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 II - SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM APPROVAL/AMENDMENT › DRAFT REVIEW › Section 173-26-090 - Locally initiated review - Periodic review - Public involvement and approval procedures

Current through Register Vol. 24-14, July 15, 2024
(1)
				  Locally initiated master program review.
Each local government should review its shoreline master
					 program and make amendments deemed necessary to reflect changing local
					 circumstances, new infor- mation or improved data. Local governments are
					 encouraged to consult department guidance for applicable new information on
					 emerging topics such as sea level rise.
(2) Periodic review requirements.
(a) Following the comprehensive updates
				  required by
				  RCW
				  90.58.080(2), each local
				  government shall conduct a review of their master program at least once every
				  eight years on a schedule established in the act. Following the review, local
				  governments shall, if necessary, revise their master programs. This review and
				  revision is referred to in this section as the periodic review.
(b) Deadlines for periodic review. Local
				  governments must take action to review, and if necessary, revise their master
				  programs according to the schedule established in
				  RCW
				  90.58.080(4)(b). Deadlines
				  for completion of periodic review are as follows:
Table WAC 173-26-090.1
Deadlines for Completion of Periodic
					 Review
Reviews must be completed on or
							 before June 30th of:
Affected counties and the cities
							 and towns within:
2019/2027*
King, Pierce, Snohomish.
2020/2028*
Clallam, Clark, Island, Jefferson,
							 Kitsap, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, Thurston, Whatcom.
2021/2029*
Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas,
							 Kittitas, Lewis, Skamania, Spokane, Yakima.
2022/2030*
Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin,
							 Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Klick-itat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend
							 Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, Whitman.
*And every eight years
thereafter
.
(c) Taking legislative action.
(i) The periodic review must be accomplished
				  through legislative action. Legislative action means the adoption of a
				  resolution, motion, or ordinance following notice and a public hearing
				  including, at a minimum, findings that a review and evaluation has occurred and
				  identifying the revisions made, or that a revision was not needed and the
				  reasons therefore. Legislative findings that no revisions are needed are
				  referred to in this section as "findings of adequacy."
(ii) Legislative action includes two
				  components. It includes a review of the shoreline master program and it
				  includes the adoption of either findings of adequacy or any amendments
				  necessary to bring the program into compliance with the requirements of the
				  act.
(iii) Legislative actions
				  concluding the periodic review must be followed by department
				  approval.
(d) The
				  required minimum scope of review.
(i) The
				  purpose and scope of the periodic review as established by the act is:
(A) To assure that the master program
				  complies with applicable law and guidelines in effect at the time of the
				  review; and
(B) To assure
				  consistency of the master program with the local government's comprehensive
				  plan and development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, if
				  applicable, and other local requirements.
(ii) The review process provides the method
				  for bringing shoreline master programs into compliance with the requirements of
				  the act that have been added or changed since the last review and for
				  responding to changes in guidelines adopted by the department, together with a
				  review for consistency with amended comprehensive plans and regulations. Local
				  governments should also incorporate amendments to reflect changed
				  circumstances, new information, or improved data. The review ensures that
				  shoreline master programs do not fall out of compliance over time through
				  inaction.
(iii) The periodic review
				  is distinct from the comprehensive updates required by
				  RCW
				  90.58.080(2). The
				  presumption in the comprehensive update process was that all master programs
				  needed to be revised to comply with the full suite of ecology guidelines. By
				  contrast, the periodic review addresses changes in requirements of the act and
				  guidelines requirements since the comprehensive update or the last periodic
				  review, and changes for consistency with revised comprehensive plans and
				  regulations, together with any changes deemed necessary to reflect changed
				  circumstances, new information or improved data. There is no minimum
				  requirement to comprehensively revise shoreline inventory and characterization
				  reports or restoration plans.