Proposed estuarine sanctuary grant award for Padilla Bay, Skagit County, Washington, to State of Washington

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

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Padilla Bay

Estuarine Sanctuary

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

k '- V:!~?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-A -'-- ~-~-Y

/ ~,$t�m O% rcoLU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
A1. V Office of Coastal Zone Management
and
541.5 I�s o1 STATE OF WASHINGTON
Department of Ecology
P4
1980

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF, COMMERCE'
1 ~~y National Oceanic and Atmosphevic Adiministeation
OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
Wastinetmi� D.C. 21335

DATE: April 30, 1980

TO: Rec1.pients CIE the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement Prepared an the Proposed Padilla.Bay
-Estuarine Sanctuary

-FOX :Robert R. Kifer, Chief(~6<

SUSJ7CT: Public.Eearing

tou are invited to attend the public hearing' 'to be held an the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement prepared on'the proposed Padilla Bay
Estuarine Sanctuary..

The views of inter~ested persons and organizations will be solicited..
These may be expressed orally. or in written statements. Presentations
will be scheduled on a first-come, first-heard basis, and may be limited
to a maximuri of .5 minutes, or as otherwise appropriate.
Priority will-be given to those with written statements.

Parties unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may be assured
that written comments submitted to the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
3300 Whitehaven Street, Washington, D.C.'20235 by June 23 will receive
the same consideration as oral comments presented at the public hearing.

The hearing will be held in'the following location:

Anacortes, Washington, June 10, 1980 -7:00 pm
Anacortes City Hall
City Council Meeting Room
6th and Q Avenue

/~~\ J 1TH ANNIVERSARY 1970-1980

,ttI"~q UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technalc
Washington, D.C. 20230
Ls1 L 377-4335

April 30, 1980

Dear Reviaewr:

In accordance with the provisions of Section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we are enclosing for your review and
consideration the draft environmental impact statement' prepared by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administratiqn, Department of Commerce, on the proposed Padilla Bay
Estuarine Sanctuary.

Any written comments or questions you may have should be submitted to
the contact person identified below by June 23, 1980. Also, one
copy of your comments should be sent to me in Room 3425, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

CONTACT PERSON

Director, Sanctuaries Program
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235
Telephone: 202/634-4236

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,.

Bruce Barrett
Acting Director
Office of Environmental Affairs

Enclosures

April 1980

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PROPOSED

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD

FOR

PADILLA BAY, SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON

Prepared by:

Office of Coastal Zone Management
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
COAS AL SERVICES CENTER Administration
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 Washington, D. C. 20235
and

State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-ll
Olympia, Washington 98504

-roperty of CS Library
property of CSC Library

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMiMARY ................ ...............................

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

PART II: ALTERNATIVES (I'NCLUDINGPROPOSED ACTION) ......................5

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

1. Boundaries and Acquisition of
Sanctuary Lands

2. Management

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

B. Alternatives Considered ..............................20

1. Funding
2. Site Selection
3. Boundaries
4. Alternate Methods of Acquisition and
Protect ion
5. 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

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

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................41

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

PART VII: APPENDICES. ................................5

e.! SUMMARY

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 (NOAA) 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

o '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, 1979, 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 $656,500, 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 nondeveloprment 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 currehtly 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 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 draft 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 draft 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
Washi ngton.

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

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. These recommendations have been
incorporated into this draft 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 comnunity. This
philosophy entailed the identification of an environmental area as an
essential part of the community--no more or less than other community
needs--and 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
"willing seller" concept; and

C. Acquisition of real property that incl'udes 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 the maintenance dredging of existingI
channels. Prohibited activities include, expansion of existing channels

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

The 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 Management Committee
will provide a vehicle for the consideration and approval of recommendations
to the Game Department for management activities. This advisory committee
will be selected by the Steering Committee previously discussed.

Research, Education and Recreation Plans

The proposed Padilla Bay Research Program (as determined by the
Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Technical Committee--Research Subcommittee)
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
envi ronment works;

2. Experience in valuing environmental quality;

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

4. Experience in methods of enacting community responsibility.

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

The recreation program element of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program
was initiated by the Padilla Bay Technical Committee--Recreation Subcommittee,
approved by the full Technical Committee, and adopted by the Steering
Committee as the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Recreation Policy and
Program, with the additional requirement that all current uses (recreational)
that now exist in Padilla Bay will continue once the estuarine sanctuary
is established.
NOAA's Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines state that while the primary
purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is to provide long term protection for
natural areas, so that they might be used for scientific and educational
purposes, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries may be increased to the
extent that such use is compatible with the primary sanctuary purpose.
The capacity of a given sanctuary to accommodate multiple uses and the
kinds and intensity of such uses will be determined on a case-by-case
basis. While it is anticipated that compatible uses may generally include
activities such as low intensity recreation (i.e., fishing, hunting,
boating, non-commercial taking of shellfish, wildlife conservation,
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 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,"a 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 isI
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 resources)
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.

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

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);

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

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

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

the equivalent amount from the State, for each sanctuary. Guidelines for
implementation of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program were published in final
form on June 4, 1974 [15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 39 (108): 19922-
19927] and amended on September 9, 1977 [15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register
42 (175): 45522-45523] (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
estuaries can be measured, and facilitating evaluation of
the impact of human activities on estuarine ecosystems; and

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

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

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

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

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

Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification

South Slough Columbian
Coos Bay, Oregon

Duplin River/ Caroli nian
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 $656,500 from NOAA, to be matched by $656,500 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 area relatively undisturbed by

man in Puget Sound and it is extremely accessible to great numbers of
people for research, educational, and recreational purposes. It is also
a prime site for industrial development. 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.

R-:, j
.. . . .
:~: ,~:~: ======================= '

��1: ~ 1,:21: :~�;" e

PART II: ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION)

A. Preferred Alternative'

The State of Washington has submitted an application for a grant in
the amount of $656,500 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.

1. 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. 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.

SAMISH-

BAY

CM*d PDAnt dw

crack Lighthouje___________

Camp Kirby Camp Fire Girls... f .~isu.~~ih Point

ScwPoint

/ ui W E S (N Saddlebag Is.

Padilla Bay

YO~b *ff
'110 r- &ddkbgg ~~~~~~ National
Doti. &
164 IAN *6 EstuarineSacur

0 Santo ~ ~ ~ Sactar

Crln Fidalgo )
BREAZEALE
Bay P~~ PROPEATY

'~~~ELL~\SAEPR

SCALE 11:100000

1~~~~~~~~~~~ -

F~~~IGR 1.PdLaBaNtinlEstaieSantay kgtCutsigo

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. Donn.

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 tidal
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 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 not direct access
to the property by public road. Legal access is only by water. The
higher land on a bank varying from 10 to 100 feet in height overlooking
the bay is mostly used for occasional single family residential or private
recreational use. The low flat upland area abutting the project is used
for agricultural purposes, with little likelihood of a change of usage in
the foreseeable future.
The Associated Oyster Lands, Inc., was also platted in 1930 and
includes 930 acres of tidelands in the southwest portion of the proposed
project. There are 943 tracts in this platted area with approximately
350 individual owners. Each tract is approximately one acre in size, is
a thin triangular strip, and is 6 feet wide at the baseline and approximately
14,600 feet long. These tidelands do not begin at the meander line, but
rather are extended seaward, leaving one or more tideland ownerships
between the tract and the uplands.

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

The upland area consists of 3 specific areas that are identified as
follows: a) a 16 acre tract located on the project's eastern boundary
approximately 300 feet south of the Joe O'Leary Slough (see Figure 1--
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 upland portion of the project. The upland
areas will be acquired through negotiated easements.

2. Management

a. Management Plan

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

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

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

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

area. Existing local and State statutes and regulations appear fully
adequate to address any potential problems resulting from these uses in
adjacent water or lands. In addition, because of the support provided by
representatives 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) Recreation and commercial fishing, shellfish'harvest, and
hunting subject to current fishing and hunting regulations.

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 recrea'tion 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.

6) Navigation and maintenance dredging of existing channels.

Prohibited Uses:

1) Expansion of existing channels or creation of new navigation
channels unless specifically authorized by statutes.

2) New public works and/or project's that require dredging and
filling.

3) Significant alteration of wate r flow patterns including-
circulation patterns within the bay.
4) Any activity that will lead to significant degradation of
water quality 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 Management Committee will serve as a vehicle for the
consideration and approval of recommendations to the agency for the
management activities.

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

1) Serving as staff to the Sanctuary Management Committee.

2) Administration of the sanctuary, including preparing required
State, Federal, etc., grant applications, proposals, budgets,
and reports, and managing the necessary administration records.

3) Representing the agency and Sanctuary Management Committee, as
directed, in public hearings and meetings.

4) 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
and Sanctuary Management Committee.

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

6) Developing an oversight of the educational program for the
sanctuary.

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

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

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

c. Sanctuary Management Committee

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

The committee will have ten members with a majority being local
citizens. The composition of the committee will include representatives
from State and local government, elected officials, and knowledgeable and
qualified persons from the research, educational , and recreational community.

Committee memberships shall include: one member of the Board of
Skagit County Commissioners; one representative of the Department of
Ecology, appointed by the Director of Ecology; one representative of the
State Department of Game, appointed by the Director of Game; one
representative of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and

1 2

six citizens who reside in Skagit County who shall be appointed by the
Chairman of the Board of Skagit County Commissioners, including one
member from the educational community, one member from the research
community, and one member from the recreation community.

Terms of the committee members will be staggered in length of time
for the first term except that representatives from the Department of
Ecology, Game, and NOAA are ongoing positions and the County Commissioner
shall serve during his term of office. Therefore, the six citizen
members shall serve as follows: citizen #1 for a one year term (July
1, 1981 - June 30, 1982); citizen #2 - for one year (July 1, 1981 - June
30, 1982); citizen #3 - for two years (July 1, 1981 - June 30, 1983);
citizen #4 - for two years (July 1, 1981 - June 30, 1983); citizen #5-
for three years (July 1, 1981 - June 30, 1984); and citizen #6 - for three
years (July 1, 1981 - June 30, 1984). Thereafter, all terms of committee
membership shall be for three years except for committee membership
appointments that are made to fill a vacant position. Such appointments
shall be made to fill the remainder of the vacant term.
In addition, three subcommittees may be formed by the Management
Committee as needed to make impact and input into the Sanctuary Management
Committee regarding the research, education, and recreational programs.

The Sanctuary Management Committee will serve in a variety of ways,
including both advisory and policy making, and may make recommendations
to the agency, through the Director of the Department of Game, that will
include, but not be limited to:

1) Reviewing and advising the agency on administration of the
sanctuary. In this role, the committee will:

a) Review the sanctuary manager job specifications and
qualifications prior to approval;

b)' Review'applicants for the sanctuary manager position
and recommend personnel to the agency, for their
consideration, prior to final selection; and

c) Recommend the sanctuary operating and capital budget programs.

2) Recommending sanctuary procedural guidelines for the operation of
the sanctuary.
3) Reviewing proposals for research, educational, and recreation
activities in the sanctuary lands and waters.
4) Reviewing the sanctuary management plan annually.

5) Reviewing and advising the appropriate Federal, State, and
local governmental agency of proposed actions, plans, and
projects in, adjacent to, or affecting the sanctuary.
These include:

a) Review of A-95 projects;

b) Review of the regional impact of dredge and fill requests;

c) Waste discharge permits;

d) The lease and sale of state owned lands; and

e) Rules for aquatic preserves programs.

The Sanctuary Management Committee will meet at least once a month during
the first year following the award of the sanctuary grant. Thereafter,
the committee shall determine the frequency of its meetings.

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 only freshwater inflow from 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 to Padilla Bay and continues, 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.

1 4

The primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is the long term
maintenance of ecosystems for scientific and educational purposes. However,
the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines states 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 natural ecosystem 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 current uses of 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 prior to being allowed.

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

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

1) Complement and fill identified research voids in programs
that cannot be provided by existing facilities and/or programs.

2) Provide an opportunity for private and public bodies to study,
analyze, and interpret the ecosystems and biological characteristics
in the Padilla Bay area in particular, and the north Puget Sound
area in general.

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

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

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

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

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

I. Natural Processes

A. Biotic

1. Ecosystem Structure

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

2. Ecosystem Function

a. Energy flow

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

B. Abiotic

1. Water ~
2. Sediment

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

A. Water Pollution

B. Shore and Bay Bottom'Modification

C. 'Animal Harvesting

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

It is clear that a research program of this magnitude'could not be
funded by a single agency or at a single time. It is essentials therefore,
that the major duty of the Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Managing Agency
and Management 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.

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

National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Science Foundation
Army Corps of Engineers
National Oceanic and 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
Washington State Department of Natural Resources'
City of Anacortes
Shell and Texaco Oil Refineries'
Skagit Valley College
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community

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

e. Education Policy and Pro`grams

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 P'adilla 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 construction and testing

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

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

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

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

The complete Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Educational 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
establi 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 conservation,
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 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. Access constrained both by substantial steep bank shorelines
and extensive exposed tidelands 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
I ~ ~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 Steering Committee adopted a
policy on October 4, 1979, requiring that "all (legal) existing (recreational)
uses that now occur in Padilla Bay shall continue once the estuarine
sanctuary is established."

There are limited opportunities for public use of Padilla Bay
shoreline with the exception of March Point and Bayview State Park.
Saddlebag Island is inaccessible to the majority of the people, as are
the agricultural and residential areas on the proposed sanctuary's south,

east, and north boundaries. Expanded public use of the shoreline,
especially on the mainland, would be a desirable component of estuarine
recreational plan development.

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

B. Alternatives Considered

1. Funding

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

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

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

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

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

2. Site Selection

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

3. Boundaries

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

A major alternative to the proposed boundaries was considered by the
Steering Committee, but rejected. This boundary alternative would
basically be to draw a straight line from March Point, north, to the
western end of Samish Island, including the western 100 acres of Samish
Island. The major basis for rejection was that a large portion of the
land in the expanded boundaries is claimed by the Swinomish Indian Tribal
Community and that a lawsuit is currently being prepared. It is expected
that this suit could be in litigation for 4-5 years and NOAA might be
drawn into the suit if the additional acreage were included within the
proposed boundaries. Also, the estimated cost of Hat Island, which would
be included in this area, is $600,000 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
Di ngell1-Johnson Act
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Estuarine Sanctuary Program

State Acquisition

Legislatively Appropriated
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC)

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, which
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 are generally appropriated for
projects that provide more recreational uses of the land than is
envisioned within the sanctuary.

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
North America. 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 which the bay is a
strategic staging area in the Pacific flyway. Adjoining delta lowlands,
as well as marshes and tideflats, are important foraging and wintering
grounds for several species of hawks and owls, including the endangered
American peregrine falcon and the threatened bald eagle. This area is
believed to support the largest known wintering population of American
peregrine falcons in North America: approximately 10 to 12 individuals.
This may make Padilla Bay and the adjacent flats an area of national
concern.

