State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement

###NEWPAGE n="1" ###

State of WashingtonCoastal Zone'Management ProgramFinal Environmental Impact StatementU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationOffice of Coastal Zone Management

WWasaV A NOVESANWHATCOM X

Washington State Coastal Zone

###NEWPAGE n="2" ###

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COIvMMERCE

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT

STATE OF WASHINGTONCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Prepared by:

Office of Coastal ZoneManagement, NOAA3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.Washington, D. C. 20235

###NEWPAGE n="3" ###

WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE WqNAGEMENT PROGRAM AdMINISTPNIONSummary

( )Draft(X) Final Envirormtental Impact StatementDepartment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM)

For additional information about this proposed action or this state-ment, please contact:

Grant DeHartPacific Regional CoordinatorOffice of Coastal Zone Management3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W.Page I Building - Third FloorWashington, D. C. 20235Phone (202) 634-4235

This FEIS also meets the State of Washington State EnvironmentalProtection Act Requirements.

1. Type of Action:Proposed Federal approval of State of Washington Coastal ZoneManagement Program (WCZMP), Olympia Washington(X) Administrative( ) Legislative

2. Brief Description of Action:It is proposed that the Secretary of Commerce approve the CoastalZone Management Program application of the State of Washington,pursuant to P.L. 92-583, CZMA. Approval would permit implementationof the proposed program, allowing program administrative grantsto be awarded to the state, and require that Federal actionsbe consistent with the program.

3. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental EfftcZsApproval and implementation of the program will intensify theimpacts the State has currently felt under the administrationof the Shoreline Management Act, (SMA), within the coastal countiesand numerous other State authorities. It will provide funds toState and local governments to enhance their capability to managetheir coastal zone, provide for special regional coastal zoneprograms that take large resource areas into account which transcendpolitical jurisdictions, improve the data base on which coastaldecisions are made, and enhance coordination and consultationwith Federal agencies to better understand and act in the nationalinterest. This is the first chance in the Nation to determinethe impacts associated with having Federal, State, and local actionsconsistent to a large degree with respect to coastal land andwater uses. It is the clear intentions of both the Coastal ZoneManagement Act and the Washington Coastal Zone Management Programthat the majority of the impacts will prove beneficial to the

i

###NEWPAGE n="4" ###

waters and living resources of the coastal zone, as well asthe human environment. There will be some economic impacts oncertain coastal users and would-be users becaus e of restrictionsor prohibitions of land and water uses in some areas, but it will0not preclude their use in other areas.

4. Alternatives Considered:

a. The Secretary could deny approval until all outstandingintergovernmental issues are fully resolved.

b. The State could withdraw the approval application andcontinue either in a status quo or attempt to use othersources of funding to meet the objectives of the State'sshoreline and related CZM programs.

S. Comments:

The final environmental impact statement was revised from thedraft statement based on written comments received and statementsmade at a public hearing which was held April 22,. 1975, in Seattle,Washington. A total of forty comments were submitted from thefollowing:

Federal agencies ........16State agencies......... 9Local and Regional agencies ... 7Other.............8

A sun-nary of the comments are discussed below:

1. A number of responses, primarily from Federal agencies, expresseda concern that program approval was premature and requested delayfor one of several reasons. Some of the reasons, which are presentedin detail in Appendix 10, included the following:

-inadequate Federal consultation and coordination-wait until all Local Master Programs are approved-organizational network weak or not adequately described-all Federal lands must be excluded from the State'scoastal zone-specific agency interests were not adequately considered-the program did not meet all CZMA requirements andguidelines

Largely based on these concerns, Washington was granted pre-liminary, rather than full, approval in accordance with Section 306guideliness (923.3(b)) in May 1975. The State then requestedan extension and supplement of their grant and worked specificallyto meet the expressed concerns. Washington has since then had

ii

###NEWPAGE n="5" ###

and continues to have substantive involvement with the Federalagencies (see Section II), worked on clarifying its organiza-tional network, completing the Local Master P-rograms, improvingtechnical aspects of their program such as maps, Federal consis-tency implementation, and so on.

The substantive responses by the State of Washington and NOAAto these concerns are discussed in terms of impacts (Section V)and available alternatives (Section VI).

While much of this work has been accomplished, there are someelements that require continued efforts on the parts of State,Federal, local and public participants. While the CZMA requiresthat the management system be "in place," it does not require norcan it be expected that a system is perfected or running at100 percent efficiency at the time of approval.

DOC has determined that Washington has established the policiesand procedures for implementing a management program that isconsonant with objectives of the CZMA. Time, effort, and resourcesare needed to bring the program to total fruition. Barring anyfundamental conflicts unresolved during the Federal agencyreview or the review of this FEIS, DJOC intends to grant approvalwithout substantial further delay.

2. Most of the comments were directed at the Washington CoastalZone Management Program rather than the draft environmental impactstatement. Responses to these comments were addressed on anindividual basis (see Appendix 10 and 11 and program supplement).The significant concerns have been evaluated and incorporated inthe management program by the State of Washington and an officialamendment that accompanies this FEIS.The major concernscan be broken clown into three categories:

(a) lack of adequate information to evaluate programmaticelements or the nature of important organizationallinkages;

(b) lack of clarity in the Federal interaction and consistencypolicies of the program;

(c) and, a legal issue concerning the exclusion of Federallands from the coastal zone.

In addition to a substantially expanded doctument submitted byWashington describing their program, revisions have been made tothe program and the FEIS where it was indicated clarificationwas needed.

3. Several comments requested descriptive and data clarification.In addition, many comments were directed at correcting technical

iii

###NEWPAGE n="6" ###

errors and updating information.

Appropriate comments have been incorporated and.informationhas been updated.

4. It was suggested that OCZM assess the history and the impactsassociated with ae implementation of the Shoreland ManagementAct, Local Master Program approvals and shoreline permits andappeals. This, then, could be used as a basis for projectingenvironmental effects due to increased Federal financial assistanceand program approval.

Section V has been expanded to include impacts associated withthe implementation of the SMA. However, with a few positivemodifications, the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program(WCZMP) would continue to be implemer Led by the State under theWashington Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Therefore, at a minimum,this statement 3hould address what additional impacts Section 306funds and Federal consistency will have on the environmentas opposed to the existing State situation. While the major impactsassociated with this action would occur from these two sources(funding and consistency), DOC feels that this would be a morenarrow interpretation of NEPA requirements and has attempted tolook at the total picture, the cumulative impacts, where possible.

5. There were several requests to increase the quality of themaps which show the boundaries of the coastal zone.

Maps have been improved and included.

6. Several comments questioned the validity of some of the al-ternatives and recommended that they be deleted.

The section on alternatives has been changed and updated. Somewere not feasible alternatives and have been deleted.

7. A general suggestion to include a State program summary inthe FEIS which is geared to the requirements outlined in the306 regulations.

DOC has chosen the approach to describe the program as it worksrather than a point by point review of the Section 306 regulations.It would be very difficult to do this in a summary form and dojustice to the program.

8. While the majority of the comments felt that the DEIS wasadequate for the type of action that was going to take place,some stated that there was insufficient information.

The FEIS has been supplemented in many areas, namely: the sections

iv

###NEWPAGE n="7" ###

on impacts, alternatives, program descriptions and supportingappendices.

9. Because of the possible revisions to be made--in the WCZMPand the lack of information, some commenters suggested anotherdraft EIS be written when the State program elements have beenclarified.

The main changes that have occurred in the Washington CZMP a-readditions, refinements and expansion to respond to commentsand have not affected the basic policies and processes that theDEIS was based on. It is true that a nunnber of substantive elementshave been clarified, but it does not change the overall assess-ments made. Therefore, DOC has chosen to file an FEIS withappropriate amendments.

10. A number of comments requested further analysis of the impactson natural resource agencies, local governments, etc., whichcan be attributed to implementation of the SMA CZM comprehensiveprogram.

This has been done; primarily in the impacts section.

11. Due to a misunderstanding, one person thought that the approachthe Department of Ecology took to meeting CZMA requirements was notin accordance with the State constitution.

A personal response from the State Assistant Attorney General isenclosed to clarify this misunderstanding.

12. A number of people pointed out that there are unknowns and unfore-seen needs in the future that the current program does not address.

A CZM program should not be viewed as a final product. The CZMA(Section 306(g)) allows for amendments. What is important is thatthe State has an adequate process that can handle changes andconflicts. The State of Washington has such a process.

