Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary proposed estuarine sanctuary grant award for Padilla Bay, Skagit County, Washington [to State of Washington] : final environmental impact statement

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Padilla Bay
Estuarine Sanctuary

Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award
for Padilla Bay, Skagit County, Washington

oil

-1V i4

$141 OF FO
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE STAT
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
00 Office of Coastal Zone Management 0

and
QH
541.5 ',*Arirs 0 STATE OF WASHINGTON
E8
P3 Department of Ecology
1980

15175

CZIC COLLECTION July 1980

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PROPOSED

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD

FOR

PADILLA BAY, SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON,

STATE OF WASHINGTON

COASTAL ZONE Prepared by:
INFORMATION CENTER
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Property of CS LIBRARY National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER and
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE State of Washington
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11

Olympia, Washington 98504

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY .................................................................. *i

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................ 1

PART II: ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION) ...................... 5

A. Preferred Alternative ................................. 5

1. Boundaries and Acquisition of
Sanctuary Lands

2. Management

a. Management Plan
b. Administration of the Sanctuary
c. Oversight Committee
d. Research Policy and Program
e. Educational Policy and Program
f. Recreation Policy and Program

B. Alternatives Considered .............................. 19

1. Funding
2. Site Selection
3. Boundaries
4. Alternate Methods of Acquisition and
Protection
15. No Action

PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........ .....23

A. Environmental impacts of the Proposed Action ......... 23

1. General Impacts
2. Local Impacts of Skagit County
3. State and Federal Impacts

B. Relationship Between Local Short Term Uses of the
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement
of Long Term Productivity ............................ 25

C. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources ............................................ 25

D. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action
and the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State,
and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls
for the Area Concerned ............................... 26

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)

Page

PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................... 35

A. Location ............................................. 35

B. Sanctuary Description ................................ 35

C. Real Property Ownership .............................. 37

D. Soils Geology ........................................ 37

E. Climate .............................................. 37

F. Biological Characteristics ........................... 38

I. Vegetation
2. Marine Invertebrates
3. Fish
4. Birds
5. Mammals

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS ................. ...... ooo..o4l

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
RECEIVING COPIES.ooo..o..o ... o- .... oo .... o......- .... o..o45

PART VII: APPENDICES.o.oo.o.o ... o..o ... o..o..o.o.o-o .......... o... ooo47

Io Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 and 1977
Ho Estuarine Sanctuary Research Program -
III. Estuarine Sanctuary Educational Program
IV. Estuarine Sanctuary Recreational Program
Vo Partial Preliminary Acquisition Grant Application
VI. Partial Listing of Public Meetings Regarding Padilla Bay
VII. Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Steering and Technical
Committee Members
VIII. Partial List of Plants, Marine Invertebrates, Fishes,
Birds, and Mammals of Padilla Bay
IXo Regulations and Policies Related to Padilla Bay
X. Summarized Comments on the DEIS and Responses by OCZM
XI. Comments Received in OCZM on the DEIS

S L14MAR Y

BACKGROUND

In response to the intense pressures upon and conflicts within the
coastal zone of the United States, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) of 1972,(PL 92-583). The Act authorized a new
Federal program--administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOW within the Department of Commerce--to assist and
encourage States to develop and implement comprehensive management
programs for the resources of the coastal zone. The CZMA affirms a
national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection,
and development of the coastal zone and provides matching grant programs
towards these ends.

These grant programs assist the coastal zone States (defined in the
Act to include the Great Lake States and the territories of Guam, American
Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, as well as the saltwater
coastal States) in developing and administering comprehensive coastal
zone land and water use management programs.

Section 315 of the CZMA established the Estuarine Sanctuary Program,
which, on a matching basis, provides grants to States to acquire, develop,
and operate estuarine areas to be set aside as natural field laboratories.
These areas will be used primarily for long term scientific and-educational
purposes, which, in addition to other multiple-use benefits, will provide
information essential to coastal management decisionmaking.

Examples of objectives of operating estuarine sanctuaries are:

o To gain a thorough understanding of ecological relationships
within the estuarine environment;

o To make baseline ecological measurements;

o To serve as a natural control in order to monitor changes
and assess the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem;

o To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and
awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their
values and benefits to man and nature, and the problems that
confront them; and

0 To encourage multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries to
the extent that such usage is compatible with the primary
sanctuary purposes: research and education.

In order to ensure that the Estuarine Sanctuary Program includes
sites that adequately represent regional and ecological differences, the
guidelines for the Estuarine Sanctuary Program established a biogeographical
classification scheme that reflects geographic, hydrographic, and biological
characteristics. Eleven (11) different biogeographic categories are
established and defined in the guidelines. Subcategories of this basic
system will be utilized as appropriate to distinguish major regions or
subclasses of each province. It is anticipated that a minimum of 21
sanctuaries will be necessary to provide adequate representation of the
range of ecosystems within the United States.

The estuarine sanctuary guidelines, which were published in 1974
were modified in 1977 to specifically authorize the granting of 50%
matching acquisition money in three stages: (1) an optional initial
grant for such preliminary purposes as surveying and assessing the lands
to be acquired and for developing management procedures and research
programs; (2) for the actual acquisition of the real property within the
sanctuary boundaries; and (3) subsequent grants for administration and
operation of the established sanctuary.

The Department of Ecology (DOE), acting on behalf of the State of
Washington, submitted a grant application to the U. S. Department of
Commerce/NOAA on January 19, 1@79, to establish an estuarine sanctuary in
Padilla Bay, Skagit County, Washington. Padilla Bay is the largest area
relatively undisturbed by man in Puget Sound, and is extremely accessible
to great numbers of people'for research and educational purposes.
Consequently, NOAA awarded a preacquisition grant for $50,000, which was
matched by an equivalent amount by the State. This enabled DOE to
proceed with developing a formal land acquisition application which, if
approved, will provide funding for the acquisition of real property within
the proposed project boundary area. The State will also have the option
of requesting up to $50,000 yearly (also matching) for operational funds
if the acquisition grant is given.

PROPOSED ACTION

The grant request to NOAA for $1,112,869, which will be matched by the
State, will be used for the acquisition of approximately 11,612 acres of
real property within Padilla Bay, Skagit County, Washington. Of the
total amount, approximately 1,260 acres will be acquired in less than fee
simple; i.e., conservation or nondevelopment easements. All other lands,
excluding those identified for acquisition in easement and approximately
243 acres that are owned by Skagit County, the State Department of Game,
and the State Parks Commission are currently Privately owned and will be
acquired in fee. The tidelands of Padilla Bay are classified as second
class tidelands in the State of Washington and comprise approximately
10,289 acres of the total proposed for the estuarine sanctuary area.

The composition of real property within the proposed sanctuary area is as
follows:

Identification Size in Acres

Orion Corporation - fee ownership 5,565

Orion Corporation - optioned real property 3,461

Skagit County 99

State of Washington 144

Associated Oyster Lands 930

Private - multiple ownerships 1,413

11,612

DOE's authority for initiating the application to establish an
estuarine sanctuary was identified in the preliminary application, which
was approved by on NOAA March 26, 1979. The definition of a sanctuary, its
purposes, sanctuary uses, the process for selecting Padilla Bay as an
estuarine sanctuary and why it is important, etc., were all described in
detail in the preliminary application, a part of which is included as
Appendix VI of this final environmental impact statement.

To provide maximum public decisionmaking for the proposed estuarine
sanctuary, DOE established two citizen committees (Steering Committee and
Technical Advisory Committee) within the project area to study and
determine the proposed sanctuary area and the programs that will be
conducted within the estuarine sanctuary. Therefore, the contents of
this final environmental impact statement that are technical in nature
also reflect the policy decisions made by the two committees for the
formation of the estuarine sanctuary. These policy decisions were
recommended to, and accepted by, the Department of Ecology, State of
Washington.

COMMITTEE PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE

The formation of the two committees was designed to provide public
participation at the beginning of the estuarine sanctuary application
process, so the views of local government, Federal agencies, affected
landowners, and user organizations would be a consideration and motivating
factor during the decisionmaking process and would not be an informal

i V

after-the-fact review of a completed project. The goal was to develop a
proposal that was a "consensus of opinion" by those individuals or groups
that would be most affected by the estuarine sanctuary proposal.

DOE assured the two committees that their participation was essential
to the formation of the proposed estuarine sanctuary and that their
decisions regarding sanctuary boundaries, size, and the sanctuary uses
(research, education, and recreation programs) would be incorporated into
the DOE/State application to NOAA as long as the decisions were consistent
with the U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA guideline requirements and
appropriate Federal and State statutes. The committee policy decisions
have been incorporated into the final environmental impact statement.

Of primary concern was the formation of a philosophy that allowed
for coexistence of an environmental area (the estuarine sanctuary),
industry, agriculture, and other endeavors all within a community. This
philosophy entailed the identification of an environmental area as an
essential part of the community--no more or less than other community
needs-7and that together with the economic base provided by industry and
the open space associated with agriculture, etc., the proposed estuarine
sanctuary will provide, by establishing a public use area with multiple
public use opportunities, a positive environmental contribution to the
overall social impact and livability of the community.

In addition several policy positions that were in keeping with the -
desired relationship DOE wanted to establish with local governmental
agencies regarding land acquisition were identified:

A. The State will not use the right of eminent domain (condemnation)
in the land acquisition program;

B. Real property acquisition will be negotiated and acquired on a
11willing seller" concept; and

C. Acquisition of real property that includes residences or
business and the relocation of people will not be initiated
by the State.

Management

Uses that are compatible with the intent of establishing the estuarine
sanctuary will be allowed under existing local, State, and Federal
statutes. Uses that would destroy or alter the nature of the ecosystem
will not be allowed within the sanctuary. Examples of allowed uses are:
sport and commercial fishing and shellfish harvesting, hunting, non-
intensive recreation, navigation, and Swinomish Indian tribal "usual and
accustomed fishing." Prohibited activities include: expansion of existing

channels or creation of new channels unless specifically authorized by
statutes, and significant alteration of water flow patterns including
circulation patterns within the proposed estuarine sanctuary. ,

Th e Manager for the land and waters of the proposed sanctuary will
be the Washington State Department of Game. To assist the Department
with this task, the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Oversight Committee
will provide a vehicle for the consideration and approval of recommendations
to the Game Department for management activities.

Research, Education and Recreation Plans

The proposed Padilla Bay Research Program (as determined by the
Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Technical Committee--Research Subcommittee),
approved by the full Technical Committee and adopted by the Steering Committee
as the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Research Policy and Program,
has been designed to utilize the services of two local marine laboratories
and an interpretative center that will both assist the marine laboratories
in their efforts and will initiate its own research efforts in the sanctuary.
An interpretative center would: (1) complement and fill identified
research voids in programs that cannot be provided by existing facilities
and/or programs, (2) provide an opportunity for private and public bodies
to study, analyze, and interpret the ecosystems and biological characteristics
in the Padilla Bay area in particular, and the north Puget Sound area, in
general, and (3) establish for research- and education.programs an on-site
centralized public use facility that will provide-an opportunity for a
better understanding of the importance and value of estuarine systems and
their management needs for citizens, schools, and public and private
organizations.

The education program element of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program was
initiated by the Padilla Bay Technical Committee--Education Subcommittee,
approved by the full Technical Committee, and adopted by the Steering
Committee as the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Education Policy and
Program. The following are the goals for utilizing Padilla Bay as a
learning resource:

1. An accurate and comprehensive grounding in how the estuarine
environment works;

2. Experience in valuing environmental quality;

3. Experience in how personal choices and actions affect
environmental quality; and

4. Experience in methods of enacting community responsibility.

It is the intent of the DOE to use this environmental education plan
as a guideline to establish an environmental education link between the
general public (individual citizens, recreation, environmental, and social
groups, etc., and clubs and organizations) and institutions of learning
(universities, common schools, governmental agencies, etc.).

The recreation program element of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program
was initiated by the Padilla Bay Technical Committee--Recreation Subcommittee,
approved by the full Technical Committee, and adopted by the Steering
Committee as the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Recreation Policy and
Program, with the additional requirement that all current uses (recreational)
that now exist in Padilla Bay will continue once the estuarine'sanctuary
is established.

NOAA's Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines state that while the primary
purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is to provide long term protection for
natural areas, so that they might be used for scientific and educational
purposes, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries may be increased to the
extent that such use is compatible with the primary sanctuary purpose.
The capacity of a given sanctuary to accommodate multiple uses and the
kinds and intensity of such uses will be determined on a case-by-case
basis. While it is anticipated that compatible uses may generally include
activities such as low intensity recreation (i.e., fishing, hunting,
boating, non-cQmmercial taking of shellfish, wildlife observation,
commercial fishing, etc.), it is recognized that the exclusive use of a
specific area for scientifi'c or educational purposes may provide the
optimum benefit to coastal zone management and recreational resource use
restriction may, on occasion, be necessary.

The Steering Committee was responsible for providing the direction
and decisions for establishing the sanctuary. The committee, composed of
12 members, of whom 9 were "local residents," represented a diversified
and responsible segment within the community to provide the direction for
the proposed sanctuary project. Composition of the committee included:
the manager of the Port of Anacortes (in which the project area is
located); Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners; from industry,
the managers of two oil refineries located near the west boundary of the
proposed sanctuary; the director of an Indian tribal community that
borders on the proposed sanctuary boundary; the director of the State
Department of Game; the president of the State Environmental Council; the
president of the community college in the area in which the sanctuary is
proposed; a former Western Washington University-president who is now
director of the University's marine laboratory program; the director of
the University of Washington's marine laboratory facilities in the San
Juan Islands; the president of the State Sportsmen's Council; a city
councilman in the city located nearest to the project area; and the area
manager of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

vii

The formation of the membership of the Technical Advisory Committee
was determined by members of the Steering Committee, as well as DOE.
This committee was composed of 23 members, basically people who are
qualified authorities in the areas of government, education, research,
recreation, and the environment. Of the 23 members, 13 were "local
residents."

It was the responsibility of the Technical Advisory Committee to
consider all aspects of the formation of the proposed estuarine sanctuary
project. This committee was divided into five subcommittees (boundary -
and project area, research, education, recreation, and financial resource;)
that studied required aspects of the proposed project using NOAA estuarine
sanctuary procedural guidelines and made recommendations to the full
Technical Committee.

Once the full Technical Committee reached a decision and approved
the subcommittee recommendations for'the sanctuary project, those
recommendations were submitted to the Steering Committee. The Steering
Committee considered each Technical Committee recommendation and through
coordination with the Technical Committee and its decisionmaking process,
approved the recommendations or variations thereof as policy direction.

DOE will use the policy direction established by the Steering Committee
as part of its application for the land acquisition portion of the proposed
sanctuary project. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community has opposed the
proposed project because of their concern over its impact on their proposed
industrial park and marina. Clarifications and changes were made in the
HIS and the comment section in response to their concerns.

(Additional information, including membership lists of the two
committees, is included in Appendix VII of this document.)

AREAS OF CONCERNS

The Swinomish Ind4an Tribal Community has objected to the proposed
sanctuary designation because of an uncertainty the sanctuary degignation
may have on the Community's marine-recreational facility which would be
located near the sanctuary. OCZM believes that the sanctuary would not
in and of itself deny the Tribe the ability to achieve their goals of
economic self-sufficiency. Boating and recreational uses are legally
compatible with the purposes of the sanctuary. A major concern of any
facility would deal with potentiel water quality issues and if a marine
facility does not compromise water quality issues there should be little
conflict with any such future proposal.

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

In response to the intense pressures upon the vitally important
coastal zone of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), which was signed into law on October 27, 1972
(P.L. 92-583), and amended in 1976. The CZMA authorized a Federal
grant-in-aid and assistance program to be administered by the Secretary of
Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the Office of
Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).

The CZMA affirms a national interest in the effective protection and
development of the Nation's coastal zone, and provides assistance and
encouragement to coastal States (including those bordering the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes) and U.S.
territories to develop and implement State programs for managing their
coastal zones. The Act established a variety of grant-in-aid programs to
such States for the purposes of:

o developing coastal zone management programs (�305);

o implementing and administering.management programs that
receive Federal approval (�306);

o avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental, social, and
economic impacts resulting from coastal energy activities
(�308);

o coordinating, studying, planning, and implementing interstate
coastal management activities and programs (�309);

0 conducting research, study, and training programs to
scientifically and technically support State coastal
management programs (�310); and

o establishing estuarine sanctuaries and acquiring land to provide
for shorefront access and island preservation (�315).

The Estuarine Sanctuary Program authorized by �315 of the CZMA
establishes a program to provide matching grants to States to acquire,
develop, and operate natural estuarine areas as sanctuaries so that
scientists and students may be provided the opportunity to examine the
ecological relationships within-the areas over a period of time. �315
provides a maximum of $2,000,000 of Federal funds, to be matched by

the equivalent amount from the State, for each sanctuary. Guidelines for
implementation of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program were published in final
form on June 4, 1974 [15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 39 (108): 19922-
199271 and amended on September 9, 1977-Tl-5CFR Part 921, Federal Register
42 (175): 45522-455231 (Appendix I).

Sanctuaries established under this program have the dual purpose of
(1) providing relatively undisturbed areas so that a representative series
of natural coastal ecological systems will always remain available for
ecological research and education; and (2) ensuring the availability of
natural areas for use as a control against which impacts of human activities
in other areas can be assessed. These sanctuaries are to be used primarily
for long term scientific and educational purposes, especially to provide
information essential to coastal zone management decisionmaking. Such
research programs may include:

o Gaining a thorough understanding of the natural ecological
relationships within the variety of estuarine environments
of the United States;

o Making baseline ecological measurements;

o Serving as a natural control against which changes in other
estuarie-s can be measured, and facilitating evaluation of
the impact of human activities on estuarine ecosystems; and

o Providing a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and
awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their
values and benefits to man and nature, and problems with
which estuaries are confronted.

While the primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is scientific and
educational, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries will be encouraged to
the extent such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary purpose.
Such uses may generally include such activities as low intensity recreation,
boating, non-commercial taking of shellfish, fishing, hunting, and wildlife
observation.

The CZMA and the sanctuary guidelines envision that the Estuarine
Sanctuary Program ultimately will fully represent the variety of regional
and ecological differences among estuaries. The regulations indicate that
"the purpose of the estuarine sanctuary program. . . shall be accomplished
by the establishment of a series of estuarine sanctuaries which will be
designated so that at least one representative of each estuarine ecosystem
will endure into the future for scientific and educational purposes"
[15 CFR 921.3(a)]. As administered by OCZM, the Estuarine Sanctuary
Program defined 11 different biogeographic provinces or classifications

based on geographic, hydrographic, and biologic characteristics.
Subcategories of this basic system will be utilized as appropriate to
distinguish major regions or subclasses of each province. It is anticipated
that a minimum of 21 sanctuaries will be necessary to provide adequate
representation of the Nation's estuarine ecological systems.

Between 1974 and the present, OCZM has awarded grants to establish
seven estuarine sanctuaries. These include:

Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification

South Slough Columbian
Coos Bay, Oregon

Duplin River/ Carolinian
Sapelo Island, Georgia

Waimanu Valley Insular
Island of Hawaii, Hawaii

Rookery Bay West Indian
Collier County, Florida

Old Woman Creek Great Lakes
Erie County, Ohio

Apalachicola River/Bay Louisianian
Franklin County, Florida

Elkhorn Slough Californian
Monterey County, California

The proposed action currently under consideration.by OCZM is the
formal grant application by the State of Washington for an estuarine
sanctuary consisting of approximately 11,612 acres of lands and waters
within Padilla Bay, which includes 16 miles of shoreline. The application
requests $1,112,869 from NOAA, to be matched by $1,112,869 appropriated by
the State legislature, for the purchase of approximately 11,612 acres of
tidelands. The proposed sanctuary would be representative of a major
subcategory of the Columbian Biogeographic Classification, further
completing the series of nationwide representative estuarine systems
established as provided for in �315 of the CZMA-

The proposal follows several years of interest in and concern about
the Padilla Bay system by State and local officials, Federal agencies,
universities, environmentally oriented organizations, and concerned
individuals. Padilla Bay is the largest tideflat area relatively undisturbed

by man in Puget Sound and it is extremely accessible to great numbers of
people for research, educational, and recreational purposes. As a result
of the great deal of concern expressed for this area, in 1979 Washington
submitted an application to OCZM for a preliminary acquisition grant for
the Padilla Bay system. In March 1979, OCZM awarded Washington a $50,000
preliminary acquisition grant, which enabled the State to 1) complete an
appraisal of the lands proposed to be acquired; and 2) prepare management,
education, research, and recreation plans.

Substantial information in the Environmental Consequences and Affected
Environment sections, in addition to Appendix VIII was taken from a 1979
assessment of Padilla Bay as a potential Unique Wildlife Ecosystem done
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and incorporating data and information
developed by the Washington Department of Game.

PART II: ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION)

A. Preferred Alternative

The State of Washington-has submitted an application for a grant in
the amount of $1,112,869 from OCZM, to be matched by an equivalent (or
greater) amount of State funds, for the acquisition and establishment of
an estuarine sanctuary within Padilla Bay. The grant would enable
Washington to acquire and operate an estuarine sanctuary that approximates
a natural ecological unit. The proposed sanctuary would include 11,612
acres of real property, of which 243 acres are now publicly owned.
Acquisition will be through negotiation only, since the Steering Committee
and State of Washington have agreed on a policy of no condemnation. The
proposed sanctuary will be managed by the Washington State Department of
Game.

I. Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary Lands

The proposed sanctuary boundary described here is consistent with
the boundary approved by the Steering Committee (November 29, 1979) and
the State of Washington Department of Ecology. See Figure 1 for location
and boundary map.

Located in northern Puget Sound, Padilla Bay lies 'approximately five
miles northeast of Anacortes and nine miles northwest of Mount Vernon,
the county seat of Skagit County, Washington. Prominent local features
are identified as follows: 1) Padilla Bay, 2) Swinomish Channel,
3) March Point, 4) Anacortes, 5) Guemes Island, 6) Hat Island, 7) Samish
Island, 8) Bay View State Park, 9) Saddlebag Island State Park, and
10) Bayview Community.

The proposed sanctuary's southern boundary is the Burlington Northern
Railroad right-of-way, which is located parallel to State Highway 20.
Surrounding the proposed eastern boundary, which is approximately eight
miles long, is agricultural land, the Bayview residential area, Bay View
State Park, and the unincorporated Bayview Community. The northern
boundary is Samish Island, a high bank residential area. Part of the
northern boundary is located 500 feet south of the south shoreline (meander
line) of Samish Island. The western boundary is open water that includes
the Swinomish Channel and open water to the San Juan Islands. The southern
part of the western boundary is located consistent with the "claimed"
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community boundary. (Note: There is a likelihood
of a Federal court adjudication of the boundary issue. The estuarine
sanctuary boundary will be modified, if necessary, to reflect any Federal
court ruling on this issue.) The northern part of the western
boundary is the "seaward boundary," established in 1931 by the State
Commissioner of Lands, and the western boundary of Saddlebag State Park.

MIRA* Is.)

In
lsj Pnd
A ndo SAMISH

BAY

c4b* Polint Mkin

jw* Lighthouse
(01slend
Fish Paht"
Camp KirbylCamp Fire Girls 9
"C

7 Scotts Point
Z

6
T

Saddlebag Is.
GUE WES Statal Park
f
ISLd IND Via

@Ifj Padilla Bay

Yellow
Gu as i
a/Uff C A IN LN 17 L Saddkbag National
GO oi` C SOTM Dot Is. 6 &tuarine Sanctuary
Sundquist
,*marine Lab 4
Fill Crunb Fi dalgo
L--k .-BREAZEALE
algo Bay March Pf PROPERTY

-W
SAY Vft:
STA E PARK

SHELL
7 Beyview
10

SCALE 1:100000

TEXACO
0 T

MILES blL

5000 0 5000

FEET

S-rAre
20

WASHINGTON L 2

Kiket I
Location Map

FIGURE 1. Padilla Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary, Skagit County, Washington

The tidelands were first purchased from the State in 1906. A
subdivision of the tidelands was accomplished in 1931 when Padilla Bay
tracts were established by Court Case No. 13653 from the survey map
created by State Field Engineer Edward C. Dohm.

There are four basic groupings of real property within the proposed
project: 1) the Padilla Bay tracts, 2) Associated Oyster Lands ' Inc.,
3) Padilla Bay multiple ownerships, and 4) upland areas* The Padilla Bay
tracts are a total of 846 tracts extending from the northern part of the
project to the southern part of the project. Ownership according to title
reports comprised the second class tidelands that lie between the meander
line and the line of extreme low tide. The Padilla Bay tracts are numbered
as follows: beginning with number one at the west tip of Samish Island
and continuing with a consecutive numbering to a point south of Bayview,
where the last tract number is 846. Most tracts have a baseline distance
following the government meander line of approximately 63-64 feet. Each
tract is a thin, triangular strip of tidelands with a surveyor's control
point near Hat and Saddlebag Islands, where all 846 tracts converge.

The second class tidelands extend between the meander line and mean
low water line and vary in distance from two to three miles. The size of
the tracts vary; for example, tract one is approximately 12,814.67 feet
long and consists of 9.37 acres, while the longest tract (number 220) is
approximately 17,200 feet in length and consists of approximately 11.6 acres.

The tracts are completely submerged at high tide and have no legal
or public access to the uplands, which are under different ownership.
The major portion of the property is exposed at low tide with a water
depth of one or two feet over the remainder. There is no direct access
to the property by public road. Legal access is only by water. The
higher land on a bank varying from 10 to 100 feet in height overlooking
the bay is mostly used for occasional single family residential or private
recreational use. The low flat upland area abutting the project is used
for agricultural purposes, with little likelihood of a change of usage in
the foreseeable future.

The Associated Oyster Lands, Inc., was also platted in 1930 and
includes 930 acres of tidelands in the southwest portion of the proposed
project. There are 943 tracts in this platted area with approximately
350 individual owners. Each tract is approximately one acre in size, is
a thin triangular strip, and is 6 feet wide at the baseline and approximately
14,600 feet long. These tidelands do not begin at the meander line, but
rather are extended seaward, leaving one or more tideland ownerships
between the tract and the uplands.

A third triangular shaped tideland tract and multiple ownership
tracts of irregular sizes lie between Padilla Bay tracts and the Associated
Oyster Lands, Inc. This unplatted tract, like Associated Oyster Lands,
has other tidelands between the meander line and the tract baselines.

The upland area consists of 3 specific areas that are identified as
follows: a) a 16 acre tract located on the project's eastern boundary
approximately 300 feet south of the Joe O'Leary Slough (see Figure I---
stripped area); b) a 64 acre tract identified as the Breazeale property
located on the project's eastern boundary approximately 1,500 feet south
of Joe O'Leary Slough; and c) approximately 1,243 acres that make up the
entire southern end of the proposed project area (see Figure 1--stripped
area). This area is a combination of tidelands and upland agricultural
area*

The 9,956 acre tideland area is to be acquired in fee simple or by
way of negotiated easements. The 64 acre Breazeale property is currently
in State (Game Department) ownership, as are 34 acres in the Telegraph
Slough area in the southern portion of the project. The upland areas
will be acquired through negotiated easements.

2. Management

a. Management Plan

The specific management policies developed for the Padilla Bay
Estuarine Sanctuary will include that area within the management boundary,
which is the sanctuary boundary except for Bayview and Saddlebag State
Parks, as indicated in Figure 1. The management policies will be based
on the primary objective of managing the tidelands and uplands within
the sanctuary to maintain their ecological integrity to ensure the long-
term protection of the natural processes and resources for research,
education, and recreation.

Uses that are compatible with the intent of establishing the sanctuary,
however, will be allowed if consistent with local., State, and Federal
statutes. Uses that would destroy or alter the nature of the ecosystem
will not be allowed within the sanctuary.

The sanctuary Steering Committee will have the formal role of approving
the management concept. Therefore, the Estuarine Sanctuary Management
Plan will be formulated according to policies and rules established by
legislation--existing or new--and the decisions and policy direction of
the Steering Committee.

The combination of tidelands and uplands within the sanctuary boundary
represents the major components of the viable ecosystem; however, some
activities or uses beyond the boundary of the sanctuary could significantly
affect the ecology of the sanctuary. Of particular importance are activities
that take place on the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community industrial area,
activities within the Swinomish Channel area, the water discharge from
agricultural lands, and the potential impact of the adjacent industrial

area. Adjacent uses of the proposed estuarine sanctuary have co-existed
with the present use of the sanctuary area for a substantial length of
time and are considered compatible; it is the intent of the Department of
Game and the Sanctuary Oversight Committee that these surrounding uses
continue to be construed as compatible and allowed to co-exist. Existing
local and State statutes and-regulations appear fully adequate to address
any potential problems resulting from these uses in adjacent water or
lands, except for Indian tribal lands which are not subject to State and
local statutes. In addition, because of the support provided by represent-
atives of government and the private sector, who comprise a majority of
the members of the Steering and Technical Committees, it is anticipated
that these jurisdictions will administer their programs or responsibilities
in a manner that will not jeopardize the integrity of the sanctuary.
Designation of the sanctuary would not, therefore, result in the need
for new or additional regulations in these areas. In this manner, it
will be possible to maintain a sanctuary and achieve its objectives
while continuing to use the area as a multiple use resource, i.e., research,
education, and recreation.

Three major requirements are identified herein in order to maintain
the integrity of the sanctuary ecosystem.

1. The maintenance of sufficient quantities of water inflow (from
existing agricultural lands), which is comprised of overland drainage,
,mostly delivered at appropriate seasonal- and annual levels to maintain the
natural ecological system.

2. The maintenance of water quality by the prevention of significant
degradation of sanctuary waters. The existing authority under the State
Shoreline Management Act identifies the shorelines of the sanctuary as
"shorelines of statewide significance," and therefore, places a special
emphasis on the use and protection of the shorelines.

3. The prevention of physical alterations through dredging and
filling. Mineral extraction, waste discharge or disposal, and any type
of agriculture suggested for the sanctuary would not be allowed if these
activities would significantly alter the hydrographic patterns, ecological
productivity, or surface area of the bay. Again, existing authorities
under the State Shoreline Management Act are adequate to provide the
necessary protection.

Within the context of the existing statutes and the policy direction
from the Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee, the following specific
policies apply to the general management of the sanctuary.

Allowed Uses:

1) Hunting, fishing, boating, and non-commercial taking of
shellfish shall be authorized, but shall be regulated consistent
with Federal and State statutes.

2) Education programs as approved by the Sanctuary Steering
Committee.

3) Research programs approved by the Sanctuary Steering
Committee.

4) Recreation as approved by the Sanctuary Steering Committee
except that recreation activities allowed at Bayview and
Saddlebag State Parks will be determined by the State
Parks Commission.

5) Continuation of existing shellfish, fish, or vegetation
rehabilitation programs.

Prohibited Uses:

1) Expansion of existing channels or creation of new navigation
channels unless specifically authorized by statutes.
2) New public works and/or projects that require dredging and
filling.

3) Significant alteration of water flow patterns including
circulation patterns within the bay.

4) Any activity that will lead to significant degradation of
water qqality and biological productivity.
5) Dumping of dredging-spoils.

b. Administration of the Sanctuary

As a major landowner in the vicinity of the sanctuary and as a
landowner within the sanctuary boundaries, the State Department of Game
will be the manager for the land and waters of the proposed estuarine
sanctuary. The agency will be responsible for the day-to-day administra-
tion of the sanctuary.

To assist the Department of Game with this task, the Padilla Bay
Estuarine Sanctuary-Oversight Committee will serve as a vehicle for the
consideration and approval of recommendations to the agency for the
management activities.

The Department of Game will be responsible for employing, training,
and supervising sanctuary personnel, who will be trained in the resource
management, planner, and biology fields. The duties and responsibilities
of agency sanctuary personnel will include but not be limited to:

1) Administration of the sanctuary, including preparing required
State, Federal, etc., grant applications, proposals, budgets,
and reports, and managing the necessary administration records.
2) Representing the agency, as directed, in public hearings and
meetings.
3) Advising and coordinating units of government on particular
issues, questions, or projects, and their impacts on, or
relationship to, the sanctuary as directed by the agency.

4) Coordinating all research activities within or related to
the sanctuary and interpreting the applied research results
to produce benefits of a general nature.

5) Implementation of the educational program for the
sanctuary.

6) Coordinating the recreation program, where appropriate for
the sanctuary.

7) Coordinating and taking appropriate action on all projects
or activities that might affect the sanctuary.

The sanctuary manager will be employed by and held'accountable to the
State agency.

c. Sanctuary Oversight Committee

In order to provide for effective coordination and cooperation
among all interests involved with the sanctuary program, a Sanctuary
Oversight Committee will be established.

The formation of a Management Oversight Committee was recommended by
the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Management Subcommittee, approved and
adopted by the full Steering Committee as the management plan for Padilla
Bay Estuarine Sanctuary. Specific recommendations included:

1. That the usage parameters developed by the Technical Subcommittees,
accepted by the Steering Committee and embodied in the NOAA
application express the management intent of the sanctuary.

2. Sanctuary administration will be the respon sibility of the
Department of Game. In addition to general administration, this
will include day-to-day operation, forward planning, capital
facility development, budget development and control and funding.

3. To ensure proper consideration of local concerns, an oversight
board will be established to which the Department of Game will
make an annual report which will include, but not be limited to,
a review of past year's performance and a preview of the plans
for the ensuing year. The Department of Game will take special
note of recommendations from the oversight board and will attempt
to implement them whenever such recommendations are consistent
with State and Federal law and with the parameters established
by the Steering Committee.

4. The oversight committee will be the Skagit County Commissioners.
The commissioners will, at their discretion, use citizen ad hoc
groups to advise them in areas where special expertise would be
advantageous.

This plan provides for direct state control through the Department of
Game in the simplest form possible while attempting to recognize concerns
of local citizenry through a single oversight*board comprised of locally
elected officials, to wit: the commissioners of Skagit County.

d. Research Policy and Program

The major research recommendations for the proposed estuarine
sanctuary were generated by the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Technical
Committee--Research Subcommittee, approved by the full Technical Committee
and adopted as the Estuarine Sanctuary Research Policy and Program by the
project Steering Committee.

An estuary is that part of a river or stream having an unimpaired
connection with the open sea, where the sea water is measurably diluted
from freshwater derived from land drainage. Historically, Padilla Bay
was a true estuary, part of the large Skagit River delta; however, the
bay is no longer connected to the Skagit River system, and at present
has freshwater inflow only from local land drainage. Padilla Bay is without
question a prime area for a sanctuary, set aside to provide scientists
and students the opportunity to examine, over a period of time, the
ecological relationships within the area. Although some measurable human
disturbance such as channel dredging and diking land reclamation has
occurred in Padilla Bay, the bay as a natural ecosystem largely remains
intact and in a natural state.

Consideration was given to the existence of two excellent marine
laboratories that are located in the general vicinity of the proposed
sanctuary: Western Washington University's' Sundquist Marine Studies
Laboratory, at Anacortes; and the University of Washington Friday Harbor
Laboratory, located in the San Juan Islands. These two facilities provide
a wide range of research opportunities and can provide adequate support
facilities for the Padilla Bay Research Program.

The primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is the long term
maintenance of ecosystems for scientific and educational purposes. However,
the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines state that "Multiple use of estuarine
sanctuaries will be encouraged to the extent that such use is compatible
with the primary sanctuary purpose." It is clear that long term protection
for research and education does not mean the exclusion of all human
activities; however, it is equally clear that any activity destructive to
the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary is not compatible.and must be prohibited.

Instead of a specific list of permitted and prohibited uses, which
are identified in the management plan, the following guidelines are
compatible with the proposed research program:

1) All (legal) existing uses of the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary
Management Area should be allowed to continue until such time
as the Department of Game, which is the management authority,
determines that a given activity is destructive to the sanctuary
based on site specific, scientific data.
2) Any new activity proposed in the management area should require
an environmental assessment based on scientific data and
sanctuary management approval prior to being allowed.

In this manner, the public sector will enjoy maximum multiple use benefits
-from the sanctuary while, at the same ti-me, deriving the scientific and
educational benefits from an estuary that is preserved'forever for public
use*

An interpretative center, which is proposed for the Game Department
Breazeale property located on the east shore of the sanctuary, will
include support facilities for field studies in cooperation with the
university programs noted above. In addition, the intent and purpose of
establishing an interpretative center are to:

1) Complement and fill identified research voids in programs
that cannot be provided by existing facilities and/or programs.
2) Provide an opportunity for private and public bodies to study,
analyze, and interpret the ecosystems and biological characteristics
in the Padilla Bay area in particular, and the north Puget Sound
area in general.

3) Establish an on-site centralized public use facility for
research-educational programs that will provide an opportunity
for a better understanding of the importance and value of
estuarine systems and their management needs for citizens,
schools, and public and private organizations.

A listing of all research programs known to have taken place in
Padilla Bay is provided in Appendix II. Although this is a fairly long
list, it is clear that only the marine birds have received long term
quantitative study. Mammals, fish, and marine benthos (the flora and
fauna of the sea bottom) have received only short term study while the
epibenthos, plankton, and associated wetland benthos have received no
study at all. Especially noteworthy is the absence of productivity studies:
e.g., energy flow studies, food web studies, or an attempt to treat the
Padilla Bay ecosystem as an integral whole.

Beyond these biotic studies, little or no work has been done on the
abiotic Padilla Bay system (e.g., studies of Beach Bay sediment,
geomorphology, or physical and chemical oceanography of bay water) and on
the human impacts on or perturbation of the bay, including dredging for
channel maintenance; harvest of birds, fish, and shellfish; municipal and
industrial water pollution; and agricultural runoff pollution.

In spite of the major gaps in the existing data for Padilla Bay, it
is clear that the bay is a highly productive area that supports a diverse
and complex community of organisms.

As set forth in �315 of the CZMA, estuarine sanctuaries are
%*.to serve as natural field laboratories in which to study and gather
data on the natural and human processes occurring within the estuaries of
the coastal zone." To*facilitate development of this natural field
laboratory, the following research plan in outline form is proposed.

I. Natural Processes

A. Biotic

1. Ecosystem Structure

a. Marine Mammals
b. Marine Birds
c. Fish
d. Epibenthos
e. Benthos
f. Plankton

2. Ecosystem Function

a. Energy flow

b. Role of top carnivores (keystone species) in
maintenance of community structure. Determine
by inclusion and exclusion caging studies.

B. Abiotic

1. Water
2. Sediment

II. Human Processes - Environmental and Economic Effects of the
Following Should Be Determined:

A. Water Pollution

B. Shore and Bay Bottom Modification

C. Animal Harvesting

D. Nonconsumptive Recreational Uses: boating, beach walking,
bird watching, etc.

It is clear that a research program of this magnitude could not be
funded by a single agency or at a single time. It is essential, therefore,
that the major duty of the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Managing Agency
and Oversight Committee should be the implementation and coordination of
the research program. The following list would be a starting point for
support of the research program.

Lfst of Potential and Committed Research Organizations and Research
Funding Sources-Private and Public:

Army Corps of Engineers
City of Anacortes
Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Huxley College of Environmental Studies
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Science Foundation
Seattle Pacific University
Shell and Texaco Oil Refineries
Skagit Valley College
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
University of Washington
Western Washington University
Washington State Department of Ecology
Washington State Department of Fisheries
Washington State Department of Game
Washington State Department of Natural Resources

A complete copy of the research plan is provided in Appendix II.

e. Education Policy and Programs

The educational program element of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program
was initiated by the Padilla Bay Technical Committee--Educational
Subcommittee, approved by the full Technical Committee, and adopted by the
Steering Committee as the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Education Policy
and Program.

This education program is designed to generate both public interest
in the value of the environment and a better understanding by the public
of the short term and long term programs that are initiated by CZM
decisionmakers to utilize, protect, restore, and preserve the State's
environment and shorelines.

Experience and knowledge of educational practices based on research
indicates that learning about natural resources, conservation, scientific,
social, and technological topics cannot be limited to verbal discourse.
Many of the physical activities associated with this learning must be
accomplished beyond the home or classroom. This kind of education requires
that educators extend learning experiences into the community.

The potential of the proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary to
provide a unique educational opportunity as a learning resource for both
formal educational programs and for nonformal interpretative or public
informational education opportunities is unparalleled in the State of
Washington.

With the opportunity of utilizing the Padilla Bay environment as a
learning resource, achievement in some measure of the following goals is
a primary intent:
1) An accurate and comprehensive grounding in how the estuarine
environment works.

2) Experience in valuing environmental quality.

3) Experience in how personal choices and actions affect
environmental quality.
4) Experience in methods of enacting community responsibility.

The plan for accomplishing these objectives consists of four major
systems: the governance system is composed of decisionmaking structures
that legitimize activities and government; the substantive system is
composed of the content and process of learning, and deals with the
definition of what is learned and how it is learned; the development
system is a cyclical, sequential approach to the construJ_1T5*Tand testing

of necessary program materials and instructional strategies for both
formal and nonformal educational endeavors; and the delivery system
provides a thoughtful analysis of the requirements and strategies essential
for long term operation and support of the proposed Padilla Bay Education
Program.

It is the intent of DOE to use this environmental education plan as
a guideline to establish an.environmental education link between the
general public (individual citizens; recreational, environmental, and
social groups, etc.; and clubs and organizations) and institutions of
learning (universities, common schools, governmental agencies, etc.).
This will be accomplished through organized instruction classes, lecturers,
interpretative displays, and programs, field trips, etc., in order to
produce an educational harmony regarding the environment.

The total environmental education effort will be directed toward a
better understanding of who we are and how we relate to our environment,
and why an understanding of this relationship is essential to human
existence.

This educational program approach will provide a vehicle for increased
public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems,
their value and benefits to man and nature, and the problems confronting
them.

The complete Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Educa tional-Program is
provided in Appendix III.

f. Recreation Policy and Program

The recreational program element of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program
was initiated by the Padilla Bay Technical Committee--Recreation Subcommittee,
approved by the full Technical Committee, and adopted by the Steering
Committee as the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Recreation Policy and
Program, with the additional requirement that all current uses (recreational)
that now exist in Padilla Bay will continue once the sanctuary is
establ i shed.

The recreational program was approved consistent with the following:

1) NOAA Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines--Multiple Use Requirements.

2) Padilla Bay's geographical and physiographical setting.

3) Results of the 1976 Skagit County Recreational Survey.

4) The Steering Committee's policy, regarding continuation of
existing (recreational) uses within the established sanctuary.

5) Recommended location of estuarine sanctuary recreation
viewpoints.

NOAA's Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines state that while the primary
purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is to provide long term protection for
natural areas so they may be used for scientific and educational purposes,
multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries will be encouraged to the extent
that such use is compatible with the primary sanctuary purpose. The
capacity of a given sanctuary to accommodate multiple uses, and the kinds
and intensity of such uses, will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
While it is anticipated that compatible uses may generally include
activities such as low intensity recreation (i.e., fishing, hunting,
boating, non-commercial taking of shellfish, wildlife observation,
commercial fishing, etc.), it is recognized that the exclusive use of a
specific area for scientific or educational purposes may provide the
optimum benefit to coastal zone management and resource use, and recreational
resource use restriction may, on occasion, be necessary.

Padilla Bay's geographic and physiographic setting has defined its
recreational use both in terms of kinds of recreational use and use
intensity. ACGess constrained both by substantial steep bank shorelines
and extensive exposed tidel 'ands at low tide periods is the major factor
limiting recreational use and is primarily responsible for the bay's
present intactness. The bay's location at the gateway to the San Juan
Islands has also contributed to its preservation, due to other available
opportunities that draw recreationists away from the bay.

The 1976 Skagit County Recreational Survey, which was used to develop
the sanctuary recreation program, was cosponsored by the Skagit County
Recreational Development Association, Skagit County, the Washington State
University Cooperative Extension Service, Skagit County Planning Department,
Skagit County Park Board, and the Skagit County Board of Commissioners.

The Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Steiring Committee adopted a
policy on October 4, 1979, requiring that "all (legal) existing (recreational)
uses that now occur in Padilla Bay shall continue once the estuarine
sanctuary is established."

There are limited opportunities for public use of Padilla Bay
shoreline with the exception of March Point and Bayview State Park.
Saddlebag Island is inaccessible to the majority of the people, as are
the agricultural and residential areas on the proposed sanctuary's south,
east, and north boundaries. Expanded public use of the shoreline,
especially on the mainland, would be a desirable component of estuarine
recreational plan development.

A complete copy of the recreation program is provided in Appendix IV.

B. Alternatives Considered

1. Funding

Without Federal assistance, the State of Washington by itself could
not purchase all of the area proposed for acquisition. Although the
sanctuary proposal has received extensive State and Federal review as it
developed, no other agency has expressed the ability to provide funding
for acquisition. Moreover, even if other funding sources were available,
they would not meet the explicit needs and objectives of the Estuarine
Sanctuary Program.

Because the Estuarine Sanctuary Program is basically one of Federal
response to State initiatives, the alternatives for Federal action are
limited. OCZM could accept the application as presented or request
modification but award a grant in either case, or it could refuse to
accept the application and decline the grant. OCZM has worked with the
State of Washington since it first indicated interest in the Estuarine
Sanctuary Program, and OCZM's input has caused some modification of the
proposal.

The basic difference between the proposed action and "no action" is
the degree of protection afforded. The proposed action insures a high
degree of protection by preserving the natural functioning ecosystems and
environmental quality from destructive intrusions in the form of diking,
dredging, filling, chemical discharges, and major disturbances from human
activity. Because the existing controls are thought to be inadequate to
fully ensure the ecological integrity of Padilla Bay estuary (and its
rich and unique wildlife assemblages), the no funding alternative is less
beneficial than that of creating an estuarine sanctuary.

Delay of the grant would permit other States within the Columbian
classification to develop estuarine sanctuary proposals for submission to
NOAA. However, the States are not in direct competition for designation
of a single sanctuary, and the award of a grant does not preclude other
grants in the same region if an appropriate subcategory is identified.

Unless the application lacked merit, the outright refusal to award a
grant would serve no purpose. Indeed, in view of the widely acknowledged
need for estuarine preservation (for example, the National Estuary Study,
1970, and Ketchum, 1972), such action would be contrary to the public
interest.

2. Site Selection

The State of Washington performed a very intensive site selection
process. The result was that Padilla Bay was an outstanding candidate
for National Estuarine Sanctuary status. The interested reader is referred
to Appendix V for a description of the site selection process.

3. Boundaries

The Steering Committee considered a wide range of boundaries during
the yearlong planning process. The boundaries proposed represent an area
that approximates an ecological unit for estuarine sanctuary purposes and
at the same time recognizes that industry and agriculture coexist in the
same area. The most notable change from the orignally proposed boundary
is the 500 foot buffer strip at the north end of the sanctuary, adjacent
to Samish Island. This 500 foot buffer was added so that uses by the
public would not affect the property owner's quiet enjoyment of his land.

A major alternative to the proposed boundaries was considered by the
Steering Committee, but rejected. This boundary alternative would
basically be to draw a straight line from March Point, north, to the
western end of Samish Island, including the western 100 acres of Samish
Island. The major basis for rejection was that a large portion of the
land in the expanded boundaries is claimed by the Swinomish Indian Tribal
Community and that a lawsuit is currently being prepared. It is expected
that this suit could be in litigation for 4-5 years and NOAA might be
drawn into the suit if the additional acreage were included within the
proposed boundaries. (Note: There is likelihood of a Federal court
adjudication of the boundary issue. The estuarine sanctuary boundary
will be modified, if necessary, to reflect any Federal court ruling on
this issue.) Also, the estimated cost of Hat Island, which would
be included in this area, is $700,000 and the estimated cost of the 100
acres on Samish Island is $1,500,000--both beyond the reach of OCZM and
State acquisition.

4. Alternate Methods of Acquisition and Protection

Washington, during the development of its application, examined a
variety of possible funding sources and alternative methods of protection.
These possible sources included:

Federal Acquisition

Pittman-Robertson Fund
Dingell-Johnson Act
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
Land and Water Conservation Fund (including Unique Wildlife Ecosystem
Program)
Estuarine Sanctuary Program

State Acquisition

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC)
Legislatively Appropriated

Washington annually receives funds from the Pittman-Robertson Fund
and the Dingell-Johnson Act. However, these funds are used for wildlife
habitat restoration and fish habitat restoration, respectively. These
funds generally are used for manipulative management programs, wfiich

would not be entirely compatible with sanctuary objectives. Similar
considerations apply to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, as the
objectives are somewhat different from those of the project proposed.
The Land and Water Conservation Funds (LAWCON) are generally appropriated
for projects that provide more recreational uses of the land than is
envisioned within the sanctuary. The Unique Wildlife Ecosystem Program
(uses LAWCON funds) would be an alternative program that could have been
substituted for the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service deferred to the State of Washington and its estuarine
sanctuary proposal in keeping with its philosophy of not acquiring
lands unless no other mechanism is available.

The State Legislature and the Governor on a case-by-case basis
appropriate funds for land acquisition. Therefore, unless the funds were
appropriated for Padilla Bay, other State funds could not be used. It
should also be noted that Congress, during the passage of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, intended the sanctuaries program not to
duplicate existing Federal acquisition programs.

5. No Action

Under this alternative, Padilla Bay would not be acquired as an
estuarine sanctuary.

This alternative would leave the future of Padilla Bay with various
regulatory bodies attempting to protect the area under existing authority,
,with no planning for research, education., or recreation. Future development
could lead to a deterioration of the ecological values 'of one-of Washington's
last remaining relatively natural estuaries. The effect on the endangered
species and the indigenous fish and wildlife could be very harmful under
the no action alternative.

The Padilla Bay estuary has the most extensive eelgrass beds in the
continental United States. The eelgrass beds, expansive tideflats,'and
fringing salt marshes support large concentrations of shorebirds and
waterfowl (33 species) including the Pacific or black brandt for wfiich
the bay is a strategic staging area in the Pacific flyway. Adjoining
delta lowlands, as well as marshes and tideflats, are important foraging
and wintering grounds for several species of hawks and owls, including
the endangered American peregrine falcon and the threatened bald eagle.
This area is believed to-support the largest known wintering population
of American peregrine falcons in North America: approximately 10 to 12
individuals. This may make Padilla Bay and the adjacent flats an area
of national concern.

As mentioned previously, unless there are serious defects in the
application, the no action alternative would be contrary to the State and
Federal goals of preserving representative estuaries within the coastal
zone of the United States.

PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

1. General Impacts

The overall impact of establishing the State's proposed estuarine
sanctuary would be environmentally beneficial. Social and economic
impacts would be both beneficial and adverse to some degree.

The proposed sanctuary would entail minimal development or physical
alteration of present environmental conditions. It would not substantially
change present activities or uses in or adjoining the proposed sanctuary
area. Although a variety of regulatory programs currently exist at local,
State, and Federal levels, they are not believed to be adequate to
guarantee the preservation of these unique wildlife ecosystems within
the proposed boundaries. The effect of establishing an estuarine sanctuary
would be to ensure long term protection for significant population segments
of an endangered species (American peregrin falcon), a threatened species
(bald eagle), and other wildlife species of concern (black brant, ducks,
shorebirds, raptors, harbor seals, and others).

In addition, the sanctuary would preserve the integrity of Padilla
Bay against possible destruction of large areas of eelgrass, marsh, and
intertidal habitats by major diking, dredging, or filling projects, such
as have previously been proposed for Padilla Bay. Sanctuary status would
ensure long term natural productivity and continued ecosystem functioning
of a significant portion of the scarce and diminishing estuarine habitat
remaining in the Pacific Northwest.

Creation of the proposed sanctuary might result in some future
modification of present patterns of waterfowl hunting and other recreational
activity. This might be done to accommodate new programs for enhancing
research and educational/interpretative uses and to provide for the needs
of sensitive wildlife species. However, access and overall availability
of waterfowl hunting opportunity would not be reduced. Public hunting
would instead be increased by habitat improvements south of Padilla Bay
and by opening more areas for public hunting. While public use of the
area would generally increase, it may be guided to selected areas and the
type and intensity of use regulated.

A detailed, cooperative management plan would be developed with the
Department of Game to provide for safe and compatible use of the entire
area for a variety of consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife-oriented
recreation activities. This plan would incorporate measures to prevent

trespassing, littering, and intrusions into fragile areas that could be
harmed by unrestricted human use. Activities within much of Padilla Bay
would be regulated in accordance with State regulations governing allowable
and prohibited uses within estuarine sanctuaries and public hunting clubs.
The present types and level of activity would be retained within Padilla
Bay and flats.
Landowners in the upland areas and the south, east, and north boundary
upland areas would be unaffected. The Swinomish Indian tribe is a
potential landowner in the southwest portion of the sanctuary, depending
on the result of contested ownership. Impacts are discussed later in this
section. Upland areas in the southern part of the proposed sanctuary
would be acquired through conservation easements or leases without significant
changes taking place in the character of current use, which is mainly
agriculture. However, the easement or lease agreements would incorporate
provisions precluding substantial commercial development, housing subdivisions,
etc., and may include specific agreements to preserve roosting areas,
small marshes, or other essential habitat parcels.

2. Local Impacts on Skagit County

The proposed action would not involve significant development or
alteration of natural or existing conditions and habitats. As such, no
environmentally adverse impacts are expected, so that mitigating measures
are not needed. Landowners affected by this proposal would receive fair
market value for their holdings. Whether fee title acquisitions or
easements are entailed, it is assumed that economic impacts to private
parties are compensated in the transactions.

The 1979 tax receipts by Skagit County for the area within the
proposed boundaries was $2,133. Although this $2,133 might be considered
an economic loss, there are several factors that indicate the sanctuary
might generate more income than is lost. The dollars devoted to management
(possible $70,000 a year or more) will be spent within the county and
local communities; and this, in turn, generates more income. This is
known as the multiplier effect. Increased public use of the area is
expected to generate substantial education, recreation, and tourism
related revenue to the economy of the county. Also, the Game Department
in 1979 collected $4,100 in fines for game violations in Skagit County.
This money is returned to the county government for its use. These fines
could be expected to increase with an increased Game Department presence
with the management of the sanctuary.

3. State and Federal Impacts

Acquisition and management of the National Estuarine Sanctuary will
have relatively minor shortrun fiscal impacts on the Federal Government
and the State of Washington. In addition, the State will be responsible
for funding the, long term operation of the sanctuary. These expenditures

are expected to be offset by two nonquantifiable benefits: (1) improved
scientific and technical knowledge to be applied toward management
practices concerning estuarine resources here and in other areas and
(2) improved intergovernmental coordination in the bay system as a whole.
The sanctuary would also protect wetlands and be in complete harmony
with Executive Order 11990, The Protection of Wetlands.

B. Relationship Between Local Short Term Uses of the Environment
and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity

The expressed purpose of the proposed action is to preserve the
Padilla Bay ecosystem in perpetuity and to guarantee long time natural
productivity to the benefit of a large and diverse assemblage of wildlife
and fish species. Regulated harvesting of natural resources would
continue, but there would be no short term or exploitative uses at the
expense of long time productivity or continued public utilization. By
implication, all short term uses that would reduce or eliminate long term
productivity would be prevented with the proposed action and intended
management.

The proposed action of habitat preservation and resource conservation
is conducive to maintaining natural productivity and ecosystem processes
with little or no work or subsidy by man. The natural productive efficiency
of estuaries is among the highest of all known natural or artificial
systems and is virtually irreplaceable (Odum, 1971).

C. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources have been
identified in the assessment or are expected to result from the proposed
action. No reduction in income to the county would result from loss of
agricultural production. A potential adverse impact is the psychological
upset to any landowner not willing to relinquish title to his or her
property; however, no condemnation will be used. No other-adverse,
unavoidable environmental impacts are known. No significant construction
is anticipated, except for possible education facilities such as an
interpretative center, trails, signs, and small upland parking areas at
controlled access points.. Other than sport and commercial fish, shellfish,
and wildlife harvesting, no extraction of renewable or nonrenewable
resources would occur. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive species and
their vital habitats would be protected, as would any known or discovered
archeological or historical sites.

Minor maintenance and energy expenditures would be incurred, as
would the expenditure of public funds. These may be regarded as a
commitment of economic resources and also as an investment in recreation
amenities for the welfare of present and future generations.

No archaeological or cultural resources will be effected by the
proposed action. No properties are currently listed in the National
Register of Historic Places, the State Register for Historic Places, the
State Inventory of Historic Places, or the Washington Archaeological
Research Center/Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation site
inventory maps. Any sites' found within the sanctuary will be protected.

D. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives
of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies,
and Controls for the Area Concerned

The location of Padilla Bay, geographically, and the concern by
citizen groups and governmental entities for the protection of environmentally
valuable areas throughout the State and particularly the State's shorelines
has created a degree of protection for areas like Padilla Bay. However,
the protective measures are "permissive" acts that have the flexibility
of protection for environmental uses and will also allow private use and
development under certain acceptable conditions.

Therefore, there are no assurances that environmentally valuable
Areas will remain undeveloped and available for public use. If other
uses occur or are proposed that are not compatible with the environment,
but provide a positive impact for the community's economy, industry, etc.,
approval of these uses is possible.
In the@case of Padilla 'Bay, there is a continued probability of
proposals for noncompatible environmental uses occurring, which in part
prompted the estuarine sanctuary proposal. The southern boundary, which
is a railroad right-of-way boundary line located parallel to a State
highway, provides excellent land transportation opportunities. Deep
water areas on the western boundary may provide water oriented transportation
opportunities, and the existence of industry within the immediate vicinity
constantly provides "add on" industrial opportunities that could have a
negative impact on the proposed sanctuary area.

To date, several existing controls have been imposed on the contiguous
land and water areas, and, although they do not eliminate the possibility
of noncompatible uses, they do lessen the possibility by creating and
requiring a high level of conditions before their uses are approved.
Local controls include, but are not limited to: the county zoning
ordinance that identifies Padilla Bay as a marine aquaculture area; and
the southern, eastern, and northern boundaries as,residential, agricultural,
and public use areas. The Skagit County zoning ordinance was adopted by
the Board of Skagit County Commissioners on June "11, 1979 (Resolution
No. 8003). Copies of the ordinance are available from the Skagit County
Planning Department, Mt. Vernon, Washington. Several legislative and
planning actions, which provide a specific degree of protection for the
total area including Padilla Bay and a contiguous land and water area
adjacent to the sanctuary, are identified below, and are contained in
Appendix IX. These are compatible with the estuarine sanctuary proposal
unless otherwise nated.

1) The State Shoreline and Management Act of 1971. The definition
in the Concept section (RCW 90.58.0 0) of the Shoreline Management Act of
1971 identifies Padilla Bay as a "shoreline of statewide significance"
and "Area of Particular Concern," therefore placing emphasis upon the
need to protect this specific area consistent with legislative policy.

It is the policy of the State to provide for the management of tW
shorelines of the State by planning for and fostering all reasonable am'
appropriate uses. This policy is designed to ensure the development.ofl
these shorelines in a manner that, while allowing for limited reductionlof
rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance -
the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse
affects to the public health, and the land and its vegetation and wildlife,
and the waters of the State and their aquatic life, while protecting
generally public rights of navigation and a corollary rights incidental
thereto.

The Washington State Legislature declared that the interests of all
of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of
statewide significance. The Department of Ecology (in adopting guidelines
for shorelines of statewide significance) and local government (in
developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance)
shall give preference to uses in the following order.

a) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest.

b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.

0 Result in long term over short term benefit.

d) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.

e) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.

f) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the
shoreline.

g) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90-58-100 deemed
appropriate or necessary.

In the implementation of this policy, the public's opportunity to
enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shoreline of the
State shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with
the overall best interest of the State and the people generally. To this
end, uses shall be preferred that are consistent with control of pollution
and prevention of damage to the natural environment or that are unique to
or dependent on use of the State shorelines.

Permitted uses in the shorelines of the State shall be designed and
conducted in a manner to minimize in so far as practical any resultant
damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any
interference with the public's use of the water.