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

PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

1. General Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

trespassing, littering, and intrusions into fragile areas that could be
harmed by unrestricted human use. Activities within much of Padilla Bay
would be regulated in accordance with State regulations governing allowable
and prohibited uses within estuarine sanctuaries and public hunting clubs.
The present types and level of activity would be retained within Samish
Bay and flats.

Landowners in the upland areas and the south, east, and north boundary
upland areas would be unaffected. Upland areas in the southern part of
the proposed sanctuary would be acquired through conservation easements
or leases without significant changes taking place in the character of
current use, which is mainly agriculture. However, the easement or lease
agreements would incorporate provisions precluding substantial commercial
development, housing subdivisions, etc. and may include specific agreements
to preserve roosting areas, small marshes, or other essential habitat
parcels.

2. Local Impacts on Skagit County

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

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

3. State and Federal Impacts

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

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

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

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

-I ~~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.

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 noncompatiblb 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 noted.

1) The State Shoreline and Management Act of 1971. The definition
in the Concept section (RCW 90.58.030) 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 the
shorelines of the State by planning -for and fostering all reasonable and
appropriate uses. This policy is designed to ensure the development of
these shorelines in a manner that, while allowing for limited reduction of
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.

c) 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 ore consistent with control of pollution
and prevention of damage to the natural environment or that are unique to
or dependent on use of the State shorelines.

Permitted uses in the shorelines of the State shall be designed and
conducted in a manner to minimize in so far as practical any resultant
damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any
interference with the public's use of the water.
The Shorelines Management Act is a comprehensive tool for control of
shoreline uses. By designing a use permit system and mandating a solid
environmental planning program as its base, the legislature accepts State
responsibility for shoreline quality. It becomes "the policy of the
State to provide for the management of the shorelines of the State by
planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses."

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

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

Establishing an estuarine sanctuary would be a major impetus to the
preservation of Padilla Bay. In the application to NOAA it is stated
that "the Department of Ecology will vigorously oppose proposed developments
which are inconsistent with the sanctuary management philosophy as identified
by Federal, State, and local statutes," and by policies that are adopted by
the Steering Committee and the Sanctuary Management Committee. In addition,
the Department of Game regards this area as highly significant for
waterfowl in the State.

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 undJer �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 an
effective 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, while protecting and maintaining these areas for
their value as wildlife habitat and their importance in the hydraulic
cycle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Shoreline Management Master Program goals include a 9 goal
statement pursuant to the program elements specified in RCW 90.58.100(2).
These goals were devised, reviewed, and adopted by the Skagit County
Citizens Advisory Committee in order to provide an overall, comprehensive
foundation and sense of direction on which the policies, regulations,
shoreline area designations, and administrative procedures would be based.
These goals will provide overall guidance for the management of the
shorelines of Skagit County. They are:

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

b) Conservation - To preserveI 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
transportation 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 shoreline 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) Re storation 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 permit applications that would eliminate unnecessary
duplication of effort or jurisdictional conflicts, yet assure
complete coordination and review. To provide a process to
periodically update the inventory, goals, policies, and
regulations to achieve responsiveness to changing attitudes
and conditions.

6) Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Plans. Although ownership is
disputed by the State, the Swinomish Tribe claims about 20 'acres of
intertidal land in southern Padilla Bay. About 40 acres were filled with
dredge material in 1975 for development of a "port industrial park." As
recently as March 1979, the tribe announced plans to develop 176 acres
for a "multimillion dollar marine and industrial park" (Skagit Valley
Herald, March 27, 1979). Reservation or tribal properties are excluded
from management under the local master program, Shoreline Management Act,
and CZM Program.

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.
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.

7) Federal Permit Program. 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. 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. Persistent applicants will usually receive permits,
if opposition is based only on environmental concerns.

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

PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Location

Padilla Bay is located in northern Puget Sound. Padilla Bay lies
approximately 3 miles (4.8 km) east of Anacortes and 10 miles (16 km)
northwest of Mount Vernon, the county seat of Skagit County, Washington.
Prominent local features are identified as follows: 1) Padilla Bay,
2) Swinomish Channel, 3) March Point, 4) Anacortes, 5) Guemes Island,
6) Hat Island, 7) Samish Island, 8) Bay View State Park, 9) Saddlebag
State Park, and 10) Bayview Community.

B. Sanctuary Description

The areas surrounding the sanctuary include:

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 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 eastern reservation boundary. The northern
part of the boundary is the "seaward boundary" established
in 1931 by the State Commissioner of Lands and the western
boundary of Saddlebag State Park.

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

Padilla Bay is a shallow bay, the bottom of which is relatively flat
with a variation in elevation of approximately I foot per mile (1.6 kin).
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.

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

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

C. Real Property Ownership

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

D. Soils Geology

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

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

E. Climate

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

and dry. In part, this is due to a "rain shadow" created by the Olympic
Mountains to the southwest. January is the coolest month, averaging
44.5� Fahrenheit (6.9�C), and July is the hottest, averaging 72.40 (22.40C).
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 within
the Area of Concern 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 productivity of these estuaries. Along
with the phytoplankton of the adjoining marine waters, they support the
various animals of these habitats.

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

In freshwater sloughs and along streams, Lyngby's sedge is found in
pure stands. Tufted hairgrass is found along these waterways in higher
elevational bands. Dredge spoil sites and islands are vegetated mainly
with dune wildrye, red fescue, and cheatgrass in sparce stands. Dikes
bordering the salt marshes and mudflats support open grass and forb
communities and clumps of blackberries and wild rose, plus occasional
trees such as red alder, black cottonwood, and willow. Red clover,
English plaintain, Canada thistle, quack grass, redtop, velvet grass, and
pearly everlasting will be found on dikes bordering the agricultural lands
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
invertebrates 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 identified for Padilla
Bay. Among the more notable groups and species of sport and commercial
importance are five species of salmon, steelhead and sea run cutthroat
trout, smelt, Pacific herring, sole, flounder, and ten species of sculpins,
which are eaten by a variety of large predators. Appendix VIII contains a
partial listing of fish species compiled by the Department of Game
(Sweeney, 1978); and from work by Sylvester and Clogston, 1958; Delacey
and Miller, 1972; and Miller et al. (unpublished).

4. Birds

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

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

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

- 5. Mammals

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

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS

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

Mr. MacFarland received his S.A. and M.A. in Economics and has
previously prepared land acquisition strategies, purchased land, acted as
a consultant, and analyzed the 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 DEIS 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 DEIS) to
establish the sanctuary.

Mr. Richard S. Weinstein - U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Weinstein currently is a writer-editor for OCZM/NOAA. He has a
B.S. in zoology, but at the present time he is writing a novel that may
serve as his Master's Thesis, completing the requirements for his degree.
He is a published fiction author, has done some freelance factual articles,
and has written and edited several major studies prepared by OCZM. In
the past, he has taught English at the college level and has spoken at
international conventions of genre authors, editors, and readers.

Mr. Weinstein edited this DEIS.

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 College, Robert D. Keller, Manager, Port of Anacortes;
Charles Kiel, Anacortes 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.

Steering Committee - Subcommittee

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

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

Technical Committee - Subcommittees

Site Selection - Co-Chairman, Bud Norris, Chairman - Board of Skagit
County Commissioners; 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
University - 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-Chairman, John Stone, President, Washington
State Sportsman Council; Co-Chairman, Bill Bush, Chief, Long Range
Planning, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission;
Tom Mike Henry, Washington State Sportsman Council; and Ron Knutzen,
Citizen.

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

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Health, Education & Welfare
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
General Services Administration
Marine Mammal Commission
National Park Service, Sedro-Woolley, WA
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Archeologgy & Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA -Sheila S. Stump
U.S. Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA - Dwain F. Hogan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA -Joseph R. Blum, Area Manager
U.S. Geological Survey, Mount Vernon, WA

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

Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia, WA - Dr. Frank B. Brouillet
Commissioner of Public Lands, Olympia, WA - Bert Cole, Commissioner
Dept. of General Administration, Real Property Division, Olympia, WA-
Will Lewis, Supervisor
Interagency Comm. for Outdoor Recreation, Tumwater, WA -Bob Wilder,
Admi ni strator

Dept. of Fisheries, Olympia, WA - Frank Haw, Deputy Director
Parks and Recreation Commission, Olympia, WA - Jan Tveten, Director
Office of Financial Management, Olympia, WA - Bob Bensen, Director
Department of Game, Olympia, WA - Ralph Larson, Director

LOCAL AGENCIES

City of Bow, Dike District No. 5 - Claude Hoffman
City of Mt. Vernon, Dike District No. 8 - Vernon Egbers
City of Edison, Dike District No. 19 - Ronald A. Johnson
Skagit County - Skagit County Cooperative Extension - Jack T. Crawford
City of Anacortes - Bob Olander, City Manager
City of Mt. Vernon - Ruth Gidlund, Mayor
City of Mt. Vernon - Board of Skagit County Commissioners -
Bud Norris, Chairman
Skagit County, Robert D. Keller, Manager, Port of Anacortes
Skagit County, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community - Marvin Wilbur, Exec. Dir.
Sedro-Woolley City, Skagit County Planning Department - Bob Schofield, Dir.

NATIONAL INTEREST GROUPS

A.M.E.R.I.C.A.N.
AFL-CIO
American Association of Port Authorities
American Bureau of Shipping
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Fisheries Society
American Gas Association
American Industrial Development Council
American Institute of Architects
American Petroleum Institute
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc.
American Society of Planning Officials
American Waterways Operators
Amoco Production Company
Atlantic Richfield Company
Atomic Industrial Forum
Boating Industry Association
Bultema Dock & Dredge Company
Center for Law and Social Policy
Center for Natural Areas
Center for Urban Affairs
Center for Urban & Regional Resources
Chamber of Commerce of the United States
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Cities Service Company

Coast Alliance
Conservation Foundation
Continental Oil Company
Council of State Planning Agencies
The Cousteau Society
CZM Newsletter
Ducks Unlimited, Seattle, WA - Jerry Loundsbury, N.W. Representative
Edison Electric Institute
El Paso Natural Gas Co.
Environmental Policy Center
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Environmental Law Institute
EXXON Company, U.S.A.
Friends of the Earth
Friends of the Earth, Seattle, WA - Audrey Newman/David Ortman
Great Lakes Basin Commission
Gulf Energy and Minerals, U.S.
Gulf Oil Company
Gulf Refining Company
Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding
Workers of America
Institute for the Human Environment
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Lake Michigan Federation
Marathon Oil Company
Marine Technology Society
Mobil Oil Corporation
Mobil Exploration & Producing, Inc.
Murphy Oil Company
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Counties
National Association of Home Builders
National Association of Realtors
National Audubon Society
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.
National Farmers Union
National Federation of Fisherman
National Fisheries Institute
National Forest Products Association
National Marine Manufacturers Association
National Ocean Industries Association
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Recreation and Park Association
National Research Council
Natural Resources Law Institute
National Society of Professional Engineers
National Waterways Conference
National Wildlife Federation

Natural Resources Defense Council
The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA - Elliott Marks, Director
Norfolk Dredging Company
Outboard Marine Corporation
Resources for the Future
Rose, Schmidt & Dixon
Shell Oil Company
Sierra Club
Sierra Club, Seattle, WA - Douglas Scott
Skelly Oil Company
Soil Conservation Society of America
Sport Fishing Institute
Standard Oil Company of Ohio
State University Law School
State University of New York
Sun Company, Inc.
Tenneco Oil Company
Texaco, Inc.
Trust for Public Lands, Burton, WA - Joel Kuperberg, Director
Union Oil Company of California
University of Pittsburgh
Urban Research and Development Association, Inc.
Western Oil and Gas Association
Wildlife Management Institute
The Wildlife Society
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

STATE INTEREST GROUPS

Pacific Science Center Foundation, Seattle, WA - Bonnie Deturck
Horton Dennis Co., Seattle, WA - Ken Yoshita, Owner
Seattle Times, Seattle, WA - Eric Prine
Audubon Society, North Cascades Chapter, Bellingham, WA - Greg Hart
Audubon Society, Black Hills Chapter, Olympia, WA - Jack Davis
Center for Environmental Understanding, Spokane, WA - Frank Nicole
Citizens for Clean Water, Inc., Olympia, WA - John Girad
Clean Water Coalition, Seattle, WA - Ken Ensroth
Environmental Science League, Tacoma, WA - Jeffrey Bland
Hood Canal Environmental Council, Seabeck, WA - Philip Best
Olympic Conservation Council, Port Angeles, WA - Harry Lydiard
League of Women Voters, Seattle, WA - Astrid Hedman
League of Women Voters, Bellingham, WA - Lynn Bettis
League of Women Voters, Lynnwood, WA - Mary Jane Thompson
League of Women Voters, Olympia, WA - Betty Tabbutt
North Cascades Conservation Council, Seattle, WA - Margaret Miller
N.W. Seashore Alliance, Everett, WA - Tanis Marsh

Skagit' Environmental Council, Mt. Vernon, WA - Dr. Fred Darvill
Admiralty Audubon Society, Pt. Townsend, WA - Edward P. Kaiser
N.W. Search, Seattle, WA - Harriet Bullitt, Editor
Palouse Audubon Society, Pullman, WA - Irven O. Buss
Association of Washington Cities, Tumwater, WA - Stan Finkelstein
Washington State Association of Counties, Olympia, WA - Gary Lowe
Skagit Valley Herald, Mt. Vernon, WA - Noel Johnson
Washington Appraisal Service, Bel'leve, WA - John F. Leitz, Jr.
Washington Environmental Council, Tacoma, WA - Helen Engle, President
Washington State Sport'sman Council, Clear Lake, WA - John Stone, President

LOCAL INTEREST GROUPS

Four-H Leaders'Council, Mt. Vern'on, WA :-Mrs. Richard Bergeson
Future Farmers of America, Mt. Vernon, WA - Howard Howell
Chuckanut Dist. Garden Clubs, Mt. Vernon, WA - Clara Sande
Puget Sound Gillnetters Assn., Ballard, WA - Phil Sutterland
Girl Scouts/Brbwnies of America, Burlington, WA - Dianna Robin
Skagit County Historical Society, Burlington, WA - Mary Ploeg
Independent Insurance Agents Assn., Mt. Vernon, WA - Bill Evans
Independent Order of Foresters, Sedro-Woolley, WA - Gordon Gasho
Mt. Vernon Jaycees, Mt. Vernon, WA'- John Whitney
Jaycee Wives, Mt. Vernon, WA - Teresa Hamilton
Golden Kiwanis Club, Mt.' Vernon, WA - Howard Asher
Mt. Vernon Kiwanis Club - Jack Woodmansee
Leisure Time Club, Mt. Vernon, WA - George Nelson
Memorial Garden Club, Mt. Vernon, WA - Anabel Brierly
Men's Garden Club, Anacortes, WA - Joe Dupre
Mt. Baker Bicycle Club, Bellingham, WA - Dean Kahn
Mt. Vernon Chamber of Commerce - Phyllis Coole, Director
N. Cascade Highway Assn., Sedro-Woolley, WA - Jim Mullen
N.W. Steelheaders of Trout Unlimited, Mt. Vernon WA - Les Olsen
Pioneer Assn. Skagit County, Mt. Vernon, WA - Lou Valentine
Rainbow Girls, Mt. Vernon, WA - Mrs. Randy Pratt
Jones and Jones, Seattle, WA - David L. Towne
Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA
Shoreline Committee, Tacoma, WA - Liz Greenhagen
Washington Parks Foundation, Seattle, WA - Joann Fisher, Exec. Sec.
Federation of Outdoor Clubs, Seattle, WA - Karen Fant, President
Camp Fire, Bellingham, WA - Nancy Davis, Director
Bellingham Herald, Bellingham, WA - George Boynton
Anacortes Chamber of Commerce, Anacortes, WA - Maria Petrish, Director
Save Whidbey Island for Tomorrow (SWIFT), Coupeville, WA - A.L. Ryan
Skagit Alpine Club, Sedro-Woolley, WA - Louis Harris
American Assn. of Retired People, Mt. Vernon, WA - Alice Piper
American Assn. of University Women, Mt. Vernon, WA - Geraldine Hofer
Skagit County Bd. of Realtors, Burlington, WA - Art Schreifels

