RCW 90.58.100(1) states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern. The context, scope, magnitude, significance, and potential limitations of the scientific information should be considered. At a minimum, make use of, and where applicable, incorporate all available scientific information, aerial photography, inventory data, technical assistance materials, manuals and services from reliable sources of science. Local governments should also contact relevant state agencies, universities, and affected Indian tribes for available information. If local governments initiate scientific research as a basis for master program provisions, that research shall use accepted scientific methods and research procedures and be subject to peer review. Local governments are encouraged to work interactively with neighboring jurisdictions, state resource agencies, and affected Indian tribes to address technical issues beyond the scope of existing information resources or locally initiated research.

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

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

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

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

Because local governments must balance between the differing objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, scientific information is not necessarily the sole factor to be used in determining shoreline policies, regulations, and environment designations. Local governments do have the authority and obligation to consider information, goals, and factors from a variety of sources to fashion regulations based on the evidence, not on speculation and surmise.

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

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

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

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

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

RCW 90.58.020 includes the following statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RCW 90.58.020 states:

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

Shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man-made causes or natural causes.

Consistent with this policy, these guidelines use the terms "water-dependent," "water-related," and "water-enjoyment," as defined in WAC 173-26-020, when discussing appropriate uses for various shoreline areas.

Shoreline areas, being a limited ecological and economic resource, are the setting for competing uses and ecological protection and restoration activities. Consistent with RCW 90.58.020, local governments should, when determining allowable uses and resolving use conflicts on shorelines within their jurisdiction, apply the following preferences and priorities in the order listed below, starting with (i).

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

(ii) Reserve shoreline areas for water-dependent uses and establish policies and regulations so that water-dependent development is consistent with comprehensive ecological protection and restoration objectives. Harbor areas and areas that are generally considered navigable for commercial purposes should be reserved for water-dependent and water-related uses unless the local governments can demonstrate that adequate shoreline is otherwise reserved for future water-dependent and water-related uses.

Local governments may prepare master program provisions to allow mixed-use developments that include and support water-dependent uses and address specific conditions that affect water-dependent uses.

(iii) Reserve shoreline areas for water-related and water-enjoyment uses that are compatible with water-dependent uses and ecological protection and restoration objectives.

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

(v) Limit nonwater-oriented uses to those locations where either water-oriented uses are inappropriate or where nonwater-oriented uses demonstrably contribute to the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act.

Local conditions and environmental constraints may result in lower priority uses being accommodated. For example, an undeveloped shoreline may not be an appropriate site for a water-dependent use, such as a cargo facility, but may accommodate a recreational trail

(water-enjoyment) of a lower priority.

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

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

To this end, master programs shall indicate that, where required, mitigation measures shall be applied in the sequence defined in section 020(22) of this chapter. In determining appropriate mitigation measures, avoidance of impacts by means such as relocating or redesigning the proposed development shall be applied first. Lower priority measures shall be applied only after higher priority measures are demonstrated to be not feasible or not applicable.

Figure 4 below illustrates a generalized process to prepare or comprehensively amend a shoreline master program. Local governments may modify the timing of the various steps, integrate the process into other planning activities, add steps to the process, or work jointly with other jurisdictions or regional efforts, provided the provisions of this chapter are met.

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

Establish public and intergovernmental participation process.

(i) Public participation.

RCW 90.58.130 states:

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

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

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

For local governments planning under the Growth Management Act, the provisions of

RCW 36.70A.140 also apply.

At a minimum, all local governments shall be prepared to describe and document their methods to ensure that all interested parties have a meaningful opportunity to participate. If a local committee or other group is appointed to advise the amendment process, local governments shall ensure that that body represents the full range of interests of all citizens within the local jurisdiction.

(ii) Communication with state agencies.