The Shorelines Management Act is a comprehensive tool for control of
shoreline uses. By designing a use permit system and mandating a solid
environmental planning program as its base, the legislature accepts State
responsibility for shoreline quality. It becomes "the policy of the
State to provide for the management of the shorelines of the State by
planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses."

The Legislative concerns prompting such decisive action are made
clear in the following legislative statement:

The Legislature finds that the shorelines of the
state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural
.resources and that there is great concern throughout the
state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration
and preservation. In addition., it finds that increasing pressures
of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines, necessitating
increased coordination in the management and development of
the shorelines of the state. The Legislature further finds that
coordinated planning is necessry in order to protect the public
interest associated with the shorelines of this state, while at the
same time recognizing and protecting private property rights
consistent with the public interest. There is therefore a clear
and urgent demand for a planned, rational and concerted effort
jointly performed by federal, state and local governments to
prevent the inherent ham in an uncoordinated and piecemeal
development of the state's shorelines (RCW 90.580.020).

When the sanctuary is established, the uses of the bay will not
differ radically from the current uses (1980 State Legislature--Engrossed
Senate Bill 3371). Low intensity uses such as recreational fishing,
crabbing, shellfish harvesting, boating, hunting, etc., will be continued.
Monitoring of these uses will be established in order to identify any
damage to the ecosystem's biological integrity, etc. Regulations may
be developed consistent with legislative action, Steering Committee
policy, or Sanctuary Oversight Committee direction to prevent a continuation
of any damage.

With regard to possible future development of the bay shoreline, the
primary potential conflicts relate to the expansion of industrial
activities. Under the current provision of the Skagit County Shoreline
Master Program, it is possible but unlikely that such conflicts will occur.

2) Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended (P.L. 92-583/
P.L. 94.370). Washington State's development of a Coastal Zone Management
Program under �305 has afforded the State two particularly noteworthy
opportunities for increasing the effectiveness of coastal resources
management. The first is a new incentive to evaluate, shore up, and
coordinate existing State management programs and practices. The second
stems from the Act's Federal consistency requirement. This provision
offers the State a management tool unavailable under State law. Both
achieving internal coordination and the forging of consistent State/Federal
management relations are long term goals. The State of Washington has a
coastal zone management program in effect at the present time that centers
on the controls provided in the Shoreline Management Act and that has
been augmented over the past year by State activities in response
to the CZMA- Copies of this document are available from the Department
of Ecology, Olympia, Washington, 98504.

3) The Washington Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), (1979)
is another legislative planning tool that emphasizes the importance of
the protection of the land and water areas of the State.

Chapter Three of the SCORP, Issue 12--Wetland and Flood Plains-
indicates that it is the intent of the State of Washington to provide
opportunities for public use and enjoyment of appropriate segments of
wetlands and/or flood plains including their associated shorelines,
tidelands, and estuaries, wfiile protecting and maintaining these areas for
their value as wildlife habitat and their importance in the hydraulic
cycle.

Specific objectives are to work through existing local and State
resource management programs to continue to promote and, where feasible,
expand:

a) Public access to shorelands and tidelands of the State;

b) Conservation of the wetland and flood plain resource of the
State;

c) Development of facilities on wetland and flood plain for water-
oriented recreational and/or conservation activities; and

d) Identification and evaluation of those wetlands and flood plain
resources of the State not currently included in the Coastal
Zone and Shoreline Master Programs as to their relative
importance for resource, conservation, and/or recreational use.

The proposed State policy or solution to the problem of public use
of shorelines is identified with the following statement from SCORP:

The State of Washington recognizes that saltwater beaches
and tidelands are one of the most popular recreational resources
of the State. It is therefore recommended that the appropriate
public agencies of all levels of government and the private
sector wherever feasible take every possible action to reduce
the effect of "checkerboard" ownerships whenever possible that
currently inhibit public use and access to saltwater beaches
and tidelands.

4) The Washington State Legislature in 1961 passed the following
legislation that relates to the protection of lands contiguous to the
estuarine sanctuary area (Chapter 190 - Session Laws of 1961. Tidelands
in Skagit, Snohomish, Island counties). Summary: The commissioner of
public lands shall withdraw from sale or lease, except lease for the
production of oysters or for booming or industrial uses: PROVIDED, That
the Director of Game has approved such industrial uses as not being
generally incompatible with the primary function of these lands as
public shooting grounds. The full text of this statute is provided in
Appendix IX.

5) The SkAgit County Shoreline Management Master Program. On
June 7, 1976., the Skagit County Planning Commission approved, certified,
and adopted the text of the Shoreline Management Master Program of Skagit
County. The Board of County Commissioners adopted the Planning Department's
Shoreline Management Master Program on June 29, 1976.

The Shoreline Management Master Program goals include a 9 goal
statement pursuant to the program elements specified in RCW 90-58.100(2).
These goals were devised, reviewed, and adopted by the Skagit County
Citizens Advisory Committee in order to provide an overall, comprehensive
foundation and sense of direction on which the policies, regulations,
shoreline area designations, and administrative procedures would be based.
These goals will provide overall guidance for the management of the
shorelines of Skagit County. They are:

a) Shoreline use - To allow for compatible uses of the shorelines
in relationship to the limitations of their physical and
environmental characteristics. Such.uses should enhance
rather than detract from, or adversely affect, the existing
shoreline environment.

b) Conservation - To preserve, protect, and restore the natural
resources of Skagit County's shorelines in the public interest
and for future generations. These natural resources include,
but are not necessarily limited to, fish, wildlife, vegetation,
and natural features found in shoreline regions. Only renewable
resources should be extracted and only in a manner that will
not adversely affect the shoreline environment.
c) Public access - To provide safe, convenient, properly
administered, and diversified public access to publicly
owned shorelines of Skagit County without infringing on
the personal or property rights of adjacent residents. Such
access should not have an adverse impact upon the environment.
d) Circulation - To permit safe, adequate, and diversified
transporta:Fion systems that are compatible with the
shorelines, resulting in minimum disruptions to the
shoreline environment.

e) Economic development - To promote and encourage the optimum
use of existing industrial and economic areas for users
who are shoreline dependent and shoreline related and can
harmoniously coexist with the natural and human environments;
and, subsequently, to create similar areas as need arises
with minimum disruption of the shorelines.

f) Recreation - To encourage the provision and improvement of
private and public recreation along the shorelines of Skagit
County only to, the extent that the environment is not
impaired or degraded.

g) Historical/Cultural/Educational - To identify, protect, and
restore those s6oreline areas and facilities that are of
historical, cultural, or educational value. Public or
private organizations should be encouraged to provide
public access to and protection of such areas and facilities.

h) Restoration and Enhancement - To restore and enhance those
shoreline areas and facilities that are currently unsuitable
for public or private access and use.

i) Implementation Process - To provide an efficient system for
shoreline perFl-t- -applications that would eliminate unnecessary
duplication of effort or jurisdictional conflicts, yet assure
complete coordination and review. To provide a process to
periodically update the inventory, goals, policies, and
regulations to achieve responsiveness to changing attitudes
and conditions.

6) Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Plans. Although ownership is
disputed by the State, the Swinomish Tribe claims about 20 acres of
intertidal land in southern Padilla Bay. About 40 acres were filled with
dredge material in 1975 for development of a "port industrial park." As
recently as March 1979, the tribe announced plans to develop 176 acres
for a "multimillion dollar marine and industrial park" (Skagit Valley
Herald, March 27, 1979). Reservation or tribal properties are excluded
from management under the local master program, Shoreline Management Act,
and CZM Program. The proposed estuarine sanctuary will not have any
impact on the resolution of ownership over the disputed land.
Any project of this nature within Padilla Bay is subject to Federal
permits and if Federal dredging or funding assistance is involved in any
project on tribal land (as was the case previously), Presidential Executive
Order 11990 on Protection of Wetlands (dated May 24, 1977) would apply.
The magnitude of this proposal could potentially have significant impact
on land and water use patterns within Padilla Bay, including the estuarine
sanctuary.

7) Federal Permit Pro2Lam- The principal Federal Permits involved
are Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, administered
by the Corps of Engineers, and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (as amended 1972), which is administered by the Corps with
Environmental Protection Agency oversight. These permits are subject to
review in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (as
amended in 1958) and the 1967 Memorandum of Understanding between the
Departments of Army and Interior. Section 9 governs dikes, and Section 10
governs all other construction and activity waterward of the mean high
water line. Also, under Section 9, bridge and causeway permits are
administered by the Coast Guard. Section 404 applies to discharge of
dredge or fill material in water of the U.S., including wetlands above
the mean high water line. Each of the permits is covered by issuing
agency regulations and wetlands policies.

The Coordination Act requires consultation by the permitting agency
with the State fish and game agencies as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service). Normally the Corps will not issue a permit over a
State objection. The Service's Division of Ecological Services reviews
permit applications in accordance with national guidelines designed for
protection of fish and wildlife resources, wetlands, and other essential
habitats potentially affected by proposed projects. Service policy is to
recommend denial of any project that would destroy or damage productive
wetlands (including tidelands). However, the recommendations of the
Service do not have to be followed and are not always implemented by the
permitting agency.

The Wetlands Protection Executive Order does not apply to private
project applicants. Under the Federal consistency provisions of the
CZMA, if a project receives local and State approval, Federal permitting
agencies normally Will issue over other objections to be consistent with
State CZM programs "to the maximum practicable extent." Corps of Engineers'
regulations require that great weight be given to the State position.

8) The 1980 Washington'State Legislature On March 13, 1980, the
1980 Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Senate Bill No. 3371
as amended by the House. The relevant passage reads as follows:

AN ACT relating to tidelands: authorizing the purchase of
tidelands for establishment of an estuarine sanctuary; and
making an appropriation.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. For the purpose of establishing
an estuarine sanctuary in Padilla Bay, Skagit County, there is
appropriated from the general fund to the department of ecology
for the biennium ending June 30, 1981, the sum of seventy
thousand dollars, or as much thereof as may be necessary. The
department of ecology may use such funds for the acquisition of
tidelands within Padilla Bay, Skagit County,-either through direct
expenditures or through grants to a federal, state.- or local
agency and for administering the establishment of an estuarine
sanctuary in Padilla Bay, Skagit County.

No moneys appropriated under this section may be used by
the department of ecology for acquisition of tidelands unless
made in combination with an equal match of moneys from other
public or private sources.

Prior to acquiring any tidelands, the department of ecology
shall determine that the use of the property to be acquired will
be consistent with chapter 90.58 RCW, the shoreline management
act, and guideline and master programs adopted thereunder.

Hunting, fishing, boating and noncommercial taking of shellfish
shall be authorized but shall be regulated on properties acquired
under this section or as a result of the passage of this section.

PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Location

Padilla Bay is located in northern Puget Sound. Padilla Bay lies
approximately 3 miles (4-8 km) east of Anacortes and 10 miles (16 km)
northwest of Mount Vernon, the county seat of Skagit County, Washington.
Prominent local features are identified as follows: 1) Padilla Bay,
2) Swinomish Channel, 3) March Point, 4) Anacortes, 5) Guemes Island,
6) Hat Island, 7) Samish Island, 8) Bay View State Park, 9) Saddlebag
State Park, and 10) Bayview Community.

B. Sanctuary Description

The boundaries of the sanctuary are:

SOUTH: The southern boundary is the Burlington Northern Railroad
right-of-way, which is located parallel to State Highway
20. The location of these facilities divide agricultural
lands making up the southern part of the proposed project
and agricultural lands that are not in the project and
are located south of the State highway;

EAST: The eastern boundary, approximately 8 miles long (12.8 km),
includes agricultural land (70%), the Bayview residential
area (20%), Bay View State Park (02%), and the unincorporated
city of Bayview (08%);

NORTH: The northern boundary is parallel with, but located
500 feet south of, Samish Island, a high bank
residential area; and

WEST: The western boundary is open water and is.easterly of the
Swinomish Channel and open water to the San Juan Islands.
The southern part of the western boundary is located
consistent with the "claimed" Swinomish Indian Tribal
Community eastern reservation boundary. The northern
part of the boundary is the "seaward boundary" established
in 1931 by the State Commissioner of Lands and the western
boundary of Saddlebag State Park.

The agricultural lands are rich farmlands that show little indication
that any change is being proposed from that use. The agricultural lands
include reclaimed marshlands and provide a substantial amount of economic
impact in the area of the proposed project.

Padilla Bay is a shallow bay, the bottom of which is relatively flat
with a variation in elevation of approximately 1 foot per mile (1.6 km).
Extreme low water for Padilla Bay, as interpreted from Coast and Geodetic
publications, is elevation 90.8 and the line of mean high water is 103.0.

There is a great deal of variety in Padilla Bay shorelines. This
variety is an important element in the overall visual quality of the bay
shorelines in terms of both high and low visual amenities.

The shorelines of Padilla Bay all show the influences of human use.
The cedar post seawall along the mainland north and south of Joe O'Leary
Slough (east boundary) and the refineries at March Point are proof of
longstanding and ongoing human activity around the bay and, together with
the eastbound span of State Highway 20 over the Swinomish Channel, they
represent the most intrusive cultural elements on the bay.

Samish Island and Bayview Ridge are glacial till uplands, rising
directly up from the tidelands. At some points, the bluffs on Samish
Island (north boundary) rise to 100 feet or more, while Bayview Ridge
rises between 20 and 40 feet up from the beach to Bayview-Edison Road
(east boundary). About one mile north of Bay View State Park, the bluffs
give way to a permanent beach berm and a large, marshy backshore as
.Bayview Ridge angles away from the shoreline and ends in the Samish River
floodplain. From this point to Samish Island, the mainland is flat,
nearly at sea level, and is protected from tidal inundation by a dike and
cedar post seawall. Landward views extend to Chuckanut Mountain and
other coastal foothills and beyond to the Cascade Mountain Range.

The south shore, from Indian Slough to the west side of Swinomish
Channel, is heavily modified by human activity. The sloughs and shoreline
are diked, there are a number of artificially formed sand islands, and
both Highway 20 and the Anacortes rail spur (Burlington Northern Railroad)
lie close to the high tide line.

The proposed project area is approximately 11,612 acres, of which
approximately 10,289 acres are second class tidelands, with the remainder
identified as 1,323 acres of uplands. Padilla Bay itself encompasses
approximately 14,500 acres. About 500 acres of tidelands, mostly west
of Swinomish Channel, are presently in State ownership.

The State reserved all oil, gasses, ores, minerals, fossils, etc.
when the tidelands were conveyed by the State to private ownership except
for the tidelands between mean high tide and mean low tide, fronting on
several of the parcels, and Parcel No. 85 through 100 inclusive in the
Padilla Bay tracts.

All described real estate is second class tidelands. Any portion
that lies or may in the future lie beneath navigable waters is subject to
rights of navigation together with rights of fishing, boating, water
skiing, and other recreational purposes generally regarded as corollary to
the right of navigation and the use of public waters. (Wilbur and Green
v. Gallegar, 77 Wn.2d 307). -

C. Real-Property Ownership

The real property ownership in Padilla Bay is almost all private
ownership with several small areas owned by the State and local agencies.

Of the proposed sanctuary's 11,612 acres, only 243 acres or .019% of
the sanctuary is in public ownership. The State Park Commission owns 46
acres, which are Bay View State Park and Saddlebag and Dot Island State
Park. The State Game Department owns 98 acres, 34 acres of which comprise
a waterfowl habitat and hunting area, and a 64-acre upland area that is
contiguous with the tidelands and is the proposed location for the
estuarine sanctuary interpretative and research center. Approximately
99 acres in small parcels were acquired by the county because of nonpayment
of property taxes. These areas, which are currently in county ownership,
will be donated to the project once the State's application is approved
by NOAA.

D. Soils Geology

Padilla Bay is part of an extensive plain formed by the delta and
flood deposits of the Skagit River following retreat of the Vashon Glacier
about 14,000 years ago. Erosion has removed much of the sand and gravel
deposited by the glacier. Formerly, the Skagit River, which heads in the
Canadian Cascades, emptied into Padilla Bay, except for a much reduced
winter-spring flow that enters Padilla Bay through Swinomish Channel.

Prior to the advent of white settlers in the 1850's, Padilla Bay and
Samish Bay were linked across a shallow salt marsh stretching between Bay
View Ridge and Samish Island. Much of this marsh, and the extensive
marshes of the former Swinomish Slough south of Padilla Bay, were diked
against tidal inundation and spring flooding of the Skagit River to create
farmlands. Present soils-are the result of alluvial deposits and wave
action and are a mixture of clay, silt, and sand (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1976).

E. Climate

The area around Anacortes has a mild maritime climate strongly
influenced by the waters of Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca
and Georgia. Winters are typically wet and cool while summers are warm

and dry. in part, this is due to a "rain shadow" created by the Olympic
Mountains to the southwest. January is the coolest month, averaging
44.5' Fahrenheit (6-9%),and July is the hottest, averaging 72.4' (22.4%).
Approximately two-thirds of the annual precipitation, which averages
25.7 inches (65.3 cm), occurs in the period from November through April.

F. Biological Characteristics

1. Vegetation

Ten habitat types with characteristic vegetation and plant
communities may be identified for Padilla Bay and surrounding areas
for these unique wildlife ecosystems. These are: (1) open marine waters,
(2) subtidal sand and mud, (3) eelgrass beds, (4) exposed mudflats,
(5) salt marshes, (6) beaches, (7) rocky shorelines, (8) dredge spoil
sites, (9) nonforested uplands (including disturbed or altered areas,
dikes, and agricultural lands), and (10) forested uplands.

Some of the more prominent plant associations and species are
described below. Appendix VIII contains a partial list of plants (with
scientific names) for the Padilla Bay area; the list may be assumed to
characterize Samish Bay plants as well. This list was compiled from
coastal surveys by the Washington Department of Game and previous listings
and field work by Sylvester and Clogston (1958) and Smith and Benedict
(1977).

Plant species (or groups) occurring in the marine waters, intertidal
mudflats, rocky shores, and subtidal bottoms include phytoplankton, diatoms,
marine algae (such as rockweed, sea lettuce, kelp, and laver), and
eelgrass. Two species of eelgrass occur in extensive beds in the subtidal
and lower intertidal zones of the bays. Colonial diatoms are abundant
over much of the mud surfaces. The eelgrass, algae, and diatoms are
highly important to the primary producti\4ity of these estuaries. Along
with the phytoplankton of the adjoining marine waters, they support the
various animals of these habitats.

Sand or cobble beaches here support very few plants. A fringe of
salt marsh, much reduced from former times, is located outside the diked
areas. Dominant plant species include the seashore saltgrass, pickleweed,
orache (fat hen), Canada sandspurry, gumweed, seaside arrowgrass,,
foxtail barley, and wigeon grass (in brackish pools). Smooth cordgrass,
introduced by duck hunters, occurs in small stands. The high organic
matter production of these emergent plants, which are tidally exported
as detritus to a large extent, is highly important to fueling of estuarine
and marine ecosystems (Gosselink, Odum, and Pope, 1974).

In freshwater sloughs and along streams, Lyngby's sedge is found in
pure stands. Tufted hairgrass is found along these waterways in higher
elevational bands. Dredge spoil sites and islands are vegetated mainly
with dune wildrye, red fescue, and cheatgrass in sparce stands. Dikes
bordering the salt marshes and mudflats support open grass and forb
communities and clumps of blackberries and wild rose, plus occasional
trees such as red alder, black cottonwood, and willow. Red clover,
English plaintain, Canada thistle, quack grass, redtop, velvet grass, ani
pearly everlasting will be found on dikes bordering the agricultural lanAs
where crops of peas, grains, seed crops, and pasture grasses are grown.
Ridges, benches, and slopes along some parts of the bay (Samish
Island, Bay View Ridge, March Point peninsula, and Hat Island) support
second growth forests or strips of mixed conifers and broadleaf trees,
including Douglas fir, western red cedar, red alder, Pacific madrone, and
bigleaf maple. In addition, there are numerous shrubs and understory
species such as salal, Oregon grape, and stinging nettle in the forest
habitat.

2. Marine Invertebrates

Numerous species of marine worms, clams, snails, crabs, shrimp, and
other invertebrates important in the food chains of fishes, birds, and
mammals have been identified. Appendix'VIII contains a partial list of
in,vertebrates identified at Padilla Bay. The list was compiled from
surveys by the Department of Game (Sweeney, 1978); and by Sylvester and
Clogston, 1958; Goodwin, 1974; Smith and Benedict, 1977; and Webber
(unpublished data). Pacific oyster, which was introduced for commercial
growing in the 1930's, is now found only in remnant numbers due to past
pollution, oyster drills, and unsuitable fattening areas.

3. Fish

At least 57 species of fish have been identifiedfor Padilla
Bay. Among the more notable groups and species of sport and commercial
importance are five species of salmon, steelhead and sea run cutthroat
trout, smelt, Pacific herring, sole, flounder, and ten species of sculpins,
which are eaten by a variety of large predators. Appendix VIII contains a
partial listing of fish species compiled by the Department of Game
(Sweeney, 1978); and from work by Sylvester and Clogston, 1958; Delacey
and Miller, 1972; and Miller et al. (unpublished).

4. Birds

At least 239 birds have been identified for Padilla Bay, Samish
Bay and Flats, and nearby Fidalgo Bay. Appendix VIII contains an annotated
list of these species compiled from several sources.

Padilla Bay is particularly notable for large flocks of dabbling
ducks (e.g., American wigeon, mallard, pintail, greenwinged teal, and
northern shoveller) and sandpipers (particularly dunlins and western
sandpipers). These are the primary prey species of the endangered American
peregrine falcon and Peale's peregrine falcon (a look-alike subspecies
that is not listed as endangered) and other hawks that winter on the
Samish Flats (Anderson, et al., 1977), and to a lesser extent at the
south end of Padilla Bay-.

Because of its strategic location and vast area of eelgrass beds,
Padilla Bay is an important staging area for the black brant. This is
unquestionably the most important habitat in Puget Sound (perhaps in the
northwest) for this sensitive species that is so utterly.dependent on
shallow, coastal bays. An average of 5,000 brant winter on the bay.
However, peak spring counts have averaged 47,392 birds (Pacific Coast
Brant Management Plan, 1978), and it has been estimated that up to 50% of
the entire flyway population (which includes most of the Pacific brant
species) passes through here. An average of 50,000 ducks winter on
Padilla and Samish Bays. Of this number, over 6,000 are diving ducks,
including canvasducks, scaup, goldeneyes, buffleheads, and scoters on
Padilla Bay alone (Jeffrey, 1976). Four bald eagle nests are located
along the shores of these bays. Over 20 eagles have been counted in a
single day wintering in this area along with merlins, kestrels, snowy
owls, marsh hawks, Cooper's hawks, sharpshinned hawks, rough-legged hawks,
and red-tailed hawks. A blue heron rookery of approximately 150 breeding
pairs (among the four or five largest in Washington) is located on Samish
Island. Numerous species of loons, grebes, gulls, terns, and many seabirds
are also found on Padilla Bay, along with a variety of upland birds
including the ruffed grouse, ringnecked pheasant, and bandtailed pigeon.
Nesting by ducks and shorebirds occurs on natural and artificial islands
in Padilla and Samish Bays.

5. Mammals

A total of 14 species of mammals have been identified for the Areas
of Concern by the Department of Game (Sweeney, 1978). Most notable are
the black-tailed deer, harbor seal, river otter, raccoon, red fox, coyote,
muskrat, and beaver. As many as 70 harbor seals have been observed in
Padilla Bay (Department of Ecology, 1979). Appendix VIII contains the
partial list of mammals for Padilla Bay.

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS

Mr. James W. MacFarland - U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. MacFarland received-his B.A. and M.A. in Economics and has
previously prepared land acquisition strategies, purchased land, acted as
a consultant, and analyzed t 'he socioeconomic impacts of land preservation
for major land conservation organizations. He is the author of several
articles and studies on natural resource protection and is a former
college lecturer in economics.

Currently, he is the Estuarine Sanctuary Program Manager for the
Office of Coastal Zone Management within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. His present position includes direct project
responsibility for seven existing estuarine sanctuaries, and the
establishment of future estuarine sanctuaries.

Primary responsibility in the preparation of this FEIS included
organization and preparation of the report for publication. In addition,
he prepared all sections not specifically discussed below.

Mr. Milton H. Martin - Washington State Department of Ecology

Mr. Martin is currently an environmental planner for the-Washington
State Department of Ecology. His background is in the field of Administration
and Management in public recreation and park management, where he has held
the following positions since 1959: Director, Parks and Recreation
Department, Vancouver, Washington; Superintendent, Parks and Recreation
Department, Benton County, Washington; Assistant Director, Washington
State Parks and Recreation Commission; and Assistant Administrator,
Washington State Outdoor Recreation Agency.

He is a lecturer on public parks and recreation administration and
has prepared and conducted workshops, conferences, and various public
programs relating to recreation financing, programs, management techniques,
recreation legislation, etc.

His current and primary responsibility is the proposed Padilla Bay
National Estuarine Sanctuary in Washington State, which includes the
organization and implementation of the program (including the FEIS) to
establish the sanctuary.

Mrs. Gloria D. Thompson - U.S. Department of Commerce

Mrs. Thompson currently is in an administrative trainee program
targeted for a Program Support Specialist with the Estuarine Sanctuary
Program Office for the Office of Coastal Zone Management/NOAA-

Primary responsibility in the preparation of this FEIS included
assistance in the preparation of responses to comments received, editing,
and typing for publication.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which also considered
protection of the Padilla Bay area as part of its Unique Wildlife Ecosystem
Program, provided support, information, and data for the preparation of
this report and the total Estuarine Sanctuary Project.

Steering Committee

Joseph R. Blum, Area Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Helen
Engle, President, Washington Environmental Council; Dr. Charles Flora,
Past President, Western Washington State College; Dr. James Ford, President,
Skagit Valley Qollege, Robert D. Keller, Manager, Port of Anacortes;
Charles Kiel, Anacort-es Councilman;.Ralph Larson, Director, Washington
State Department of Game; Bill Malseed, Manager, Shell Oil Company -
Anacortes Refinery; Bud Norris, Chairman,,, Skagit County Commissioners;
John Stone, President, Washington State Sportsman Council; Phil Templeton,
Manager, Texaco, Inc. - Puget Sound Plant; Marvin Wilbur, Executive
Director, Swinomish Indian Tribal CommunIty; and Dr. Dennis Willows, Director,
University of Washington, Friday Harbor Laboratories.

Steering Committee - Subcommittee

Management Committee - Bill Malseed, Bud Norris, Helen Engle and
Joseph Blum.

Technical Committee - is represented on -the subcommittees listed below
except for: Earl G. Schumacher, Shell Oil Company and Claude Lakewold,
Natural.Resource Projects, Washington State Office of Financial Management.

Technical Committee - Subcommittees

Site Selection - Co-Chairman, Bud Norris, Chairman - Board of Skagit
County Commiis-ioners; Co-Chairman, William A. Johnson, Supervisor,
Marine Land Management, Washington State Department of Natural
Resources; Jack Webb, Texaco Oil Company; Glenn Dickenson, Citizen;
Gary Klein, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Bob Schofield, Director,
Skagit County Planning Department; Margaret Yeoman, Citizen;
Bob Olander, City Manager, City of Anacortes; and David Ortman,
Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs.

Research Program - Co-Chairman, Dr. C. J. Flora, Director, Western
versity - Sundquist Marine Studies Laboratory; Co-Chairman,
Dr. Carl Nyblade, University of Washington - Friday Harbor Laboratory;
Richard Granstrand, Fish Biologist, Swinomish Tribal Community;
John Andrews, Game Biologist, Washington State Department of Game;
Terence Wahl, Citizen; and Russ Orell, Washington State Department
of Fisheries.

Education Program - Co-Chairman, Dr. James M. Ford, President, Skagit
Valley College; Co-Chairman, David A. Kennedy, Supervisor, Science
and Environmental Education Programs - Washington State Superintendent
of Public Instruction; Fayetee Krause, The Nature Conservancy;
James Monroe, Skagit Valley College; and Sally Van Neil, Washington
Environmental Council - Instructor Everett Community College.

Recreation Program - Co-Chai man, John Stone, President, Washington
State Sportsman Council; Co-Chairman, Bill Bush, Chief, Long Range
Planning, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission;
Tom Mike Henry, Washington State Sportsman Council; and Ron Knutzen,
Citizen.

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of the Army, U.S..Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA - Joseph R. Blum, Area Manager
and Margaret T. Kolar, Habitat Protection Coordinator
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

CONGRESS

Honorable Warren G. Magnuson, U.S. Senator Seattle, WA
Honorable Henry M. Jackson, U.S. Senator - Everett, WA
Honorable Joel Pritchard, U.S. Representative - Seattle, WA
Honorable Al Swift, U.S. Representative - Everett, WA
Honorable Don Bonker, U.S. Representative - Olympia, WA
Honorable Mike McCormack, U.S. Representative - Richland, WA
Honorable Thomas S. Foley, U.S. Representative -,Spokane, WA
Honorable Norm Dicks, U.S. Representative Tacoma, WA
Honorable Mike Lowry, U.S. Representative Seattle, WA

STATE AGENCIES

Chamber of Commerce - Anacortes, WA Maria Petrish
City of Mt. Vernon - Board of Skagit County Commissioners
Bud Norris, Chairman
Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA - Gordon Sandison, Director
Department of Game, Olympia, WA - Ralph Larson, Director
Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA - Bert Cole, Commissioner
Interagency Comm. for Outdoor Recreation, Tumwater, WA - Robert Wilder,
Administrator
Skagit County, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community - Marvin Wilbur, Executive
Director, Nicholas Zaferators, Planning Director
Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA - Sheila S. Stump
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Olympia, WA - Jan Tveten,
Director

STATE AND LOCAL INTEREST GROUPS

Cascade Natural Gas Corporation, Seattle, WA - O.M. Jones, President
Evergreen Islands, Inc., Anacortes, WA - Bab Rose, President
Friends of the Earth, Seattle, WA - David E. Ortman
Samish Bay/Padilla Bay Conservation Corporation, Burlington, WA.- Mabel Hickson
Simonarson, Visser and Johnson, Lynden, WA - Daniel D. Zender
Tahoma Audubon Society, Tacoma, WA - Nancy Kroening
Washington Environmental Council, Olympia, WA --Helen Engle, President
Washington Native Plant Society, Bellinghari, WA David Shaw

INDIVIDUALS

Edna Breazeale, Mt. Vernon, WA
Milo Moore, Anacortes, WA
Raymond Nelson, Mt. Vernon, WA
Terence R. Wahl, Bellingham, WA
Ruby Watson, Mt. Vernon, WA
Margaret Yeoman, Anacor-tes, WA

-UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, WA - Ronald C. Phillips
Skagit Valley College, Mt. Vernon, WA Dr. James M. Ford

PART VII: APPENDICES

I. Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 and 1977

II. Estuarine Sanctuary Research Program

III. Estuarine Sanctuary Educational Program

IV. Estuarine Sanctuary Recreational Program

V. Partial Preliminary Acquisition Grant Application

VI. Partial Listing of Public Meetings Regarding Padilla Bay

VII. Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Steering and Technical Committee
Members

VIII. Partial List of Plants, Marine Invertebrates, Fishes, Birds,
and Mammals of Padilla Bay

IX. Regulations and Policies Related to Padilla Bay

X. Summarized Comments on the DEIS and Responses by OCZM

XI. Comments Received in OCZM on the DEIS

APPENDIX I

Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 a.nd 1977

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977
Sim. PART IV

DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE

National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Az@

IESTUARINE SANCTUARY

Guidelines

45522

Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[15 CFR Part 921]
ESTUARINE SACTUARY GUIDELINES
Policies and Procedures for Selection
Acquisition and Management
AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This proposed rule will allow the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make a preliminary acquisition grant to a State to undertake a fair market value appraisal, and to develop a uniform relocation act plan, a detailed management plan an a research framework for a proposed estuatine sanctuary, developed pursuant to Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.

DATE: Comments must be received on or before October 1, 1977.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert R. Kifer, Physical Scientist, Policy and Programs Development Office, Offive of Coastal Zone Management, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page One Building, Washington, D.C. 20235 (202-634-4241).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On June 4, 1974, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published 15 CFR Part 921 entitles, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines" pursuant to then section 213 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, for the purpose of establishing policy and procedures for the selection, acquisition, and management of estuarine sanctuaries.
Under new subsection 315(1) of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to make available to coastal States grants of up to 50 per centum of the cost of acquisition, development, and operation of estuatine sanctuaries. In general, subsection 315(1) provides that grants may be awarded to States on a matching basis to acquire, develop, and operate natural areas as estuarine sanctuaries in order that scientists and students may be provided the opportunity to examine over a period of time ecological relationships within the area. The purpose of these guidelines is to implement this program.
As a result of two years of program implementation, the regulations are proposed to be modified to specifically authorize the granting of acquisition money to States in two stages:
(i) An initial grant for such preliminary purposes, as surveying and assessing the land to be acquired, and the development of management procedures and research programs; and
(ii) A second grant for the actual acquisition of the land. The Federal share of the sum of the two grants shall not exceed 50 percent of the acquistition costs involved. Any State receiving an initial grant shall be obligated to repay it if, due to any fault of the State, the sanctuary is not established.
As a result of this new grant procedure, much more information relating to costs, values, management procedures, and research programs will be available at the time of the publication of a draft environmental impact statement. Proposals made public to date in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) have been criticized for lack of specificity in these areas. By making a small preliminary acquisition grant to a Statem the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be more fully developed and the public can become more aware of the costs and the exact nature of the long-term management.
In response to State questions about estuarine sanctuary research, the proposed regulations provide that such research can be funded if it can be shown to be related to program administration.
NOAA has reviewed these proposed regulations pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and has determined that promulgation of these regulations will have no significant impact on the environment.
Compliance with Executive Order 11821. The economic and inflationary impact of these proposed regulations has been evaluated in accordance with OMB Circular A-107 and it has been determined that no major inflationary impact will result.

Dated: August 26, 1977.
T. P. GLEITER.
Assistant Administrator
for administration.

It is proposed to amend 15 CFR Part 921 as follows:
(1) By revising the table of contents and authority citation to read as follows:

Subpart A -- General
Sec.
921.1 Policy and objectives.
921.2 Definitions.
921.3 Objectives and implementation of the program.
921.4 Biogeographic classification.
921.5 Multiple use.
921.6 Relationship to other provisions of the Act and to marine sanctuaries.

Subpart B -- Application for Grants

921.10 General
921.11 Application for preliminary acquisition grants.
921.12 Application for land acquisition grants.
921.13 Application for operational grants.
921.14 Federally-owned lands.

Subpart C -- Selection Criteria

921.20 Criteria for selection.
921.21 Public participation.

Subpart D -- Operation

921.30 General.
921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary. management policy, or research program.
921.32 Program review.

AUTHORITY: SEC. 315(1), Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (90 Stat. 1030, (15 U.S.C. 1461) Pub. L.94-370).

(2) By revising Subpart B -- Application for Grants -- as follows:

Subpart B -- Application for Grants

921.10 General.

Section 315 authorizes Federal grants to coastal States so that the States may establish santuaries according to regulations promulgated by the Secretary. Coastal States may file applications for grants with the Associate Administrator for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM). Office of Coastal Zone Management, Page 1, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway NW, Washington, D.C. 20235. That agency which has been certified to the Office of Coastal Zone Management as the entity responsible for administration of the State coastal zone administration of the State coastal zone management program may either submit an application directly, or must endorse and approve applications submitted by other agencies within the State.

921.11 Application for preliminary acquisition grants.

(a) A grant may be awarded on a matching basis to cover costs necessary to preliminary actual acquisition of land. As match to the Federal grant, a State may use money, the cost of necessary services, the value of foregone revenue, and/or/ the value of land either already in its possession or acquired by the State specifically for use in the sanctuary. If the land to be used as match already is in the State's possession and is in a protected status, the State may use such land as match only to the extent of any revenue from the land foregone by the State in order to include it in the sanctuary. Application for a preliminary acquisition grant shall be made on form SF 424 application for Federal assistance (non-construction programs).
(b) A preliminary acquisition grant may be made for the defrayal of the cost of:
(1) An appraisal of the land, or of the value of any foregone use of the land, to be used in the sanctuary;
(2) The development of a Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act plan;
(3) The development of a sanctuary management plan;
(4) The development of a research and educational program; and/or,
(5) Such other activity of a preliminary nature as may be approved in writing by OCZM. Any grant made pursuant to this subsection shall be refunded by the State to whatever extent it has spent in relation to land no acquired for the sanctuary, and if OCZM requests such refund.
(c) The application should contain:
(1) Evidence that the State has conducted a scientific evaluation of its estuaries and selected one of those most representative.
(2) Description of the proposed sanctuary including location, proposed boundaries, and size. A map(s) should be included, as well as an aerial photograph if available.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 175 --- FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

PROPOSED RULES 45523

(3) Classification of the proposed sanctuary according to the biogeographic scheme set forth in 921.4
(4) Description of the major physical, geographic, biological characteristics and resources of the proposed sanctuary.
(5) Demonstration of the necessary authority to acquire or control and manage to sanctuary.
(6) Description of existing and potential uses of, and conflicts within, the area of it were not declared an estuarine sanctuary; and potential use restriction and conflicts if the sanctuary is established.
(7) List of protected sites, either within the estuarine sanctuaries porgrams or within other Federal, State, or provate programs, which are located in the same region or biogeographic classification.
(8) The manner in which the State solicited the views of interested parties.
(9) In addition to the standard A-95 review procedures, the grant application should be sent to the State Historic Preservation Office for comment to insure compliance with section 106 of the National Preservation Act of 19662
(d) In order to develop a truly representative scheme of estuarine sancuaries, the State should coordinate their activities. This will help to minimize the possibility of similar estuarein types being proposed in the same region. The extent to which neighboring States were consulted should be indicated.

921.12 Application for land acquisition grants.

(a) Acquisition grants will be made to acquire land and facilities for estuarine sanctuaries that have been thoroughly described in a preliminary acquisition grant application, or where equivalent informantion is available. Application for an acquisition grant shall be made on SF 424 application for Federal assistance (construction program).
In general, lands acquired pursuant to this subsection are legitimate costs and their fair market value, developed according to Federal appraisal standards, may be included as match. The value of lands donated to the State and coas donations may also be used as match. If the State already owns land which is to be used in the sanctuary, the value of any use of the land foregone by the State in order to include such land in the sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20 years, may be used by the State as match. The value of lands purchased by a State within the boundaries of proposed sanctuaries while an application for a preliminary acquisition grant or land acquisition grant is being considered may also be used as match.
(b) An acquisition application should contain the following information:
(1) Description of any changes in proposed sanctuary from that presented in the preliminary acquisition grant application. If such an application has not been made, then, information equivalent to that required in such a grant application should be provided.
(2) Identification of ownership pattern, proportions of land already in the public domanin; fair markey value appraisal and Uniform Relocation Act plan.
(3) Description of research programs, potential and committed research organizations or agencies, and benefits to the overall coastal zone management program.
(4) Description of proposed management techniques, including the management agency and proposed budget- includeing both State and Federal shares.
(5) Description of planned or anticipated land and water use and controls for contiguous land surrounding the propsed sanctuary (including, if appropriate, an analysis of the desirability of creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent areas).
(6) Assessment of the environmental, and socio-economic impacts of declaring the area an estuarine sanctuary, including the econimic impact on the surrounding community and its tax base.
(7) Discussion, including cost and feasibility of alternative methods for aquisition and protection of the area.

921.13 Application for operation grants.

(a) Although an acquisition grant application for creation of an estuarine sanctuary should include initial operation costs, subsequent applications may be submitted following acquisition and establishment of an estuarine sanctuary for additional operational funds. As indicated in 921.11, these costs may include administrative costs necessary to monitor the sanctuary and to protect the integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive management programs, capotal expenses, or research will not normally be funded by section 315 grants.
(b) After the creation of an estuarine sanctuary established under this program, applications (Form SF 424) for Federal assistance (non-construction program), for such operational grants should include at least the following information:
(1) Indentification of the boundary (map).
(2) Specifications of the research and management programs, including managing agency and techniques.
(3) Detailed budget.
(4) Discussion of recent and projected use of the sanctuary.
(5) Perceived threats to the integrity of the sanctuary.

921.14 Federally-owned lands.

(a) Where Federally-owned lands are a part of or adjacent to the area proposed for designation as an estuatine sanctuary, or where the control of land and water uses on such lands is necessary to protect the natural system within the sanctuary, the State should contach the Federal agency maintaining control of the land to request cooperation in providing coordinated management policies. Such lands and State request, and the Federal agency response, should be identified and conveyed to the office of Coastal Zone Management.
(b) Where such proposed use or control of Federally-owned lands would not conflict with the Federal use of their lands, such cooperation and coordination is encouranged to the maximim extense feasible.
(c) Section 315 grants may not be awarded to Federally-owned lands; however, a similar status may be provided on a voluntary basis for Federally-owned lands under the provisions of the Federal Committee on Ecological perserves program.

921.20 [Amended]

(4) Subpart C -- Selection Criteria -- is amended by changing the first sentence in 921.20 to read: "Applications for preliminary acquisition or land acquisition grants to establish estuarine sanctuaries will be reviewed and judged on criteria including:"
(5) Section 921.21 is revised, as follows:

921.21 Public participation.

(a) Public participation in the selection of an estuarine sanctuary is required. In the selection process, the selecting entity (see 921.10) shall seek the views of possibly affected landowners, local governments, and Federal agencies, and shall seek the views of possibly interested other parties and organizations. The latter would include, but need not to be limited to, private citizens and business, social, and environmental organizations in the area of the site being considered for selection. This solicitation of views may be accomplished by whatever means the selecting entity deems apporpriate, but shall include at least one public hearing in the area. Notice of such hearing shall include informational as to the time, place, and subject matter, and shall be published in the principal area media. The hearing shall be held no sooner that 15 days following the publication of notice.
(b) The Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) shall prepare draft and final environmental impact statements pertaining to the site finally selected for the estuarine sanctuary following public participation in the selection of that site, and shall distribute these as appropriate. OCZM may hold a public hearing in the area of such site at which both the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and the merits of the site selection may be addressed by those in attendance. OCZM shall hold such a hearing if: (1) In its view, the DEIS is controversial, or (2) if there appears to be a need for further informing the public with regard to either the DEIS or one or more aspects of the site selected, or (3) if such a hearing is requested in writing (to either the selecting entity or (CZM) by an affected or interested party, or (4) for other good cause. If held, such hearing shall be held no sooner than 30 days following the issuance of the DEIS and no sooner that 15 days after appropriate notice of such hearing has been given in the area by OCZM with the assistance of the selecting entity.
[ ;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175 -- FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

19922 RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 15 -- Commerce and Foreign Trade
CHAPTER IX -- NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PART 921 -- ESTURAINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraction (NOAA) on March 7, 1974, proposed guidelines (15 CFR Part 921) pursuabt to section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-513, 85 Stat. 1280), hereinafter referred to as the "Act," for the purpose of establishing the policy and procedures for the nomination, selection and management of estuarine sanctuaries.
Written comments were to be submitted to the Office of Coastal Environment (now the Office of Coastal Zone Managelent), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration before April 8, 1974, and consideration has been given those comments.
The Act recognizes that the coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial, recreational, industrial, and esthetic resources of immediate and potential value to the present and future well-being of the nation. States are encouraged to develop and implement management programs to achieve wise use of the resources of the coastal zone, and the Act authorizes Federal grants to the States for these purposes (sections 305 and 306).
In addition, under section 312 of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to make available to a coastal State grants of up to 50 per centum of the cost of acquisition, development and operation of estuarine sanctuaries. The guidelines contained in this part are for grants under section 312.
In general, section 312 provides that grants may be awarded to States on a matching basis to acquire, develop and operate natural areas as estuarine sanctuaries in order that scientists and students may be provided the opportunity to examine over a period if time ecological relationships within the area. The purpose of these guidelines is to establish the rules and regulations for implementation of this program.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration if publishing herewith the final regulations describing the procedures for applications to receive grants for estuarine sancruaries under section 312 of the Act. The final regulations and criteria were revised from the proposed guidelines based on the comments received. A total of fifty (50) States, agencies, organizations and individuals submitted responses to the proposed section 312 guidelines published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on March 7, 1974. Of those responses recieved, eight (8) offered no comment or were wholly favorable as to the nature and content of the guidelines as originally proposed. Forty-two (42) commentators submitted suggestions concerning the proposed section 312 guidelines.
The following received on various sections of the proposed regulations and presents the rationale for the responses made.
Section 921.2 Definitions. Three comments requested that the term "estuary" be defined. Although the term is defined in the Act and also in the regulations dealing with Coastal Zone Management Program Development Grants (Part 920 of this chapter) published November 29, 1973, it has been added to these regulations and broadened slightly to include marine lagoons with restricted freshwater input such as migh occur along the south Texas coast.
Two other comments requested that the "primary purpose" referred to in 921.2(b) be clearly defined. Although elaborated upon in 921.3(a), for the purpose of clarity this change has been made.
Section 921.3 Objectives and Implementation. Several comments suggested that the estuarine sanctuary program objective were too narrowly defined and specifically that the should be broadened to include the acquisition and preservation of unique or endangered estuaries for wildlife or ecological reasons. Although the Act (section 302) declares it the nation's policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance coastal resources, this is perceived to0 be achievable through State actions pursuant to sections 303 and 305. While it is recognized that the creation of an estuarine sanctuary may in fact serve to preserve or protect an area or biological community, the legislative history of section 313 clearly indicates the estuarine sanctuary program was not intended to duplicate existing broad purpose Federal preservation programs, such as might be accommodated by use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. Instead, both in the Act as well as its legislative history, the objective is defined as preserving representative estuarine areas for long-term research and educational uses.
Three other comments suggested the objectives of the program should be enlarged to include the restoration of environmentally degraded areas. This, too, is perceived to be a State requirement seperate from section 312. In addition, adequate authority for restoring degraded water areas now exists (for example, Pub. L. 92-500 in addition to sections 302, 305 and 306 of the Act). No significant additional benefit would appear to result from declaring an area an estuarine sanctuary for the purposes of restoration.
A few comments indicated that the examples of sanctuary use were too heavily weighted toward scientific uses to the exclusion of educational uses. Public education concerning the value and benefits of, and the nature of conflict within the coastal zone, will be essential to the success of a coastal zone management program. The section has been changed to reflect an appropriate concern for educational use.
Some commentators suggested changes in or additions to the specific examples of sanctuary uses and purposes. These examples were taken from the Senate and House Committee Reports and are considered sufficient to reflect the kinds of uses intended with an estuarine sanctuary.
Several comments were received pertaining to 921.3(c) involving the restrictions against overemphasis of destructive or manipulative research. Ten comments indicated that the section was too weak and would not provide suffiecient long-term protection for the sanctuary ecosystem. Several commentators specifically recommended deleting the words "would not normally be permitted" and inserting in their place "will not be permitted." In contrast, three respondents indicated that the potential use of estuarine sanctuaries for manipulative or destructive research was too restricted, and that these uses should be generally permitted if not encouraged.
The legislative history of section 312 clearly indicates that the intent of the estuarine sanctuary program should be to preserve representative estuarine areas so that they may provide longterm (virtually permanent) scientific and educational use. The uses perceived are compatible with what has been defined as "research natural areas." In an are of rapidly degrading estuarine environments, the estuarine sanctuary program will ensure that a representative series of natural areas will be available for scientific or educational uses dependent on that natural character, for example, for baseline studies, for use in understanding the functioning of natural ecological systems, for controls agianst which the impacts of development in other areas might be compared, and as interpretive centers for educational purposes. Any time, research or otherwise, which would destroy or detract from the natural system, would be inappropriate under this program.
In general, the necessity of or benefit from permitting manipulative or destructive research within an estuarine sanctuary is unclear. While there is a legitimate need for such kinds of research, ample opportunity for maniplative or destructive research to assess directly man's impact or stresses on the estuarine environment exists now without the need for creation or use of an estuarine sanctuary for this purpose. In contrast, a clear need exists for natural areas to serve as controls for manipilative research or research on altered systems.
The section on manipulative research has been changed to reflect the concern for continued maintenance of the area as a natural system. However, the modifier "normally" has been retained because, within these limits, it is not felt nexessary to preclude all such uses" the occasion may rarely arise when because of a thoroughly demonstrated direct benefit, such research may be permitted.
Several comments suggested that the program should include degraded estuarine systems, rather that be limited to areas which are "relatively undisturbed by human activites." Such areas would permit research efforts designed to restore an estuarine area. As indicated

FEDERAL REGISTER, WOL. 39, NO. 108 - TUESDAY, JUNE, 1974

RULES AND REGULATIONS 19923

above, an ample legislative mandate to restore environmentally degraded areas already exists; the benefits to be derived from declaring such areas estuarine sanctuaries would be mariginal. Indeed, it would appear that if restoration efforts cannot occur without estuarine sanctuary designation, then, given the limited resources of this program, such efforts would not be fesable.
A few commentators suggested that the phrase (921.3(a)) "If sufficient permanence and control by the State can be assured and control by the State can be assured, the acquisition of a sanctuary may involve less than the acquisition of a fee simple interest" be more clearly defined. Explanatory language has been added to that section.
Section 921.4 Zoogeographic Classification. Because the classification scheme utilized plants as well as animals, two commentators suggested that zoogeographic be changed to biogeographic. This change is reflected in the final regulations.
One comment suggested that selection of sanctuaries should depend on the pressures and threats being brought to bear upon the natural areas involved, even if this meant selecting several sanctuaries from one classification and none from another.
The legislative history of section 312 clearly shows the intent to select estuarine sanctuaries on a rational basis which would reflect regional diffentiation and a variety of ecosystems. The biogeographic classification system. which reflects geographic, hydrographic, and biologic differences, fulfils that intention. A scheme which would abandon that system, or another similar one, and would not fulfill the requirements or providing regional differentation and a variety of ecosystems, would not be consistent with the intended purpose of the Act.
A few comments received suggested that the biogeographic classification scheme be enlarged by the addition of a new class reflecting an area or State of special concern or interest to the respondednt. (No two commentators suggested the same area.) It is felt that adequate national representation is provided by the biogeographic scheme proposed, and that the changes offered were in most cases examples of sub-categories that might be utilized.
One comment suggested a specific change in the definition of the "Great Lakes" category. Portions of that suggestion have been incorporated into the final rules.
Two commentators requested assurance that sub-categories of the biogeographic scheme will in fact be utilized. The final language substitutes "will be developed and utilized" for "may be developed and utilized."
Section 921.5 Multiple Use. Several comments were recieved pertaining to the multiple use concept. Three commentators suggested that the multiple use directive was contrary to or absent from the Act and should be omitted. Ten respondents felt the concept should be more explicitly defined and restricted so that the promary purpose of the sanctuary would be more clearly protected. In contrast, two commentators felt that the definition might prove too restrictive and should be broadened. Several commmentators suggested that examples of anticipated multiple use might be appropriate.
While recognizing that is is not always possible to accommodate more that a single use in an environmentally sensitive are, it is not the intention to unnecessarily preclude the uses of sanctuary areas where they are clearly compatible with and do not detract from the long-term protection of the ecosystem for scientific and educational purposes. The language of 921.4 has been changed accordingly.
Section 921.5 Relationship to Other Provisions of the Act and to Marine Sanctuaries. Several comments were recieved which commended and streased the need for class coordination between the development of State coastal zone management programs, especially and land and water use controls, and the estuarine sanctuary program.
The relationship between the two programs is emphasized: estuarine sanctuaries should provide benefit -- both short-term and long-term -- to coastal zone management decision-makers; and State coastal zone management programs must provide necessary protection for estuarine sanctuaries. This necessary coordination is discussed not only in the esturaine sanctuary regulations, but will also be addressed in an appropriate fashion in huidelines and rules for Coastal Zone Management Program Approval Criteria and Administrative Grants.
Three commentators discussed the need for swift action by both State and Federal governments to establish and acquire estuarine sanctuaries. The Office of Coastal Zone Management intends to pursue the program as swiftly as available manpower restraints will permit.
A few comments sought reasurance that the estuarine sanctuaries program will in fact be coordinated with the Marine Sanctuaries Program (Title III, Pub. L. 92-332). The guidelines have been changed to reflect that both programs will be administered by the same office.

SUBPART B -- APPLICATION FOR GRANTS

Section 921.10 General. One reviewer indicated uncertainy about which State agency may submit applications for grants under section 312. Although individual States may vary in the choice of individual agencies to apply for an estuarine sanctuary, because of the necessity for coordination with the State coastal zone management program the entity within the State which is the certified contact with the Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, responsible for the administration of the coastal zone management program must endorse or approve an estuarine sanctuary application.
Appropriate language has been included to ensure this coordination.
Section 921.11 Initial Application for Acquisition, Development and Operation Grants. Two comments requested that the source and nature of acceptable matching funds should be explicitly indentified.
OMB Circular A-102 generally defines and identifies legitimate "match" for Federal grant projects. In general, reference should be made to that document. However, the section has been expanded in response to some specific and frequent questions.
Two comments stressed the need for increased availablity of research funds to adequately utilize the potential of estuarine sanctuaries. While not an appropriate function of the estuarine sanctuary program, the Office of Coastal Zone Management is discussing the necessity of adequate funding with appropriate agencies.
One comment suggested that the term "legal description" of the sanctuary (921.11(a)) is not appropriate for all categories of information requested. The word "legal" has been omitted.
Three reviewers indicated that the Act provides no basis for consideration of socio-economic impacts (921.11(1) and that this criterion seemed inappropriate to selecting esturine sanctuaries. apparently these reviewers misunderstood the intention of this requirement. The information in theis section is necessary for preparation of an enviromental impact statement which will be prepared pursuant to NEPA. Although required in the application such information is not a part of the selection criteria which are addressed in Subpart C. 921.20
One similar comment was received with regard to consideration of existing and potential uses and conflicts (921.11(h)). This item is also discussed under selection criteria (921.20(h)). It is intended that this criterion will only be considered when choosing between two or more sanctuary applications within the same biogeographic category which are of otherwise equal merit. One comment drew attention to an apparent typographic error in 921.11 (m), where the term "marine estuaries" seems out of context. This has been corrected. Two commentators suggested that public hearings should be required in the development of an estuarine sanctuary application. Although such a hearing is deemed disirable by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, it would not always seem to be necessary. The language in 921.11(1) has been changed to reflect the sincere concern for the adequate involvement of the public, which is also addressed under a new 920.21. One respondent suggested that a new section be added requiring the applicant to discuss alternative methods of acquisition or control of the area, including the designation of a marine sanctuary, in place of establishing an estuarine sanctuary. A new section (921.11(n)) has been added for this purpose. Section 921.12 Subsequent Application for Development and Operation Grants. Three comentators expressed concern that the intent of 921.12 be more clearly expressed. Appropriate changes have been made.

FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 39, NO. 108 TUESDAY, JUNE 4,1974

19924 RULES AND REGULATIONS
One comment was made that a pro- Two commentators expressed concern to the extend feasible a natural unit, set
vision should be included tu use existing for enforcement capabilities and activi- aside to provide scientists and students
Federally owned land for the purpose of ties to ensure protection of the estuarine the opportunity to examine over a period
the extuarine sanctuary program. A sec- sanctuaries. A new section has been of time the ecological relationships with-
tion has been added for that purpose. added which addressed this issue. in this area.
Section 921.20 Criteria for Selection. Finally, one suggestion was received (b) For the purposes of this section,
One comment suggested that the con- that a vehicle for change in the manage- "estuary" means that part of a river or
sideration of conflict with existing or po- ment policy or research programs should stream or other body of water having un-
tential competing uses should not be in- be provided. A new section has been impared connection with the open sea.
cluded as a selection criterion. As dis- added for that purpose. where the sea water is measurably diluted
cussed above, this criterion is considered Accordingly, having considered the with freshwater derived from land drain-
appropriate. comments received and other relevant age. The term includes estuary-type
Another reviewer suggested the addi- information, the Secretary concludes by areas ofthe Great Lakes as well as la-
tion of a new criterion, consideration of adopting the final regulations describing goons in more arid coastal regions.
"the need to protect a particular estuary the procedure for applications to receive (c) The term "multiple use" as used
from harmful develpment." As dis- estuarine sanctuary grants under section in this section shall mean the simulta-
cussed earlier, this criterion is not con- 312 of the Act, as modified and set forth neous utilization of an area or resource
sidered appropriate. Such a basis for below. for a variety of compatible purposes or
determining selections would lead to a to provide more than one benefit. The
reactionary, random series of estuarine Effective date: June 3, 1974. term implies the long-term, continued
sanctuaries, rather than the rationally Dated: May 31, 1974. uses of such resources in such a fashion
chosen representative series mandated Robert M. White, that other uses will not interfere with,
in the legislative history. Administrator. diminish or prevent the primary purpose,
Two reviewers commented that the Subport A--General which is the long-term protection of the
limitation on the Fedral share ($2,000,- sec. area for scientific and educational use.
000 for each sanctuary) was too low and 921.1 Policy and Objectives. 921.3 Objectives and implementation
would severely restrict the usefulness of 921.2 Definitions. of the program.
the program. However, this limitation 921.3 Objectives and implementation of (a) General. The purpose of the as-
is provided by the Act. the program. tuarine sanctuaries program is to create
Another commentator suggested that 921.4 Biogeographic classification. natural field laboratories in which to
921.20(g) was unnecessarily restrictive 921.5 Multiple use. gather data and make studies of the
in that it might prevent selecting an 921.6 Relationship to other provisions of natural and human processes occuring
estuarine sanctuary in an area adjacent the Act and to marine sanctuaries. within the estuaries of the coastal zone.
to existing preserved lands where the Subport B--Application for Grants This shall be accomplished by the estab-
conjunction might be mutually benefi- 921.10 General. lishment of a series of estuarine sanc-
cial. The language of 921.20(g) does 921.11 Application for initial acquistion, of a series of eestuarine sanc-
not preclude such action, but has been develpment and operation grants. the future for scientific and educational
changed to specifically permit this pos- 921.12 Application for subsequent develop- purposes. The primary use of estuarine
sibility. ment and operation grants. sanctuaries shall be for research and
Two commentators inquired whether 921.13 Federally owned lands. educational purposes, especially to pro-
the reference to a "draft" environmental Subport C--Selection Criteria vide some of the information essential to
impact statement ( 921.20. last para- 921.20 Criteria for selection. coastal zone management decision-mak-
graph) indicated an intention to avoid 921.21 Public participation. ing. Specific examples of such purposes
further compliance with NEPA. It is the Subport D--Operation and uses include but are not limited to:
firm intention of the Office of Coastal 921.30 General. (1) To gain a thorough understanding
Zone Management to fully comply in all 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary. of the ecological relationships within the
respects with NEPA. The word "draft" management policy or research estuarine environment.
has been struck. program. (2) To make baseline ecological meas-
Three reviewers addressed the prob- 921.32 Program review. urements.
lems of providing adequate public par- Authority: Sec. 912 of the Coastal Zone (3)To monitor significant or vital
ticipation in the review and selection Management Act of 1972 (Fub. L. 92-683.86 changes in the estuarine environment.
process. In addition to the change in stat. 1280). (4) To assess the effects of man's
920.11(1), a new section has been added Subport A--General stresses on the ecosystem and to forecast
to address this issue. 921.1 Policy and Objectives. and mitigate possible deterioration from
Subpart D--Operation The estuarine sanctuaries program will human activities.
Section 921.30 General. One commen- provide grants to States on a matching (5) To provide a vehicle for increasing
tator suggested that during contract basis to acquire, develop and operate public knowledge and awareness of the
negotiations, there should be a meeting natural areas as estuarine sanctuaries in complex nature of estuarine systems,
between the applicant agency and pro- order that scientists and students may be their values and benefits to man and na-
posed sanctuary management team, and provide the opportunity to examine over ture, and the problems which confront
representatives of the Office of Coastal a period of time the ecological relation- them.