Mt. Baker Council Boy Scouts of America, Mt. Vernon, WA - H. Christenson
Campfire Girls/Bluebirds, Mt. Vernon, WA - Violet Walton
Skagit County Dairymen's Federation, Bow, WA - Lyle Wesen
Skagit County Democratic Party, Mt. Vernon, WA - John M. Meyer
Downtown Mt. Vernon Business Center Organ, Mt. Vernon, WA - Jim Erlaub
Edison Sportsman Club, Inc., Bow, WA - Dennis Weather
Explorer Search & Rescue Team, Mt. Vernon, WA - Mike Woodmansee
Retired Teachers Assn., Mt. Vernon, WA - Ethel Haltum
Rotary Club, Mt. Vernon, WA - Don Angotti
Senior Service Center, Mt. Vernon, WA
Silver Arrow Bowmen, Burlington, WA - Bob Hall
Skagit Mountain Rescue Unit, Mt. Vernon, WA - Bill Jones
Skagit Rivers Guides Assn., Sedro-Woolley, WA - Dennis London
Skagit Rock & Gem Club, Mt. Vernon, WA - Carroll Dillion
Skagit Sams Camping Club, Mt. Vernon, WA - Nita Marsula
Skagit Valley Mall Merchants, Mt. Vernon, WA - ern Arendse
North Cascades Van Club, Mt. Vernon, WA - Kenneth Mohme
Wash. Native Plant Society, Bellingham, WA - Rita Winn Lemon
Western Env. Trade Assn., Mt. Vernon, WA - Don Johnsen
Western Wn. Farm Crop Assn., Mt. Vernon, WA - Roger Nelson
Wildcat Steelhead Club, Sedro-Woolley, WA - Dick Pitman
Writers League of Skagit Valley, Sedro-Wooley, WA 0 Marian Simpson Burtt
Admiralty Audubon Society, Pt. Townsend, WA - Eleanor Stopps
Anacortes Chamber of Commerce, Anacortes, WA - Maria Petrish

INDIVIDUALS

Hal Zimmerman, Camas, WA
John S. Isakson, Dames & Moore, Seattle, WA
Wm. Todd Cahill & Assoc., Seattle, WA
Mike Shockman, Dept. of Game, Seattle, WA
Charles H. Odegaard, Olympia, WA
A. H. Clise, Clise Agency, Inc., Seattle, WA
Paul Conner, Sequim, WA
H. A. "Barney" Goltz, Bellingham, WA
Susan E. Gould, Edmonds, WA
Eleanor Lee, Burien, WA
King Lysen, Seattle, WA
Lowell Peterson, Concrete, WA
Don L. Talley, Kelso, WA
Peter von Reichbauer, Olympia, WA
Gordon L. Walgren, Bremerton, WA
F. "Pat" Wanamaker, Coupeville, WA
Scott Barr, Edwall, WA
Albert Bauer, Vancouver, WA
Joanne J. Brekke, Seattle, WA
Ellen Craswell, Bremerton, WA
Shirley A. Galloway, Vancouver, WA

Joan Houchen, Camano Island, WA
Jerry M. Hughes, Spokane, WA
Ray Isaacson, Richland, WA
Andrew Nisbet, Sequim, WA
Paul Pruitt, Seattle, WA
Nita Rinehart, Seattle, WA
Paul Sanders, Bellevue, WA
Curtis P. Smith, Ephrata, WA
Georgette Valle, Seattle, WA
Jerry L. Vrooman, Mt. Vernon, WA
Jim Whiteside, Yakima, WA
Simeon R. "Slim" Wilson, Marysville, WA
Jay Holman, Olympias WA
Charles Kiel, Anacortes, WA
John Andrews, Stanwood, WA
Bill Bush, Olympia, WA
Glenn Dickinson, Bow, WA
Tom Mike Henry, Mt. Vernon, WA
Ron Knutzen, Bow, WA
Fayette Krause, Seattle, WA
Sally Van Niel, Mountlake Terrace, WA
Terence R. Wahl, Bellingham, WA
Margaret Yeoman, Anacortes, WA
Jim Whitmaker, Recreational Equipment, Inc., Seattle, WA
Mr. and Mrs. Matthew Mottola, March-Hill Wildlife Haven, Friday Harbor, WA
Marilyn Valich, Lynden, WA
Roy Marokus, M.D., University of Texas Health Science Center, Dallas, TX
Clint Morrow, Bellevue, WA
Jan van Niel, Pilchuck Audubon Society, Everett, WA
Rich Sparks, Anacortes, WA

INDUSTRY

Snelson-Anvil, Inc., Anacortes, WA - James W. Macy
Shell Oil Co. - Anacortes Refinery, Anacortes, WA - Bill Malseed
Texaco, Inc. - Puget Sound Plant, Anacortes, WA - Phil Templeton

UNIVERSITIES AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

University of Washington - Friday Harbor Lab, Friday Harbor, WA
Dr. Dennis Willows
Division of Marine Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Dr. Alan Duckspree
Division of Marine Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Dr. S. Murphy
Anacortes School District #103, Mt. Vernon, WA - Dr. D.C. Duane Lowell
Mt. Vernon School District, Mt. Vernon, WA - Tom Pollino, Superintendent

Burlington School District, Burlington, WA - Nathaniel Moore
Huxley College of Environmental Studies, Western Wash. University,
Bellingham, WA - Dr. Gil Peterson
Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, WA - Ronald C. Phillips
Shannon Pt. Marine Studies Center, Western Wash. University,
Anacortes, WA - Dr. Charles J. Flora
Skagit Valley College, Mt. Vernon, WA - Dr. James M. Ford
Skagit Valley College, Mt. Vernon, WA - Jim Monroe
University of Washington - Friday Harbor Lab, Friday Harbor, WA
Dr. Carl Nyblade

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

f 2- '0"<0 .4 .rif 2~ .

; ~v - X ,> -. Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 and 1977

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~i;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'c :63~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0 :L f } 0\'; ?0

>,~i~ .e� :, 'i: . '4 ..
,, ASS? , S~~~~~~i' i ,',' j. . -
i '' ':' | - j '.' . % : '" ' 0 :' ' " , ; ' 0 i

_____ ~FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977
PART IV

__ DEPARTMENT OF
_ ~COMMERCE

National Oceanic and
______ Atmospheric Administration

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

45522 PROPOSED RULES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE exceed 50 percent of the acquisitIon costs (2) By revising Subpart B--Applica-
atlonal Oceanic and involved. Any State receiving an initial tion for Grants-as follows:
iqittonrl Oceanic arid Ahmophege gt-ant shall be obligated to repay it if,
Administration grant shall be obligated to repay i Subpart B--Application for Grants
due to any fault of the State, the sanctu-
[ 15 CFR Part 921] ary Is not established. 921.10 General.
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GUIDEUNES As a result of this new grant procedure, Section 315 authorizes Federal grants
much more information relating to coats, to coastal States so that the States may
Policies and ProceduresO fr Selection values management procedures, and re- establish sanctuaries according to regu-
Acquisition and Management search programs will be available at the lations promulgated by the Secretary.
oe time of the publication of a draft en- Coastal States may file applications for
AGENCY: National Ocanic andAtma vironmental impact statement. ProPosals grant with the Assoiate Atdmin trator
pheric Administration, Department of made public to date in the form of an for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM),
Commerce. Environmental Impact Statement CEIS) Ofice of Coastal Zone Management, Page
ACTION: Proposed nrule. have been criticized for lack of specfility 1, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway NW, Wash-
5 IARY: This proposed rule will in these areas. By making a small pre- Ington, D.C. 20235. That agency which
ffUa0~~l* Tis sed lowi ~MIX acquisitin grant Ntoato a State, has been certified to the Offitce of Coastal
allow the N rational Oceanic and ArOS- the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be Zone Management as the entity respon-
phe~~~~~~~~~mre Auydminveltope tod make apre-cca
phliminary acqudministration grant to ak at Pre more fully developed and the public can sible for adminIstration of the State
undertake a fair market value appraisal, become more aware of the costs and the coastal zone management program may
and to develop a uniform relocation act exact nature of the long-term manage- either submit an application directly, or
plan, a detailed management plan and a ment. must endorse and approve applications
research framework for a proposed estu- In response to State questions about submitted by other agencies within the
mrs sanctuary, developed pursuant estuarine sanctuary research, the pro- State.
Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Mnaee- pposed regulations provide that such re-
Section A of the Coastal Zone Manage- search can be funded if it can be shown � 921.11 Application r reimnary
met Act of 192, a amended. to be related to program administraton. acqulsition grants.
DATE: Comments must be received on or NOAA has reviewed these proposed (a) A grant may be awarded on a
before October 1,1977. regulations pursuant to the National En- matching basis to cover costs necessary
FOR FURT''ER INFORMATION CON- vironmental Policy Act of 1969 and has to preliminary actual acquisition of land.
TACT: determined that promulgation of these As match to the Federal grant, a State
regulations will have no significant Im- may use money, the cost of necessary
Robert R. Kifer, Physical Scientist, pact on theenvironment. services, the'value of foregone revenue,
Policy and Programs Development Of- Compliance witft Executive Order and/or the value of land either already
Ace, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 11821. The economic and lniationary in its possession or acquired by the State
ment, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page impact of these proposed regulations has specifically for use in the sanctuary. If
One Building, Washington, D.C. 20235 been evaluated in accordance with OMB the land to be used as match already is
(202-634-4241). Circular A-10 and it has been deter- in the State's possession and is in a pro-
SUPPLEMENTARY INFOpRMATION: mined that no major inflationary im- tected status, the State may use such
on June 4. 1914, The National Oce- pact will result. land as match only to the extent of any
snld and Atmospheric Administration Dated: August 26,1977. revenue from the land foregone by the
(NOAA) published 15 CFR Part 921 en- State in order to include it in the sanc-
titled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines" T. P. GLz:TR, tuary. Application for a preliminary ac-
pursuant to then section 312 of the Asistant Adminfstrator qusition grant shall be made on form
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, for Administration. SF 424 application for Federal assistance
as amended, for the purpose of establish- It is proposed to amend 15 CFR Part (non-construction programs).
ing policy and procedures for the selec- 921 as follows: (b) A preliminary acquisition grant
tion, acquisition, and management of (1) By revising the table of contents may be made for the defrayal of the
estuarine sanctuaries. and authority citation to read as follows: cost of:
Under new subsection 315(1) o f the Subpart A-na (1) An appraisal of the land, or of the
Act, the Secretary of Commerce Is au- see. value of any foregone use of the land,
thorized to make available to coastal 921.1 Policy end objectives. to be used in the sanctuary:
States grants of up to 50 per centum of 9212 Defnitions.
the cost of acquisition, development, and 921. Oblectives and implementation of (2) The development of a Uniform
operation of estuarine sanctuaries.ln the pmus Relocation Assistance and Real Property
general, subsection 315(1) provides that 921.4 Biogeographio clastficatIon. Acquisition Policies Act plan;
grsnts may be awarded to States on a 291.5 Multiple use. (3) The development of a sanctuary
atchingn beasis to tacquire, develop and 921. Relationship to -other provisions of management plan;
matching basis to acquire, develop, and teAt5d5 nrn 4 h eeomn farsac n
the A5ct ,sod to marine sxuctuu'ea,
operate natural areas as estuarine sanc- (4) The development of a research and
tuaries in order that scientists and stu- Subpart -Applicaton ftr Grants educational program; and/or,
dents may be provided the opportunity 921.10 General. (5) Such other activity of a prelimi-
to examine over a period of time ecologi- 92.11 Application for prellmiary acqulsi- nary nature as may be approved in writ-
tIon greats.
cal relationships within the area. Tlie 91. Applt o r land acusiton ing by OCZM. Any grant made pursuant
purpose of these guidelines is to imple pcto. to this subsection shall be refunded by
ment this progPm raph. 9~.1 Appis scation forh ope rationald gr
ment this program. 921.13 Application for operation wgants. the State to whatever extent it has spent
As a result of two years of program 921.4l Federay-owned amnde in relation to land not acquired for the
implementation, the regulations me pro- Subpart nCri sanctuary, and if OCZM requests such
posed to be modified to specifically au- refund.
thorize the granting of acquisition 9212 Criia f or seet ion. (c). The application should contain:
921.21 Public Participation.
money to States in two stages: (1) Evidence that the State has con-
(i) An initial grant for such prellmi- SIpart 0--Op"atlfa ducted a scientfic evaluation of it: estu-
nary Purposes, as surveying and assess- 921.3 Geal. ari es and selected one of those most rep-
Changsm In the se~ctuar-y boundary,
ing the land to be acquired, and the de- 921 Changens poctuary boundr reearch resentative.
ma"agelfent �poUCT, Or T05001"QU
velopment of management procedures program (2) Description of the proposed
and research programs; and 012 Program review. sanctuary including location, proposed
(11) A second grant for the actual ac- A-amuer: Sec. S31(1). Coastal zoUeMan- boundaries, and size. A map(s) should
quisition of the land. The Federal share sgement Act of 1972, as amended (90 Stat. be included, as well as an aerial photo-
of the sum of the two srants shall not o1030, (1e V.c. 141) Pub. U 94-o0). graph if available.

