Upland - Generally described as the dry land area above and landward of the OHWM.

USC - United States Code.

Variance - A means to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional or performance
standards specified in the applicable master program. Variance permits must be specifically
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by Ecology (See WAC 173-14-150).

Vessel - Ships, boats, barges, or any other floating craft which are designed and used for
navigation and do not interfere with normal public use of the water (WAC 173-14-030(18)).

WAC - Washington Administrative Code.

Water-bar - A diversion ditch and/or hump in a trail or road for the purpose of carrying
surface water runoff into the vegetation duff, ditch, or other dispersion area so that it does not
gain the volume and velocity which cause soil movement and erosion.

Water-dependent - A use or a portion of a use which can not exist in any other location and is
dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water-
dependent uses may include ship cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and passenger terminals,
barge loading facilities, ship building and dry docking, marinas, aquaculture, float plane
facilities and sewer outfalls.

Water-enjoyment - A recreational use, or other use facilitating public access to the shoreline
as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic
enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the
use and which through the location, design and operation assures the public's ability to enjoy
the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment
use, the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline oriented space within the
project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment.
Primary water-enjoyment uses may include, but are not limited to, parks, piers and other
improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state; and general water-enjoyment
uses may include but are not limited to, restaurants, museums, aquariums, scientific/ecological
reserves, resorts and mixed-use commercial; PROVIDED, that such uses conform to the
above water-enjoyment specifications and the provisions of the master program.
Water-oriented - Refers to any combination of water-dependent, water-related, and/or water Is
enjoyment uses and serves as an all encompassing definition for priority uses under the SMA.

Glossary H-612

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Non-water-oriented serves to describe those uses which have little or no relationship to the
shoreline and are not considered priority uses under the SMA. Examples include professional
offices, automobile sales or repair shops, mini-storage facilities, multi-family residential
development, department stores and gas stations.

Water-related - A use or a portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a
waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location
because:

I . of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of
materials by water or the need for large quantities of water or,

2. the use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent commercial
activities and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less
expensive and/or more convenient. Examples include manufacturers of ship parts
large enough that transportation becomes a significant factor in the products cost,
professional services serving primarily water-dependent activities and storage of
water-transported foods. Examples of water-related uses may include warehousing of
goods transported by water, seafood processing plants, hydroelectric generating
plants, gravel storage when transported by barge, oil refineries where transport is by
tanker and log storage.

Wave difftaction - The phenomenon by which wave energy passes around barriers (such as
breakwaters and jetties) and through narrow openings to spread into sheltered areas.

Wave direction - The direction from which waves approach an observer.

Wetlands

*NOTE. For regulatory purposes, local governments are encouraged to make a distinction
in their master programs between the definition of wetlands used in the SMA (that technically
includes &y upland areas), and biological wetlands that address only associated marshes,
bogs, and swainps.

In addition, when defining wetlands as used in a master program, local government needs to
be clear as to the extent of SMPjurisdiction infloodplain areas. RCW90.58.030(2)(1) gives
discretion to local government to "determine thatportion of the one-hundred-yearfloodolain
to be included in its master program as long as such portion includes, as a minimum, the
floodway and the adjacent land extending landward two hundredJeet thereftom" Yhe
definition ofJurisdictional wetlands presented below represents the minimum allowable area
that must be covered by a masterprogram. If coverage of the entirefloodplain area is
desired, theJurisdictional wetland definition should be revised to read ".. as measured on a
horizontalplaneftom the ordinary high water mark, contiguousfloodplain areas, and all
marshes, bogs and swamps... " Local government must either cover the minimum required
(see definition below), the maximum allowable (the entirefloodplain), or something
(specifically spelled out) in between.

Glossary H-613

SNT Handbook - 1994 Edition

Wetlands, jurisdictional - Those areas extending landward for two hundred feet in all
directions, as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways
and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all
marshes, bogs and swamps and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters
subject to the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58). For the purposes of this master
program, the term "associated wetlands" includes biological wetlands and other dry upland
areas contained within SMA jurisdiction. This definition has the same meaning as "wetlands
or wetland areas" as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(f).

Wetlands, biological - Those areas defined in WAC 173 -22-03 0(5) as "mashes, bogs, and
swamps". For the purposes of this master program, the terms "biological wetland" or "marsh,
bog, or swamp" are used as a subcategory of "jurisdictional wetlands" and are analogous to
the term "wetland", as commonly used.

Wetland mitigation - Avoiding and minimizing adverse impacts to wetlands, including, in the
following order of preference:

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

(2) Minin-fizing 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;
(3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 0
environment;

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

(5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments.

Wind rose - A diagram illustrating the frequency, velocity and direction of wind at a specific
location.

Zoning - To designate by ordinance, including maps, areas of land reserved and regulated for
specific land uses.