RULES AND REGULATIONS 19925
permitted. In the unusual circumstances dented and subject to winter ; blots. (b) The setuarine sanctuaries program
Where permitted, manipulative field re- normal to sub-Arctic. will be conducted in close cooperation

search shall be carefully controlled. No 9. Suberotia. West and north courts of with the marine sanctuaries program
Alaska; ice stressed coasts, blots Arctic and (Title III of the Marine Protection Re-
experiment which involves manipulative sub-Arctic.
reseach shall be initiated until the ter- 10. Larger islands, sometimes with search Act of 1972, Pub. L 92-832, which
miniation date is specified and evidence precipitons mountains; considerable wave is also administered by the Office of
given that the environment will be re- action; frequently with Coastal Zone Management, NOAA),
turned to its condition which existed Larger island groups primarily with tropical which recognizes that certain areas of
prior to the experiment. biota. the ocean waters,as far seaward as the
(d) It is anticipated that most of the 11. Great Lakes. Great Lakes of North outer edge at the Continental Shelf, or
areas selected as sanctuaries will be rel- America; bluff-dune or rocky, ghaciated other coastal waters where the tide ebbs
atively undisturubed by human activities shoreline: limited wetlands; freshwater only; and flows, or of the Great Lakes and
at the time of acquisition. Therefore, blots & mixture of bormal and temperature their connecting waters, need to be pre-
most of the areas selected will be areas species with anadromous specied and some served or restored for their conservation.
marine invadars.
with a minimum of development, indus- recreational, ecologic or esthetic values.
(b) Various sub-categories will be de- It is anticipated that the Secretary on
try or habitation.
(a) It sufficient permanence and con- veloped and utilized as appropriate. occasion may establish marine sanctu-
trol by the State can be assured, the 921.5 Multiple sec. aries to complement the designation by
acquisition of a sanctuary may involve States of satuarine sancuaries, where
less than the acquisition of a fee simple (a) While the primary purpose of es- this may be mutually beneficial.
tuarine sanctuaries is to provide long-
interest.Such interest may be. for ex- term protection for natural areas so that Subpart B--Application for Grants
ample, the acquisition of a conserva-
tion essement, "development rights", or they may be used for scientific and edu- 921.10 General
cational purpose, multiple use of satu-
other partial interest sufficient to assure arine sanctuaries will be encouraged to Section 312 authorizes Federal grants
the protection of the natural system. the extent that such use be compatible to coastal States so that the States may
Leasing, which would not assure perma- establish sancuaries according to regu-
nent protection of the system, would not with this primary sanctuary purpose. lations promulgated by the Secretary.
be an acceptable alternative. The capacity of a given sanctuary to ac- Coastal States may file applications for
921.4 Biogeographic classification. commodate additional uses, and the grants with the Director, Office of Coastal
kinds and intanaity of such uses, will be Zone Management National oceanic and
(a) It is intended that estuarine sanc- determined on a cue by case basis. While Atmospheric Administration, U.S. De-
tuaries should not be chosen at random. It is anticipated that compatible uses partment of Commerce. Rockville. Mary-
but should reflect regional differentia- may generally include activities such as land 20852. That agency which has been
tion and a variety of ecosystems so as low intensity recreation, fishing, hunt- certified to the Oaks of Coastal Zone
to cover all significant variations. To ing, and wildlife observation, it is rec- Management as the entity responsible
ensure adequate representation of all es- ognized that the exclusive use of an area for administration of the state coastal
tuarine types reflecting regional differ- for scientific or educational purposes zone management program may either
entiation and a variety of ecosystems. may provide the optimum benefit to zone management submit an application directly. or -list
selections will be made by the Secretary coastal zone management and resource submit an approve applications sub-
from the following biogeographic class- use and may on occasion be necessary. mitted by other agencies within the
ifications: (b) There shall be no effort to balance State.
1. Arcadian. Northeast Atlantic coast or optimize uses of an estuarine sanctu-
south to Cape Cod, glaciated shoreline sub- ary on economic or other bases. All addi- 921.11 Application for initial sequisi-
ject to winter icing: well developed algal tional uses of the sanctuary are clearly tion, development and operation
flors; boreal blots. secondary to the primary purpose and grants.
2. Virginian. Middle Atlantic coast from uses, which are long-term maintenance (a) Grants may be awarded on a
Cape Cod to Hattaras: lowland streams, of the ecosystem for scientific and educa- matching basis to cover the costs of
coastal marshes and muddy bottoms; char- tional uses. Non-compatible uses. includ- acquisition. development and operation
acteristics transitional between 1 and 3: ing those uses which would cause sig- of estuarine sanctuaries. States may use
blots promarily temperate with someboreal
representatives. nificant short or long-term ecological donations of land or money to satisfy all
3. Ceroitnian. South Atlantic coast, from change or would otherwise detract from or part of the matching cost require-
Cape Hastaras to Cape Kennedy, extensive or restrict the use of the sanctuary as ments.
marshes and swamps; waters turbid and a natural field laboratory, will be pro- (b) In general, lands acquired pur-
productive: blots emperate with seasoanl hibited. suant to this section, including State
tropical elements.
4. West Indian. South Florida Coast from 921.6 Relationship to other provisions owned land, but not State owned sub-
Cape Kennedy to Cedar Kay: and Caribbean of the act and to marine sanctuaries. merged lands or bay bottoms, that occur
Islands, shoreland low-lying limestone: (a) The estuarine sanctuary program within the proposed sanctuary boundary
calcaracus sands, marls and coral reefs; must Interact with the overall coastal are legitimate cost and their fair market
coastal marshes and mangroves; tropical zone management program in two ways: value may be included as match. How-
blots. (1) the intended research use of the ever, the value of lands donated to or by
5. Louitrianien. Northern Gulf of Mexico, sanctuary should provide relevant data the state for inclusion in the sanctuary
from Cedar Key to Mexico; characteristics and conclusions of assistance to coastal may only be used to match other costs
of 3, with components of 4: stongly influe- zone management: decision-making, and
nced by terrigenous factors; biota primarily of land acquisition. In the event that
temperate. (2) when developed, the State's coastal lands already exist In a protected status,
6. Californian. South Pacific court from zone management program must recog- their value cannot be used as match for
Mexico to Cape Mandocino: shoreland influ- nized and be designed to protect the estu- sanctuary development and operation
enced by coastal mountains, rocky coasts arine sanctuary; appropriate land and grants, which will require their own
matching funds.
with reduced fresh-water runoff; general water use regulations and planning con-
absence of marshes and swamps: blots siderations must apply to adjacent lands. (c) Development and operation costs
temperate. Although estuarine sanctuaries should may include the administrative expenses
7. Columbian. North Pacific court from be incorporated into the State coastal necessary to monitor the sanctuary, to
Cape Mendocino to Canada; mountaineous
shoreland; rocky coasts, extensive signal com- zone management program, their desig- ensure its continued viability and to pro-
munities: blots primarily temperate with nation need not await the development tect the integrity Of the ecosystem. Re-
some borval. and approval of the management pro-
8. Florida. South court Alaska and aleu- gram where operation of the estuarine search will not normally be funded by
tians; precipitous mountains; deep astuaries, sanctuary would aid in the development Section 312 grants. It is anticipated that
some the glaciers, shoreline heavily in- of a program. other sources of Federal, State and

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108--TUESDAY. JUNE 4, 1974

19926 RULES AND REGULATIONS

private funds will be available for re- aries, the States should attempt to coor- Subpart C--Selection Criteria
search in estuarine sanctuaries. dinate their activities. This will help to 921.20 Criteria for selection.
(d) Initial applications should contain minimize the possibility of similar estu-
the following information: arine types being proposed for designa- Applications for grants to establish
(1) Description of the proposed sanc- tion in the same region. The application astuarine sanctuaries will be reviewed
tuary include location, boundaries, size should indicate the extent to which and judged on criteria including:
and cost of acquiation, operation and de- neighboring States were consulted. (a) Benefit to the coastal zone man-
velopment. A map should be included, as (f) Discussion, including cost and agement program. Applications should
well as an aerial photograph, if available. feasibility,of alternative methods for demonstrate the benefit of the proposal
(2) Classification at the proposed acquisition, control and protection of the to the development or operations of the
sanctuary according to the biogeographic area to provide similar uses. Use of the overall coastal zone management pro-
scheme set forth in 921.4. Marine Sanctuary authority and funds gram, including how well the proposal
(3) Description of the major physical, from the Land and Water cnservation fits into the national program of repre-
geographic and biological characteristics Fund Act should be specifically ad- sentative estuarine types: the national
and resources of the proposed sanctuary. dressed. or regional benefits; and the usefulness
(4) Identification of ownership pat- in research
921.12 Application for subsequent de- (b) The ecological characteristics of

ters; proportion of land already in the velopment and operation grants.
public domain. the ecosystem, including its biological
(5) Description of Intended research (a) Although the initial grant appli- productivity, diversity and representa-
uses, potential research organizations or cation for creation of an estuarine sanc- tiveness. Extent of alteration of the
agencies and benefits to the overall tuary should include initial development natural system, its ability to remain
coastal zone management program. and operation costs, subsequent appli- visable and healthy system in view of the
(6) Demonstration of necessary au- cations amy be submitted following ac- present and possible development of ex-
thority to acquire or control and manage quisition and establishment of an estua- ternal stresses.
the sanctuary. rite sanctuary for additional develop- (c) Size and choice of boundaries. To
(7) Description of proposed manage- ment and operation funds. As indicated the extent feasible, estuarine sanctuaries
ment techniques, including the manage- in 921.11, these costs nay include ad- should approximate a natural geological

ment agency, principles and proposed ministrative costs necessary to monitor unit. The minimal acceptable table size will
budget including both State and Federal the sanctuary and to protect the integ- vary greatly and will depend on the na-
shares. rity of the ecosystem. Extensive manage- ture of the ecosystem.
(8) Description of existing and poten- ment programs, capital expenses, or re- (d) Cost. Although the Act limits the
tial uses of and conflicts within the area search will not normally be funded by, Federal share of the cost for each sanc-
if it were not declared an estuarine sanc- section 312 grants. tuary to $2,000,000, it is anticipated that
tuary; potential use, use restrictions and (b) After the creation of an estuarine in practice the average grant will be sub-
conflicts if the sanctuary is established. sanctuary established under this pro- stantially less than this.
(1) Assessment of the environmental gram, applications for such development (e) Enhancement of non-competitive
and socio-economic impacts of declaring and operation grants should Include at uses.
the area and estuarine sanctuary, includ- least the following information: (f) Proximity and access to existing

ing the economic impact of such a desig- (1) Identification of the boundary research facilities.
nation on the surrounding community (2) Specifications of the management (g) Availability of suitable alternative
and its tax base. program, including managing agency and sites already protected which might be
(9) Description of planned or antici- techniques. capable of providing the same use or
pated land and water use and controls (3) Detailed budget. benefit. Unnecessary duplication of ex-
for contiguous lands surrounding the (4) Discussion Of recent aod projected isting activities under other programs
proposed sanctum (including if appro- use of the sanctuary. should be avoided. However, estuarine
priate an analysis of the desirability of (5) Perceived threats to the integrity sanctuaries might be established adja-
creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent of the sanctuary. cent to existing preserved lands where
areas). 921.13 Federally owend lands. mutual enhancement or benefit of each
(10) List of Protected sites, either (a) Where Federally owned lands in might occur.
within the estuarine sanctuaries program a Part of or adjacent to the area pro- (b) Conflict with existing or potential
or within other Federal, State or Private posed for designation as an estuarine competing uses.
programs, which are located in the same sanctuary, or where the control of land (1) Compatibility with existing or pro-
regional or biogeographic classification. and water uses an such lards is neces- posed land and water use in contiguous
(1) It is essential that the opportunity areas.
sary to protect the natural system within
be provided for Public Involvement and the sanctuary, the State should contact If the initial review demonstrates the
input in the development of the sanctu- the Federal agency maintaing control
feasibility of the application, in environ-
ary proposal and application. Where the of the land to request cooperation in pro- mental impact statement will be pre-
application is controversial or where viding coordinated management policies. pared by the Office of Coastal Zone Man-
controversial issues are addressed, the Such lands and state request, and the agement in accordance with the National
State should provide adequate means to Federal agency response, should be iden- Enbironmental Policy Act of 1969 and
ensure that all interested parties have tifiedand conveyed to the Office of implementing CEO guidelines.
the opportunity to present their views. Coastal Zone Management. 921.21 Public participation.
This may be in the form pf an adequately (b) Where such proposed use or con-
advertiesed public hearing. Public participation will be an essen-
(11) During the development of in flict with the Federal use of their tial factor in the selection of estuarine
estuarine sanctuary application, all land- lands, such cooperation and coordination sanctuaries.In addition to the participa-
is encouraged to the maximum extent tion during the application development
owners within the proposed boundaries
should be informed in writing of the pro- feasible. process (921.11 (e)), public participa-
posed grant application. (c) Section 312 grants may not be tion will be ensured at the Federal level
(111) The application should indicate awarded to Federal agencies for creation by the NEPA process and by public hear-
the manner in which the State solicited of estuarine sanctuaries in Federally ings where desirabel subsequent to NEPA.
the views of all interested parties prior owned lands; however, a similar status Such public hearings shall be held by the
to the actual submission of the appli- may be provided = a voluntary basis for Office of Coastal Zone Management in
cation. Federally owned lands under the provi- the area to be affected by the proposed
(a) In order to develop a truly repre- sions of the Federal Committee on Eco- sanctuary no sooner than 30 days after It
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- logical Preserves program. issues a draft environmental impact

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 105--TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

RULES AND REGULATIONS

statement on the sanctuary proposal. It will be the responsibility of the Office of Coastal Zone Management with
the assistance of the applicant State to issue adequate public notice of its intention tohold a public notice of its
intention to hold a public hearing. Such public notice shall be distributed widely, especially in the area of the pro-
posed sanctuary; affected property owners and those agencies, organizations or individuals with an identified interest
in the area or estuarine sanctuary program shall be notified of the public hearing. The public notice shall contain the
name, address and phone number of the appropriate Federal and State officials to contact for additional information about
the proposal.
Subpart D-Operation

921.30 General

Management of estuarine sanctuaries shall be the responsibility of the applicant State or its agent. However, the
research uses and management program must be in conformance with these guidelines and regualtions, and others implemented
by the provisions of individual grants. It is suggested that prior to the grant award, representatives of the proposed
sanctuary management team and the Office of Coastal Zone Management meet to discuss management policy and standards. It
is anticipated that the grant provisions will vary with individual circumstances and will be mutually agreed to by the
applicant and the granting agency. As a minimum, the grant document for each sanctuary shall: (a) Define the intended
research purposes of the estuarine sanctuary. (b) Define permitted, compatible, restricted and prohibited uses of the
sanctuary. (c) Include a provision for monitoring the uses of the sanctuary, to ensure compliance with the intended uses.
(d) Ensure ready access to land use of the sanctuary by scientists, students and the general public as desirable and
permissible for coordinated research and education uses, as well as for other compatible purposes. (e) Ensure public
availability and reasonable distribution of research results for timely use in the development of coastal zone management
programs. (f) Provide a basis for annual review of the status of the sanctuary, its value to the coastal zone program.
(g) Specify how the integrity of the system which the sanctuary represents will be maintained. (h) Provide adequate
authority and intent to enforce management policy and use restrictions.

921.31 Changes In the sanctuary boundary, management policy or research program. (a) The approved sanctuary boundaries:
management policy, including permissible and prohibited uses; and research program may only be changed after public notice
and the opportunity of public review and participation such as outlined in 921.21. (b) Individuals or organizations which
are concerned about possible improper use or restriction of use of estuarine sanctuaries may petition the State management
agency and the Office of Coastal Zone Management directly for review of the management program.

921.32 Program review.

It is anticipated that reports will be required from the applicant State on a regular basis, no more frequently than
annually, on the status of each estuarine sanctuary. The estuarine sanctuary program will be regularly reviewed to ensure
that the objectives of the program are being met and that the program itself is scientifically sound. The key to the
success of the estuarine sanctuaries program is to assure that the results of the studies and research conducted in these
sanctuaries are available in a timely fashion so that the States can develop and administer land and water use programs
for the coastal zone. Accordingly, all information and reports including annual reports, relating to estuarine sanctuaries
shall be part of the public record and available at all times for inspection by the public. FR Doc 74-12773 Filed 5-31-74;
9:57 a.m.

FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 29,NO. 106-TUESDAY, JUNE 4,1974

APPENPIX II

Estuarine Sanctuary Research Program

STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHINGTON Mail Stop PV-11 206/753/2800
Dixy Lee Ray Olympia,Washington 98504
Governor

October 8, 1979

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Wilbur G. Hallauer, Director
Department of Ecology

FROM: Ralph Larson, Chairman-P.B.E.S. Steering Committee
-Director of Department of Game
Dr. C. J. Flora, Co-Chairman-P.B.E.S. Research Sub-Committee
-Director, Western Washington University, Sundquist
Marine Studies Laboratory
Dr. Carl Nyblade, Co-Chairman-P.B.E.S. Research Sub-Committee
-Researcher, University of Washington-Friday Harbor Marine
Laboratory

SUBJECT: The Proposed P.B.E.S. Final-Approved Research Program
Report October 4, 1979

Enclosed is the final report for the proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary Research program. The report was approved and adopted
by the P.B.E.S. Technical Committee on September 14, 1979, and approved
by the Steering Committee on October 4, 1979.

RL:CJF:CN:s
enclosure

Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary

Research Program Report

Final Draft

Section I. INTRODUCTION

An estuary is that part of a river or stream having an unimpaired connec-

tion with the open sea where the seawater is measurably diluted with.

freshwater derived from land drainage. Historically, Padilla Bay was a

true estuary, part of the large Skagit River Delta. However, the bay is

no longer connected to the Skagit River system and at present has only

minor freshwater inflow from land drainage. Today Padilla-Bay is more

properly considered a large marine bay. As such, it is without question

a prime area for a sanctuary, set aside to provide scientists and students

the opportunity to examine over a period of time the ecological relation-

ships within the area. Although some measurable human disturbance such

as channel maintenance dredging and diking land reclamation has occurred

to Padilla Bay and continues, the bay as a natural ecosystem largely

remains intact and in a natural state.

The natural ecological unit definition of Padilla Bay would be all the

waters enclosed east of a line from the west end of Samish Island to

March Point, perhaps with the exception of deep water areas (greater

than 18 fathoms) between March Point and Hat Island, and the associated

wetlands including the sloughs. In order to optimally manage the Padilla

Bay estuarine sanctuary and to protect its integrity, the management

boundary should follow the natural ecological unit. However, the manage-

ment boundary need not necessarily be identical to the land acquisition

boundary.

Section II. LONG-TERM RESEARCH PROGRAM

II-A. Historical Research Summary

Table I presents a listing of all recent research programs known to
have taken place in Padilla Bay. Although this is a fairly long
list it is clear that only the marine birds have received long-term

quantitative study. Mammals, fish, and the marine benthos have

received only short-term quantitative study, while the epibenthos,
plankton, and associated wetland benthos have received no study at

all. Especially noteworthy is the absence of productivity studies,

energy flow studies, food web syntheses, or any attempt to treat

the Padilla Bay ecosystem as an integrated whole.

Beyond these biotic studiest little or no work has been done on the

abiotic Padilla Bay system (beach-bay sediment studies, geomor-

phology, physical and chemical oceanography of bay waters) and on

the human impacts on or perturbation of the bay (dredging for

channel maintenance; harvest of birds, fish, and shellfish; municipal

and industrial water pollution; agricultural runoff pollution).

In spite of major gaps in the existing data base for Padilla Bay,

it is clear that the bay is a highly productive area which supports

a diverse and complex community of organisms. Table II presents a

partial listing of this community with special emphasis on the

variety of species of importance to man.

Table I. Historical Research Programs in Padilla Bay

Type of SaM21ing Agency(s) Date(s) Investigator

Sulfite Waste Fish & Wildlife Ser. 1946 Saxton-Young

(water quality) WDF

Industrial Waste Pollution Control 1957 Al Neale

(water quality) Commission

Oyster Pollution Control 1952 Al Neale

(water quality) Commission

Oyster WDF 1950 Orlob-Neale-Lindsay

(water quality)

Eelgrass WDG/Funded by Fish 1971-1975 Bob Jeffrey

& Wildlife Serv.

Intertidal Benthos WWU Huxley College 1974-75, 1979 Webber-Smith

Subtidal-Eelgrass WWU Huxley College 1976 Webber-Smith

Benthos

Beach Seine (fish)- WWU Huxley College 1974-75 Webber-Smith

Marine Birds WDG + funded by 1965-79 Jeffrey-Parker

U.S. FW Service

Marine Birds John Graham Co. 1977-78 Peters-Richter

Funded by ACOE

Marine Birds U.W. funded by EPA 1978-79 Manuwal-Wahl

thru NOAA (MESA)

Marine Mammals NMFS funded by NOAA 1977-79 Robert Everitt

(MESA)

Land.U3e/Land WDG funded by OCZM .1978 Rick Albright

Cover thru DOE

Drift Sectors John Norman Assoc. 1977 John Norman

funded thru DOE

Inventory of com- WWU Huxley College 1976 Edited by Jeffrey

pilation of Biota WDF, WDG

(Data)

Inventory of com- WDF 1977 Sweeney

pilation of Biota

(Data)

Table II. Padilla Bay Flora and Fauna (Partial List)

Number Peak

Organism of Species PopulELin Comments

Marine Mammals

harbor seals 1 77 Haulout area for 5-10% of

total North Puget Sound

population.

Birds 110+

great blue heron 100-200 pairs Samish Is. rookery

glaucus-winged gulls 500 pairs nesting colony on

Swinomish Slough dredge

spoil islands.

bald eagle 4 active nests

merlin high number

peregrine falcon in winter

dabbling ducks 44% widgeon 36,000+

3% pintail

14% mallard

11% green-winged teal

diving ducks 20,000+

scaup 10,000+

brant 50,000+ In April perhaps a third

of the entire Pacific

flyway brant are on the bav.

II-B. Research Program Proposal

As set forth in Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act

estuarine sanctuaries are "to serve as natural field laboratories

in which to study and gather data on the natural and human processes

occurring within the estuaries of the coastal zone." While long-

term protection of Padilla Bay alone, allowing others to conduct

studies, would satisfy in a narrow sense this primary sanctuary goal,

the Research Program Subcommittee recommends that the sanctuary

management plan include a detailed long-term research program. To

facilitate development of this plan we propose the following plan

in outline form:

I. Natural Processes

A. Biotic

1. Ecosystem Structure

a. Marine Mammals

(1) Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi): continue

1977-79 Everitt et al population monitoring

by shore based and/or aerial censusing; deter-

mine diet by analysis of fecal material.

Fish 13+

pink salmon nursery

chum salmon area

coho salmon migration route

chinook salmon through the bay

English sole

starry flounder nursery area

surf smelt

herring

Benthic Invertebrates 103+
cockle 432 x 10 6
native little neck clam 31 x 10 6 harvested shellfish
eastern soft shell clam 1,200 x 10 6

red rock crab

Dungeness crab

Benthic Plants 9+
eelgrass 0.5 x 10 6tons

b. Marine Birds

(1) Continue marine bird censusing format of

Manuwal-Wahl 1978-1979.

(2) Species specific studies to document life

history, behavior, diet, sources of mortality,

ecosystem role of: brant, great blue

heron, peregrine falcon, bald eagle,

glaucus-winged gull, double-crested cormorant.

(3) Determine community role of shore birds;

dabbling ducks, diving ducks, brant,

gulls, heron, and raptors..

C. Fish

(1) Salm6nids species and their river of

origin; distribution and abundance (including

year to.year variation) within the bay by

area, habitat, depth; residence time;

diet; growth rate; mortality rate and

causes.

(2) Non-salmonids: continue and expand on

beach seine censusing (Webber & Smith,

1974-75), and census by tow net, trammel

net, and trawl to determine seasonal and

year to year distribution and abundance of

fish populations.

d. Epibenthos

(1) Large: using trawls.determine seasonal and

year to year distribution and abundance.

(2) Small: using an epibenthic pump determine

seasonal and year to year distribution and

abundance.

e. Benthos

(1) Marsh: using standard DOE sampling method-

ology, determine seasonal and year to year

distribution and abundance.

(2) Intertidal: continue Webber-Smith sampling

(1974-75, 1979) and add more sites to

determine seasonal and year to year dis-

tribution and abundance using DOE standard

methodology.

(3) Subtidal: using Smith (1976) airlift

methodology determine seasonal and year to

year distribution and abundance.

f. Plankton

(1) Document seasonal and year to year dis-

tribution and abundance of ichthyoplankton,

benthic larval forms, holo zooplankton,

phytoplankton, and nannoplankton.
g. Bacteria

2. Ecosystem Function

8. Energy flow

(1) Primary production of phytoplankton,

benthic macro- and microalgae,,eelgrass,

and marsh grasses.

(2) Detrital imports into system.

(3) Secondary and tertiary production Padilla

Bay food web.

(4) Exports from bay.

b. Roll of top carnivores (keystone species) in

maintenance of comunity structure. Determine

by inclusion and exclusion caging studies.

C. Bacteria

Abiotic

1. Water

a. Water chemistry

b. Freshwater (annual) budget,

C. Circulation within bay: SUrface and subsurface

d. Exchange- flushing rate

2. Sediment

3. Types and distribution

b. Source

C. Transport

d. Shoreforms

II. Human Processes: Environmental and Economic Effects of the Following

Should be Determined.

A. Water Pollution

1. Agricultural runoff-fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides.

2. Municipal storm and sanitary sewer outflow, if any.

3. Chronic low-level discharge of crude and refined oil from

refinery operations, if any.

B. Shore and Bay Bottom Modification

1. Diking and draining of associated wetlands for agricul-

tural usage.

2. Swinomish Slough Channel maintenance by dredging and

dredge spoil disposal.

3. Log rafting.

C. Animal Harvesting

1. Waterfowl hunting

2. Fishing for salmon and bottom fish

3. Crab fishing (Cancer magjj@ej)

4. Eastern soft shell clam (Mya arenaria)

5. Native littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea)

6. Aquaculture: oyster

D. Nonconsumptive Recreational Uses: boating, beach walking,

bird watching, etc.

It is clear that a research program of this magnitude could

not be funded by a single agency or at a single time. It is

essential, therefore, that the major duty of the Padilla Bay

Estuarine Sanctuary director should be implementation and

coordination of the research program. The following list

would be a starting point for support of the research program.

List of Potential and Committed Research Organizations

and Research Funding Sources

National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Se-.rvice

National Science Foundation

Army Corps of Engineers

National Oceanographic &-Atmospheric Administration

University of Washington

Western Washington University

Huxley College of Environmental Studies

Washington State Department of Game

Washington State Department of Fisheries

Washington State Department of Ecology

City of Anacortes

Shell and Texaco Oil Refineries

Seattle Pacific University

Section III. COMPATIBLE/NONCOMPATIBLE USES

The primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is the long-term maintenance

of ecosystems for scientific and educational uses. However, the Coastal

Zone Management Act -states that multi,le use of estuarine sanctuaries
'IF

will be encouraged to the extent that SUch use is compatible with the

primary sanctuary purpose." It is clear that long-term protection does

not mean the exclusion of all human activities. However, it is equally

clear that any activity destructive to 1-he Padilla Bay natural ecosystem

is noncompatible and must be prohibited.

Instead of a specific list of permitted and prohibited uses, we propose

the following guidelines:

1. All current human uses of the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary

management area should be allowed to continue until such time

as a management authority determines that a given activity is

destructive to the sanctuary based on site specific scientific

data.

2. Any new activity proposed in the management area should require

an environmental assessment based on scientific data and

sanctuary management approval. ZKjar to being allowed.

In this manner it is hoped that the public sector will enjoy maximum

multiple use benefit from the sanctuarf while at the same time deriving

the scientific and educational benefits from an estuary preserved forever.

Section IV. RRSEARCH-FACILITIES

The Padilla Bay area is blessed by the presence of two excellent marine

laboratories: Western Washington University's Sundquist Marine Studies

Laboratory and the University of Washington's Friday-Harbor Laboratories.

Between them they provide admirable facilities for a wide range of

marine reserach and would be able to provide adequate support facilities

for the research program. If an interpretive center is built on the

bay, it would be convenient if it had some support capacity for field

studies: small boat launching ramp; limited, secure storage area;

showers.

APPENDIX III

Estuarine Sanctuary Educational Program

STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

WASHINGTON Mail Stop PV-11 206/753-2800
Dixy Lee Ray Olympia,Washington 98504
Governor

October 8, 1979

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Wilbur G. Hallauer, Director
Department of Ecology

FROM: Ralph Larson, Chairman-P.B.E.S. Steering Committee
-Director of Department of Game
Dr. James M. Ford, P.B.E.S. Co-Chairman Education
Sub-Committee-President, Skagit Valley College
David A. Kennedy, P.B.E.S. Co-Chairman Education
Sub-Committee-Supervisor, Science and Environmental
Education Programs-State Superintendent of Public
Instruction

SUBJECT: The Proposed P.B.E.S.Final-Approved Education Program
Report-October 4, 1979

Enclosed is the final report for the proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary Education program. The report was approved and adopted
by the P.B.E.S. Technical Committee on September 14, 1979, and
approved by the Steering Committee on October 4, 1979.

RL:JF:DAK:s
enclosure

PADILLA BAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

EDUCATION PLAN

SEPTEMBER 1979

Prepared by...
WASHINGTON SUPERINTENDENT OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
DAVID KENNEDY, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Contributors...
FAYETTE, KRAUSE NATURE CONSERVANCY
SALLY VAN NEIL WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
DR. JAMES FORD SKAGIT VALLEY COLLEGE
TONY ANGELL OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
ANDREA MARRETT PACIFIC SCIENCE CENTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ii The Four System
ii

A. GOVERNANCE 1
1. Objective 1
2. Authority 1
3. Philosophy 3
4. Management Plan 3
5. Points of Interaction 4
6. Advisory Activities 4
7. Interpretive Center 4
8. Budget 6
9. Evaluation 6

B. SUBSTANTIVE 6

1. What is to be learned 6
2. How that learning can occur 9
3. Audience 11

C. DEVELOPMENT 11

Narrative 11
Flow Diagram 12
D. DELIVERY 11

1. Levels 11
2. Stages of Institutionalization 13
3. Delivery Concerns 13
4. Areas of Planning 14
-i-.

INTRODUCTIMV

A component of education-takes pZace where the learner is able
to experience the environment*or topic being studied in an interactive
way. Our experience and knowledge of educational practice based on
r
earch indicates that learning about natural resources, conservation
es I
scientific, social and technological topics cannot be limited to
verbal discourse. Many of the physical activities associated with
those Zearnings must be accomplished beyond the wall's of the home or
classroom. This kind of education derwmde that educators extend
learning experiences into the communitly.
We are fortunate to have the potential of the proposed Padilla
Bay Estuarine Sanctuary as a learning resource for both formal
education programs that are conducted by colleges, community colleges,
U5.versities and the common schools, and for nonformaZ interpretive or
pubZic.information/educationaZ opportunities that are the responsibility
c-I resource management agencies.
With the opportunity of utiZizim7 the Padilla Bay environment as
a learning resource, the achievement -in some measure of the following
four goals is our intent:

1. An-accurate and comprehensive grounding in
how the estuarine environment works
2. Experience in valuing environmental quality
3. Experience in how pers,=Z choices and actions
affect environmental quality
.4. Experience in methods of enacting community
responsibility

THE FOUR SYSrEMS

This plan consists of four major systems; 2Le Governance System
io'composed of decision-making structures which legitimize activities
and govern them. The Substantive System is composed of the content
and process-of Zear-ni@g -anddeaZe witW'-the definition of what is
learned and how it is learned. The Development System is a cyclic,
sequential approach to the construction and testing of necessary
program materials and instructional strategies for both formal and
nonformaZ education endeavors. .Ae DeZivery System provides a
thoughtful analysis of the re ents and strate es essential
quirem 91-
to the Long term operation and support of-the proposed Padilla Bay
Education Program.

PADILLA SAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

EDUCATION PLAN

THE GOVEMVANCE SYSTEM

G-1) Objective
Develop an awareness of the importance of the estuarine
resource and its concomitant values as they relate to
the environment, and to the economic and sociological
health of the region and the.state.

G-2) Authority
So single piece of legislation serves to provide compre-
hensive legal authority for educational programs deaZing
with the environment. Yet, public policy is fuZZ of
citations which mandate or enable educational programs
as a component of their charge. Those few which are
cited here provide significant direction and influence
in the establishment and operation of endeavors reZated
to education about the estuarine environment:

Each school district must make EnvironnentaZ
Education available in the secondary program'.

Washington Advinistrative Code
180-56-026
High School Graduation Requirements

As a result of the process of education, aZZ
students should appreciate thewonders of the
natural world, hwwn achievements and faiZures,
dreams- and capabilities.
Washington State Board of @ducation
GoaZs for the Washington Common Schools

The Washington State Shorelines Management Act
of 19 72
The Washington State Diviroitment,7Z rolfoy A.-.,
of 1971

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.,
PL 92-583

National Environmental Education Act of 1970,
PL 92-516, amended by PL 93-278

- National Sea Grant College and Program Act of
1966, PL 89-688, PL 89-454

- National Sea Grant Improvement Act of 1976,
PL 94-461

- Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

- Special Projects Act, Title IV, Sections 405
and 406 of the Education Amendments of. 1974,
PL 93-380

- Refuse Act (Rivers and-Harbors Act) of 1899

- The Act of August 25, 1916, PL 64-235 Enabling
Environmental Study Areas

- Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972

- Fish and Game Sanctuary Act of 1916

- National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities
Act of 1965, PL 89-209

- National Science Foundation Act of 1950, PL
81-507

- Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956,
PL 92-500, and Amendments of 1961

- Water Quality Act of 1966 and Amendments of
1972

- Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

- National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

- The Wilderness Act of 1964

- The Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1973

- The Resolution of the 1972 Stockholm Conference
on the Human Environment

- The Resolutions of the 1975 Kyoto Conference on
the Human Environment

- Resolutions of the U. N. Conference on Water at
Mar del Plata, Argentina 1977

- Resolutions of the U. N. Conference on
Environmental Education at Tiblisi, Russia, in
1977

-2-

G-3) Philosophy
Assist learners and the general public to understand
that the fundamental goal is management of the estuarine
ecosystem at the level of best ecosystem function, which
usually means as near to the natural condition as possible.
To paraphrase Aldo Leopold's Sand County Almanac:

Quit thinking about use of estuaries as solely
an economic problem. Examine each question in terms
of what is ethically and aesthetically right as well
as what is economically expedient. A thing is right
when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability,
and beauty of the biotic (estuarine) community. It
is wrong when it tends otherwise.

G-4) Management Plan
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter
TASK 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Appoint Advisors to 18
Month Terms X X X X

Advisors Meet X X X X X X X X X X X X

Select & Hire
Educational Manager X
Inventory Site X X X X
Plan for Programs X
Plan for Facilities X
Contact Schools & Colleges X
Develop Program Materials X----->
Field Test Educational
Program Materials X----->
Construct Facilities X------>
Develop Trail System X------>
Conduct Teacher Workshops X------------------------>
Deliver Educational Programs
and Services X---------------------->
Apply for NESA Status X
Apply for ELC Status X
Develop Formal Evaluation
Program X

- 3 -

G-5) Points of interaction with aZZ parties
Cooperation among the various "kinds of groups, as
indicated by the following di4gram, is an essential
facet of this plan. The state agency managing the
physical facility will have the responsibility for the
coordination.of interrelating components 0ithin and
among the participating groups. Education program
will be managed by the Washington Superintendent of
.PubZic Instruction's Office of'EnvironmentaZ Education,
Northwest Section.

Cooperative activities will be accomplished between
and among these groups in support of the overaZZ goal
of developing and operating effective-education programs
treating the importance of the estuarine resource.

G-6 Advisory Activities
An advisory group will be established to provide counsel
regarding all components of educational program
activities on and.related to the site.

The Steering Committee will have the responsibility of
appointing personnel representing, but not limited to,
the following generic categories:

Colleges and Universities
Community Colleges
Citizen Conservation Groupir
Business and Industry
State Government Resources Management Agencies
Federal Government Resources Management Agencies
Local School Districts
State Superintendent of PubZic Instruction
Local Citizens Organizations

G-7 Interpretive Center
A physical facility is requiri@d to provide offices,
group meeting space, shelter, equipment storage,
aquaria, display, sanitation, and work space for
education, interpretation, and research functions.
This facility should be plarved to function in a most
fZexibZe multipurpose fashion.. In addition, a system
of trails and access sites wil.Z be developed.

Cc)opc4A'Tjvc QTER@AC-T-t 0^3
.5tk iPPoRT IQG
-k L A.,Mb ^)O#J- E:bg,4k4L EbLICAT(00

s"r Ez 4 jo
Co AkAm TTe_

C
A DNI 15 0 PLY COLLF-4LES
G&OtA.P

AoJ)
Pe b 4E:.4Al(_
A --5, IE AJ C-A E, S

OQ r low
IL (S LATU4F_
'5PlEat AL_
#17
rc) ri 6

/It.

COLLS

T e
ur- A-r t o pi SU IJIP
Lsr- Pckr.Lte

C'o jjTEqESTre,)
A ^3b Cl-rl4ej ACT-o-,
R

G-8) Budget
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Personnel
Education Manager
@ $22,3000 $16,500 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000
Clerical @ 12,000 9,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Interpretive @ 18,000 4,500 18,000 18,000 18,000
Program Development 10,000 30,000 5,000 ---
Interpretive/Display --- 5,000 5,000 5,000
Facilities & Trails --- 250,000 --- ---
Equipment --- 40,000 10,000 ---
Inservice Education --- 5,000 10,000 5,000
Travel 4,000 5,000 5,000 3,000

G-9) Evaluation
This governance level assesses the appropriateness and
effectiveness of program delivery in regard to:
1. The admiinistration of the education program
2. The curriculum and program materials
3. The effectiveness of instruction interpretation
4. The outcomes of education from the point of
view of the learner

Evaluation is particularly a concern at the administration
level where the major question is whether or not the
strategies developed to delivery learning opportunities
are effective. This necessitates that criteria be
developed to determine the adequacy of the curriculum
and instruction. The basic question at the learner
level is whether student learning objectives are achieved.

A comprehensive program will be developed to assess all
these aspects of the estuarine sanctuary education program.

THE SUBSTANTIVE SYSTEM

S-1) Identifying what is to be learned

Help Individuals and Groups Understand:
1. The fundamentals of an estuary environment
A. The earth's environment constitutes a
complex-interrelated, interactive life
support system called the ecosphere

B. The ecosphere is a dynamic constantly
changing macro system... a mosaic of
ecosystems

C. An estuary is an ecosystem

- 6 -

D. Each estza!ry (ecosystem) is composed of
three groups of components: 1) physicaZ
factors (suns energy, climate, water, etc.);
2) Living organisms, including humans; and
3) interactions among andlor between living
and nonliving components (coApetition,
decomposition, energy flow, etc.)

R. An estuary and all its subsystems undergo
continuous change

F. The energy and materials necessary for life
are components'of an estuary

G. Each estuary includes a nwnber of species
populations..' the size and stability of which
vary, depending on the biotic and abiotic
changes-within the system

HeZp Individuals and Groups Understand:
2. Humans as components of an estuarine environment
A. Humans use estuaries to satisfy basic needs
and desires

B. Humans affect estuaries by their special
type of ecological dominance, exerting
major kinds of influences on the estuarine
ecosystem

C. Estuaries affect humans as arenas where
human perception and activity take place

D. Complex intera'ctions among humans and other
estuarine components occur continuously

E. Humans have a responsibility to produce cri
ethic of accountability for human impacts
o?t estuaries

Help Individuals and Groups Understand, Develop and Support:
3. Methods for harmonizing human activities with
estuary ecosystem processes to achieve environ-
mental quaZity
A. The methods by which human activities are
harmonized with estuarine ecosystem
processes are complex and not always
predictable

B. Institutions, processes and attitudes for
implementing investigative, prcventativc,
remedial and creative actions that wiZZ
harmonize human activities with estuarine
ecosystem processes are:

1. Educational
2. heligious, Aesthetic, Ethical &
Moral
3. Scientific and Technological
4. Civic and Social
5. Governmental and Political
6. Industrial and Commercial

C. Harmonize human activities with estuary
ecosystem processes by adjsting perceived
imbalances, identifying and addressing problems,
and utilizing opportunities through institu-
tions and individuals.
1. Investigating ecosystem processes
and componets, with emphasis on the
results of human activities on
estuaries and the influence of
estuaries an human functioning

2. Recognizing the importance of
ecosystem processes and the
significance of estuary changes
3. Identifying the causes of estuarine
changes and their consequences

4. Arranging alternative action
strategies that would maintain
and enhance beneficial estuarine
changes andwould stop or reduce
detrimental changes, with a special
attention to irreversible/irretriev-
able changes, and to long range vs.
short range commitment of resources

5. Analyzing and evaluating alternatives
within a broad array of environmental,
social and economic criteria, recogniz-
ing that criteria and values will differ
according to the circumstances of
politics, scale, time, and society

6. Selecting among alternatives and
adopting a policy

7. Choosing and implementing actions to
carry out policy

8. Monitoring and evaluating the effects
of implemented policies and actions

D. Increasing the scientific knowledge of ecosystem
processes related to estuaries; increase citizen
awareness of ecosystem dysfunctions

- 8 -

S-2) Identifying how that learning can occur

A TeachinglLearning Model
In the process of developing plans of this type, a
good deal of discussion and research has taken place on
the nature of teaching and learning. FroA this, an
outline was developed which can be-used for assessing
the usefuZness of1earning activities on the basis of
whether they stimulated Zearning andlor enhanced teaching.
It is a simple, practical guide for aiding in assessing
the activities selected for introducing ecosystem/estuary
concepts into Zearning programs.
Start with the definition of Zearning:
Learning is change of perception
Which stimulates akiZL-buiZding
To effect responsible action

Next we search for contexts within which perceptions are
expZoredlstretched; skills development is invited and;
responsibility and action is encouraged. The latter two
requirements are very much dependent on the first., so for
our present purposes,, we'll focus mostly on content
acquisition and perception. We will see, however., that
learning evolves along those dimensions. Thus, once
perceptions are changed, skills and action will follow,
if there ia,opportunity.
Back to perception. We very often have our perceptions
jarred when we "fooZ around with data". Our modeZ for
teaching/Zearning will focus on something we Zike to
caZZ "Data DeaZin". There are three ZeveZs in the Data
DeaZin? process: Diggin' (information gathering); Dancin'
(mucking about with information); Decidin' (going beyond
understanding to transfer, and application to a new
sector of Zife).

Since education is a two-way street, we also recognize there
are two processes important to Data DeaZin' in the classroom:
Teachering (providing opportunity) and Studenting (levels
of understanding).

Teachering is managing resources, settings, -spaces.,
materials, time, media and information so that studenting
occurs.

Studenting is engaging in situations whc.-c percaptions are
Important. Studenting exercises old skiZZs., builds new
ones and initiates personally motivated actions. Studenting
is an interdependent progression of awareness, expZoration
and extensionZ It recycles; an "oZd" extension leads to a
"new" awareness.

NOW let's Zook at how teachering and studenting fit into
Data DeaZiny. For simpLicity, we have put it into chart
form.

DATA DEALIN'

LEVELS OF

TEACHERING INVOLVEMENT STUDENTING
(Opportunity) (Understanding)
Data Diggin'

EXPOSURE AWARENESS
Creating opportunities- Sources: Books, newspapers, Developing an
for students to be films, other media, people, awareness by simply
exposed to and gather self, memory, parks, mountains, data gathering,
data. estuaries,schools, other absorbing and
places, etc., etc. expressing.

Gathering' processes; Taking
pictures, interviews, measuring,
counting, imagining, remembering,
personal visits, etc.

Expressions: Essays, graphs,
murals, photography, mobiles,
poems, plays, body movement,
drawings, bumper stickers,
T-shirts, etc.

Data Dancin'

EXPERIENCE EXPLORATION
Providing the oppor- Data structuring, organizing, Exploration of the
tunity for studenting; displaying, extrapolating, data.
for the mucking with comparing, analyzinq, synthesizing,
information and structure destroying, impeaching,
challenging it to force fitting, randomizing,
become meaningful; for debating, etc.
experiencing.

Data Decidin'

INVITATION EXTENSION
Inviting growth,change Extension through action based Extension; data
and action; applying on personal motivation, according decision doing.
the Data Dealin' to a to what the data has told you or
new sector of the home, going beyond the data to the
school, neighborhood, infinitive places. This is an
state, universe; unpredictable process which
recycling the new data requires ownership and the
by following the Data responsibility to live with the
Dealin' process again consequences.
with the same activity;
Data Diggin' Deeper.
-10-

S-3 Define the education audiences
a. Students from Kindergarten through Grade 12
in both Public and Private Education
b. Teachers
C. College, Community College, and University Students
d. General Public
e. Special Interest Groups

THE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM

Program materials will be developed which support the achievement of
the previously stated substantive objectives. The systematic approach
we will use to develope these essential materials is outlined on the
following page. This basic procedure has been used successfully by the
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction in numerous projects,
and we consider it thoroughly research-tested and optimally effective.

THE DELIVERY SYSTEM

The emphasis of the Delivery System addresses three discreet needs which
will require a comprehensive program of services:
1. There is a need for the general public to be aware of
and understand ecosystem/estuarine problems and issues
in order to participate as citizens in making
decisions which affect their daily lives

2. There is a need for educators to be aware of the
learning resource at Padilla Bay in order to design
program materials and select resources for use in
teaching about estuaries on site and in classrooms

3. There is a need for facilitating changes in post
secondary education, public and private schools,
school system, and the education programs of
agencies that lead to the adoption or design of
effective ecosystem/estuarine programs and curriculum
that achieve #1 and #2 above

The Delivery System is based on relationships between 1) the various
delivery levels being served (external agencies, community, and
institutions), 2) the stages of institutionalization (mobilization
implementation,, and institutionalization) and 3) delivery concerns
(goals, program requirements, barriers, strategies, and resources).
1. Delivery Levels -- indicate the entire system of influences
and control in which this estuarine education program exist.
This subsystem is divided into three major categories:
A. External Agencies: The federal government,
Superintendent of Public Instruction, state
resources management agencies, universities,
or colleges. In this role, these agencies may
not be a part of the implementing institution,

-11-

THE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
DESIGN

a. Define problems and needs

b. Identify and analyze target audience
WHITE GOALS c. Write a broad statement about the
general purpose of this education pro-
gram

STATE OBJECTIVES d. Formulate objectives and performance
standards

e. Determine teaching methods. strate-
gies and materials
PLAN STRATEGIES E Develop preferred and alternative strat-
egies that will best accomplish objec-
tives

PRODUCE

g. Select, construct, develop or assemble
AQUIRE MATERIALS instructional materials

h. Organize the content, method and for-
DEVELOP LEARNING mat of instruction

EXPERIENCES i. Design learning experiences and activ-
ities

j. Construct evaluation scheme to meas-
PLAN EVALUATION
ure if instructional program achieves
ACTIVITIES stated objectives

TEST

k. Try out all activities and materials and
FIELD TEST evaluate to determine how well the in-
structional program worked

l. Locate substandard components
ASSESS
m. Determine relationships between re-
EFFECTIVENESS sults, methods, objectives and goals
n. Accomplish revisions if any are sug-
IMPROVE
gested by interpretation of results

NO
PROGRAM
OK?

YES

IMPLEMENT

but provide various types of support including
conceptuaZ'guidmice, technical assistance.0'moral
support., assessment or evaluation, and funding.

B. Community: This is the source of many educational
needs and demands and often the source of political,
financial and moraZ mipport to new progr=s.

C. Institution: Includes intermediate agencies (the
college, ESD or school district) the school site,
the classroom, the PddiZZa Bay Estuarine Sanctuary,
and the learner experience. It is this level -
which largely determines' goals., policies, program
requirements and financial arrangements that guide
delivery in terms of instruction and program
management.

2. Stages of Institutionalization - Indicate that an infusion
of an ecosystem/estuarine program into a schooZ'a, coZZege's
or agencie!b curricula occurs in three phases:
A. Mobilization, which determines what the program
is and how it will be fit into the existing
curricuZum.

B. Implementation, which determines how the program
will be.carried out.

C. Institutionalization, which determines how the
program will be maintained or continued.
An @ffective delivery system must address itself to-each of these
stages or phases in order to control for , and achieve the.,
desired program outcomes and to ensure their continuation.
3. Delivery concerns indicate the major issues'which an
effective delivery system must examine and specify for each
of the delivery levels W., and (B) stages of institutionalization.
2'hese major delivery concerns include:
A. The specification of goals and objectives. for
learning or operations

B. The specification of program requirements necessary
to achieve those objective's

C. An identification of the barriers, obstacles,
constraints or resistances that may prevent or
inhibit the satisfaction of the objectives
D. The specification of reality - oriented delivery
strategies 'that will be used to overcome (modify,
eliminate) the barriers

E. The identification of outside supportlassistance
needed to enable or facilitate the achievement of
the program objectives

It is important to note here that, as the plan develops, we
are actually creating the inherent evaluation system necessary
to assess a successful delivery system design. This This
evaluation is an ongoing set of activities which go beyond
planning and which interrelate with all the plan components.
This type of evaluation-building becomes especially evident as
we create a framework for planning and design by addressing
the following areas of planning.

4. Areas of Planning for Curriculum Delivery -- indicate the indicate the
planning levels and delivery concerns (within each level)
that must be considered for curriculum delivery design
and planning.
A. Administration: This planning level involves key
change agents or "gatekeepers," such as district
superintendents, resource agency managers, school
principals, deans, department heads, project
coordinators, and administrative project or
program teams. This level influences or has
control over resource allocation, school and
program policies, educational objectives,
obtaining required approvals, allocating support
funds, and ensuring numbers and types of personnel
available to a project or program.

B. Curriculum: This planning level is concerned with
what is to be taught, and what materials and other
resources are needed, to ensure a holistic,
integrated basis for instruction (refer to S-1 --
What is to be learned). Of major importance here
are certain key aspects of curricula that address:
--Issues of priority, in
--Settings of educational effectiveness, with
--Topic and process oriented content.

C.. Instruction: It is at the teacher, interpretive,
or instructional level that new content or processes
gets transmitted to students. The Substantive
Dimension of this plan (S-1,S-2) presents the
kinds of concerns that can be addressed by teachers.
These instructional concerns include the following:
--How curriculum content is organized and
sequenced;
--How materials and resources are gathered;
--Teaching methodologies; and
--Activities or arrangements to maintain the
integrity of the curriculum content.

D. Eqvaluation: Refer to G-7 (page 4) for explanatory
narrative.

APPENDIX IV

Estuarine Sanctuary Recreational Program

STA
STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHVGTON mod stop FV-11 MOM=
C) Dixy Lee Ray ok"Pial wfthhVtM 9W44
Gouwwr

October 8, 1979

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. Wilbur G. Hallauer, Director
Department of Ecology

FROM: Ralph Larson, Chairman-P.B.E.S. Steering Committee
-Director of Department of Game
John Stone, Co-Chairman-P.B.E.S. Recreation Sub-
Committee-President, Washington State Sportsman
Council
Bill Bush, Co-Chairman-P.B.E.S. Recreation Sub-Committee
-Chief, Research and Long Range Planning, State Parks
Commission

SUBJECT: The Proposed P.B.E.S. Final-Approved Recreation Program
Report-October 4, 1979

Enclosed is the final report for the proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary Recreation program. The report was approved and adopted
by the P.B.E.S. Technical Committee on September 14, 1979, and approved
by the Steering Committee on October 4, 1979.

RL:JS:BB:s
enclosure

INTRODUCTION
Historically, Padilla Bay's geography and physiographic setting have defined
its recreational use both in terms of kinds of recreational use and use inten-
sity. Access constrained both by substantial steep bank.shorelines and
extensive exposed tidal flats at low tide periods is the major limiting recrea-
tion use factor and is primarily responsible for the bay's present intactness.
The bay's location at the gateway to the San Juan Islands has also contributed
to its preservation due to focusing recreationists away from the area.

INVENTORY - EXISTINGAND POTENTIAL SITES
Skagit County Planning Department's 1979 access and visual assessment des-
cribes existing-and potential recreation sites.

There are limited opportunities for public use of Padilla Bay shorelines, with
the exception of March Point and Bayview State Park. Saddlebag Island is
inaccessible to the majority of people. Expanded public Use of the 8horeline,
especially on the mainland, would be a desirable component of estuary develop-
ment plan(I)

SHORELINE DESCRIPTION
There is a great deal of variety in padilla Bay shorelines. This variety is an
important element in the overall visual quality of the bay shorelines, in terms
of both high and low visuaZ amenities.

The shorelines of Padilla Bay all show the influences of human use. The
cedar post seawall along the mainland north and south of Joe Leary slough
and the refineries at March Point are proof of long-standing and on-going
human activity around the bay. The refineries especially are visible from
throughout the bay, and together with the east-bound span over the Swinomish
Channel they represent the moat intrusive cultural elements on the bay.

Samish Island and Bayview Ridge are gacial till uplands, rising directly. up
from the tidelands. At some points the bluffs on shamish Island rise to 40
feet or more, while Bayview Ridge rises between 20 and 40 feet up from the
beach to Bayview-Edison Road. About one mile north of Bayview State Park,
the bluffs give way to a permanent beach berm and a large, marshy backshore
as Bayview Ridge angles away from the shoreline and ends in the Samish River
floodplain. From this point to Samish Island, the mainland is flat, nearly
at sea level, and is protected from tidal inundation by a dike and cedar
post seawall. Landward views extend to Chuckanut Mountain and other coastaL
foothills and beyond to the Cascades.

The south shore, from Indian Slough to the west side of Swinomish Channel is
heavily modified by human activity. The sloughs and shoreline are diked, there
are a number of artifically formed sand islands, and both Highway 20 and the
Anacortes rail spur lie close to the high tide line. Continuing east along the
shoreline, the mudflats and inter-tidal area in front of the sloughs gives way
to a rocky beach and a high wooded bank along the east side of March Point. The
refineries are not apparent until reaching the north end of the beach, where the
bank is low and unvegetated.

-2-

VIEWPOINTS
It is a common practice in visual assessment studies to establish a framework
in the environment from which the landscape.is viewed. .7ypicazZy a baseline is
identified and the landscape is divided into foreground., midground and back-
ground, with each of theze areas containing elements of the environment which
are assessed for their contribution to scenic quaZity. For exampZe, a baseZine
could be a highway that bisects a study area, with foreground; midground and
background determined in relation to the highway.

However, this framework does not apply well to viewpoint analysis. The viewpoint
itself becomes the baseline, and foregroun4, midgound and background assume
different values, depending on location. Looking seaward from the view-points
located around PadiZZa Bay, no land Zies nearer than 1 112 miZes to the viewer
Narch Point to Hat Island). Thus the foreground either becomes the viewpoint
itself, or is extended past a point of high visual clarity. Therefore, rather
than using a baseZine, foreground, midground, background framework, each view-
point will be assessed according to the degree of vision it aZZows; the kind
of Zand and water forms present; the diversity of landscape eZements; are the
degree of unity or intactness among the different landscape eZements. Six
viewpoints are described beZow:

North end of March Point
March Point is a popular and traditional recreation site, and is heaviLy used
in surmer months by vacationers who park their trailers and carpers aZong the
road right-of-way.

The dominant view is to the north, with Hat island, 1 112 miZes =y, controlling
the I'viewshed" and acting as a reference point for the more distant views of the
mainZand, Samish IsZand and beyond. The north view is across the deep water
portions of the bay and gives the iZZusion of deep water to the mainZand shore-
line. I&ch of the "naturaZness" of the view is prescribed by oiZ tanker piers*
and the city of Anacortes to the west, and by intensive, industrial use of the
March Point uplands.

-3-

Lummi Island, rising abruptly over the western edge of Samish Island, and the
Chuckanut Mountains are visible, forming a backdrop that is highlighted by
Mount Baker, due east. On clear days, the view of Baker acts as a scenic
"anchor" like Hat Island, by directing and holding the viewer's attention.
View-; of the mainland shoreline from Indian Slough to Samish Island are
indistinct, and provide no contrast except for a generalized distinction
between the Bayview uplands and the Samish River floodplain.

With respect to Mount Baker, the mainland shoreline functions as a "layer" of
topography adding to the frame that underlies the mountain. On clear days,
the snow-capped Canadian Cascadess are visible 60-70 miles to the north.

At the North Entrance to Swinomish Channel
Of the six viewpoints selected for analysis, this is the least desirable from
the standpoint of visual diversity and clarity. The view is contained by March
Point and the mainland for some three miles, and although the view extends
eight miles to Samish Island, the net effect, is not expansive. Instead the
viewer's attention is drawn to the Swinomish Channel entrance at the railroad
bridge, and to the surrounding land lying above the tide line. Thus the viewers
area of identification is much smaller than the space enclosed by the bay. The
potential for viewing boat traffic.on the Channel is offset by the close
proximity of Highway 20 and a rail line.

Bayview State Park
The view from Bayview State Park is about 180, looking north and south along
the shoreline. Most striking at this location are. the oil refineries 3 1/2
miles across the bay on March Point. They are a detraction from the otherwise
rural character of the shoreline, and are not well fitted to the landscape.
Like the viewpoint at Swinomish Channel, there is a sense of enclosure here
also. Despite the long reach of the view to Guemes and Cypress Islands and
beyond, being at the south end of the bay tends to hold the viewer's attention
in that area. The sloughs and Channel to the southwest are not apparent, nor
are landscape details on the visible islands (Guemes, Samish, Vendovi, Lummi) to
the northwest.

-A-

Spit, South Side of *Toe Leary Slough
This is easily the most desirable of the six viewpoints. The site is an accre-
tion shoreform and is the furthest extension of the mainZand into the bay. It
is also midway up the shoreline so that the views are not trapped or directed
by March Point, but-extend easily to the west and northwest. The viewing angZe
is around 270, with Whidbey and Camano Island visible to the south, and
Mount Baker visible to the northeast. The Mount Baker view is an especially
good one; the Mountain is in full eight through a draw in the coastal foothills.

Seaward, the view has two major outlets: one to Guemes Channel and the other
to the Straits of Georgia, Looking between Samish and Guemes Islands. From
this vantage, the islands appear to be Layered towards the horizon, the nearer
ones green and well defined, the farther ones grey and indistinct, together
creating a strong sense of depth and reZief.

Like all the viewpoints, this one too has evidence of human use, in this
case a cedar post seawall built early in the century to protect the coastal
Levees from erosion. The Levee and seawall do not intrude on the viewer,
or detract from the high quality of the viewshed. Even the refineries'
visual impact is subdued by the Landscape variety and content offered at
this viewpoint.

Ben Anderson Property. off Samish Island Road

The view from this Location is much Zike that from the spit (see above), only
more expansive. Bayview, Ridge is 2 - 2 1/2 miles to the south, making this
viewpoint the onZy one of the six with views to aZZ directions. unlike the
Bayview and Swinomish Channel Locations, there is no sense of enclosure
at this site, but rather a feeling of being at the center of a Landscape
pattern composed of mountains, farmland, islands and the ocean. The
visual amenities are more pleasing at this site than at the spit, however,
the potential for public use is not as great.

West End of Saprish Island
The view from this Zocation.is classic in thz sense that the viewer is
above (up to 200 feet) the a4acent scenery looking down at it. The view
reaches over eight miles to the Swinomish Channel, giving a strong impression
of the bay's size. Guemes, Huckleberry, Saddlebag and Dot Islands are the
most visible landscape elements, and have a tendency to pull the.viewer's
attention away from the less di3cernable, acnAthern part of the bay. However,
the viewpoint has the beat overall vantage of the six sites discussed.

2*e following section describes existing pOZic access and recommends the
inclusion of selected shoreline sites in the estuary boundaries.

