Shoreline Management Act

Overview

The Shoreline Management Act (SMA), like the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), was enacted in 1971, and its purpose is to manage and protect the shorelines of the state by regulating development in the shoreline area. A major goal of the SMA is "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines" (RCW 90.58.020).

Its jurisdiction includes the Pacific Ocean shoreline and the shorelines of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, rivers, and streams and lakes above a certain size. It also regulates "wetlands" associated with these shorelines.

The primary responsibility for administering this regulatory program is assigned to a local government, which must adopt a shoreline master program (SMP) if their jurisdiction includes regulated shorelines. The Department of Ecology (Ecology) plays a significant oversight role: A local governments adopts an SMP and the required updates pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines at chapter 173-26 WAC, but Ecology must approve all local SMPs.

Local SMPs establish goals and policies that are implemented through use regulations. No substantial development is permitted on the state's shoreline unless a permit is obtained from the local jurisdiction that demonstrates consistency with the SMP.

Statutes and Administrative Regulations

• Ch. 90.58 RCW - Shoreline Management Act
• Ch. 173-26 WAC - Shoreline master program guidelines
• Ch. 173-27 WAC- Shoreline management permit and enforcement procedures

Shoreline Permits and the Shorelines Hearings Board

Local governments issue shoreline substantial development, conditional use, and variance permits, as well as shoreline exemptions pursuant to the policies and use regulations in their SMPs. Approvals by local government of shoreline conditional use and variance permits must be reviewed by Ecology, which then issues the final decision. Local governments and Ecology can also issue fines under the SMA. For more information, see Ecology’s Shoreline Permits and Enforcement page.

The Shorelines Hearings Board hears appeals from permit decisions and from shoreline penalties jointly issued by the local government and Ecology or issued by Ecology alone.

Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Updates

Cities and counties are required to update their SMPs to be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines according to the schedule in RCW 90.58.080, with periodic reviews thereafter. In 2023, the state legislature directed Ecology to update the guidelines to require local SMPs to address the “impact of sea level rise and increased storm severity on people, property, and shoreline natural resources and the environment.” See RCW 90.58.630.

In 2023, the legislature also amended RCW 90.58.080, expanding the SMP review schedule to 10 years and extending due dates by one year (by June 30 of each deadline year) as follows for the following counties and their cities:

• By 2029: King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.
• By 2030: Clallam, Clark, Island, Jefferson, Lewis, Mason, San Juan, Skagit, Thurston, and Whatcom counties.
• By 2031: Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Franklin, Kittitas, Skamania, Spokane, Walla Walla, and Yakima counties.
• By 2032: Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Klickitat, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Wahkiakum, and Whitman counties.

Ecology maintains a list of jurisdictions with approved SMPs, as well as a list of jurisdictions with active SMP amendments.

Selected Court Decisions

Court upholds SMP adopted pursuant to the updated guidelines from Ecology

Olympic Stewardship Foundation, et. al. v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2017) - Division II affirmed the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board decision upholding Jefferson County’s SMP. Jefferson County’s SMP was adopted pursuant to the updated Ecology guidelines under the SMA. The updated shoreline guidelines emphasize no net loss of ecological functions and protection of shoreline resources. The court rejected several arguments raised by the appellants, including that the SMP improperly prioritized shoreline resources over property rights, resulted in over-burdensome regulations on landowners, and was not supported by adequate scientific data.

Owner-noncommercial use exemption

Dep't of Ecology v. City of Spokane Valley, 167 Wn. App. 952, review denied, 175 Wn.2d 1015 (2012) - The court held that the "owner-noncommercial use exemption" to the definition of "substantial development" in RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(vii) and thus to the requirement of a substantial development permit did not apply to the construction of spec docks for resale by the owner-developer of a 30-lot residential waterfront development. A developer-owner of property to be divided into multiple lots is not a private noncommercial user to which this exemption would apply.