.DEL UGISTR, VOL 42, NO. 173--RIDAY, S&TiMM 9, 1977

PROPOSED RULES 45523

(3) Classificaton of the proposed public domain; fair market value ap- conflict with the Federal use of their
sanctuary according to the biogeo- praisal and Uniform Relocation Act plan. lands, such cooperation and coordination
graphic scheme set forth in' 921.4. (3) Description of research programs, is encouraged to the maximum extent
(4) Description of the major physical, potential and committed research or- feasible.
geographic, biological characteristics and ganizations or agencies, and benefits to (c) Section 315 grants may not be
resources of the proposed sanctuary. the overall coastal zone management awarded to Federally-owned lands; how-
(5) Demonstration of the necessary program. ever, a similar status may be provided on
authority to acquire or control and man- (4) Description of proposed manage- a voluntary* basis for Federally-owned
age the sanctuary. ment techniques, including the manage- lands under the provisions of the Federal
�(6) Description of existing and poten- ment agency and proposed budget-in- Committee on Ecological Perserves
tial uses of, and conflicts within the eluding both State and Federal shares. program.
area if it were not declared an estuarine (5) Description of planned or antici- � 92120 [Amended]
sanctuary; and potential use restriction pated land and water use and controls
and conflicts if the sanctuary Is estab- for contiguous lands surrounding the (4) Subpart C-Selection Criteria-is
fished. proposed sanctuary (including, if appro- amended by changing the first sentence
(7) List of protected sites, either with- priate. an analysis of the desirability of in i 92120 to read: "Applications for
in the estuarine sanctuaries program or creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent preliminary acquisition or land acquisi-
within other Federal, State. or private areas). tion grants to establish estuarine sanc-
programs, which are located in the same (6) Assessment of the environmental. tuaries will be reviewed and judged on
region or biogeographic classification. and soclo-economic impacts of declaring criteria Including:"
(8) The manner in which the State the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ- (5 Section 92121 is revised, as fol-
solicited the views of interested parties. ing the economic impact on the sur- lows:
(9) In addition to the standard A-95 rounding community and Its tax base.
review procedures, the grant application (7) Discussion, including cost and � 921.21 Public participation.
should be sent to the State Historic Pres- feasibility of alternative methods for ac- (a) Public participation in the selec-
ervation Office for comment to Insure quisitiori and protection of the area tion of an estuarlne sanctuary is re-
compliance with section 106 of the Na- � 921.13 Application 'for operation quired. In the selection process, the se-
tional Preservation Act of 1966. X-t lecting entity (see � 921.10) shall seek
(d) In order to develop a truly repre- the views -of possibly affected landown-
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- (a) Although an acquisition grant sp- ers. local governments, and Federal
aries, the States should coordinate their plication for creation of an estuarine agencies, and shall seek the views of pos-
activities. This will help to minimi.e the sanctusry should include initial opera- sibly interested other parties and orga-
possibillty of rimilar estuarine types be- tioh costs, subsequent applications may nizations. The latter would include, but
ing proposed in the same region. The be submitted following acquisition and need not be limited to, private citizens
extent to which neighboring States were establlshment of an estuarine sanctuary and business, social, and environmental
consulted should be indicated. for additional operational funds. As n- organizations in the area of the site be-
dicated In f 921.11, these costs may in- ing considered for selection This solci-
d 921.12 Application for land aqui elude administrative osts ncssary tation of views may be accomplished by
lion grants monitor the sanctuary and to protect the whatever means the selecting entity
Ca) Acquisition grants will be made to integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive deems appropriate, but shall include at
acquire land and facilities for estuarine management programs, capital expenses, least one public hearing in the are. No-
sanctuaries that have been thoroughly or research will not normally be funded tice of such hearing shall Include infor
described in a preliminary acquisition by section 315 grants. mation as to the time, place, and subject
grant application or where equivalent (b) After the creation of an estuarine matter, and shall be publishe d in the
information is available. Application for sanctuary established under this pro- pcipa l ar ea media. The hearing shll
an acquisition grant shall be made on gram, applications (Form SF 424) for be held no sooner than 15 days follow-
SF 424 application for Federal assist- Federal assistance (non-construction be held no soon days follo
ance (construction program). program), for such operational grants the publicationof notice.
In general, lands acquired pursuant to should include at least the following in- (b) The Office of Coastal Zone Man-
this subsection are legitimate costs and formation: agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft
their fair market value, developed ac- (1) Identification of the boundary and Afnal environmental impact state-
cording to Federal appraisal standards, (map). ments pertaining to the site fnally se-
ma be included as match.l The value of (2) Specifications of the research and lected for the estuarine sanctuary fol-
lands donated to the State and cash do- management programs, including man- owg public participation in the selec-
nations may also be used as match. Tf aging agency and techniques. tion Of that site ant shall distribute
the State already owns land which is to (3) Detailed budget. thes as appropriate. OCZM may hold a
be used in .the sanctuary, the value of (4) Discussion of recent and projected public hearing In the area of such site at
any use of the land foregone by the State use of the sanctuary. which both the draft environmental im-
in order to include such land in the (5) Perceived threats to the integrity pact statement (DEIS) and the merits
sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20 of the sknctuary. of the site selection may be addressed by
those in attendance.OCZM shall hold
years, may be used by -the State as �921.14 Federall-owned lnds. -such a hearing If. (1) In its view, the
match. The value of lands purchased by
a State within the boundaries of pro- (a) Where Federally-owned lands are DEIS is controversial, or (2) If there ap-
posed sanctuaries while an applcation a part of or adjacent to the area proposed pears to be.a need for further informing
for a preliminary acquisition grant or for designation as an estuarine sanc- the public with regard to eitherthe DEIS
land acquisition grant is being uopsid- tuary, or where the control of land and, or. one 9r. more aspects of the site se-
ered may also be used as match. water uses on such lands is necessary to lected, or (3) if such Wahearing is re-
(b) An acquisition application should protect the natural system within"Mte 'iueted in writing (to either the select-
contain the following inormation: sanctuary, the State should contact the ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in-
(1) Description of any changes in pro- Federal agency maintaining control of terested -Party, -or-4) for other good
posed sanctuary from that presented in the land to request cooperation in provid- cause. If held, such hearing shall be held
the preltminary-acquisition grant appl- ,ing- coordinated management policies. no.soner than 30 days following the Is-
cation. If such an application has not Such lands and State request, and the suance of the DEIS and no sooner than
been made, then, information equivalenst Federal agency response, should be lden-, 15.days after. appropriate notice of such
to that required in such a grant applica- tied and conveyed to the Offce of hearing has been given of the area by
tlon should b . p.videdi -^ S Copmtal Zone Management. SZM.wlth the assistance of the select-
(2) Identification of ownership pat- Cb) Where such proposed use or con- .ing entity-
ters, proporGn,;pfklsoedlas xLld.ta I i4, ;8:4 a1l

FaW t MOISTRn, VOL 42, NO. 175-FRIDAY, SPIMIU 9, 1977

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 39 a Number 18
PART IV

DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE

National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration

Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines

2>7S-ery

I992~~~~~~ l~ULES AND REGULATIONS

TWtl 15-Commerce and Farsgn Trade the proposed regulatices and presents an4 Noos. Committee 7Leparts and ane
CHAPTER IX-NATIO?4AL OC!A?4C AND0 the rationale for the response mnade. canmidered sugelent to reflect the kinds
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION4P DE- fectl 321.2 Delln~onma. Thre cor- DC wes intended Within an estuarinle
PARTMENT OF COMMERCE ments requested that the terma estuary" sxactoar7.
be dedined. Although the term, Is dellned Seveurs. comments were received per-
PART 921--ES JURANE SAMX Am tbA Act and also in. the reglations tainbag 40 1921.3(c) Involving the re-
GUIDELINES ~deallng with Coa~stal Zone Lanagement atrictions against overemphasis of dety
The National Oceanic and Atmos- p=V1m Developmaent Grants (parn 920 strucli-ftor manipulative research. Tqn.
Pheric AdMiniStratiOn (NOAA) cc of this chautm.) published Novembr 29. eaawt indicated Lthat the section was
blareb 7. 1974. proposed gudelines (la 1973, it has been added to these regula- too weas and wrould not provide su~cierat
CflR Part 921) pursuSnt to section. 313 of tions and broadened slightly to lnclud~e 1=n-term protection for the sanctua~ry
the Coastal Zone MnCnagemnent Act of mZvftml aons with restricted fresh- eopwyste=n Several commentators sPe-
191: (pub. L. 9.463. 38 Stat. I120), water input such asmgtocraogcilal eomne deleting the words
hereinafter referred to as the OAct.' for the south Texas coast. - w ould not normally be permitted" and
the purpose of establishing the policy Two other comments requested that Inserting In their place "will not be Per-
and cr~edures for the nomination. se- the 'primary pu~oe referred to in =Intted." In contrast. thiree respondenus
lection and bunsiaenent of estuarine I 921.2(b) be deafrly defined. Although Ludicated th~at the potential wse of esttu-
sanlctuaries. e l aborted upon In 1 921.3(a). g ar the arine sanctuaries for manipulative or
Written comments were to be sub- purpose of clarity this change bas been destructive research was too restricted.
mitted to the Offece of Coastal Miviran- =ade. and tamt these uses should be generally
ment (new the Oce of Coastal ZOOC Section 921. Obfectives and Imple- parmiatted If not encouraged.
Managsement), National Occanic and "Untation. Several coaunent~s Suggested Tile legislative histor7 of section S21
Atmosplierir Admlnlstrlocn. before th~a the a1"juainm Sanctua~ry Program clearly indicates that the Intent of the
April S. 1874. and consideration haa bee objetive were too narrowly defted and estuarine sanctuary program should be
given those comjments. sPedflcall;7 thaA they should be broad- to Prues.rYe representative estuarine
The Act. recognizes that the coastal ened to Include the acquisition and pres- areas so that they may provide lar-g'
zone Is rich In a variety of n~galax. cc=- erVatlad of urdeue or endangered esu termi (TtrtUalL- permanent) Scientiec!
nmercial. recreational. fn~tft ad and arias tog wildlife or ecological reasons. and educational use. The uses perceived
esthetic resources of Immedliae and pa- Although the Act (section 302) declares are compatible with what has been de-
teiflha value to the present and future It the nation's Policy to preserve, protect. fined an -research natural areas." In
well-being of the nation. States Are CZ- develop, and where Possible, to restore or in era, of rapidly degrading estuarinie
couraged to develop and Implement enhace coastal resources. this Is per- OnvfratMents. the estuarine sanctuary
management, programs to achieve wise celsed to be achievable through State program will ensure that a representa-
use of the resources of the coastal zone, actions pursuant to secttios 305 and 30o. tire serilts of natural areas kill be avail-
and the Act autborizes Federal grants to While It Is recognized that the creation able for scientfidc or educational uses
the States for these puroe (Sections of an estuarizxe sanctuar7 may In fact dependent an that natural character. for
305 and 306). Serve to preserve or protect an ame or example, for baseline studies, for use In
In addItion, under section 312 of the biological commaunity, the legislative his-. understanding the functioning at natural
Act. the Secretary of Comamerce Is torY Of setct~n 312 clearly Indicates the ecological systems, for controls against
authorized to make av.,flable to a coa~sta~l estuarine sanctuary program wan not in. which the Impacts of development in%
State grant of US, to 50 per cgntum of tended to duplicate existing brand puri. Other areas might bo. compared. and as
the cost of acquisition., development and past Federal Preservation programs, such interpretive centers for educational pur-
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. T2je aSS might be accommodated by use of the poses. Any Use, research or otherwise.
guidelines contained in this part ane for Land and Water Conservation, Ftnd Act. which would destroy or detract from the
grants; under section 3 12. Instead, both In the Act as well as Its natrmal syste-, would be Inapproprnate
in general. section 312 provides that legislative history, tlne objective Is de- Under this program.
gpants may be awarded to St te an afned as preserving representative estu. In general. the necessit7 of or benefit
mathing basis to acquire, develop and ar~n aress for long-ter= research and from per~misting manipulative or de-
operate natural areas Xs estuarine asan- *d ho ses. antructive research within an estuarine
tuarles in order that scientists =d =. Three other comments suggested the sanc~tuary Is Unclear. While there Is a
den~ts may, be provided tune oP9ortUAity abwde ot the progranx Should be en- Jagitimate neted for such kind~s of re-.
to examine over a period Of tim tclo larred to IclUde the restoration of en. search, uample opportunity for =niaflu-
cal relationshilps within the arma Tile vionmentally degraded areas. This. toot lative or detructive researchL to assess
purpose of these guidelines is to efas Is perceived to be a State require~:men dfretly -Vns Impact or stresses an the
the ule andreglatins or ipleen-separate from section 312. In addition. e5stJarie environment exists now with-
th ueanreuations ofr this me adequate authority for restoring de. but the need for creation or use of an~
tation of this programgraded, water areas now exists (for ex- estuarine sanctuary for this purpose. Ls
The Naotional Oceanic and Atmcopheric &=pIe, Pub. L. 92.400 In addition to contrast. a clear need exists fibr natural
Administration is publishing berewith sections 302. 305 and 308 of the Act).* are"s t0 serve as controls for mar.lpula-
the final regulations describing the pro- -osgitatadtaa eet'ol v erho eerho lee
cdrsfor stappine atinstreceive cnt appear to result from declaring an areasYtIg
312of testua t.e sanctais =e regni tio ~ n tuauine Sanctuary for the Purposes The section an mnanipulative research
criteria were revised frons the atpse-o restoration, has been changrd to reflect the concern
guidelines based an the comments re A. few comment~s indicated thai the fora cnatnued maintoevanerof the marea
cei'ved. A total of fiUty (50) States. MenU- exnples of sanctuary use were too beav- asaeatra synm oevenretaied bed-'
cies. organismations and Individuals Sub- 13 weighted toward 3clevntifl =: to~ C&U~e.ll7 Vt hese been3 retaisned felt
mitted responses to then proposed See- the tzausign of edIucatiOnal uses. Public cue imteelmt.I sntfl
tion312 uide~ne pubishe inthe education concerning the value and ben. ne.e-iary to preclude all such uses: the
pnxorw, RZciZyz an. 3dc 7, 1974. Of efits of, and the natur of conealct w1 cainm~rrlyaiewe eas
those responses received, eight (I) of. the coastal aont, will-be easelitla to the of a thoroughly demonstrated direct ben-
fered no comment or -were wholly, favor- 52300255 of a. coastal zone management efit such research may, be permitted.
able Ls to the nature and content of the WrOgRT=. Th1,e 3ection has been changed Several1 comments suggested that the
guidlins a orginlly ropsed P~~y. to reflect an appropriate concern for programs should Include degraded estua-
twoele as2 comnaorsgnly sProitted. p'. educatIOniII Use. nine systems. rather than be limited to
gtwons62 Commerntagtheorops wned secio Some commentators suggested changes -areas which are "relatively undisturbed
312lza cocrigui ePrpsdelt~nines n or additions to the specific examples by human activities." Such areas would
The following summaAy sanaly=e key of sancotuar7 uses and purposes. These permit research efforts designed to re-
comenta received an various sections of C3amPles were taken f=Zm the Senate store an estuarine area. AA Indicated
1209AL 2"ouns, VL 31,' MC. IDS--TUESOAY, JUNE 4. IVA7