PUBLIC ACCESS
The Skagit County Shoreline Access Study, March 1978, indentifies nine
existing and potential access points on Padilla Bay. Of these, four are
currently in active use: the north end of March Point, Rayview State Park,
the Bayview boat launch and Saddlebag IaZard. The remaining five locations
are either redundant (there are three other accesses on.March Point) or
undeveloped, as is the case with the Indian Slough dike. Since publication
of the access study, the Inez BreazeaZe property (64.36 acres, 1,100 feet
of shoreline) has been dedicated as a wiLd'J"ife sanctuary and is now open to
public access. The property is 900 feet north of Bayview State Park, and
together with the park is the only publicly owned shoreline on the mainZan.:'
side of the bay.

An inventory of existing access sites shows an absense of public use
facilities on 10,078 feet of shoreline at,Varch Point that has been reserved
for public use. The only user facility is a boat launch, maintained jointly
by SheZl Oil and the State Game Department. The shoreline is privately owned
at the tip of the point, but is made avaiZabZe for public use again by
SheZZ Oil. This is a popular week-end vacation spotfor in and out of
county residents who take advantage of Vu, wide road shoulder to park
recreational vehicles.

Ease of access is probably a major reason for the site's popularity, together
with marine activities and atmosphere, and splendid mountain views on clear
days.

The Washington State Parke and Recreation Commission owns Saddlebag island
and has developed it for public use with picnic tables, fire pits and trash
barrels. The island is about 23.2 acres in size (including Dot Island) and
is 3 miles from the boat launch at the north end of March Point. It is an
ideal fairweather moorage and recreation site, though somewhat limited in
use because boat access is required. As an existing public use area, the
island should be included in the estuary.

Bayview State Park is a 23.88 acre parcel purchased for pubLic use in six
parcels between 1924 and 1968. The site has camping spots availabLe upLand
from Bayview Edison Road, and a large area (with tables and firepits) just
above the high tide line. The park is a popular day-use area and the shallow
waters of the Bay mak e it ideal for youngsters and others who enjoy water
activities. Parking is abundant. The park is also a logical starting point
for beach walks to the north, though the shoreline is cuqrrently posted no
trespassing.

Tle Department of Game maintains a boat launch in Bayview near "B" Street.
There is parking for a half dozen or more vehicles and a concrete Launching

ramp.

From this inventory, it is evident that there is a shortage of public access
locations on the Bay, particularly in light of its intended designation as a
national estuary. Therefore, a recommendation will be made to acquire addi-
tional access property on the mainland and to include some uplands in the
project.

-7-

An e=elZent site for =quisition is the viewpoint just south of Joe Leary
Slough. The viewpoint is part of a 34 1/2 acre parcel that abuts the Bayview
Edison Road, more precisely described as:

A tract of land in Lot 1, Section 19, and Lot 4, Section 18, Township
35 North, Range 3 East of W.M., beginning on the south line of said
Lot 2, west 1131 feet from its southeast corner; thence following
along the west side of the county road as now traveled north 10 23 feet
east 283 feet; thence North 260 40 feet east 340 feet; thence leaving
said road north 370 39 feet west, to meander line of said Lot 4, Section 18;
thence*aoutherLy following the Government meander line to the south
Zine of said Lot 2;*thence east to the place of beginning, said tract
containing 34-39 acres or less. (See attached map)

There is a small frame cabin on the property that is evidently used during
duck hunting season, but is not a year around residence. The property is in
Agricultural, Open Space, and the level portions of it are diked and cultivated.
As with much of the mainland coast, the dikes are protected by a wooden seawall.

The viewing quality of the site is sufficient reason to include it within
the eatua.-j, but there are other, equally Grood reasons. It is the only
accretion shoreform (specifically a cuspate foreZand) on the mainland and is
near Joe Leary Slough, which itself should be considered for partial inclusion.
Field observation on 7128179 showed 20-25 Blue Herons on the site, some
four miles from their Samish Island rookezIl. Eagles can also be seen, as
well as abundant waterfowZ in season. The site is a4facent to a county road
and is less than five miles from SR 20. Bea-ause Ba-yview State Park fulfills
the requirement for an active, d2y-use area, this site could be minimally
developed for viewing, nature study, beach,2ombing, etc.

There are other locations as well that could be considered for either physical
or visual access to the bay and its shorelines.

-8-

A good location for visual access would be on Samish Island, from a turn-out
on Samish Island Road, either near the end of the road, as indicated in the
viewpoint Zysis map, or at a more central Location on the island. Several
spots along the road have been cleared for viewing., however, this has been done
to enhance views for homeowners, not for the public.

Initial estuary boundaries include Indian Slough from its mouth to Bayview
Edison Road. If this becomes a final boundary, then some thought might be
given to a trail on top of the slough dike, allowing walking access to the
bay. While the views and recreational use potential are not as great at this
Location than at others (Bayview State Park, the Spit, Samish Island), it
could offer an excellent nature walk in the transitional zone between the
mainland and the tide flats.

An.additional-site outside of, but within the estuary influence zone, is
the potential fishing access and viewpoint site at the location of the west
bound approach to the Highway 20 bridge draw-span over the Swinomish Channel.

COMPATIBLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES
Given the natural constraints on the number of recreation activity occasions
which can take place within the estuary boundaries, the scope of permissible
activities is judged to be reasonably broad. Some of the activities listed may
not be feasible within the estuary if no uplands are included but can take place
at the boundary on publicly owned lands.

PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES
Swimming Food Gathering Bicycling
Visiting Beach Walking/Hiking Hunting
Boating Camping (Boat) Jogging
Fishing Picnicking Interpretive Center
Nature Study Driving for Pleasure Photography

-9-

Recreation Activity preference surveys undertaken by Skagit County strongly
identify opportunities which can be satisfied by the bay. Skagit County residents
want coordinated programs optimizing resources at least direct cost, with
acquisition/conservation for the future ''and the development of outdoor faci-
lities wanted by more than 1/2 the people. High demand activities include
beach activities, (number 1 preference for outdoor activities) fishing,
camping and all forms of hiking and walking taking the first four places.
Preservation of saltwater beaches in their natural state attracted 68 votes
as a high priority program, 13 more than its nearest competitor'- mountain
stream areas. Swimming and camping facilities were the two most sought after
additional needs. (2)

INTERPRETIVE FACILITIES
Because of the bay's size and access limitations, special consideration should
be given to.the development of interpretive facilities at a central bay location
with good viewpoints to other bay features. The Breazeale property is the
recommended location. It is recommended that the nearby Bayview State Park
and county owned tidelands all be incorporated with connecting links and perhaps
by acquisition of intervening lands to form a comprehensive interpretive
center base. To the extent feasible, laboratory facilities needed for onsite
research should also be incorporated here to optimize public impact and
minimize cost and impact on the bay.

RECREATIONAL IMPACTS ON AWACENT LAND OWNERS
Recreational impacts can to some extent be related to proximity, volume,
degree of change, consumption/non-consumption. Impacts, while perhaps measurable,
are to a substantial degree perceptual and dependent on previous experience.
Numerically, impacts from the proposed recreational program are judged to be
minimal. As already noted elsewhere in this section, only one additional general
day-use site is proposed with the remaining proposals for shoreline access
and viewpoints. The scale of each recommended development is constrained by
natural conditions; will result in non-consumptive uses; will not be in close
proximity to densely settled areas; and bring little change to existing use.
Given the fact that resident owners may prefer no impact to the consequent
recreational impacts, the recreational impacts are considered to be of less
potential impact than almost any alternate-estuary use would bring. Recreational
impacts are perceived to be largely a sharing of approximately 13,500 acres

_10-

with an additional 200,000 to 300,000 activity ocassions of use, some 50% of
which would be expected to occur during the 100 days of summer. No new
recreational activities not already participated in are expected to be
generated by the creation of the sanctuary.

("Taken from PADILLA BAY ESTUARY, Public Access and Visual Assessment, Skagit
SKAGIT COUNTY
County Planning Department, August 8, 1979. Secondary source:
SHORELINE ACCESS STUDY, Prepared by the Skagit County Planning Department,
(2) March, 1978.
DECIDING SKAGIT COUNTY'S RECREATIONAL FUTURE, Skagit County Cooperative
Extension Service, From a 1976 Survey of the Residents of Skagit County.

RPM LI.A T-AV VISVIlbit@n5 Aik,,'.D
=L_A
0 vi I-,,rj-

rT@

7". 4 DIAN

iN"I. ODUCIMM

One might ask whether.this is njust another survey,"

or if there is something different. Indeed, we think there

is somethin7 quite different and significant about this

effort to assess what residents of Skagit County would like

for the future.

This survey represents an effort to build on the

involvement process initiated by the Skagit County Recrea-

tional Development Association which sought to identify

desirable directions for the County's recreational future.

We have attempted to build a qudstionnaire that accurately
reflects the ideals obtained by the Association., and to do so

in language that will cor=an4cate tomost of the general

public, thus extending participation in the involver-ent

process. The result is a questionnaire quite unique to the

concerns of Skagit County. The hoped for result is sc=e

indication of where the general public stands on the many

issues that seem vital to determining future directions for

Skagit County recreational environment.

This report reDresents a raw sum ry of findings, and

is prepared as a complement to ari oral discussion of the

major findings. We hope it will stimulate further discussion

and debate which will be helpful to all citizens and people

of the county as they work towards making Skagit County the

kind of place they want it to be.

PRILIMINARY SUMMARY OF RESULTS

FROM A 1976 SURVEY OF THE

RESIDENTS OF SKAGIT COUNTY'S
Deciding Skagit County's
Recreational Future

What Would
You Prefer?

This survey is a 1975 effort to
determine racreational desires of

Skagit County residents.

This survey is co-sponsored by
the Skagit County recreational

County W.S.U. Cooperative
Extention Service, Skagit
County planning Department,
Skagit County Park Board , and the Skagit County board of Commissioners

Thank you for your help.

Skagit County Cooperative Extension Service
306 courthouse, Mount Vernon, WA. 98273

This summary was prepared by Bill Gray, Community Development
Consultant,Cooperative Extension Service, Washington State
University and Kerry Barn Extension Assistant, Skagit
County Coooperative Extension Service.

Original Sample Size ....... 1188 Questionnaires Completed...766
Inaccessible Households...... 74 Response Rate
De*ceased, moved out of (% of adjusted sample
county, blind. disabled

Adjusted Sample Size ....... 1114

A sample size of this magnitude should provide reasonably
reliable and valid estimmal%-.es of the opinions of all residents

of the county. Assuming that those who did not return the

questionnaire hold similar attitudes to those that did, answers
provided should Vary no more than four percentage points from

those of the population sampled.

"
"DINGS
I'

Results from the survey are reported on the remaining
pages. To aid the reader in interpreting the results, they
are reported in a particular way.. Specifically, questions
are reported in verbation form in the order they were asked.
only percentages are reported., The percentag-as are in all
cases based upon the total number of people who answered
the question. That number is a maxi=-,m of 766, and varies
slightly below that for most questions in as much as some
respondents did not answer every question.

Q-3 The following is a lift of outdoor Activities in which families and Individuals
frequently participate. It would be helpful for us to know in which of the
following activities your household would participate if facilities were avail-
able. Please indicate three of the following activities which would be most
important to your household.

Basketba11
2. Beach activities (crab,clam or
oyster gathering, beach corbing
or scuba diving)

3. Bicycling
4. scating power baoting, sailing,
canoeing, or kayaking)

5.Camping (overnight)
6.Field sports,(baseball, badminton,
soccer, football, croquet, or track
and field.
7.Fishing (fresh water or saltwater)
8.Golfing
9.Hiking (backpacking, nature hikes,
or walking for pleasure)
10. Horseback riding
11. Horseshoes
12. MOtor activities or sports (auto
racing, auto rallies, motorbiking,or four wheels drive) 13. outdoor swimming
14.Pinicking or day camping
15. Shooting (rifle or archery,
target or trap)
16. Snow related activities (skiing
sledding, and snow mobiling)
17. Tennis
Q-4 There has been much discussion about preserving certain areas in their natural
state. If Skagit County residents desire areas be developed only enough to
accomodate recreational use, which areas should receive, a HIGH priority, a
MEDUIM priority, a LOW priority or NONE at all?
What priority, if any
Number Possible Areas should each area have?

High Meduim Low None
1 Salt water beaches 68 23 6 3
2 Mountain streams areas 55 28 11 5
3 Panoramic vice area 29 41 23 7
4 Freshwater shore areas 46 38 12 4
5 open space near communities 28 32 28 12

Q-7 Would you please list the two specific activities that your household would
most like to see developed either with additional facilities or appropriate

programs
First Second First Second
Choice Choice Choice Choice
Archery 0 .2 Moto Biking .5 .9
Autoracing .5 .5 Mountain Climbing .2 .2
Back Packing .2 0 Nature Walks .3 .7
Badminton .2 0 Photography 0 0
Baseball .3 .2 Picnicking 1.0 1.6
Basketball 1.8 1.2 Ping pong 0 .5
Beachcombling 2.3 1.8 Pool or Billiards .6 1.8
Bicycling 2.7 4.7 Power Beating 1.5 .9
Bird watching 0 .2 Racketball 1.0 .5
Bowling 1.3 1 Reading for Pleasure 0 0
Camping 10.4 8 Rowing 0 0
Canoeing & Kayaking .2 0 Sailing .2 .2
Cards 0 .2 Saltwater fishing .3 1.4
Chess, Board Games 0 .2 Scuba diving 0 0
Crab, Clam Gathering .3 .4 Sledding 0 0
Croquet 0 0 Snow mobiling .2 0
Dancing 1.9 3 Snow Shoeing 0 0
Day Camping 1 1 Snow skiing .2 .4
Flying & Skydiving 0 0 Soccer .2 .4
Fraternal Club Act. .2 0 Socializing in Cozm. 0 .2
Freshwater Fishing 3.9 4.6 Socializings at home 0 .2
Fristees 0 0 swimmings 24.5 10.7
Gardening 0 0 TV or radio 0 0
Golfing 1.1 1.9 Target Shooting 1 .8 3.3
Handball .3 .7 Tennis 3.4 5.3
Hiking 3.4 3.8 Theater going 0 0
Hockey .2 0 Touch Football .2 0
Home Hobbies, etc. 7.3 6.8 Track and Field 0 C
Horseback Riding 1 1.8 Trap Shooting .5 .7
Horseshoes .5 .5 Museums, etc. .2 0
Ice Skating 1.5 4 Volleyball .3 1.2
Jogging 0 0 WaIking for pleasure .2 .4
Water Skiing .2 1.8
Yoga, Personal Exercise l.l 1.8

Q-8 For your first Choice activity from question 7, if a recreational bond issue

were required,, about how much would your household be willing to pay for its

achievement?

Percent
17 1. Would not support the activity.
35 2. $.25 per each $1,000 of assessed value.
26 3. $.50 per each $l,000 of assessed value.
18 4. $1.00 per each $l,000 Of assessed value.
4 5. $2.00 per each $1,000 of assessed value.

1979 SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY

Introduction

As a supplemental to the 1976 survey an additional questionnaire was distributed

to a proportionate amount of residents of Skagit County. The 1979 survey utilized

the boundaries of County-School districts as the defined target areas for the dis-

persement of the questionnaires. Three percent of the population of each target

area would be randomly selected and surveyed. The questionaires were distributed
by a CETA Recreation Staff over a four week period. Because of their concern of

the results and personal drive, the returns of this survey reached approximately

76% level. From all information that has been reviewed a return such as this is

extremely good and unusual as the average return rate according to ORB is approx.-

imately 50%. The response rate is calculated as follows per each School District.

Surveying District Total Distributed Total Returned % of Returns

Anacortes 338 270 80

Burlington 295 162 55

Concrete 75 40 53

Conway 69 56 81

LaConne 80 56 70

Mt. Vernon 445 360 81

Sedro Woolley 430 368 86

Totals 1732 1312 75.75%

Burlington
Anscortes Edison Concrete Conway LaConner Mt. Vernon Sedro Woolley Tutal.

1. Pleas* indicate the number
of Persons and their Sax
In your household In each
age kroup.

Hale
Under 7 37 9 a 12 go 76 .147
7-12 19 21 a , , 7 - * 1 11 44 46 136
-13-18 23 .20 4 a .2 59 .60 176
19-26 55' 4S 7 17 6 92 113
27-3S 34 36 12 10 17 87 71 264
:16-49 37 3S 5 19 9 71 87 263
50-59 39 19 4 12 S 59 54 193
60 + 44 22. It 7 12 22 7S 193
Fawn I a'.
Under 7 44. 28 9 9
13 65 64 212
7-12 31 2S .4 7 9 54 53 162
13-18 49 45 a 6 to 67 94 279
19-26 -61 46 12 .13 it 107 so 332
27-3S 64 42 11
36-49 67 9 19 87 54 297
47 9 - 24 a 93 103 351
--50-59 3S to 7 8 46 79 . 198
60 + .58 29 40 ..93 250
The average size of the household for those Individuals Total Population Review of Those
surveyed amounted to 3 Individuals per home. The major- Tndt-vLduals Listed in the County Survey
Ity of the population; Indicated by the survey returns,
to in the age brackets ranging from 19 years of age to AILS Total Percent
49 years of age with the female sander comprising 532
of the total of thin ago group. As Indicated In this Under 7 479 12.16
survey and confirmed through personal discussion with 7-12 330 8.58
various school District Administrative personnel those 13-18 455
Individuals in the 0-7 site bracket are represented an 19-26 667 16.94
tbe fourth largest population group in Skagit County. 27-35 551 43.99
36-49 614 15.59
50-59 391 9.93
60 + 443 11.25
3938

Anavortet; FA I lion Concrete Conway LaConoter lit. Vernon Sedro Woolley

What time or times of day,,
eltiring the week. would you
mi%%L often bavt@ free for
part.1cipation In artivitlem
that. you wnisId coontilder rer-
ren L I ona I ?
6-4 AN Iq
10 2 1 16 216 1119
25 12 7 4 6 4n S 222
12 Nonn-1 PH 44 13 11 6 11 56 Al 244,
3 PH- 6 I'M 55 27 11 3 16 (19 fil 671
6-9 I'm A 91 19 40 21 202 27n 134
after 9 I'll 14 16 5 2 4 10 43
6 AN-12 Noon AR 20 11 6 7 64 78 240
96
12 Nonn-6 I'M an 12 2R 2n 109 231 67R
After 6 PH 47 42 10 1(). 11 R7 115 2q2

!nd 1 en t et, tha*malurlty of partIcipaLlon and uHer hours durIng, t1he week days. Would be from 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M.- Weekend
iatk users hours would be from 12:00 Noun to 6:00 P.M.

11nw long have you lIved In
Sk;lglt County?
It-sr. than I year. 17 9 2 5 2 19 211,
1-3 years 29 11 R S Is 51 31 152
.4-7 years 15 11 12 it a so ton 11.9
11-15 yd-arn '12 21 8 9 5 6n 56 191
11v(?r 15 yearn 27 12 20 1 Ik2 196 71R

n order to establish credabtlity and response awareness the question of longevity In the County was asked. The intention
r this question established the fact that the majority of the population surveyed were living In the County at the concep-
ton of the Park and Recreation Commission. Perhaps the greatest impact this question has,-in relation to questions five
ind eipht, points out the lack'of Departmefit program and.factlIty stwitrpneits by,the county residents. Thus an Iddicarlon .
b-zr-ar use of the local media and the necessity to develop brochures manuals and public presentation to Increase thbA-
nuwledge And zuarcveca o: th.l@ public of the department.

Burlington
Anacortes Fd1son. Cnn@rete Conway LaCanner Me: Vernon Sedro, Voolley Total.

DO y0"-fe*1 PnrUs and recrea-
tion should be provided by
Skagit County?
Yes
Y_ 123 AR 49. 261 97S
00 1.!Rpnllse Is 6' n 2 -13 2i
43 10 7 59 97
279
-0 overwhelming majority 7.4% were'In favor, of the County PrOvIding services for Its residents. A 'more 42 were not In 6vor
of such a-proposal and the remaInLnil 22Z Indicated no rempontio to the question,
S. 'Plenie check those SkagIt
County Parks you have vlfflte@
:9 nr are aware or.
Ann Wnlfnrd Park
- Conway Park/ftna Iaunch 17 0 14 28 66
27 44 06 37 IIS .68
- Cleveland Center PlayRround 13 2A A 5 9
Donnuan Park 45 41S.
Earleview Park S4 82 S 3 11 ion '176 439,
FrIday Creek Park 19 12. S. 1 4 21 I'l . 7S
r-soomen island Playrround :51 91 .10 9 18 Al] 197. 511
Sharpe Park 76 14 .2 3 9 37 21 167
Skarit Playffelds 14. 11 0 1 1 211 23 100
Wfi_e alinve are olay one facil'itirs) 48 51 6 .11 20 119 109 M
Snoik River Park 46 49 318 11 11 IN 102 314
51relheall Par@ ...46 50 41 7 9 77 134 361.
Yeating. Park 9 0 1 1 .31
Hl@e Motive' are, ramloinle. ran I I It 11-1:) 16 72
Cleveland Center Mt. Vernon 211 is 6 19 11 104 119 421
Annt-ortes St-ninr Center 96 21 11 2 IR 172
Merl Ington Senior Center 4 0 2 2 3 .2s 31 107
Sedra Wntilley Senior Center. 1 19 11 4 3. 31 177 221
Cnnrrele Sonlor (!enter 4 9 11 0 2 17 IS 7H
brive are Sesifor Centerta)
Ilia 'awareness responsu of totose surveyed was very poor. nf 1.7 parle and center' facilities each of the 1312 individuals sur-
veyed vare aware of or have visited an avernfto or 2.8 parks. Tn unny cases ttiono facilities or centers that received greater
unt., were within a 5 - B mile radfuu or Lhu -populateil areas or Skan'It County.* Because of this type of. use one would surmise
the psjb]Jc Is 1.) not aware of the other County ractlitten and/or 2.) are concerned about the energy prohlem and choose to
visit parks that are not Point to.requtra an extensive driving period to reach.

urlingtion
Anucortmi Ed loan Concrere CO"w"Y LaConner. Mt. Vernon sedro wuul;,y Twul

6. A. Do You feel the Park and
reationai racultles in
It C
Outdoor ractittles
- Adequate 89 fla 24 22 17 153 122 515
Inadcquate 29 30 12 a Is RS 95 277
- No Opinion 94' 60. 14 27 in 133 17* 520
Indoor Facilities
Adequate 57 31 Is 21 12 104 101 141
Inadequate 45 5! 19 107 106 344
No Opinion 110 9G,
is 25 19 145 219' 627
11. If ynu-marked inadequate
.119ove. please comment.

A. Approximately 392 of the survey responses Indicated the amount and type of outdoor facilities provided by the County are
adequate. However. 212 Indicated the need for Improvement nnd 402 did not respond pointing out the lack of awareness
of County facilities or the Inability to rate the parks.
B. 26% of the returns rated the indoor recreation facilities In Skngit County.as adequate. The remaining 74Z (26% fesponded
Inadequate. 48Z responded no opinion) Indicated the facilities In Skagit County are not adequate or the individual
surveyed could not make a judgement of the adequacy due to a lack of awareness.

Our I higtois
Anacartem FA I tion Cenzra.e' Conwdy LaConner he. Vernon Sedro Voolley Tout

DO you 1.18,11k more park And
recreation factliclo-ot are
14:4 too Lift! Comilly?
*124 125 Us IS 2711 211S 901
Nit
74 14 2 10 27 27 1 Us
His resloutom: 69' @7 It 26 It 60 101 101
Yea, W1114.10 of Lilt- fulleswifir.?
leame clieck r ive (s) sinty.
Archery alfal rifiv ratoge it 7(s 10 10 51' 60 in"
Itimst rampu 1'reads water, 11 17 '53 52
Must rampts Like. 77 4
6 11 . 72 Ifi$
llisat ramism j Sallwatur 29 6 to 51 0 1&6
It I cyc I e/lI I It I oil; Trio I I is 74, .19 14 2S, 130 121 40#2
CampInlt (act I It Item 44 12 4 '12 Ito *121 112
Day toue ItIcult: areats 59 IS .15 .4 21 Ito 95, 301)
Golf Course. 16. 11 6 0 4 3 it 20 1114
Indoor Sports Arvisa 44 54 9 11 11 92 90 111
Nature Tr-jilts 62 .42 10 111 112 Ito
I'layfle.lds lor aloorts; activ- 31 20. 10 1 13 74 04 2
Itfes;
Offroad Vehicle Troll 22 22 9 2 4 37 47 .3

Do-Iglilvarlsonol playlorotonds 11 12 71
12 10 21i

Saftbal 1/11.111plial I Illammets 14 25 6 5 1 (16 2M
SulmmIng. Ponta - Indoor .22 Ili I'D Its* 19 184 197 5fif
SWIMMIlor loonlit - (lootolnor 162 7 14 124. 321
Catortn 17 9 i's 92 291
44 11 9 It, (its 6S 23,
Cmirt is
inalisisr rommsoilty Centers/ 26 7 268
Illooral Arta Centers
0-rC

An attitude question number 7 Indicates sipprnittantely omx'or the questtannWrien returned we.re. . In favor of the unty ea-
t ahl I r.1% last addl t tonal. park- and 'recreation ractlItle" in skanit cilunty.* co

Question 07 continued.

B. Rank order of responses No. ijf Responses 2 of Frequency of Responses
Swimming Poole Tndoors 568 43
Bicycle/111king Trails 452 34
Nature Trails 333 25
Swimming Poole outdoors 3ZI 24
Camping Facilities. 312 24
Sports Arenas - Indoors 311 24
Day use Picnic Facilities 309 23
Tennis Courts 298 23
Community & Cultural Arts Centers 263 20.
Playffelds for Sports Activities 239 18
flandball/Racquetball Courts indoor 233
17
Neighborhood Playgrounds 217
Softball Baseball Diamonds 207 15
Archery and Rifle Ranges 188 14
..Saltwater Boat Ramps t (16
12
I.ake Boat Ramps 165 12
Vrv-sh Water Boat Ramps (Riverih) 166 12
Offrond Vehicle Trail 143 11
Golf Courses 109

Bur I I ng t oil
Concrete 'Iedru Woullu'y 11otal
Wnway Mt. Vernon

R. 11ave You partJclpatcd Jn jin'y'
rerreational activitten organ-
tied by Skagit Coointy?
Yen 39 411 14 2 It 16 127 100 @;;&s
No 131 lot 31 23 38 216 251 793
No responne
is fi 1 11 3 6 110 ;51
Vie renponses or thiR cliseRtion indicates that In one year and nix months of Its existence. the recreation division of this
Department has served approximately 282 of the County residents. The rate 'of this response could be attributed to sev 'eral
deficiencle-9.J.) the lack of proper publicity 2.) poor seldction of activities to be made available to the public 3.) the
lack of a full time non CETA recreation staff and 4.) the fact that the programs offered the public must be for the most part
self sufficient thus eliminating specific types of open. playgrounds and programs that are typical of litany recreation departme

Durlinitton
Anacortou Edison Concrete Conway LoConnor Mt. Vernon Sedro, Woolley Total

A- Should the County plan,
stipervine, and condoici organtzed
recreation activities?
Yen 30 19 31 266 210 774
ISO 30 17 5 1 6 .21 40 120
No response R7 69. 13 17 16 7/1 142 313
1. ir yen, which or.the raitaw-
Adult Arts n crarts Activities .16 12 9 16 is 94 108 313
Y"1161'Arta n Crnrtx Activities As. 31 is OR 86 267
Adoolt Athletic Iealtues 7 13 124 S3 lie
Yneith Athletic. jrxOuex 62 54 It 20' Is 129 97 187
Adult Instructional PrnpyAms. 37 24 14 a Its 71 2116
Caointy Wide Chf1drene Summer. 62 41' In 16 19 lis 14S 416
PInyRrounds Program
youth Instructional Pronrams .55 29 11 is 13 52 256
Adult ffittJoor Folucatinn Pro- 45 23. 5 16 *12 M 46. 251
p,rnmn--
Ynooth Ototdoor Filucation Pro- 55 21 A In 11 IN an 270
grams
Itarted County Wide Special 12 43 14 22 19 157 7t 399
Events 0%Fun Roins. Symponiumx.
Arts n Crafts Feattvaix. etc.)
nthar(r' (specIfy)

Another attitude question to deterutni the of such a aIervice an ro'creation pro .Rra%=1nR. Approxinately 592 of
the response were In, favor of the Cou*%ty providing* supervised rec*reation act tvIt1G2 to the County residents. 92 of the
pop6latio- were not in favor of such a proposal and the remaining 322 Indicated a no response to the question.

Question 193 continued
Rank Order of Responses

Number of Responses 2 of Frequency of Resporeez
County wide ChAdren's summer playgrounds program 416 32

Varies County wide special events (Fun Runs, Symp-
osiums, Arts n Crafts, Festivals, etc.) 390 30

Youth Athletic Leagues 387 29

Adult Athletic Leagues 318 24

Adult Arts-N-Crafts Activivies 313 24

Youth Outdoor Education Programs 270 20

Youth Arts-N-Crafts Activities 267 20.

Youth Instructional Programs 256 19

Adult Outdoor Education Programs 251 19

Adult Instructional Programs 246 18

Burlington*-
Anseartes Mixon Concrete Conway LaConnir Hte Vernon Sedro Uoulley ?otv@

Develop a year round recreation
,activities program for the res-
idents of Skagit County
55 89 19 33 13 156 lie ASS
127'
H 73 67 14 1 A 19 128 448
L 30 10 6 2 9 26 28 121
A 0 3 4 37
i Orient recreation facilities
toward Skagit County reside"te,
er tnan t&ards tourim.tao
it .84 as 22* 22 32 169
H too 39i,
55 64 9 .211 12 132 124 A19
L 29 10 -4 3 28 26 110.
23 4 2 .4 5 12 4
Coordinate city and county ree-
rtatfo@ avoid dupllca-.
tion.
100 .83 22 14 22 @139 154 534
H 43 60 14 30 13 129 129 417
L 24 20 4 9 6 so 43 196
117 6 3 1. 5 is 33
:4) Develop Jol"t use agreem"to
Le;ween Skagit County School
Districts and Skagit Cou"tYy ffoo
evintng and/or weekend indoor.
facility use.
9S 84 22 24 29 171 178 i03
-0 -'14-* -@27 12 127- 120 *106
20 6 3 5 24 77
L
It 3 1 3 6 3 23

ocated
fS) I*vtlop a centrally
cminty:
1. Cultural. Arts Center
2. Athletic and Conmunity Cnti.
3. Swiming Pont
A. A combination of the above.
69 112 is 19 23 209 206 .653
41 52 1 31 18 91 121 :171
L ''43 8 7 .2 .4 22 1 6 lot
19 2 31 3 7 13 52

Burlington
Anacortes Edison Concrete Conway LaConner Mt. Vernon Sedro Woolley Tot&.1

(Question 810 contlnued)

(6) Acquire and conserve Und for
Nture development and use,
Including prime scenic areas
along the SksR1t RLverg salt-
wnter beaches, or in the mount-
nine.
1034 96 22 17 2A 187 174 628
H 49 50 13 26 12 114 123 387
L 23 17 5 7 1 28 27 too
10 3 4 5 7 5 39
(7) Develop outdoor facilities suet
as day and overnight camping
xLtes. fishing, picnic areas,
bdat launches. etc.
Its ILB 22 19 22 Ise 164
h
fit 66 IR 27 14 131 Ito
H 123
L 31 22 4 5 9 31 At
H 8 3 0 s 10 3 3t
(8)'bevelop a myst-tei of open t-.afl;
and pathways for horse riders.
bicyclLets. joggers. hikers.
it 93 82 .22 19 23 176 186 601
H 34 59 16 25 Is 122 114 407
L 22 20 3 a 3 27 32 its
11 2 0 3 7 16 2 41

nther

This question simply take the Individual to establish a priority rating In their own opinion of what should be the goal
of the County Park& and Recreation Department In future planning. Those.1tems responded to by priority or imajortty of
"high" responses are an follows:

. ... ... ... ...

estion 110 continued

:I "lligko, 222poneaL o! Reaianea ' Frequency
Develop a centrally loc&ted Zorfity facility
'to Includes
1. Cultural Arts Center
2. Athletic and Community Center, and 653 49
3. A Swimming Pool

Acquire and conserve land-for future develop-
went and use, Including prime scenic areas 628 47
along the Skagit River saltwater beaches or
In the mountains

Develop joint use agreamente.between Skagit
County School Districts and Skagit County 603..
for evening and/or weekend facility ties.

Develop a sy2tem of open trails and-pathways,
for horse riders, bicyclists, joggera, and 601.
hikers.
Orient recreation facilities toward Skagit 55 S 45
cosinty residents rather then towards tourists*
Coordination of City and County recreation 534 40.
plans to avoid duplication..-

-lop 'tutdoor facilities ouch as day ani
uvarnifthL !18hlng, Picnic J(.:dsJ6' 531- 40
host launches. etc.
Drvelop a year round recrection activittir- 443 33
program for the residents of SkLgit Cou4zy.

APPENDIX V

Partial Preliminary Acquisition Grant Application

.;.:E 07
01' EC:OLO'%"JY

Application for Prelirinary Acquisition Granz
for an Estuarine Sanctuary in Washington State
under the Provisions of Section 315 of the
Coastal Zone '.,,.'a-na;eme-nt Act of 1972 - As
A--ended

Dixie Lee Ray, Governor Wilhur G. Hallauer
State oil Washington Director, Departnent of Ecolozv

January 19,. 1979

&A-ULE or CONTE111-TS

Pace

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3

Purpose . . . . 0 a . . . . . . . . . 4

section I Site Selection . . . . . . 0 . . . . . .

Section Il Description of Proposed Sanctuary . . . . . . . . 8

(Locatien, Boun--*aries, Size) . . . . . . . . . . .

Classification of Proposed Sanctuary . . . . . . .

Description of Characteristics Resources
of Proposed Sanctuary . . . 0 0 % 0 0 0 6 0 .

Section III Authority to Acquire Property. a 4 0 . 0 * 12

Section IV Existing and Potential uses of the Proposed
Sanctuary and Current and Potential Conflicts
in Padilla Bay under both Sanctuary and
Nonsanctuary Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Section V List of Protected Sites within the Biogeographic
Classification . . . . . . . . . o 0 0 . . . 0 14

Section VI State Solicitation of Views of Interested
Parties . . . * . . 0 . 0 0 4 . . . . . . . 0 0 15

Section VII Work Program . . . . . . . :. . o . . o . . . 17

Federal Assistance Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . .

Explanatory Notes . . . 0 . 0 0 0 * 0 00 . 0 .0 . 0 0 9 0 0 0

1. Budget Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . o o . . . . 19
2. Personnel Commitment . . . *9 * @ .. # . * . o o . 21
3. Audits . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . 21@
4. Personnel Authorized to Request Grant Anendrients
or Revisions . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Appendix

lo Synopsis of Skagit County 11aster Program . . . . . .
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Indirect
Cost Rate Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Washington State office of Fiscal Mana.-ement A-95
Review Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Composite Aerial Photograph.of Padilla Bay arid
Surroundin.- Area . . . . . .. . . o o . . . . .

SECTION I - SITE SELECTION

The entire coastline of the State of Washington falls within the Columbian
biogeographic province. This province, as defined by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management, consists of "North Pacific coast from Cape
Mendocino to Canada; mountainous shoreland; rocky coasts, extensive
algal communities; biota, primarily temperate, with some boreal."

Estuaries in the State of Washington can be divided into five subcate-
gories of the primary Columbian biogeographic province. These are:

1. Columbia River estuaries;

2. Cloacal Bay estuarine complexes such as Willapa bay and Grays
Harbor;

3. Streams having direct discharge into the Pacific Ocean;

4. The Puget Sound-Hood Canal estuarine complex; and,

5. Insular estuaries.

Since the Puget Sound-Hood Canal complex is unique among Pacific coastal
estuaries, primary attention was given to potential sites in this subcate-
gory. This position was also influenced by the fact that the State of
Oregon has received a grant for the establishment of an estuarine sanc-
tuary in Coos Bay and this action essentially compromised the possibility
of establishing a sanctuary along Washington's Pacific coast.

A review of all streams entering Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de
Fuca was conducted and all those possessing estuaries greater than 25
acres in size were selected for more detailed analysis. Nine criteria
were employed for this analysis and a rating of 0 to 5 was assigned for
each. This resulted in a potential range of 0 to 45 for each estuarine
system studied.

The criteria used in the evaluation were:

1. Degree of alteration of estuary;

2. Degree of alteration of the watershed;

3. Diversity of estuarine habitats;

4. Representativeness;

5. Potential stability;

6. Biologic productivity;

7. Influences external to the system;

8. Apparent feasibility of achieving the necessary control of the
system; and,

9. Service to CZM program purposes.

APPENDIX VI

Partial Listing of Public Meetings .Regarding Padilla Bay

APPENDIX 7
Informational and discussion meetings with organizations, Partial Listing of Public
individuals, etc. with Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Meetings-Regarding Padilla
related interests. Bay

DATE ORGANIZATION/GROUP, ETC. REPRESENTATIVE

1-9-79 State Dept. of Game Ralph Larson, DIrector/Jack Wayland, Ass't. Director
1-15-79 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Joseph R. Blum, Area Manager
1-17-79 State Office of Arch. & Hist. Pres. Sheila Stump, Supervisor - Archaeologist
1-25-79 Skagit Co. Planning Department Bob Schofield, Director
1-30-79 Orion Corporation Clint Morrow, Owner, Morrow Corporation
1-31-79 Oregon-Coos Bay Sanctuary Committee Bill Cox, Director, Oregon Division of Lands

2-1-79 U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA Jim MacFarland, Estuarine Sanctuary Program
2-5-79 State Dept. of General Administration Will Lewis, Supervisor, Real Property Division
2-7-79 State Outdoor Recreation Commission Bob Wilder, Administrator
2-8-79 Wash. Public Ports Association Jim Zimmerman, Administrative Assistant
2-13-79 Dept. of Natural Resources Merv Howden, Marine Division
2-15-79 Washington Park Foundation Joann Fisher, Executive Secretary
2-15-79 The Nature Conservancy Elliott Marks, Regional Director
2-16-79 Port of Anacortes Bob Keller, Director
2-16-79 Huxley College Dr. Gil Peterson, Faculty
2-21-79 Skagit Co. Board of County Commissioners County Commissioners
2-23-79 Shell Oil Refinery Bill Malseed, Manager
2-23-79 Ducks Unlimited Club Members
2-28-79 Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Marvin Wilbur, Executive Director
2-28-79 Horton Dennis Company Ken Yoshita, Owner
2-28-79 Texaco, Oil Refinery Larry Dettman, Assistant Manager

3-5-79 Washington Environmental Council Helen Engle, President
3-8-79 U. OF W., Div. of Marine Resources Dr. Alan Duckspree, Faculty
3-9-79 Skagit Valley College Dr. James M. Ford, President
3-19-79 State Dept. of Public Instruction Dave Kennedy, Envionmental Studies
3-22-79 Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs Karen Fant, President
3-26-79 State Dept. of Fisheries Frank Haw, Assistant Director
3-27-79 Pacific Science Center Bonnie DeTurk, Director, School Services
3-27-79 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dwain F. Hogan, Chief, Planning Branch
3-28-79 WWSC-Sundquist Marine Studies Center Dr. Charles Flora, Director
3-28-79 State Parks & Recreation Commission Jan Tveten, Assistant Director

DATE ORGANIZATION/GROUP, ETC. REPRESENTATIVE

4-3-79 Citizens Glen Dickenson, Samish Island
4-4-79 Wn. State Natural Preserves Adv. Council Amelia Heilman
4-13-79 Washington State Sportsman Council John Stone, President
4-13-79 U. of W., Div. of Marine Resources Dr. S. Murphy, Director

5-9-79 State Office of Financial Mangement Bob Benson, Assistant Director
5-21-79 Seattle Times Eric Prine, Staff Reportor
5-23-79 Charles Anderson & Associates Charles Anderson, M.A.I.
5-30-79 Swinomish Gun Club Al H. Clise, Vice President
5-31-79 Skagit Co. Prosecuting Attorney C. Thomas Moser, Chief Civil Deputy
5-31-79 K.A.G.T. - Media Central/Radio Nine Uncapher

6-8-19 La Conner Realty Mark Sommers
6-8-79 Mt. Vernon Chamber of Commerce Phyliss Codle, Manager
6-16-79 Samish Island Community Club Holly Harper, Program Chairman

7-18-79 Skagit Regional Planning Council Ian S. Nunce, AICP, Executive Director
7-18-79 Sparks & Smith, Architects Rick Sparks, Owner
7-49-79 Samish Campfire Council Nancy Davis, Executive Director
7-23-79 U.S. Soil Conservation Service Frank Easter, Director
7-25-79 U.S. General Accounting Office Janet L. George, Management Analyst
%,VVPCZaLAVU ZALeliblUll Jac& 1. %,rawEuru, Area ZxLenalun AgellA.
7-30-79 Anacortes School District Dr. D.C. "Duane" Lowell, Superintendent
7-30-79 Anacortes Chamber of Commerce Maria Petrish, Manager
7-31-79 City of Anacorte8 Bob Olander, City Manager

8-3-79 State Legislature/Rep. Duane Berentson Jay Holman - Legislative Staff
8-9-79 Mt. Vernon School District Tom Pollino, Superintendent
B-9-79 Whatcom Co. Cooperative Extension Fred Wepprecht, Community Resource Dev. Agent
8-9-79 Burlington School District Nathaniel Moore, Superintendent

APPENDIX VII

Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary

Steering and Technical Committee Members

PADILLA BAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY
STEERING COMMITTEE

Joseph R. Blum, Area Manager Bill Malseedo Manager
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Shell Oil Company - Anacortes Refinery
2625 Pirkmont Lane - Bldg. "A" P. 0. Box 700 -
Olympia, Washington 98502 Anacortes, Washington 98221
Phone: 753-9578 Phone: 293-3111

Helen Engle, President Bud Norris, Chairman
Washington Environmental Council Board of Skagit County Commissioners
4011 Alameda Ave. Skagit County Courthouse
Tacoma , Washington 98466 Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273
Phone: 564-3112 (Home) Phone: 336-9300

Dr. Charles J. Flora, Director John Stone, President
Western Washington State College Washington State Sportsman Council
Shannon Point Marine Studies Center 1221 St. Highway 9
1900 4th Cltar Lake, Washington 98235
Anacortes, Washington 98221 Phone: 856-4774
Phone: 293-6800

Dr. James Ford. President Phil Templeton, Manager
Skagit Valley College Texaco, Inc. - Puget Sound Plant
2405 College Way Marches Point
Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Anacartes, Washington 98221
Phone: 428-1150 Phone: 293-2131

Robert D. Keller, Manager Marvin Wilbur* Executive Director
Port of Anacortes Swonomish Indian Tribal Community
P. 0. Box 279 P. 0. Box 277
Anacortes, Washington 98221 La Conner, Washington 98257
Phone: 293-3134 Phone: 466-3163

Ralph Larson, Director Charles Kiel, Principal
Department of Game Anacortes Middle School
600 North Capitol Way City Councilman, City of Anacortes
Olympia, Washington 98504 City Hal I - 6th & Q Avenue
Phone: 753-5710 Anacortes, Washington 98221 293-2154.

Dr. Dennis Willows, Director
University of Washington -
Friday Harbor Lab.
P. 0. Box 459
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
Phone: 378-2165

PADILLA BAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

John Andrews Ron Knutzen
27124 81st Drive Northwest 752 Samish Point Road
Stanwood, Washington 98292 Bow, Washington 98232
629-4123 766-6526
bState Department of Game Skagit County Commissioners Citizen
Bill Bush Fayette Krause
7150 Cleanwater Lane 43:32 Francis Avenue North, Apt. 8
Olympia, Washington 98504 Seattle, Washington
753-2017 624-9623
State Parks & Recreation The Nature Conservancy
Commission
Claude Lakewold
Glenn Dickinson 101 House Office Bldg.
727 Samish Point Road Olympia, Washington 98504
Bow, Washinqton 98232 753-1022
766-6527 State Office of Financial Management
Skagit County Commissioners Citizen
Jim Monroe
Richard Granstrand 2405 College Way
950 Moorage Way Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273
LaConner, Washington 98257 4213-1267
466-3163 Skagit Valley College
Swinomish Tribal Community
Dr. Carl Nyblade
Tom Mike Henry P. 0. Box 459
1709 Blodgett Road Friday Harbor, Washington 98250
Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 3713-2384
424-3854 U. of W./Friday Harbor Laboratory
Washington Sportsmen Council
Russ Orell
William A. Johnson Skagit Laboratory
Public Lands Building 30:2 Sharon Avenue
Mail Stop QW-21 Industrial Park
Olympia, Washington 98504 Burlington, Washington 98233
753-5326 755-0421
State Dept. of Natural Resources State Dept. of Fisheries

David Kennedy David E. Ortman
Old Capitol Building 4512 University Way N.E.
Olympia, Washington 98504 Seattle, Washington 98105
753-2574 633-1661
Superintendent of Public Instruction Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs

Gary Kline Bob Schofield
2625 Parkmount Lane Sk3git County Courthouse
Olympia, Washington 98502 Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273
753-9440 336-9333 Scan-554-1333
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Skagit County Planning Commission

PADILLA BAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

*'Earl G. Schumacher
P. 0. Box 700
Anacortes, Washington 98221
293-3111 Ext. 234
Shell Oil Company

Sally Van Niel
4404 - 222nd Street S.W.
Mountlake Terrace, Washington 98043
778-7568
Washington Environmental Council

Terence R. Wahl
3041 Eldridge
Bellingham, Washington 98225
733-8255
WWSC/Sundquist Laboratory

Jack Webb
P. 0. Box 622
Anacortes, Washington 98221
293-2131
Texaco Incorporated

Margaret Yeoman
1060 E. Marches Point Road
Anacortes, Washington 98221
336-9305
Skagit County Commissioners Citizen

Rick Sparks
1008 Sth Street
Anacortes, Washington 98221
293-2585
Sparks Smith, Architects

APPENDIX VIII

Partial List of Plants, Marine Invertebrates,

Fishes, Birds, and Mammals of Padilla Bay

Common Name Scientific Name

Division Chrysophyta - Diatoms Arachnodiscus ehrenbergi
Biddulphia alternans
Cheatoceros affinis
Cheatoceros decipiens
Coscinodiscus centralis
Coscinodiscus concinus
Coscinodiscus granii
Ditylum brightwelli
Isthmis nervosa
Melosira moniliformes
Navicula distans
Pleurosigma normanii
Pleurosigma sp.
Rhizosolenia spp.
Tnalassionema mitzschiores
Division Chlorophyta - Green Algae Cladophora sp.
Enteromorpha linza
Enteromorpha sp.
Monostroma fuscum
Monostroma zostericola
Pterochondria woodii
Rhizoclonium sp.
Sea lettuce Ulva lactuca
urospora sp.
Division Phaeophyta - Brown Algae Costaria costata
Ectocarpus sp.
Rockweed Fucus distichus
Fucus sp.
Laminaria saccharina
Laminaria sp.
Bladder kelp Nereocystis leutkeana
Petalonia sp.
Polyneura latissima
Sargassum muticum
Scytosiphon sp.
Division Rhodophyta - Red Algae Botryoglossum farlowianun
Ceramium californicum
Ceramium sp.
Gonimophyllum skottsberg
Gracilariopsis sjoestedti
Odonthalis washingtonensi
Polysiphonia sp.
Laver Porphyra spp.
Tiffaniella snyderae

Compiled from Sylvester and Clogston 1958, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976,
Smith and Benedict 1977, and observations of Washington Department of Game personnel
during this study.

Common Name Scientific Name

Division Lycopodiophyta
Family Selaginellaceae Wallace's selaginella Selaginella wallacei

Division Equisetophyta
Family Equisetaceae Common horsetail Equisetum arvense
Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia

Division Polypodiophyta
Family Polypodiaceae Shield-fern Dryopteris sp.
Gold-back fern Pityrogramma triangularis
Sword-fern Polystichum sp.
Licorice-fern Polypodium glycyrrhiza
Bracken-fern Pteridium aquilinum

Division Pinophyta
Family Cupressaceae Juniper Juniperus scopulorum
Western red cedar Thuja plicata

Family Pinaceae Grand fir Abies grandis
Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis
Shore pine Pinus contorta
Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii

Division Magnoliophyta
Family Salicaceae Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa
Willow Salix spp.
Family Betulaceae Red alder Alnus rubra
Family Fagaceae Garry oak Quercus garryana
Family Urticaceae Stining nettle Urtica dioica
Family Polygonaceae Sheep sorrel Rumex acetosella
Family Chenopodiaceae Fat-Hen Artriplex patula
Pickleweed Salicornia virginica
Family Caryophyllaceae Field chickweed Cerastium arvense
Sandspurry Spergularia sp.
Family Berberidaceae Oregon grape Berberis nervosa
Family Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Field mustard Brassica campestris
Peppergrass Lepidium virginicum var.
menziesii
Family Grossulariaceae Currant Ribes sp.
Foam flower Tiarella trifoliata
Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna
Avens Geum/macrophyllum
Ocean-spray Rolodiscus discolor
Osoberry Osmaronia cerasiformis
Western Crabapple Pyrus nutkana
Nootka rose Rosa nutkana
Clustard wild rose Rosa pisocarpa

Common Name Scientific Name

Family Rosaceae Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor
Evergreen blackberry Rubus discolor
Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus
Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis
Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus
Hard-hack Spiraea douglasii
Family Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Beach pea Lathyrus Japonicus
Scot's broom Cytisus scoparius
Clover Trifolium spp.
Giant vetch Vicia gigantea
Vetch Vicia sp.
Family Celastraceae Mountain-box Pachistima myrsinites
Family Aceraceae Vine maple Acer circinatum
Big-leaf maple Acer macrophyllum
Family Rhamnaceae Cascara Rhamnus purshiana
Family Onagraceae Firewood Epilobium angustifolium
Willow-herb Epilobium sp.
Family Hippuridaceae Mare's-tail Hippuris vulgaris
Family Araliaceae Ivy Hedera helix
Family Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) Queen Anne's lace Daucus carota
Cow-parsnip Heracleum lanatum
Water-parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa
Family Cornaceae Pacific dogwood Cornus nuttallii
Family Ericaceae Pacific madrone Arbutus menziesii
Salal Gaultheria shallon
Pacific rhodobendron Rhododendron macrophylum
Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium
Family Primulaceae Saltwort Glaux maritima
Western starflower Trientalis latifolia
Family Cuscutaceae Salt marsh dodder Cuscuta salina
Family Boraginaceae Seaside amsinckia Amsinckia spectabilis
Family Scrophularia ceae Foxglove Digitalis purpurea
Parentucellia Parentucellia viscosa
Family Plantaginaceae Ribwort Plantago lanceolota
Seaside plantain Plantago maritima
Family Rubiaceae Bedstraw Galium sp.
Family Caprifoliaceae Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa var.
arborescens
Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus
Family Asteraceae (Compositae) Common yarrow Achillea millegolium
False-dandelion Agoseris sp.
Silver bursage Ambrosia chamissonis var.
bipinnatisecta
Pearly-everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea
Coastal mugwort Artemisia suksdorfii
Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Common Name Scientific Name

Family Asteraceae (Compositae) Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare
Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Eriophyllum Eriophyllum lanatum
Gumweed Grindelia integrifolia
Smooth cat's-ear Hypochaeris glabra
Hairy cat's-ear Hypochaeris radicata
Old-man-in-the-spring Senecio vulgaris
Goldenrod Solidago sp.
Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare
Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale
Family Juncaginaceae Seaside arrow-grass Triglochin maritimum
Family Potamogetonaceae Ribbon-lead pondweed Potamogeton epihydrus
Family Ruppiaceae Wideon-grass Ruppia maritima
Family Zosteraceae Eelgrass Zostera marina
Dwarf eelgrass Juncus balticus
Family Juncaceae Baltic rush Juncus effusus
Soft rush Juncus gerardii
Smallflowered woodrush Luzula parviflora
Family Cyperaceae Lyngby's sedge Carex lyngbyei
Bighead sedge Carex macrocephala
Slough sedge Carex obnupta
Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus
Family Poaceae (Graminae) Quack grass Agropyron repens
Bentgrass Agrostis alba
Cheat grass Bromus tectorum
Orchard-grass Dactylis glomerata
Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa
Saltgrass Distichlis spicata
American dunegrass Elymus mollis
Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis
Red fescue Festuca rubra
Velvet-grass Holcus mollis
Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea
Kentucy bluegrass Poa pratensis
Alkaligrass Puccinellia distans
Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora
Family Typhaceae Common cat-tail Typha latifolia
Family Lemnaceae Duckweed Lemna minor
Family Liliaceae Starry Solomon-plume Similacina stellata

Common Name Scientific Name

Phylum cnidaria
Class Hydrozoa
Order Hydroida Sea Fir Abietinaria sp.
Aglaophenia sp.
Orange-striped Jellyfish Gonionemus vertens
Obelia sp.
Sertularella sp.
Class Scyphozoa
Order Stauromedusae Stalked jellyfish Halicystus auricula
Class Anthozoa
Subclass Zoantharia Anthopleura elegantissima
Order Actiniaria Edwardsia sipunculoides
Brooding sea anemone Epiactis prolifera
Tealis sp.
Phylum Ctenophora
Class Tentaculata Sea gooseberry Pleurobrachia bachei

Phylum Platyhelminthes Flatworm Unidentified species

Phylum Nemertea Ribbon worm Unidentified species
Class Anopla
Order Heteronemertea Cerebratulus californiensi
Class Enopla
Order Hoplonemertea Amphiporus bimaculatus
Emplectonema gracile
Restless worm Paranemertes peregrina

Phylum Nematoda Unidentified species

Phylum Mollusca
Class Amphineura
Subclass Polyphacophora Mossy chiton Mopalia muscosa
Class Gastropoda
Subclass Prosobranchia Assiminea californica
Turret snail Batillaria attramentaria
Bittium sp.
Blue top shell Calliostoma ligatum
Cecina manchurica
Finger limpet Collisella digitalis
Shield limpet Collisella pelta
Hooked slipper shell Crepidula adunca
Slipper shell Crepidula sp.

1 Compiled from Sylvester and Clogston 1958, Goodwin 1974, Smith and Benedict 1977,
Webber unpublished data, and observation of Washington Department of Game personnel
during this study.

Common name Scientific Name

keyhole limpet Diodora aspera
Chink shell Lacuna variegata
Sitka perivinkle Littorina sitkana
Checkered perivinkle Littorina scutuqlata
margarite snail Margarites pupillus
Basket shell Nassarius fraterculus
Large variegated limpet notoacmea person
Plate limpet Notoacmea scutum
Japanese oyster drill Ocenebra Japonica
Wrinkled thais Thais lamellosa
Limpet Unidentified sp.
Subclass opisthobranchia
Order Anaspidea phyllaplysia taylori
Order Cephalaspidea Aglaja diomedea
Bubble shell Haminoea sp.
Cylichna sp.
Retusa harpa
Order nudibranchia
Suborder Eolqidacea Opalescent nudibranch Hermissenda crassqicornis
Suborder Doridacea Unidentified sp
Subclass Pulmonata Phytia (Ovatella) myosotis
Class Bivalvia Sculptured nut clam Acila castrensis
Axinopsida serricata
Heart cockle Clinocardium nuttallii
Clinocardium sp.
Japanese oyster Crassostrea gigas
Crenella sp.
Cryptomya californica
Lucinoma sp.
Lyonsia californica
Dipper clam Lyonsia striata
Macoma balthica
Polluted macoma Macoma inquinata
Bent-nosed clam Macoma nasuta
Macoma obliqua
Sand clam Macoma secta
Eastern soft-shell clam Mya arenaria
Blunt soft-shell clam Mya truncata
Mysella tumida
Blue mussel Mytilus edulis
Nucula tenuis
Nuculana hamata
nuculana minuta
Rock oyster Pododesmus macroschisma

Common Name Scientific Name

Native littleneck clam Protothaca staminea
Protothaca sp.
Psephidia lordi
Washington clam Saxidomus giganteus
Jackknife clam Solen sicarius
Japanese littleneck clam Tapes japonica
White tellen Tellina modesta
Telling sp.
Transennella tantilla
Horse clam Tresus capax
Yoldia thraciaeformis

Phylum Annelida
Class Polychaeta
Family Ampharetidae Amohareta arctica
Family Aphroditdae Unidentified sp.
Family Arenicolidae Lugworm Abarenicola pacifica
Rough-skinned lugworm
Abarenicola claparedii
Family Capitellidae Capitella capitata
Capitella sp.
Notomastus tenuis
Notomastus sp.
Mediomastus sp.
Family Cirrqatulidae Chaetozone setosa
Chaetozone sp.
Unidentified sp.
Family Dorvilleidae Dorvillea annulata
Protodorvillea gracilis
Family Glyceridae Glycera americana
Glycera sp.
Iridescent worm Hemipodus borealis
Family Goniadidae Glycinde picta
Family Hesionidae Gyptis brevipalpa
Ophiodromus pugettensis
Family Lumbrineridae Lumbrineris latreilli
Family Maldanidae Bamboo worm Axiothella rubrocincta
Maldane glebiflex
Euclymene zonalis
Family Nephyidae Kephtys caeca
Nephytys ciliata
Family Nereidae Clam worm Nereis brandti
Platynereis bicanaliculat
Family Onuphidae OnuRhis elegans
Unidentified sp.

Common Name Scientific Name

Family Terebellidae Amphitrite cirrata
Eupolymnia heterobranchia
Pista sp.
Polycirrus kerguelenensis
Class Oligochaeta Unidentified sp.

Phylum Priapulida Priapulus caudatus

Phylum Sipuncula Golfingia pugettensis
Siphonoscma ingens
Unidentified sp.

Phylum Arthropods
Class Crustacea
Subclass Brancbiopoda
Order Cladocera Podon sp.
Subclass Ostracoda Unidentified sp.
Subclass Copepoda Microsetella norvegica
Order Calanoida
Acartia clausi
Calanus finmarchicus
Microcalanus pusillus
Pseudocalanus minutus
Order Harpacticoida Harpacticus spp.
Order Cyclopoida Corycaeus affinis
Order Monstrilloida Unidentified sp.
Subclass Cirripedia
Order Thoracica Horse barnacle Balanus cariosus
Balanus crenatus
Acorn barnacle Balanus g1andula
Subclass Malacostraca
Superorder Phyllocarida
Order Leptostraca Nebalia sp.
Superorder Peracarida
Order Cumacea Diastylis sp.
0xvurostylis sp.
Order Tanaidacea Leptochelia savignyi
Leptocbelia sp.
Pancolus californiensis
Unidentified sp.
Order Isopoda
Suborder Valvifera Eelgrass isopod Idotea aculeata
Idotea fewkesi
Idotea resecata
Idotea rufescens

Common Name Scientific Name

Olive green isopod Idotea wosnesenskii
Snyidotea angulata
Snyidotea bicuspida
Suborder Antburidea Parantbura elegans
Suborder Flabellifera Oregon pill bug Gnorimosphaeroma oregonens
Order Amphipoda
Suborder Hyperiidea Unidentified sp.
Suborder Gammaridea Ampelisca puqgettica
Ampithoe lacertosa
Ampithoe valida
Anisogammarus confervicolv
Anisogammarus pugettensis
Aoroides columbiae
Corophium sp.
Hyale frequens
Iscbrocerus anquipes
Melita dentata
Beach hopper Orchestia transkiana
Orchomene sp.
Parallorchestes ocbotensis
Photis brevipes
Photis sp.
Pontogenia sp.
Protomedia sp.
Corophid Unidentified sp.
Gammarid Unidentified sp.
Lysianassid Unidentified sp.
Phoxocephalid Unidentified spp.
Suborder Caprellidea Skelton shrimp Caprella leviuscula
Metacaprella anomala
Metacaprella kennerlyi
Unidentified sp.
Superorder
Order Decapoda
Suborder Natantia
Section Caridea
Family Crangonidae Gray shrimp Crangon nigricanda
Sclerocrangon alata
Family Hippolytidae Unidentified sp.