This FEIS should be read in conjunction with the State of Washington'sprogram submission to NOAA entitled, "Washington State Coastal ZoneProgram, January 1976,?t to fully appreciate and gain a more thor-ough understanding of the Washington program. Federal agencies havebeen sent a copy because of their responsibility to review theprogram prior to Secretarial approval. There is at present, however,only a limited number of copies available through the State Depart-ment of Ecology. Copies of the document can be found in thefollowing places:1. The Planning Office of each of the coastal counties and cities;

2. The following libraries:

V

###NEWPAGE n="8" ###

CLALLAM COUNTYNorth Olympic Library System2210 S. Peabody StreetPort Angeles 98362 206/457-4464 -- James H. Kirks, Jr.

GRAYS HARBORAberdeen Timberland Library121 E. Market StreetAberdeen 98520 206/533-2360 -- Rosalie Spellman

ISLAND COUNTYSnow Isle Regional LibraryP. O. Box 148Marysville 98720 206/259-8177 -- Mae L. Schoenrock

JEFFERSON COUNTYPort Townsend Public Library1228 Lawrence StreetPort Townsend 98368 206/385-3181 -- Madge M. Wallin

KING COUNTYKing County Library System300 8th Avenue, NorthSeattle 98109 206/344-7465 -- Herbert F. Mutschler

KITSAP COUNTYKitsap Regional Library612 5th StreetBremerton 98310 206/377-3955 -- Irene Heninger

MASON COUNTYTimberland South Mason LibraryRte. 5, Box 35Shelton 98584 206/426-1362 -- Doris Whitmarsch

PACIFIC COUNTYRaymond Public Library507 DuryeaRaymond 98577 206/942-2408 -- Jay Windisch

PIERCE COUNTYPierce County Library2356 Tacoma Avenue, S.Tacoma 98402 206/572-6760 -- Carolyn J. Else

vi

###NEWPAGE n="9" ###

SAN JUAN COUNTYEastsound (Meyers) LibraryOrcas IslandP. O. Box 165-Eastsound 98245 -- Polly Klauder

SKAGIT COUNTYAnacortes Public Library1209 9th StreetAnacortes 98221 206/293-2700 -- G. Douglas Everhart

SNOHOMISH COUNTYSee Island County

THURSTON COUNTYOlympia Public Library7th & FranklinOlympia 98501 206/352-0595 -- Margaret Coopinger

WAHKIAKUM COUNTYCathlamet Public LibraryP. 0. Box 337Cathlamet 98612 206/795-3254 -- Eleanor A. Taylor

WHATCOM COUNTYWhatcom County Library5205 N. W. RoadBellingham 98225 206/733-1250 -- Linda Hellyer

And at the following locations in the vicinity of Washington, D.C.:

3. Office of Coastal Zone ManagmentCoastal Zone Information Center3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W.Page I Building, Room 303Washington, D. C. 20235

4. Department of CommerceMain Commerce Building14th and Constitution, N. W.Room 7046Washington, D. C. 20230

vii

###NEWPAGE n="10" ###

6. List of Entities From Whom Comments Have Been Requested orReceived With Responders Indicated By"

Federal Agencies

*Departmrent of AgricultureAgricultural Stabilization and Conservation ServiceForest Service*Soil Conservation ServiceRural Electrification AdministrationAgriculture Research Service

Department of CommerceNOAAEDAMaritime Administration

Department of Defense*Aamy Corps of Engineers*U.S. Navy

*Department of the Interior (combined response)Bureau of Land Management (public lands)Office of Oil and GasBureau of Outdoor RecreationFish and Wildlife Service (commented at -public hearing)Bureau of Indian Affairs (Tndsrn Inp.HS)Geological SurveyNational Park ServiceOffice of Land Use and Water PlanningBureau of ReclamationOffice of Saline WaterBureau of MinesPower Marketing Administration

*Department of Transportation (combined response)*Coast GuardTransport and Pipeline Safety*Office of Environmental AffairsFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Aviation AdministrationFederal Railroad Administration

Environmental Protection Agency*Regional Administrator, Region X

U. S. Water Resources Council

Department of Health, Education and WelfarePublic Health Service

viii

###NEWPAGE n="11" ###

TABLE OF CONTENTSPageI. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................... 2A. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program .................. 2B. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program ............... 6

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED .......................... 57

IV. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LANE USE PLANS,POLICIES AND CONTROLS FOR THE AREA ............................... 81

V. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT ........ 84A. Impacts Resulting From the Federal AgencyReview Process ............................................... 89B. Impacts Directly Resulting From Federal Approval ............. 92C. Impacts Resulting from the State and LocalGovernment Action ............................................101D. Impacts on Historic Properties ............................... 113

VI. ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 116

VII. PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOTBE AVOIDED ....................................................... 124

VIII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .... 125

IX. IRREVOCABLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE CONVIITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULDBE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED ...... 126

X. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS......................... 127

REFERENCES ....................................................... 133

APPENDICESI. Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583)II. Final Guidelines, Coastal Zone Management ProgramAdministrative GrantsIII. Washington Shoreline Management Act of 1971IV. Final Guidelines,Shoreline Management Act of 1971V. Maps and MatricesVI. Conclusions and Reconmendations from "tWashington State ShorelineManagement--An Interim Assessment," by Maureen McCrea andJim Feldman, August 1975VII. State of Washington Board of Tax Appeals Decision onPadilla Bay TractsVIII. Summary of Shoreline Hearings Board Decisions - Revised Dec. 1973IX. Coordination and ConsultationX. Comments From Federal,State and Local Agencies and by InterestedPersons Involved in Review Process0AeXI. Washington Coastal Zone Management Program Supplement, .it 1976

###NEWPAGE n="12" ###

*Department of Housing and Urban Development (combined response)Federal insurance Administration,Office of Planning and Management Assistance*Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Department of Justice

*Energy Research and Development Administration

*Federal Energy Administration

*Federal Power Commission

General Services Administration

*National Aeronautics and Space Administration

*Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Federal- State

*Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission

State

*Washington (Governor's Office)

Department of AgricultureDepartment of Emergency ServicesDepartment of Commerce and Economic Development* Department of EcologyDepartment of Fisheries* Department of Game: Department of Highways* Department of Natural ResourcesDepartment of Social and Health Services* Office of Community DevelopmentInteragency Committee for Outdoor RecreationParks and Recreation Commission* Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management

County

Clallam County* Grays HarborIslandJeffersonKingKitsap

ix

###NEWPAGE n="13" ###

MasonPacificPierceSan JuanSkagitSnohomishThurstonWahkiakumWhatcom

Other Parties

Alpine Lakes Protection SocietyAmerican Institute of PlannersAmerican Water Works Association *Environmental Defense FundFederation of Western Outdoor ClubsIzaak Walton League *League of Women VotersMountaineers***National Audubon SocietyNational Wildlife Federation *Natural Resources Defense Council (phoned in comments)North Cascades Conservation CouncilNorthwest Pulp and Paper Association*Pacific Northwest National Seashore AlliancePlanning Association of WashingtonPuget Sound CoalitionSierra ClubThe Nature ConservancyWashington Association of Soil and Water Conservation Groups*Washington Environmental Council (verbal response at public hearing)Washington Forest Protection AssociationWashington Public Utility Districts AssociationWashington State Association of SanitariansWashington State Association of Water and Sewer DistrictsWashington State GrangeWashington State Sportsmen's Council

Date Made Available to CEQ and The Public:

Draft Statement:March 21, 1975Final Statement:April 9, 1976

x

###NEWPAGE n="14" ###

INTRODUCTION

In response to the intense pressures upon, the conflicts within,and the importance of the coastal zone of the United States,the Congress in 1972 passed the Coastal Zofie Management Act(P.L. 920583; 86 Stat. 1280; hereinafter referred to as the Act;included as Appendix 1). Signed into law by President Nixon onOctober 27, 1972,the Act authorized a new Federal program to beadministered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegatedthis responsibility to the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA).

The Act affirms a national interest in the effective management,beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone,and provides assistance and encouragement to the coastal statesto develop and implement rational programs for managing theircoastal zones. Three financial assistance grant programs areauthorized by the Act. Section 305 authorizes annual grantsto assist any United States coastal state or territory in thedevelopment of a management program for the land and waterresources of its coastal zone (program development grants).Under Section 306, after developing a management program, thestate may submit it to the Secretary of Commerce for approval;if approved, the state is' then eligible for annual grants toadminister its management program (program administration grants).A third section (Section 312) provides grants for an estuarinesanctuary program, to preserve a representative series of undis-turbed estuarine areas for long-term scientific and educationalpurposes.

As an additional incentive for state participation, the Act stipu-lates that Federal actions within the coastal zone shall be, tothe maximum extent feasible, consistent with approved statemanagement programs (the "Federal consistency" requirement ofSection 307).

Guidelines defining the procedures by which states can qualifyto receive development grants under Section 305 of the Act, andthe policies for development of a state management program, werepublished on November 29, 1973 (15 CFR Part 920, Federal Register38(229):33044-33051).