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

(iii) Communications with affected Indian tribes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ix) If the shoreline is rapidly developing or subject to substantial human changes such as clearing and grading, past and current records or historical aerial photographs may be necessary to identify cumulative impacts such as bulkhead construction, intrusive development on priority habitats, and conversion of harbor areas to nonwater-oriented uses.

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

Analyze shoreline conditions based on information gathered in (c) above and address special topics. Before establishing specific master program provisions, local governments shall perform analysis and planning tasks necessary to ensure effective shoreline management provisions, addressing the topics below, where applicable.

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

Prepare a characterization of shoreline ecological systems. These systems include riparian, lacustrine, and tidal systems as listed in sections 020(10) and (13). The characterization consists of three components: (1) identify which of the ecosystem-wide processes and ecological functions listed in sections 020(10) and (13) of this chapter apply within the shoreline jurisdiction and identify which have been significantly altered and which may be missing or significantly impacted; (2) assess the ecosystem-wide processes to determine their effect/impact on shoreline systems present within a jurisdiction and their individual functions, and (3) develop the specific master program provisions necessary to protect and/or restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. The characterization may be achieved by using one or more of the approaches below:

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

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

(C) One or more local governments may pursue a characterization which includes a greater scope and complexity than listed in items (A) and (B) above.

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

(ii) Shoreline use analysis and priorities.

Conduct an analysis to determine the future demand for shoreline space and methods to resolve potential use conflicts. Characterize current shoreline use patterns and projected trends to ensure a balance of uses consistent with chapter 90.58 RCW and sections 200(2)(d) and 210 of this chapter.

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

(iii) Cumulative impacts.

At a minimum, local governments, with the assistance of state agencies, should project the ultimate allowed full build-out condition for existing and proposed master program provisions being considered. This assessment should include potential impacts due to all development, including current conditions and those uses not requiring a shoreline permit. Master programs should address cumulative adverse impacts caused by incremental development, such as residential bulkheads, residential piers, or runoff from newly developed properties, and shall include master program provisions to assess, minimize, and mitigate cumulative impacts.

(iv) Shorelines of state-wide significance.

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

(v) Public access.

Identify public access needs and opportunities within the jurisdiction and explore actions to enhance shoreline recreation facilities, as described in section 220(4) of this chapter.

(vi) Enforcement and coordination with other regulatory programs.

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

(vii) Water quality.

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

(viii) Vegetation conservation.

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

(ix) Special area planning.

If the jurisdiction includes complex shoreline ecological issues, changing uses, or other unique features, the local government is encouraged to undertake special area planning.

Special area planning may be used to address: Public access, vegetation conservation, shoreline use compatibility, port development master planning, ecological restoration, or other issues best addressed on a comprehensive basis.

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

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

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

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

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

In determining the boundaries and classifications of environment designations, adhere to the priorities in section 200(2)(d) of this chapter.

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

Prepare shoreline regulations based on the analyses described in this section and the guidelines of this chapter. The level of detail of inventory information and planning analysis will be a consideration in setting shoreline regulations. As a general rule, the less known about existing resources, the more stringent shoreline master program provisions should be to avoid irreparable damage to shoreline resources. If there is a question about the extent or condition of an existing ecological resource, then the master program provisions shall be sufficiently restrictive to ensure that the resource is not significantly damaged. Local governments may accomplish this by including master program requirements for an on-site inventory at the time of project application.

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

Local governments shall submit the completed checklist, as described in section 200(3)(a) of this chapter, with their master program amendments proposed for adoption. Master program review and formal adoption procedures are described in Parts I and II of this chapter.

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

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

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

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

To facilitate consistency with land use planning, local governments planning under chapter 36.70A

RCW are encouraged to illustrate shoreline designations on the comprehensive plan Future Land Use Map as described in WAC 365-195-300 (2)(d).

The map should clearly indicate Shoreline Management Act jurisdictional limits, any areas (flood plains, river deltas, associated wetlands) beyond the two hundred-foot limit that are in shoreline management jurisdiction, and what environment designations apply.

