Shoreline Master Programs photo

Shoreline Master Programs

Responsiveness Summary on Nov. 2000 SMP shoreline rule

(Note: The rule that this document refers to was invalidated in August 2001 by the Shorelines Hearings Board. This information is posted here for reference.)

Ecology prepared a Responsiveness Summary on shoreline master program guidelines to show the public how Ecology responded to comments received during a 60-day public review period. This document is required under the Administrative Procedures Act, the law that guides agency rule-making procedures (Chapter 34.05.325(6)(a) RCW).

Because this document is very long, we've divided it into seven Adobe PDF files. To download, right-click on the file name, then "Save As" onto your computer. T

The introductory section addresses the requirement to identify the agency’s reasons for adopting the rule. This section also includes a summary of Ecology’s rule development process, a summary of top issues heard during the comment period, lists of acronyms, laws and regulations, and a Table of Contents for the document.

Comments and Responses

This section summarizes all written and oral comments received on the proposed rule during the public review period held during Summer 2000. The section is divided into four PDF files.

The comments are in italic type. After each comment, or collection of comments, you will find Ecology’s response, indicating how the final rule reflects the agency’s consideration of the comment(s) or why it fails to do so. If Ecology’s response was to change the rule, the response identifies any differences between the text of the proposed rule as published in the register and the text of the rule as adopted and states the reasons for differences. This summary includes many direct quotations from letters. In cases where more than one letter made the same comment, Ecology reproduced one or several representative expressions of the comment to capture the full range of perspectives on the issue, but did not reproduce every letter.

Strikethrough version of rule

The third section is a “strikethrough” version of the rule comparing the proposed rule as published in the State Register and the text of the final rule as adopted. This document is split into two Acrobat PDF files:

This document shows every change, including editorial changes, that Ecology made to the public comment version. Strikethrough formatting indicates language that was deleted. Underscore formatting indicates new language. Many of the editorial changes were made in response to comment letters asking to make Path A and Path B more consistent.

Distribution of this document

Chapter 34.05.325(6)(b) RCW requires that agencies provide responsiveness summaries (officially called “concise explanatory statements) to any person from whom the agency received comment. Ecology mailed a copy of this document to everyone who submitted testimony on the rule, if they provided a complete mailing address.

Back to Top