RCW 82.02.020 and Shoreline Master Programs

Citizens For Rational Shoreline Planning v. Whatcom County, 172 Wn.2d 384 (2011) - The state supreme court held that SMPs developed pursuant to the SMA are not subject to RCW 82.02.020, which prohibits local governments from imposing direct or indirect taxes, fees, or charges on development. The SMA governs nearly every aspect of the adoption and amendment of SMPs and this shows that SMPs were the product of state action. By its terms, RCW 82.02.020 applies to land use regulations and conditions imposed by local jurisdictions. While local jurisdictions played a role in tailoring SMPs to local conditions, the SMA dictates that Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Thus, SMP regulations are the product of state action and not subject to RCW 82.02.020.

Private docks in harbor

Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 149 Wn. App. 33 (2009) - The court of appeals upheld the city's amendment to its SMP prohibiting private docks in Blakely Harbor, a shoreline of statewide significance, concluding that the amendment was consistent with statutory guidelines. The court held that private docks in the harbor are not a preferred use, that the amendment was consistent with the city's SMP and comprehensive plan, and that the amendment did not violate the "public trust" doctrine. In 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether Bainbridge Island’s moratorium on new shoreline projects (which predated the SMP regulations challenged in the 2009 decision) violated the Sampson’s substantive and procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court concluded that the moratorium ordinances were validly enacted, nonarbitrary, and manifestly related to the city’s legitimate interests, and therefore the city did not violate the Sampson’s constitutional rights.

Critical areas in shorelines

Futurewise v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 164 Wn.2d 242 (2008) - The Growth Management Act (GMA) does not apply to those critical areas inside shoreline management areas managed through shoreline master plans properly adopted, amended, and approved by Ecology under the SMA. Critical areas within the jurisdiction of the SMA are governed only by the SMA. However, what is left unanswered by the court's plurality decision (a fifth justice concurring in the result only) is when the 2003 law at issue transfers protection of shoreline critical areas to an SMP. Two subsequent court of appeals decisions from different divisions — Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Central Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hrgs. Bd., 152 Wn. App. 190 (2009), and Kailin v. Clallam County, 152 Wn. App. 974 (2009) — reached differing conclusions as to the effect of the Futurewise decision. The 2010 legislature resolved the matter with the passage of ESHB 1653 (Ch. 107, Laws of 2010), see RCW 36.70A.480. 

Department of Ecology challenge subject to LUPA

Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Dep't of Ecology, 162 Wn.2d 825 (2008) - Ecology does not have statutory authority to directly review or to set aside a shoreline substantial development permit issued by a local jurisdiction having an approved shoreline management plan under the SMA. Should Ecology wish to challenge a locally-issued substantial development permit, it must do so by means of a timely filed petition in superior court under the Land Use Petition Act (chapter 36.70C RCW). Ecology may not collaterally challenge that decision by bringing an independent enforcement action against the developer.

Shoreline development moratorium

Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island, 162 Wn.2d 683 (2007) - In a 5-4 decision, the state supreme court overturned the city's moratorium on shoreline development. The city had adopted successive moratoriums that prevented the development of private property in shoreline areas over a period of years. However, five justices held that local governments have authority to enact moratoria on shoreline development without being in conflict with the SMA. In 2009, the legislature passed HB 1379, amending the SMA at RCW 90.58.590 to provide a process for adopting moratoria within shoreline jurisdiction.

Location of ordinary high-water mark

Thompson v. Dep't of Ecology, 136 Wn. App. 580, review denied, 161 Wn.2d 1023 (2007) - The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) occurs where the presence of water is reflected in the vegetation and can reasonably be interpreted as meaning that the line occurs where the river has caused aquatic vegetation to grow; therefore, the Shoreline Hearings Board did not err by denying an owner a variance for a deck because it interfered with the setback from the OHWM under RCW 90.58.030(2)(b).

