:proposed estuarine sanctuary grant award for Padilla Bay, Skagit County, Washington [to State of Washington] : final environmental impact statement/prepared by Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and State of Washington, Department of Ecology. ... ... National Ocean Survey.Office of Coastal Zone Management. Washington (State).Dept. of Ecology. Washington, D.C.:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management:Olympia, Wash.:State of Washington, Dept. of Ecology,1980. Environmental impact statements. Estuarine area conservation Washington (State) Padilla Bay. C. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for Padilla Bay, Skagit County, Washington + JF 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, TO 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 v 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. vi 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 2 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 3 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 4 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. 5 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 7 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. 8 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 9 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. 10 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: 11 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. 12 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. 13 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. 14 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. 15 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. 16 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 17 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. 19 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. 20 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 21 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. 23 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 24 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 25 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. 26 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. 27 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. 28 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. 29 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. 30 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. 31 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. 32 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. 33 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. 35 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. 36 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. 37 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 38 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). 39 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. 40 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. 41 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. 42 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. 43 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. 45 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 46 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 47 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 Or 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. 4 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: 7 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. 9 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 12 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 13 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 0 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. 6- 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 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 0 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 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 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: t - 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 W: 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 N 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. 4 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. .1 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. 4 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 7_ 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 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 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 10 010 01. C it cr Q1 c2r- 3 C 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. 4 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- - - -- - --- --