Guidelines for the implementation of the estuarine sanctuaryprogram were published on June 4, 1974 (15 CFR Part 921, FederalRegister 39 (108): 1922-1927), and the first estuarine sanctuarygrant was awarded to the State of Oregon on June 27, 1974.

1

###NEWPAGE n="15" ###

On January 9, 1975, NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management(OCZM) published criteria to be used for approving state coastalzone management programs and guidelines for program administrativegrants (15 CFR Part 923, Federal Register 40(6):1683-1695;see Appendix 2). These criteria an-gu-idelines set forth (a)the standards to be utilized by the Secretary of Commerce inreviewing and approving coastal zone management programs developedand submitted by coastal states for approval, (b) proceduresby which coastal states may qualify to receive program adminis-trative grants, and (c) policies for the administration by coastalstates of approved coastal zone management programs.

Pursuant to the Section 306 guidelines, OCZM has now receivedfor review and Secretarial approval proposed coastal zone manage-ment programs, in varying stages of completion for: Washington,Oregon, and the San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Develop-ment Commission (seeking segmented approval).

The OCZM has determined that approval of a state's coastal zonemanagement program, with resultant impacts of potential funding,consistency of Federal actions and permits, and ultimately land-use in toto, has the potential for causing a significant impacton te environment, and that, therefore, an environmental impactstatement (EIS) should be prepared pursuant to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA). This EIS is intended to presentfor review by interested parties the State of Washington's coastalzone management program and its application for approval underSection 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

A. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program

The enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 culminateda lengthy history of Federal interest in and concern for thecoastal zone and its resources. Significant national interestcan be traced from the Committee on Oceanography of the NationalAcademy of Sciences' (NASCO) 12-volume report "Oceanography1960-1970," (1959) to the Report of the Commission on MarineScience, Engineering and Resources (1969), which proposed thata Coastal Management Act be enacted that would "provide policyobjectives for the coastal zone and authorize Federal grants-in-aid to facilitate the establishment of State Coastal ZoneAuthorities empowered to manage the coastal waters and adjacentland." (p.56) The National Estuarine Pollution Study (1969),authorized by the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, and theNational Estuary Study (1970), authorized by the Estuarine AreasStudy Act of 1968, further documented the importance of the

2

###NEWPAGE n="16" ###

conflicting demands upon our Nation's coasts. Together these reports stressed the need to protect and wisely use these import- ant national resources, and concurred that a specific program designed to promote the thoughtful protection and management of our coastal zone was necessary. In response to these recommendations, the first legislative pro-posals for coastal management programs were introduced in 1969. Long and extensive hearings were held on these and subsequent bills during the next three years (e.g.: House 91-14, 91-46, and 92-16; Senate 92-15, 92-753, and 92-1049). The overwhelming support for the final Act (P.L. 92-583), which passed 68-0 in the Senate and 376-6 in the House, clearly reflected the need for decisive action in the coastal zone.

The Act opens by stating that "there is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and develop-menti. of the coastal zone.'" (Section 302(a)). The statement of Congressional findings goes on to describe how competition for the utilization of coastal resources, brought on by the increased demands of population growth and economic expansion, has led to the degradation of the coastal environment, citing the "loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, perma- nent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion."The Act then states that the "key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over the. lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the states ... in developingland and water use programs... .including unified policies, criteria, standards, methods, and processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance." (Section 302(h)).

While local governments and Federal agencies are required to cooperate, coordinate and participate in the development of the management programs, the state level of government is clearly given the central role and responsibility for this process. The Act provides a number of incentives and means of achieving these objectives and policies. Under Section 305 it enables the 30 coastal states (Great Lakes states are included) and four coastal territories, on a voluntary basis, to receive grants from NOAA to cover two-thirds of the costs of developing coastal zone manage- ment programs. Broad guidelines and minimum requirements in the Act provide the necessary direction for developing these programs. For example, during the program development, each state must address specific issues such as the boundaries of its coastal zone; geographic areas of particular concern; permissible and priority land and water uses, and areas for preservation or restoration. During the planning process, the state is directed to consult with local, regional, and relevant Federal agencies and govern- ments, and general public interests. These annual grants can be3

###NEWPAGE n="17" ###

renewed twice, so that Federal support can be provided to statesfor up to three years for this program development phase.

Upon completion and adoption of the management..program by thestate, and after approval by the Secretary of Commerce, statesand territories are eligible under Section 306 to receive adminis-trative grants (presumably in greater amounts than for programdevelopment) to cover two-thirds of the costs of implementingthese programs. The criteria for approval of state coastal zonemanagement programs and guidelines for applying for programadministrative grants are provided in Appendix 2. The states'administration of their programs will be reviewed annually byOCZM and, as long as they are administered consistent with theapproved management program, the states will remain eligible forannual administrative grants.

The Act provides that the views of Federal agencies principallyaffected by such programs must be adequately considered by theSecretary of Commerce in his -review and approval of the --iagementprogram. The Department has established a formal review processto receive the comments from such Federal agencies anc , whichserious disagreements may be resolved (15 CFR Part 925, InterimRegulations. Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 41, February 28, 1975).

NOAA evaluation of the statutory requirements established in theAct and guidelines will concentrate primarily upon the adequacyof state processes in dealing with key coastal problems and issues.It will not, in general, deal with the wisdom of specific landand water use decisions, but rather with a determination that inaddressing those problems and issues, the state is aware of thefull range of present and potential needs and uses of the coastalzone, and has developed procedures, based upon scientific know-ledge, public participation and unified governmental policies,for making reasoned choices and decisions.

Management programs will be evaluated in the light of the Congres-sional findings and policies as contained in Sections 302 and303 of the Act. These sections make it clear that Congress inenacting the legislation was concerned about the environmentaldegradation, damage to natural and scenic areas, loss of livingmarine resources and wildlife, decreasing open space for publicuse and shoreline erosion being brought about by populationgrowth and economic development. The Act thus has a strongenvironmental thrust, stressing the "urgent need to protect andto give high priority to natural systems in the coastal zo'ne."A close working relationship between the agency responsible forthe coastal zone management program and the agencies responsiblefor environmental protection is vital in carrying out thislegislative intent. States are encouraged by the Act to take intoaccount ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic values as

4

###NEWPAGE n="18" ###

well as the need for economic development in preparing and imnple-menting management programs through which the states, with theparticipation of all affected interests and levels of government,exercise their full authority over coastal lands and waters.

In addition, the Act provides coastal states and territorieswith the opportunity to apply for grants to cover one-halfof the costs of acquisition, development and operation of estuarinesanctuaries, wherein natural field laboratories are establishedin order that scientists and students may be provided the oppor-tunity to examine over a period of time ecological relationshipsin representative undisturbed estuaries of the coastal zone.

Although signed in October 1972, implementation of the FederalCoastal Zone Management Program was delayed by the Administration'sdecision not to request appropriations for the remainder ofFY 1973 or FY 1974. This decision was made on the groundsthat more information on the nature and extent of state activitiesand needs was required before committing funds, and becauseof the desire by the Administration to coordinate or subsumethe operation of the coastal zone management program with or underthe then pending land use legislation. Eventually in responseto the pressing needs and demands in the coastal zone, and in viewof negative action on the land use legislation, the President inAugust 1973, forwarded an amended budget request to Congressfor $5 million to begin implementation of the Coastal ZoneManagement Act. This request was amended by Congress to providea final appropriation of $12 million for FY 1974, and was signedby the President on November 27, 1973. About $7.2 million ofthis total was for program development grants (Section 305),$4 million for estuarine sanctuary grants, and $800,000 for pro-gram administration within NOAA.

The OCZM budget for FY 1975 remained at $12 million, distributedhowever as $9 million for program development, $2.1 million forstate program administration grants, and $900,000 for internalNOAA program administration. About $3.2 million remained availablein the estuarine sanctuary program as carry over funds fromFY 1974. Currently all eligible states, and three of four eligibleterritories have received grants under the program. Two estuarinesanctuary grants have been awarded to the States of Oregon andGeorgia.

###NEWPAGE n="19" ###

B. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP)

INTRODUCTIONZ

The CZMA defines "management programt' as "a comprehensive state-ment in words, maps, illustrations, or other media of communication,prepared and adopted by the state in accordance with the provisionsof this title, setting forth objectives, policies, and standardsto guide public and private uses of lands and waters in thecoastal zone." (Section 304(g)).