-Common Name Scientific Name

Suborder Reptantia
Section Astacura
Superfamily Thallassinoidea Ghost shrimp Callianassa californiensis
Mud shrimp upogebia pugettensis
Section Anomura
Superfamily Galatheoidea Porcelain crab Petrolisthes eriomerus
Superfamily Paguroidea Hermit crab Pagurus granosimanus
Hairy hermit crab Pagurus hirsutiusculus
Pagurus kennerlyi
Section Brachyura
Subsection Brachygnatha
Infrasubsection Oxyrhyncha Decorator crab Oregonia gracilis
Spider crab Puqettis gracilis
Kelp crab Pugettia producta
Infrasubsection Brachyrhyncha
Dungeness crab Cancer magister
Red rock crab Cancer productus
Purple shore crab Hemigrapsus nudus
Green shore crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis
Pinnixa occidentalis
Pinnixa schmitti
Burrow crab Pinnixa tubicola
Helmet crab Telmessus cheiregonus

Phylum Bryozoa Unidentified sp.

Phylum Brachiopoda Lamp shell Terebratalia transversa

Phylum Echinodermata
Class Ophiuroidea Amphiodia urtica
Diamphiodia periercta
Unidentified sp.
Class Asteroidea Blood star Henricia leviuscula
Six-rayed sea star Leptasterias hexactis
Pisaster ochraceus
Sunflower star Pycnopodia helianthoides
Class Echinoidea Green sea urchin Strongvlocentrotus
droebachiensis
Class Holothuroidea Red sea cucumber Cucumaria miniata
White sea cucumber Eupentacta quinguesemita
Leptosynapta sp.

Phylum Chaetognatha Arrow worm Sagitta elegans

Common Name Scientific Name

Phylum Chordata
Subphylum Urochordata
Class Larvacea Oikopleura sp.
Class Ascidiacea Hairy sea squirt Boltenia villosa
Broad base sea squirt Cnemidocarpa finmarkiensis
Warty sea squirt Pvura haustor

Common Name Scientific Name

Family Pholidae Penpoint gunnel Apodichthys flavidus.
Crescent gunnel Pholis laeta
Saddleback gunnel Pholis ornata
Family Ammodytidae Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexapterus
Order Scorpaeniformes
Family Scorpaenidae Yellow rockfish Sebastes flavidus
Sharpchin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus
Family Hexagrammidae Lingeod Ophiodon elonratus
Family Cottidae Padded sculpin Artedius fenestralis
Silverspotted sculpin Blepsias cirrhosus
Buffalo sculpin Enophrys bison
Soft sculpin Gilbertidia sigalutes
Pacific staghorn sculpin Leptocottus armatus
Great sculpin Myoxocephalus
polyacanthocephalus
Sailfin sculpin Nautichthys oculofasciatus
Tadpole sculpin Psychrolutes paradoxus
Grunt sculpin Phamphocottus richardsoni
Ribbed sculpin Triglops pingeli
Family Agonidae Sturgeon poacher Agonus acipenserinus
Smooth alligator fish Anoplagonus inermis
Tubenose poacher Pallasina barbata aix
Family Cyclopteridae Pacific spiny lumpsucker Eumicrotremus orbis
Spotted snailfish Liparis callyodon
Tidepool snailfish Liparis florae
Order Pleuronectiformes
Family Bothidae Speckled sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus
Family Pleuronectidae Arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias
Rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata
Slender sole Lyopsetta exilis
Dover sole Microstomus pacificus
English sole Parophrys vetulus
Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus
Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus

Common Name Scientific Name

Class Chondrichthyes
Subclass Elasmobranchii
Order Squaliformes
Family Squalidae Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias
Order Rajiformes Big Skate Raja binoculata
Family Rajidae
Subclass Holocephali
Order Chimaeriformes
Family Chimaeridae Ratfish Hydrolagus colliei

Class Osteichthyes
Order Clupeiformes
Family Clupeidae Pacific herring Clupea harengus pallasi

Family Engraulidae Northern anchovy Engraulis mordax mordax
Order Salmoniformes Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Family Salmonidae Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch
Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Coastal cutthroat trout Salmo clarki clarki
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma
Family Osmeridae Surf smelt Hypomesus pretiosus pretios
Longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys
Order Myctophiformes
Family Myctophidae Northern lampfish Stenobrachius leucopsarus
Order Gobiesociformes
Family Gobiesocidae Northern clingfish Gobiesox maeandricus
Order Gadiformes
Family Gadidae Pacific tomcod Microgadus Proximus
Family Ophidiidae Red brotula Brosmopbycis marginata
Family Zoarcidae Blackbelly eelpout Lycodopsis Pacifica
Order Gasterosteiformes
Family Gasterosteidae Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus
Family Syngnathidae Bay pipefish Syngnathus griseolineatus
Order Perciformes Shiner perch Cymatogaster aggregata
Family Embiotocidae
Family Trichodontidae Pacific sandfish Trichodon trichodon
Family Stichaeidae Snake prickleback Lumpenus sagitta
Bluebarred prickleback Plectobranchus evides
Black prickleback Xiphister atropurpureus

1 Compiled from Sylvester and Clogston 1958, DeLacey and Miller 1972, Miller et al. unpub-
lished data.
2 Nomenclature after Hart 1973.

Common Name Scientific Name
Family Pholidae Penpoint gunnel Apodichthys flavidus
Crescent gunnel Pholis laeta
Saddleback gunnel pholis ornata
Family Ammodytidae Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexapterus
Order Scorpaeniformes
:Family Scorpaenidae Yellow rockfish Sebastes flavidus
Sharpchin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus
Family Hexagrammidae Lingcod Ophiodon elonratus
Family Cottidae Padded sculpin Artedius fenestralis
Silverspotted sculpin Blepsias cirrhosus
Buffalo sculpin Enophrys bison
Soft sculpin Gilbertidia sigalutes
Pacific staghorn sculpin Leptocottus arratus
Great sculpin Myoxocephalus
polyacanthocephalus
Sailfin sculpin Nautichthys oculofasciatus
Tadpole sculpin psychrolutes paradoxus
Grunt sculpin Phamphocottus richardsoni
Ribbed sculpin Triglops pinqeli
Family Agonidae Sturgeon poacher Agonus acipenserinus
Smooth alligator fish Anoplagonus inermis
Tubenose poacher pallasina barbata aix
Family Cyclopteridae Pacific spiny lumpsucker Eumicrotremus orbis
Spotted snailfish Liparis callyodon
Order Pleuronectiformes Tidepool snailfish Liparis florae
Family Bothidae
Family Pleuronectidae Speckled sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus
Arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias
Rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata
Slender sole Lyopsetta exilis
Dover sole Microstomus pacificus
English sole Parophrys vetulus
Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus
Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus

Common Name Scientific Name

Common Loon Gavia immer
Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii
Artic loon Gavia arctica
Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata
Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena
Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus
Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis
Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis
Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps
Double crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus
Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus
Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Green heReron Butorides virescens
Great Egret Casmerodius albus
Black crowned Night Eeron Eycticorax nycticorax
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus
Whistling Swan Olor columbianus
Trumpeter Swan. Olor buccinator
Canada Goose Branta canadensis
Black Brant Branta bernicla
White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons
Snow Goose Chen caerulescens
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Gadwall Anas strepera
Pintail Anas acuta
Green winged Teal Anas crecca
Blue-Winged Teal Anas discors
Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera
Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata
Wood Duck Aix sponsa
Redhead Aythya americana
Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris
Canvasback Aytha valisineria
Greater Scaup Aythya marila
Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula
Barrow's Golden eye Bucephala islandica

1 Complied from Jeffery 1976,Lavers 1975,Lavers,1972-1975,Anderson,
Fackler and Franklin 1977 with revisions by Steven Sweeney, 1978.

Common Name Scientific Name

Bufflebead Bucepbala albeola
Oldsquav Clangula hyemalis
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus
White winged Scoter Melanitta deglandi
Surf Scoter Melanitta pericillata
Black Scoter Melanitta nigra
Buddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis
Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus
Common Merganser Mergus merganser
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator..
Turkey Vulture. Cathartes aura
Goshawk Accipiter gentilis
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneus
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Gryfalcon Falco rusticolus
Prairie Falcon Falco mixicanus
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
Merlin Falco columbarius
American Kestrel Falco sparverius

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus
California Quail Lophortyx californicus
Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis
Virginia Rail RallAs limicola
Sora Porzana carolina
American Coot Fulica americana
Black Oystercatcber Haematopus bachmani
Semi palmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica
Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola
Surfbird Aphriza virgata
Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres
Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala
Common Snipe Capella gallinago
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia
Solitary Sandpipe Tringa solitaria
Wandering Tattler Heteroscelus incanus
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Common Name Scientific Name
Family Opheliidae Armandia brevis
Family Orbinidae Haploscolophos elongatus
Nainereis sp.
Scoloplos armiger
Scoloplos pugettensis
Family Oweniidae Myriochele oculata
Owenia fulsiformis
Family Paraonidae Aricidea sp.
Family Phyllodocidae Eteone longa
Eteone sp.
Eulalia sanguinea
Eulalia sp.
Phyllodoce maculata
Phyllodoce sp.
Family Polynoidae Harmothoe imbricata
Harmothoe sp.
Lepidonotus squamatus
Unidentified sp.
Family Sabellidae Chone infundibuliformis
Fabricia sabella oregonica
Potamilla neglecta
Plume worm Pseudopotamilla reniformis
Unidentified sp.
Family Scalibregmidae Scalibregma inflatum
Family Serpulidae Calcareous tube worm Serpula vermicularis
Unidentified sp.
Family Sigalionidae Pholoe minuta
Unidentified sp.
Family Spionidae Boccardia sp.
Polydora californica
Polydora ligni
Polydora sp.
Prionospio cirrifera
Prionospio pinnata
Prionospio steenstrupi
Pseudopolydora kempi japor
Scolelepsis foliosa
Scolelepsis sp.
Spio filicornis
Spiophanes bombyx
Spiophanes cirrata
Unidentified sp.
Family Sternaspidae Sea grub Sternasis foss0r
Family Syllidae Exogone sp.
Syllis sp.

Common Scientific Name

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
Red Knot Calidris canutus
Rock Sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos
Baird's Sandpiper- Calidris bairdii,
Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla
Dunlin Calidris alpina
Sbort-billed Dowitcber Limnodromus griseus
Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus
Stilt Sandpiper Micropalama himantopus
Semipalmated Sandpiper---- Calidris pusillus
Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
Sanderling Calidris alba
Wilson's Phalarope Steganopus tricolor
Northern Phalarope Lonines 1abatus
Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus
Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus
Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens
Western Gull Larus occidentalis
Herring Gull Larus argentatus
Thayer's Gull Larus thayeri
California Gull Larus californicus
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis
Mew Gull Larus canus
Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan
Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia
Heermann's Gull Larus heermanni
Common Tern SternA hirundo
Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia
Common Murre Uria aalge
Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratum
Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquum
Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocerata
Tufted Puffin Lunda cirrhata
Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata
Rock Dove Columba livia
Mourning Dove Zenaidura macroura
Barn Owl Tyto alba
Screech Owl Otus asio
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus
Snowy Owl Nyctea scandia
Py gmy Owl Glaucidium gnoma

Common Name Scientific Name

Long-eared Owl Asio otus
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus
Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus
Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor
Black Swift Cyoseloides niger
Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi
Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon
Common Flicker Colaptes auratus
Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus
Lewis' Woodpecker Asyndesmus lewis
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Syphyrepicus varius
Hairy Woodpecker Dendrocopos villosus

Downy Woodpecker Dendrocodos pubescens
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus
Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis
Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii
Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii
Western Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis
Western Wood Pewee Contopus sordidulus
Olive-sided Flycatcher Nuttallornix borealis
Horned Lark Eremophila alvestris
Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina
Tree Swallow Iridoprocne bicolor
Bank Swallow Riparia riparia
Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx ryfucillis
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica
Cliff Swallow Petrochenlidon pyrrhonota
Purple Martin Progne subis
Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis
Steller's Jay Cyanacitta stelleri
Common Raven Corvus corax
Common Crow Corvus brachyrhynches
Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana
Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus
Mountain Chickadee Parus gambeli
Chestnut-backed Chickadee Parus rufrescens
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus
Red-brested Nuthatch Sitta canadensis
Brown Creeper Certhia familiaris
Dipper Cinclus mexicanus
House Wren Troglodytes aedon
Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes
Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii
Long-Billed Marsh Wren Telmatodytes palustris

Common Name Scientific Name

Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
American Robin Turdus migratoriusEatorius
Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius
Hermit Thrush Hylocichla guttata
Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulata
Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides
Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi
Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor
Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Hutton's Vireo Vireo huttoni
Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius
Red-eyed Vireo Vireao olivaceus
Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus
Orange-crowned Warbler Dendroica townsendi
Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petchia
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata
Black-throated Cray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens
Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi
MacGillivray's Warbler Cporornis tolmiei
Common Yellow-throat Geothlypis trichas
Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla
House Sparrow Passer domesticus
Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta
Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus Manthocephalus
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoenicius
Northern Oriole Icterus galbula
Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater
Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana
Black-beaded Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus
Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena
Evening Grosbeak Hesperiobona vespertina
Purple Finch Carodacus,purmureus
House Finch Carodacus mexicanus,
Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator
Gray-crowned Rosy Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis
Fine Siskin Spinus pinus
American Goldfinch Spinus tristis
Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra

Common Name Scientific Name

Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophtbalmus
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandvicbensis
Dark-eye Junco Junco hyemalis
Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea
Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina
Brewer's Sparrow Spizella pallida
Barris' Sparrow Zonotricbia querula
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotricbia atricaoilla
White-throated Sparrow Zonotricbia albicollis
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca
Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii
Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus
Snow Bunting Plectropenax nivalis

Common Name Scientific Name

Family Pholidae Penpoint gunnel Apodichthys flavidus
Crescent gunnel Pholis laeta
Saddleback gunnel Pholis ornata
Family Ammodytidae Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexaterus
Order Scorpaeniformes
Family Scorpaenidae Yellow rockfisb Sebastes flavidus
Sharpchin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus
Family Hexagrammidae Lingcod 0phiodon elongatus
Family Cottidae Padded sculpin Artedius fenestralis
Silverspotted sculpin Blepsias cirrhosus
Buffalo sculpin Enophrys bison
Soft sculpin Gilbertidia sigalutes
Pacific staghorn sculpin Leotocottus armratus
Great sculpin Myoxocephalus
polyacanthocephalus
Sailfin sculpin Nautichthys oculofasciatus
Tadpole sculpin Psychrolutes Daradoxus
Grunt sculpin Phamphocottus paradoxus
Ribbed sculpin Triglops pingeli
Family Agonidae Sturgeon poacher Agpmis ecipenserinus
Smooth alligator fish Anoplagonus inermis
Tubenose poacher Pallasoma barbata aix
Family Cyclopteridae Pacific spiny lumpsucker Eumicrotremus orbis
Spotted snailfish Liparis callyodon
Tidepool snailfish Liparis florae
Order Pleuronectiformes
Family Bothidai Speckled sanddab Citbarichthys stigmaeus
Family Pleuronectidae Arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias
Rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata
Blender sole Lyopsetta exilis
Dover sole Microstomus pacificus
English sole Parophrys vetulus
Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus
Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus

Common Name Scientific Name

Class Osteichthyes
Order Clupeiformes
Family Clupeidae Pacific herring Clupea harengus pallasi

Family Engraulidae Northern anchovy Engraulis mordax mordax
Order Salmoniformes Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Family Salmonidae Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta
Coho salmon Oncorbynchus kisutch
Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka
Chinook salmon Oncorbynchus tshawytscba
Coastal cutthroat trout Salmo clarki clarki
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma
Family Osmeridae Surf smelt Hypomesus pretiosus pretios
Longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys
Order Gobiesociformes
Family Gobiesocidae Northern lampfisb Stenobrachius leucorsarus
Order Gobiesociformes
Family Goblesocidae Northern clingfish Gobiesox maeandricus
Order Gadiformes
Family Gadqidae Pacific tomcod, Microgadus proximus
Family Ophidiidae Red brotula Brosmophycis marginata
Family Zoarcidae Blackbelly eelpout Lycodopsis pacific&
Order Gasterosteiformes
Family Gasterosteidae Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus
Family Syngnathidae Bay pipefish Syngnathus griseolineatus
Order Perciformes Shiner perch Cymatogaster aggregata.
Family Embiotocidae
Family Trichodontidae Pacific sandfisb Trichodon trichodon
Family Stichaeidae Snake prickleback lumpenus sagitta
Bluebarred prickleback Plectobranchus evides
Black prickleback XiPhister atropurposes

1 Compiled from Sylvester and Clogston 1958, DeLacey and Miller 1972, Miller et al. unpu
lished data.
2 Nomenclature after Hart 1973.

Common Name Scientific Name

Family Pholidae Penpoint gunnel Apdicbtbys flavidus.
Crescent gunnel Pholis laeta
Saddleback gunnel Pholis ornata
Family Ammodytidae Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexapterus
Order Scorpaeniformes
Family Scorpaenidae Yellow rockfish Sebastes flavidus
Sharpcbin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus
Family Hexagrammidae Lingcod 0phiodon eonratus
Family Cottidae Padded sculpin Artedius fenestralis
Silverspotted sculpin Blepsias cirrhosus
Buffalo sculpin Enophrys bison
Soft sculpin Gilbertidia sigalutes
Pacific staghorn sculpin Leptocottus armatus
Great sculpin Myoxocephalus
polyacantbocephalus
Sailfin sculpin Nauticbthys oculofasciatus
Tadpole sculpin Psycbrolutes paradoxus
Grunt sculpin Phamhocottus richardsoni
Ribbed sculpin Triglos pingeli
Family Agonidae Sturgeon poacher Agonus acidenserinus
Smooth alligator fish Anoplagonus inermis
Tubenose poacher Pallasina barbata aix
Family Cyclopteridae Pacific spiny lumpsucker Eumicrotremus orbis
Spotted snailfish Liparis callyodon
Tidepool snailfish Liparis florae
Order Pleuronectiformes
Family Bothidae Speckled snailfish Citharichthtys stignaeus
Family Pleuronectidae Arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias
Rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata
Slender sole Lyopsetta exilis
Dover sole Microstomus pacificus
English sole Parophrys vetulus
Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus
Sand sole Psetticbthys melanostictus

Common Name Scientific Name

Phylum Chordata
Subphylum Urochordata
Class Larvacea Oikopleura sp.
Class Ascidiacea Hairy sea squirt Boltenia villosa
Broad base sea squirt Cnemidocarpa finmarkiensis
Warty sea squirt Pyura haustor

Common Name Scientific Name

Suborder Reptantia
Sectionstacura
Superfamily Thallassinoidea Ghost shrimp Callianasse californiensis
Mud shrimp Upogebia pagettensis
Section Anomura
Superiamily Galatbeoidea Porcelain crab Petrolistbes eriomerus
Superfamily Paguroidea Hermit crab Pagurus granosimanus
Hairy hermit crab Pagrurus hirsutiusculus
Paurus kennerlyi
Section Bracbyura
Subsection Bracbygnatha
Infrasubsection Oxyrhyncha Decorator crab Oregonia gracilis
Spider crab Pugettis gracilis
Kelp crab Pugettia, producta
Infrasubsection Bracbyrhyncha
Dungeness crab Cancer magister
Red rock crab Cancer productus
Purple shore crab Hemigrapsus nudus
Green shore crab Hemigradsus oregonensis
Pinnixa occidentalis
Pinnixa schmitti
Burrow crab Pinnixa tubicola
Helmet crab Telmessus cheiragonus

Phylum Bryozoa Unidentified sp.

Phylum Brachiopoda Lamp shell. Terebratalia transversa

Phylum Ecbinodermata
Class Opbiuroidea Amohiodia urticqa
Diamphiodia Deriercta
Unidentified sp.
Class Asteroidea Blood star Henricia leviuscula
Six-rayed sea star Leptasterias hexactis
Pisaster ocbraceus
Sunflower star Pycnopodia beliantboides
Class Echinoidea Green sea urchin Strongvlocentrotus
droebachiensis
Class Holothuroidea Red sea cucumber Cucumaria miniata
White sea cucumber Euoentacta ouingesemita
Leptosymapta sp.

Phylum Chaetognatha Arrow worm Sagitta elegans

Common Name Scientific Name

Olive green isopod Iotea vosnesenskii*
Snyidotea angulata
Snyidotea bicuspida
Suborder. Antburidea Parantbura elegans
Suborder Flabellifera Oregon pill bug Gnorimospbaeroma oregonens
Order Amphipoda
Suborder Hyperiidea Unidentified sp.
Suborder Gammaridea Ampelisca Dugettica
Ampithoe lacertosa
Ampithoe valida
Anisogammarus confervicolt
Anisogammarus Pugettensis
Aoroides columbiae
Corophium sp.
Hyale frecuens
Ischrocerus ancuipes
Melita dentata
Beach hopper Orcbestia transkiana
Orchomene sp.
Parallorchestes ochotensii
Paraphoxus sp.
Photis brevipes
Photis sp.
Pontogenia sp.
Protomedia sp.
Corophid Unidentified sp.
Gammarid Unidentified sp.
Lysianassid Unidentified sp.
Phoxocephalid Unidentified spp.
Suborder Caprellidea Skelton shrimp Caprella leviuscula
Metacarrella anomala
Metacaprella kennerlyi
Unidentified sp.
Superorder
Order Decapoda
Suborder Natantia
Section Caridea
Family Crangonidae Gray shrimp Crangon nigricanda
Sclerocrangon alata
Family Hippolytidae Unidentified sp.

Common Name Scientific Name

Family Terebellidae Amphitrite cirrata
Eupolymnia heterobranchia
Pista sp.
Polycirrus kerguelenensis
Class Oligocbaeta Unidentified sp.

Phylum Priapulida Priapulus caudatus

Phylum Sipuncula Golfingia pugettensis
Siphonosoma ingens
Unidentified sp.

Phylum Arthropoda
Class Crustacea
Subclass Branchiopoda
Order Cladocera Podon sp.
Subclass Ostracoda Unidentified sp.
Subclass Copepoda Microsetella norvegica
Order Calanoida Acartia clausi
Calanus finmarchicus
Microcalanus pusillus
Pseudocalanus minutus
Order Harpacticoida Harpacticus spp.
Order Cyclopoida Corycaeus affinis
Order Monstrilloida Unidentified sp.
Subclass Cirripedia
Order Thoracica horse barnacle. Balanus cariosus
Balanus crenatus
Acorn barnacle Balanus glandula
Subclass Malacostraca
Superorder Phyllocarida
Order Leptostraca Nebalia sp.
Superorder Peracarida
Order Cumacea Diastylis sp.
Oxyurostylis sp.
Order Tanaidacea Leptochelia savignyi
Leptocbelia sp.
Pancolus californiensis
Unidentified sp.
Order Isopoda
Suborder Valvifera Eelgrass isopod Idotea aculeata
Idotea fewkesi
Idotea resecata
Idotea rufescens

Common Name Scientific Name

Order Marsupiala
Family Didelphidae Virginia opossum Didelphis virginina

Order Insectivora
Family Soricidae Vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans

Order Lagomorpha
Family Leporidae Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Order Rodentia
Family Sciuridae Douglas' squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii
Family Castoridae Beaver Castor canadensis
Family Cricetidae
Subfamily Microtinae Townsend's vole Microtus townsendii
Muskrat ondatra zibethicus

Order Carnivora
Family Canidae Coyote Canis latrans
Red fox Vulpes vulpes
Family Procyonidae Raccoon Procyon lotor
Family Mustelidae Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis
River otter Lutra canadensis

Order Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae Harbor seal Phoco vitulina

Order Artiodactyla
Family Cervidae Black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus
columbianus

1 Compiled from observations of tracks and droppings, mammal sightings and
conversations with local people at Padilla Bay.
2 Nomenclature after Jones et al. 1975.

APPENDIX IX

Regulations and Policies Related to Padilla Bay

Chapter 90.58 RCW
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971

Sections 90.58.290 Restrictions as affecting fair market value of
90.58.010 Short title. property.
90.58.020 Legislative findings-----State policy anunciated-- 90.58.300 Department as regulating state agency----Special
Use preference. authority.
90.58.030 Definitions and concepts. 90.58.310 Designation of shorelines of state-wide significance
90.58.040 Program applicable to shorelines of the state. by legislature---Recommendation by director,
90.58.050 Program as cooperative between local government procedure.
and state---Responsibilities differentiated. 90.58.320 Height limitation respecting permits.
90.58.060 Timetable for adoption of initial guidelines---Public 90.58.330 Study of shorelines of cities and towns submitted to
bearings, notice of legislature ---- Scope.
90.58.070 Local governments to submit letters of intent--- 90.58.340 Use policies for land adjacent to shorelines, develop-
Department to act upon failure of local government. ment of.
90.58.080 Timetable for local governments to complete shore- 90.58.350 Nonapplication to treaty rights.
line inventories and master programs. 90.58.360 Existing requirements for permits, certificates. etc,.
90.50.090 Approval of master program or segments thereof, not obviated.
wben Departmental alternatives when shorelines 90.58.900 Liberal construction----1971 ex.s. c 286.
of state-wide significance---Later adoption of 90.58.910 Severability---1971 ex.s. c 286.
master program supersedes departmental program. 90.58.920 Effective date---1971 ex.s. c 286.
90.58.100 Programs as constituting use regulations---Duties 90.58.930 Referendum to the people----1971 ex.s. c 286.
when preparing programs and amendments Determining if act continues in force and effect.
thereto---Program contents. Marine oil. pollution--Baseline study program: RCW 43.21A.405-
90.58.110 Development a program within two or more adjacent 43.21A.420.
local government jurisdictions,--Development of
program in segments, when.
90.58.120 Adoption of rules, programs, etc., subject to RCW
34.04.025----Public hearings, notice of---Public RCW 90.58.010 Short title. This chapter shall be
inspection after approval or adoption. known and may be cited as the "Shoreline Management
90.58.130 Involvement of all persons and entities having inter- Act of 1971". {1971 ex.s. c 286 � 1.}
est, means.
90.58.140 Development permits---Grounds for granting----
Administration by local government, conditions---
Applications----Notices---Rescission---When RCW 90.58.020 Legislative findings---State policy
permits not required---Approval when permit for enunciated---Use preference. The legislature finds that
variance or conditional use. the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable
90.58.145 Substantial development permit ---Structures at and fragile of its natural resources and that there is
temporary ferry terminals--Hood Canal
bridge---Removal of structures. great concern throughout the state relating to their uti-
90.58.150 Selective commercial timber cutting, when. lization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In ad-
90.58.160 Prohibition against surface drilling for oil or gas, dition it rinds that ever increasing pressures of additional
where. uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating in-
90.58.170 Shorelines hearings board---Established---Mem-
bers---Chairman---Quorum for decision--- creased coordination in the management and develop-
Expenses of members. ment of the shorelines of the state. The legislature
90.58.180 Rules and regulations. further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and
90.58.180 Appeals from granting,denying or rescinding per- the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership;
mits, procedure---Board to act, when--Local
government appeals to board---Grounds for de- that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or
daring matter program invalid---Appeals to publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best
court, Procedure. public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is
90.58.190 Review and adjustments to master programs. necessary in order to protect the public interest associ-
90.58.200 Rules and regulations.
90.58.210 Court actions to insure against conflicting uses and to ated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same
enforce. time, recognizing and protecting private property rights
90.58.220 General penalty. consistent with the public intcrcst. There is, therefor. a
90.58.230 Violators liable for damages resulting from viola- clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and
tion----Attorney's fees and costs. concerted effort. jointly performed by federal, state, and
90.58.240 Additional authority granted department and local
governments. local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an
90.58.250 Department to cooperate with local governments--- uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's
Grants for development of master programs. shorelines.
90.58.260 State to represent its interest before federal agencies,
interstate agencies and courts. It is the policy of the state to provide for the manage-
90.58.270 Noapplication to certain structures, docks, develop- ment of the shorelines of the state by planning for and
ments, etc., placed in navigable waters---Nonap- fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy
plication to certain rights of action, authority.
90.58.280 Application to all state agencies, counties, public and is designed to insure the development of these shorelines
municipal corporations. in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction

(1979 Laws) [ch.90.58 RCW--p 1]

".58.020 Sborefte Managownt act of 1971

of rights or the public in the navigable waters, will pro. RCW "JU.030 Definitions and concepts. As used
mote and enhance the public interest. This policy con- in this chapter. unless the context otherwise requires, the
templates protecting against adverse effects to the public following definitions and concepts apply:
health. the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the (1) Administration:
waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protect. (a) 'Department' means the department of ecology;
ing generally public rights of navigation and corollary (b) 'Director' means the director of the department
rights incidental thereto. of ecology;
The icgislaturc declarcs that the interest of all of the (e) 'Local government* means any county. incorpo-
people shall be ixiramount in the management of shore. rated city, or town which contains within its boundaries
line5. of state-wide signiflcan"-. The department. in any lands or waters subject to this chapter,
adopting guidelines for shorelines of state-wide signifi- (d) *Person' means an individual, partnership, corpo-
cance. and local government. in developing master pro- ration. association, organization, cooperative. public or
@ r-.ms for shorelines of state-wide significance, shall municipal corporation, or agency of the state or local
give prefennce to uses in the following order of prefer- governmental unit however designated;
encc which: (c) 'Hearing board' means the shoreline hearings
(1) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over board citablishcd by this chapter.
local interest: (2) Geographical:
(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (a) "Extreme low tide' means The lowest line on the
(3) Result in long term over short term benefit; land reached by a receding tide;
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (b) 'Ordinary high water mark' on all takes, streams.
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of and tidal water is that mark that will be found by cx-
thu Aorclincs; &mining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public presence and action of waters are so common and usual.
in the shorceilh.; and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark
i o Pri-vidc for any other element as defined in upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abut-
QCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. ting uptand. in respect to vegetation as that condition
In the implementation of this policy the public's op- exists on June 1. 1971 or as it may naturally change
. it% 14) enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of thereafter: Provi&4 That in any area where the ordi-
naturul. ;i--clincs of the state shall be preserved to the nary hi ;gh water mark cannot be found, the ordinary
greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of
interest of the state and the people generally. To this end mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark
uses shall be preferred which arc consistent with control adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high
of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural en- water;
vironment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the (c) 'Shorelines of the state' are the total of all
state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of 'shorelines' and 'shorelines of state-wide significance"
the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances within the state;
when authorized, shall be given priority for single family (d) 'Shorelines' means all of the water areas of the
Adenccs. ports. shoreline recreational uses including state, including reservoirs, and their associated wetlands,
but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other im- together with the lands underlying them; except (i)
provements facilitating public access to shorelines of the shorelines of state-wide significance; (ii) shorelines on
state. industrial and commercial developments which are segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean
particularly dependent on their location on or use of the annual :now is twenty cubic feet per second or less and
shorelines of the state and other development that will the wetlands associated with such upstream segments;
provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the and (Iii) shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size
people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. and wetlands associated with such small lakes;
Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be (e) *Shorelines of statc-wide significance' means the
designed and conducted in a manner to minimize. inso- following shorelines of the state:
far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and (i) The area between the ordinary high water mark
environment of the shoreline area and any interference and the western boundary of the state from Cape Disap-
with the public's use of the water. 11971 exs. c 286 J 2.1 pointmcnt on the south to Cape Flattery an the north,
OR, :wr's siess: In subsection (7). a literal translation of the session including harbors, bays, estuaries, and inlets;
law'; reference *... section I I of this 1971 act ... * would read *RCW (ii) Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent salt wa-
90.51.110*. The above reference to *RCW 90.58.100* which codirles tcrs and the Strait of Juan de Fuca between the ordinary
section 10 of this act is believed proper in that (1) section 10 Ulu the high wgitcr mark and the line of extreme low tide as
elements includable within the master pmrams while section I I nei. follows:
tber defines nor mentions such elements, and (2) in the course of pa*-
sate of the bill. section 7 was deleted causing old section I I to be (A) Nisqually Delta-from DcWolf Bight to
renumbered section 10. but the above reference was not amended in Tatsolo Point,
consonance with the renumberins. (B) Birch Bay-from Point Whitchorn to Birch
Point,
(C) Hood Canal-from Tala Point to Foulweather
Bluff,

,CL 9048 RCW__p 21 (1979 Laws)

Sbor*Uoe Management ad of 1971 "M.030

(D) Skagit Bay and adjacent area-from Brown together with maps, diagrams, charts or other descrip.
Point to Yokcko Point. and tive material and text, a statement of desired goals and
(E) Padilla Bay-from Mamh Point to William standards developed in accordance with the policies
Point; enunciated in RCW 90.58.020;
(iii) Those areas of Pugct Sound and the Strait of (c) State master prograrn* is the cumulative total of
Juan dc Fuca and adjacent salt waters north to the Ca- all master programs approved or adopted by the dcpart@
nadian line and lying seaward from the line of extreme ment of ecology,
low tide; (d) OlDevelopment 0 means a use consisting of the con-
(iv) Those lakes, whether natural, artificial or a com- struction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging;
bination thereof. with a surface acreage of one thousand drilling; dumping; filling-, removal of any sand, gravel or
acres or more measured at the ordinary high water minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling: placing of ob-
mark: structions; or any project of a permanent or temporary
(v) Those natural rivers or segments thereof as nature which interferes with the normal public use of the
follows: surface of the waters ovcrlying lands subject to this
(A) Any west of the crest of the Cascade range chapter at any state of water level;
downstream of a point where the mean annual flow is . (e) 'Substantial development' shall mean any devcl-
measured at one thousand cubic feet per second or more, opment of which the total cost or fair market value ex-
(B) Any cast of the crest of the Cascade range down- ceeds one thousand dollars, or any development which
stream of a point where the annual flow is measured at materially interferes with the normal public use of the
two hundred cubic feet per second or more, or those water or shorelines of the state; except that the following
portions of rivers cast of the crest of the Cascade range. shall not be considered substantial developments for the
downstream from the first three hundred square miles of purpose of this chapter:
drainage area. whichever is longer, (i) Normal maintenance or repair of existing struc.
(vi) Those wetlands associated with (i), (ii), (iv). and tures or developments, including damage by accident,
(v) of this subsection (2)(c); fire or elements;
in 'Wetlands' or 'wetland areas' means those lands (ii) Construction of the normal protective bulkhead
extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions common to single family residences-,
as,measurcd on a horizontal plane from the ordinary (iii) Emergency construction necessary to protect
high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain property from damage by the elements;
arms landward two hundred feet from such floodways; (iv) Construction and practices normal or necessary
and all marshes. bogs, swamps. and river deltas associ- for farming. irrigation. and ranching' activities. including
ated with the streams, takes, and tidal waters which arc agricultural service roads and utilities an wetlands, and
subject to the provisions of this chapter, the same to be the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures
designated as to location by the department of ecology: including but not limited to head gates, pumping facili-
Provide4 That any county or city may determine that ties. and irrigation channels: Provided, That a feedlot of
portion of a one-hundred-year-flood plain to be in- any size, all processing plants. other activities of a com-
cluded in its master program as long as such portion in- mercial nature, alteration of the contour or the wetlands
cludes. as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent by leveling or filling other than that which results from
land extending landward two hundred feet therefrom; normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or
(S) *Floodway' means those portions of the area of a necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall
river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used
watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during for feeding livestock hay. grain, silage, or other livestock
pcriods of flooding that occur with reasonable regularity. feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or
although not necessarily annually. said floodway being vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing. nor shall
identified, under normal condition. by changes in surface it include normal livestock wintering operations;
soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegeta- (v) Construction or modification of navigational aidb
tive ground cover condition. The floodway shall not in- such as channel markers and anchor buoys;
cludc those lands that can reasonably be expected to be (vi) Construction on wetlands by an owncr, lessee or
protccted from flood waters by flood control devices contract purchaser or a single familv residence for his
Maintained by or maintained under license from the own use or for the use or his family. which residcnce
federal government, the state, or a political subdivision does not exceed a height or ihirty-five feet above aver.
of the state. age grade level and which meets all requirements of the
(3) Procedural terms: state agency or local government having jurisdiction
(a) 'Guidelines* means those standards adopted to thereof. other than requirements imposed pursuant to
implement the policy or this chapter for regulation of this chapter,
use of the shorelines of the state prior to adoption of (vii) Construction of a dock, designed for pleasure
master programs. Such standards shall also provide cri- craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the
tcria to local governments and the department in dcvcl- owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single family
oping master programs, residence. the cost of which does not exceed two thou-
(b) 'Master program' shall mean the comprehensive sand five hundred dollars;
use plan for a described area, and the use regulations (viii) Operation, maintenance, or construction of ca-
nals, waterways. drains.- reservoirs. or other facilities

(1979 Laws) [Ch. ".53 RCIA'-p 3,1

Sh"I"t Management act cif 1971

that now exist or are hereafter crcutcd or developed as a governments. the department. after review and consider.
part of an irrigation s)stern for the primary purpose of ation ofthe comments and suggestion& submitted to it.
making use of system waters. including return flow and shall ra;ubmit final proposed guidelines.
artificially stared ground water for the irrigation of (4) Within sixty days thereafter public hearings shall
lands. be held by the department in Olympia and Spokane, at
(ix) The marking of property lines or corners on state which interested public and private parties shall have the
ow-%.,d lands. when such marking does not significantly opportunity to present statements and views on the pro-
intcrtcre with normal public use of the surface of the posed guidelines. Notice of such hearings shall be pub-
water, lished at least once in each of the three weeks.
(x) Operation and maintenance of any system of immediately preceding the hearing in one or more news-
dikes. ditches, drains. or other facilities existing on Sep- papers of general circulation in each county of the state.
tember 8. 1975. which were created. developed, or uti- (5) Within ninety days following such public hearings,
I zed primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or the department at a public hearing to be held in
diking system. . Olyrripia shall adopt guidelines. 11971 ex.s. c 286 J 6.1
(xi) Any action commenced prior to February 13.
1981, pertaining to the restoration of interim transpor-
tation services as may be necessary as a consequence of RCMF ".58.070 Local governments to submit letters
tK; destruction of the Hood Canal bridge. including. but of 'Intent Department to act upon failure of local
not limited to. improvements to highways. development government. (1) Local governments are directed with re-
of park and ride facilities. and development of ferry ter- gard to, shorelines or the state in their various jurisdic-
minul fucilitics until a new or reconstructid Hood Canal tions ta, submit to the director of the department. within
btltlgc is urvit to truffic. 11979 Ist cx.s. c 84 J 3; 1975 six months from June 1. 1971, letters stating that they
Ist vx.s. c!182 1 1; 1973 Isf ex.s. c 203 1; 1971 ex.s. c propose: to complete an inventory and develop master
286 .4 3.1 programs for these shorelines as provided for in RCW
Intent-1979 Ist ex.L e Sk See note foltawing RCW 43.21C.032. 90.58.080.
(2) It any local government fails to submit a letter as
provided in subsection (1) of this section, or fails to
C%%' 90.58.040 Program applicable to shorelines of adopt a master program for the shorelines of the state
the state. I'he shoreline management program of this within its jurisdiction in accordance with the time
chapter shall apply to the shorelines of the state as de- schedule provided in this chapter, the department shall
rined ;n this chapter. [1971 ex.s. c 286 J 4.1 carry out the requirements of RCW 90.58.080 and adopt
a master program for the shorelines of the state within
the jurisdiction of the local government. 11971 ex.s. c
RCW 90.58.050 Program as cooperative between lo- 286 1 -7.1
cal government and state Responsibilities differenti-
ated. This chapter establishes a cooperative program of
shoreline management between local government and RCNV 90.59.090 Timetable for local governments to
0% state. Local government shall have the primary re- complete shoreline Inventories and master programs. Lo-
sponsibility for initiating and administering the regula- cal go%,crnments are directed with regard to shorelines of
tory program of this chapter. The department shall act the state within their various jurisdictions as follows:
primarily in a supportive and review capacity with pri. (1) To complete within eighteen months after June 1.
mary emphasis on insuring compliance with the policy 1971, a comprehensive inventory of such shorelines.
and provisions of this chapter. 11971 ex.s. c 286 1 5.1 Such inventory shall include but not be limited to the
general ownership patterns or the lands located therein
in terms of public and private ownership. a survey of the
R("W 90.58.060 Timetable for adoption of Initial general natural characteristics thereof. present uses con-
guidelines-Public hearings, notice of. (1) Within one ducted. therein and initial projected uses *hereof;
hundred twenty days from June 1, 1971, the department (2) To develop, within twenty-four months after the
shall submit to local governments proposed guidelines adoption of guidelines as provided in RCW 90.58.060. a
consistent with RCW 90.58.020 for: master program for regulation of uses of the shorelines
(a) Development of master programs for regulation of of the state consistent with the guidelines adopted. (1974
the uses of shorelines; and exs. c 61 J 1; 1971 exs. c 286 18.]
(b) Development of master programs for regulation of
the uses of shorelines of state-wide significance. RCW 90.38.090 Approval of master program or
(2) Within sixty days from receipt of such proposed segments thereof, when-Departmental alternatives
guidelines. local governments shall submit to the depart- when shorelines of state-wide significance-Later
mcnt in writing proposed changes, ir any, and comments adopfion of master program supersedes departmental
upon the proposed guidelines. -days progntm. Master programs or segments thereof shall be-
(3) Thcrcafter and within one hundred twenty come effective when adopted or approved by the depart-
from the submission of such proposed guidelines to local ment as appropriate. Within the time period provided in

LCb. ".311 RCW---p 41 (1979 Laws)

Sbordin Management act of 1971 00-sa.100

RCW 90-58.080. each local government shall have sub@. (a) Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach
mitted a master program, either totally or by segments, which will insure the integrated use of the natural and
for all shorelines of the state within its jurisdiction to the social sciences and the environmental design arts;
department for review and appraval. (b) Consult with and obtain the comments of any
(1) As to those segments of the master program re- federal. state. regional. or local agency having any spe.
lating to shorelines, they shall be approved by the de. cial expertise with respect to any environmental impact;
partment unless it determines that the submitted (c) Consider all plans, studies, surveys. inventories.
segments are not consistent with the policy of RCW 90- and systems of classification made or being made by
.58.020 and the applicable guidelines. If approval is de- federal. state, regional, or local agencies, by private in-
nied. the department shall state within ninety days from dividuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent
the date of submission in detail the precise facts upon shorelines of the state.
which that decision is based. and shall submit to the lo- (d) Conduct or support such further research. studies,
cal government suggested modifications to the program surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary;
to make it consistent with said policy and guidelines. (e) Utilize all available information regarding hydrol.
The local government shall have ninety days after it re- ogy. geography. topography. ecology, economics, and
ceivcs recommendations from the department to make other pertinent data;
modifications designed to eliminate the inconsistencies (f) Employ, when feasible, all appropriate. modern
and to resubmit the program to the department for ap- scientific data processing and computer techniques to
proval. Any resubmitted program shall take effect when' store, index. analyze. and manage the information
and in such form and content as is approved by the gathered.
department. (2) The master programs shall include, when appro-
(2) As to those segments of the-master program re- priate. the following:
lating to shorelines of state-wide significance the de- (a) An economic development clement for the location
panmcnt shall have full authority rollowing review and and design of indi stries, transportation facilities. port
u
evaluation of the submission by local government to de- facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other develop-
velop and adopt an alternative to the local government's menu that are particularly dependent on their location
proposal if in the department's opinion the program on or use of the shorelines of the state;
submitted does not provide the optimum implementation (b) A public access clement making provision for
or the policy or this chapter to satisfy the state-wide in- public access to publicly owned areas;
terest, If the submission by local government is not ap- (c) A recreational clement for the preservation and
proved, the department shall suggest modifications to enlargement of recreational opportunities, including but
the local government within ninety days from receipt of not limited to parks, tidclands. bcachts. and recreational
the submission. The local government shall have ninety areas;
days after it receives said modifications to consider the (d) A circulation clement consisting of the general lo-
same and resubmit a master program to the department. cation and extent of existing and proposed major thor-
Thereafter. the department shall adopt the resubmitted oughfares. transportation routes. terminals. and other
program or. if the department determines that said pro- public utilities and facilities. all correlated with the
gram does not provide for optimum implementation. it shoreline use element;
may develop and adopt an alternative as hereinbeforc (e) A use clement which considers the proposed gen-
provided. eral distribution and general location and extent of the
(3) In the event a local government has not complied use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing.
with the requirements of RCW 90.58.070 it may there- business. industry. transportation, agriculture, natural
after upon written notice to the department elect to resources, recreation, education, public buildings and
adopt a master program for the shorelines within its ju- grounds, and other categories of public and private uses
risdiction, in which event it shall comply with the provi- of the land;
sions established by this chapter for the adoption of a (f) A conservation clement for the preservation of
master program for such shorelines. natural resources, including but not limited to scenic
Upon approval of such master program by the de- vistas, aesthetics. and vital estuarine areas for fisheries
partment it shall supersede such master program as may and wildlife protection;
have been adopted by the department for such shore- (S), An historic, cultural, scientific, and educational
lines. (1971 ex.s. c 286 19.1 clement for the protection and restoration of buildings.
sites, and areas having historic, cultural. scientific. or
educational values; and
RCV 90.58.100 Programs as constituting we revi- (h) Any other clement deemed appropriate or nccus-
lations Duties when preparing programs and amend- sary to efrectuatc the policy of this chapter.
meats thereto Program contents. (1) The master (3) The master programs shall include such map or
programs provided for in this chapter, when adopted and maps. descriptive text. diagrams and charts. or other dc-
approved by the department. as appropriate. shall can- scriptive material as arc ricuc-ssary to provide for case of
stitUte Use regulations for the various shorelines or the understanding.
state. In preparing the master programs. and any (4) Master programs will reflect that st2tc-owned
amendments thereto, the department and local govern- shorelines of the state are particularly adapted to pro-
menu shall to the extent feasible: viding wilderness beaches. ecological study areas, and

(1979 LAws) [CL "M RCW--p 51

Shoreline Managesseat ad of 1971

oth.. recreational activities for the public and will give RC7W "48.1130 Involvement of aN persons and ond-
app...priute special consideration to same. . des binving Interest, means. To insure that all persons and
(5) Eich master program shall contain provisions to entities having an interest in the guidelines and master
allow ror the varying or the application or use regula- progimms developed under this chapter are provided with
tions or the program. including provisions for permits for a full opportunity for involvement in both their develop-
Conditional uses and variances, to insure that strict im- mcnt and implementation. the department and local
plcmcntation of a program will not create unnecessary governmenu shall:
harl'.-hips or thwart the policy enumerated in RCW 90- (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of
.58.020. Any such varying shall be allowed only ir ex- the jitate about the shoreline management program of
truordin.- ry circumstances are. shown and the public this chapter and in the performance of the responsibili-
interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. The ties provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but
concept of this subsection shall be incorporated in the actively encourage participation by all persons and pri-
rules adopted by the department relating to the estab- vate groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline
i.shment cf a permit system as provided in RCW management programs of this chapter, and
90.58.140(31. [1971 cx.s. c 286 110.1 (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies
of federal. state, and local government. including munic.
ipal and public corporations, having interests or respon-
RCW ".59.110 Development of program within two sibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and
or more adjacent local government jurisdictions-De- local agencies are are directed to participate fully to in-
velopment of program in segmenM when. (1) Whenever sure that their interests are fully considered by the de-
it shall appear to the director that a master. program partment and local governments. 11971 cxs. c 286 � 13.)
should be developed for a region of the shorelines of the
state which includes lands and waters located in two or
more adjacent local government jurisdictions. the direc- RCW 90.58.140 Development peradts---Grounds
tor shall designate such region and notify the appropri- for granting-Administration by local government,
atc units of local government thercor. It shall be the con@litions-Applications-Notices Rescis-
- uiv or the notified units to develop COOPCf2tiVely an in- slon.-When permits not required-Approval when
! -ory and master program in accordance with and permit for variance or conditional use. (1) No develop.
%%itnin the time provided in RCW 90.58.080. ment shall be undertaken on the shorelines of the state
(2) At the discretion of the department. a local gov. except those which are consistent with the policy of this
crnmcnt master program may be adopted in segments chapter and, after adoption or approval. as appropriate.
up,::6;3blc to particular areas so that immediate atten- the applicable guidelines, regulations or master program.
tion may be given to those areas of the shorelines of the (2) No substantial development shall be undertaken
state in most need of a use regulation. [1971 cxs. c 286 on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit
from the government entity having administrative juris-
diction under this chapter.
A permit shall be granted:
ROV 90.58.120 Adoption of rules, programs, etc., (a) From June 1, 1971 until such time as an applica-
bject to RCW 34.04.025-Public hearings, notice ble i,-naster program has become effective, only when the
of-Public inspection after approval or adoption. All development proposed is consistent with: (i) The policy
rules. regulations, master programs, designations. and of RCW 90.58.020; and (ii) after their adoption, the
guidelines. issued by the department, shall be adopted or guidelines and regulations of the department; and (iii) so
approved in accordance with the provisions of RCW 34- far as can be ascertained, the master program being de-
.04.025 insofar as such provisions arc not inconsistent veloped for the area;
with the provisions of this chapter. In addition: (b) After adoption or approval, as appropriate, by the
(1) Prior to the approval or-adoption by the depart- department of an applicable master program. only when
ment or a master program. or portion thereof, at least the development proposed is consistent with the applica-
one public hearing shall be held in each county affected ble master program and the provisions of chapter 90.58
by a program or portion thcreor for the purpose of ob- RCIN.
taining the views and comments or the public. Notice of (3) Local government shall establish a program. con-
each such hearing shall be published at least once in sistent with rules adopted by the department, for the
each of the three weeks immediately preceding the hear- administration and enforcement of the permit system
ing in one or more newspapers of general circulation in provided in this section. The administration of the sys-
the county in which the hearing is to be held. tem so established shall be performed exclusively by lo-
(2) All guidelines, regulations, designations or master cal government.
programs adopted or approved under this chapter shall (4) Local government shall require notification of the
be available for public inspection at the office of the de- public of all applications for permits governed by any
partment or the appropriate county auditor and city permit system established pursuant to subsection (3) of
clerk. The terms *adopt' and 'approve" for purposes of this section by ensuring that:
this section, shall include modifications and rescission of (.&) A notice of such an application is published at
guidelines. [1975 Ist ex.s. c 182 12; 1971 exs. c 286 1 least once a week on the same day of the week for two
12.]

ICL gom 1tCW--P 61 (1979 Laws)

Sborellne Managemat act of 1971 ".58.140

consecutive weeks in a legal newspaper of general circu- the court may allow the permittee to begin such con-
lation within the area in which the development is pro- struction pursuant to the approved or revised permit as
posed; and the court deems appropriate. The court may require the
(b) Additional notice of such an application is given permittee to post bonds, in the name of the local gov-
by at least one of the following methods: crament that issued the permit, sufficient to remove the
(i) Mailing of the notice to the latest recorded real substantial development or to restore the environment if
property owners as shown by the records of the county the permit is ultimately disapproved by the courts, or to
assessor within at least three hundred feet of the bound- alter the substantial development if such alteration is ul-
ary of the property upon which the substantial develop- timatcly ordered by the courts: Provided, That construc-
merit is proposed; tion pursuant to a permit revised at the direction of the
(ii) Posting'of the notice in a conspicuous manner on hearings board may begin only on that portion of the
the property upon which the project is to be constructed; substantial development for which the local government
or had originally issued the permit and construction pursu-
(iii) Any other manner deemed appropriate by local ant to such a revised permit on other portions of the
authorities to accomplish the objectives of reasonable substantial development may not begin until after all re-
notice to adjacent landowners and the public. view proceedings are terminated. In such a hearing be-
Such notices shall include a statement that any person fore the court. the burden of proving whether such
desiring to submit written comments concerning an,ap- construction may involve significant irreversible damage
plication, or desiring to receive a copy of the final order to the environment and demonstrating whether such
concerning an application as expeditiously as possible construction would or would not be appropriate shall be
after the issuance of the order, may submit such com- on the appellant;
ments or !uch requests for orders to the local govern- (c) If a permit is granted by the local government and
ment within thirty days of the last date the notice is.to the granting of the permit is appealed directly to the su-
be published pursuant to subsection (a) of this subsec. perior court for judicial review pursuant to the proviso in
tion. Local government shall forward, in a timely man- RCW 90.58.180(l) as now or hereafter amended, the
ner following the issuance of an order. a copy of the permittee may request the court to remand the 2PPC21 to
order to each person who submits a request for such the shorelines hearings board, in which case the appeal
order. shall be so remanded and construction pursuant to such
If a hearing is to be held on an application, notices of a permit shall be governed by the provisions of subscc-
.such ahearing shall include a statement that any person tion (b) of this subsection or may otherwise begin after
may submit oral or written comments on an application review proceedings before the hearings board arc tcrmi-
at such hearing. natcd if judicial review is not thereafter requested pur-
(5) Such system shall include provisions to assure that suant to the provisions of chapter 34.04 RCW,
construction pursuant to a permit will not begin or be If a permittec begins construction pursuant to subsec-
authorized until thirty days from the date the final order tions (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection, such construction
was filed as provided in subsection (6) of this section; or shall begin at the permittee's own risk. If. as a result of
until all review proceedings are terminated if such pro- judicial review, the courts order the removal of any por-
ceedings were initiated within thirty days from the date tion of the construction or the restoration of any portion
of riling as defined in subsection (6) of this section cx- of the environment involved or require the alteration of
ccpt as follows: any portion of a substantial development constructed
(a) In the case of any permit issued to the state of pursuant to a permit. the permittee shall be barred from
Washington. department of highways, for the construc. recovering damages or costs involved in adhering to such
tion and modification of the SR 90 (1-90) bridges across requirements from the local government that granted the
Lake Washington. such construction may begin after permit. the hearings board. or any appellant or
thirty days from the date of riling. intervener.
(b) If a permit is granted by the local government und (6) Any ruling on an applic-ition for a pefinit under
(i) the granting of the permit is appealed to the shore. authority of this section. whether it be an approval or a
lines hearings board within thirty days of the date or ru- denial. shall. concurrently with the transmittal of the
ing. (ii) the hearings board approves the granting of the ruling to the applicant, be riled with the depurtincrit and
permit by the local government or approves a portion of the attorney general. With regard to a permit other thin
the substantial development for which the local govern- a permit governed by subsection (12) of this section,
ment issued the permit. and (iii) an appeal for judicial "date of riling" as used herein shall mean the date of
review of the hearings board decision is riled pursuant to actual receipt by the department. With regard to a per-
the provisions of chapter 34.04 RCW. the permittec may mit for a variance or a conditional use, "date of riling'
request. within ten days of the riling of the appeal with shall mean the date a decision of the department rend-
the court. a hearing before the court to determine crcd on the permit pursuant to subsection (12) of this
whether construction may begin pursuant to the permit section is transmitted by the department to the local
approved by the hearings board or to a revised permit government. The department shall notify in writing the
issued pursuant to the order of the hearings board. If. at local government and the applicant of the date of filing.
the conclusion of the hearing, the court finds that con- (7) Applicants for permits under this section shall
struction pursuant to such a permit would not involve a have the burden of proving that a proposed sub@,tanliul
significant- irreversible damaging or the environment, development is consistent with the criteria -Ahich must

(1979 Laws) IM WSS RC*%'-p 71

90.58.140 Shoreline Management act of 1971

be m store a permit is granted. In any review of the the Hood Canal bridge. The permit shall be processed in
granting or denial of an application for a permit as pro- accordance with this chapter. Following a denial of a
vided in RC W 90.58.180 (1) and (2) as now or hereafter permit and the exhaustion of all subsequent appeals, or
amended, the person requesting the review shall have the within six months after the new or reconstructed Hood
burden of proof. Canal bridge is open to traffic, whichever occurs later,
(8) Any permit may, after a hearing with adequate the department shall remove all dolphins, wingwalls,
notice to the permittee and the public, be rescinded by barges, piers, and similar structures constructed or as-
the ensueing authority upon the finding that a permittee sembled at the temporary ferry terminals. If a permit is
has not complied with conditions of a permit. In the granted. such structures may remain in place. [1979 1st
event the department is of the opinion that such non- ex.s. c 84 4.)
compliance exists, the department shall provide written Intext--- 1979 1st ex.s. c 84: See note following RCW 43.21C.032.
notice to the local government and the permittee. If the
department is of the opinion that such noncompliance
continues to exist thirty days after the date of the notice RCW 90.58.150 Selective commercial timber cut-
and the local government has taken no action to rescind ting when. With respect to timber situated within two
the permit, the department may petition the hearings hundred feet abutting landward of the ordinary high
board for a rescission of such permit upon written notice water mark within shorelines of state-wide significance,
of such petition to the local government and the permit- the department or local government shall allow only se-
tee: Provided. That the request by the department is lectivc commercial timber cutting, so that no more than
made to the hearings board within fifteen days of the thirty percent of the merchantable trees may be har-
termination of the thirty day notice, to the local vested in any ten year period of time: Provided, That
government. other timber harvesting methods may be permitted in
(9) The holder of a certification from the governor those limited instances where the topography, soil condi-
pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW shall not be required to tions or silviculture practices necessary for regeneration
obtain a permit under this section. render selective logging ecologically detrimental: Pro-
10) No permit shall be required for any development vided further. That clear cutting of timber which is
shorelines of the state included within a preliminary solely incidental to the preparation of land for other uses
plat approved by the applicable state agency or authorized by this chapter may be permitted. [ 1971 ex.s.
local government prior to April 1, 1971, if: c 286 � 15.1]
(a) The final plat was approved after April 13, 1961,
or the preliminary plat was approved after April 30,
1969: and RCW 90.58.160 Prohibition against surface drilling
(b) The development is completed within two years for all or gas, where. Surface drilling for oil or gas is
after the effective date of this chapter. prohibited in the waters of Puget Sound north to the
(11) The applicable state agency or local government Canadiian boundary and the Strait of Juan de Fuca sea-
is authorized to approve a final plat with respect to ward from the ordinary high water mark and on all
shorelines of the state included within a preliminary plat lands within one thousand feet landward from said
approved after April 30, 1969, and prior to April 1, mark. (1971 ex.s. c 286 � 16.]
1970 Provided. That any substantial development within
the platted shorelines of the state is authorized by a
permit granted pursuant to this section, or does not re- RCW 90.58.170 Shorelines hearings board--Es-
quire a permit as provided in subsection (10) of this sec- tablished---Members---Chairman ---- Quorum for
tion, or does not require a permit because of substantial decision--- Expenses of members. A shorelines hearings
development occurred prior to June 1, 1971. board sitting as a quasi judicial body is hereby estab-
(12) Any permit for a variance or a conditional use by lished within the environmental hearings office under
local government under approved master programs must RCW 43.21B.005. The shorelines hearings board shall
be submitted to the department for its approval or dis-. be made up of six members: Three members shall be
approval. 1977 ex.s. c 358 1; 1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 51 members of the pollution control hearings board; two
� 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 182 3; 1973 2nd ex.s. c 19 1; members, one appointed by the association of
1971 ex.s. c 286 � 14.] Washington cities and one appointed by the association
of county commissioners, both to serve at the pleasure of
the associations: and the state land commissioner or his
(W 90.58.145 Substantial development permit---- designee. The chairman of the pollution control hearings
Structures at temporary ferry terminals----Hood Canal board shall be the chairman of the shorelines hearings
bridge---- Removal of structures. Not later than July 1, board. A decision must be agreed to by at least four
1981, the department of transportation or any affected members of the board to be final. The members of the
private property owner, or , may apply for a sub- shorelines appeals board shall receive the compensation,
stantial development permit in connection with any dol- travel, and subsistence expenses as provided in RCW
phin, wingwall, barge, pier, or similar structure 43.03.050 and 43.03.060. (1979 1st ex.s. c 47 6; 1971
constructed or assembled at a temporary ferry terminal ex.s. c 286 � 17.]
for the purpose of providing interim transportation ser- Intext----1979 1st ex.s. c 47: See note following RCW 43.21b.005.
vices necessary as a consequence or the destruction of

Ch.90.58 RCW---p 8] (1979 Laws)

Sborel In Management act of 1971 ".58.1"