The master program should also make it clear that in the event of a mapping error, the jurisdiction will rely upon common boundary descriptions and the criteria contained in chapter 173-22 WAC pertaining to wetlands, as amended, rather than the incorrect or outdated map.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ii) Preferred shoreline use requirements;

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

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

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

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

The comprehensive plan provisions and shoreline environment designation provisions do not preclude one another. To meet this criteria, the provisions of both the comprehensive plan and the master program must be able to be met. The comprehensive plan and master program should make specific provisions for resolving any apparent inconsistency.

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

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

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

In delineating environment designations, local governments should ensure that shoreline ecological functions can be protected and restored with the proposed pattern and intensity of urban growth. Infrastructure plans must also be mutually consistent with shoreline designations.

Utility services routed through shoreline areas shall not be a sole justification for more intense development.

The recommended classification system consists of six basic environments: "High-intensity," "shoreline residential," "urban conservancy," "rural conservancy," "natural," and "aquatic." Local governments shall assign all shoreline areas an environment designation consistent with section 210(5) of this chapter.

Local governments may establish different subdesignations. For example, a local government wishing to differentiate between "conservancy" shorelines used for park purposes and those for habitat restoration might establish "conservancy-park" and "conservancy-habitat" designations, each with separate purposes, criteria, policies, and use provisions. Or, a local government may wish to set site-specific standards for pier and dock construction in more sensitive aquatic areas and restrict aquaculture in harbor areas by establishing "aquatic-conservancy" and "aquatic-harbor" environments, each with different allowable uses and development standards.

Local governments may use "parallel environments" where appropriate. Parallel environments divide shorelands into different sections generally running parallel to the shoreline or along a physical feature such as a bluff or railroad right-of-way. Such environments may be useful, for example, to accommodate both resource protection near the shoreline and development opportunities further from the shoreline.

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

(i) Purpose.

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

(ii) Management policies.

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

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

Residences.

Commercial uses.

Industrial uses.

Intensive agriculture that involves tilling the earth or removing native plant communities.

Nonwater-oriented recreation.

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

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

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

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

(E) New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of vegetation to perform ecological functions should not be allowed.

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

(i) Purpose.

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

(ii) Management policies.

(A) Uses in the "rural conservancy" environment should be limited to those which are nonconsumptive (i.e., do not deplete over time) of the shoreline area's physical and biological resources and uses of a nonpermanent nature that do not substantially degrade ecological functions or the rural or natural character of the shoreline area. Shoreline habitat restoration and environmental enhancement are preferred uses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(i) Purpose.

The purpose of the aquatic environment is to protect the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark by managing uses and by assuring compatibility between shoreland and aquatic uses.

(ii) Management policies.

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

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

(C) In order to reduce the impacts of shoreline development and increase effective use of water resources, multiple use of over-water facilities should be encouraged, provided that use conflicts can be avoided.

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

(E) Uses that cause significant adverse impacts to critical saltwater and fresh water habitats should not be allowed. Where those uses are necessary to achieve the objectives of RCW 90.58.020, their impacts shall be mitigated according to the sequence defined in section 020 of this chapter.

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

(i) Purpose.

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

(ii) Management policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(i) Purpose.

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

(ii) Management policies.

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

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

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

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

(i) Purpose.

The purpose of the "shoreline residential" environment is to accommodate residential development and associated uses that are consistent with this chapter; to avoid and, if that is not feasible, minimize residential development impacts; and to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses.

(ii) Management policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(i) Ecologically intact and currently performing an important, irreplaceable function or ecosystem-wide process;

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

(iii) Unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Areas designated in a local comprehensive plan as rural areas of more intense development, as provided for in chapter 36.70A RCW, may be designated an alternate shoreline environment, provided it is consistent with the objectives of the Growth Management Act and this chapter.

