Washington Administrative Code › Title 173 - Ecology, Department of (See also Titles 197, 317, 372, and 508) › Chapter 173-26 - State master program approval/amendment procedures and master program guidelines › Part III - GUIDELINES › Section 173-26-186 - Governing principles of the guidelines

Current through Register Vol. 24-14, July 15, 2024
The governing principles listed below are intended to
				  articulate a set of foundational concepts that underpin the guidelines, guide
				  the development of the planning policies and regulatory provisions of master
				  programs, and provide direction to the department in reviewing and approving
				  master programs. These governing principles, along with the policy statement of
				  RCW
				  90.58.020, other relevant provisions of the
				  act, the regulatory reform policies and provisions of
				  RCW
				  34.05.328, and the policy goals set forth in
				  WAC 173-26-176 and
				  173-26-181 should be used to
				  assist in interpretation of any ambiguous provisions and reconciliation of any
				  conflicting provisions of the guidelines.
(1) The guidelines are subordinate to the
				act. Any inconsistency between the guidelines and the act must be resolved in
				accordance with the act.
(2) The
				guidelines are intended to reflect the policy goals of the act, as described in
				WAC 173-26-176 and
				173-26-181.
(3) All relevant policy goals must be
				addressed in the planning policies of master programs.
(4) The planning policies of master programs
				(as distinguished from the development regulations of master programs) may be
				achieved by a number of means, only one of which is the regulation of
				development. Other means, as authorized by
				RCW
				90.58.240, include, but are not limited to:
				The acquisition of lands and easements within shorelines of the state by
				purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert with other local
				governments; and accepting grants, contributions, and appropriations from any
				public or private agency or individual. Additional other means may include, but
				are not limited to, public facility and park planning, watershed planning,
				voluntary salmon recovery projects and incentive programs.
(5) The policy goals of the act, implemented
				by the planning policies of master programs, may not be achievable by
				development regulation alone. Planning policies should be pursued through the
				regulation of development of private property only to an extent that is
				consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations (where
				applicable, statutory limitations such as those contained in chapter 82.02 RCW
				and RCW
				43.21C.060 ) on the regulation of private
				property. Local government should use a process designed to assure that
				proposed regulatory or administrative actions do not unconstitutionally
				infringe upon private property rights. A process established for this purpose,
				related to the constitutional takings limitation, is set forth in a publication
				entitled, "
State of Washington, Attorney General's Recommended Process
				for Evaluation of Proposed Regulatory or Administrative Actions to Avoid
				Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property
," first published in
				February 1992. The attorney general is required to review and update this
				process on at least an annual basis to maintain consistency with changes in
				case law by
				RCW
				36.70A.370.
(6) The territorial jurisdictions of the
				master program's planning function and regulatory function are legally
				distinct. The planning function may, and in some circumstances must, look
				beyond the territorial limits of shorelines of the state.
				RCW
				90.58.340. The regulatory function is limited
				to the territorial limits of shorelines of the state,
				RCW
				90.58.140(1), as defined in
				RCW
				90.58.030(2).
(7) The planning policies and regulatory
				provisions of master programs and the comprehensive plans and development
				regulations, adopted under
				RCW
				36.70A.040 shall be integrated and
				coordinated in accordance with
				RCW
				90.58.340,
				36.70A.480,
				34.05.328(1)(h),
				and section 1, chapter 347, Laws of 1995.
(8) Through numerous references to and
				emphasis on the maintenance, protection, restoration, and preservation of
				"fragile" shoreline "natural resources," "public health," "the land and its
				vegetation and wildlife," "the waters and their aquatic life," "ecology," and
				"environment," the act makes protection of the shoreline environment an
				essential statewide policy goal consistent with the other policy goals of the
				act. It is recognized that shoreline ecological functions may be impaired not
				only by shoreline development subject to the substantial development permit
				requirement of the act but also by past actions, unregulated activities, and
				development that is exempt from the act's permit requirements. The principle
				regarding protecting shoreline ecological systems is accomplished by these
				guidelines in several ways, and in the context of related principles. These
				include:
(a) Local government is guided in
				its review and amendment of local master programs so that it uses a process
				that identifies, inventories, and ensures meaningful understanding of current
				and potential ecological functions provided by affected shorelines.
(b) Local master programs shall include
				policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological
				functions.
(i) Local master programs shall
				include regulations and mitigation standards ensuring that each permitted
				development will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline;
				local government shall design and implement such regulations and mitigation
				standards in a manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and other
				legal limitations on the regulation of private property.
(ii) Local master programs shall include
				regulations ensuring that exempt development in the aggregate will not cause a
				net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline.
(c) For counties and cities containing any
				shorelines with impaired ecological functions, master programs shall include
				goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological
				functions. These master program provisions shall identify existing policies and
				programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and identify any
				additional policies and programs that local government will implement to
				achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should
				make real and meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies
				and programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should
				appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or
				nonregulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as
				any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development
				regulations and mitigation standards.
(d) Local master programs shall evaluate and
				consider cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development on
				shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered by the
				policy goals of the act. To ensure no net loss of ecological functions and
				protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall
				contain policies, programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative
				impacts and fairly allocate the burden of addressing cumulative impacts among
				development opportunities. Evaluation of such cumulative impacts should
				consider:
(i) Current circumstances affecting
				the shorelines and relevant natural processes;
(ii) Reasonably foreseeable future
				development and use of the shoreline; and
(iii) Beneficial effects of any established
				regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws.
It is recognized that methods of determining reasonably
				  foreseeable future development may vary according to local circumstances,
				  including demographic and economic characteristics and the nature and extent of
				  local shorelines.
(e) The guidelines are not intended to limit
				the use of regulatory incentives, voluntary modification of development
				proposals, and voluntary mitigation measures that are designed to restore as
				well as protect shoreline ecological functions.