(1) The County should take active measures to preserve unarmored shorelines and prevent the future proliferation of bulkheads and other forms of structural shoreline stabilization.

(2) The need to protect shorelines from the effects of erosion should be balanced with the need to protect fish and wildlife habitats and maintain sediment delivery and transport processes, which sustain healthy river and marine nearshore ecosystems.

(3) Information about shoreline erosion hazards should be made readily available to existing and prospective shoreline property owners so they are informed about the risks of living in areas that are prone to erosion, channel migration, landslides and other hazards. This should be achieved through a targeted marketing outreach program implemented by Clallam County.

(4) New development should be located and designed to avoid the need for future shoreline stabilization to the extent feasible.

(5) The amount of existing armoring on Clallam County’s shores should be reduced. The total amount of armoring removed should be greater than the total amount of new armoring. Feeder bluffs should be a priority for removal of existing armoring and avoidance of new armoring.

(6) Nonstructural shoreline stabilization measures should be encouraged as a means of protecting structures from erosion. Nonstructural shoreline stabilization measures include relocating structures away from the water, enhancing vegetation, managing drainage and runoff, and other measures.

(7) New structural shoreline stabilization should be permitted only when necessary to protect existing primary structures, single-family residence, public infrastructure, and/or for essential public facilities when other alternatives are infeasible.

(8) New structural and nonstructural shoreline stabilization measures should be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on shoreline ecology, including effects on the project site, adjacent properties, and down-drift or downstream areas.

(9) Stabilization structures should be designed based on an understanding of long-term physical shoreline processes. Structural and nonstructural shoreline stabilization structures should fit the physical character and hydraulic energy of a specific shoreline reach, which may differ substantially from adjacent reaches.

(10) Structural shoreline stabilization should not interfere with existing or future public access to public shorelines nor with other preferred shoreline uses.

(11) Voluntary relocation of existing developments that are located in erosion-prone or other hazardous areas should be encouraged when doing so will substantially reduce human health and safety hazards and improve ecological conditions.

(12) Reduce the adverse impacts of shoreline modifications and, as much as possible, limit shoreline modifications in number and extent.

(13) Assure that shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions. This is to be achieved by giving preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions and requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications.

(14) The County should review proposals for new shoreline stabilization to determine if any such development would thwart or substantially compromise planned restoration actions. The County should work with the proponents of each project to resolve likely conflicts between the proposed stabilization and planned restoration.