Master planned resorts as described in RCW 36.70A.360 may be designated an alternate shoreline environment, provided the applicable master program provisions do not allow significant adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions.

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

Local governments may designate submerged and intertidal lands with shoreland designations

(e.g., high-intensity or rural conservancy ) if the management policies and objectives for aquatic areas are met. In this case, the designation system used must provide regulations for managing submerged and intertidal lands that are clear and consistent with the aquatic environment management policies in this chapter.

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

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

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

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

(iii) Areas with potential for ecological restoration; or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The provisions of this section shall apply to all critical areas as defined by chapter 36.70A

RCW that lie within shoreline jurisdiction. RCW 36.70A.030 defines critical areas as stated below:

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

(a) Wetlands;

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

(c) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;

(d) Frequently flooded areas; and

(e) Geologically hazardous areas.

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

Local master programs shall implement the following principles:

(i) Protect against adverse affects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life. Promote and enhance the public interest by protecting, restoring, and preserving ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

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

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

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

(v) The objective of shoreline management provisions for critical areas shall be the protection and restoration of ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

Appropriate systems to address this goal include a littoral drift cell for marine waters or all of an identifiable portion of a watershed for fresh waters. Local governments should accomplish this on a comprehensive basis, as described in section 200(3)(d)(i).

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

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

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

Provisions for frequently flooded areas are treated in sections 220(3) and 230(3)(a) of this chapter.

(i) Wetlands.

(A) Wetland use regulations.

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

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

The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind; The dumping, discharging, or filling with any material, including discharges of storm water and domestic, commercial, or industrially treated wastewater; The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level, duration of inundation, or water table; The driving of pilings; The placing of obstructions; The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure; Significant vegetation removal, provided that these activities are not part of a forest practice governed under chapter 76.09 RCW and its rules; or Other uses or development that result in a significant change of physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of wetlands.

(B) Wetland rating or categorization.

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

(C) Alterations to wetlands.

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

(D) Buffers.

Master programs shall contain requirements for buffer zones around wetlands.

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

(E) Mitigation.

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

(F) Compensatory mitigation.

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

Requirements for compensatory mitigation must include provisions for mitigation replacement ratios or a similar method of addressing the following:

The risk of failure of the compensatory mitigation action; The length of time it will take the compensatory mitigation action to result in sustainable wetland functions and values; The gain or loss of the type, quality and quantity of the ecological functions of the compensation wetland as compared with the impacted wetland.

Compensatory mitigation requirements must also establish performance standards for evaluating the success of compensatory mitigation actions, for monitoring procedures to determine if performance standards are met, and for the long-term protection and management of compensatory mitigation sites.

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

(ii) Geologically hazardous areas.

Restrict new development on unstable bluffs and river banks and landslide areas.

Consult minimum guidelines for geologically hazardous areas, WAC 365-190-080(4).

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

Do not allow new development that would require structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development. Exceptions may be made for the limited instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed water-dependent uses where no alternative locations are available and significant adverse impacts are mitigated. The stabilization measures shall conform to WAC 173-26-230.

(iii) Critical saltwater habitats.

Critical saltwater habitats include kelp beds, eelgrass beds, forage fish, herring and smelt spawning areas, commercial and recreational shellfish beds, and areas with which priority species have a primary association. Critical saltwater habitats require a higher level of protection due to the important ecological functions they provide.

(A) Comprehensive saltwater habitat management.

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

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

Available inventory and other data regarding physical characteristics of the habitat and any information on species population trends; The level of human activity in such areas, including the presence of roads and level of recreational types (passive or active recreation may be appropriate for certain areas and habitats); Land uses surrounding the critical saltwater habitat areas that may negatively impact these areas; and An analysis of what data gaps exist and a strategy for gaining this information.

The management planning should address the following, where applicable:

Protecting and restoring a system of fish and wildlife habitats with connections between larger habitat blocks and open spaces; Protecting riparian and estuarine ecosystems; Establishing buffer zones around these areas to separate incompatible uses from the habitat areas; Restoring lost salmonid habitat; Improving water quality; and Protecting fresh water and sediment inflow regimens.