RCW ".58.175 Rules and regulations. The shore- (4) Local government may appeal to the shorelines
lines hearings board may adopt rules and regulations hearings board any rulm regulations. guidelines, desig-
governing the administrative practice and procedure in nations, or master programs for shorelines of the state
and before the board. 11973 131 ex.s. c 203 13.) adopted or approved by the department within thirty
days of the date of the adoption or approval. The board
shall make a final decision within sixty days following
RCW ".SLISO Appeals from granting. denying or the hearing held thereon.
rescinding permits, procedure-Board to act, (a) In an appeal relating to a master program for
when-Local government appeals to board- shorelines. the board. after full consideration of the po-
Griunds for declaring master program Invalid-Ap. sitions of the local government and the department. shall
peals to cour4 procedure. (1) Any person aggrieved by determine the validity of the master program. If the
the granting. denying. or rescinding of a permit on board determines that said program:
shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW ".58.140 as (i) Is clearly erroneous in light of the policy of this
now or hereafter amended may seek review from the chapter; or
shorelines hearings board by riling a request for the (H) Constitutes an implementation of this chapter in
same within thirty days of the date of riling as defined in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or
RCW 90.58.140(6) as now or hereafter amended. (iii) Is arbitrary and capricious; or
Concurrently with the riling of any request for review (iv) Was developed without fully considering and
with the board as provided in this section pertaining to a evaluating all proposed master programs submitted to
final order or a local government. the requestor shall file the department by the local government; or
a copy or his request with the department and the attor- (v) Was not adopted in accordance with required pro-
ney general. If it appears to the department or the at- cedures;
torney general that the requestor has valid remns to the board shall enter a final decision declaring the pro-
seek review, either the department or the attorney Sen- gram invalid, remanding the master program to the de-
cral may certify the request within thirty days after its partmcnt with a statement of the reasons in support of
receipt to the shorelines hearings board following which the determination, and directing the department to
the board shall then, but not otherwise. review the mat- adopt, after a thorough consultation with the affected
ter covered by the requestor: Provida4 That the failure local government. a new master program. Unless the
to obtain such certification shall not preclude the rc- board makes one or more of the determinations as here.
questor from obtaining a review in the superior court inbeforc provided. the board shall rind the master pro-
under any right to review otherwise available to the re- gram to be valid and enter a final decision to that effect.
questor. The department and the attorney general may (b) In an appeal relating to a master program for
intervene to protect the public interest and insure that shorelines of state-wide significance the board Shall 3p-
the provisions of this chapter arc complicil with at any prove the master program adopted by the department
time within fifteen days from the date of the receipt by unless a local government shall. by clear and convincing
the department or the attorney general of a copy of the evidence and argument. persuade the board that the
request for review riled pursuant to this section. The master program approved by the department is inconsis-
shorelines hearings board shall initially schedule review tent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applica.
proceedings on such requests for review without regard ble guidelines.
as to whether such requests have or have not been certi- (c) In an appeal relating to rules, regulations, guide-
fied or as to whether the period for the department or lines. master programs of state-wide significance. and
the attorney Scneral to intervene has or has not expired, designations. the standard of review provided in RCW
unless such review is to begin within thirty days of such 34.04.070 shall apply.
scheduling. If at the end of the thirty day period for (5) Rules, regulations. designations, master programs.
certification neither the department nor the attorney and guidelines shall be subject to review in superior
general has cartified a request for review. the hearings court, if authorized pursuant to RCW 34.04.070: Pro-
board shall remove the request from its review schedule. videc@ That no review shall be granted by a superior
(2) The department or the attorney general may ob- court on petition from a local government unless the lo-
tain review of any final order granting a permit. or cal government shall first have obtained review under
granting or denying an application for a permit issued subsection (4) of this section and the petition for court
by a local government by riling a written request with review is riled within three months after the date of final
the shorelines hearings board and the appropriate local decision by the shorelines hearings board. f 1975-'76 2nd
government within thirty days from the date the final cxs. c 51 1 2; 1975 Ist ex.s. c 182 14. 1973 Ist cx.s. c
order was riled as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6) as 203 12; 1971 ex.s. c 286 1 18.1
now or hereafter amended.
(3) The review proceedings authorized in subsections
M and (2) of this section are subject to the provisions of RCW 90-91.1" Review and adjustments to master
chapter 34.04 RCW pertaining to procedures in con- programs. The department and each local governmcnt
tested cases. Judicial review of such proccedings of the shall periodically review any master programs undcr its
shorelines hearings board may be had as -provided. in jurisdiction and make such adjustments thereto as are
chapter 34.04 RCW. necessary. Each local government shall submit any pro-
posed adjustments, to the department as soon as they are

(1979 Laws) (CL gom RCW--p 91

shoreline management act of 1971

completed. No such adjustment shall become effective (1) Acquire lands and casements within shorelines of
until it his been approved by the department. (1971 the state by purchase. lease. or girt. either alone or in
ex.s.c 286 19.] concert with other governmental entities, when necessary
to achieve implementation of master programs adopted
hereunder;
RCW 90.58.200 Rules and regulations. The depart- (2) Accept grants, contributions, and appropriations
ment and local governments are authorized to adopt from any agency, public or private, or individual for the
such rules as are necessary and appropriate to carry out purposes of this chapter;
the provisions of this chapter. [1971 ex.s.c 286. 20] (3) Appoint advisory committees to assist in carrying
out the purposes of this chapter,
(4) Contract for professional or technical services re.
RCW 90.58.210 Court actions to insure, against quired by it which cannot be performed by its employ-
conflicting uses and to enforce. The attorney general or ees. [1972 ex.s c 53 1; 1971 ex.s c 286 24]
the attorney for the local government shall bring such
injunctive. declaratory. or other actions as are necessary
to insure that no uses arc made or the shorelines of the RCW 90.58.250 Department to cooperate with local
state in conflict with the provisions and programs of this governments-grants for development of master pro-
chapter. and to otherwise enforce the provisions or this grams. The department is directed to cooperate fully
chapter. [1971 ex.s c 286 21.] with local governments in discharging their responsibili-
ties under this chapter. Funds shall be available for dis-
distribution to local governments on the basis of
rcw 90.58.220 General penalty. in addition to in- applications for preparation of master programs. Such
curring civil liability under RCW 90.58.210, any person applications shall be submitted in accordance with regu-
found to have wilfully engaged in activities on the lations developed by the department. The department is
shorelines or the state in violation of the provisions of authorized to make and administer grants within appro-
this chapter or any of the master programs, rules, or priations authorized by the legislature to any local gov.
regulations adopted pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a ernment within the state for the purpose of developing a
misdemeanor. and shall be punished by a fine of master shorelines program.
twenty-rive nor more than one thousand No grant shall be made in an amount in excess of the
dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not recipient's contribution to -the estimated cost of such
more than ninety days, or by both such fine and impris- program. [1971 exs. c 286 125.]
onment: Provided. That the fine for the third and all
subsequent violations in any rive-year period shall be not
less than rive hundred nor more than ten thousand dol- Rcw 90.58.260 State to represent Its Interest before
lars. 11971 ex.s. c 286 22.] federal agencies Interstate agencies and courts. The
state, through the department of ecology and the attor.
Rcw 90.58.230 Violators liable for damages result- ney general. shall represent its interest before water re-
ing from violation-Attorney's fees and costs. Any source regulation management, development, and use
agencies or the Unites States, including among others,
person subject to the regulartory program of this chapter the federal power commission, environmental protection
who violates any provision of this chapter or permit is- agency, corps of engineers, department of the interior.
sued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damage to department of agriculture and the atomic energy com-
public or private property arising from such violation, mission, before interstate agencies and the courts with
including the cost of restoring the affected area to its regard to activities or uses of shorelines of the state and
condition prior to violation. The attorney general or local the program of this chapter. Where federal or interstate
government attorney shall bring suit for damages under agency plans, activities, or procedures conflict with state
this section on behalf of the state or local governments. policies, all reasonable steps available shall be taken by
Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for the state to preserve the integrity of its policies. [1971
damages under this section on their own behalf and on ex.s c 286 26]

the behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability
has been established for the cost of restoring an area af
fected by a violation the court shall make provision to RCW 90.58.270 nonapplication to certain struc-
assure that restoration will be accomplished within a tures, docks, development, etc., placed In navigable wa-
reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addi- ters- nonapplication to certain rights of action,
tion to such relief, including money damages. the court authority. (1) Nothing in this statute shall constitute
in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of authority for requiring or ordering the removal of any
the suit to the prevailing party. [ 1971 ex.s. c 286 23.] structures, improvements, docks, fills. or developments
placed in navigable waters prior to December 4. 1969
and the consent and authorization of the state of
RCW 90.58.240 Additional authority granted de- Washington to the impairment of public rights of navi-
partment and local governments. In addition to any other gation\, and corollary rights incidental thereto, caused by
powers granted hereunder. the department and local
governments may:

[ch. 90.58 rcw-10]

Shoreline Management set of 1971 ".9.340

the retention and maintenance of mid structures. im- where the shoreline under consideration is located. It
provements. docks. rills or developments are hereby shall be the duty of the county commissioners of each
granted: Provided That the consent herein given shall county where such a hearing is conducted to submit
not relate to any structures. improvements. docks. rills. their Views With regard to a proposed designation to the
or developments placed on tidelands, shorelands, or beds director at such date as the director determines but in no
und"Iying said waters which are in trespass or in viola- event shall the date be later than sixty days after the
tion of state statutes. public hearing in the county. 11971 exs. c 286 � 3 1.1
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as al.
tering or abridging any private right of action. other
than a private right which is based upon the impairment RCW "Z8.320 Height limitation respecting per-
of public rights codsented to in subsection (1) hereof. mits. No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as al- for any new or expanded building or structure of more
tering or abridging the authority of the state or local than thirty-rive feet above average grade level on shore-
governments to suppress or abate nuisances or to abate lines of the state that will obstruct the view of a sub-
pollution. stantial number of residences on areas adjoining such
(4) Subsection (1) of this section shall apply to any shorelines except where a master program does not pro-
case pending in the courts of this state on June 1. 1971 hibit the same and then only when overriding considcru-
relating to the removal of structures, improvements., tions of the public interest will be served. (1971 ex.s. c
docks. rills, or developments based on the impairment of 286 132.]
public navigational rights. 11971 ex.s. c 286 127.1
RCW 90.58.330 Study of shorelines of cities and
RM' ".58.280 Application to all state agescim towas submitted to legislature --- &ope. The depart-
counties, public and municipal corporations. The provi. mcnt of ecology, the attorney general. and the harbor
sions of this chapter shall be applicable to all agencies of line commission are directed as a matter of high priority
state government, counties. and public and municipal to undertake jointly a study of the locations, uses and
corporations and to all shorelines of the state owned or activities, both proposed and existing, relating to the
administered by them. [1971 cx.s. c 286 128.1 shorelines of the cities. and towns of the state and sub-
mit a repori which shall include but not be limited to the
following:
RC%' ".58.290 Restrictions as affecting fair mar- (1) Events leading to the establishment of the various
ket value of property. The restrictions imposed by this harbor lines pertaining to cities of the state;
chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in es- (2) The location of all such harbor lines;
tablishing the fair market value of the property. [1971 (3) The authority for establishment and criteria used
ex.s. c 286 129.1 in location of the same;
(4) Present activities and uses made within harbors
and their relationship to harbor lines;
RCW 90.58.300 Department as regulating state (5) Legal aspects pertaining to any unccrtaint% and
agency---Special authority. The department of ecology inconsistency-, and
is designated the state agency responsible for the pro- (6) The relationship or federal. state and local gov-
gram or regulation of the shorelines of the state. includ- ernments to regulation of uses and activities pertaining
ing coastal shorelines and the shorelines of the inner to the area of study.
tidal waters of the state, and is authorized to cooperate The report shall be submitted to the legislature not
with the federal government and sister states and to re- later than December 1. 1972. [1971 ex.s. c 286 J 33.1
ceive benefits of any statutes of the United States when-
ever enacted which relate to the programs of this
chapter. [1971 es.s. c 286 130.1 RCW 90.58.340 Use policies for land adjacent to
shorelines, development at All state agencies. counties.
and public and municipal corporations shall review ad-
RCW ".58.310 Designation of shorelines of state- ministrative and management policies. regulations.
wide significance by legislaturew-Recommendation by plans, and ordinances relative to lands under their re-
director, procedure. Additional shorelines of the state spcctive jurisdictions adjacent to the shorelines of the
shall be designated shorelinet of state-widc significance state so as the [to] achieve a use policy on said land
only by affirmative action of the legislature. consistent with the policy of this chapter, the guidelines,
The director of the department may, however. from and the master programs for the shorelines of the state.
time to time, recommend to the legislature areas of the The department may develop recommendations for land
shorelines of the state which have state-wide signifi- use control for such lands. Local governments shall, in
cance relating to special economic, ecological, educa- developing use regulations for such areas, take into con-
tional. developmental, recreational, or aesthetic values to sideration any recommendations developed by the dc-
be designated as shorelines of state-wide significance. partment as well as any other state agcncies.or units of
Prior to making any such recommendation the dircc- local government. (1971 ex.s. c 286 � 34.1
tor shall hold a public hearing in the county or counties

(1979 L&Wb) lCL 90.53 RCW-p I I I

90.58.350 Shoreline Management act of 1971

RCW 90.58.350 Nonapplcation to treaty rights.
Nothing in this chapter shall affect any rights estab-
lished by treaty to which the United States is a party.
(1971 ex.s. c 286 35.)

RCW 90.58.360 Existing requirements for permits.
certificates, etc., not obviated. Nothing in this chapter
shall obviate any requirement to obtain any permit, cer-
tificate, license, or approval from any state agency or
local government. (1971 ex.s. c 286 36.)

RCW 9O.58.900 Liberal construction---1971 ex.s
c 286. This chapter is exempted from the rule of strict
construction. and it shall be liberally construed to give
full effect to the objectives and purposes for which it was
enacted. [1971 ex.s. c 286 � 37.]

RCW 90.58.910 Severability---1971 ex.s. c 286. If
any provision of this chapter, or its application to any
person or legal entity or circumstances, is held invalid,
the remainder of the act, or the application of the provi-
sion to other persons or legal entities or circumstances,
shall not be affected. [1971 ex.s. c 286 40.]

RCW 90.58.920 Effective date----1971 ex.s. c 286.
This chapter is necessary for the immediate preservation
of the public peace, health and safety, the support of the
state government, and its existing institutions. This 1971
act shall take effect on June 1. 1971. The director of
ecology is authorized to immediately take such steps as
are neccesary to insure that this 1971 act is implemented
on its effective date. [1971 ex.s. c 286 41.]

RCW 90.58.930 Referendum to the people
ex.s. c 286----Determining if act continues in force and
effect. This 1971 act constitutes an alternative to Initia-
tive 43. The Secretary of state is directed to place this
1971 act on the ballot in conjunction with Initiative 43
at the next ensuing regular election.
This 1971 act shall continue in force and effect until
the secretary of state certifies the election results on this
1971 act. If Affirmatively approved at the ensuing regu-
lar general election. the act shall continue in effect
thereafter. [1971 ex.s. c 286 42.]
Reviser's note: Chapter 90.58 RCW (1971 ex.s. c 286] was approved
and validated at the 1972 general election as Alternative Measure 43B.

(1979 Laws)
[Ch. 90.58 RCW--p12] (1979 Laws)

CHAPTER 190.

TIDELANDS IN SKAGIT, SNOHOMISH.
ISLAND COUNTIES.
Ax ACT relating to public lands; authorizing the withdrawal
of described tidelands from sale, and from lease except for
specific purposes; authorizing the use of said tidelands as
public shooting grounds to be administered by the state
Same commission: and amending section 77.40.090, chapter
36. Laws of 1955, and RCW 77.40.090.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of
Washington:
SECTION 1. Section 77.40.090, chapter 36, Laws of iivw 77.4ome
1955, and RCW 77.40.090 are each amended to read am*nded.
as follows:
The commissioner of public lands shall withdraw Public
shooting
from sale or lease, except lease for the production xrounds
Certain @ide-
of oysters or for booming or industrial uses,.- Pro- lands in
Skocit.
rided, That the director & game has approved such Snohomish
and Island
industrial uses as not being generally incompatible counties-
with the primary function of these lands as public
E 18313

Ca. 190.] SESSION LAWS. 1961.
shooting grounds. the following. described second
class tidelands and detached tidelands within the
boundaries hereinafter set forth: Those tidelands
situate in front of, adjacent to, or abutting upon:
government lots 3. 4 and 5. section 28 and govern-
ment lot 1 section 27 and government lots 1, 2, 3.
and 4. section 34 township 35 north, range 2 east,.
W.M., and government lots 1, 2 and 3, section 3.
township 34 north, range 2 east, W.M., excepting
therefrom the portion deeded by the state of Wash-
ington to the Great Northern Railway Company on
December 30, 1941.
The commissioner of public lands shall withdraw
from sale or lease, except lease for the production
of oysters or for booming purposes. the following
described second class tidelands and detached tide-
lands within the boundaries hereinafter set forth:
Those tidelands other than tidelands described
above in this section lying within an area beginning
at a point on the meander line at the Skagit-What-
com line, thence following the meander line in its
general southerly direction to the north boundary
of the Swinomish Indian Reservation, thence west-
erly along the north line of said Indian reservation
to the base of Marches Point, thence northerly along
the meander line to the north meander corner on
the west line of section 28, township 35 north, range
2 E., W. M., thence north to the Whatcom county
line, thence easterly along said county line to the
point of beginning.
Also, all tidelands of the second class, including
detached tidelands in Skagit county lying south of
the main channel of the Swinomish Slough.
Also, those tidelands in Snohomish and Island
counties located in township 32 north, range 3 E.,
W.M.
Also, those tidelands lying in front of sections 1,
2 and 11 and 12, township 31 north, range 3 E., W. M.,
in Snohomish county.
[1852]

SESSION LAWS. 1935. ECx. 36.
control of the department: Provided. That they may be used by the
commissioner of public lands for booming purposes. Should the
department no longer desire to use such lands for such purposes it
shall certify such fact to the commissioner of public lands, and the
lands shall thereafter be under the supervision. care, and control
of the commissioner of public lands and subject to sale or lease as
provided by law.
77.40.090 Certain tidelands in Skagit, Snohomish, and Island
counties. The commissioner of public lands shall withdraw from
sale or lease, except lease for the production of oysters or for boom-
ing purposes, the following described second class tidelands and
detached tidelands within the boundaries hereinafter set forth:
Those tidelands lying within an area beginning at a point on the
meander line at the Skagit-Whatcom line, thence following the
meander line in its general southerly direction. to the north boun-
dary of the Swinomish Indian Reservation, thence westerly along
the north line of said Indian reservation to the base of Marches
Point, thence northerly along. the meander line to the north inean-
der corner on the west line of section 28, township 35 north, range
2 E., W. M., thence north to the Whatcom county line, thence east-
erly along said county line to the point of beginning.
. Also, all tidelands of the second class. including detached tide-
lands in Skagit county lying south of the main channel of the
Swinomish Slough.
Also; those tidelands in Snohomish and Island counties located
iii township 32 north, range 3 E., W. M.
Also, those tidelands lying in front of sections 1, 2 and 11 and 12,
township 31 north, range 3 E., W. M., in Snohomish county.
All the tidelands described in this section shall be available for
use as public shooting grounds under the direction and control of
the state game commission.

SCORP - FIFTH EDITION

CHAPTER III ISSUES

ISSUE 112 - WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS

OBJECTIVE

it Is the Intent of the State of Washington to provide opportunities
for the public use and enjoyment of appropriate segments of wetlands and/or
floodplains, Including their associated shorelands, tidelands, and estuaries,
while protecting and maintaining these areas for their value as wildlife habi-
tat and their importance in the hydrologic cycle.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ARE TO:

Work through existing local and state resource management programs
in continuing to promote and, where feasible, expand:

- Public access to the shorelands and tidelands of the
state.

- Conservation of the wettand and floodplain resources
of the state.

- Development of facilities on wetlands and floodplains
for water-oriented recreational and/or conservation
activities.

- Identify and evaluate those wetland and floodplain
resources of the state not currently included In the
Coastal Zone and Shoreline Master Programs as to their
relative importance for resource conservation and/or
recreational use.

GENERAL DISCUSSION.

For purposes of this paper, the terms wetlands and floodplains are
defined to Include wetlands, floodplains, and tidelands, as well as associated
shorelands, swamps, bogs, etc. Wetlands, as defined by the-Department of Eco-
logy, are flat, low-lying areas where the water table varies from time to time,
In such areas as river deltas, sloughs and other environmentally similar areas.

Since 1971,.three major wetland and floodplain programs have been
started-in Washington State. They are the State Shoreline Management Program,
the Coastal Zone Management Program, and the State Tidelands Program, which
Is the oldest. These three programs and their relationships to recreation
and resource conservation on wetlands and floodplains are the subject of the
following discussion.

The first program Is guided by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971
(RCW 90-58). This Act serves as the principal legal base for the management
of all shorelines In the state, Including most larger wetland and floodplain
areas. The Act applies to all marine water areas of the state, to streams
with a mean annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second or more, and to lakes larger
than 20 acres. It also applies to adjacent land areas within 200 feet of the
ordinary high water mark, and to all marshes, bogs, swamps, floodways, river
deltas, and floodplains associated with water bodies subject to the Act. In
all, there are 791 lakes, 965 rivers and streams, some 2,400 miles of marine
shoreline, and over 3,000 square miles of marine waters subject to the Act.
(Dep. Ecol. )976.) 1,847 miles of the shoreline have beaches, and the re"
maining 490 miles consist of rocky headlands, marsh areas, bulkheads and re-
vetments. (Dep. Ecol. 1976. P. 5.)

Primary emphasis In managi.ng shorelines for publIc benefit Is'given
to #$Shorelines of Statewide Significance". These.shorelines include;

a. The coastal area between ordinary.high water mark
and Cape Disappointment on the south, to Cape Flat-
tery on the north, Including harbors, bays, estuaries,
and Inlets.

b. Selected estuarine and marine environments of Puget
Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca, including
portions of the Nisqually Delta, Birch Bay, Hood
Canal, Skagit Bay, and Padilla Bay.

C. The wate rs of Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan
de Fuca north to the Canadian border.

d. Lakes, with a surface acreage of 1,000 acres or
more, measured at the ordinary high water mark,

C. Rivers west of the Cascades at 1,000 + c.f.s. or
more, and rivers flowing east of the Cascades at
200 + c.f.s., or downstream from the first 3UG
square miles of drainage area, whichever Is longer.

Priority uses for these shorelines are identified for state and local
authorities. Basically, statewide lnterests+take precedence over local interests,
and higher value Is given to the long-terin preservation of these resources than
increased public recreational access and use. Since most of the significant
watland and ffoodplain areas of the state are covered by the Shoreline Manage-
ment Act, these same preferences apply. However, more of the traditional recre-
actional activities which are dependent upon, or enhanced by, water normally
occur In tideland areas, rather than on wetiand areas.

In developing guidelines for local agencies to use In preparing their
Shoreline Master Programs, the Department of Ecology suggests categorization
Into four distinct environment types- natural, conservancy, rural, and urban.
The existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities, and the desires
of the local community helpshape these types. Although the number of environ-
ments chosen may vary from one local agency toanother, the guidelines do
achieve a basic standardization. (Dep. Ecol. 1976. p. 32.) The guidelines

specify that local programs Include the following plan elements In regard
to recreation:

- An assessment of the need for providing public access
to shoreline areas.

- An evaluation of the maintenance and growth opportuni-
ties via acquisition and development that includes less-
than-fee acquisition, and an analysis of preservation
alternatives of the natural shoreline resources. Master
programs were also to recognize existing state parks,
wildlife recreation areas, national parks, national
wildlife refuges, and other areas Identified for pre-
servation, including protection and restoration of build-
ing sites, and areas having historic, cultural, educa-
tional, or scientific values. (Dep. Ecol. 1976. p. 134,
135.)

As of July, 1978, Chapter 173-19 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) identi-
fied 37 counties and 155 Incorporated cities In the state with approved Shore-
line Master Plans.

The second program affecting floodplains and wetlands is the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92-583). This Act provides the state with a
new opportunity to construct a comprehensive program for managing the state's
coastal resources. With the Shoreline Management Act providing the legal au-
thority and general direction for the state, the Washington State Coastal Zone
Management Plan was completed In 1976, and approved by the federal government
as the first Coastal Zone Management Plan in the nation. This Plan and the
Shoreline Management Act provide the basic policies and guidelines for the
planning, management, and use of wetlands and floodplains in Washington today.
Regulations and specific criteria for the designation of wetlands have been
established by the State Department of Ecology for use in Shoreline Management
Plans under Chapter 173.22 WAC.

Floodplalns, while also being Included In Shoreline Master Plans
when they fall within legally defined shorelines, receive special attention
from local agencies and the federal government through the Federal Flood In-
surance Program. Floodplain management regulations are the responsibility of
local governments under standards and criteria'established with the National
Flood Insurance Program. Failure to meet those requirements and to purchase
flood Insurance will cut off all federally Insured mortages in the community.
(Dep. Ecol. 1976. p. 67.)

In the State of Washington, there have been 269 cities and counties
identified as "flood prone" communities. 237 of these coi.munities have adopted
"floodplain management plans", or "preliminary plans", which have been approved
by the federal government, thereby making them eligible for the National Flood
Insurance Program. (Dep. Ecol. 1979.) While this insurance program has no
direct relationship to the provision of recreational opportunities, many of the
plans emphasize the-importance of retaining the natural environment in both the
floodway and the floodplain. Floodways must remain open space by law, but flood-
plains can be identified for other uses. Minimal development of recreational
facilities has been found to be very compatible for floodplain areas, and re-
commendations for such types of development as golf courses, athletic fields,
trails,.and overnight campgrounds are frequently found in community park and
recreation plans, shoreline management plans, and other land use planning docu-
ments.

For recreation and related planning purposes, the Heritage Conserva-
tion and Recreation Service's 1979 Guidelines (draft) for Floodplain Management
and Wetlands Protection defines floodplains as: "the lowland and relatively
flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, Including floodprone areas of
offshore Islands, Including, at a minimum, ithat area subject to a one percent
or greater chance of flooding in any given year". No definition is provided
for wetlands.

As recently as five years ago, the primary method considered for
reducing potential flood damage downstream was to-construct dams upstream. In
the State of Washington, such actions often were, and continue to be, of mul-
tiple benefit, in that the same dam became a significant source of electrical
power and other uses, Including recreation. For recreation, there was often
a mixed reaction, in that reservoirs created by the dams provided new or ex-
panded forms of recreation, while reducing or eliminating others.

The construction of dams has not been eliminated as a major tool for
flood control. However, another mechanism that is rapidly gaining acceptance
throughout the nation and in Washington, as well, Is controlled zoning of the
floodplains and related lands. For recreation, this type of action ran open
up a wider range of recreational opportunities than might be available wire
the same area converted to a reservoir. Even more important is the amount of
potential lands for recreitional use that may be Involved. Historically, under
a reservoir system of flood control, a limited area received little systematic
planning. More often than not, development of the area was so rapid that most
public use was soon eliminated or drastically reduced. Fortunately for the
State of Washington, these actions have not been as rapid or of such wide ex-
.panse as In many parts of our nation. The State Shoreline Management Act was
in affect before the plight of wetlands and floodplains became of such concern
that the 1977 Presidential Executive Orders 111988 and #11990 were issued in
an attemot to curtail activities under federal authority which might cause
adverse Impacts on the national values of floodplains and wetlands. A related
Exec. Or. 77-01, was also Issued by Govern;F-Kay In September, 1977, for acti-
vities by state agencies.

In general, floodplains do receive more direct attention in govern-
mental programs than do many other land forms. Possibly, close coordination
of these programs in the future could provide more specific direction, while
eliminating duplication of effort and confusion In understanding and complying
with them.

A third program identified at the, beginning of this discussion was
the State Tidelands Program. Tidelands, while an Integral element of the shore-
lines of the state, are administered as a separate program under a different
managing authority than are the Shoreline and Coastal Zone Programs.

"At the time of the adoption of the State Constitution in 1889 and
upon entering statehood, Washington, follouiing traditional land use precedents
dating back to the founding of the country, asserted its ownership In the beds
and shores of all navigable waters up to and including the line of ordinary
high water. In the coastal zone, this ownership generally included all non-
federal ocean tidelands from the mouth of the Columbia River north to the
Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Inward tidelands encompassing Puget Sound."
(Dep. Ecol. 1976. P. 72.)

Following statehood, nearly all of the tidelands were publicly owned.
However, under the new state's constitution, the riparian right of access to
the water became non-existent. The Legislature, as a means of legitimizing
existent and future structures, authorized the sale or lease of public tide-
lands to private Individuals. In the ensuing years, approximately 60 percent
of all state-owned tidelands were sold. That practice of selling was restricted
in 1968 by policy, and discontinued in 1971 by law. The Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), which administers the Tidelands Program, continues to lease
tidelands-for purposes of aquaculture and for various marine-related uses, but
has allocited nearly 75 percent of the state's remaining tidelands as public
use.

2,075 miles, or about 75 percent of Washington's shoreline landward
of the extreme high waterline Is In private ownership, as Is about 60 percent
of tidelands. -Of the publicly owned coastline, the federal government owns
about 155 miles, Including the Olympic National Park and various wildlife re-
fuge areas. Non-federal public ownership totals 107 miles, consisting primarily
of state, county, and cityjarks. When those tidelands (between extreme low
tide and orginary high tid owned by the state and managed by various public
agencies are Included, the public access mileage (much of it by boat only) in-
creases to 1,228+ miles. Some of the non-federal public land Is owned by port
districts and utilized by waterborne commercial facilities. In addition, about
40 miles of privately owned shoreline is used for recreational purposes, such
as'resort areas and privately owned marinas. (Dep. Ecol. 1976. p. lo.)

DNR has published a statement of policies and guidelines which consti-
tutes a proprietary land management plan for marine lands. The plan applies to
all DNR managed tidelands, harbor areas, and beds of navigable-waters. It does
not, however, apply to aquatic lands managed by other government agencies. The
plan Is broken down into six multiple use categories: (1) Navigation and Com-
merce; (2) Public Use; (3) Food, Mineral and Chemical Production; (4) Pro-
tection of the Natural Marine Environment; (5) Uses by Abutting Upland Owners;
and (6) Revenue Production. (Dep. Ecol. 1976. P. 73.) Recognition of the
Importance of public access to and use of the state tidelands is evident through-
out the plan.

Problem Statement #1

The Shorelin'e Management Act does not apply to those wetlands which
are under 20 acres in size, unless they are associated with a "shoreline
area"; therefore, these wetlands often lack adequate planning for their
ultimate use or sufficient protection to assure their future retention.

Discussion

Because Shoreline Master Plans do not cover wet-
lands unassociated with Identified shorelines, these
wetlands are often overlooked. They are thought of
as "lands with drainage problems", rather than as a
vital wildlife habitat, and a critical element of
the natural environment. When such areas are In close
proximity to major urban areas, competition between
uses, Including various forms of recreation, becomes
extremely keen.

While the loss of one small wetland site to devel-
opment (including recreational facilities), may cause
minimal impact on the water table, the food chain, the
drainage patterns, or other natural actions, the cumu-
lative effect of several such losses in a given area or
on a statewide basis could be significant. For example,
In parts of eastern Washington "interim" or seasonal
wetlands occur, as In the scablands area. These re-
sources are virtually overlooked, but do provide a vital
link for wildlife and recreation potential. Until addi-
tional information is known regarding the types of wet-
lands,.specific actions for their protection will prob-
ably be extremely limited. There is a need for a program
to provide for an authorized mitigation of wetland losses
through restoration of altered wetlands, or creation of
new ones, as alternatives to outright prohibition of all
activities or development actions related to specific
areas and sites.

Proposed State Policy or Position

The State of Washington'recogni2:CS the importance of
retaining wetlands in their natural state as wildlife habi-
tat areas, as natural drainage basins, and as potential
sites for a wide variety of uses that are beneficial to
the citizens of this state. In order to provide adequate
information on which to base future decisions regarding
the use of wetlands, It Is recommended that actions be
taken by the appropriate state agenctes to:

Initiate a public education program on wetland
values.

Establish a system of wetland Identification and
Inventory from which a baseline can be established
to measure the effect and impact of wetiand losses.

Develop a more specific, coordinated, and generally
understood wetland criteria and protection policy
for use by state and federal resource agencies.

Develop a program for mitigation of wetland losses
caused by deletion of wetland habitats.

Problem Statement #2

Legal directives, programs and plans exist at all levels of govern-
ment that evaluate the conservation of resources and/or public use of flood-
plains and related resources. However, there is no effort being made to
implement an overall program which would establish a unified effort, direc-
tion, and priority for action in the conservation of the state's floodplains.

Discussion

Some floodplains, for a wide variety of reasons,
several of which are di.scussed in this paper, have been
given major recognition In recent years through federal,
state, and local laws and planning programs. In many
Instances, actions have been taken to implement those
acquisition and/or development proposals, zoning ordi-
nances, or other recommendations designed to conserve
these critical resources and/or to Increase their bene-
fits to the citizens of the state. However, because
these many programs lack coordination, or Individually
are not of sufficient scope to accomplish recommended
actions, some problems continue In Intensity and In
scope.

In developing the Coastal Zone Management Plan for
the state, the Department of Ecology identified ten "areas
of particular concern". This Identification was based
an existing authorities, expression of legislative can-
cern, and current resource management conflicts. While
broader In scope than just floodplains,alone, most do
contain significant amounts of floodplains. It should
bb noted, also, that only areas In western Washington
were identified, since they were developed for use In
the Coastal Zone Program, only. The Identified areas
are:

1. The Nisqually Estuary.
2. Hood Canal.
3. The Snohomish River Estuary.
4. Skagit and Padilla Bays.
5. The Northern Strait and Puget Sound
Petroleum Transfer and Processing
Area.
6. The Dungeness Estuary and Spit Complex.
7. Grays Harbor.
8. The Willapa Bay Estuary.
9. The Pacific Coastal Dune Area.
10. The Continental Shelf.

Proposed State Policy or Position

The State of Washington recognizes the importance of
retaining floodplains, or appropriate segments thereof, in
their natural state, as well as their potential for a wide
variety of recreational uses that may be enjoyed by the
citizens of this state. The state further recognizes that
saftw areas are of greater concern than others, and, there-
fore, recommends that appropriate actions be taken by the
state, in cooperation with other levels of government to:

- Identify the most significant floodplain areas
throughout the state having sites within them
warranting retention under public ownership and/
or management for conservat*ion purposes, or for
the development of public recreational facilities
or access to bodies of water.

- Establish a mutually acceptable listing of those
floodplain areas which are considered to be "areas
of particular concern".

- Establish a specific program for their acquisition,
development, and management, ais appropriate to
specific sites.

Problem Statement #3

Saltwater tidelands provide one of the most popular recreational re-
sources available within the state, bufaccess to and use of these saltwater
beaches is often difficult due to "checker-boarded" public and upland owner-
ships, steep terrain of adjacent uplands, and other related problems.

Discussion

The Department of Natural Resources has an excel-
lent tidelands identification program, and in recent
years has been giving additional emphasis to increasing
and marking its public access areas. Because of the
large and expanding recreational use of tidelands for
recreation, this program has been important to saltwater
related recreational activities, such as clam digging
and beachcombing. Because of the "checkerboarding" of
public and private ownership, it has also created certain
management problems, both in terms of marking and in
control of public access. Efforts continue to reduce
these problems through coordinated management activities,
public education programs, and improved management tech-
niques. Close coordination and cooperative actions with
major recreational agencies, such as the State Parks and
Recreation Commission and local parks and recreation de-
partments have been, and will continue to be important
to the provision of "tideland recreation".

Another factor complicating access, especially in
many areas of Puget Sound are steep slopes immediately
shoreward of the beach (tideland areas). Even though
under public ownership, several hundred feet of vertical
cliffs make any access roads or trails impossible. There-
fore, heavy competition exists for the limited access sites
for all uses of the tideland areas, especialty in the heavily
populated Puget Sound region.

Proposed State Policy or Solution

The State of Washington recognizes that saltwater
beaches and tidelands are one of the most popular recre-
ational resources of the state. It Is, therefore, recom-
mended that the appropriate public agencies of all levels
of government and the private sector, wherever feasible,
take every possible action to reduce the effect of "check-
erboard" ownerships. whenever possible, that currently
Inhibit public use and access of saltwater beaches and
tidelands. The tidelands Identification program of the
State Department of Natural Resources should be continued
and, wherever feasible, expanded to accommodate Increasing
public use of tidelands.

SELECTED REFERENCES'

R.C.W. 86.16 - Flood Control Zones by State.

R.C.W. 90.54 - Water Resources.

R.C.W. 90-58 - Shoreline Management.

U. S. Dep.-'Housing and Urban Dev. 1974. National flood Insurance program.
48 p. U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, 1). C.

U. S. Dep. Housing and Urban Dev. 1978. Questions and answers - national
flood insurance program. 29 p. U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C.
(pamphlet)

USDI. Heritage Conserv. Recreation Serv. 11978. Floodplain management and
wetlands-protection: Implementation of Executive Orders 11988 and 11990.
Federal Register, Part Ill, 43099): 47449 -- 47451.

USDI. Heritage Conserv. Recreation Serv. 11979. Floodplain management and
wetlands protection - final guidelines. 20 p. U. S. Gov. Print. Off.,
Washington, D. C.

U. S. President. 1977. Exec. Or. 11988 - Floodplain management. Federal
Register 42(101): 26951 - 26957.

U. S. President. 1977. Exec. Or. 11990. Protection of wetlands. Federal
Register 42(101): 26961 - 26965.

Washington Administrative Code - Ch. 508 - 60. Administration of flood control
zones. 5 P.

Washington Dep. Ecol. 1976. Washington State coastal zone management program.
153 P. :State Print. Off., Olympia, Washington

Washington Dep. Ecol. 1979a. Consideration of an estuarine sanctuary in Padilla
Bay. Skagit County. Washington. n.p. Off., Land Programs, Olympia, Washington

Washington Dep. Ecol. 1979b. Washington State coastal zone management program:
Amendments and refinements. 147 P. State Print. Off., Olympia, Washington.

Washington Dep. Nat. Resour. 1977. Public aquatic lands of the State of Wash-
Ington. n.p. State Print. Off., Olympia, Washington. (pamphlet)

Washington Governor's Off. 1977. Exec. Or., 77-11. Evaluation of flood hazard
In locating state buildings, roads, and other facilities, and in reviewing and
approving sewage and water facilities, and 4subdivislons. Olympia, Washington.
September 29, 1977.

Washington Governor's Off. 1977. State policies for land use and natural
resource management: A systematic statement of current major state agency
operational policies, grounded in state law, relating to state responsibilities
for land use and natural resource management. 32 p. Olympia, Washington

Washington Water Res. Cent. 1978. Water use priorities. In Washington Water
News 3(4): 1 - 8.

Washington Water Res. Cent. 1979. Presidential water policy Initiatives. In
Washington Water News 4(l): 1 - 8.

11JE LEGISUATrj4
of the

CEELTIFICATION OF ENROU.ED ENAC717AENT

SENA,rE BILL No_ 3371

CHAPTER NO-

February 26, so
Passed the
YOM. 4 5'
Pared the March 12, so
as ame e
Yeas 83 Nays 14

March 13, 1980 - The Senate
concurred in the House amend-
ment, and passed the bill as
amended. CERTIFICATE
Yeas 48 Nays 0 1, Sidney R. Snyder, Secretary of the Senate of the,
State of Washington do hereby certify that the attached
is ew _3
ay passed hy the Senate and the House of Representa-
tives on the dates hereon set forth.

Secretary of the Senate

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 3371
AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE

State of Washington By Senators Peterson, Wanamaker and
4-6th Legislature Goltz (By Department of Ecology
1980 Regular Session Request)
Read Lim time January 21, 1980, and referred to Commit-tee on NATURAL RE50URCFS.

1 AN ACT lelatiug@'-to tidelands; authorizing the purchase of

2 tidelands for establishment of an estuarine sanctuary;

3 and sakinq an appropriation..

4 BE 17 EVICTED bT TEE LZG:CSLATME Or THE STATE Or VISHINGTON:

5 NEW SZCTION.. Section 1. ?or the purpose of establishing

6 an estuarine sanctuary in Padilla Say, Skagit county, there is

7 appropriated from the general fund to the department of ecology

a for the biennium ending June 30, 1981, the sum of seventy

9 thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary. The

10 department of ecology may use such funds for the acquisition of

11 tidelands within Padilla Bay, Skagit county, either through

12 direct expenditures or through gxants to a federal, state, or

13 local agency and for administering the establishment of an

14 estuarine sanctuary in Padilla Bay, Skagit County.

is No moneys appropriated under this section may be used by

16 the department of ecology for acquisition of tidelands unless

17 made in combination with an equal match of moneys !roz other

18 public or private sources.

19 Prior to acquiring any tidelands, the department of

20 ecology shall determine that the use of the property to be

21 acquired will be consistent with chapter 90.58 acw, the
22 shoreline management act, and guideline and master programs
2i adopted thereunder.

24 Hunting, fishing, boating and noncommercial taking of

25 shellfish shall be authorized but shall be regulated on

26 properties acquired under this section or as a result of the

27 passage of this section.

ZSB 3371

Passed the Senate March 13, 1980.
j
4
PrIe'sVidL @tne S@enate.

Passed-the House March 12, 1980.

e
t@c @Speaker 0 House.
_7;@ep @Lican 5peaker -of the House.
4eHolae.

APPENDIX X

SUMMARIZED COMMENTS ON THE DEIS AND RESPONSES BY OCZM

APPENDIX X

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON PROPOSED PADILLA BAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Louis S. Wall, Chief, Western Division of Project Review, 5/19/80)

Comment

Requests compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966.

Response

Correspondence dated May 13, 1980 (copy in FEIS comment section) from
Jeanne M. Welch, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer signed
by A. Christian Bedegrew, Coastal Zone Management Archaeolo4ist, states
that "no properties are currently listed in the National Register of
Historic Places, in the State Register of Historic Places, in the
State Inventory of Historic Places, or in the Washington Archaeological
Research Center/Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation site
inventory maps which may be impacted by the research program proposed
as explicity defined in the E.I.S." OCZM and The State of Washington
are very supportive of protection of any historic or cultural sites
within the proposed boundary and will encourage such research if the
sanctuary is established.

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
(Sidney Knutson, P.E., Assistant Chief, Engineering Division, 6/24/80)

Comment

No reference to cultural resources.

Response

Paragraph added to page 25, "No archaeological or cultural resources
will be affected by the proposed action. No properties are currently
listed in the National State Inventory of Historic Places, or the
Washington Archaeological Research Center/Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation site inventory maps. Any historic or cultural
sites that are found within the sanctuary will be protected."

-2-

Comment

Concerned with the continued operation of the open-water disposal site
near Hat Island and the delineation of its boundaries near the pro-
posed estuarine sanctuary. Provide description of disposal site.

Response

This disposal site is not within the proposed sanctuary boundaries,
and will not be impacted by establishment of an estuarinesanctuary.

Comment

Concerned with the meaning of the teryn "statutes" under Prohibited
Uses, specifically with reference to Congressional authorization.

Response

Congressional authorization does fall within the meaning of the sentence
as it now reads, "Expansion of existing channels or creation of new
navigation channels unless specifically authorized under State or
Federal law."

Comment

The terTn "a management authority" page 14, item 1, should be defined
and identified.

Response

Comment accepted; clarification made.

Comment

Environmental Assessment on page 14, item 2, should include full impact
analysis, including economic and social effects as well as scientific
data.

Response

This cannot be accomplished until an actual project is proposed.
Please note that this statement only refers to a project within the
sanctuary boundaries on land the State will own. As noted above, a
Congressional authorized project would be permitted assuming all legal
requirements were met. Such an action would obviously not need
sanctuary management approval.

-3-

Comment

The "Alternatives Considered" (page 20,B) should be reorganized.

Response

Comment rejected. It is felt that this section is satisfactory as stands.

Comment

Page 23, first paragraph: The term "environmentally beneficial" should
be more specifically defined. For example, human disturbance such
as trampling can significantly damage benthic aquatic life, even in a
sanctuary.

Response

Your example about human disturbance is accurate. The Department of
Game is expected to fully insure that any human use of the sanctuary
causes as little environmental damage as is possible.

Comment

Page 25, Section C: This section states that condemnation will not
be used, but does not explain how land will be acquired from landowners
who are not willing to relinquish title to property.

Response

There is the possibility that all of the proposed land for acquisition
will not be acquired. In that event, use agreements or easements
will be explored. If inholdings remain, estuarine sanctuary
activities will only occur on lands acquired through fee, easement,
or by use agreement.

Comment

Page 35, Section B, item titled "West": In this paragraph, the description
of the location of the western boundary as the Swinomish Channel does
not agree with the boundary depicted in Figure 1 on page 6.

Response

Comment Accepted. The description on page 35 has been corrected.
Figure I is the correct boundary.

-4-

Department of Housing and Urban Development
(Trudy McFall, Acting Director, Office of Planning and Program Coordinator,
5/22/80)

Comment

Concerned about the effects of potential dredging of the Samish Channel
on the upstream coastal boundary; on the town of LaConner; and on the
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community fish processing plant.

Response

There is an erroneous identification of the Swinomish Channel as the
Samish Channel. LaConner is stated as being across from the proposed
sanctuary whereas it is 4.5 miles south of the southernmost point, as
is the fish processing plant. Data from the State Coastal Atlas, Skagit
County, indicates the drift sector in the upper Swinomish
Channel, March Point, western Padilla Bay Area, is an area in which
sediments move in a northerly direction (i.e. from LaConner toward
the proposed estuarine sanctuary.) The Washington State Department of
Natural Resources Marine Atlas identifies the same area as predominately
a northerly sediment flow throughout the E!ntire year. Perhaps the concern
should be for the water quality in the proposed sanctuary as a result of
the northern movement of sediments towards the sanctuary. In addition,
Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary does not control the dredging process
which takes place in the Swinomish Cbannel or anyplace outside of its
boundaries.

Comment

No indication that the Department of Fisheries has been consulted on
.the effects of the proposed sanctuary on the requirements of the Swinomish
fish processing plant.

Response

Mr. Russ Drell of the Washington State Department of Fisheries was a
member of the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Technical Committee, as
was Mr. Richard Grandstand, Fish Biologist for the Swinomish Indian Tribal
Community. Neither committee member opposed the project during the
decisionmaking process.

U. S. Department of the Interior
(Office of the Secretary, James Rathlesberger, Special Assistant
to the Assistant Secretary, 6/18/80)

Comment

Supports the sanctuary because it will facilitate sorely needed research
on Pacific Northwest estuaries and provide a higher degree of protection
for the estuarine ecosystem.

-5-

Response

Comment Accepted.,

Comment

Due to the proximity and concerns of the Swinomish Indian Tribe, it is
recommended they be included on the Sanctuary Management Committee.

Response

The Management Committee has been replaced by an Oversight Committee,
which is the Skagit County Board of Commissioners. They are expected
to represent all the residents of Skagit County, including the
Swinomish Indian Tribe.

Comment

It should be noted that Padilla Bay encompasses approximately 14,500 acres.
About 500 acres of tidelands, mostly west of Swinomish Channel, are
presently in State ownership.

Response

This statement has been added to the affected environment section.

Comment

The EIS refers to U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA guideline requirements
in relation to decisions regarding sanctuary boundaries, size, and uses.
Appendix I contains those guidelines. Part IV, Section 921.20, presents
criteria for selection. The EIS would be enhanced by a discussion of
how the size, boundaries, and uses of the proposed sanctuary measure
up to these specific criteria.

Response

The criteria in the NOAA Estuarine Sanctuary Guideline are general in
nature to allow for the fact that all estuarine sanctuaries are unique.
As such, there are no "specific" criteria for establishment, except they
will all be used specifically for estuarine research and education. For
example, Apalachicola National Estuarine Sanctuary is 192,000 acres and
Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Sanctuary is 637 acres. NOAA/OCZM feels
that the proposed Padilla Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary meets all
criteria established in the referenced guidelines.

-6-

Comment

Summary, Page ii - The proposed action is acquisition (primarily in
fee simple) of 11,612 acres within Padilla Bay.

Response

Comment Accepted.

Comment

A statement is also made that Padilla Bay Is "the largest area relatively
undisturbed by man in Puget Sound This statement should be qualified
to state "tideflat area," although Skagit Bay tidelands may be more
extensive. A similiar statement is made on page 22 that Padilla Bay
has "the most extensive eelgrass beds in North America." This is
probably true of Puget Sound and North America south of Alaska, but
we believe there are more extensive eelgrass beds near Izembek, Alaska.
These statements should be verified for inclusion in the final EIS.

Response

Corrections have been made.

Comment

Page 4 - A statement is made indicating that Padilla Bay is a "prime
site for industrial development." This statement needs explanation
in light of the designation of Padilla Bay as one of five named

"Shorelines of Statewide Significance" under the Shoreline Management
Act, and the Bay's designation (with Skagit Bay) as an "Area of
Particular Concern" in the NOAA-approved Coastal Zone Management Program
for Washington. Also, this statement is not in line with other state-
ments in the EIS (e.g., pages 9 and 29) implying that the Bay is already
accorded a high degree of protection and control under those programs.

Response

The statement regarding industrial development within the DEIS is incorrect
and has been deleted.

Comment

Page 9 - After referring to industrial and agricultural activities
adjoining the proposed sanctuary that are potentially detrimental,
the EIS states "existing local and State statutes and regulations
appear fully adequate to address any potential problems resulting from

-7-

these uses in adjacent water or lands." Yet, on page 20, occurs a
statement that "... the existing controls are thought to be inadequate
to fully insure the ecological integrity of Padilla Bay estuary..."
It also contrasts with statements made on page 26 describing possible
conflicts of the sanctuary with various governmental land use plans,
policies, and controls. We note particularly that "... the protective
measures are permissive acts that have the flexibility of protection
for environmental uses and will also allow private use and development
under certain acceptable conditions. Therefore, there are no assurances
that environmentally valuable areas will remain undeveloped for public
use. If other uses occur or are proposed that are not compatible
with the environment, but provide a positive impact for the community's
economy, industry, etc., approval of these uses is possible. In the
case of Padilla Bay, there is a continued probability of proposals
for noncompatible environmental uses occurring..."

Response

OCZM feels the issue raised is one of semantics and there is no in-
consistency in the statements. The statement on page 20 basically
states that to fully insure control, ownership through establishing
an estuarine sanctuary is necessary. However, the commentor is correct
in assuming there are no assurances that surrounding environmental
areas will remain undeveloped--for compatible'. or non-compatible uses.
But, local and state statutes are felt to be adequate to address potential
problems, although the outcome is not possible to predict with total
accuracy.

Comment

On page 14, a statement is made that "... any activity destructive
to the Padilla Bay natural ecosystem is not compatible and must be
prohibited." It is not clear how the prohibitions to be implemented
for the sanctuary could be extended to the remainder of Padilla Bay.
As stated on page 9, establishment of the pro osed sanctuary would
extend new protections to adjacent water and @and areas. We found
these and other passages in the EIS confusing with respect to the
adequacy of existing controls and whether the statements referred to
present management circumstances or the conditions and protections
that would exist for the sanctuary (or entire Bay) following establish-
ment of an estuarine sanctuary.

Response

The statement on page 14 refers to the estuarine sanctuary only and
has been changed accordingly. The statement on page 9 refers to the
existing circumstances and after sanctuary establishment. This topic
of local and State controls is also discussed earlier in the Comment
Section.

Comment

Page 14 - In item 1, change "All current uses ..." to read "All (legal)
existing uses ..." (refer to page 19). A distinction should be made
here between established ongoing uses and uses that are merely permitted,
but not yet established. Possibly the reference to continuing present
uses was meant to refer only to recreational activities within the
proposed sanctuary area.

Response

Comment Accepted. Reference on page 14 is to apply to all uses,
including recreational.

Comment

Page 15 - In the top paragraph, change "productive studies" to read
61 productivity studies."

Response

Comment Accepted.

Comment

Pages 23-25, Environmental Consequences Significant portions of material
on these pages were taken from a 1979 assessment of Padilla Bay as a
potential Unique Wildlife Ecosystem done by the Fish and Wildlife Service
and incorporating data and information developed by the Game Department.
The same is true for pages 36-40 and for Appendix VIII, which lists
plant and animal species in the vicinity. We suggest specific mention
be made of those sources preceding the'applicable sections. In addition,
throughout the sections on environmental consequences and affected
environment, there are a number of sources cited, but no bibliographic
listing is provided in the EIS. We suggest a bibliography of cited
references be included.

Response

Comment accepted. Requested credit has been given in the first section,
"Purpose and Need for Action." We haVE! not included a bibliography
because of the time needed to assemble it, and its marginal value to the
Padilla Bay decisionmaking process. WE! are appreciative of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's cooperation and invaluable assistance in the
Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary process.

-9-

Comment

Page 26 - Reference is made to possible industrial "add-ons" and deep
water areas on the western boundary that may provide water-oriented
transportation that could negatively impact the proposed sanctuary
area. More specific information should be provided about prospective
projects.

Response

The statement in the DEIS refers to "possible industrial add-ons" and
refers only to a potential future scenario. There are no known pro-
posals at this time. As mentioned previously, if such proposals were
to occur in the future, it is the basic responsibility of local and
State agencies to examine them individually for their conformance to
previously established goals/plans for Padilla Bay--the same process
that the estuarine sanctuary proposal is presently undergoing.

Comment

Page 30 - The information on the Skagit County Shoreline Management
Master Program is pertinent, but does not provide any specifics as
to how it applies to Padilla Bay. Since the provisions of the local
master program are evidently critical to present and future management
policies and decisions on use of the Bay, it would be helpful to
provide at least a summary of the relevant "environment designations,"
goals, and policies of the program.

Response

OCZM agrees with this comment. We feel the important considerations are
that the estuarine sanctuary does conform with the Shoreline Management
Master Program goals and that all other future shoreline proposals within
Skagit County conform with the same goals.

Comment

Page 32 - Although impacts of the Swinomish Community on the project
are discussed, the impacts of the project on the Indian community
are not. There are lands which will be impacted by the proposal and
those impacts should be discussed. The area in question is included
in the "Adjudicated Usual and Accustomed Fishing Places" (U.S. vs.
Washington, 1-1-77) of the Lummi, Swinomish, and Suquamish Tribes.

Response

These lands were discussed during the-sanctuary decisionmaking process
performed by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee modified
the boundary of the sanctuary, at the request of the Swinomish Indian

_10-

Tribe, to exclude lands that are contested. OCZM does not feel the
estuarine sanctuary will have any impact on the resolution of owner-
ship of said lands. This last statement has been added to the FEIS.

Comment

Under "Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Plans," reference is made to
past efforts and plans to establish a tribal "port industrial park"
in southern Padilla Bay. A figure of 21) acres is given for the area
of tidelands claimed. This appears to be inaccurate since the claimed
area probably exceeds 100 acres.

Response

Approximately 20 acres are disputed; however, the proposal for the
marine and industrial park is for approximately 200 acres.

Comment

Under the "Federal Permit Program," bridge and causeway permits under
Section 9 of the River and Harbor Act are administered by the Coast
Guard. Suggest deletion of the reference to "persistent applicants."

Response

Comment accepted; change made.

Comment

Page 35 - The Shell and Texaco refineries should be listed as in the
area surrounding the sanctuary.

Response

This section is only a general description of the boundaries; Texaco
or Shell are not adjacent to the proposed sanctuary. However, they are
located in the surrounding area as indicated on Figure 1.

Comment

Page 36 - A reference point should be stated for the low and high
water mark elevations.

Response

We do not understand this comment. We would assume that U. S. Coast and
Geodetic bench marks would be used as a reference point.

Comment

Page 37 - The correct name of the Lake Chelan case is Wilbur and Green
vs. Gallagher.

Response

Comment accepted; change made.

Comment

Page 38 - Under "Biological Characteristics," the reference to "Area
of Concern" needs clarification.

Response

The reference has been deleted. The reference refers to Padilla Bay
itself and the adjacent uplands.

Comment

Page 40 - The last sentence under item 4, "Birds," refers to two bays.
These are Padilla and Samish Bays.

ResLonse

Comment accepted; change made.

U.S. Department of the Interior - Additional letter.
(-James H. Rathlesberger, 6/27/80)

Comment

Padilla Bay is no longer a "true" estuary since it is no longer connected
with the Skagit River system and has only fresh water inflow from land
drainage. More information should be included to clarify that Padilla
Bay is more representative of a Columbian estuary than the other numerous
true estuaries in the area.

Response

The selection process for estuarine sanctuary sites considers ten different
ecological and economic criteria. The resulting decision was that Padilla
Bay was the best choice. Although Padilla Bay is not connected with the
Skagit River, it is an estuary: it is a body of water connected to the
open sea with fresh water derived from land drainage. The bay has all
the ecological characteristics of an area with intermittent salinities.

-12-

In fact, at one of the legislative sub-committee hearings on proposed
findings for Padilla Bay, a representative from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service testified that Padilla Bay was the "'best" site for an estuarine
sanctuary within the State of Washington.

Comment

We wonder why multiple use is now being added as a specific objective of
the Sanctuary (page i). Our understanding -is that it will only be tolerated
as long as it will not diminish the primary purposes of research and
education.

Response

See Section 921.5(a) of the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines; multiple
use of estuarine sanctuaries will be encouraged to the extent that such
use is compatible with this primary sanctuary purpose."

Comment

In view of existing land use activities in the area and potential uses.,
more information is needed to verify how the sanctuary will remain in a
"relatively undisturbed" state in the future.-

Response

Padilla Bay is a relatively pristine body of water. The adjacent land
uses are mainly agricultural with 2 oil refineries on the other side of
the bay from the proposed sanctuary. We cannot guarantee the future of
the estuarine sanctuary because there is no "sanctuary control" over
.future land use developments in the Padill.a. Bay watershed. However,
local and State planning goals recognize Padilla Bay as a unique Washington
natural resource and we are optimistic that any conflicts arising will
be resolved in keeping with these goals. These goals are outlined in the
DEIS and FEIS.

Department of Transportation, U. S. Coast Guard
Captain K. G. Wiman, Deputy Chief, Office of Marine Environment
and Systems, 6/30/8

Comment

Puget Sound Pilots Association has requested that a light be established
on Saddlebag Island, which is within the boundaries of the proposed
sanctuary. The request for establishment of a light is being evaluated
by the Thirteenth District Aids to Navigation Branch. No action date for
this request has been established and officials of the Saddlebag State
Park have not been contacted.

-13-

Response

The establishment of a navigation light on Saddlebag Island presents no
problems from an estuarine sanctuary standpoint.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
(Roger K. Mochnick, Acting Chief, Environmental Evaluation
Branch, 5/30/80)

Comment

Rated the DEIS as LO-1 (Lack of Objections; 1-Adequate information.)
Requested clarification over the purpose of an estuarine sanctuary and
the multiple uses that will be allowed.

Response

While the primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is scientific and
educational, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries will be encouraged
to the extent such usage is compatible with the primary purpose. The
relatively isolated and low level of fishing is not expected to negatively
impact the estuarine sanctuary for education and research. The HIS has
been changed to indicate there are no navigation channels, hence no
-maintenance dredging, within the sanctuary boundaries.

Comment

If Padilla Bay is being established for the purposes of examining a
system influenced by human activities, the DEIS should so state.

Response

The purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is to study the ecological
relationships within relatively natural estuarine systems. Unfortunately,
there are no large estuarine systems within the United States that are not
impacted by man's disturbances. The disturbances within Padilla Bay
are relatively minor and will not affect the primary goal of research
and education.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
7Dr. Carl Shuster, Jr., Coordinator, Coastal Zone Affairs, 6/13/80)

Comment

Cascade Natural Gas Corporation operates an 8-inch interstate natural gas
pipeline that may be within the upland portion of the sanctuary. The
corporation should be contacted.