On February 14, 1975, Governor Daniel J. Evans, submitted on be-half of the State of Washington, the first coastal zone managementprogram to the Office of Coastal Zone Management/NOAA. The programconsisted of documentation of state laws, administrative regula-tions, description of programs and processes on how the state wasgoing to manage its coastal zone. A thorough review of theWCZMP by OCZM, other Federal agencies probably affected by theprogram, and the public, identified certain aspects of the programneeding further development prior to the Secretary of Connerceapproving the program. The major concerns expressed dealt withFederal/state relationships, the State's organizational network,and a lack of clarity in the description of some of the substantiveprogram elements. Preliminary approval was granted the Statein May 1975, and the State was given a supplemental developmentgrant to intensively work on the concerns stated above.

Realizing that coastal zone management is a dynamic process justas the issues identified, the State has further developed a pro-cess of communication with Federal agencies in order to betterunderstand their missions and actions in the coastal zone, howthey can cooperatively work together on such arrangements asthe Federal consistency requirements, and to get a better under-standing of what the national interests are in the siting offacilities. Similarly, efforts have been made to complete thereview of Local Master Programs and approve them prior to Section306 approval. Arrangements were made with other State agenciesto increase the coordination of the various programs. Andfinally, several program elements have been improved.

On December 12, 1975, Governor Evans submitted the WCZMP forfinal approval. In his cover letter to NOAA, Governor Evansstated the following:

"I have reviewed the Washington coastal zone managementprogram, and, as Governor, approve the program and certify tothe following:

6

###NEWPAGE n="20" ###

1. The state has the required authorities and is presentlyimplementing the coastal zone management program;

2. The state has established, and is operating, the neces-sary organizational structure to implement the coastalzone management program;

3. The Department of Ecology is the single designated agencyto receive and administer grants for implementing thecoastal zone management program, and further the Depart- ment of Ecology is hereby designated as the lead agency for the implementation of the coastal zone management program;

4. The state, in concert with local governments, has the authority to control land and water uses, control develop- ment, and resolve conflicts among competing uses,

S. The state presently uses the methods listed in Section 306(e) (1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act for controlling land and water uses in the coastal zone, including: (a) the authority derivedfrom the Shoreline Management Act, the Act'simplementing regulations including the Final Guide-lines and local master programs; (b) state adminis- trative review of local programs, and permits a associated with the Shoreline Management Act; and(c) direct state regulatory authority for control of air and water pollution;

6. The state has sufficient powers to acquire lands,should that become desirable or necessary underelements of the coastal zone management program;

7. Those state laws cited in the program have been passed by the legislature and enacted into law. Administrative regulations required to implement the laws have been formally adopted by the respon- sible state agencies; and state approved local master programs have been formally adopted by the appropriate local government;

S. The state's air and water pollution control programs,established pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and the Federal Clean Air Act,insofar as those programs pertain to the coastal zone, are hereby made a part of the state's coastal zone management program. The regulations appurtenant to the-air and wate-r programs are incorporated into this program and shall become the water pollution control. requirements and air pollution control requirements7

###NEWPAGE n="21" ###

applicable to the state's coastal zone managementprogram. Further, any additional requirements andamendments to air and water pollution programsshall also become part of the state's coastalzone management program; and

9. I further certify that the Washington coastal zonemanagement program is now an official program of theState of Washington and the state, acting by andthrough its several instrumentalities, will striveto meet the intent of the Coastal Zone ManagementAct of 1972, and the state's corollary legislation;and to do so in a uniform, cooperative and aggressivespirit.'

The Shoreline Management Act provides for the basis of managingthe coastal zone. The following section, taken from theWCZNP, explains how this significant and comprehensive pieceof legislation works.

8

###NEWPAGE n="22" ###

THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971govern their treatment in operating shoreline pro-grams. The Act defines "shorelines of statewideRequirements and Range of Applicability of thesignificance" as followsAct The Shoreline Management Act requires and(1) The Area between the ordinary high water The Shoreline Management Act requires andmark and the western boundary of the statedefines a planning program and a regulatory permitfrom Cape Disappointment on the south tosystem, both of which are initiated at the localCape Flattery on the north, including har-level under state guidance. The planning programbors, bays, estuaries, and inlets;for each local government consists of a com-prehensive shoreline inventory and a master pro-(2) Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacentgram for the regulation of shoreline uses. Thesalt waters and the Strait of Juan de Fucainventory covers existing land and water uses, gen-between the ordinary high water mark anderalized ownership patterns, and natural shorelinethe line of extreme low tide as follows:characteristics. The master program utilizes the in-(a) Nisqually Delta-from DeWolf Bight toventory information and is essentially a com-Tatsolo Point,prehensive land use plan with a distinct environ-(b) Birch Bay-from Point Whitehorn tomental orientation. The master program includesbasic goals and objectives, the designation of allshoreline areas into a categorization system, and(c) Hood Canal-from Tala Point to Foul-specific regulatory language. The entire planningweather Bluff,function is conducted in conformance with guide-(d) Skagit Bay and adjacent area-fromlines prepared and adopted by the Department ofBrown Point to Yokeko Point, andEcology (DOE). The resulting local master pro-(e) Padilla Bay-from March Point tograms are subject to state review and approval andWilliam Point;are then adopted as state regulations. The regula-tory permit system is overseen by a state adminis-(3) Those areas of Puget Sound and the Straittrative appellate body created for the purpose byof Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt watersthe Act.north to the Canadian line and lying sea-ward from the line of extreme low tide; The management program established in theShoreline Management Act applies to all "shore-(4) Those lakes, whether natural, artifical or alines of the state," including both "shorelines" andcombination thereof, with a surface acreage"shorelines of statewide significance." In a nutshellof one thousand acres or more measured atthe Act applies to all marine water areas of thethe ordinary high water mark;state, to streams with a mean annual flow of 20(5) Those natural rivers or segments thereof ascubic feet per second or more, and to lakes largerfollows:than 20 acres. It also applies to adjacent landareas extending landward 200 feet from the(a) Any west of the crest of the Cascadeordinary high water mark and to all marshes, bogs,range downstream of a point where theswamps, floodways, river deltas, and floodplains as-mean annual flow is measured at onesociated with water bodies subject to the Act. Inthousand cubic feet per second or more,all, there are 791 lakes, 965 rivers and streams,(b) Any east of the crest of the Cascadesome 2,400 miles of marine shoreline, and overrange downstream of a point where the3,000 square miles of marine waters subject toannual flow is measured at two hundredthe Act.cubic feet per second or more, or thoseportions of rivers east of the crest of the Special legislative concern was expressed in SMACascade range downstream from the firstfor those shorelines identified as of statewide con-three hundred square miles of drainagecern and special use priorities were established toarea, whichever is longer;

()g

###NEWPAGE n="23" ###

(6) Those wetlands associated with (1), (2), (4),master programs where a local governmentand (5) above.declined or refused to do so. Only two countiesand two small towns refused to complete Two interrelated time schedules were set up inprograms. The Department has completed andthe Act for the Department of Ecology and localadopted programs for all four jurisdictions.adopted progmams for all four jurisdictions.governments to establish the framework, guide-lines, and plans which will collectively constitutePolicy Direction from the Actthe management system. The Department wasdirected to undertake and complete the followingManagement goals in SMA place a strong em-no later than the dates indicated:phasis upon a balance between conservation anduse of the shorelines. In RCW 90.58.020 the September 28, 1971-initial draft of the guide-use of the shorelines. In RCW 90.58.020 the lines and submission to local governments forLegislature declares that "unrestricted construc- comments.tion on the privately owned or publicly ownedshorelines of the state is not in the best public February 26, 1972-completion of a final guide-interest," which should be protected through co-line daft ad subissionfor rview.interest," which should be protected through co-line draft and submission for review.ordinated planning, while "at the same time, recog- March 26, 1972-completion of public hearingsnizing and protecting private property rights on final draft.consistent with the public interest." The Legisla- June 24, 1972-holding of a public hearingture further declares that it is the policy of the to adopt final guidelines.state to provide for the management of the state'sshorelines "by planning for and fostering all Local governments were to fulfill their basicreasonable and appropriate uses" and that thisresponsibilities-the completion of an inventorypolicy is designed toof their shorelines and the drafting of the masterprogram-on the following schedule:"insure the development of these shorelines November 30, 1971-submission of a letter ofin a manner which, while allowing for limitedreduction of rights of the public in the navigable intent to the Department of Ecology indicatingwaters, will promote and enhance the public that the governmental unit will undertake andwaters, will promote and enhance the public complete the shoreline inventory and the masterinterest. This policy contemplates protectingprogram. against adverse effects to the public health, theland and its vegetation and wildlife, and the January 26, 1972-last date for responses to thewaters of the state; while protecting generally Department of Ecology initial draft of guide-public rights of navigation and corollary rights lines.incidental thereto." November 30, 1972-shoreline inventory to becompleted.More specific priorities are given for shorelinesof statewide significance. DOE and local govern-December 24, 1973-submission of master planments are directed to give preference to uses into the Department of Ecology at least eighteenme dr cvpreference tmonths after the effective date of the guidelinesthe following order of preference which:(this was later amended to June 20, 1974).(a) Recognize and protect the statewide interestover local interest.In general terms, then, the process of creating(b) Preserve the natural character of the shore-the system was to be completed within three-and-line.a-half years. The state was directed to cooperatefully with local governments in meeting their(c) Result in long-term over short-term benefit.responsibilities. In addition, there is a provision in(d) Protect the resources and ecology of thethe Act which authorizes the Department to distri-shoreline.bute grant funds appropriated by the Legislature toassist local governments. DOE was also authorized(e) Increase public access to publicly ownedto undertake the completion of inventories andareas of the shorelines.