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

Local governments, in conjunction with state resource agencies and affected Indian tribes, should determine which habitats and species are of local importance.

All public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest shall be classified as critical areas. Local governments should consider both commercial and recreational shellfish areas. Local governments should review the Washington department of health classification of commercial and recreational shellfish growing areas to determine the existing condition of these areas. Further consideration should be given to the vulnerability of these areas to contamination. Shellfish protection districts established pursuant to chapter 90.72 RCW shall be included in the classification of critical shellfish areas.

Local governments shall classify kelp and eelgrass beds identified by the department of natural resources aquatic lands division, the department, and affected Indian tribes.

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

(B) Conditions for development.

Docks, bulkheads, bridges, fill, floats, jetties, and other human-made structures shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except for a water-dependent use or ecological restoration and when all of the conditions below are met:

The public's need for such a structure is clearly demonstrated and the proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW 90.58.020; Avoidance of impacts to critical areas by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible; The project is designed to minimize its impacts on critical saltwater habitats and the environment; Significant adverse impacts will be mitigated through the mitigation sequence described in WAC 173-26-020; and The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species recovery.

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

(iv) Riparian corridors and other fresh water fish and wildlife conservation areas.

(A) Applicability.

The following provisions apply to master program provisions and shoreline management activities affecting fresh water critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction, including streams, rivers, wetlands, and lakes.

(B) Principles.

Many ecological functions of riparian corridors depend both on the continuity of the natural environment along the length of the shoreline and on the conditions of the surrounding lands on either side of the river channel. Significant damage to the environment, such as a polluting outfall, can destroy ecological functions downstream. Likewise, gradual destruction or loss of the vegetation along the corridor or extensive flood plain development can raise water temperatures and alter hydrographic conditions, thereby making the corridor uninhabitable for priority species and susceptible to catastrophic flooding, droughts, and landslides. These conditions can also threaten human health, safety, and property. Therefore, effective management of riparian corridors depends on

(I) planning, protecting, and restoring the length of the corridor, and

(II) regulating the uses within shoreline jurisdiction, the stream channel, channel migration zone, and the flood plain. Water quality and hydrological processes also depend upon surface water run-off and ground water in lands outside the flood plain. For this reason, comprehensive watershed efforts are the most effective approach to corridor management.

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

Preventing damage to river shoreline areas that retain their ecological functions; and Restoring degraded shoreline areas whenever feasible.

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

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

Master program provisions for riparian corridors should, where appropriate, be based on the information from comprehensive watershed management planning, as indicated in sections 200(3)(c) and (d) of this chapter.

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

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

Structural flood hazard reduction measures such as stream channelization and diking, even if effective in reducing inundation in a portion of the watershed, can intensify flooding elsewhere.

Flood hazard reduction measures can damage ecological functions crucial to fish and wildlife species, bank stability, and water quality. Therefore, flood hazard reduction measures shall be accomplished in a manner to minimize impact to shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.

Master programs shall implement the following principles:

(i) Base shoreline master program flood hazard reduction provisions on applicable watershed management plans, comprehensive flood hazard management plans, and other comprehensive planning efforts, provided those measures are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter.

(ii) Consider integrating master program flood hazard reduction provisions with other regulations and programs, including (if applicable): Storm water management plans; flood plain regulations, as provided for in chapter 86.16 RCW; critical areas ordinance and comprehensive plan, as provided in chapter 36.70A RCW; and National Flood Insurance Program.

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

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

Master programs shall implement the following standards within shoreline jurisdiction:

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

(ii) Allow structural flood hazard reduction measures in shoreline jurisdiction only when it can be demonstrated by a scientific and engineering analysis that they are necessary to protect existing development and uses, that nonstructural measures are n