Shoreline Management Act
This page provides a basic overview of the Shoreline Management Act in Washington State, focusing on significant court decisions and sample master programs.
New legislation: Effective July 23, 2023, HB 1544 increases the review and revision cycle for Shoreline Master Programs from eight to 10 years. Also extends by one year the date by which the next round of Shoreline Master Program reviews and revisions are due. We will provide more information on our website soon.
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 Act is "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." 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.
Visit the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) Shoreline Management Act pages for the most comprehensive and up-to-date information regarding the SMA and local implementation.
The primary responsibility for administering this regulatory program is assigned to local governments, with a significant oversight role by the Department of Ecology. Local governments have adopted shoreline master programs and many have adopted their required updates pursuant to the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines at chapter 173-26 WAC. Local shoreline master programs 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 shoreline master program.
- 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
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 shoreline master programs. Approvals by local government of shoreline conditional use and variance permits must be reviewed by DOE, which then issues the final decision. Local governments and Ecology can also issue fines under the SMA. For more information, see DOE’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 DOE, or issued by DOE alone.
Cities and counties are required to update their shoreline master programs to be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines according to the schedule in RCW 90.58.080, with periodic reviews thereafter.
For the status of individual jurisdictions with links to the documents, see DOE's Status of Local Shoreline Master Programs.
Examples of Updated Shoreline Master Programs
- Bainbridge Island Shoreline Master Program and Ordinance No. 2014-04
- Bothell Resolution No. 1288 (2012) - Approving amended shoreline master program, and Exhibits A-D
- King County: About the King County Shoreline Master Program
- Kirkland Ordinance No. 4251 (2010) - Adopting the Shoreline Master Program update
- Spokane County Shoreline Master Program
Court upholds SMP adopted pursuant to the updated Department of Ecology guidelines
Olympic Stewardship Foundation, et. al. v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, ___ Wn. App. ___ (2017) - Division II affirmed the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board decision upholding Jefferson County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Jefferson County’s SMP was adopted pursuant to the updated Department of Ecology guidelines under the Shoreline Management Act (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 shoreline master programs (SMPs) developed pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act are not subject to RCW 82.02.020, which prohibits local governments from imposing direct or indirect taxes, fees, or charges on development. The Shoreline Management Act 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 Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of 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 shoreline master program 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 shoreline master program and comprehensive plan, and that the amendment did not violate the "public trust" doctrine.
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 Department of Ecology under the Shoreline Management Act (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 a shoreline master program. Two subsequent court of appeals decisions from different divisions (Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. 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).
Department of Ecology challenge subject to LUPA
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Dep't of Ecology, 162 Wn.2d 825 (2008) - The Department of Ecology (DOE) 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 DOE 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). DOE 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 adopting 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.
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 the OHWM 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 ordinary high water mark under RCW 90.58.030(2)(b).
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 shoreline master program goals and policies are part of its growth management comprehensive plan and that its master program regulations constitute development regulations.
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. 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. 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) - The Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW, provides the avenue by which the Department of Ecology (DOE) 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 shoreline master program. Where DOE 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.
Buechel v. Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994) - A landowner seeking a variance from the requirements of a shorelines master program 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 Shoreline 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 Shoreline Management Act 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 Shoreline Management Act 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 Act.
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.
Vesting under SMAA right to a permit required by the Shoreline Management Act vests upon the application for such permit.
Talbot v. Gray, 11 Wn. App. 807 (1974), review denied, 85 Wn.2d 1001 (1975) - This rule, of course, assumes that the permit applied for and granted be consistent with the shoreline plan and regulations in force at the time of application for the permit.