-14-

Response

The proposed acquisition for the 1,243 acre upland area will be an easement
purchase only on a willing seller basis. IIF the Cascade Natural Gas
Corporation has a gas line within the sanctuary boundaries, its right-
of-way and maintenance will be respected, and not affected by the proposed
sanctuary. A copy of the DEIS has been sent to Mr. O.M. Jones, President.

-15-

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Department of Fisheries, State of Washington
(Ray C. Johnson for Gordon Sandison, Director, 6/20/80)

Comment

Concern expressed over the continued utilization of available surplus
foodfish and shellfish for commercial purposes.

Response

As stated in the DEIS & FEIS, "Recreational and commercial fishing,
shellfish harvest, and hunting subject to current fishing and hunting
regulations" are allowed.

Comment

It is stated on pages iv, 9, and 25 that allowed uses will include sport
and commercial fishing and shellfish harvesting. Elsewhere, however,
(page iv - paragraph 3, page 2 - paragraph 1, page 19 - paragraph 2)
statements occur which appear to compromise or negate this permitted
status.

Response

Statements in the DEIS which appear to compromise or negate the status
of sport and commercial fishing and shellfish harvesting have been
adjusted to reflect a consistent position which allows these activities.
Research and educational programs may temporarily interrupt these activities
in a specific area of the sanctuary and for a specific time. However,
research and educational programs will be scheduled in areas and on a
seasonal basis which will be compatible with fishing and shellfishing
seasons, etc. Also, because of the Bay's geographic and physiographic
setting, sport and commercial fishing and shellfish harvesting
will not be completely eliminated at any one time. These activities,
sport and commercial fishing, shellfish harvesting, and research
and educational programs, are compatible, and with proper scheduling
by the managing agency, should not cause user conflicts within the proposed
estuarine sanctuary project area.

Comment

Information concerning the management plan (page 8) indicates that specific
policies will be developed for the sanctuary and that the sanctuary
Steering Committee will have the formal role of approving this management
plan to be drafted? Will general circulation of a plan draft occur
to solicit comments?

-16-

Response

The Steering Committee has adopted the general management plan which
appears in the DEIS and FEIS. A specific management plan will be
developed by the Washington Department of Game. The Department of
Fisheries is encouraged to contact the Department of Game and assist
in the planning and management of the proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary.

Comment

What specific management authority will make decisions on permitted
and prohibited uses? Please elaborate upon the actual decisionmaking
process including participating interest groups and anticipated pathways
for consultation and input. A specific, clear, and concise summary
of the functional implementation process of management and policy
decisions is needed in the FEIS. Points should include time frames,
participating interest groups, avenues for input, and documentation
of major decision points.

Response

The Washington Department of Game will bE! responsible for management
of the sanctuary with the assistance of an Oversight Committee
(Skagit County Board of Commissioners). The Department of Fisheries
is invited to participate in any future decisionmaking process by
contacting Ralph Larson, Director, Department of Game.

Interagency-Committee for Outdoor Recreation
(Robert A. Wilder, Administrator, 6/6/80)

Comment

The proposed sanctuary would be in compliance with the State Comprehensive
Outdoor Plan concerning use of wetlands and floodplains.

Response

Comment Accepted.

Ska@it County Board of Commissioners
(Bud Norris, Chai man; Jerry Mansfield, Commissioner; Howard Miller,
Commissioner, 6/9/80)

Comments

The Board of Commissioners is pleased that the creation of the Padilla Bay
Estuarine Sanctuary will sustain the multiple use concept and allow
continuation and co-existence of compatible activities and surrounding

-17-

land uses. They support the fact that land acquisition will be negotiated
only on a "willing seller" concept, encouraging the county to donate
nearly one hundred acres of publicly owned tidelands to the Padilla Bay
Estuarine Sanctuary. They accept the responsibility of functioning as
the oversight committee and fi.nal managing body for the estuarine sanctuary.
They acknowledge that no existing.uses within the boundaries of the
sanctuary will be affected by the formation of the sanctuary and that
any proposed use outside the sanctuary will not be affected by the
existence of the sanctuary. They appreciate the efforts of the Department
of Ecology and OCZM in protecting the resources of Padilla Bay.

Response

Comments accepted, except that the function of the Oversight Committee
is as described in the FEIS. OCZM appreciates very much the leadership
and support that Skagit County has provided for the Padilla Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary proposal. The County is also to be congratulated for its
generous consideration of the donation of land for the proposed sanctuary.

Washinqton Department of Natural Resources
(William A. Johnson, Manager, Division of Marine Land Management,
6/12/80)

Comment

Washington DNR endorses and supports the proposed sanctuary. We have
participated in Committee work in the proposal's development and believe
the leadership and development plan have been unique.

Response

Comment Accepted. NOAA appreciates the fine work the Department of Natural
Resources has done during the development of the Padilla Bay proposal.

Washinqton Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
(Jeanne M. Welch, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, 5/13/80)

Comment

No properties currently listed as being of Archaeological or Historical
importance will be affected by the sanctuary proposal. However, im-
portant cultural resources do exist within the proposed sanctuary.
Accordingly, this office should be afforded the opportunity to comment
on any possible construction of a sanctuary "interpretive center
(with/a) small boat launching ramp."

Response

Comment Accepted. The Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
shall be contacted as part of the A-95 process before any such con-
struction is begun. At the time of construction of the interpretive
center and boat launching ramp (which may or may not be constructed),
The Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be afforded
the opportunity to review the proposal for any probable impact the
alteration of terrain may have upon the State's archaeological and/
or historic resources.

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
(David Heiser, E.P., Chief Environmental Coorjinator, 6/11/80)

Comment

We support the proposed sanctuary and were very impressed with the DEIS
and the effort made to involve all parties.

Response

Comment Accepted.

_19-

LOCAL INTEREST GROUPS

Friends of the Earth
TDavid E. Ortman, N.W. Office, Seattle, WA, 6/18/80)

General Comment

Considerable information about the proposal, but question compliance
with NEPA and CEQ regulations at several points. Number of points
raised in reference to these CEQ regulations and other specific comments
about the proposed sanctuary.

General Response

Friends of the Earth (FOE) is the only commentor which has questioned the
adequacy of the DEIS. While-it is possible to add information which
clarifies points of interest-or concern, OCZM believes that the DEIS does
meet the CEQ NEPA regulations and satisfies the intent of the law. This
will be more fully shown in the responses to FOE's specific comments.
It should be noted that the author was a member of one of the Technical
Committees and is familiar with the decisionmaking process.

Comment

40 CFR 1502.2(d) states that EIS's shall state how alternatives con-
sidered in it and decisions based on it will or will not achieve the
requirements of section 101 and 102(l) of the Act and other environmental
laws and policies. We find no such section or discussion in the draft
EIS.

Response

40 CFR 1502.2(d) does not require that this discussion be described
under a separate section of the DEIS. OCZM believes that this requirement
of the NEPA regulations has been adequately described and taken into
consideration. To begin with, it should be remembered that the purpose
of establishing estuarine sanctuaries is consistent with Section 102(l)
generally and 101(b) and,(c) specifically. The similarity of purpose
can best be evaluated in 15 CFR 921.3 - Objectives and implementation
of the [Estuarine Sanctuary] program (see Appendix I). Estuarine sanctuaries
are not construction projects which consume resources, but rather they
preserve and protect estuarine ecosystems for the major purpose of
scientific research and education. With respect to the establishment
of estuarine sanctuaries, there is little doubt that the only alternative
which in essence does not meet Section 101 and 102 is the "no action"
alternative. With respect to the relationship between the proposed
action alternative and other relevant environmental laws and policies
was discussed in the DEIS on pages 26-33 and again in Appendix IX.

-20-

Comment

40 CFR 1502.2(e) states that the range of alternatives discussed in
the EIS shall encompass those to be considered by the ultimate agency
decisionmaker. This draft EIS does not discuss the range of alternatives
which might be considered by the ultimate agency decisionmaker, in this
case OCZM, but merely a limited discussion of alternatives presented by
the State of Washington.

Response

OCZM is the "ultimate" agency decisionmaker and as such has two major
alternatives which it must consider. These are to fund the request
of the State of Washington or to deny the request (or no action al-
ternative). If a State wishes to participate in the program, according
to OCZM guidelines, it follows a process for reviewing sites within
a particular biogeographic region and various boundary alternatives
within the most likely sanctuary proposal., This is done using an
estuarine public participation process which was described in the DEIS.
When the State is prepared to present thetr choice to OCZM, we feel
it is not necessary or relevant to identify all the sites which were
reviewed. OCZM is not in a position to select these other sites, but
only to accept or reject the State proposal. Therefore, we feel that
the DEIS does discuss the 'range of alternatives available to the agency
decisionmaker. It should also be noted that OCZM approved and encouraged
the innovative decisionmaking process the State of Washington adopted, as
explained in the DEIS.

Comment

40 CFR 1502.2(g) states that EIS's shall serve as the means of assessing
the environmental impacts of proposed.agency action,.rather than
justifying decisions already made. We find the'EIS to be a justification
for the state's estuarine sanctuary proposal rather than a means of assessing
environmental impacts of the action and alternatives.

Response

There are several areas of concern which -the Assistant Administrator
for Coastal Zone Management feels should be known about prior to
making a decision. Since the establishment of a sanctuary entails
land acquisition and certain land and water use restrictions, it is
important to know what the socio-economic impacts will be on the
property owners whose land is to be purchased and on-the surrounding
community. These impacts are discussed in several places of the DEIS.
In this particular case, these impacts are expected to be minimal
because real property acquisition is on a "willing seller" concept with
no condemnation proceedings or relocation. The impacts on Skagit County
were addressed on page 24. OCZM received no negative comments on this
assessment either from the Skagit County Board of Commissioners or from
verbal testimony received from the Anacortes Chamber of Commerce during
our public hearing.

-21-

It is perhaps unfortunate that a majority of the assessment is taken up
with a description of the State's proposal including the various management
schemes if the sanctuary is established. While is is unfortunate, OCZM
considers it essential for both the public and the decisionmakers in
order to clearly understand what*the State is proposing.

While it may appear that the environmental benefits of establishing an
estuarine sanctuary are positive in nature, it should not be interpreted
that the DEIS neglects the importance of examining the environmental
impacts. It is a matter-of-fact that a "good proposal" will be environ-
mentally justified by a DEIS., But - be'cause the major adverse impacts
were addressed in the DEIS, OCZM believes the document is more than a
justification of either the State's or OCZM's proposal and once again
meets the NEPA requirements.

Comment

40 CFR 1502.6 states that EIS's shall be prepared using an inter-
disciplinary approach which will insure the intergrated use of the
natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts. We
find no evidence that this approach was used..,

Response

Part V, pages 41-43 of the DEIS listed those which have participated
in the background research work and putting the DEIS together. Much
of the technical data was from studies and reports conducted by the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the expertise of numerous experts
in all fields was used.to determine the feasibility and desirability
of the proposed action, and both Messrs. MacFarland and Martin
have expertise in the social and economic aspects of establishing
sanctuaries and parks. Therefore, with no further particulars detailed
by FOE, OCZM feels this is an unjustified statement.

Comment

40 CFR 1502.12 states that each EIS shall contain a summary which
shall stress . . . areas of controversy. The summary of this EIS does
not mention areas of controversy. Especially absent from the summary
are the concerns surrounding the boundaries or a "natural ecological
unit".

-22-

Response

40 CFR 1502.12 assumes that there are controversies involved in all
EIS's. This does not necessarily have to be the case. During OCZM's
scoping process in which we asked for comments or areas of concern,
we received no information which would lead us to assume there were
major controversies. Since the DEIS, we have received concerns raised
by the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community regarding their desires to
develop an Industrial Park Marina and the potential conflict the
sanctuary proposal may have on this project. A new section to the
summary has been added because of this. There does not appear to be
a controversy surrounding the proposed bOUndary. A larger boundary
was considered by the Technical Committee and the Steering Committee
and its merits studied. The boundary iSSUe was satisfactorily resolved
through this process. No other commentors. have raised the subject of a
larger boundary being necessary to approximate a "natural ecological
unit."

Comment

40 CFR 1502.14(a) states that the EIS should explore and objectively
evaluate all reasonable alternatives. We find the draft EIS very weak
in evaluating alternative protective mechanisms as well as alterative
11natural ecological unit" boundaries.

Response

See response to comments on alternatives above. OCZM has added one
additional alternative which is not withi*n its jurisdiction and that
is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Unique Wildlife Ecosystem Program.

Comment

40 CFR 1502.14(b) states that EIS's shall devote substantial treatment
to each alternative considered in detail. . -so that reviewers may
evaluate their comparative merits. The draft EIS is deficient and does
not permit us, as reviewers, to adequately evaluate the alternatives on
their comparative merits.

Response

See response to comment's on alternatives above.

Comment

40 CFR 1502.16(d) states that the EIS should address the environmental
effects of alternatives. We find the draft EIS deficient in addressing
the environmental effects of alternatives, especially the adverse impacts
of not establishing a large estuarine sanctuary.

-23-

Response

A larger sanctuary (a 11,612 acre sanctuary is already considered large)
is not under consideration as a viable alternative for the reasons
described on page 21 of the DEIS.

Comment

On page iv, it states that both committees' decisions would be incorporated
into the application. This is incorrect in that DOE accepted only the
.recommendations of the Steering Committee.

Response

On July 7, 1979, (document date) the Steering and Technical Committees
work program document stated the following: "When completed, the committee
reports will be incorporated into the DOE/U. S. Department of Commerce/NOAA
forma7land acquisition (application) and draft environmental impact
statement" and under "Subcommittee Work Task Review Process" it was stated
that the "product of the subcommittees' effort and review by the Technical
Committee will take the form of a recommendation to the full Steering
Committee for review, approval, and adoption as a policy which will be
included in the DOE/U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA grant application
for the estuarine sanctuary.

Comment

The national and statewide nature of the program and funding should not
be overlooked in assessing the scope of the program. The EIS refers to
coexistence within a community, presumably Skagit County, on page iv.

Response

The reference to "coexistence" within a community relates to coexistence
from a physical standpoint, i.e., the location of an environmental area
in the vicinity or adjacent to an area with basically a non-environmental
identification, oil refinery, lumber sawmill, etc., but also in the
vicinity or adjacent to agricultural areas.

Coexistence also relates to a community attitude which provides the
various community entities (environmental or non-environmental) with an
opportunity to know and understand each other's position and the value
each provides to the livability of a community.

Results of the coexistence approach will be of statewide and national
interest in addition to the research and educational benefits realized.

-24-

Comment

On page 6, Figure 1, the western boundary of the sanctuary is arbitrarily
drawn, prohibiting disruptive activities inside the sanctuary, but not
elsewhere in the Bay thus having the potential to affect the integrity of
the entire bay ecosystem.

Response

The sanctuary's western boundary (which was determined through careful
consideration by the Steering Committee in order to establish a reasonable
and useable project) does include the major part of Padilla Bay and,
in the judgment of the Department of Ecology and OCZM, should be the
western limits of the estuarine sanctuary.

Comment

Maintenance dredging of existing channels will be allowed in the sanctuary
whereas to our knowledge, there are no channels or dredging projects.

Response

The HIS was changed to elim.inat6 the reference to channel dredging.

Comment

No mention is made of whether private diking and landfilling would be
explicitly prohibited.

Response

No diking or landfilling will be allowed within the sanctuary. Such
activity will be subject to State and local regulations outside sanctuary
boundaries.

Comment

On page 2, clarification is needed for the use of "control" areas. Part
of the Bay is not within the sanctuary and may have disturbing influences
felt or measured within the sanctuary.

Response

The entire Padilla Bay is not the estuarine sanctuary. The ecological
research and educational areas in that part of the Bay designated as an
estuarine sanctuary by the Steering Committee, but which includes the
major part of the Bay, can be used and protected as required for
research and educational programs.

-25-

Comment

Please list the acreage for the seven existing estuarine sanctuaries
listed on page 3.

Response

This information is not relevant to the proposed Padilla Bay project.
The referenced list has been forwarded to FOE.under separate cover.

Comment

Please discuss the State of Washington's appropriation of $70,000 for the
estuarine sanCtuary in light of the need for $656,500 from the state on
page 3.

Response

The 1980 Washington State Legislative appropriation of $70,000 (reduced
from the DOE request of $250,000) will be part of the State funds which
are required to match Federal funds appropriated for Padilla Bay. These
funds will be used for real property acquisition. Additional funds will
be through legislative requests by DOE until the State's share of the
project is completed. Donated lands will also be credited to the State's
share.

Comment

NOAA guidelines indicate that estuarine sanctuaries should approximate a
natural ecological unit. A more logical and still feasible natural unit
would encompass the entire Bay.

Response

The State, through DOE and the Steering and Technical Committees, agreed
that the sanctuary area decided upon did satisfy NOAA guidelines-
Part 921.20(c).

Comment

Under what authority was Padilla'Bay tidelands sold to the State in 1906?
How was the doctrine of public trust handled at that time?

Response

You are referred to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
Mr. Bert Cole, Land Commissioner, or Mr. William Johnson, Supervisor of
Marine Lands, Olympia, Washington.

-26-

Comment

The description of the four basic groups of real property on page 7 should
be rewritten and identified on a map similar to that on Figure 1 of the
DEIS.

Response

The four real property tracts are identiflied in this manner because of
the unusual size and configuration of individual parcels within the
tracts, some of which are 3.5 to 4.0 miles in length. Any map included
in the DEIS which would accurately identify the more than 1,800 original
parcels would be too cumbersome to include within the text of the DEIS.

Maps and additional information are available upon request from the
Department of Ecology, Mail Stop PV-11, Olympia, Washington 98504. Please
contact Mr. Rod Mack, Assistant Director.

Comment

Drawing the boundary of the sanctuary through open water leaves the
sanctuary vulnerable to activities beyond the sanctuary boundary.

Response

The boundary issue was discussed earlier on page 23 of this Appendix.

Comment

On page 10, under 'Allowed Uses, navigation and dredging of existing
channels should be changed to "navigation and maintenance for existing
channels outside the proposed estuarine sanctuary."

Response

Comment accepted; change made.

Comment

On page 13, the phrase "...has only freshwater inflow from land drainage"
should be changed to read"...has freshwater inflow only from local land
drainage."

Response

Comment accepted; change made.

-27-

Comment

The reference to dredging and diking on page 13 needs clarification.

Response

Diking activity within Padilla Bay refers to maintenance diking of existing
dikes.

Comment

The EIS implies that the no action alternative would leave Padilla Bay
vulnerable to "destructive intrusions in the form of diking, dredging,
filling, chemical discharges, and major disturbances from human activity,"
which contradicts proposed prohibitions on page 10.

Response

Current uses, consistent with NOAA regulations and provisions of Senate
Bill 3371 (1980 Washington State Legislature), do not include dredging,
filling, chemical discharges, etc.

Comment

Specific areas that were considered in the site selection process are not
mentioned in either the EIS or the Appendix.

Response

The area of discussion was identified in the State of Washington pre-
application grant. The study that included the alternative sites are
available from the Department of Ecology.

Comment

One alternative we ask be included and discussed is a proposal of Padilla
Bay as a Registered Natural Landmark, prepared in 1972 by Dr. Grant W.
Sharpe, University of Washington.

Response

Dr. Sharpe's information is outdated and incomplete. Official changes
made by the Skagit County Planning Department in 1979 accurately reflect
the current zoning for Padilla Bay.

The State DOE and the Federal Department of the Interior have exchanged
correspondence regarding a Registered Natural Landmark designation for
Padilla Bay. The DOE will consider that alternative separate from the
formation of an estuarine sanctuary and make the final decision on that
matter.

-28-

Comment

Another alternative which sould be included in the boundary proposals
outlined in the impact assessment prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) is the Unique Wildlife Ecosystem Program.

Response

The USFWS Unique Wildlife Ecosystem boundary, along with several other
boundary alternatives were considered (as you are aware, since you were a
part of the discussion process) and were rejected as undesirable or
unrealistic, etc. by the Steering Committee. The area manager of the
USFWS, Mr. Joseph Blum, was a member of the committee and in agreement
with the decisions.

Comment

The EIS discusses a major alternative" that would have encompassed the
entire bay, yet does not mention whether or not purchase of development
rights or easements for these parcels was considered.

Response

The purchase, development'rights., or easements were considered and under
the "willing seller" concept for real property acquisition in Padilla Bay
was not practical, costwise, for the State of Washington.

Comment

A map should be added showing lands claimed by the Swinomish Indian Tribal
Community. Discussion should also be-piresented,on why State owned
tidelands adjacent to the east side of March Point were excluded from the
proposal.

Response

Discussion of the proposed (claimed) Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
boundary would not be proper with litigation regarding this matter
pending by the Tribal community. The State-owned lands are identified on
page 30 of the DEIS. Alternative boundaries have been previously discussed.

Comment

Under Alternative Methods, Federal and State acquisition programs listed
shoul@ be cited and discussed in more detail.

-29-

Response

We feel that the acquisition programs cited reflect all major programs.
No Federal or State agency proposed their funding of the proposed acquisition.
In fact, all relevant agencies supported the estuarine sanctuary.

Comment

The Environmental Consequences section should discuss the adverse impacts
that may occur from the selection of the action with its drastically
shrunken boundaries from other alternatives.

Response

The State of Washington, through DOE, and the Steering Committee have
determined the size and location of the proposed sanctuary through
consideration of the environmental opportunities that exist "outside of
any boundary" that is established. However, the sanctuary area selected,
which meets NOAA guideline requirements, is what the State can fund and
adequately manage, etc. at this time. Once the sanctuary is approved and
in operation, other areas may be considered as additions to the sanctuary
if their value can be ade(fulately established.

Comment

Given the special designation and recognition accorded Padilla Bay under
the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), it is difficult why controls do not already
exist to protect the ecological integrity of Padilla Bay. Although
these protections would not necessarily assure public access or facilitate
scientific or educational activities afforded by creation of a sanctuary,
the EIS should explain why outright purchase of Associated Oyster Tracts
is necessary.

Response

As indicated, "these protections would not ... assure public access or
facilitate scientific or educational activities" etc. The ownership of the
Associated Oyster Tracts is considered an important part of the sanctuary
to be used for scientific and educational purposes.

Comment

The EIS should clarify how industrial development could be proposed or
considered within the sanctuary, thus necessitating DOE opposition. It
is not clear why conflicting developments would not be prohibited even
now.

-30-

Response

Many uses of Padilla Bay and similar tideland areas are possible depending
on future legislative action. The SMA is a legislative action which is
a positive action for the protection of the ecological and biological areas
and public use. It is the position of DOE that public ownership for
a specific purpose is the best and may be the only way to preserve areas
within the sanctuary for current and future scientific and educational uses.

Comment

In view of the latest findings of OCZM in their annual Section 312 Review
of the State's CZM Program we would dispute the statement that the State
has an "effective program." In recent testimony before Congress, former
OCZM Assistant Administrator Robert W. Knecht omitted Washington from the
list of States which had effective programs. We ask that the word "effective"
on page 29 be deleted.

Response

Comment accepted; change made.

Comment

The lands in public ownership should be shown on a map and explanation
given for their inclusion from the proposed sanctuary.

Response

As mentioned earlier, discussion was provided in the State of Washington
pre-application grant.

Comment

Again, we ask for maps showing master program designations referred to on
page 30, Skagit County Shoreline Management Program.

Response

Not included in the FEIS; see page 30 and comments on boundaries.

Comment

Mention should be made of the landfill in the southwestern portion of the
Bay.

Response

The landfill is addressed in the comments and responses to the Department
of the Army/Corps of Engineers letter to which we refer you.

-31-

Comment

Was a final rule ever issued of the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines? As
proposed rules they carry no authority and the final regs should be
printed or the proposed regs removed from this section.

Response

The final guidelines have not been issued. However, the proposed guidelines
are in effect and have the same authority as final regulations. OCZM is
in the process of finalizing these guidelines, and they will be completed
by October 1980.

Comment

We request the results of the appraisals for the Associated Oyster Tracts
be included in the final EIS.

Response

The appraisal documents are quite lengthy and we do not feel that their
inclusion within the DEIS or FEIS is warranted. Copies of the appraisal
may be examined at the Department of Game, or the'Office of Coastal Zone
Management, on request.

-32-

Law Offices of Simonarson, Visser and Johnson (representing Dunlap Towing
Company), (Daniel D. Zender, 6/18/807--

Comment

Have not opposed the project because the management concept is one
of coexistence, and the sanctuary is not intended to interfere with the
uses outside its boundaries. Compliments the Steering and Technical
Committees for their consideration of the issues.

Response

Comments and compliments accepted. We appreciate Dunlap Towing Company's
involvement in the decisionmaking process.

Comment

While there is no direct jurisdiction or authority on the part of the
Steering Committee or any future sanctuany manager over lands outside
the sanctuary boundary, the existence of the sanctuary and its goals
and policies can have an indirect effect On other land use controls
imposed by other jurisdictions. Would like to see a more direct state-
ment of intent concerning co-existence, with regard to the present uses
of the sanctuary, that has,proved to be compatible. (Specifically concerned
with Department of Natural Resources land-leased by Dunlap Towing Company
for log storage).

Response

In the estuarine sanctuary selection process, the extent of alteration
of the natural system (both present and future) that could cause
external stress is considered as one of.the criterion. Therefore, current
uses in and near the sanctuary are considered compatible. The sanctuary
itself has absolutely no direct effect on the laws and regulations which
control land use planning outside its boundaries. These are the primary
responsibilities of Skagit County and thE! State of Washington. We
believe that the sanctuary will not conflict with current industrial uses
in the area. The following statement has been added to the FEIS (page 9).
" Adjacent uses of the proposed estuarine sanctuary have co-existed with
the present use of the sanctuary area for a substantial length of time
and are considered compatible; it is the intent of the Department of Game
and the Sanctuary Oversight Committee that these surrounding uses
continue to be construed as compatible and allowed to co-exist."

-33-

Swinomish Tribal Community
7Robert Joe, Sr., Chairman Swinomish Indian Senate, 6/19/80)

Comment

Originally supported the concept of an estuarine sanctu *ary on the
assumption the sanctuary would not infringe upon Tribal lands or upon
long-standing plans to develop certain portions of those lands, es-
pecially a marine-recreational facility adjacent to the proposed
sanctuary. This proposed facility is of critical importance to the
realization of the Tribe's goal toward economic self sufficiency.
Economic self-sufficiency would be the means to reverse unemployment
and economic disadvantage among the Indian people. The Swinomish
Tribal Community now opposes the proposed sanctuary basically, because
of the Department of Ecology's position stated on page 29 which in
it 11will vigorously oppose proposed developments which are inconsistent
with the sanctuary management philosophy." Tribe feels that develop-
ment of a marine facility is in conformance with the overriding
philosophy of the sanctuary program. Indicates that when the importance
of the Tribe's development plans are acknowledged, and its consistency
with the sanctuary management philosphy is assured, they would renew
their support for the sanctuary.

Response

OCZM is disappointed that the Swinomish Tribal Community opposes
the sanctuary for two reasons: First, this was the only organization
that opposed the proposed project; and, secondly the Tribe was in-
cluded on the Steering Committee to participate in the decisionmaking
process to resolve such concerns that have been raised. Perhaps, the
problem was that the Tribe only attended one Steering Committee meeting.
The Statement on page 29 has been deleted from the HIS since it refers
to statements made on an application to NOAA and did not result from
the Steering Committee decisionmaking process. OCZM and the State of
Washington support the goal of economic self-sufficiency for the
Swinomish Tribal Community. The central question resolves around a
"proposed" marina and industrial park. To our knowledge this particular
project has not progressed past the "proposal" stage. As stated
clearly in the DEIS, the estuarine sanctuary can co-exist with the
existing uses within Padilla Bay. For example, the estuarine sanctuary
is consistent with the goals of the Shoreline Management Master Program
goals on page 30. It is also noted that goal "e" could include
development of a marine recreational facility that can "harmoniously
co-exist with the natural and human environments." There are several
other important factors related to any activity that occurs outside the
proposed boundaries. First, there are no "Federal" laws that come
into being with an estuarine sanctuary--it is state-owned and managed
according to State law. Therefore, if there is any opposition to a
project such as a marine recreational facility, it will be by State
agencies (including the Department of Ecology) using existing legal

-34-

statues, or other Federal agencies using their statutes. As stated in
the DEIS, local and State statues do not apply to tribal land--so
only other Federal statutes apply. There is nothing within the Estuarine
Sanctuary Program that precludes adjacent marinas. At the Elkhorn Slough
National Estuarine Sanctuary, Moss Landing Harbor is adjacent to the
sanctuary and the same situation exists at Apalachicola National Estuarine
Sanctuary. Both facilities include recreational and commercial craft.
OCZM is hopeful that the Swinomish Tribal Community will renew its support
for the estuarine sanctuary.

Comment

Page iv. Line 12: The philosophy supporting the proposed action calls
for an integrated and balanced co-existing environment which supports,
besides the environmental area (proposed sanctuary), industry, agriculture
and other endeavors all within one community. The philosophy is applauded
by the tribe, however, the statement is limited in itself by recognizing
merely the positive social impacts of the proposed action. Benefits
resulting from economic coexistent activities both within and adjacent
to the sanctuary boundaries have not been adequately recognized, there-
by reducing the intent and opportunities associated with this philosophy.

Response

OCZM has partially responded to this concern in the above comment.
We do feel that all economic benefits and costs within the proposed
sanctuary have been examined. Any significant proposals outside the
estuarine sanctuary would have to undergo the same public examination
process as the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary.

Comment

Page iv. Line 37

Specific mention should be made to the Tribal usual and accustomed fishing
grounds with respect to the sanctuary, and identifed as an allowable use.

ReMonse

Comment accepted.

Comment

Page v. Line 2: A description of the types of uses which may alter
waterflow patterns in the Bay should be documented. A review of
existing activities in the Bay should be discussed in relation to
alterations of waterflow patterns.

-35-

RejEnse

The statement in the DEIS was incorrect and.has been changed. Water
flow patterns refers only to those within the proposed project.

Comment

Page 5, Page 21: The DEIS fails to adequately discuss the proposed
sanctuary boundary with respect to the reservation boundary. This
is a complex issue which is not adequately dealt with by stating the
boundary is located consistent with ",claimed" reservation boundary.
In all likelihood, there will be a Federal court adjudication of the
boundary issue and its exact location until then cannot be known.
The DEIS should so reflect the sanctua-ry boundary may not be consistent
with ultimate reservation boundary.

Response

Comment accepted; change made.

Comment

Page 6, Figure 1: The Swinomish reservation as well as the industrial
site should be identified on the map, as mention is made to both the
tribe and the site in the text.

Response

It would be desirable; however, due to the small scale of the map, it
was not feasible.

Comment

Page 8. Line 32: Identifies certain activities beyond the boundaries of
the sanctuary which could significantly affect the ecology of the sanctuary.
The statement notes "of particular importance are activities that take place
on the Swinomish Tribal Community industrial area." It appears presumptuous
to imply that future development by the Swinomish tribe of the industrial
park would pose a significant affect on the ecology of the sanctuary without
a thorough review and assessment of particular and specified activities
which the tribe may propose.

Response

The state ments were not meant to be presumptuous, but rather identify
certain activities that could affect water quality in Padilla Bay.
The statement applied to a broad range of activities and did not single
out any individual project.

-36-

Comment

Page 9. Line 1: State: "existing local and state statutes and regulations
appear fully adequate to address any potential problems resulting from these
uses (including Swinomish Industrial Park*) in adjacent water or lands."
Although this statement appears warranted, -it neglects to acknowledge
the tribe's role in regulating land use activities on the reservation.
The Swinomish Tribe is accepting responsibility and jurisdiction for the
planning and regulatory function for the area bordering the proposed
sanctuary, and is currently preparing its coastal zone management plan
in conjunction with the CZM program. The statement appears to be fully
contradicted, however, by the following.statement appearing on Page 23,
Line 7: "Although a variety of regulatory programs currently exist at
local, state and Federal levels, they are not believed to be adequate
to guarantee the preservation of these unique wildlife ecosystems."
The sovereignty of the Swinomish tribe has not been addressed here.
Local and State statutes and regulations aria not applicable on tribal
lands. This issue should be acknowledged and addressed in the final
EIS, with distinction made between tribal and local authority.
*Parenthesis provided by author for clarification.

Response

Comment basically accepted. Changes have been made in the HIS to clear
up what appears to be a contradiction. A statement has also been added
reflecting the sovereignty of the Swinomish Tribe over local and State
regulations.

Comment

Page 10. Line 15: The list of prohibited uses within the proposed sanctuary
identifies any activity which represents "significant alterations of water
flow patterns including circulation patterns within the Bay." A dis-
crepancy arises over the use of the term BA& The proposed sanctuary
includes a majority of Padilla Bay, however the Swinomish Tribal Community
owns a portion of "the bay" as well, lying in the extreme southwest
abutting the proposed sanctuary boundaries. Therefore, the stated prohibited
uses which apply only within the portion of the "bay" as defined by the
proposed sanctuary boundaries should be clearly identified within the
appropriate geographic delineations. The term should be revised to
accurately reflect the area of the bay that the use regulations would
be effective in.

Response

The above analysis is entirely correct and the term estuarine sanctuary
has been substituted for bay.

-37-

Comment

Page 11. Line 27: Sanctuary Management Committee: This paragraph should
specifically identify tribal government representation on the management
committee. Tribal government may not necessarily meet the criteria set
in this paragraph. It appears critical that tribal governmental represent-
ation be an active participant on the committee.

Response

The Sanctuary Management Committee has been eliminated in favor of an
"Oversight Committee," as explained in the FEIS. Concerns by the Tribal
government may be addressed directly to the Washington Department of Game
or the Skagit County Board of Commissioners (Oversight Committee). OCZM
may also be petitioned over improper use of an estuarine sanctuary.

Comment

Page 10. Line 17: The EIS should identify and quantify potential
activities which may lead to significant degradation of water quality and
biological productivity. Furthermore, there remains an uncertainty
concerning what would qualify as a significant degradation. This should
be addressed and qualified.

Response

It is felt that an earlier question differentiating activities in Padilla
Bay vs. the estuarine sanctuary resolves this question. It is not possible
to qualify significant degradation at this time. However, if the sanctuary
proposal is approved and this item still presents a problem to the Tribal
Community, it shall be a high priority for estuarine sanctuary research
and shall be undertaken as soon as possible.

Comment

Page 16. Line 17: The Swinomish Tribal Community is listed on the
Potential and Committed Research Organization list. The Tribe, however,
is not listed on the same list in Appendix II.

Response

Oversight rectified.

-38-

Comment

Page 24, Line 15. Local impacts on Skagit County: The DEIS neglects to
recognize the s'ignificant negative socio-economic impacts of the proposed
action on the people of the Swinomish Tribal Community with respect to
.the development of the Swinomish industrial park: the major economic
resource available to the tribe. The economic impacts to Skagit County
appear potentially greater than those recognized in the DEIS. The
employment opportunities to Skagit County residents as a result of the
development of the Swinomish industrial park would appear to be quite
significant. The final EIS should acknowledge and address these impacts.

Response

We feel that all the economic impacts to the Swinomish Tribal Community
and Skagit County have been addressed.@ Skagit County has endorsed the
proposed estuarine sanctuary and did not raise any issues concerning
economic impacts on the County.

Comment

.Page 24. The DEIS completely failed to consider the major economic
impacts upon the Tribe and its members should the Tribe's ability to
develop its resources be hampered as a -result of the proposed action.
Potential impacts upon the development of the industrial park should be
discussed in detail and recognition of -the long history of Tribal and
Federal investme6it in the project should be documented. The DEIS h-as
failed to acknowledge the $2.7 million Federal investment in the Swinomish
Port and Industrial'Park made available through an Economic Development
Administration grant. The purpose of the EDA involvement in the industrial
park development should be recognized and discussed.

Response

We recognize the investment of a sister agency within the Department of
Commerce. As discussed earlier, the estuarine sanctuary itself will not
impact the proposed industrial park nor any investment by the EDA.
Although local statutes do not apply to the Tribal community, if the
proposed development was within the goals established in the Skagit
County Shoreline Master Plan, it could probably coexist with the proposed
sanctuary.

Comment

Page 24. Line 6

"Landowners in the upland areas and the south, east, and north boundary
upland areas would be unaffected." The Swinomish Tribe, as a landowner
in the southwest portion abutting the sanctuary should be identified as
an abutting landowner and the associated potential impacts should be
addressed appropriately.

-39-

Response

Comment accepted. Impacts have been discussed previously in response
to several prior comments.

Comment

Page 26. Line 1

This section neglects to address the potential conflicts of the objectives
and intent of two administrative agencies of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. The Economic Development Administration has committed, as
previously noted, a significant investment of funds and technical assistance
into the development of the tribe's 'industrial park. NOAA, on the other
hand, is an administrative agency for the Estuarine Sanctuary Program.
Federal investments through NOAA represented by substantial public funds
would provide the mechanism for the creation of the sanctuary. There
exists a potential conflict between the intent and the missions of these
two agencies. This potential conflict should be extensively reviewed in
the final EIS.

Response

Although the missions of the two agencies within the Department of Commerce
are quite different, we do not feel the estuarine sanctuary proposal
impacts EDA's investments. The statement has been made in the DEIS and
HIS that existing users can coexist with the estuarine sanctuary. This
includes the funds already allocated to development of the tribe's industrial
park.

Comment

Page 26. Line 1

In describing the characteristics of the southwestern portion of the
sanctuary "excellent transportation opportunities, deep water access on
western boundary may provide water oriented transportation opportunities."
The Swinomish industrial park should be regarded as an invaluable resource
to the tribe and the potential for irretrievable and irreversible loss of
this resource as a result to the proposed action should be addressed
under Section C, page 25.

Response

Comment rejected. The proposed action is the purchasee of land to
establish an estuarine sanctuary and has only a minimal relationship to
the industrial park--certainly not "irreversible or irretrievable."

-40-

Comment

Page 27. Line 13

The Washington State Legislature declared that the intent of the State
Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall represent the interests of the
people which shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of
statewide significance and shall give preference to.uses in the following
order: a. recognize and protect the Statewide interests over local
interests." A review of the State's relationship with, and jurisdiction
over sovereign Indian lands should be assessed here in view of this
policy. This section states that the reservation or tribal properties
are excluded from management under local or master shorelines program,
SMA and CZM program. A review of tribal plans, policies, and ordinances
are in order here.

Response

Revisions were made to the FEIS to ind icate the sovereignty of Indian
land in respect to local and State laws. A discussion of tribal plans
and policies, and ordinances would not add substantially to the information
required to make a decision whether to establish an estuarine sanctuary, or
not.

Comment

Page 32. Section 6

In referring to the tribe's plan for a "multimillion dollar marina and
industrial park" the DEIS states: "nevertheless, a massive project of
this nature could significantly compromise the ecological integrity of
the bay in direct and irreversible fashion. It could introduce greater
pollution as well as disturbances incompatible with the proposed estuarine
sanctuary and probably stimulate further industrial and secondary
development in and around the bay." As the plans have as yet to be
formulated for the development of the Swinomish industrial park, this
statement and assessment of the environmental impacts of an unknown action
seems premature. In preparing the final EIS, it is suggesteT-tT-atthe
preparers of the document review the current status of the development
plans for the industrial site prior to attempting an evaluation of any
potential impacts on the proposed estuarine sanctuary.

Response

We somewhat agree with your statement about the environmental impacts of
an unknown action and the language has been changed. However, we do feel
that a 176 acre industrial park/marina in the low density area around
Padilla Bay is a major project and will definitely have environmental
impacts.

-41-

Tahoma Audubon SocieU
7Nancy Kroening, 6/3/80)

Comment

1) We support the sanctuary. 2) Is there some method of dealing with
educational, recreational, or scientific activities that take specimens
from the sanctuary? 3) How wil-disputes between various uses of the
sanctuary be decided?

Response

1) Comment Accepted. 2) Any consumptive research, education, or recreational
use will be carefully monitored and controlled by the Department of Game.
3) Disputes will be referred to the Department of Game and it is expected
that major disputes will be addressed by the Padilla B;y Oversight Committee
which is the Skagit County Board of Commissioners.

Washington Native-Pl,ant Societ@
--7David Shaw, Secretary, 6/4/80)

Comment

We fully endorse the@sahct'uary.

Response

Comment Accepted.

-42-

.UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE-S

Seattle Pacific University
(Ronald C. Phillips, 5/22/80)

Comment

Suggests that Seattle Pacific University be added to the list of
Potential and Committed Research Organizations (p. 16 and Appendix II-
Section II B).

Response

Seattle Pacific University has been added.

Comment

Bacteria should be included in the list of biotic components to be
studied, and their role in nutrient cycling processes s:hould be in-
cluded under ecosystem functin.

Response

The inclusion of bacteria has been made in Appendix If., Section-I -
Natural Processes - A. Biotic and 2. Ecosystem Function of Part-II B.
Research Program Proposal.

Skagit Valley College
(James M. Ford, President, 6/9/80)

Comment

We strongly support the sanctuary and see only great benefits to the
environment.

Response

Comment accepted.

-43-

INDIVIDUALS

Terence R. Wahl, May 4, 1980

Comment

Suggested corrections in Appendix VIII, specifically the list of
birds.

Response

Recommended changes have been made.

PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS

The following are comments from individuals who attended the public
hearing on the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary proposal on June 10, 1980.
In certain instances, written statements were read or summarized. In
these cases, which are noted, they are responded to in the comment section
addressing written comments.

Mabel Hickson, Samish Padilla Conservation Corporation

Comment

The corporation bought three lots, at the suggestion of their lawyer,
with the intention of not selling them and thus controlling development.
In Ms. Hickson's opinion, the proposed sanctuary is a dream come true.

Response

Comment accepted. Appreciate this organization's-foresight and involvement.

Edna Breazeale - Resident

Comment

She is in favor of keeping Padilla Bay exactly the way it is. The
preservation of the Bay is necessary to the economy of Skagit County as
well as for environmental reasons.

Response

Comment accepted. Our appreciation to Ms. Breazeale and her commitment
and donation of land to Padilla Bay cannot be overstated.

-44-

Raymond Nelson - Resident

Comment

He is in favor of the proposed sanctuary and wanted to discuss the proposed
boundaries after the hearing. (Milt Martin handled all questions after the
hearing.)

Response

Boundaries clarified to Mr. Nelson's satisfaction.

Margaret Yeoman - Resident

Comment

She is completely in favor of the proposed sanctuary.

Response

Comment accepted.

Nicholas Zaferatos, Planning Director, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community

Comment

The Swinomish Tribal Community has supported the concept of an estuarine
sanctuary from the beginning, based on the premise that the sanctuary
would not infringe upon tribal lands or upon longstanding plans to develop
certain lands.

The development of the industrial area is of importance to the Tribe's
goal of self sufficiency. In light of DOE's position to oppose developments
which are consistent with the management philosophy, the Tribe opposes
the proposed sanctuary. The Tribe feels that the proposed development
can coexist with the sanctuary without threatening its primary purpose
and should not be considered inconsistent with the sanctuary philosophy.

Response

These comments were included in a letter from the Swinomish Indian Tribal
Community and are responded to elsewhere in the comments section.

-45-

Steven Ray, Bureau of Indian Affairs

Comment

The Tribe should be represented on the Sanctuary Management Committee
discussed on page 11.

On page 32, the document discusses how the sanctuary will be impacted by
the Tribe, but it does not address how the Tribe will be impacted by the
sanctuary. This should be addressed.

Response

These concerns are addressed in the response that is referred to above.

Helen Engle, President, Washington Environmental Council

Comment

The Council supports the concept of the CZM Act, the Estuarine Sanctuary
Program, and the fact that the sanctuary will be managed on the State
level. DOE has done an excellent job coordinating the interest groups.

Response

Comment accepted. Appreciate the Council's participation on the Steering
Committee.

Margaret T. Kolar, Habitat Protection Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Olympia, Washington

Comment

The Fish and Wildlife Service has rated Padilla Bay high as a potential
National Wildlife Refuge since the early 1950's. Funding has been a
problem.

Padilla Bay is the most important spring stage area for the Padilla Block
Brant in Washington State, as well as an important area for nesting bald
eagles and wintering peregrine falcons. The eelgrass beds are an
indispensable nursery area for dungeness crabs and provide a myriad of
food organisms for marine and anadromous fish and a variety of winterbirds
and shorebirds.

Establishment of the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary will assure long-
range protection of the Bay.

-46-

Response

Comment accepted. Appreciate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
invaluable assistance on the Steering Committee.

Ralph W. Larson, Washington Department of Game

Comment

The Steering Committee has been very effective.

The boundaries are the most logical for all considered.

The committee has had to deal with disagreeME!nts about the management of
the sanctuary. They have done an excellent job.
The committee hopes the sanctuary is approved soon.

Response

Comment accepted. Mr. Larson is to be congratulated for his leadership
as Chai man of the Steering Committee.

Bud Norris, Chairman, Board of-Commissioners, Skagit County

Comment

Padilla Bay has been designated as a shoreline of statewide significance
in the Skagit County Shoreline Management Program. The establishment of
the sanctuary will allow the continuation and coexistence of compatible
activities and surrounding land uses.

The staff of the Washington Department of Ecology is to be complimented
for their professional, yet sensitive attitudes.

The county supports DOE's non-use of eminent domain or property condemnation.
This appreciation for individual property right is supported by local
government and has encouraged the county to donate nearly 100 acres of
publicly owned tidelands to the program.

The Skagit County Commissioners will function as an oversight committee
and will be the final managing-body. They aye willing to accept the
responsibility.

It is understood that the establishment of the sanctuary will not affect
existing uses with the sanctuary or any proposed use outside the sanctuary.

-47-

Response

See response elsewhere to this letter by the Board of Commissioners,
Skagit County. Skagit County, and Mr. Norris in particular, are to be
thanked for their expertise during the decisionmaking process.

Maria Petrish, Chamber of Commerce Anacortes

Comment

Spoke as a member of a fishing family,before speaking for the Chamber.
They consider Padilla Bay a savings account for future generations. It
is a critical area and it must be protected.

Speaking as Manager,of the Chamber,df Commerce, there are three areas of
concern to the Chamber:

(1) Possible mitigation of industrial development losses to Anacortes;
(2) The potential impediment to-traditional, recreational uses and
access; and
(3) There is no need for another body to control the sanctuary aside
from the Steering Committee.

She feels that the Steering Committee has satisfactorily addressed all of
the issues of the sanctuary.

Response

Comment accepted.

Ruby Watson - Resident

Comment

She expressed her pleasure that the Bay will be saved.

Response

Comment accepted.

-48-

Milo Moore - Resident

Comment

He has lived near Padilla Bay since 1910. Former State Director of
Fisheries under two governors. Did not want, to see land "bottled up."
Should dike off Padilla Bay and make into nE!W farm land. Hat Island
could be leveled off, a causeway should be built to the mainland, and it
could be turned into a port. Concerned that: areas should be made to
increase employment in the area and asked us, to hold the project "under
wraps."

Response

Comment rejected. This alternative does not, conform with the State local
planning goals for Pad-illa Bay.

Bob Rose, President, Evergreen-Islands, Inc.

Comment

They are in support of the project.

Response

Comment accepted.

APPENDIX XI

COMMENTS RECEIVED IN OCZM ON THE DEIS

0@i 14
Advisory
Council On
Historic Page 2
Preservation Director, Sanctuaries Program
Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary
1522 K Street, NW Reply to: Lake Plaza South. Suits 616 May 19, 1980
Washington. DC 20005 44 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, CO 80228

2. Properties that may be eligible for inclusion in the
May 19, 1980 National Register of Historic Places are located within the area
of environmental impact, and the undertaking will or will not
affect any such property. In cases where there will be an
effect, the final environmental statement should contain
Director, Sanctuaries Program evidence of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Office of Coastal Zone Management Preservation Act through the Council's regulations.
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235 Should you have any questions, please call Ms. Betty J. LeFree
Dear Sir: at (303) 234-4946, an FTS number.

Sincerely,
Thank you for your request of May 6, 1980, for comments on the
draft environmental statement (DES) for the proposed Padilla Bay
Estuarine Sanctuary, Skagit County, Washington. Pursuant to
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 and the Council's regulations, "Protection of Historic and Lo well
Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), we have determined that Ch ef,-Western Division
your DES does not contain sufficient information concerning of Project Review
historic and cultural resources for review purposes. Please
furnish the following data indicating:

Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 (16 U.S.C. See. 4TOf, as amended, 90 Stat. 1320).

The Environmental statement must demonstrate that either of the
following conditions exists:

1. No properties included in or that may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are
located within the area of environmental impact. and the
undertaking will not affect any such property. In YnAking this
determination. the Council requires:

--evidence that You have consulted the latest edition of the
National Register (Federal Register, March 18, 1980, and its
monthiy supplements); -

--evidence of an effort to ensure the identification of
Ch @efZ.

properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register,
including evidence of contact with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO). whose comments should be included in the final
environmental statement. The SHPO for Washington -is Mr. Louis
S. Guzzo.

oi,%6 E*H
C.C - i r-ZIS P

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX C-3755
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124
NPSEN-PL-ER 19 June 1980

COMMENTS: Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary, Skagit County, Washington
NPSEN-PL-ER 24 juN 199() Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
1. The EIS does not include any references to cultural resources. Although
the Sanctuary would not impact these resources, they should be mentioned.

2. Page 10, item 6: While dredging is allowed, the use of the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources open-water disposal site near Hat Island
Director, Sanctuaries Program i not addressed. Can this site still be used? If not, the basis for the
office of Coastal Zone Management d:cision should be stated.
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W..
Washington, D. C. 20235 3. The EIS should describe the boundaries of the disposal site in Padilla Bay
which should not overlap the boundaries of the Sanctuary.

4. Page'10,Pbohibited'Uses, item 1: The meaning of the term "statutes"
Dear Sir/Madam: is not clear. Does this refer to Congressional authorization of any Swinomish
River navigation channel improvements?
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement on the Proposed 5. Page 14, first item 1: The term "a management authority" should be defined
Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary, Puget Sound, Washington. Our comments with and the authority stated.
respect to the U.S. Amy Corps of Enginee 're' areas of responsibility for
flood control, navigation, and regulatory functions, and our general com- 6. Page 14, first item 2: The environmental assessment should include a
ments which you may wish to consider, are attached as inclosure 1. full impact analysis, addressing economics and social effects as well as
scientific data.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement. If you have any
questions, please contact Dr. Steven F. Dice, telephone (206) 764-3624, of 7. Page 20, Section B: This section should be reorganized. Various alterna-
my staff. tives ard discussed within each subsection.

Sincerely, 8. Page 23, first paragraph: The term "environmentally beneficial" should
be =rp apccifically, defined. For example, hiri@n disturbance such as tramplinx
-can significantly damage benthic aquatic life,-even in a sanctuary.
9. Page_25, Section C: This section states that condemnation will not be used,
SIOMY KN K RE but does not explain how land will be acquired from landowners who are not
willing to relinquish title to property.
I Incl
As.stated 10. Page 35, Section B, iteik titled "West": In this paragraph, the descrip-
tion of the location of the western boundary as the Swinomish Channel does not
Copy furnished: agree with the boundary depicted in Figure I on page 6.
Bruce Barett, Acting Director
Office of Environmental Affairs, Rm 3425
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND UReAN CEVELOPMENT 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410 tal
Sanctuary Plan with reservations. We urge that the Office of Coas
MAY 2 2 1980 Zone Management amend the Sanctuary plan to include measures that will
adequately safeguard the interests of the town, the tribe and others
OFFIC OF THE A331ST..T SEC.ET.41 upstream of the dredging area.
,OR co..v.111 HV OE@ELO_4.7 C.L' R-E. 10, Sin7cerours,
Mr. Dallas Miner udy MicFal
Director, Sanctuaries Program Acting Di ctor
Office of Coastal Zone Management Qffice of Planning and
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Program Coordination
Washington. D. C. 20235

Dear Nr. I-liner:

We have reviewed the proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary plan as
requested under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Little attention has
been given the important question of the effect of potential dredging of
the Samish Channel on upstream coastal boundary areas. The channel is
especially sensitive to alterations in current. Dredging may have the
effect of altering tidal currents within the channel, creating dis-
tressing effects further upstream.

To indicate the extreme delicacy of changes in estuarine tidal currents
and their potential effects, dredging approximately three years ago so
changed the tidal reach that erosion washed away a portion of the shore-
'line of the town of LaConner. HUD provided a Special Needs Grant under
our Community Development Block Grant Program to assist the town in
repairing its wharf and shore area. LaConnor is across from the pro-
posed estuarine sanctuary reserve.

We note that the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community has had a role in
commenting on the proposed sanctuary plan, but we find no indication
that the requirements of the fish processing plant operated by the
Tribal Community have been taken into consideration. The processing
plant is located upchannel from the sanctuary area, and would be affected
by changes in tidal currents induced by dredging. The Washington State
Department of Fisheries should be closely involved in actions related to
the channel because of their responsibility for the Swinomish tribal
fisheries and plant. We see no indication that the Department has been
consulted on this problem.

Because we consider these issues very important to the well-being of the
estuary sector population, the town of LaConnor and the Swinomish Indian
Tribal Community, we concur in the proposed Padilla Bay National Estuarine
Ac

United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARy SPECIFIC COMMrNTS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

In Reply Refer To: Summary4_page @i The proposed action is acquisition
ER-80/428 J@,.i 1 6 SO T-Pr1inarily in fee simple) of 11,612 acres within Padilla Bay.
It should be noted that Padilla Bay encompasses approxi-
mately 14,500 acres. About 500 acres of tidelands, mostly
Mr. Dallas Miner west of Swinomish Channel, are presently in State ownership.
Director, Sanctuaries Program Office
Office of Coastal Zone Management Page iv - The EIS refers to U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Fu-ideline requirements in relation to decisions regarding
Washington, D.C. 20235 sanctuary boundaries@ size, and uses. Appendix I contains
those guidelines. Part IV, Section 921.20, presents criteria
Dear Mr. Miner: for selection. The EIS would be enhanced by a discussion of
how the size, boundaries, and uses of the proposed sanctuary
We have completed our review of the draft environmental impact measure up to these specific criteria.
statement for the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary in Skagit
County, Washington. Although we have a series of specific Page 3 - The statement is made that "the proposed sanctuary
Comments on the statement which are attached, we support the would be a major subcategory of the Columbia Biogeographic
Proposed sanctuary- The sanctuary should facilitate sorely Classification." We submit that Puget Sound might be classi-
needed research on Pacific Northwest estuaries, as well as fied as an extension of the fjord-type estuary (type 8,
public education on the functions and values of estuaries. part 921.4, NOAA guidelines) associated with the south coast
In addition, the sanctuary will provide a higher degree of of Alaska.
Protection for the estuarine ecosystem and its resources.
-oximity and Particular concerns Of the Swinomish relatively undisturbed by,man in Puget Sound . . . . 11 This rea
Due to the pr A statement is also made that Padilla Bay is "the largest a
indlar, -r-*-.e, we rec;00011telid Lhat they be representea on the ntatement should be qualified to state "tideflat area,"
Sanctua@Y'Hanagement Committee along with the other Federal, although Skagit Bay tidelands may be more extensive. A slani
State, and local organizations. A tribal member had repre- lar statement is made on page 22 that Padilla Bay has "the
sented the Swinomish Reservation on the Steering Committee. most extensive eelgrass beds in North AmeHca." This is
We appreciate the opportunity to review th probably true of Puget Sound and North America south of
impact statement and hope that our comment e draft environmental Alaska, but we believe there are more extensive eeigrass'beds
tance to You in Preparing the final statem s will be of assis- near Izembek, Alaska. These statements should be verified
ent. for inclusion in the final EIS.
Sincere2?k@, Page 4 - A statement is made indicating that Padilla Bay is
'@_a -prime site for industrial development." This statement
needs explanation in light of the designation of Padilla Bay
as one of five named "Shorelines of Statewide Significance"
Aftleta t RE RY under the Shoreline Management Act, and the Bay's designation
EC TA @irt t @, (with Skagit Bay) as an "Area of Particular Concern" in the
Enclosure NOAA-approved Coastal Zone Management Program for Washington.
Also, this statement is not in line with other statements in
the EIS (e.g ages 9 and 29) implying that the Bay is
already acco;d1ed a high degree of protection and control under
those programs.
Page 9 - After referring to industrial and agricultural acti-
71-ties adjoining the proposed 'sanctuary that are potentially
detrimental, the EIS states "existing local and State statutes
(..@@ENETAR'l

and regulations appear fully adequate to address any poten- Pages 23-25, Environmental Consequences - Significant portions
tial problems resulting from these uses in adjacent water or of material on these pages was taken from a 1979 assessment of
lands." Yet, on page 20, occurs a statement that " . . . the Padilla Bay as a potential Unique Wildlife Ecosystem done by
existing controls are thought to be inadequate to fully the Fish and Wildlife Service and incorporating data and
insure the ecological integrity of Padilla Bay estuary . . . ." information developed by the Game Department. The same is
It also contrasts with statements made on page 26 describing true for pages 36-40 and for Appendix VIII, which lists plant
possible conflicts of the sanctuary with various governmental and animal species in the vicinity. We suggest specific men-
land use plans, policies, and controls. We note particularly tion be made of these sources preceding the applicable sec-
that ". . . the protective measures are permissive acts that tions. In addition, throughout the sections on environmental
have the flexibility of protection for environmental uses and consequences and affected environment, there are a number of
will also allow private use and development under certain sources cited, but no bibliographic listing is provided in the
acceptable conditions. Therefore, there are no assurances EIS. We suggest a bibliography of cited references be
that environmentally valuable areas will remain undeveloprd included.
for public use. If other uses occur or are proposed that are
not compatible with the environment, but provide a positive Page 26 - Reference is made to possible industrial "add-ons"
impact for the community's economy, industry, etc., approval and deep water areas on the western boundary that may provide
of these uses is possible. In the case of Padilla Bay, there water-oriented transportation that could negatively impact
is a continued probability of proposals for noncompatible the proposed sanctuary area. More specific information should
environmental uses occurring . . . ." be provided about prospective projects.
On page 14, a statement is made that " . . . any activity Page 30 - The information on the Skagit County Shoreline Man-
destructive to the Padilla Bay natural ecosystem is not com- agement Master Program is ertinent, but does not provide any
patible and must be prohibited." It is not clear how the pro- specifics as to how it appiies to Padilla Bay. Since the pro-
hibitions to be implemented for the sanctuary could be extended Visions of the local master program are evidently critical to
to the remainder of Padilla Bay. As stated on page 9, estab- present and future management policies and decisions on use of
lishment of the proposed sanctuary would not extend new pro- the Bay, it would be helpful to provide at least a summary of
tections to adjacent water and land areas. We found these and the relevant "environment designations," goals, and policies
other passages in the EIS confusing with respect to the of the program.
adequacy of existing controls and whether the statements
referred to present management circumstances or the conditions Page 32 - Although impacts of the Swinomish Community on the
and protections that would exist for the sanctuary (or entire project are discussed, the impacts of the project on the
Bay) following establishment of an estuarine sanctuary.. Indian community are not. There are lands which will be
impacted by the proposal and those impacts should be discussed.
Page 14 - In item 1, change "All current uses . . ." to read The area in question is included in the "Adjudicated Usual and
"All (legal) existing uses . . ." (refer to page 19). A dis- Accustomed Fishing Places" (U.S. vs. Washington, 1-1-77) of
tinction should be made here between established ongoing uses the Lummi, Swinomish, and Suquamish Tribes.
and uses that are merely permitted, but not yet established.
Possibly the reference to continuing present uses was meant Under "Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Plans," reference is
to refer only to recreational activities within the proposed made to past efforts and plans to establish a tribal "port
sanctuary area. industrial park" in southern Padilla Bay. A figure of 20 acres
Page 15 - In the top paragraph, change "productive studies" to is given for the area of tidelands claimed. This appears to be
read "productivity studies." inaccurate since the claimed area probably exceeds 100 acres.
Under the "Federal Permit Program," we point out that bridge
and causeway permits under Section 9 of the River and Harbor
Act are administered by the Coast Guard. Also, we suggest
deletion of the reference to "persistent applicants."
Page 35 - The Shell and Texaco refineries should be listed as
in the area surrounding the sanctuary.