MAIS AND REGULATINS192

above an --In leglataive IMandate tft th the"PvrmULU purpose at QSe snc- Greats. TWO comP0entS Meuested that
restors environmentally degraded arms Wary would be can clearty protected. the wors and tatm'w of &Notaptih
already exists; the bensfit. to be dertved In eoatrast, two commentaters felt that mamb10 ftAs aould be exUlItlY
Troma declaring such are"s estuarine the definition might prov too resritve kUlanlmd,
sanctuaries would be mnarginaL Indeed. and should be brosdened. Bhvwva acc 01M Circular A-002 generally def.mes
It would appear that It restoration at- fteetabon suggested that eaamplas of and j1jw~df jegitti&Ma `=#Acb for
forts czafOt occ'x without estusarine antcipated multiple use might be PodeaJ gawnt prolects. IA general. refer-
sanctuary designatlon. then. siven the approprisse. suce shoul be =ade to that document.
limted resources of this program. such While recognizing that it is not &lwaya However. the section boa been expan.dei
efforts would not be I easible. possINI to accommodate ZMar than & 13 resPOne to a0=0 specifr &ad fmeuenr
A few ozmmentators suggested that aingle use In an environmentaflly "09~- quafftimm
the phrase (I 921.3(0) "If suZleat per- Uve area It Is not the Intention to un. TWO comments stressed the need for
nianenc* and control by than State can necesmsarily Preclude the uses of sL- fnereased avallability of rwmeath funds
be assured, the'acquislttan of a saauctu- UWaY areas where they are larly ca- to adequately utlzethe QsPotential of es-
rymay involve less than the acuston Patible with and do not detract from the tuarin. sanctuaries. While not an BP-
of a fee simple In etutr be more clearly long-ter= protection of the vaw7t.--c propriate function of the estuArlae sane-
defined. Explanatory langugeg has be for' ocientite and ednaatlcjj purposes. tUary procrvzm, the Ofiet of Coutal Zone
added to that section. 2be language of 5 921S3 has been changed MLanagemnt la discussinxg tQe necessitT
Section 921.A Zbogeomrphic Clan~aljc- sawr1dlagl7. of adequate funding with apprOPriate
tlon. Because the cl-1assicatOU scheme, Section 921.5 Relatio"uhi to Other Lgencles.
utili~zed plants am well PA animalsi, two PyJ~Oun5 of the Act aind to Mot-bu One, comament suggested that the term=
commentators suggested that soogco- SiietumiU3. Seveal tomments wn est . dlega criptlae of the sanctufl.7
graphic be changad to bizi ogrphir- ceived 'wh'ich ccummded and stressed UI9~ls) Is notApopat for all
This change to refected In th A the need for close coodination, between categories of Informastion requested. 7-a
reguatdons. the de'relomenet of State coastal zoe word -1eg3Z' has been omnitted.
One comment Xoggestad that selacton managemnt progra=& enm~'eaflT and Three reviewers Indicated trAt the Act
of snnctuat1is should depend an the Pres- lan and 'water 085 muntros and the provides no beasis for canstderatln of
sure. and threat. bein~g brought to be" dur UtWte sanctuary program. socla-ecownoic impacts (5 921.11 (II)I
upon the natural areas Involved even It The 2viatimmihip between the two pro- and that this criterion seeed Inappru-
thisi meant selecting several Mutbf PLams Is eCmPbhafed. Mtua-In0 SaC~ti- prlAte to s3eecting eUtuerlne Matuarle3.
from cme clasigeto an d aw goc arias should Provide bewd~t-both abort- Apparently theme reviewers miffunder-
another. term and 1011g-terrm--4o coagt~al zoae stood the IntentIon of thim requirement.
Th'e lezislatve bistoz? of section 312 JUaAaement decision-makers: and State Tbe Informastion In this section Is neces-
clearly shows the intent to *elect ~tAm- CO.Mt-l Zone Mana*gement programs must ear for pfsrepaatin Of An envlrOnM~entaL
arta man~iazes n a atioa basis provide necessary protection for gsti- jmpact statement which will be pre;%red
which would refiect regional diftn-vatita- mine sanctumries. hi~s necessary7 coos-dl- pursuant to NXPA. Althought required In
tio = avrt o f Th boa. nation Is discused not only in the effm- the applicag~on., such information is not
geographic: Ila-dication sysan!6 which 1210* sa=Ua7 Meulations. but will asa* a Paz of Qsu selection crilteria. whicla are
reflects gEcographic byrem e an be xaddrtsed In an a propirW*t fashion addressed ta Stidinpe C. 1.921.20.
biologic: differeos~. fuIlnla that miten- In pIdallnes and rules for Coasta zow Oo similar commxent was received
tion. A schema which would abandon Mnc~ement Program Approvaz Criteria wtth regard to consideration of existing
that system, or another similzar Ae and and Administrwtiv Orauts. . and potent:14 uzes and ecanlcta (5921.-
would not fu=tereurmet fl pr Three commentators discussed the 11 (h). ThWs Ite= is also discussed under
tiding regional differentIzaceo and a need for swift action by both State and "alction criteria (I q21.20(h)). IS s Lt.
variety7 of ecomytems, would not be con Federal Iover=0--ta to establish and tended that thin criterion will only be
SiStent With the intended Purpose of the acurasu~iesntai s. OMe considered when choosn�g between two
Act. of Coastal Zone Manaigemeant Intends to or more sanctuary applications within
A few comnments received suggested Pusu th Program as sw1i1 asal tQs a&= biogeoeaphic ctateor7 'whic-,
that the biogeographic ciiu~ao awe Manpower restraints will permit. are at otherwise equal msert.
acheme be enlargedl by the addition of a A few comnments sought mss3uranrn One commnt drew attention to an
neaw clams redectins an arao Sateo that the estuaziue sanctuaries program apparent tyPographlc error in I 921.11
special concern or Interest t o th r- will in fact be Coorlinated with the Cmn) -where the term, --zartne estuaries`
spoden. No wocommentators XMX- Maia1A~~re Program MU*ItII . seem out of context. This has been car-
gested the same ares..) It is fait that pub. La 912-53'3. T'he guidelines have reteUd..
adequate n~ational representation is pro- been chI.0ed to redect that both pro- - Two commentators s atdta
tided by the biogeogrphic scemler Pro- fLA~ 'will be administered by the same public bearlng should be required. In the
wn,~ ~ th c zgeofrd'eeofic. development of an estuarina sanctuary
th.st might be tllIzed*Seto 311 deemed desirable by the Offce of Coasta.
One ornnen sugestd aspeifi Secion92110 enerl. ne eviwerZone Management. It would not alasj,&-
On-e Inothean~t o, sofgthed "ratsec Idl~sted ucertainty aboutswhich State seem to be necessary. The lan~guage in
La-kes, category. Prt~ions of thtAg agency may Subit applications for I 923.11,(1) has been changed to reilect
gestlon have been lncorporated into the 9-at undtr section 312. Althouzh Ind- the 31ncere concern for the adequate In.
ses rule. Iuidual States may vary in the Choic of volvegaent of the Public, which is a&Ic
T'WO Commentalars r~use ar-individual agencies to MOTl for an es- addressed under a new 1 920.21.
aftc* that sub- temories of the blge- tuAzine sanotuir, because of the neces- One respondent suggested that a now
graphic scheme will In fact be utilized. s~ty for coordination with the State section% be added requiring the appli-
The ftal lagug raelua -Wiltl boe CA Zn*management program the cant to discuse alternative methods of
developed and utilized" Sur -=y be de- entityr within the Saute which la the car- acqufuitiac or control at the ares, Inelud-
veloped an tlie. tlhed contact With the Onfce of Coastal log the desiguation of a marine sanczu-
Section921.5MlUtivi use. Oema ZoneManagement, NOA-1. POsible %7Inpae.fetblsigan aurzv
commnts were rceive etf~ tof for the adi~nistration Of Uth coastal s~actuary. A new section (1920.11(n)
mnentators suggested. thzat the multiple dareor aprvanetri scurySto 911 Subsequentl Applicatic-
Appropriate language kmbe n hreasmntt expressed oer-
fromn the Act and should be Omitted. Ten cluded to ensure this coordinatiOn, that the Intent of 1 921.12 be more clear!7
respondents felt the concept should be Section 921.11 Iistial App~catosiw for expressed. Appropriate changes hay'.
more explicitly defined and restricted so Acquisitton, Developmnent and Operation been =ade.

FOOUM RIGIST11t. VOL 39. NO. 149-TUE3OAY, JUNE 4, 1974

19924 MALE AND REGUILATIONS

On~e oment was masd. thAt a pro- Two coinotntators expressed concern to the extent feassible a nahural unit. set
vigion should be included to use extstng for enforc~amt carahflhtis and activi- sasde to provide ac entlats and students
yedersaly owned land far the purpose of tif to ensure protection of tin estuarine the opportunity to eamIne Over a period
the estuarine sactary program. A se- Sanctuaries. A new section has been of time the ecolocale ralationahips with-
tion bus been added for that Purpose. added which addresses this Issue, A n the area.
Section 921.2 Criteriafo Mselct lts. M~asay. one suggestio VW ree~ (b) For the Purposes of this section.
One comment suggested that the *on- that a vehicle for change in the maae ~estuagr =eas= that part of a river or
Iddaratlon of conzdic with existlac or pC- ment policy or research prosams should stZeSli or other body of Water having~ un-,
tential competing us"s should not be in- be provided. A now section ha bee ImUnred connection withL the OMe sea
eluded as a selectied criterimn Am dia- added fo thal puo where the seawater is measur~ably diluted
csell above, this criteron is considered Acodigy han cantiee with freshwater derived frmi land drain -
appropria ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~erdthe.a age. The term 4"clueles tuastlS fz4Ye
Another reviewer suggested the addl- weare" of the Great Lakes so Well as la-
Anothe reviwer sggestd theadd!- Instrmaon the Bwftretax concludes by , gm in~ moeai osa reions.
tion of a now criterion. consideration of Aap~ting the flual regulations describing (C) The term "mul~tiple use, as used
"the need to protect a particular estuary th rcdr for op iscatloris to receive ~s h
from hrmfuldeveloment. As dis- stuarta sanctuar'y grants under sctionl neous util7:atlon af an area or resource
Cussed earlier, this criterion Is riot con 312 of the AMt as Modified and sMt forth for a variety of compatible purposes or
Aidered aPPropriatc. Such & basis for below. t rvd oeta n eet h
determilning selection would lead to a t o P v i e r tanubnd.Te
reactionary, randoin series of estumsaine Effective dael: June 3.1574. ter= tmplles the long-term continued
sanctuaes.-t rather than the ratlonta1ly Dated: May 31, 1974. 1use of 5such resurce In such a fashion
chosen representative series mandated ~~that other uses will not intefetre with,
chothe legrislnative hstoryes Regal? v. WHITZ. d1iminih or prevent the prjmary purpose,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Adinthleistrator wec hIs hlogtruPtetiony.th
Two reviewers coamented that the fdnnltcor. which L t e acngder prtcationa ust~e.
limitation an the Plederal share C 42.000,- ~ 4W~IAraor sclnlcadeua nlue
000 for each sanctuary) wv" too low and � 921.3 Objectives sad huplementation
would severely restrict the usefulness at 103.2blsyso
the program. Rovever. this li9ain ALS Obleauvem a"~ Im satte (a) GnerL. The* rurpws of the ts-
la provided by the Act. ta rm.tuarine sanctuazries program is to crisie
Another cotmmentator suggested that 931.4 nI~p.�CSatiu tural field laboratories In which to*
I921.20(g) wus unnecessarily restrictive 'P' gather data and mnke studies of the
In that it might prevent selecting an A Rluapt pYio natural and human Proesses =curring
artarine sanctuary to an area adjacent ' within the estuxarias of the coastal zoe.
to existing preserved lands where the 20'9a0 5-AW14104 Fse fr Grsnft Th~is &hall he accomplished by the estab-
conjunction mnight be mautually benefi- 9321.1 General. lishment of a series of estwuaixe sanc-
cial. The language of 1 921.20(g) doen 921.11 A-P-Puaucz cm uu1ta seqvisitoan, tuiarles which will, be designated so that
not preclude such action, but bat boon de ~iopment mad apsmuou nz ia.e at least one representative of each type
changed to speciecally permit thisicacla- for subseque ntdevelop. Of estuarine ecosystem will endure Into
*hingedt o pcfial pemitti o-ent*fld ope*fl angos the future for scientiffc and educational
siltyocmettr.Iqie hte 92113 Pdwrally owned lds purposes. -me primary use of estuarine
Two referente tora szat Invuironmwentale 2 subomw C-SuegGteffl Criteri a sanctuaries shall be for researc-t and
the efernce o a draf" enironenta 22130 Ctt*M forselal~nLeducational Purposes. aspecialLv to pro-
Impact statement (1921-20, last Perx- t *?Slca.vide some of the Information essential to
gasph) indicated an Intention to avoid 921.21 314bic P~nkPm cos~tl oneza~mn dcso-nk
further compliance with Nfl7A. It Is the a,"off 00eviation Ing. Speclffc examples of such purposes
ftrm intention of the mctes of Coastal 921.30 Oent~rs. and uses Include but ane not limited to:
Zone management to fully comply in WIl 921.31 Cbnz.I, ta the mazactusa boundw?. (1) To gain a thorough understanding
reswets with~ W!PA. The word 'draft" &pe t va le orrae of the ecological relatIonships within the
has been struck- surn .vrnet
Three reviewers addresaed the PrOb- (2 T2oP -?ieW esturi evrm ecoot.lmes
lems of providIng adequate public Par- Awoumoa: Se.., 31 of th (2)nz Zomaeaelne ecoogial esa
UCipatlon In the review and4 selloc%_ 3cng a Act of 197 (Pub. L. 2-613. as (3) To monitor sidffcant or vittal
Proces. In addition to the change in lia. =W)0. changes In the estuartine environment.
1 920.X11 2. a new section has been added sbatA4nrl(4) To saiim the effects of =an's3
ft address this Issue. 92 1.1 Polic OAd Ohjmdesiu sreases on the ecosrstem and to foreca~st
oadrSs VsIssue. l'e staain snturis rora and mitIgate possible deterioration from
T~~~~~~~~~~he surnacumarisnow vl u activities.
Section, 921.30 Gevneint. one commen- provide grants to States anamthn (31 To provide a vehilef for Increasing
tator suggested that during contract basis to acquire, develop sand operate jpubllc knowledge and awareness of the
negotiations, there should be a mneetIng natural areas as extirarine sanctuaries in complex nature of estuarine systems,
between the applicant agency and pro- order that scientists and students may be their viaues5 and benefits to man anid ira-
posed sanctuary management team, and provided the opportunity to eaminle over tradtepolxswihcnrn
representatives of the Once of Coastal A Period of tife the ecological relatton- thte= n h olmswihcn n
Zone Msanagement. The general Pro- shIPS within the area. The, purpose of()Teephstwti them.ogam
visions have been broadened to provide these uildelIxes in to establish the rules (ITeehsswti h rga
for this suggestion, and regulations for isnplement atlon at will be an the designation as estuaxzne
Two comments were submited which the programsanctuaries of areas whic~h will serve as
Twoe tht omediscrto -eex sbnt erwcise th pr.2Dfzogram natural dfeld Laboratories for studies and
urged hat soe dis--atio be e~ercisd 1 92.2 Defxida"Investigations over an extended period.
in the Usfe And access to the �3ZlctuSZT (a In addition to the deti~rtions The area chosen as an estuarine sanc-
bY scientists and students. Two other found In the Act and In thre regulations Wua~ry'shall, to the extent feasible. In-
specift protection for use by the general Pfr.rA~m Development Grants published a natural ecologic-al, nit.
public. The guidelines have beta- changed November 29, 1973 (Part 920 of this (e In order that the estuarinne sanc-
to In~~~~~~~~cldths csto sChaPter) th~e terms 'estuarine sanctuary" tuary will be available for future studies.
to include these Nl~flt~tOi.as detzed In the Act. mneans a researich research involving the destruction of any
Cze comment was recedved suggesting area wbich ma-y include any 'Part or all portion of an, estuarline sanctmary whicho
langurage.to clarify 1 921.30 (g). Ttis Ya~s Of an estuary, adjoining transitional would permanently alter thre nature of
Incorporated Into the guideines *area, andt adjacent uplands, constituting the ecosystem shall not normally be