10

###NEWPAGE n="24" ###

(f) Increase recreational opportunities for theSimilarly, the final guidelines recommend thatpublic in the shoreline."water-dependent industries which requirefrontage on navigable water should be givenThe Legislature further specifies that wherepriority over other industrial uses."-alterations of the natural condition of such shore--lines are permitted, priority should be given to theWhile it is not the Intent of the Act to catego-following uses: (1) single family residences; (2)rically prohibit all non-water dependent uses, thereports; (3) shoreline recreational uses; (4) industrial is clear intent to establish a preference for water-and commercial developments that are particular-dependent uses. The concept of preference of usely dependent upon their location on or use ofis particularly applicable to shorelines undershorelines; and (5) other developments which willintense development pressures for port- andprovide an opportunity for substantial numbers ofharbor-related industrial activity where availabilitypeople to enjoy the shorelines.of that shoreline resource is limited and theWhilethe olicycitaionsaboveare uiteresource is extremely valuable.generl, theraranubro policyitaios abov the quiteThe Shorelines Hearings Board (see pages 41-43)which are considerably more specific. Timber hsfrhrepne n eie h ocp ncutting regulations for shorelines of statewidepolicies of water dependency. The Board, in DOEsignificance were specifically included within theand 'Yount vs. Snohomish Co., defined water200 foot zone ofthese areas; only selective corn-dependency in the following terms:mercial cutting is allowed so that no more than 30A water-dependent commerce or industry, toper cent of the saleable trees may be harvested inwhich priority should be given, is one whichany ten-year period. Authorization is providedcannot exist in any other location and is depen-.Cr other harvesting methods when they are neces-dent on the water by reason of the intrinsicy for regeneration. Surface drilling for oil ornature of its operations. A water relatedr6as is prohibited in the waters of Puget Soundindustry or commerce is one which is notnorth to the Canadian boundary and the Strait ofintrinsically dependent on a waterfront locationJuan de Fuca seaward from the ordinary highbut whose operation cannot occur economically*water mark and on all lands within 1,000 feetwithout a shoreline location.from the mark. There is also a height limit onstructures. Permits cannot be issued for any newIn light of the fact that the Department ofor expanded building or structure of more thanNatural Resources' policies for the leasing ofthirty-five feet that will obstruct the view of a sub- state-owned tidal areas further supports thestantial number of residences on areas adjoiningconcept of water dependency, the policy ofthe shoreline except where a master program doesspecifying water dependent uses as priority usesnot prohibit such a height and only when over-has solidified considerably over the past four years.riding considerations of the public interest will beHowever, an emerging concept of "waterserved.relativity" promises more difficulty in interpreta-tion. Consistent with these concepts, many localThe concept of preferred shoreline uses is as-master programs have established the followingserted in both the Shoreline Management Act andpreferences for three classes of uses.the Department of Ecology's final guidelines. TheAct states that(1) Water-dependent uses are those uses which. .uses shall be preferred which are... .unique tocannot logically exist in any other locationor dependent upon use of the state's shoreline.but on the water.Alteration of the natural condition of theshorelines of the state, in those limited instances(2) Water-oriented uses are uses which arewhen authorized, shall be given priority for in-helped by their location on the shoreline,dustrial and commercial development which arebut it is possible for them to locate awayparticularly dependent on their location or usefrom the waterfront with existingof the shorelines of the state."technology.

###NEWPAGE n="25" ###

(3) Non-water oriented uses are all uses whichdetermination of which environment designationcan locate equally well away from the water-should be given to any specific area was made asfront.follows.Policy Direction from the DOE Guidelines (1) The resources-df the shoreline areas were(1 Te rsorcs'f te hoelne res erPolicy Dirction fro the DOE uidelinesanalyzed for their opportunities and limita-Final DOE rules and regulations governing thetions for different uses. Completion of adevelopment of local master programs werecomprehensive shoreline inventory was aadopted on June 20, 1972, as Chapter 17 3-16 ofprerequisite for the development of localthe Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Theshoreline master programs.rules and regulations constituted strong policy(2) Each of the plan elements was analyzed forguidelines to local governments on how to con-its effect on the various resources in shore-struct master programs. Of particular interest hereline areas. Since shorelines are only a part ofare the parts of the guidelines which set forththe system of resources within a localstate policy relating to the classification of shore-jurisdiction, it was particularly importantline environments, permissible and priority uses,that planning for shorelines be consideredand the treatment of shorelines of statewidean integral part of the area-wide planning.significance.Further plans, policies, and regulations forThe guidelines set forth a system of categorizingladwdaenttote shreliwdine acordnc wthe statshoreline areas for local governments to use in theirwee0evewdinacoracewih.Cmaster programs. The system was designed to pro-9-830vide a uniform basis throughout the state for(3) Public desires were considered through theapplying policies and use regulations to differentcitizen involvement process to determineshoreline locations. The guidelines suggest cate-how local values and aspirations related togorization into four distinct environmental types-the development of different shoreline natural, conservancy, rural, and urban-based onareas. the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities, and the goals and aspirations of theThe management objectives and features by local citizenry, In actual fact, some local programswhich the DOE guidelines characterize each of the have identified more than the basic four environ-environments (WAC 173-16-040(4)(b)(i)-iv)) are ments and others have only three, depending onquoted in full in what follows because of their. the character and diversity of conditions along thecentral importance as the basis for environment shoreline in question, but the guidelines diddesignations within local jurisdictions. achieve a basic standardization.Natural Environment: The natural environmentThe categorization system is designed to en-isitnetopsrvadrsoethentul courage uses in each type of environment whichisitnetopsrvadrsoethentul enhance the character of that environment and to rsuc ytm xsigrltvl reo u utilize performance standards which regulate usemainlec.Lalpiistochvehs activities in accordance with the locally definedobjective would aim to regulate all potentialgoal andobjctivs raherthanto smpl excudedevelopments degrading or changing the natural ganylsefo any objecie rtenvronment. simply thluecharacteristics which make these areas uniqueany us fromany oe envionmen. Thu, theand valuable. particular uses or types of developments al- lowed in each environment must be designed andThe main emphasis of regulation in these areas located to minimize detrimental effects therebyis on natural systems and resources which re- leading to the achievement of the objectives of thequire severe restrictions of intensities and types local shoreline development goals for each type ofof uses to maintain them in a natural state. environment. The system results in the superimpo-Therefore, activities which may degrade the sition of an overall environment class over localactual or potential value of this environment*planning and zoning along the shorelines. Theare to be restricted.