GMA/SMA priority

Pres. Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 133 Wn. App. 503 (2006), review denied, 162 Wn.2d 1008 (2008) - RCW 36.70A.480 does not mandate that the policies and regulations of the SMA take priority over policies and regulations adopted under the GMA. On the contrary, the statute requires that regulations implementing the two acts be harmonized in the process of overall land use planning and regulation and specifically states that a county's SMP goals and policies are part of its growth management comprehensive plan and that its master program regulations constitute development regulations.

LUPA exception

Harrington v. Spokane County, 128 Wn. App. 202 (2005) - The Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW, is the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions, with certain exceptions (see RCW 36.70C.030. One of those exceptions is that LUPA does not accommodate judicial review of a land use decision that is subject to review by a quasi-judicial body created by state law. See RCW 36.70C.030(1)(a)(ii). Specifically, decisions reviewable by the Shorelines Hearings Board are not subject to judicial review under LUPA.

DOE challenge subject to LUPA

Samuel's Furniture v. Dept. of Ecology, 147 Wn.2d 440 (2002) - LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW, provides the avenue by which Ecology may challenge a local government's decision that a proposed development does not require a shoreline substantial development permit because the project is outside the shoreline jurisdiction of the local SMP. Where Ecology has failed to timely seek review of the local government's decision under LUPA, it may not collaterally challenge the decision by bringing an independent enforcement action against the property owner or developer.

Shoreline variance

Buechel v. Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994) - A landowner seeking a variance from the requirements of a SMP must comply with the requirements of a county or city ordinance if those requirements are stricter than those established by WAC 173-14-150 (now WAC 173-27-170). In the granting variances in shorelines cases, consideration must be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area.

Injunctive or declaratory relief

Hedlund v. White, 67 Wn. App. 409 (1992) - Either a private citizen or a government entity may base an action for damages on the SMA, but only a governmental entity may base an action for injunctive or declaratory relief on the SMA.

Shoreline Hearings Board review

Bellevue Farm Owners Ass'n v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 100 Wn. App. 341, review denied. 142 Wn.2d 1014 (2000) - San Juan County's threshold determination of nonsignificance did not preclude the Shorelines Hearings Board's independent review of the application. The board did not err in considering other applicable state and local regulations when it denied the substantial development permit based on deficiencies outside SEPA.

Shoreline office building

Eastlake Community Council v. City of Seattle, 64 Wn. App. 273, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1005 (1992) - The SMA does not require that a shoreline office building be an integral part of, or be related to, the water dependent use built in conjunction with the offices.

Commercial clam harvesting

Clam Shacks of America, Inc. v. Skagit County, 109 Wn.2d 91 (1987) - The SMA authorizes local governments to require conditional use permits for shoreline activities — commercial clam harvesting in this case — that are not "developments" as defined by the SMA

Voluntary setback

Hunt v. Anderson, 30 Wn. App. 437 (1981) - Under the SMA, a home may be required to conform to a voluntary setback line established by adjacent homes if a location closer to the shore would detrimentally affect the aesthetics of the neighborhood and obstruct the view and reduce the value of the adjacent homes. The placing of a mobile home, the addition of a septic tank and drain field, and the construction of a deck within the 200-foot jurisdictional boundary of the SMA constituted a "development" under RCW 90.58.140(1). The prior location of plaintiff's homes on either side of defendant's lot created a voluntary setback to which defendant's development was required to conform.

Public benefit doctrine

Portage Bay-Roanoke Park Comm'ty Council v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 92 Wn.2d 1 (1979) - Any common-law public benefit doctrine this state may have had prior to 1971 has been superseded and the SMA is the present declaration of that doctrine.

Conflict between SMA and building code

Dep't of Ecology v. Pacesetter Constr. Co., 89 Wn.2d 203 (1977) - The SMA is a state statute of general application basically intended for the protection of the environment rather than the quality of construction, and, to the extent of any conflict between a city building code and SMA, the latter must govern.

Recommended Resources

• Washington State Department of Ecology: Shoreline and Coastal Management
• Puget Sound Partnership