Glossary H-614

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Index

Accessory use, 17
residential, 249
Adjacent lands, 546
Administration and enforcement, 13, 314-60
Administrator, 316-18
Affidavit, 59,327,339,340
Agriculture, 172-76
vegetative buffers, 173
Amendment process, 18-52
Annexation, 22
Appurtenant structures
residential, 244
Aquaculture, 177-84
usual and accustomed fishing grounds, 178
Aquatic environment, 145-49, 167-68
Aquatic habitats, 476-84
Aquatic weeds, 123, 490
riparian corridors, 122
Aquifer recharge areas, 516, 521, 529
ground water management plans, 537
Archaeological and historic resources, 75-76
Artificial reefs, 240
Associated marshes, bogs, and swamps, see wetlands

Beach restoration and enhancement, 123, 270, 271-72
Bed and breakfasts, 243
Bioengineering, 78, 102, 121, 270, 273-75, 441
Boathouses, 185, 186
Boating facilities, 185-200
Breakwaters, 270, 286-89
material, 289

Index H-615

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Bridges, 251-56
fish passage, 253
height, 253, 256
Bulkheads, 270
accretion shoreforms, 284
feeder bluffs, 281
fill, 285
gabions, 282
Buoys, 185, 199, 305-13

Clearing, 77-80, 445, 535
Commercial development, 201-4
Common boundary descriptions, 14
Common-line setback standards, 247-48
Comprehensive plans, 25, 129, 513-55
funding sources, 553
shoreline element, 548
terminology, 555
Conditional use permit, 17
review process, 331-40
Conditional use provisions, 143-45
Condominiums, 243
Conservancy environment, 162-64
Covered moorage, 185, 199
Critical areas, 88, 516
Critical salt water habitats, 88-95, 477-78
boathouses, 93
Cumulative impacts, 331

Development regulations, 28, 513-55
Dikes, 270, 290-91
public access, 291
Dredging, dredge material disposal, 292-300
Ecology Water Quality Certification process, 297
habitat improvement, 296
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis, 293, 297

Index H-616

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Ecological Commission, 20
Eelgrass beds, 88-95, 477-78
Elements, 9-10, 16, 44
other, 60, 66
Enforcement, 314-60
Enhancement, 560
Environment designations, 12, 51, 128, 133-34
aquatic environment, 14549, 167-68
classifying submerged lands, 145-49
conditional use provisions, 143-45
conservancy enviromnent, 162-64
natural environment, 165-66
parallel environments, 149-52, 425, 427-36, 528
rural environment, 160-61
rural residential environment, 155-59
specific use provisions, 142
suburban environment, 155-59
urban environment, 154-59
urban subcategories, 155-59
Environmental impacts, 81-82
Environmentally sensitive areas, 83-100, 550
Exemptions, 319-23

Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, 516
Floating home(s), 186, 196-97, 243, 249-50
associated piers, docks, floats or buoys, 305
Floats, 305-13
joint-use, 3 10
Flood hazard management, 205-10, 419-25, 533
comprehensive flood hazard management plan, 205, 421, 533
dikes, 208
Flood Control Assistance Account Program, 420, 421, 533
Floodway, 411

Index H-617

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Forest practices, 211-15
conversions, 213
herbicides, 214
riparian management zone, 214
scenic views, 212
shorelines of state-wide significance, 214-15
Washington State Forest Practices Rules and Regulations, 212, 418
Frequently flooded areas, 516

Gabions, 282
Geological hazard areas, 85-87, 516, 540
Goals, 15, 60
Golf courses, 240-42
herbicides, 242
noxious weeds, 242
Grading, 77-80, 445, 535
Groins, 270, 286-89
material, 289
Growth Management Act, 23-28, 41, 88, 95, 477, 513-55

Height limits, 124
Herbicides, 85
Herring spawning areas, 88-95, 477-78
Historic structures, 402
Hotels, 243
Houseboats, 186, 196-97, 249-50
Hydroelectric power, 225, 226

Industry, 216-24
best management practices (BNTs), 222
log storage, 221
ship repair, boatyards, 222-24
Instream structures, 225-30
mitigation, 230
powerhouses/penstocks, 229

Index H-618

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Interested persons, 35, 59
Invasive species, 79

Jetties, 270, 286-89
beach feeding, 286
material, 289

Kelp beds, 88-95, 477-78

Landfill, 301-4, 445
Levees, 270, 290-91
public access, 291
Liveaboards, 93, 186, 196-97, 249-50
Log storage, 221-22

Marinas, 185-200
public access, 192, 193
sewage pump-outs, 196
transient moorage, 198
view corridors, 192
waste disposal, 197
Mining, 231-35
gravel, 231
reclamation, 234-35
setbacks and buffers, 234
Mitigation, 446-59, 559
individual off-site mitigation, 446, 449-51, 559-66
model language, 563-66
mitigation banking, 446, 452-59, 567-94
model language, 590-94

