CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5273
Chapter 279, Laws of 2021
67TH LEGISLATURE
2021 REGULAR SESSION
SHORELINE ARMORING—REPLACEMENT—FISH LIFE IMPACT
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 2021
Passed by the Senate April 21, 2021 Yeas 29 Nays 20 DENNY HECK
President of the Senate Passed by the House March 28, 2021 Yeas 57 Nays 40 LAURIE JINKINS
Speaker of the House of Representatives | CERTIFICATE I, Brad Hendrickson, Secretary of the Senate of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5273 as passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on the dates hereon set forth. BRAD HENDRICKSON
Secretary Secretary |
Approved May 12, 2021 3:00 PM | FILED May 12, 2021 |
JAY INSLEE
Governor of the State of Washington | Secretary of State State of Washington |
SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5273
AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE
Passed Legislature - 2021 Regular Session
State of Washington | 67th Legislature | 2021 Regular Session |
BySenate Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks (originally sponsored by Senators Salomon, Rolfes, Pedersen, Das, Lovelett, and Nobles)
READ FIRST TIME 02/05/21.
AN ACT Relating to the replacement of shoreline armoring; amending RCW
77.55.231; and creating a new section.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that the state of Washington will continue to be negatively impacted by the effects of climate change, including reduced winter snowpack, drought, increased frequencies of forest fires, and acidifying oceans that disrupt marine ecosystem viability. In the nearshore environment, climate change contributes to the rise in average sea-surface temperatures and rising sea levels. Hardened shoreline structures are not always well-suited for their intended purpose and may have unintended consequences in the nearshore environment. Soft shorelines or natural shorelines may protect and restore shoreline ecosystems through the use of natural plants and materials, and the legislature finds that landowners must consider alternatives to hardening shorelines to restore ecosystem function and recover threatened and endangered species to help address the impacts of climate change in the nearshore environment.
Sec. 2. RCW
77.55.231 and 2012 1st sp.s. c 1 s 106 are each amended to read as follows:
(1)(a) Conditions imposed upon a permit must be reasonably related to the project. The permit conditions must ensure that the project provides proper protection for fish life, but the department may not impose conditions that attempt to optimize conditions for fish life that are out of proportion to the impact of the proposed project.
(b) In the event that any person desires to replace residential marine shoreline stabilization or armoring, a person must use the least impacting technically feasible bank protection alternative for the protection of fish life. Unless the department provides an exemption depending on the scale and nature of the project, a person that desires to replace residential marine shoreline stabilization or armoring must conduct a site assessment to consider the least impactful alternatives. A person should propose a hard armor technique only after considering site characteristics such as the threat to major improvements, wave energy, and other factors in an analysis of alternatives. The common alternatives identified in (b)(i) through (vii) of this subsection are in order from most preferred to least preferred:
(i) Remove the structure and restore the beach;
(ii) Remove the structure and install native vegetation;
(iii) Remove the structure and control upland drainage;
(iv) Remove the structure and replace it with a soft structure constructed of natural materials, including bioengineering;
(v) Remove the hard structure and construct upland retaining walls;
(vi) Remove the hard structure and replace it with a hard structure located landward of the existing structure, preferably at or above the ordinary high water line; or
(vii) Remove the hard structure and replace it with hard shoreline structure in the same footprint as the existing structure.
(c) For the purposes of this subsection, "feasible" means available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
(2) The permit must contain provisions allowing for minor modifications to the plans and specifications without requiring reissuance of the permit.
(3) The permit must contain provisions that allow for minor modifications to the required work timing without requiring the reissuance of the permit. "Minor modifications to the required work timing" means a minor deviation from the timing window set forth in the permit when there are no spawning or incubating fish present within the vicinity of the project.
Passed by the Senate April 21, 2021.
Passed by the House March 28, 2021.
Approved by the Governor May 12, 2021.
Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 12, 2021.
--- END ---