2
3

Page 36 - A reference point should be stated for the low and
911gh.water mark elevations.

Page 37 - The correct name of the Lake Chelan case is
Wi-lbur and Green vs. Gallagher.

La e 38 - Under "Biological Characteristics," the reference
tg@
rea of Concern" needs clarification.

Page 40 The last sentence under item 4, "Birds," refers to
two bays. These are Padilla and Samish Bays.

OL2& - P EPA
2
c"z/sp
United States Department of the Interior
view of existing land use activities in the areaq
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY we believe more information is needed to verify how
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 the proposed sanctuary will remain in a "relatively
undisturbed" state in the future.
JUN 2 7 1W
In Reply Refer To: 3. We note that one of the objectives for the proposed
ER-80/428 sanctuary is "to encourage" multiple use (last item
on page D. This objective is not specifically
included in Section 921.3 of NOAA's guidelines entitled
Mr. Dallas Miner "Objectives and Implementation of the (Estuarine
Director, Sanctuaries Program Office Sanctuary) Program." We wonder why the encouragement
Office of Coastal Zone Management of multiple use is now being added as a specific
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. objective of this particular proposed sanctuary. Our
Washington, D.C. 20235 understanding of the language in 15 CFR 921 regarding
multiple use of the sanctuary is that it will only be
Dear Mr. Miner: tolerated.as long as it will not diminish the primary
We would like to submit the following additional comments purposes of research and education.
to our June 16, 1980, letter addressing the review of the We hope these comments will be of assistance to you in prepar-
draft environmental impact statement for Padilla Bay Estuarine ing the final environinental impact statement.
Sanctuary in Skagit County, Washington.
1. It is stated in the second paragraph on page 3 that incerel
the proposed sanctuary would be representative of a H. R les erger
major subcategory of the Columbian Biographic Class- 5- cial Assistant to
ification. We note, however, that Padilla Bay is S RETARY
no longer a "true" estuary since it is no longer t
connected to the Skagit River system and at present
has only fresh water inflow from land drainage (see
fourth paragraph on page 13). We believe that more
information should be included in the proposal to
clarify whether Padilla Bay is more representative
than the numerous other true estuaries in the areas
covered by the Columbian classification (North
Pacific coast from Cape Mendicino to Canada, accord-
ing to Section 921.4 of NOAA's guidelines for
implementation of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program,
15 CFR 921).

2. It is our understanding that areas selected as
sanctuaries will be relatively undisturbed by human
activities (15 CFR 9219 Section 921.3(d)). The pro-
posed Padilla Bay sanctuary, however, appears to
include, among other things, a prime site for
industrial development and a sizable residential
area. Furthermore, the proposed sanctuary is
surrounded by rail rights-of-way, residential dev-
elopments, and two operating oil refineries. In
*
cerel
H /
R

E
.Ri TARI

ORIG - NEPA
cc: cz/sp U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ORIG - NEPA
GCZ
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAILING ADDRESS REGION X CC: GCZ
US C0AST GUARD GWS/TP11
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD WASHINGTON, DC 20593 1200 SIXTH AVENUE CZ/SP
Phone: 202-426-2262
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103

30 JUN 1980 REPLY TO
ATTN OF: M/S 443

Mr. Dallas Miner
Director, Sanctuaries Program MAY!30 1980
Office of Coastal Zone management Director Sanctuaries Program
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Office of Coastal Zone Management
Washington, D.C. 20235 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20235
Dear Mr. Miner:
Dear Sir:
This is in response to your letter of April 30, 1980 concerning the
draft environmental impact statement on the proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine We have completed our review of the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Draft
Sanctuary in Washington State. Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). We have very few comments as to
the adequacy of the DEIS and subsequently, the Environmental Protection
The material submitted has been reviewed by the concerned operating Agency has rated it LO-1 (LO - Lack of Objections; 1 - Adequate Information).
administrations of the Department of Transportation. The Coast Guard This rating will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with
had the following comments to offer: EPA's responsibility to inform the public of our views on proposed Federal
actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
The Puget Sound Pilots Association has requested that a light be
established on Saddlebag Island which Is within the boundaries of One factor that should be clarified in the final EIS are the contradictions
the proposed sanctuary. The request for establishment of a light that appear in the DEIS concerning the purpose of a marine sanctuary and the
is being evaluated by the Thirteenth District kids to Navigation multiple uses that will be allowed. Specifically, it is stated in the DEIS
Branch. No action date for this request has been established and that commercial fishing, commercial shellfish harvesting, and maintenance
Officials of the Saddlebag State Park have not been contacted. dredging will be allowed within the boundaries of the Padilla Bay Sanctuary.
These allowances appear to be in direct conflict with the purpose of estab-
The Department of Transportation has no other comments to offer nor do lishing a marine sanctuary as stated on pages 2, 8, 9, 14, and 19 of the
we have any objections to this statement. The final statement, however, DEIS.
should address the concerns of the Coast Guard.
If the Padilla Bay Sanctuary is being established for the purpose of pre-
The opportunity to review this draft statement is appreciated. serving and studying the productivity and successional stages of an estuary
as influenced by the disturbances of human activities, this should be
Sincerely, clearly outlined in the final EIS.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Padilla Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary DEIS. If there are any questions that you may have about our
concerns with the sanctuary proposal, please feel free to contact either
Leroy Loiselle of my staff or myself at (206) 442-1285 or FTS 399-1285.
K. G. WIMAN Sincerely,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard
Deputy Chief, Office of Marine
Environment and Systems
By direction of the Commandant Roger K. Mochnick, Acting Chief
Environmental Evaluation Branch

cc: Bruce R. Barrett, U.S. Department of Commerce
Duane Karna

SPEED
LIMIT
55
It's a law we
can live with.

cc: DWF/MG
Lt!eL
FEDERAL ENERGY REGuLATORY. COMMISSION %@_'
WASHINGTON &C-7-
IN Rtfty ParlIft To,

June 13, 1980

Mr. Michael Glazer
Assistant Administrator for
Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20235

Dear Mr. Glazer:

The proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary/Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (nearing Burlington, Washington) has been
reviewed by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Examination of available information, through August 1979, re@
veals no present oil or gas production within the proposed sanctuary.
Additionally, there is no indication of any current exploratory or
development drilling within the proposed sanctuary area. Available
mapsf however* indicate that the Cascade Natural Gas Corporation
operates an 8-inch interstate natural gas pipeline that may be within
the 1,243 acres.of upland area at the southern end of the proposed
sanctuary. Although this pipeline may be on or adjacent to the
Burlington Northern Railroad/State Highway 20 right-of-way, it is
recommended that Cascade Natural Gas Corporation be contacted
relative to the exact relative location of the pipeline, maintenance,
etc., and be_pKoyk4ed with a copy of the subject impact statement.---
You may wish to cont act:

Hr. 0. M. Jones
President
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation
P. 0. Box 24464
Seattle, Washington 98124

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
proposed Padilla Day Estuarine Sanctuary/Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.

Sincerely,

Carl N. S uster, Jr. Ph.D.
Coordinato , Coastal Zone Affairs

Enclosure

cc: Mr. 0. M. Jones
4
t
N Ph
ust_-@-D,
1 1 S . r, . A
rd ;ate.Ca.'t.

Washington Dept. of Ecology

James McFarland -2- e 20, 1980
STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 6C7_
WASHINGTON 115 C-al AdninWrmiw Bui&s. 01yrnP6. Wwhkom WSW 206nS&66M activity is destructive to the sanctuary based upon site specific scientific
Dixy L" Ray data." (Excerpt from page 14) We concur that these decisions should be based
C@r upon scientific data. However, what specific management authority will make
these decisions? Please elaborate upon the actual decision-making process
June 20, 1980 including participating interest groups and anticipated pathways for con-
sultation and input.
A critical phase of this estuarine sanctuary establishment is functional
implementation as related to upcoming man ement and policy decisions. We
believe that a specific, clear. and conci:eg summary of this process is needed
Mr. James W. McFarland in.the final impact statement. Points which should be identified include
NOAA/OCZM time frames. participating interest groups, avenues for input, and documen-
Estuarine Sanctuary Program tation of major decision points. Although management aspects are included
3300 Uhitehave NW in this draft document, the method of presentation is unclear at times and
Washington, D.C. 20235 open to variable interpretations.
Bear Mr. McFarland: We appreciate the opportunity to review this statement and hope that our
comments will prove'to be of value.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Sincerely,
Skagit County WRIA A-03

The Washington Department of Fisheries has reviewed the above referenced
statement and offers the following comments. Sand$don,
Di@cnto
The major responsibility of the Department of Fisheries is to manage for
a long-term yield of foodfish and shellfish, cropping the surplus on a sus- cc: Rod Mack, DOE
tained basis, while protecting the stocks themselves and their habitat.
Although the establishment of this estuarine sanctuary should serve well to
protect habitats. this statement presents some uncertainty concerning as-
surances for continued utilization of available surplus foodfish and shell-
fish for beneficial purposes. This Is particularly true concerning existing
and potential commercial harvesting.

We recognize that the primary function for this proposed estuarine sanctuary
is to provide long-term protection for natural areas so that they may be used
for scientific and educational purposes. Multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries
will be encouraged to the extent that such use is compatible with this primary
purpose. It is stated on pages iv, 9, and 25 that allowed uses will include
Sport and commercial fishing and shellfish harvesting. Elsewhere. however,
(page vi - paragraph 3, page 2 - paragraph I , page 19 - paragraph 2) statements
occur which appear to compromise or negate this permitted status. This dis-
crepancy needs to be clarified in the final document.

Information concerning the management plan (page 8) indicates that specific
policies will be developed for the sanctuary and that the sanctuary Steering
Committee will have the formal role of approving this management concept.
When is this formal management plan to be drafted? Will general circulation
of a plan draft occur to solicit comments?

"Instead of a specific list of permitted and prohibited uses, which are
identified in the management plan .... all current uses of Padilla Bay should
IQ continue until such time as a management authority determines that a given

11CA- 612 ( A

INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
STATE OF 4800 Capitol Blvd., KP 12 Turnwater, Washington 98504 206/753/7140
WASHINGTON Robert L wilder, Administrator
Dixy Lee Ray orig: nepa
Governor cc: cz/gp
June 6, 1980

Director, Sanctuaries Program
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20235

Dear Sir:

We have been requested by our State Department of Ecology to comment
on the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary for Padilla Bay in Skagit County, Washington,
regarding its compliance with our Washington Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (SCORP).
A copy of Issue #12, Wetlands and Floodplains, as contained In the
Fifth Edition of SCORP is included under Appendix IX of your April, 1980 Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. I would refer to Page 111.12.1 of the Issue
Paper, which states In part:

"it is the intent of the State of Washington to provide
opportunities for the public use and enjoyment of appro-
priate segments of wetlands and/or floodplains. Including
their associated shorelands, tidelands, and estuaries,
while protecting and maintaining these areas for their
value as wildlife habitat and their Importance in the
hydrologic cycle."

In our opinion, after a cursory overview of related documents, the
proposed Padilla Bay Sanctuary would be in compliance with this objective of
SCORP.

Sincerely,

ROBERT L. WILDER
Administrator

RLW:GWP:jb

cc: Mr. Milt Martin
Department of Ecology

Director, Sanctuaries Program
-June 9, 1980
JERRY L MANSFIEID Page -2-
FIRST DISTRICT QKJNff
BUD NORRIS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Sr,COND DISTRICT
I fOWARD NIILJLER MottntVcrnon.Wash1ns0on98273 A program as complex as this estuarine sanctuary requires excellence in
TuIRV DISTRICT (206) 336-93W management and administration capabilities. We are satisfied that the Wash-
ington State Department of Game, an office
i,!ith recognized resource manage-
ment experience, will bear this responsib ity. We understand that the
C-c'. Skagit County Commissioners will function as an oversight committee and will
be the final managing body. We are willing to accept this responsibility as
this will provide the citizens of Skagit County with a direct method of
June 9. 1980 providing policy and management guidance.
It is also our understanding that no existing uses within the boundaries of
the sanctuary will be affected by the formation of the sanctuary and that
Director, Sanctuaries Program any proposed use outside the sanctuary will not be affected by the existence
Office of Coastal Zone Management. of the sanctuary.
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235 Skagit County appreciates the efforts of the Department of Ecology and the
interests of the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management in protecting
Dear Sir: the resources of Padilla Bay by its inclusion in the Estuarine Sanctuary
Program. Through the cooperation of federal, state and local agencies, the
As representatives of Skagit County, we would like to take the opportunity to educational, academic and recreational benefits derived from this program
offer our comments on the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Draft Environmental will be available to the public for years to come.
Impact Statement. Sincerely,
It has long been the opinion of Skagit County that the aquatic resources of
Padilla Bay should remain available to the public for their diverseeducation- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
a], academic and recreational pursuits. This opinion was, in fact. substan- SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON
tiated by policy'during the formation and adoption of the Skagit County Shore-
line Manaaement Master Proqram in which Padilla Bay was identified as a "shore
line of siatewide significance". It is to our pleasure that the creation of
this estuarine sanctuary will sustain this multiple use concept and allow the
continuation and co-existence of compatible activities and surrounding land Bud Norris-,'Chairman
uses.

The organization of the Padilla Bay Sanctuary Program, through the efforts of
the project manager and the Washington Department of Ecology, has provided an
opportunity for local participation. The formulation of the steering and er nsfield, Comi ioner
technical committees, each with diverse local input, enabled mitigation of
major problems during the early planning stages of the program. The results
of this organization,.both the methods and personnel involved, are to be com-
plimented for their professional, yet sensitive, attitudes.
w rd-Wr
a Miller-,Commissioner
Throughout the devel Iopment of the sanctuary program, the county has supported
the policies of the Department of Ecology regarding the non-use of eminent
domain or property condemnation. Furthermore, the fact that land acquisition
will be negotiated only on a "willing seller" concept indicates that the
state will not initiate the relocation of people or businesses. This appre-
ciation for individual property rights is supported by local government and
has encouraged the county to donate nearly one hundred acres of publicly
owned tidelands to the program.

TCS:RCS/mlh
_-@Bu Wrri@shai
*
n

Ward M

t4e@f A
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Z10446-eld Od SERT L COLE

X & "SwcK
STATE OF OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
WASHINGTON III Wm 9SUM 2Mf7534011
OLYMPIA. WASHINGTON ottw tiEPA Dixv L" Ray
98504 ec: Le-ZI
May 13. 1980

June 12, 1980

Mr. Milt Martin
t1t Department of Ecology In reply refer to: 141-F-NOAA-11
Campus Mail: PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504 RE: Padilla Bay Estuarine
Director, Sanctuaries Program Sanctuary Draft EIS
Offi eof Coastal Zone Management
33,oc WhItehaven Street, N.W. Dear Mr. Martin:
Washington, D. C. 20235
We have completed our staff review of the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary
Re: Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted to the Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation on April 30, 1980, by the National Oceanic and
Dear Sir- Atmospheric Administration. Please be informed that no properties are
currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places, in the State
The state of Washington, Department of Natural Resources endorses Register of Historic Places, in the State Inventory of Historic Places, or
and supports the establishment of the proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine in the Washington Archaeological Research Center/Office of Archaeology and
Sanctuary. Historic Preservation site inventory maps which may be Impacted by the
We have participated In Committee work in the development of the research program proposal as explicitly defined in this E.I.S. Properties
proposal, and believe the leadership and unique plan for development include.archaeological and historic resources.
of this project has been effective and unique. There are. however, iinportant cultural resources located within the proposed
Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary research area. Accordingly, and with specific
It has been a pleasure to participate. regard to the possible construction of a Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary
"interpretive center (with a) small boat launching ramp", the Office of
Very truly yours, Archaeology and Historic Preservation should be afforded the opportunity
(1) to provide information regarding the probable impact this alteration of
BERT COLE the terrain would have upon Washington State's archaeological and/or historic
C Issi ne o Public Lands resources, and (2) to advise the Department of Ecology of the laws and proce-
dures established to mitigate those resources (including currently unknown
resources) that would be subject to impact by said construction.
WILL I A. JOHNSON Thank you for this opportunity to review the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary
Manag r Draft EA.S.
1. Division of Marine Land Management
WAJ/nr Sincerely,
cc: Bruce Barrett 1EA""E - IEL te
Office of Environmental Affairs Histri, Pr , C";aD
.r t!9uty0f'f!:er

A. Christina Bedegrew oastal
Zone Management Arch eol gist
4
md
cc: Bruce R. Barrett
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
9IR LE
T Cog
ne Public La,

WI LLI AJOHNSON
na. r

Histori Pr ser ati Offi cer

s
A na edegrew oa tal
t rc g ist
Z- Christi In @n
.ne4nage e A h eol

STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
WASHINGTON 7isoci,__t.L_.okm_.w"v_q9uw M.S. KY-11 20VW5755
NxY L" ftay IJ
June 11, 1980

35-2650-1820
DEIS - Padilla Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary
(E-1923)

Mr. Robert R. Kifer, Chief
NEPA Compliance Unit
United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street
Washington, DLC. 20235

Dear Mr. Kifer:

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission staff has recently
reviewed this document and offers the following comments.

I find this to be one of the most comprehensive and useful NEPA
statements which I have ever reviewed. It clearly documents the
planning history of this project and describes accurately the bene-
ficial and adverse environmental effects of this proposed estuarine
sanctuary. I recognize the very substantial involvement by several
staff members over an extended period of time to bring this project
to fruition. It is also apparent that a genuine effort has been nade
to invoive all segments ?TF the generai popuious and industry in the
area in the decision making process. In my view, this is one of the
most important aspects of the environmental process.

In conclusion, State Parks sees many positive effects flowing from this
decision to establish the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary. We encourage
prompt action to make this proposal a reality.

Sincerely,

David W. Heiser, E.P., Chief
Environmental Coordination
DWH:jh

cc: Web Hallauer, Director, Department of Ecology
Rod Mack, Assistant Director, Department of Ecology
Milt Martin, DOE Project Coordinator
Jan Tveten, Director, State Parks
Daren Johnson, Assistant Director, Resources Development
to Bill Bush, Chief, Research and Long Range Planning

-2-

F PR 40 CFR 1502 6 states that EIS's shall be prepared using an inter-
0 FRIENDS OF THE EARTH 18 June-1980 disciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural
and ial sciences and the environmental design arts. We find no
evid:oce that this approach was used.

40 CFR 1502.12 states that each EIS shall contain a summary which
Director, Sanctuaries Program shall stress . . . areas of controversy. The summary of this EIS does not
Office of Coastal Zone Management mention areas of controvery. Especially absent from the summary are
Dept. of Commerce the concerns surrounding the boundaries or a "natural ecological unit".
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
WA D.C. 20235 40 CFR 1502.14(a) states that the EIS should explore and objectively
evaluate all reasonable alternatives. We find the draft EIS very weak
Dear OCZM: in evaluating alternative protective mechanisms as well as alterative
"natural ecological unit" boundaries.
We have received a copy of the draft environmental impact statement
on the proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary in the state of Washington. 40 CFR 1502.14(b) states that EIS's shall devote substantial treatment
The following are the comments of the N.W. office, Friends of the Earth: to each alternatIve considered in detail. ... so that reviewers may
evaluate their comparative merits. The draft EIS is deficient and does
GENERAL COMMENTS not permit us as reviewers to adequately evaulate the alternatives on
their comparative merits.
While we find in the draft EIS considerable information about the
proposed Estuarine Sanctuary in Padilla Bay, we are disturbed at the 40 CFR 1502.16 (d) states that the EIS should address the environmental
lack of compliance with NEPA and the new CEQ regs at several points. effects of alternatives. We find the draft EIS deficient in addressing the
The EIS does not adequately display actual alternative boundaries and environmental effects of alternatives, especially the. adverse impacts of
areas considered for the sanctuary in Padilla Bay. Insufficient information not establishing a large estuarine sanctuary.
is given on why some parcels were included or excluded in the proposal
and what criteria were employed in determining boundaries. In addition, Because of these inadequacies and noncomplaince with CEQ's NEPA
the EIS does not discuss why Padilla Bay was chosen over other candidate regs, we are providing CEQ with a copy of our comments as called for
estuarine sanctuary areas in Washington or which other areas were considered. in their Federal Register notice of 29 April 1980 requesting comments
on agency implementation of,CEQ's NEPA Regulations.
Specific CEQ NEPA regs concerns. More specific draft EIS comments are as follows:
40 CFR 1502.2(d) states that EIS's shall state how alternatives con- Page iv. It states that "DOE assured the two committees that their
sidered in it and decisions based on it will or will not achieve the
requirements of section 101 and 102(l) of the Act and other environmental participation was essential... and that their decisions regarding
laws and policied. We find no such section or discussion in the draft sanctuary boundaries, size and the sanctuary uses . . . would be incorporated
EIS. into the DOE/State application to NOAA. . ." This is incorrect in that DOE
accepted only the recommendations of the Steering Committee, which overturned
40 CFR 1502.2(e) states that the range of alternatives discussed in the Technical Committee at several points especially on the issue of
the EIS shall encompass those to be considered by the ultimate agency sanctuary boundaries. This should be re;;itten to state that only the
decisionniaker. This draft EIS does not discuss the range of alternatives decisions of the Steering Committee were to be so incorporated.
which might be considered by the ultimate agency decisioninaker, in this The EIS refers to the sanctuary coexisting within a community,
caseOCZM, but merely a limited discussion of alternatives presented by presumably Skagit County. While the local area would be most directly
the state of Washington. impacted by this proposal, the national and statewide nature of the program
and funding should not be overlooked in assessing the scope of public interests
40 CFR 1502.2(g) states that EIS's shall serve as the means of and benefits, or impacts entailed (refer to NOAA guidelines, 921.20(a)).
assessing the environmental impacts of proposed agency action, rather
than ustifying decisions already made. We find the EIS to be a justification Pages iv and v. Under "Management", discussion of uses permitted
i or prohibited within the Bay, as opposed to within the sanctuary area, is-
for the state's ES proposal rather then a means of assessing environmental confusing. According to the EIS, "uses that would destro7 or alter the nature
impacts of the action and alternatives.
of the ecosystem will not be allowed within the sanctuary'. As is clear

Northwest office 4512 University Way NE Seuttle, Wasliington 98105 (206@ 633-1661

-3- -4-

from figure 1 (page 6), the western boundary is rather arbitrarily drawn; 2) Associated Oyster Lands, Inc.
thus, prohibiting disruptive activities within the sanctuary, but not
elsewhere in the Bay, would not guarantee against alteration of flow or 3) Padilla Bay multiple ownerships,
circulation patterns and other impacts affecting the integrity of the
entire bay ecosystem. 4) upland areas -
The EIS states that maintenance dredging of existing channels will be
allowed in the sanctuary. To our knowledge, there are no navigation These groups should be identified on a map similar to that used for
channels or dredging projects within the designated sanctuary area. No Figure I in the draft EIS.
mention is made here, or elsewhere in the EIS, of whether private diking
and landfilling would be explicitly prohibited. Pages 8 - 9. Management. In the bottom paragraph, the EIS acknowledges
that activities beyond the sanctuary boundary would significantly affect
Page 2 - Purpose. In the first full paragraph, the purpose of its ecological viability. This might be true in any case, but drawing
estuarine sanctuaries is discussed. One purpose is to ensure relatively the boundary through open water where there is a continuous and fluid
undisturbed areas for ecological research and education. A second is to connection to areas close by which might be seriously degraded by
ensure availability of natural areas for "controls". The terminology- future prospective activities (cf. pages 26 and 32) leaves the sanctuary
of "controls", in the sense of research testing, may not be clear to all particularly vulnerable.
readers. A point which needs clarifying is whether such "control" areas
need to exist in isolation from disturbances, as opposed to adjoining Page 10. Management Plan. Under Allowed Uses (6),navigation and
uncontrolled areas where the distrubing influences are felt or measured maintenance dredging of existing channels should be changed to "navigation
within the sanctuary. Since the entire Bay is not within the proposed and maintenance for existing channels outside the proposed estuarine
sanctuary, the sanctuary cannot be a reasonably isolated aquatic or estuarine sanctuary".
ecosystem. Thus, the assertion on page 9 that sanctuary objectives can be
achieved without full assurances and controls for the remainder of the Bay Page 13. Research Policy and Program. Under this section is a discussion
and its associated wetlands may not be warranted. of estuaries and the estuarine nature of Padilla Bay. According to some
classifications, all of Puget Sound is an estuary; which means any part of
Page 3- Purpose. Please list the acreages for the seven estuarine it, including Padilla Bay, is a@tomatically estuarine, regardless of the
sanctuaries listed on this page. amount of freshwater inflow to that part. The phrase ". . has only
freshwater inflow from land drainage" should be changed.to read ". . .
Page 4 - Purpose. Please discuss the impact on the estuarine proposal has freshwater inflow only from localland drainage". Also, the reference
from the State of Washington's appropriation. of $70,000 for the ES to dredging and diking continuing within Padilla Bay needs clarification
i
i sines wp arp unawarA of any current or recent diking activity.
n !;--.It of the need for $656,500 from the State as mentioned on page 3.
Page 5 - Alternatives. The first paragraph indicates the proposed Page 20. Alternatives Considered. The EIS implies that the "no action"
sanctuary "approximates a natural ecological unit". NOAA guidelines alternative would leave Padilla Bay vulnerable to "destructive intrusions
(part 921.20(c)) state that "to the extent feasible, estuarine sanctuaries in the form of diking, dredging, filling, chemical discharges, and
should approximate a natural ecologal unit". In our view, a more logical major disturbances from human activity". If all current uses will be
and still feasible natural unit would encompass the entire Bay, which is allowed to continue in the sanctuary (see page 14) and the above mentioned
described in the Shoreline Management Act (Appendix IX, RCW 90.58.030) as uses are currently permitted, there is a contradicton with th@ proposed
follows: March Point to William Point and including all tidelands between prohibitions described on page 10.
the line of extreme low tide and ordinary high water and any associated
wetlands. Page 21. Site Selection. Reference is made to an intensive site
selection process described in Appendix V. However, the EIS and Appendix
Page 7 - Boundaries and Aquidition. Under what authority was the do not describe or list specific estuarine areas that were considered.
Padilla Bay tidelands sold by the State in 19067 How was the doctrine These should be mentioned here.
of public trust handled by the State at that time?
Page 21. Boundaries. As discussed earlier, this entire section does not
Page 7 - Boundaries and Aquisition. The discription of the four basic meet CEQ's NEPA regs. One alternative (enclosed) which we ask be included
groups of real property beginning in paragraph two on this page should be and discussed is a proposal for designation of Padilla Bay as a Regestered
rewritten. It is difficult to follow which lands are being discussed in Natural Landmark, prepared by Dr. Grant W. Sharpe, of the University of
the following sections. The four groups should be discussed with headings Washington in December of 1972. We ask that Figure 2 of this proposal
clearly stating which group of property is being discussed (i.e.): and a discussion of the proposed boundary be included in the final EI%

a) the Padilla Bay tracts

A-

-5-

Another alternative which should be included is the boundary proposals wildlife assemblages" (page 20). Although these protections would not
necessarily assure public access or facilitate scientific and education
outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by the U.S. activities afforded by creation of a sanctuary, the EIS should explain
Fish and Wildlife Service in June of 1979 under the Unique Wildlife why outright purchase of the Associated Oyster Tracts is necessary.
Ecosystem program. We ask that Figure 5 from this study (enclosed) be In addition, a map should be included which shows the extent of
included in the final EIS. the "Area of Particular Concern", as well as an up to date designation
Reference is made to an originally proposed boundary, but it is of the shoreline environment designations for Padilla Bay similar
not clear what this boundary was. Mention is made of a 500-foot to that shown in the U.S. F&WS's Figure 12 (Enclosed).
"buffer strip" at the north end of the sanctuary which was " . . added
so that uses by the-public would not affect the property owner's quite Page 28 and 29. Shoreline Management Act. According to the EIS,
enjoyment of his land". This is an unusual use of the term "buffer stip" the primary potential conflicts for development of the Bay shoreline (both
since it normally refers to a nondevelopment or setback zone from a lands and waters, under SMA) is expansion of industrial activities. The
body of water. Rather than buffering the sanctuary from potentially harm- EIS should clarify how industrial developments could be seriously proposed
ful intrusions, this provision does not appear to contain any protective
or considered within the sanctuary, thus necessitating DOE opposition, or
restrictions for it. whether this refers to areas outside the sanctury, in or adjoining Padilla
The EIS priefly discusses a "major alternative" that would have Bay. According to a statement in item 2 on page 29, "the State of Washington
encompassed the entire Bay. This reportedly was rejected because of has an effective coastal zone management program in effect at the present
high costs for land on Samish and Hat Islands and claims by the Swinomish time that centers on the controls provided in the SMA . . . auemented. . .
Indian Tribal Community on a large portion of tidelands (see page 5). in response to the CZMA!'.---iFe-re fore, except for excluded tribal areas,.
The EIS does not mention whether purchase of development rights or we do not understandhow such threatening developments could be legally
easements (as provided in NOAA guidelines, section 921.3(e)) for these possible for this area of statewide importance. under the SMA and CZM programs.
parcels was considered. It is not clear why conflicting developments would not be prohibited even now.
A map should be added showing the location of the land claimed by In view of the latest findings of OCZM in their annual Section 312
the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. Discussion should also be made Review of the State's CZM Program we would dispute the statement that
on why state owned tidelands adjacent to the east side of March Point the State has an "effective program!'. In recent testimony before Congress
were excluded from the proposal. former OCZM Administrator Robert Kneckt emitted Washington from a list
of States which had effective programs. We ask that that statement be
Page 21 and 22. Alternative Methods. Under this section the Federal and dropped.
state acquisition programs listed should be cited and discussed in more
detail. For example, while the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Page 30. - Washington State Legislature. The lands in pubic ownership
is listed under State Acquisition, it is not discussed at all in the text. covered by the 1961 legislation should be shown on a map. Again, an
explanation should be given for why these state-owned lands were excluded
Page 23..- Environmental Consequences. This section should discuss the from the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary.
adverse environmental impacts that may occur from the selection of the
proposed action with its drastically shrunken boundaries from other Page 30. - Skagit County Shoreline Management Progr . Again we ask for
alternatives, such as the proposed Unique Wildlife Ecosystem or the proposed a map showing these master program designations for the Bay be included in
Regestered Natural Landmark. the EIS.
In particular we would ask that the EIS discuss the possible adverse
environmental impact to wildlife and fish concentrations identified by Page 36. - Affected Environment. Mention should be made of the landfill
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Figure 9 (enclosed) (including site in the south western portion of the Bay.
gull & duck nesting areas, the brant loafing area, the herring and smelt
spawning sites) which lie outside the proposed sanctuary. What will be Appendix I The Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines published as a proposed
the possible adverse environmental impacts to these components of Padilla rule 9 September 1977 are included in this Appendix. Was a final rule
Bay by excluding them from the protection of the Estuarine Sanctuary? never issued? As proposed rules they carry no authority and the final
Page 27. - Sh:,repll:e Mangement Act. Given the speical designations and regs should be printed or the proposed regs removed from this section.
recognition accord ill. y as a "shoreline of statewide sienificane" Finally, we request the results of the appraisals for the Associated
and an Area of Particular Concern", which place emphasis upon the need Oyster Tracts we included in the final EIS. In conclusion, we are disappointed
to protect this specific area. it is difficult to see why the necessary that this draft EIS falls so short from the CEQ NEPA regs and has failed
controls do not already exist under the State CZM Program to protect the to aggressively look at all feasible alternatives and assess whether the
ecological integrity of Padilla Bay Estuary and its rich and unique proposal meets the test of "natural ecological unit", as the NOAA regs urge.

-7-

Since Federal monies will be spent to aquire land, OCZM has a responsibility
to examine independently the Estuarine Sanctuary proposal and determine
if the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines have been met. There is nothing
in the EIS to indicate that the national interest has been represented
or served.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS for the
proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary in the State of Washington.

Sincerely,

Excepts from
David E. Ortman Evaluation of
Conservation Representative
N.W. Office, Friends of the Earth PADILLA BAT

cc: CEQ Skagit County, Washington
WA State DOE
U.S. F&WS
FOE-D.C.
FOE-San Fran

For eligibility for

Regestered Natural Landmark

designation

Prepared by

Grant W. Sharpe, Ph.D

Professor of Forestry and Outdoor Recreation

College of Forest Resources

University of Washington

Seattle, WA 98195

December 15, 1972

5 Legend

4 boundwy
Figure 2. 1 " or
tiap showing road access. and the township and rangaLlInes
boundary of the proposed Padilla Say Natural
paved read
Landmark.
tollroad

2 3miles So
0
9
T
_7
MINam Fb;nt ...... ....... .......
1.d4n Jack tsfad
V..;a
T .0
I'R WHOar
%
MIS somish
North8each Island

j'CEP-ife, 3.
-Y
'W E0150
A
V- Gu@mrz Is
Guemds
5un@e
S' t 1. C_tz_:'@z
Field.
-Y .1,
......T Fiat isil 4@' Sqtdheast Fn
Has
jjA. Island,
cap
-aF Anacorles
a F 77-er iEqq
Nor.

A I 'A Got ITS
B. Y -
27
rch
Padilla
%

Bay
4 _WYYl Fdcdgol\,. IL
33

rl')z qA
" ummit ra rq
At qPOijj B y
F I -L
(IF

Jee onia
AV*
hit
q ey.
r

rcl a
-ad 1d:UY
c
Fl
hU
ff say
INDIA @:l %6
C 5 i.q v4p

t
net.. Figure 5. Core Areas. Primary and Secondw
N N F.R
LA\,C3. -7

010
01. C

it cr
Q1

I c2r- 3

clh
-end LEGEND
A -Aquat i c
Brant loaf' ng 9 -Natural 0
Peregrine bunting C -Conservancy
Herring spawning R -Rural
Smelt spawning U :Urban
Gull & duck nesting X Rural Residenti
Bald eagle nests (Note: Indian Reser-e@
Heron rookery 0 vation is excluded)
Raptor perch
-@te: waterfowl, seals,
andpipers, crabs & bottom-
ish distributed broadly in

Figure 12. Shoreline Environment Designations for
Figure Wildlife and Fish Concentration Areas (Source: Skagit County Shorelines Ma
00*
0

SIMONAPLSON,
LAW OFFICES OF VISSEK 9
51MONAPLSON, JOHNSON
VISSEP, 9 JERRY L.JOHNSON RALPH B.LE COCO
JOHNSON P TER JAY ViSSER EINAR SIMONARSON
MARTIN r. MUENCH
DANIEL D. ZENDER :EfT" A. BODE
OBEAT W. MILLER
PHILIP H. BRANDT HAL THURSTON Director, Sanctuaries Program
PLEASE REPLY TO: June 18, 1980
Lynden Office Page 2

June 18, 1980
the present use of the sanctuary area for a substantial length of
time and have proved to be compatible; that it is the intent of the
Steering Committee that these surrounding uses continue to be
Director, Sanctuaries Program construed as compatible and allowed to co-exist. While we realize
Office of Coastal Zone Management that there is no direct jurisdiction or authority on the part of the
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Steering Committee or any future sanctuary manager over lands
Washington, DC 20235 outside the sanctuary boundary, the existence of the sanctuary and
its goals and policies can have an indirect effect on other land use
Re: DEIS Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary controls imposed by other jurisdictions. In the event of a future
review of surrounding land use controls, it might be helpful to have
Dear Sir: clarified the intent of the Steering Committee as just indicated.
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the draft We appreciate this opportunity to comment and we commend the people
environmental impact statement prepared for the proposed Padilla Bay involved for their substantial efforts in the sanctuary
Estuarine Sanctuary, on behalf of my client, Dunlap Towing Company, establishment process..
Inc.
Attached hereto and incorporated herein is a letter submitted Very truly yours,
earlier by Dunlap Towing at a Padilla Bay hearing. The letter SIMONARSON, VISSER, JOHNSON
describes Dunlap's log storage arSa adjacent to the proposed UNDER & BRANDT
sanctuary boundary.

We have participated in the planning process to date and wish to
D
express our appreciation for the attentive, businesslike manner in Daniel D. ZenL!3
which significant issues have been discussed and considered by the
Steering and Technical Committees. DDZ/cb:jn
We have not opposed the project, in part because of indications from cc; Dunlap Towing Company, Inc.
the Steering Committee that they do not intend that the sanctuary
interfere with uses outside its boundaries, and that the sanctuary
management concept is one of co-existence with surrounding uses.
See, for instance, comments by Mr. Milt Martin, the project
director, in an article entitled "Can Co-existence Save Padilla
Bay?" at page 12 of the Washington Wildlife magazine, spring, 1980.

We appreciate the remarks in the DEIS concerning co-existence,
particularly those at pages 8'and 9. However, we would prefer a
slightly more direct statement of intent concerning co-existence and
an acknowledgement that these surrounding uses have co-existed with

LYNOEN PROFESSIO-L PL@Z@ - 0600 GROVER ST. - P. O.BOX 631 - LYNDEN,WASHINGTON 98a64 (20G) 354-4494
THE COPPER BUILOfNG .201, YOUNG STREET - P.O.BOX 2813 - BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON 9a225 (206)734-9581
R-STEAD REALT@ BUILDING - 838 PEACE PORTAL DRIVE - BLAINE, WASHINGTON 98230 - (206)332-5361

LE COCO. SIMONARSON. VISSER & JOHNSON HEARINGS OFFICER
ATTORNEYS, AT LAW 7910ph- !."Ot"35-64 November 14, 1979
POST OFF.Ct SOX 631 A- C." 206 SLPME 332-0301 Page 2
I., LTNOCN. WASHINOTON 06264
Off- H- f. Bl.;..
@.Y.@ Th-dey AA-
P.ILIP ...... 0'
..... .. The area presently proposed represents a reasonable compromise in
recognition of already existing usage.

In suggesting that surrounding uses will not be adversely impacted,
November 14, 1979 you have evidently recognized that the estuarine has co-existed,
for instance, with the log storage facility, for some thirty years
and can continue to so co-exist in harmony in the future. We ask
that you reflect this intended co-existence in a firm, continuing
management policy. Neither we nor you can be sure who will be
Washington State Department of Ecology managing the sanctuary many years from now, or what their under-
Olympia; Washington 98504 standing will be regarding surrounding uses. We strongly urge that
you expressly proVide as a policy that presently existing sur-
ATTENTION: HEARINGS OFFICER rounding uses, partlcularl@ our log storage facility, are and will
continue to be considered compatible uses and that future manage-
RE: Proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary project ment of the sanctuary will be carried out on that basis. This
policy should be made part of: the federal application, any regu-
Dear Sir: lations promulgated under the Washington Administrative Code, and
any state statute to be submitted to the legislature.
We are the legal representatives for Dunlap Towing Co., Inc. and
Georgia-Pacific Corporation. We are very interested in the pro- Since our leased lands are vwned by the Department of Natural
posed estuarine sanctuary. Members of both Georgia-Pacific and Resources, we believe we may be especially vulnerable to future
Dunlap have enjoyed the aesthetic and recreational qualities of the allegations that our use is no longer compatible and that, there-
Padilla Bay area for many years. Your interest in the area and the fore, the Department of Natural Resources should withdraw these
testimony heard concerning its abundance and wide variety of birds lands from availability for lease.'
arid other wildlife comes as no surprise, due to our long appre.
ciation of this natural area. Other surrounding t_,ses, 9!tch as the use of the Swinomish Channel ag
a navigable waterway are also important. Attached is a copy of a
However, the proposed project does pose at least a potential threat letter which may be of interest to you from James Dunlap to the
to the continued use of nearby tidelands, outside the proposed Department of the Army concerning the importance of the channel as
sanctuary boundary, for log storage purposes. 'For some thirty a waterway. The sanctuary management guidelines should recognize
years, Dunlap Towing has maintained a log storage facility off that these types of uses, and associated activities required for
March Point on tidelands leased from the. Department of Natural their normal maintenance, are intended to reifiain compatible.
Resources'. This facility, presently used by the Georgia-Pacific
Corporation is capable of storing up to about 100 million board If the above assurance can be provided, we will be much more com-
feet 'of logs and presently contains approximately 10 million board fortable with the proposed estuarine sanctuary project. Thank you
feet. While we recognize the value of the Padilla Bay Estuarine in for the opportunity to comment and please let us know if we can
its natural state, the purpose of this letter is to solicit assur- provide information or other assistance to you in developing such
ance that the proposed use will not conflict with our nearby indus- management guidelines.
trial use of tidelands for log sLorage,,purposes. Very truly yours,
As we understand it, there is no present intf!nt on your part to LECOCQ, SIMONARSON. VISSER & JOHNSON
infringe upon, or otherwise a.ffect, surrounding uses through the
creation and continued operation of the proposed estuarine sanc-
t.uary. We believe this to be a laudable goal, particularly in View
of the large area encompassed by the proposed sanctuary. Even Daniel D. Ze@@
though, ideally, the sanctuary might include an even larger area DDZ:cb
than that proposed, surrounding uses, including Dunlap's log cc: Dunlap Towing Co., Inc.
storage facility, are also important and should not be jeopardized.. Georgia-Pacific Corporation

I believe that, before more permits are grnted for float installation,
more consideration should be given to the purpose for which the channel
was originally intended - that of a navigational waterway.
Dunlap Towing Company
LaCONNER, WASHINGTON 98251 Complete Log Hanling
P.0. Box 593 Facilities
LAConner (706) 466-3114 Sincerely,
Everett (206) 259-4163
Westside Log Yard: (206) 466-3758
0lympia Log Yard: (206) 357-5570 James Dunlap, President
February 15, 1979 DUNLAP TOWING COMPANY
Department of the Army
Seattle District, Corps of Engineers JD/alh
P.0. Box C - 3755
Seattle, WA 98124 CC: City or LaConner

Dear Sirs:

Recent development along the Swinomish Channel in LaConner has created
a situation that has become a topic of concern among persons Interested
in maintaining the channel as a navigable waterway. The following in-
formation is presented for your consideration and is intended to draw
your attention to the matter.

With only three entrances to Puget Sound from the Straits of Juan do
Fuca - AdmIrality Inlet, Deception Pass, and Swinomish Channel, the Im-
portance of maintaining the channel as a navigable waterway becomes
apparent. Large vessels enter Puget Sound through Admirality Wet,
while Deception Pass and Swinomish Channel have been used for the
smaller commercial vessels and pleasure boats. When weather conditions,
such as the high winds occurring on February 13, reduce the safety
of using Deception Pass, the further importance of the channel becomes
increasingly obvious.

Prior to 1936, Swinomish Channel was a very shallow channel that could
only be used on the extreme high tides. In 1936, the channel was dredged
to a depth of 12- feet. The following year, in 1937, a rock dike was
built from McGlinn's Island to Coat island to divert the Skagit River
from flowing Into Swinomish Channel. When this was done, not only did
it become a very much used channel, but also a very effective source of
drainage for the western end of the farm land in the Skagit Valley.

In the last ten years many changes have taken place along the channel
with the most significant being the Port of Skagit County's marina and
the Swinomish Tribal Community's development. Since the Portal marina
development, there have been several floato installed along the channel
by the City of LaConner and the merchants, and the channel is fast be-
coming a navigational hazard.

Originally the floats were built next to the docks with the boats tying
on the outside. Now, to gain moorage space, the floats are breasted
out into the channel so that boats may moor on two sides of the float,
and in some instances, an four olden with the floats extended into the
channel to the limit and boats moored two and three abreast. Consequently,
the channel becomes very congested and too hazardous for towing vessels
to use.

@WA

C,('-7_
Swiqomish 'tribal Commpity Director, Sanctuary Program
A FftWy I . ta. ISM Office of Coastal Zone Management
950 Moorage Way - LaConner, Washington 99W Page 2
Phone 12DS) 465-3163

The comments which follow focus most acutely on the inadequacy
of the DEIS in acknowledging the socio-economic issues affect-
June 19, 1980 ing the future of the people of the Swinomish Tribal Community.
Furthermore, it is necessary to acknowledge the role of
the Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration,
Director, Sanctuaries Program throughout the history of the Swinomish Port and Industrial
Office of Coastal Zone Management Park development.
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235 With this introduction. we respectfully submit the following
comments in review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Sir, for the Padilla Bay Esturine Sanctuary.
in keeping with the well-recognized concern of Indian culture
for environmental quality and preservation, the Swinomish Tribal
Community has supported the concept of an esturine Sanctuary Sincerely,
in Padilla Bay. From the beginning that support has been
premised on the assumption that the sanctuary would not infringe
upon Tribal lands or upon long-standing plans to develop certain
portions of those lands.
The achievement of economic self-sufficiency through.planned C "S7
development of tribal resources is a strong priority not only
of the Tribe itself, but of the federal government. The planning Robert Joe@'Sr.
and development of the Tribe's industrial site into a planned Chairman
marine-recreational facility adjacent to the Proposed sanctuary, Swinomish Indian Senate
is of crucial importance to the realization of the Tribe's goal
toward economic self-sufficiency. The goal represents the means
with which to reverse the trend of unempioyment and economic
disadvantage amoung the Indian people.

Unfortunately, the Swinomish Tribal Community has been forced into
the position of opposing the establishment of the sanctuary in
light of the Department of Ecology's stated position that it
Nill vigorously oppose proposed developments which are inconsist-
ent with the sanctuary management philosophy" P. 29, DEIS). Further-
Tore, the Tribe believes the development of the marine facility Is RJ:nz
in full conformance with the overriding philosophy of the sanctuary
program: providing for a co-existing environment capable of
supporting both environmental and economic/industrial 'functions.
Only when the importance of the Tribe's development plans are cc: Bruce Barrett
acknowledged and its consistency with sanctuary management phil- Acting Director
osophy is assured can the Swinomish Tribal Community renew its Office of Environmental Affairs
support for the establishment of the esturine sanctuary. Room 3425
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington D.C. 20230

A@inirnni- Svvin..4h Fih Co. Tib.1 Ch.1- SOCW Servi- Pie 1 xg Dept. Alcohoftm PmWm Row-tion Dqn. H-fth Off- 116b.1 C@
P 0 Box 817 P.O. 8-219 P.0.8..Sm P.O. Do. 303 P.O. Box 817 P.O. So. 306 P.O. Box 388 P.O. a.. 455 P.O. Box 817

page 3 page 4
I. Page iv. Line 12.: The philosophy supporting the proposed action calls for 6. Page 9. Line 1: State: "existing local and state statutes and regulations
an integrated and balanced co-existing environment which supports. besides appear fully adequate to address any potential problem resulting from these
the environmental area (proposed sanctuary), industry, agriculture and uses (including Swinomish Industrial Park*) in adjacent water or lands-.
other endeavors all within one community. The philosophy is applauded Althouah this statement appears warrfnted, it neglects to acknowledge
by the tribe, however, the statement is limited in itself by recognizing the tribe's role in regulating land use activities on the reservation.
merely the positive social impacts of the proposed action. Benefits re-
sulting from economic co-existant activities both within and adjacent to The Swinomish Tribe is accepting responsibility and Jurisdiction
the sanctuary boundaries have not been adequately recognized, thereby for the planning and regulatory function for the area bordering
reducing the intent and opportunit .ies associated with this philosophy. the proposed sanctuary, and is currently preparing its coastal
zone management plan in conjunction with the CZM program. The
2. Page v. Line 2: A description of the types of uses which may alter water- statement appears to be fully contradicted, however, by the
flow patterns in the bay should be documented. A review of existing following statement appearing on page 23, Line 7:
.activities in the bay should be discussed in relation to alterations "Although a variety of regulatory programs currently exist at local.
of water flow patterns. state and federal levels. they are not believed to be adequate to guarantee
the preservation of these unique wildlife ecosystems".
3. Page 5, Page '21: The DEIS fails to adequately discuss the The sovereignty of the Swinomish tribe has not been addressed here.
proposed sanctuary boundary with respect to the reservation, Local and state statutes and regulations are not applicable on tribal
boundary. This is a complex issue which is not adequately lands. This issue should be acknowledged and addressed in the final
dealt with by stating the boundary is located consistent EIS, with di-stinction made between tribal and local authority.
with "claimed" reservation boundary. In all likelihood, *parenthesis provided by author for clarification.
there will be a federal court adjudication of the boundary
issie and its exact location until then cannot be known. 7. Page 10. Line 15: The list of [)ronibited uses within the proposed sanctuary
The DEIS should so reflect the sanctuary boundary may not identifies any activity which represents "significant alterations of water
be consistent with ultimate reservation boundary. now patters including circulation patterns within the Say". A discrepancy
arises over the use of the term PM. The proposed sanctuary includes a
4. Pane 6. Figure 1: The Swinomish reservation as well as the industrial majority of Padilla Bay, however the Swinomish Tribal Community owns a
site should be identified on the map, as mention is made to both the portion of -the bay" as well,lyino in the extreme southwest abutting the
tribe and the site in the text.
proposed sanctuary boundaries. Therefore, the stated prohibited uses
which apply only within the portion of the "bay" as defined by the proposed
5. Page 9. Line 32: Identifies certain activities beyond the boundaries of sanctuary boundaries should be clearly identified within the appropriate
the sanctuary which could significantly affect the ecology of the sanctuary. geographic delineatio ns. The term should be revised to accurately reflect
The statement -notes "of particular importance are activities that take place the area of the bay that the use regulations would be effective in.
on the Swinonish Tribal Cominunity industrial area". It appears presumptuous
to imply that future development by the Swinomish tribe of the industrial 8. Page 11. Line 27: Sanctuary Management Committee: This paragraphy should
park would pose a significant affect on the ecology of the sanctuary without specifically identify tribal governmental representation on the nanagerent
4 a thorounh review and assessment of particular and specified activities committee. Tribal government may not necessarily meet the criteria set 9
which the tribe may propose. in this paragraph. It appears critical that tribal governmental represent-
ation be an active participant on the committee.

page 5 page 6

14 Page 24. Line 6: "Landowners in the upland areas and the south, east,
and north boundary upland areas would be unaffected". The Swinomish
Tribe, as a landowner in the southwest portion abutting the sanctuary
should be identified as an abutting landowner and the associated potential
9. Page 10. Line 17: The EIS should identify and quantify potential activities impacts should be addressed appropriately.
which may lead to significant degradation of water quality and biological
productivity. Furthermore, there remains an uncertainty concerning what 15. Page 26. Line 1: This section neglects to address the potential conflicts
would qualify as a significant degradation. This should be addressed of the objectives and intent of two,administrative agencies of the
and qualified. U.S. Department of Commerce. The Economic Development Administration has
committed, as previously noted, a significant investment of funds and
10. Page 16. Line 17: The Swinomish Tribal Community is listed on the Potential technical assistance into the development of the tribe's industrial park.
and Committed Research Organization list. The Tribe, however, is not NOAA, on the other ha 'nd, is an administrative agency for the Esturine
listed on the same list in appendix II. Sanctuary program. Federal investments through'NOAA represented by
substantia I public funds would provide the mechanism for the creation
11. Page 24. Line 15: Local impacts on Skagit County: The DEIS neglects to of the sanctuary. There exists a potential conflict between the intent
recognize the significant negative socio-economic impacts of the proposed and the missions of these two agencies. This potential conflict should
action on.the people of the Swinomish Tribal Community with respect to be extensively reviewed in the final EIS.'
the development of the Swinomish industrial park: the major economic
resource available to the tribe. The economic impacts to Skaoit County 16. Page 26. Line 1: In describing the characteristics of the southwestern
appear potentially greater than those recognized in the DEIS. The portion adjacent-to the sanctuary "excellent transportation opportunities,
employment opportunities to Skagit County residents as a result of the deep water access on western boundary may provide water oriented transport-
development of the Swinomish industrial park would appear to be quite ation opportunities". The Sainomish industrial park should be regarded
significant. The final EIS should acknowledge and address these impacts. as an invaluable resource to the tribe and the potential for irretrievable
and irreversible loss of this resource as a result to the proposed action
12. Page 24: The DEIS has failed to ac iknowledge the $2.7 million should be addressed under Section C, page 25.
federal investment in the Swinomish Port and Industrial park
made available through an Economic Development Administration 17. Page 27. Line 13: The Washington State Legislature declared that the intent
grant. The purpose of the EDA involvement in the industrial of the State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall represent the
park. development. should be recognized and discussed. interests of the people which shall be paramount in the man .agement of
shorelines of statewide significance and shall give preference to uses
13, Page 24: The DEIS completely failed to consider the major in the following order: a. recognize and protect the statewide interests
economic impacts upon the Tribe and its members should the over local interests". A review of the state's relationship with, and
Tribe's ability to develop its resources be hampered as a jurisdiction over sovereign indian lands should be assessed here in view
result of the proposed 'action. Potential impacts upon the of thIis policy.
development of the industrial park should be discussed in
detail and recognition of the long history of Tribal and Federal
investment in the project should be documented.

page 7

18 . Page 32. Section 6: This section states that the reservation or tribal pro-
perties are excluded from management under local or roster shorelines
program, SMA and CZM program. A review of tribal plans, policies. and
ordinances are in order here.

19 . Page 32. Section 6: In refering to the tribe's plan for a "multimillion
dollar marina and industrial park" the DEIS states: "nevertheless, a massive
project of this nature could significantly compromise the ecological integrety
of the bay in direct and irreversible fashion. It could introduce greater
pollution as well as disturbances incompatable with the proposed esturine
sanctuary and probably stimulate further industrial and secondary development
in and around the bay". As the plans have as yet to be formulated for the
development of the Swinomish industrial park, this statement and assessment
of the environmental impacts of an unknown action seems premature. In prepar-
ing the final EIS, it is suggested that the preparers of the document review
the current status of the development plans for the industrial site prior
to attempting an evaluation of any potential impacts on the proposed
esturine sanctuary.

20. Page iv. Line 37: Specific mention should be made to the Tribal usual
and accustomed fishing grounds with respect to the sanctuary, and
identified as an allowable use.

ORIG- NEPA Washington Native Plant Society
cc: GCZ Komo Kulshan Chapter
cz/sp 2737 Franklin St.
June 9, 1980 Bellingham, WA 98225
June 4, 1980

Director, Sanctuaries Program
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Brice Barrett, Acting Director 3300 Whitehaven St., N.W.
Office of Environmental Affairs Washington D.C. 20235
Room 3425 Director,
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, We fully endorse the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary. It is
our hope that research and education about such important
ecological areas as estuaries will continue to be endorsed
Dear Mr. by the wide ranging government agencies. The Washington
Native Plant Society recognizes and appreciates the value of
The following comments are in regard to the estuarine systems as a resource available for educational
purposes.
1. I didn't use any reference in the text to the we are impressed with the exceptional job done by the Office
of of animal or plant like during the coures of Coastal Zone Management (NOAA) and the State of Washington
activities whitch will be using place. Collection Dept. of Ecology in preparing the E.I.S. We can only hope
can deplete an of living creatures and it will , this level of concern continues through the future decades.
certainly in the plans lost will be Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
Of of and/or plant life will be strictly matter.
regulated. ...or such thing.
2. How between the reseach, educational, Sincerely,
recreational interests, with commercial
other activities in, will be decided David Shaw, Secretary
clear, it will be much clearer when the plans
and and rules are finally made. David Shaw, Secretary
Komo Kulshan Chapter
In Feneral, is a very clear and Washington Native Plant Society
Congratulations: We are very excited about this DS/rl
sanctuary we offer our support for success.
would appreciate receiving draft copies of any regulations
which willbe developed. Thank you.

Sincerely,

I&home Audubon Society (1500 mebers)
4011 Alameda Ave.
Tacoma, WA 98466

cc: Director, Program
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N
Washington, D.C. 20235

0"& tWA -
C4C-- 7
SCH001! OF :IX'4 AL Mok"MATICAL SCIENCES J"M n"Mo SEATMEIV CIIN 90i.
,GqfWPA0HCL"NEn1Y
Director, Sanctuaries Program
Page I
May 22, 1980
(Keystone species) models do not seem to operate in detritus-based systems
May 22, 1980 which drive the Padilla Bay estuary.
Thank you for the opportunity to read this very fine document.
Director, Sanctuaries Program Sincerely,
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 V&ite haven St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235
Dear Sir: Ronald C. Phillips
I have received and read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the 51
proposed Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary. It is an excellently prepared and cc: Dr. Bruce Barrett
thorough report. Rom 342S
U.S. Dept. of commerce
I have just two comments: Washington, D.C. 20230
1. Since I have conducted interwive research on eelgrass in Puget Sound
since 1961, and since Seattle Pacific University is currently con-
structing a small laboratory on nearby Blakely Island which will give
our students an opportunity to conduct research on the Padilla Bay
f Estuary, may I suggest that Seattle Pacific University be added to
the list of Potential and Committed Research Organizations (p. 16,
Appendix II - Section II B).
2. Concerning the suggestea research plan, the role of detritus produc-
tion by the dominant benthic plants in and around Padilla Bay was
recognized (marsh or wetland plants; eelgrass), but the plan over-
looks the fundamental role of bacteria an the detritus produced as
food for detritivores and the role of that bacteria in nutrient cycl-
ing within that ecosystem.

Bacteria should be included in the list of biotic components to be
studied and their role in nutrient cycling processes (a function dif-
ferent from energy flow) should be included under Ecosystem function.
Finally, since the importance of top carnivores (keystone species)
in shaping and maintaining comnwity structure (more properly here
ecosystem strLxture) has only clearly been domonstrated for the inter-
tidal zone along a rocky coast in the Pacific Northwest, and since
there is very little of that habitat type in Padilla Bay, I suggest
that a terminology better suited for the ecosystem evidenced in
Padilla Bay (wetlands, eelgrass) be substituted. Really, investiga-
tions on energy flow, nutrient cycling (bacterial function), detrital
imports and exports, and food web sudies are inclusive. Top carnivore

Director, Sanctuaries Program
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 WhItehaven Street, NW
SKAGIT VALLEY COLLEGE Washington, DC 20235
June 9, 1980 2405 COLLEGE WAY MOUNT VERNON, WASHINGTON 98273 Dear sIr or madam,

I have a few minor Corrections to the draft EIS on the proposed
Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary. I served on the technical committee
for this proposal but did not have the opportunity to review the
EIS previously.

MY comments concern Appendix VIII, specifically the list of birds.
Since the pages are not numbered, I refer to them starting with
Director, Sanctuaries Program the page headed
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Common Name Scientific Name
Washington. D.C. 20235 Common Loon Cavia Immer
as page 1. One page 1 there appears to be a need to state criteria
BE: Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Program for inclusion or species. Are these regularly occurring species or
all species known to have occurred? A number of these species do
not occur In the marine habitat. What is the inland boundary intended
Since I am unable to attend the NOAA public hearing In Anacortes on June 10, to be? Assuming that Samish Island, for example, is included within
I want to go on record as supporting the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary. the "list area", I would recommend some changes. I am familiar with
This area has tremendous potential In so many ways for benefitting the people some of the sources used for compilation and feel a few unintentional
of the state of Washington. Some of the major benefits will be an area for errors still persist In this list.
general recreation and appreciation for all citizens, an area for educational P. 2 delete "Swainson's Hawk" (i.e. "Swainson's")
purposes, and an area for research and study. I see only great benefits to
the environment as a result of this project and no harmful environmental P. 2 delete Blue Crouse
effects whatsoever. This Is indeed a worthy project. P. 3 - this page is In the wrong place: these are not birds -delete
Thank you for the opportunity to supply Input and testimony on this project. P. 4 change Heerman's to "Heermann's"
P. 5 delete Barred Owl
P. 5 delete Gray Jay
James M. Ford Pp. 8 & 9 are repeats - delete
President It Is quite doubtful that a number of other species, passerine birds
ja in particular, have ever occurred strictlywithin the PBES boundary.
These comments regard matters of small detail and likely result from
Confusion in compilation of records form geographically non-standardized
original field lists. They are Intend only for enhancing precision
of this list.

Yours truly,
Terence R. Wahl
3041 Eldridge
Bellingham WA 98225

copy: Bruce R. Barrett

6
000005506
--3 -6668 0- - - -- - --- --