Index H-619

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Mixed-use projects, 380, 402
conditional use provisions, 144
development standards, 394
Fishermen's Terminal, 386
moorage requirements, 393
provisions, 398
review, 395
Motels, 243
Multi-family development, 243

Natural environment, 165-66
Nollan case, I 10
Non-water-oriented uses, 17, 201, 362, 368
Nonconforming development, 352-53
Noxious weeds, 85, 242

One-hundred-year floodplain, 411, 412
Ordinary 11igh Water Mark (OHWNI), 417
Over-water uses, 407
residential, 186, 196, 249-50, 306
waterfront redevelopment, 407

Parallel environments, 427-36
Parking, 108-9
Pesticides, 85
Piers and docks, 305-13
commerciabrindustrial, 311
joint-use, 307, 310
residential, 3 12
Policies, 15
statements, 16

Index H-620

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Policies and regulations
general, 50, 67-127
shoreline modification activities, 13, 50-51, 261-313
shoreline use, 12, 50-51, 169-260
Pollution control, 81-82
Ports, 216-24, 523
Priority uses, 522
Prohibited uses, 17, 74
Property rights, 2
Public access, 43, 71, 110-13, 460, 532
design standards, 468
environmentally sensitive areas, 467, 471
goals, 64
golf courses, 242
industrial sites, 463
marinas, 192, 193
non-water-oriented uses, 463
off-site, 467
plans, 472
recreational development, 419
residential development, 247
revitalizing urban waterfronts, 461
shoreline master program component, 37, 42
subdivisions, 247
view corridors, 468, 473
visual access, 468, 526
waterfront redevelopment, 407
Public hearing(s), 52
Public participation, 28-35
citizens advisory committee, 30-34
public outreach, 34-35
Public Trust Doctrine, 26, 142, 519, 537

Index H-621

SW Handbook - 1994 Edition

Recreational development, 236-42
artificial reefs, 240
golf courses, 240-42
off-road vehicles, 237
Regulations, 15
statements, 16
Residential development, 243-50
accessory use, 249
aesthetic values, 246
appurtenant structures, 244
common-line setback standards, 247-48
joint-use piers and docks, 245
public access, 247
requiring a shoreline permit, 244
stair towers, 245
storm drainage, 246
Resorts, 539
Restoration programs, 538
Revetments (Riprap), 270, 276-78
Riparian corridors, 121-23, 149-52, 410, 434-36, 528
master program recommendations, 425
Riparian management zone, 214, 418
River meander, 412
Roads, railroads, 251-56
Rock weirs, 270, 286-89
material, 289
Rural environment, 160-61
Rural residential environment, 155-59

Salmon and steelhead habitats, 101-7, 479-80
Sensitive areas ordinance, 50

Index H-622

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Sewage pump-outs, 186
floating home(s), 188, 249
houseboats, 188, 197
liveaboards, 188, 197
marinas, 196, 197
Shoreline inventory, 35-36, 521
Shoreline jurisdiction, 3
determining, 411-18
Shoreline Management Act
history, 2-3
Shoreline map and description, 131-32
Shoreline master program
action plan, 43
administration and enforcement, 13, 314-60
amendment process, 18-52
components, 9-14
Ecology review process, 52-59
environmental component, 37, 42
public access component, 37, 42
resolution of approval, 55
shoreline use component, 36, 41
technical analysis, 36-40
urban design component, 42
Shoreline modification activities, 50-51, 437
cumulative impacts, 439, 440
nonstructural, 266
normal protective bulkhead, 281
policies and regulations, 13, 261-313
setbacks, 440
shoreline stabilization, 270-91
speculative, 262
stream channel modification, 268

Index H-623

SMY Handbook - 1994 Edition

Shorefine permit, 17
adn-dnistration, 51-52, 314-60, 551-52
appeals, 345-50
cumulative impacts, 331
process, 325-31
revision, 342-43
time limits, 341-42
Shoreline stabilization, 270-91, 437
nonstructural, 441

Shoreline use
categories, 170
development standards, 137
matrix, 12, 51, 133-41
policies and regulations, 12, 50-51, 169-260
prohibited, 17
Shorelines of state-wide significance, 3, 21, 27, 43, 61, 68-73, 114-16
forest practices, 214-15
Shorelines of the state, 3
Signage, 117-19
Single-family development, 243
Smelt spawning areas, 88-95, 477-78
State Environmental Policy Act, 449
Stormwater, 126-27, 535
cumulative impacts, 536
Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, 127, 535
Stream flow
measuring, 417
Subdivisions, 243
public access, 247
Suburban environment, 155-59

Takings, 520
Timberland conversion, 213
Transient moorage, 198
Transportation facilities, 251-56, 527

Index H-624

m.
e

I -
4 , ..4

fb:@,l

;
)44315