901RA1 NEGISTUU, VOL 39, me. ICS--r.uISDAY, JUNE A. 1974

WX2$AND INUUMM~I M~25

Permitted. b, the, nnusual iroumstamcme eaotsd m ad bifts to wintr sw ar. biate (b The estuwrtina sanctuaries progrsm
whers permItted. =aZipuLative ~A&4 re- borial to sub-Arecte. wil beadce ndw0OOU~
search shal be careftnl conrolled. No Ala Icasressed Cosow mad ots lI A =&3 auts the Own __tat* A
experliment which involves manipulative JMb-rfv marc Act5e of5 1972, Fuh. ma VZ3 whic
Meatio dhatle nis lti un'til.e tb U r 0l. Immuri. Lare Wands. W"masg W SAchAt isga 1972,see uby. tL 9-632. 'Of
mintin to a m~d ad riene, ropitecs Mountam. aw msdarbi C-O&& Si a Ma nisagembte nt. ofAA)
given that the onvironznent wilt be re eotioa trequen*7 vtf. 'ead-ma ~ Catl�08M~4W , spOAA),
turned to Its CmdIton which eKIX&4d Iaeg Wand POUPS YrlInSAU7 vita t~oca which recogie that certain areas of
prior to the exermet. bio&. the ac, Wtamaa as far seaward as the
(d) It Is antcipated that most. of the %1. Great taktem. areet L~as of North outer edge of the Continental, Shelf. Or
areas selected a& sanctuaries ~VWl be rel- A~tria blf-u or oa. giscla other coastal wiatrs where the tide ebbs
atively =dIsturbed by human activitledsb"1C 3=-4 V~&f ft% wt Our- and tows, or at the Orita 1AkeS and
at the time at acu~ n T hrfoe bta 6 Mfzt'tur at basea and taftLPrWta tb,,Ir connecting waters, need to be pre-
specles with anadroulous speocla &X4somed served or restored for their conaervatio0n,
most of the areas selected will, be maa wal~e eraional gloi or e s hei vale
with a miniminn of development. indura-
try or habItation. (b) Various uub-catexories will be de- it is anticipated that the Secretary (EL
(a) tr sumcient per-mannce and am- veoped and utilized as appropriate. ocicasin may eatablish marine samntu-
trot by the Satet can be assured, the i 92 1.5 Mutl not aries to complement the designation by
acqu~s~tion of & S~flctuU7 tusY involve StIate -of eaduarins sanctuariJes. where
seqs than the acqusition May e sInvlve (a) While the vrtLraz purpose Of "s- Ulu4 ma be Mutu~lly bene~r-fal
Interest. Sugh interest may be. for ex- temprtcto ornhu e g o ta Isubat 5-4plcatO for Gat
U asmpen. the Acuiitopnat IL CDLSr they may be used for- sclentLIf and edu- 1 921.10 GenaraL

othr aria iner~tmie at o al aine sanctuaries wll beeancourmagdto ta CtOLS Stts othat th tts'a
the pr~tactonof the norl 17t= t* tent that such use I. compatible tsall sacure-carigt eu
Leasing,'which would not assure Pe, a- wt aln lae yteSceay
zent protection of the uystem. would note waacth ath ar" givensatury Puros ac.. n prmlaedb h S-rt"
be~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~h cp-iyo mce sanccetuabre aentiv.iod SC Coastal States.may ale applications for
I92L4 Biogeographi le eiScOUGA. kinds and Intensity of such use. will beZne Mant wieth NthDirtonal O~cesxf Casta
(a) It Is lnttnuaed t & . determined on a case by Ca"e basis. Whlea Zndaaeet atoa cai n
t(ar)ssol o e hsna ad It Is Inticndaed that comatbe -- Atmospheric Administration. 'U.S. De-
but should rehe~~~~~t rgoa ~f~la. W8 gnercall Includ acovtibes ujs" pertinent of Commnerce. Rockvlle. Mary-
routes vshould ot becosystea s sonlow=Intenitrereayioncld.ctvte suh *An land 2055.2. That asseny which has been
but houd nar egins. diferntl- lw Itenityrogtio. Ahin; hnt-certified to the O-ce at Coastal Zone
toa cove allagicn variety of 0719=62 s. Ing. and vildlife observation. It Is rec- Mn ~n &teett epnil
ensIur adacqutae representation of all es -got crse hat tedeeucaional- P~~oe x~ Mm jn&,e=t a rsra the enitherepnbl
tuarine types retesting regional o dsclert..reuainlprpssframnsrtono h tt os
entitlonand vaety f ecmystms.may, provide the apdmurm benelt to submi &~~St p pam aplcaAY l= ,o e"ithe
entlation Lad a variety of MITSUMS.~mrbml aosalZneMngm t apiain diet, or mrst
selections winl be made by the Secretary, 506m emn ndarse and arvrove aP9l1cations sub-
Ira= the followtug blogeographic class- use and =& o n Ocaion b msa utzed by other agencies Within, the
incatlons: I~~~~~~~~b) There shall be no elfort to badlance P
1. ~~ ~ AtlU~~tlO ~ or olptimisze uses of an estuarine saanctu-
L Aftmds Northe as.gaite Amhortian co ary an economic or other bans., AUl addi- I 911.11 Application for Wizal aequMisi
jeci to winter Acing: will developed aippl tlonal Ines of the sanctuary are clearly gat&ndvlpetsdoeuis
Soan: boreej brots. secOndary to the primary purpose and
2. virfrtiaiet =fdome AtzantIc coast froma uses. which are long-terma maintenancee (a) Grants may be awarded an a,
cape cad to caps zatteras. lowland susams. of the ecosystem for scientile and educa- matching basis to cover the costs Of
coastal P-nbss Lad Muddy bottcca.6 9!--- tional uses. Non-compatible uses, Includ- acquisition, development and Operation
mctellstics tnuitas1UOa betwvqen I mcd 3: ins those uses which would cause s1g- of estuarin~e sanctuari~es. States may use
blots Priccariy temperate With "Ine' boreal =icant short Or lonx-terma ecological donations of land or money to satW7f all
s. CW.OaM44re. frank change or would otherwise detract from or pant of the Matching cost require-
3a. CoiafttamSot At lnioCast. Xmzd~~or restrict the use of the sanctuary as macta.
WArshfs and swasaps:, Wsr t .bl A a natural field laboratory, wil be Pr- (b) MD general. land sacquied pur-
produetive; blots temP4raze With htbitedl Xfsusc to this setion Inicluding State
trplUL 1nd1. souh7trdacas. 1 921.6 Relatloushap 1, ada proiston, owned lands but not State owned sub-
Ca. WEsenedym touzicm Codar :std C eN- Of he ac sAnd to M,&Fjne saactuaslea. merged lands or bay bottom., that occur
IsAP ena o Cds: mhornland lwy Carlbbeatne DaI thg within the proposed sanctuary boundary
Islans WOsh5cr*1gudi lo 7ag (a)l kTS mutnerc ihthe estai anct ar prga are legitimate coatis and their fair market
calcrseos sna.a Marloas X~ Ccalr1 m Iantgenporact with theovrl coasta value may' be Included as match. How-'
blt. �i4ine, trhr ufo L~o (1) the Intended researchL use of the ever, the value of lands donated to or by
ftuc Cedar Kay to Mexico: cisrc~~u aectuary should provide relevant data MhSate fornclyeusedon Matc other sactar
ofs S.with Wnipauxflt5 of 4: strouitly lnfU. and conclusions of amistane to Coastai ~l' of used a iltio. Int other eventsta
enoed by tarrigsnous factors; blots primarily acne management decision-mak""g, and oflands alreuisition In artheeven sthatus
temperste. (a) when developed, the State's coastal landr value ad o be ustiapreced astatusfo
L. Oa~fornks. South Fscile coma" ft sone managezent program must recog. satheir valuelnot ben used Operatchion
Mexico to caps Mand~1ou- mbtoraiaaA lsau- nfts and be designed. to protect the estir- gsanctaryh~f wevloprentir and a oweain
eacad by oasstal motainsi roceY cOast amUne sActuary; aP~rOpriate land and Mgranis, whchwllrqur ter w
with reduced trash-wator rucad, geeral water use regulations and planarng con- matevelpmen fand mtincsts
absonf. at -mmass and swamPs:. blots. siderations =us% apply to adjacet lands. Ceeomn n prto ot
te-persts. IAlthough estuarine sanctuaries should May Include the administrative expenses
7. Cralubinbta. North Pwifte ~~s fr be incorporated into the State coastal necessary to monitor the sanctuary, to
cap madcu so Ca& MOZU310u z* one managemnent program. their desig.. enr Its continited viabilit and to pro-
munitles blotis primarily temperats wit nation need not await the deeomt tiec the Integrity of the ecosstam. Re-
sms, barsl. and approval of the -Afme' r-sachwl o omlyb funded by
5. PWO'~. South ~s Alamka and AISU- gram where operiatin of the esturne ~ wl o omlyb
Usaw p~pto monatm cer asua sanctuary would aid in the development Section 313 gr=ant. Itlas anicipted that
soevita Flsofte sno"Lnao hoavily Uk- of a program, other sources of Fedez'aL. State and

FIPgM IUMiTR VOL. al. Me. 102_rUMI5SAT. JUNISA. 117A

19926 l~~~~ULIS AND RIGMUAMINS

Private funds w'If be ars.1lable for re- Arles. the States should attempt to coor- Subpart C-w4.ecdc" Critaria
Mac inl eturine SA34tuartgo. dIZnato their acivtis. 'This VWi help to 1 921.20 Criteria for oahction.
(d) ZnitWa applications Ahou d confain minlimiz the possibility of similar edzu- piangfogrtsoetbls
the following information: arino types being Proposed for deiga App~a~n o rn.t sals
(1) Description at the proposed ssan- t'on in the a* rag= Th e atuarime Sanctuaries WMl be reviewed
tUary Include locAtion. boundaries, sizs Should 'Pdicate the extent to~ and Judged on crnisei including:
and cost of actuiston. operation and de- zalghborins Statax were caftsultze& (a) Benefit to the coastal sone rman-
velopment. A map should be Included. as (1) Discussion. including cost and sgemnent program. Applications should
well as an be-Till photograph. if available. feasibility, Og alternative MethodB for demonstrate the bened.t Of the propoSal
(2) Casasiffcation of the proposed acqu~itiOn. eontzol and poection of the to then development Or operations Of the
sanctuary according to the biogeographic area to provide siia uses. ra at the overall oa~stal zone management pro-
Scheme set forth In i 92L*. marine Sanctuary authority slid ftuxds gram Including bow well the proposal
(3) DescriptIon of the maJor physical. from the Tand and Water Conservation :dtn Into the national program of repre-
geogrphicand biological characteristics Fund Act should be specillcally ad.' maetatIvsestattIin typed: the national
and resurces of the proposed asnatuamy dressed. -or regional benefts; and the usefulness
(4) Identification of ownership pat. 1 921.12 Application for subse~iuent 4e In rhesecooialrch.rceislso
terns; proportion of land already An the reloapuact and overation vents. (b Te em. cligIsbological caatrsiso
vublic doramatesoyte.Icuing t iooia
(5) DescrIption of Intended research (a) Althouigh the Initial grant applif- productivIty. diversity Ltd represent&-
uses. potential research organizations or cation for creation of an estuerine sanc- tiveness. Extent of alteration of the
agencies and benellts to the overall tuary Should include Initial development' natural System, Its ability to remain a
coastal zone mana~gement program. and operation coats, slubsequent appli- viable and healthy system In view of the
(a) Demonstration of neesr au. cations may be submitted following ac- present and possible development of ex-
thorit;7 to acquire or control and manage qulsition and establishment of an estua- ternal stresses.
tise sanctuary. zine sanctuary for additional develop- (c) Size and choice of boundaries. TO,
(7) Description of pro~posed manag5e- nan and operation funds. As indicated the extent feasible. estuarine sanctuaries
ment techniquas, including the manage- In 1 921.11. these costs maYl Include ad- should approx~mate a natural ecological
mant agency principles an p rpoe mlnistratlve costs necessary to monitor- unit. The rminimal aoceptable size WMl
budget includin both State and Fderal, the sanctuary and to protect the Intag-. vary greatly and will depend cc the ma.-
sharog c~~~~~~~ity Of the ecosystem. Extensive manage- ture of the ecosystem.
(a) Description of existIng and poten- =ent programs, capital expenses, or re- (d) Cost. Althoush the Act limilts the
tial uses of and condicts within the area search will not normally be funded by. Federal share of the coat gar each asto-
If It were not declared an estuarine sac section 312 grants. tuary to 82,000,H000 It Is anticipated that
twary,- potential use, use restrictions and (b) After the creation of an ataisin practice the average grant will be sub-
conflicts if the sanctuary Is esabls 1hed. Sancuar established under this pro stantlally less than this.
(I) Assessment of the environmental gra applications for such development (e) Enhancement of non-competitive
and socia-ecaonoic Imipacts of decl-4in and operation grants should Include at uses.
the are* an estuarine sanctuary, enlud- t the followig Inormation (f I Proximity and access to existing
ing the economic impact of such a desig- (1) Identincation of the boundary. research facilities.
nation On the surroundinrg co mnt (2) Speciftcations of the management (9g Availability of suitable alternative
and Its tax bas. Program. Including managing agency and sites already protecated which might be
(9) Description of planned or antici- t ehius capable of providing the same use or
pated land god water use and controls (3) Detailed budget. beneft. Unnecessary duplication of ex-
for contiguous lands surronading the (4 Discussion of recent and prolected Wsing activities under other programs
proposed sanctuary (Including 1f appro- Use Of the sanctuary, Should be avoided. However. estuarine
priate an analysis of the desirability of, (5) Perceived threats to the Intesrity sanctuaries might be established adla-
creating a marine sanctuary In s4�iacent of the sattctuary. Met to existing preserved lands where
areass. I921.13 Fedirally owned lands. mutual enhancement or benefit af each
migaht occur.
(10) LUst of protected sites. either (a) Where Federally owned lands are (h Condict with existing or Potential
within the estuarine sanctuaries program a Parn of or adjacent to the area pro competing uses.
or within other Federal, State or private posed for designation as an esuaindencmaiiiywtheitn rpo
psogms.whih ar loate in he amesanctuary, or where the control of ladposed la.id and water use In contiguous
rI tI sentonal orthggat hec opporltuainit and water uses on such lands Is neces- areas.
be3 poIte o pulic s s nvoalvtattemenot and S to pratect the naturAll system rathin.
be povied or pbli I n olveentandthe sanctuary the State should context If the initial review demonstrates the
input in the development of the sanctus the Federal agency maintaining control fesasibllity of the application, an environ-
ary proposal and application. Wher the of the land to request cooperation in pro- mnental umpact statement will be pre-
application Is controversial or where viding coord~inatednmanagement poucies. pared by the Offce of Coastal Zone Mant-
controversial Issues are addressed, the Such lands and State request, and the agement in accordance with the National
otate should provide adequate means to Federal agency respone, should be Iden- Environmental Polley Act of 1969 and
ensure that all Interested parties have~ tifed and conveyed to the OX=ic Of Implementing CEQ guidelines.
the opotunity to prsen t thi ~ .Coastal Zone manaigement. g 921.2! Puhlic Participation.
'Thus nay be in the form of an adequats-7 (b) Where such proposed use or con
advertised public hearing. tra of Pldral owned lands would no Public participation will be an essen-
(11) During the development of an conilct with the 2rederaL use of their tWa factor in the selection of estuarine
estuarine sanctuary application, aul land- lands, such coperatjon and coordination, sanctuaries. In addition to the participa-
own erg within the proposed boundaries is encouraged to the maximum extent tion i*1ng the applIcation~ development
should be Informed In writing of the pro- fealable. procems (931.11 (e)). public partlcipa-
posed grant application. (c) Section 312 grants may not be tIOn 'will be ensued at the Federal level
(111) The application should Indicate awarded to Federal agencies for creation by the N77A Vrocross and by public hear-
the =anner I'm ThIch the State solicited of estuarine sanctuaries In Federally ings where desirable subsequent to NEPA.
the views Of all interested parties prior mwed lands; however, a similar status Such public hearings shall be held by the
to the actual submls~sion of the appli- may be provided on a voluntary basis for Office of Coastal Zone M~anagement in
cation. Federally owned lands under the prori- the ame to be affected by the proposed
(e in ordler to develop a truly repre- sions of the Federal Comamirtee on Eon- sanctuary no sooner than 30 days after It
jentative dcebte of estua~rine sanctu- logical Preserves program~. Issues a deaf t environmental Impact