Is12

###NEWPAGE n="26" ###

The primary determinant for designating an areaThe conservancy environment is also the most as a natural environment is the actual presencesuitable designation for those areas which pre- of some unique natural or cultural featuressent too seyere biophysical limitations to be considered valuable in their natural or originaldesignated als'ural or urban environments. Such condition, which are relatively intolerant oflimitations include steep slopes presenting intensive human use. Such features are defined,erosion and slide hazards, areas prone to flood- identified, and quantified in the shoreline in-ing, and areas which cannot provide adequate ventory. The relative value of the resources iswater supply or sewage disposal. based on local citizen opinion and the needsRural Environment: The rural environment is and desires of other people in the rest of theintended to protect agricultural land from urbanstate. expansion, restrict intensive development along Because of its restrictive regulations, the naturalundeveloped shorelines, function as a bufferenvironment has been utilized sparingly throughoutbetween urban areas, and maintain open spacesthe state. Publicly owned fragile and ecologicallyand opportunities for recreational uses corn-valuable shorelands are more likely to be desig-patible with agricultural activities.nated as natural than privately owned similarThe rural environment is intended for thoseshorelands.areas characterized by intensive agricultural Conservancy Environment: The objective inand recreational uses and those areas having a dt.,ignating a conservancy environment is tohigh capability to support active agricultural protect, conserve, and manage existing naturalpractices and intensive recreational develop- resources and valuable historic and culturalment. Hence, those areas that are already used areas in order to ensure a continuous flow offor agricultural purposes, or which have recreational benefits to the public and to achieveagricultural potential, should be maintained sustained resource utilization.for present and future agricultural needs.Designation of rural environments also seeks toThe cnserancyenvionmen is or tose reasalleviate pressures of urban expansion on primewhich are intended to maintain their existing frigaescharacter. The preferred uses are those whichNew developments in a rural environment are toare nonconsumptive of the physical and bio-reflect the character of the surrounding area bylogical resources of the area. Nonconsumptivelimiting residential density, providing permanentuses are those uses which can utilize resourcesopen space and by maintaining adequateon a sustained yield basis while minimallybuilding setbacks from water to prevent shore-reducing opportunities for other future uses ofline resources from being destroyed for otherthe resources in the area. Activities and uses of arural types of uses.nonpermanent nature which do not substantial-Public recreation facilities which can be locatedly degrade the existing character of an .area areand designed to minimize conflicts with agricul-appropriate uses for a conservancy environment.tural activities are recommended for the ruralExamples of uses that might be predominant inenvironment. Linear water access which preventsa conservancy environment include diffuse out-overcrowding in any one area, trail systems fordoor recreation activities, timuer harvesting onsafe nonmotorized traffic along scenic corri-a sustained yield basis, passive agriculturaldosadpvionfrreetoaliwngfuses such as pasture and range lands, and otherdosadpvionfrreetoaliwngfrelated uses and activitieswater areas illustrate some of the ways torelated uses ad activities.ensure maximum enjoyment of recreationalThe designation of conservancy environmentsopportunities along shorelines without con-also seeks to satisfy the needs of the communityflicting with agricultural uses. In a similaras to the present and future location of recrea-fashion, agricultural activities are to be con-tional areas proximate to concentrations of pop-ducted in a manner which will enhance the op-ulation, either existing or projected.portunities for shoreline recreation. Farm

###NEWPAGE n="27" ###

management practices which prevent erosionhave designated the water differently from the and subsequent siltation of water bodies anduplands but still using shoreline classes, and a few minimize the flow of waste material into waterhave added a separate marine or aquatic environ- courses are encouraged by the master programs.ment.Z_- Z

Urban Environment: The objective of the urbanMany counties have also identified a fifth shore- environment is to ensure optimum utilization ofline environment which is between the intensively shorelines within urbanized areas by providingdeveloped urban and the agricultural rural environ- for intensive public use and by managingments. This environment is called either suburban/ development so that it enhances and maintainssemirural or rural-residential and is intended to shorelines for a multiplicity of urban uses.identify those shoreline areas with low-densityThe uban nvirnmen is a are of igh-residential development ususally with individual ithensityband-s incuingresidentisal , ara ofmig-water and sewage disposal systems. The objectiveintesitylanduseincldingresdental, om-of the designation is to preserve the low-density mercial, and industrial development. The caatr environment does not necessarily include allcaatr shorelines within an incorporated city, but isThe DOE guidelines also provided policies for particularly suitable to those areas presentlyshoreline activities which served as the basis for subjected to extremely intensive use pressure,the development of the local shoreline master as well as areas planned to accommodate urbanprograms (WAC 17 3-16-060). The development expansion. Shorelines planned for future urbanguidelines were also used as criteria for the evalua- expansion should present few biophysicaltion of proposed shoreline developments at both limitations for urban activities and not have athe local and state levels while local master pro- high priority for designation as an alternativegrams were being developed. The following is a environment.brief summary of DOE's development policies. Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis is given to develop-Agricultural Practices: Agricultural practices ment within already developed areas andshould not lower water quality by causing particularly to water-dependent industrial anderosion and permitting chemicals or animal commercial uses requiring frontage on navigablewastes to enter water bodies. waters.In te materprogams pririt is lsogive toArchaeological Areas and Historic Sites: The plning fh atrpogras pubicrt visua anphscls access toNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and platering the purblic evironent IdndtphysicanacsstChapter 43.51 RCW provide for the protection, naeer an ning o the acurbanenvionmet Idntfyirbngrehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of nedsandfo peranentpbicngcs tor the wacusterioofubndistricts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects thlrando penvromaent shuldlic accomlsstthedwtrisignificant in American and Washington history, inthe curban eniofnmentius shoreldibe maagcmlse-architecture, archaeology or culture. The ment.T enhane watersofrcontianuou eshoreln maxig-Washington State Parks and Recreation Commis- mum public use, industrial and commercialsinsrepsblfothsrgam facilities shall be designed to permit pedestrianShoreline permits should contain provisions waterfront activities. Where practical, variouswhich would require developers to notify access points are to be linked to nonmotorizedauthorities if any possible archaeological data transportation routes, such as bicycle and hikingare uncovered during construction, and the sites paths.should be preserved if possible.

The counties have varied in their approach toAquaculture: Aquaculture is a preferred use inenvironment designation for the water areas insuitable water areas but should be conductedtheir jurisdiction. Many counties have extended thewith due consideration for navigation rightsshoreline environments over the water areas, othersand visual quality.

14

###NEWPAGE n="28" ###

Breakwaters: Breakwaters should be con-In the limited instances when fill is authorizedstructed in such a way that detrimental effectsthe fill material should be of such quality thaton the movement of sand, circulation of water,it will not cause problems of water quality.and public use of the water surface are re--duced or eliminated.Marinas: Marinas-ghould be located near highuse areas and should be designated in a mannerBulkheads: Bulkheads and seawalls are to be that will reduce damage to fish and shellfishBulkheads: Bulkheads and seawalls are to beresources and be aesthetically compatible withconstructed to protect upland property fromces and be aesthetically compatible withthe adjacent areas.imminent erosion and should not cause adversethe adjacent areas.effects on nearby beaches, damage fish andMining: Removal of sand and gravel fromshellfish habitats, or detract from the aestheticmarine beaches should not be permitted. Whenquality of the shoreline.authorized, removal of rock, sand, gravel, andminerals from shoreline areas should be con-Commercial Development: Shoreline-dependentducted in the least sensitive biophysical areas,commercial development and developmentswith adequate protection against siltation andwhich will provide shoreline enjoyment for aerosion.large number of people should be preferred.New commercial activities should locate inOutdoor Advertising:Off-premise outdoorurbanized areas.advertising signs are discouraged from shorelinelocations. Where permitted, signs should beDredging: Dredging should be controlled inlocated on the upland side of transportationorder to minimize damage to existing ecologicalroutes and should not impair vistas and view-values and natural resources of both the areapoints.to be dredged and the area for depositing ofdredged materials. Single-purpose dredging toPiers: In general, the continued proliferation ofobtain fill material shall be discouraged.single-purpose private docks is to be discouragedand the use of community piers or offshoreForest Management Practices: Forest manage- floating devices for boat moorage is encouraged.Forest Management Practices: Forest manage-ment practices are to guard against siltation,Ports and Water-Related Industry: Industry increased water temperature in spawning streamswhich requires frontage on navigable waters and lakes, pollution due to application of chem-should be given priority over other industrial icals, and destruction of scenic quality. Onlyuses. Prior to allocating shorelines for port selective timber cutting is permitted within theuses, regional and state-wide needs for such uses 200-foot area abutting shorelines of statewideshould be considered. significance. (RCW 90.58.150)significance. (RCW 90.58.150)Recreation: Priority will be given to develop-ments which provide recreational uses and otherJetties and Groins: The effects on sand move-ments wh ich provide recreational u ses and other ment from these structures, when proposed,improvements facilitating public access to shore- should be carefully evaluated and, when neces-lines. Water-oriented recreation is a preferredment fom thse stucturs, whn proosedlines. Water-oriented recreation is a preferredstepsshould be takentoinvestigatenea-use along the shorelines, but it should be located sary, steps should be taken to investigate nega-and conducted in a way which is compatibletive effects. and conducted in a way which is compatible rive effects.with the environment.

Landfill: Priority should be given to landfillsResidential Development: Residential develop- for water-dependent uses and for public uses.ment should protect the aesthetic quality and In evaluating fill projects and in designatingnatural character of the shoreline by preserving areas appropriate for fill, such factors as totalvegetation, controlling density, using a planned water surface reduction, navigation restrictions,unit development approach when practical, and impediment to water flow and circulation, re-promoting access to the shorelines within a duction of water quality, and destruction ofsubdivision. Over-water residential structures habitat should be considered.should not be permitted.