MDUAL MIS5TER, VOL 31, NO0. IDS-TUESDAY, JUNE1 4, 11974

RULES AND 1EGULATIONS 19927

statement an the sanctuary Proposal. It the Pranting agency. As a minimum. Mhe seach progra may Orl bechnge
will be the responsIbility of the Offic Of grant dOCUMent 0r each sAnctuary after public notice and the opportunitY
Coastal Zone Managemen, with t'i~ as- shall:of public review -and participation sc
sista=c of the applicant state. to Issue (a) DeAns the intended research Pur- as outlined in 1 921 .21
adequate public notice of Its Intention Pose" of the estuarine sanctuary. (b) Individuals or Organizations which
to hold a public hearing. Such public no- (b) Deflne permitted. compatible, re. are concerned aLvout possible Improper
tice shall be distributed widely. espe- stricted and prohibited uses of the sanc- use or restriction of use of estuarine
ciaily in the area of the proposed sanc- tuarY. sanctuarIes maZy petition the State Man-
tuary; affected property owners and Wc Include a provision for monitoring agement agency and the Office of Coastal
those agencies. Organizations or Individ- the uses of the sanctuary, to ensure corn- Zone Management directly for review of
uash with an Identified interest In tMe PlIance with the intended usee. the management program.
area. or estuarine sanctuary program (d Easue ready access to land UN 1 3921.32 Program review.
&hall be uout1*d of the public hearing, CZ the sanctuary by scientists, students
The Public notice shell contain the and the general public as desirable and It is anticipated that reports will be
name. address and Phone nubar Of the Permissible for coordinated research and required from the applicant State on a
appropriate Federal and State offcials to education uses, Ls well Ls for other corn- regular basis. no more frequently than
contact for additional Information about patible purposes. annually, an the status of each estuarine
the proposaL. (a) Ensure public availability and rea. sanctuary. The estuarine sanctuary
subpart D--operation sonable distribution of research results program wIll be regularly reviewed to
for timely use in the development of ensure that the objectives of the programn
1921.30 GeneraL coa~stal zone Management pr gas are being met azid that the program It-
Management of estuarine sanctuaries, (1) Provide a basis for annual review self is scientiftcally sound. 7he key to
shall be the responsibility of the appli- Of the Status of the sanctuary, itS value the success of the estuarine sanctuaries
cant State or Its agent. lHowever. the to the coastal zone Program. program is to assure that the results of
research uses and management program (g) Speify how the integrity of the the studies and research conducted in
mnust be in conformance with these system which the sanctuary represents these sanctuaries are available In a
guidelines and regulations. and others will be maintained, timely fashion so that the States can
Implemented by the provisions of Indi- (h) Provide adequate authority and develop and administer land and water
vidual grants. It Is suggested thtprior Intent to enforce m-anageent policy and ~porm o h osa oe c
to the grant award. represenativuesporm for th__isalzoe
the Proposed sanctuary managmn - cordingly, all Information and reports.
team and the Offict of Coastal Zone MCan- 5921.31 Chiange in tl. san""uAry including annual reports, relating to
aemnent meet to discuss management hounfdh rr, managemenlt p oltuainsacyure ohl eprto
policy and standards. It Is anticipated ret~arcli prosram. etaiesntais&alb ato
that the grant provisons will vary with ( a) The approved sanctuary boundar.r the public record and available at all
individual circumstances and will be lea; management policy. including Per- times for inspection by the public.
mutually agreed to by the applicant and missible and prohibited uses: and re- Jr% Doe.74-1=37 Pilad 3-3I-74;0:57 &=I

FWAIAL 11I01SMl, VOL 34, No. 174s'TUU5OAY. JUIJN 4, 1974

APPENDIX 11

Estuarine Sanctuary Research Program

iSTATE OF
WA STAHNT OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
� WASHIGTON M t Vl wS
Mail Stop PV-11 206/753.2
Dixy Lee Ray Olympia, Washington 98504
e Gouernor

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

Paila Bay Estuarie 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 ec ological 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-

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 studies, 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 Sampling 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 Use/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 comn- WDF 1977 Sweeney

pilation of Biota

(Data)

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

Number Peak

Organism of Species Population 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

14X mallard

ll 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 bay.

Il-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 106

native little neck clam 31 x 106 harvested shellfish

eastern soft shell clam 1,200 x 106

red rock crab

Dungeness crab

Benthic Plants 9+

eelgrass 0.5 x 10 tons

b.:' Harine 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) Salmonids - 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) Harsh: 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.

2. Ecosystem Function

a. 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.

B. Abiotic

1. Water

a. Water chemistry

b. Freshwater (annual) budget

c. Circulation within bay: surface and subsurface

d. Exchange- flushing rate

2. Sediment

a. 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 magister)

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 Service

National Science Foundation

Army Corps of Engineers

National Oceanographic &Atmospheric Administration

Unive rsity 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

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
5,~~~~~~~~~Vi

Section III. COMIPATIBLE/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 "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 does

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

clear that any activity destructive to the 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 prior to being allowed.

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

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

the scientific and educational benefits from an estuary preserved forever.

Section IV. RESEARCH 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.

Al~np

, . . .K-
'a~ " m\l-
:4 �:�f . C, X~ la-9 i r ;7 ' 0 v D � < <~
; An 0 'v {'r 'D fiCarp�r 7;4s iz� El

APPENDIX III

Estuarine Sanctuary Educational Program

i ;.- , :
j~ ~~~~~- , i-l Z> ' ..9t 'I ':',"f .>'>;.' '.

E, WSTATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHINGTON Mi Stop PV-11 206/753-2800
Dixy Lee Ray Olympia, Washington 98504
Gouemor

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

SEPTEMER 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 SKAOIT VALLEY COLLEGE
TONY ANGELL OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
ANDREA MARRETT PACIFIC SCIENCE CENTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ii
The Four Systems ii
A. GOVERNANCE 1
1. . Objective 1
2. Authority I
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-

INTRODUCTION

A component of education takes place 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
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
those learnings must be accomplished beyond the waZZlls of the home or
classroom. This kind of education demands that educators extend
learning experiences into the community.

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, conmunity colleges,
universities and the common schools, and for nonformal interpretive or
public.information/educational opportunities that are the responsibility
of resource management agencies.

With the opportunity of utilizing the PadiZlla 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 personal choices and actions
affect environmental quality
4. Experience in methods of enacting community
responsibility

THE FOUR SYSTEMS

This plan consists of four major systems; The Governance Sstem
is' composed of deoision-making structures which legitimize activities
and govern them. 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 cyclic,
sequential approach to the construction and testing of necessajry
program materials and instructional strategies for both formal and
nonformal education endeavors. The Delivery System provides a
thoughtful analysis of the requirements and strategies essential
to the long term operation and support of the proposed Padilla Bay
Education Program.

PADILLA BAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

EDUCATION PLAN

THE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM

0-1) 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
No single piece of legislation serves to provide compre-
hensive legal authority for educational programs dealing
with the environment. Yet, public policy is full 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 related
to education about the estuarine environment:

-- Each school district must make EnvironmentaZ
Education available in the secondary program.

Washington Administrative Code
180-56-026
High SchooZ Graduation Requirements

-- As a result of the process of education, all
students should appreciate the wonders of the
natural world, human achievements and failures,
dreams and capabilities.

Washington State Board of Education
Goals for the Washington Common Schools

-- The Washington State Shorelines Management Act
of 1971

-- The Washington .State Et)iromunCntalZ Po .iy: Ait
of 1971

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

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

-I-

National Sea G:ant College and Program Act of
1966, PL 89-688, PL 89-454

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

Ma rine MzrmaZ 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
un the Hwran 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-

C-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 functionj which
usually means as near to the natural condition as possible.
To paraphrase AZdo Leopold's Sand County AZmanac:

Quit thinking about use of estuaries as solely
an economic problem. Examine each question in terms
of what is ethically and.aestheticallZZy 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) cormmuity. It
is wrong when it tends otherwise.

G.-4) Management Plan
Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter
TASK 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4. 2 3 4
Appoint Advisors to 18
Month Terms z x z x
Advisors Meet XZ X z x x x x x xz
Select d Hire
Educational Manager x
Inventory Site x x xz
Plan for Programs x
Plan for. Faciities x
Contact Schools & Colleges x
Develop Program Materials x--:--
Field Test Educational
Program Materials ----
Construct Facilities z--.
Develop Trail System . ----
Conduct Teacher Workshops x------------------------
Deliver Educational Programs
and Services X--------------------
Apply for NESA Status z
Apply for ELC Status x
Develop Formal Evaluation
Program x

-3-

G-5) Points of interaction with alZZ parties
Cooperation among the various kinds of groups, as
indicated by the following diagram, is an essential
facet of this plan. The state agency managing the
physical facility will have the responsibility for the
coordination of interrelating components within and
camong the participating groups. Education programs
will be managed by the Washington Superintendent of
Public Instruction's Office of Environmental Education,
Northwest Section.

Cooperative activities will be accomplished between
and among these groups in support of the overall 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 Comnmittee will have the responsibility of
appointing personnel representing, but not limited to,
the following generic categories:

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

G7 Interpretive Center
A physical facility is required 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 planned to function in a most
fZexible multipurpose fashion. In addition, a system
of trails and access sites will be developed.

-4-

Co wk i tr
4% D ISO R-(

fall,. ~ ~ G V1.U~

LC E

M~~~~~~~~~A A

er~~~~~~~~~~~

r .~~~~- LE4 !$FEeS LA"h4

8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pu., I I8
'A..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

A Ajtc(~G
'~~~~~~~~~~----- O(jI /A

G-8)' Budget
Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Personnel
Education Manager
$22,'o000 $16,500 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000
Clerical 0 12,000 9,000 12, 000 12, 000 12,000
Interpretive 0 18,000 4,500 1800 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 administration 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 est:cry (ecosystem) is composed of
three groups of components: 1) physical
factors (suns energy, climate, water, etc.);
2) Living organisms, including humans; and
3) interactions among and/or between living
and nonZliving components (competition,
decomposition, energy flow, etc.)

E. An estuary and all its subsystems undergo
continuous change

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

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

Help Individuals and Groups Understand:
2. -umans 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. ComplZe interactions among humans and other
estuarine components occur continuously

E. Humans have a responsibility to produce anc
ethic oj accountability for human impacts
on estuaries

Help IndividuaZs. 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, preventativc,
remedial and creative actions that will
harmonize human activities with estuarine
' ecosystem processes are:

-7-

1. Educational
2. Religious, Aesthetic, Ethical &.
Moral
3. Scientific and TechnoZogical
4. Civic and Social
5 Governmental and Political
B. Industrial and Commercial

C. Harmonize human activities with estuary
ecosystem processes by adjusting perceived
imbalances, identifying and addressing problems,
and utilizing opportunities through institu-
tions and individuals.
1. Investigating ecosystem processes
and components, with emphasis on the
results of human activities on
estuaries and the influence of
estuaries on 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 and would stop or reduce
detrimental changes, with a special
attention to irreversibZe/irretriev-
able changes, and to long range vs.
short raige commitments 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 poicioes and actions

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

-8-

S-2) Identifying how that learning can occur

A Teaching/Learning 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. Fromi this, an
outline was developed which can be. used for assessing
the usefulness of' earning activities on the basis of
whether they stimulated Zearning and/or enhanced teaching.
It is a s'impZe, practical guide for aiding in assessing
the activities selected for introducing ecosystem/estuary
concepts into Zearning programs.

Start with the definition of learning:
Learning is change of perception
Which stimulates skilt-building
To effect responsible action

Next we search for contexts within which perceptions are
expZored/stretched; skils development is invited and;
responsibility and action is encouraged. The Zatter two
requirements are very much dependent on the first, so for
our present purposes, we '1 focus mostly on content
acquisition and perception. We will see, however, that
Zearning evolves along those dimensions. Thus, once
perceptions are changed, skills and action will follow,
if there is opportunity.

Back to perception. We very often have our perceptions
jarred when we "foot around with data". Our model for
teaching/learning will focus on something we like to
call "Data DeaZin"'. There are three levels in the Data
Dealin' process: Diggin' (information gathering); Dancin'
(mucking about with information); Decidin' (going beyond
understanding to transfer, and application to a new
sector of life).