15

###NEWPAGE n="29" ###

Road and Railroad Design and Construction:mendations in developing use regula- Whenever possible, major roads and railroadstions. should be located away from shorelines and(c) Solicitxomments, opinions, and advice shoreline locations should be reserved for slow-from individuals with expertise in moving recreational driving and nonmotorizedecology, oceanography, geology, traffic.limnology, aquaculture, and other Roads should be designed to fit the topographyscientific fields pertinent to shoreline and to prevent erosion and water pollution frommanagement. direct runoff.(2) Preserve the natural character of the shore- Shoreline Protection: Bank stabilizationline. measures should be constructed so as to avoidDevelopment Guidelines: the need for channelization and to protect the natural character of the streamway. Flood pro-(a) Designate environments and use regula- tection measures, such as dikes, should beons to minimize manmade intrusions placed landward of the streamway, including associated swamps, marshes, and other related(b) Where intensive development already wetlands.occurs, upgrade and redevelop those Solid Waste Disposal: Shoreline areas shouldareas to reduce their adverse impacton the environment and :o accom- not be used for garbage dumps or sanitaryon the environment and to accom- landfills.modate future growth rather thanallowing high intensity uses to extend Utilities: Utility pipes and lines should be in-into low intensity use or underdeveloped stalled with minimum disturbance to the shore-areas. line. After installation, the sites should be re-(c) Ensure that where commercial timber- stored to their preconstruction condition andcutting is allowed as provided in RCW facilities should be placed underground if90.58.150, restoration will be possibleand accomplished as soon as practicable. One other important contribution of the DOEguidelines to establishing a solid foundation ofstate policy to underlay the needed diversity ofDevelopment Guidelines:local master programs was the provision of a set of(a) Prepare master programs on the basisdevelopment guidelines for implementing the useof preserving the shoreline for futurepreferences established in the Act for shorelines ofgenerations. For example, actions thatstatewide significance. What follows is a summarywould convert resources into irreversibleof the development guidelines given for each useuses or detrimentally alter natural con-preference in WAC 173-16-040(5).ditions characteristic of shorelines of (1) Recognize and protect the statewide intereststatewide significance should be severelyover local interest.limited.Development Guidelines:(b) Evaluate the short-term economic gain(a) Solicit comments and opinions fromor convenience of developments ingroups and individuals representing state-relationship to long-term and potential-wide interests by circulating proposedly costly impairments to the naturalmaster programs for review and com-environment.ment by state agencies, adjacent juris-(c) Actively promote aesthetic considera-dictions' citizen advisory committees,tions when contemplating new develop-and statewide interest groups.ment, redevelopment of existing(b) Recognize and take into account statefacilities, or for the general enhancementagencies' policies, programs, and recom-of shoreline areas.

16

###NEWPAGE n="30" ###

(4) Protect the resources and ecology of shore-incorporated towns. Many counties prepared pro-lines.grams in a cooperative arrangement with the citieswhich allows one document to apply to severalDevelopment Guidelines:jurisdictions. Fiffecn cities used the coastal county(a) Leave undeveloped those areas whichprograms which reduces the number of separatecontain a unique or fragile naturaldocuments to 38 - 15 county and 23 city pro-resource.grams.(b) Prevent erosion and sedimentation thatwould(b) Prevent erosio the natural function of thate As required by the Act and the final guide-walter system. In areas where erosion oalines, master programs are to include goals,watsediment control practices werosill not be policies, a map of generalized shoreline environ-effective, excavations or other activitiesmental designations, and specific use regulations.which increase erosion are to be severelyLocal government preparation of shoreline inven-limited.tories to provide the data base is the first phase ofmaster program formulation. The second phase(c) Restrict or prohibit public access ontoinvolved the formulation of shoreline goals andareas which cannot be maintained in apolicies. This is to be established through closenatural condition under human uses.cooperation with citizen advisory committees, (5) Increase public access to publicly ownedwhich worked closely with local planners in es-areas of the shorelines.tablishing the goals and policies of the shore-line. Development of specific shoreline environ-ment designations and use regulations by citizens(a) In master programs, give priority toand planners comprises the third phase of thedeveloping paths and trails to shorelineprocess.areas, to linear access along the shore-lines, and to developing upland parking.(b) Locate development inland from theTHE FORMULATION OF LOCAL MASTER PROGRAMSordinary highwater mark so that access isenhanced.PHASE 1-SHORELINE INVENTORY (6) Increase recreational opportunities for thepublic on the shorelines.Development Guidelines:ESTABLISH CITIZEN(a) Plan for and encourage development ofADVISO COMMITTEEfacilities for recreational use of the}shorelines.(b) Reserve areas for lodging and relatedPHASE 2EA-WIE GOAfacilities on uplands away from theAREA-WIDE GOALSshorelines with provisions for non-motorized access to the shorelines.DEVELOP SHORELINEPOLICY STATEMENTS

The Planning Process and the Local MasterPrograms The formulation of master programs is the mostDEFINE ENVIRONMENTScritical task of the shoreline planning process. EachON ALL SHORELINESlocal government has been responsible for formula-PHASE 3ting a development plan to guide proposed :tivities along its own shorelines. Within theUSE REGULATIONS.oastal zone, this includes all 15 counties and 38

17

###NEWPAGE n="31" ###

Local governments were directed by the Act toThe Act required local governments to providecomplete shoreline inventories to provide a dataopportunities for all citizens and governmentalbase for effective planning and administration,agencies with-shoreline interests or responsibili-Inventories were to be compiled by Decemberties to participate in- the development of master1, 1972, for ownership patterns, existing land andprograms. The final guidelines gave direction towater use patterns, and natural shorelinethis broad mandate with the recommendation thatcharacteristics.citizen advisory committees be formed as a vehicleThe Dpartent o Ecoogy ssuedinvetoryfor citizen participation. Key features of citizen guielie sugesatmenght lofcaloyiue inventorieyotiadvisory committees delineated in the final guide-guidline sugestig tht lcal nvenorie conain lines include the following:

a map or series of maps depicting existing land1. Members should represent a diverse set of uses, ownership patterns, topography, and otherinterests ranging from commercial to preser- information which lends irself to presentationvationist. in graphic form; anda series of descriptive analyses of the water charac-2. Citizen advisory committees should guide teristics and the natural features of the shorelines,the formulation of the master programsDescriptive analyses should be done on an area-by-through a series of public meetings. area basis and should be keyed to the map element3. Citizen advisory committees should workin a clear and direct manner. in close cooperation with local government. The majority of counties used large-scale maps4. Citizen advisory committees are not inten-with overlays to present their inventory. Severalded to substitute for general citizen input.counties stored information on computer cards and Tegieie ute tpltdta h alrtape. Data was often gathered by volunteer taskTegieieute tpltdta h alrforces and agency publications rather than byof local governments to encourage and utilize citi-extensive field work. DOE has since compiled thiszen involvement, without proper justification, maydata for the marine shorelines on U.S.G.S. mapsbe considered as failure to comply with the Act.on a common base and format.Citizen advisory committees were generally* The procedure of cataloging ownership patternsappointed by local governments in the summer ofWand existing land and water uses is adequately1973. Usually citizen participants were chosencovered by local government inventories - pastfrom those who represented a specific interestdata bases and previous studies aided in the com-group and members of the public at large. Countypletion of this task. But there has been a lack ofcommittee size in the coastal zone varied from 12analysis of use patterns in local inventories. More-in Mason County to 85 in Pierce County.over, the complex task of inventorying naturalCizeadsoycmteswrkdihlclcharacteristics was beyond the staff capabilitiesplnnrsduizng madvstery progrmite formulatitlocalof most local governments within the limited timeplnesdrgmatrroamfmuti.frame and available resources. There was a generalSomewhere between ten and fifty public meetingslack of useful information relating to marine andand hearings were held in each locality, as man-intertidal areas.dated by the Act and final guidelines. Outside citi-zen advice was solicited. Frequently citizen ad-Inventory information has been used primarilyvisory committee meetings have included outsidein the master program formulation stage of desig-comments from statewide groups and federalnating environments. Inventories have been tooand state agencies.general to use during the issuance of shoreline per-mits. Site visits currently provide the detailed in-Generally the range from economic to environ-formation necessary for issuance of permits. Theremental interests were well represented by the citi-is also a continuing need to compile usable infor-zen advisory committees. If the composition ofmation in a useful format over areas larger thancommittees was initially unbalanced, committeesindividual jurisdictions.were usually altered to accommodate the interests

###NEWPAGE n="32" ###

left out in the initial selection process. Bothcities and counties. In all, the state has disbursedenvironmental protection and private propertyapproximately $860,000 of state and federalrights were well represented. In addition, severalmonies to assist local governments to comply withcounties, such as Whatcom, Snohomish and Kitsap,the state Shoreline Management Act of 1971 andappointed technical advisory committees com-the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.posed of agency, industrial, and commercialrepresentatives. Over the past three years, approxi-The Act gave to the Department of Ecologymately 2,000 persons with various interests havethe authority to designate regional planning unitsbeen directly involved in the shoreline managementto help coordinate local governments in the formu-planning process throughout the state.lation of master programs and the Departmentused this authority to designate Lake WashingtonDuring the summer of 1973 the state arrangedas a region at the request of its eleven local juris-for a workshop to be conducted in each of itsdictions. The resulting regional goals and policiesfour state regions to deal with problems en-were adopted as state regulations and have sincecountered by local governments in implementingbeen incorporated in several local master programs.the Act. The instruction at the workshops wasAs such they become the primary policy tool fordirected toward resolving basic difficulties inlocal, state, and federal actions on Lake Washing-interpreting the requirements of the Act and finalton.guidelines. The Department attempted to beresponsive and available to local governments in-State review and approval of local master pro-formally, providing substantial information ongrams is the final and most significant step in im-specific questions.plementation of the program. DOE has 90 days toapprove or reject proposed local programs. After aConsistent with the state's supportive role inlocal program has been prepared and appropriateimplementing SMA, the Department attempted toimplementefuding SMA, the Department attempted topublic hearings held, it is submitted to the Depart-make adequate funding available for local govern-ment for review. The Department then distributesment to carry out their shoreline management....esponsibil. ntheir sea rel s tagemfenit to a review task force consisting of representa-responsibilities. In the early stages of develop-tives from interested state and federal agencies.ment, this activity was carried out in cooperationFederal and other state agency comments are oftenFederal and other state agency comments are oftenwith the Office of Community Development, thewiththe Office of Community Development, the the basis for Department requests for changes indesignated state agency for the distribution ofthe local program. Within 90 days, based onHUD 701 funds. HUD and OCD rated the shore-Ecology staff review findings and the commentsline management program high priority for re-received from task force members, the localceiving HUD monies in 1972, 1973, 1974, andceiving HUD monies1972, 1973, 1974, andprogram is either approved or denied. If denied, itis returned to the local government with sug-The Department was authorized by the Officegestions for modifications. The local governmentof Community Development to administer andthen has another 90 days in which to prepare thedisperse grant funds for the purpose of assistingchanges and consider the recommendations. Forlocal units of government in undertaking an in-shorelines of statewide significance, the Actventory and preparation of their master programs.specifically authorizes the Department of EcologyIn excess of $580,000 of HUD and state moniesto prepare an alternative if the local programhave been made available to local units of govern-repeatedly fails to be consistent with the Act.ment.Approved programs are then adopted as stateregulations under the Washington AdministativeIn addition, the state received $388,820 throughCode.Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Actin 1974, of which approximately $65,000 went toAt this time, all major jurisdictions which werelocal governments in the coastal zone. In June ofto prepare a master program within the coastal1975, $500,000 was awarded the state, of whichzone have a functioning local shoreline program.approximately $215,000 went to coastal zoneAs of October of 1975 seven counties have yet to

19

0

###NEWPAGE n="33" ###

submit programs to the Department of Ecologymatrixes were assembled. There is a possibilityfor review, though all seven expressed their intentthat local governments will amend the programs,to submit programs by the end of the year. Mostor that changes will be made at DOE's requestwere held up in the final local government pro-between now and tfe time of adoption.ceedings and public hearings. All local programsMany of the policies and regulations allow forhave been developed and completed for someMany of the policies and regulations allow fortime - that is, the program documents are com-some discretion or provide for some judgmentplete and the work has been completed by theon the part of the administrator. Also, many ofstaff, the citizen advisory committees, and thethe performance standards require judgment,planning commissions. Those that remain outand the actual determination of permissibilityrequire final legislative action by the county ormust be made based on such judgmental factorscity commissioners and councils. During thisas the scale of the project, aesthetics, andinterim period prior to program approval, the DOEnondegradation of the environment.guidelines are in effect for permit administrationIn all cases the requirements of other programs*and planning. (Som Ipprnzilb.)and regulations must be complied with. WhileIt should be emphasized that the Act providesmany of these, such as local health, zoning, sub-that the master programs are the basis for permitdivision, and state and federal regulations areadministration and activities at every stage ofspecifically adopted by reference into the mastertheir development. SMA states (90.58.140):program, the master program does not affectthe applicability of other authorities.A permit shall be granted: (a) From June 1, 1971,The shoreline permit must be viewed as auntil such time as an applicable master programprocess to determine permissibility, The pro-has become effective, only when the developmentebiliproposed is consistent with: (i) The policy ofject design itself, or the ability to redesign orRCW 90.58.020; and (ii) after their adoption,condition the permit to meet standards can makethe guidelines and regulations of the department;a given use permissible.and (iii) so far as can be ascertained, the masterprogram being developed for the area.Most programs were written to recognize thenatural systems and features found within theTo provide an overview of some of the substancebroad environment management classification. of the master programs prepared for the coastalThus, a fragile feature, such as a sand spit, with zone, shoreline use matrices have been assembleda broader environment classification, may for all fifteen coastal zone counties and are in-require the application of additional standards. cluded along with coastal county environment maps in AppendixSCto this document. The mat-The Shoreline Regulatory Process rices should help to make clear what kinds of usesThe regulatory phase of the shoreline manage- are considered permissible in the several shore-ment program consists of a permit system for all line environments, though caution should besubstantial developments and shoreline modifica- exercised in using the matrices for an actual deter-tions. The system is administered locally subject mination of an allowable use. They are intendedto state review. Once a permit application is acted only as a general citation from the regulations ofon by local government, and prior to the com- each master program. Attention should be given tomencement of development, that decision and the following considerations before judging a pro-the application must be forwarded to the Attorney posal to be permitted in a given environment:General and the Department of Ecology forProposals must conform to the goals, policies, review. The Department does not have approvaland generoposalregulations which apply to allor denial authority over the local decisions, but itand general regulations which apply to alldoes have a specified period of time in which toappeal the decision to an independent hearingsSeven of the fifteen programs were not approvedboard created by the Act called the Shorelinesby the Department of Ecology at the time theHearings Board.

20e

###NEWPAGE n="34" ###

Although all shoreline developments must beTo aid the courts In the anticipated increase inconsistent with the policy of the Act and the localshoreline litigation resulting from the Act, SMAmaster program, certain exemptions are providedcreated the quasi-judicial Shorelines Hearingsfrom the substantial development permit require-Board. The Boar-d-provides an avenue of review forIs ment. Substantial developments are those ofthose aggrieved byTi local government permit deci-which the fair market value exceeds $1,000 orsion and for local governments which take excep-which "materially" interfere with normal publiction to regulations and guidelines adopted by theuse of the water or shorelines of the state. Ex-Department of Ecology. It has also played a signifi-emptions are granted for repair and maintenance ofcant role in formulating and articulating policy andexisting structures, docks costing no more thanin resolving conflicts relating to the implementa-$2,5 00, protective bulkheads for single familytion of the Shoreline Management Act.residences, certain agricultural and irrigation pro-6jects and structures, navigational aids, singleThe six-member Shorelines Hearings Board isfamily residences built by the owner for his use,made up of the three members of the Pollutionand emergency construction. The permit require-Control Hearings Board, the Commissioner of Pub-ment is also waived for construction under a certi-lic Lands, a representative of the Association officate obtained in conformity with the state'sWashington Cities, and a representative of theThermal Power Plants Act (RCW` Chapter 80.50)WahntnSteAsctinoCute.Trm(see pages 92-9 3) and for certain actions under theWareingontat Aspecife.TeCatirmn of thColuntiesoTrmstate's Forest Practices Act (RCW` Chapter 76.09)Control Hearings Board also acts as the Chairman(see pages 78-81).of the Shorelines Hearings Board.

An applicant must publish two public noticesa week apart upon filing for a substantial develop-The Shorelines Hearings Board, together with-nent permit. Local governments must wait athe Pollution Control Hearings Board, is recognizedminimum of 30 days before taking action on theas one of the nation's most successful administra-permit. There is no maximum time limit on when ative appeal bodies. The Board provides a judiciallocal government decision is to be rendered. Afterprocess whereby an impartial body with resourcefnal action is taken, the local jurisdictionmsexpertise can hear matters without becoming en-notify the applicant, the Department of Ecology,tangled in the costly and time-consuming courtand the Office of the Attorney General. Thesystem, The Board is intended to, and does in fact,Department and the Attorney General have 45deal with substantive as well as procedural issues.days to determine whether an appeal should beMoreover, the Board has been able to avoid lengthymade to the Shorelines Hearings Board. The ap-appeal backlogs. Efficient operating regulationsplicant and all other interested persons have 30have enabled the Board to handle certified appealsdays after a permit decision to request a reviewin an average time of seven months now asof that decision. Appellants must obtain certifica-compared to a nine month average for the appealstion of the review request