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 wherc peraoptiions are
important. Studenting exercises old skills, builds new
ones and initiates personally motivated actions. Studenting
is an interdependent progression of awareness, exploration
and extensionZ It recycles; an "old" extension leads to a
"new" awareness.

Now let 's look at how teachering and studenting fit into
Data Dealin'. For simplicity, we have put it into chart
form.

-9-

DATA DRALIN'

LEVELS OF

'TEAC.HERING INVOLVEMENT STUDENTING
(Opportunity) (Understandinq)
Data Digqin'
EXPOSURE AWARENESS
Creating opportunities Sources: Books, newspapers, Developing an
for students to be films, other media, people, awareness by simply
exocsed 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, analyzing, 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, Conounity College, and University Students
d. General Public
e. Special Interest Groups

THE DEVELOPAENT SYSTEM

Program materials will be developed which support the achievement of
the previously stated substantive objectives.. The systematic approach
we will use to develop 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 systems, 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 vz.2ious
delivery levels being served (external agencies, community, and
institutions), 2) the stages of institutionalization (mobilization
iniplementation, and institutionalization) and 3) deliver! conce2ns
(tioaIs, program requirements, barriers, strategies, and resour2es).

1. Delivenr 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,

- 22 -

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . ....
DES - -IGN ~ ~1 THE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
DESIGN

I;~~~ /A~ ~ ~a. Define problems and needs
b. Identify and analyze target audience
~WRH~ITE GOALS I -( c. Write a broad statement about the
general purpose of this education pro-
gram

STATE OBJECTIVES A d. Formulate objectives and performance
l[~~ -standards

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

PRODUCE

'Ii
FACQUIRE MATERIALS l. o g. Select, construct, develop or assemble
|ACQUIRE MATERIALS instructional materials

|~~~~~~~~~ h. Organize the content method and for.
DEVELOP LEARNING I mat of instruction
EXPERIENCES |\ i. Design learning experiences and activ-
ities

|PLAN EVALUATION | A J. Construct evaluation scheme to meas-
ACTIVITIES l 4 ure if instructional program achieves
stated objectives

TEST

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

I ~ASSESS |I~ A L ~Locate substandard components
EFFECTIVENESS I 'm. Determine relationships between re-
EFFECTIVENESS
l ~~~~ l 8 ~suits, methods, objectives and goals

LIMIPROVE A n. Accomplish revisions if any are sug-
KL~~~~~ <N~~~~~ ~gested by interpretation of results :

PROGR A ~NO
< OK? /

IMPLEMENT l

COIf1 MON Tro T'o WM b ,Nl[ IMMMI mrn bysinm
- 1. _

but provide various types of support including
conceptual'guidance, technical assistance, moral
support, assessment or evaluation, and funding.

B. Communvity: This is the source of many educational
needs and demands and often the source of political,
financial and moral support to new programs.

C. Institution: Includes intermediate agencies (the
college, ESD or school district) the school site,
the classroom, the Padilla 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 school's, college's
or agencie's curricula occurs in three phases:
A. Mobilization, which determines what the program
is and how it will be fit into the existing
curriculum.

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

C. InstitutionaZization, which determines how the
program will be maintained or continued.

An effective 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 (A), and (B) stages of institutionalization.
These 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 objectives

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 support/assistance
needed to enable or facilitate the achievement of
the program objectives

It is important to note here that as the plan develops, we
are actually creating the inherent evaluation system necessary
to assess a successful delivery system design. This
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 planninq..

4. Areas of Planning for Curriculum Delivery -- 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 levei 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-i, S-2) presents the
kinds of concerns that can be addressed by teachers.
These instructional concerns include the followinj:
--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. Evaluation: Refer to G-7 (page 4) for explanatory
narrative.

-14-

APPENDIX IV

Estuarine Sanctuary Recreational Program

STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
~[~ ~WASHNGTON Mail Stop PV-11 206/7532800
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
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 - EXISTING AND POTENTIAL SITES
Skagit County Planning Department's 1979 access and visual assessment des-
cribes existing and potential recreation sites.

There are Zimited opportunities for pubZic use of Padilla Bay shorelines, with
the exception of March Point and Bauview State Park. Saddlebag Island is
inaccessible to the majority of people. Expanded public use of the shoreline,
especially on the mainland, wouZd be a desirable component of estuary develco-
ment plans.(1

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 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 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 most intrusive cultural elements on the bay.

Samish island and Bayview Ridge are glacial till uplands, rising directZly up
from the tidelands. At some points the bluffs on Samish Island rise to 100
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 bZuffs give way to a permanent beach berm and a large, marshy backshore
as Bayview Ridge angles away from the shoreline and ends in the Senish River
fZoodpZlain. From this point to Samish IsZand, 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. Typically a baseline is
identified and the landscape is divided into foreground, midground and back-
ground, with each of these areas containing elements of the environment which
are assessed for their contribution to scenic quality. For example, a baseline
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 foreground, midgound and background assume
different values, depending on location. Looking seaward from the viewpoints
located around Padilla Bay, no land lies nearer than 1 1/2 miles to the viewer
(March 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 baseline, foreground, midground, background framework, each view-
point will be assessed according to the degree of vision it allows; the kind
of land and water forms present; the diversity of landscape elements; and the
degree of unity or intactness among the different landscape elements. Six
viewpoints are described below:

North end of March Point
March Point is a popular and traditional recreation site, and is heavily used
in summer months by vacationers who park their trailers and campers along the
road right-of-way.

The dominant view is to the north, with Hat Island, 1 1/2 miles away, controlling
the "'viewshed" and acting as a reference point for the more distant views of the
mainland, Samish IsZand and beyond. The north view is across the deep water
portions of the bay and gives the illusion of deep water to the mainland shore-
line. Much of the "naturalness" of the view is prescribed by oil tanker piers
and the city of Anacortes to the west, and by intensive, industrial use of the
March Point uplands.

-3-

Lumni 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
"anchorn like Hat Island, by directing and holding the viewer's attention.
Views 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,
thesnow-capped Canadian Cascades 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 mites to Samnish 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 viewer's
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, Lur=i) to
the northwest.

-4-

Spit, South Side of Joe Leary Slouqh
This is easily the most desirable of the six viewpoints. The site is an accre-
tion shoreform and is the furthest extension of the mainland into the bay. It
it 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 angle
is around 270�, with Whidbey and Camano Islands 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 sight 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 relief.

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 like that from the spit (see above), only
more expansive. Bayview Ridge is 2 - 2 1/2 miles to the south, making this
viewpoint the only one of the six with views to all directions. Unlike the
Bayview and Swinomish Channel Zocations, 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 Samish Island
The view from this location is classic in the sense that the viewer is
above (up to 100 feet) the adjacent scenery Zooking down at it. The view
reaches over eight miles to the Swinomish Channel, giving a strong impression
of the bay 's size. Guemes, Huckteberry, Saddlebag and Dot Islands are the
most visible landscape elements, and have a tendency to pull the viewer's
attention away from the less discernable, southern part of the bay. However,
the viewpoint has the best overall vantage of the six sites discussed.

The following section describes existing public 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, Bayview State Park,
the Bayview boat launch and Saddlebag Island. 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 wildlife 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 mainlarn
side of the bay.

An inventory of existing access sites shows an absense of public use
facilities on 10, 078 feet of shoreline at March Point that has been reserved
for public use. The only user facility is a boat launch, maintained jointly
by SheZZll Oil and the State Game Department. The shoreline is privately owned
at the tip of the point, but is made available for public use again by
Shell Oil. This is a popular week-end vacation spot for in and out of
county residents who take advantage of the 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 Parks 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 (incZluding 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 make 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 currently posted no
trespassing.

The 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 launchind
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.

An excellent site for acquisition 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 1, west 1131 feet from its southeast corner; thence following
along the west side of the county road as now traveled north 1� 23 feet
east 183 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 southerly following the Government meander line to the south
line of said Lot 1; 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 seawail.

The viewing quality of the site is sufficient reason to include it within
the estuary, but there are other, equally good reasons. It is the only
accretion shoreform (specifically a cuspate foreland) on the mainland and is
near Joe Leary Slough, which itself should be considered for partial inclusion.
Field observation on 7/18/79 showed 20-25 Blue Herons on the site, some
four miles from their Samish Island rookery. Eagles can also be seen, as
well as abundant waterfowl in season. The site is adjacent to a county road
and is less than five miles from SR 20. Because Bayview State Park fulfiZZlls
the requirement for an active, day-use area, this site could be minimally
developed for viewing, nature study, beachcombing, etc.

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

A good location for visual access would be on Samish Island, from a turn-out
on Soamish Island Road, either near the end of the road, as indicated in the
viewpoint analysis 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.(1)

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

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 ADJACENT 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

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.

(1)Taken from PADILLA BAY ESTUARY; Public Access and Visual Assessment, Skagit
County Planning Department, August 8, 1979. Secondary source: SKAGIT COUNTY
SHORELINE ACCESS STUDY, Prepared by the Skagit County Planning Department,
,March, 1978.
(2DECIDING SKAGIT COUNTY'S RECREATIONAL FUTURE, Skagit County Cooperative
Extension Service, From a 1976 Survey of the Residents of Skagit County.
. . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

PAP LI A I AN V I ~1-,A rf. AID 'PI

ct~~o - -ic

V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

& VI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

INTRODUCTION

One might ask whether this is "Just another survey,,'

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

is something 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 questionnaire that accurately

reflects the ideas obtained by the Association, and to do so

in language that will co=unicate to most of the general

public, thus extending participation in the involvement

process. The result is a questionnaire quite unique to the

concerns of Skagit County. The hoped for result is some

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 represents a raw summary of findings, and

is prepared as a complement to ar 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.

FROM A 1976 SURVEY OF TH~E
RESIDENTSIOF SKAGIT COUNIIL*

~)ecdingSkagifti County S

Recreafional Fufure

WhaltWould

Yfou Prefer?

it ~~~~This survey is a 19,76 erfort. to
4~~~~14Cut residtmto.

~~Y ~~~ I ~~This sz~vey is co-spr-,scred by
~~ ~~ / ~~~ the Skagit Courity Zxsiltonal
~~' ~~ ~ Ceveltaps~ent As'soiatieei, Skagit

County Planing Del'n-t~1ont,
Countiy Scak 5,jard, and

� ~~~~Tj-ank you for your help.

Skagi t counit-y Cocoperati ve :extension S'ervice
306)O courtwhouse, Mow-,t Vernon., WA. 98273

Vt is: vnLy wa pA evact~ed bq &X.Z~ G'z.vr, Co'n &n.6ty Vevaor

Original Sample Size ...... .1188 Questionnaires Completed ..766

Inaccessible Households.... 74 Respohse Rate
Deceased, moved out of (% of adjusted sample
cour.ty, blind. disabled size) ....................

Adjusted Sample Size....... 1114

A sample size of this magnitude should provide reasonably

reliable and valid estimates 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.

FINDINGS

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 percentages are in all
cases based upon the total number of people who answered

the question. That number is a maximum of 766, and varies

slightly below that for most questions in as much as some

respondents did not answer every question.

q-3 The f%)llowing is a list of CAtdoir Activities in which families and individuals
frequently participate. It would be helpful for us to know in which of the
following activities your luusehold would participate if facilities were avail-
able. Please indicate three* of the following activities which would be most
important to your householet.
P:cr';T
2 1. Basketball
2. Beach activities (crab, clam o'
oyster gathering, beach combing
J15- or scuba diving)
2. Bicycli g
Scating (power boating, sailing,
6 ccanoeing, or kcyaking)
- 5. Camping (overnight)
Field sports, (baseball, tadminton,
soccer, football, crcquet, or track
and field.
7. Fishing (fresh water or saltwater)
3 8. fo ifng
9. Hiijng (backpackin5, nature hikes,
10 or walkirg for pleasure)
I 10. Horseback ridinG
i 11. Forseshor t
- 12. otor activities or spnrts (auto
racing, auto r3llias,=nt~rb'irig,
or four wheel drive)
13 Outdoor swimr-ing
14: PicnickEin or d1.y camping
15. Shooting (rifle or archery,
4 target or trap) /
- 16. Stcw related activities (sk-iu.n
�I~ II� sledding, and snow motilir-g)
17. Te nnisa

9-14 There has been uzuch discussion about preserving certain area; in their natural
state. if Skagit County residents desire areas be developed only enough to
accomodate recreational use, which areas should receive, a H:GH priority, a
mnI=. priority, a. LOW Priority or :.OaE at all'
'What priority, if anyi,
!umber possible Areas should each area have?
Hich Mediur Ltw None
Saltwater beaches 13.
Mouamcvie~ra 41 23 7
aountain stream areas 2 7
Panoramic vieso areas4614
Freshwater shore areas 38 12
Open space near cc unities 28 32 28 12

Q-7 Would you please list the two specifiC activitJes that your houAchold wcu�i

moat like to see developed either with additional facilities or appropriate
programs.

First Second First Second
Choice Ch-ice Choice Cho.L-e
Archery o .2 Moto., Biking .5 .9
Autoracing .6 .5 Mountain Climbirg .2 .2
Back Packing .2 0 Mature Walks .3 .7
Badminton .2 0 Ph0otcgralhy 0 0
pasetall .2 Picnicking 1.0 1.6
321ketall3A1.2 Pi~ng Fon g 0
Beachccmbing 2.3 1.6 Pool or Billiards .6
Bicycling 2.7 4.7 Power Bcatin 1.5 .9
Bird'vatching 0 .2 Racketball 1.0 .5
Bo'-ling I. 1 Reading for Pleasure 0 0
Camrping 10.P 8 Rowing 0 0
Canoeing & Kayaking .2 0 Sailing .2 .2
Cards 0 .2 Saltwater fishing .3 1.4
Chess, Beard Games 0 .2 Scuba divinZ 0 0
Crab, Clam Gathering .3 .4 Sledding 0 0
Croquet o 0 Snow mobiling .2 0
Dancing 1.9 3 Snow Shoeing 0 0
Day Camping 1 I Snow Skiing .2 .4
Flying & Skydiving 0 0 Soccer .2 .4
Fraternal Club Act. .2 0 SocializinS in C3x. 0 .2
Freshwater Fishing 3.9 4.6 Socializirg at K 0 .2
Friz'ees 0 0 Switing 24.5 10.7
Gardening 0 0 T V or 'adio 0 0
Golfing 1.1 1.9 Target Shooting 1.8 3.3
Handball a II Ter.nns 3.11 5.3
:I.kir4 Theater gving 0 0
Hockey .2 0 Touch Fcot&1l .2 1
Home Hobbies, etc. 7.3 6.8 Track and Field O C
Horseback Riding 1 1.8 Trap Shooting -5 .7
Horseshoes .5 .5 etc. ? .2 0
Ice Skating 1.5 4 Volleyball i .3 1.2
Jogging 0 0 Walking fcr Pleasuie .2
Water Skiing .2 1.8
Yoga, Personal ExerciseZl 1.8

Q-8 For your first choice activity from question 7, if a recreational bond issue
were required, about how Euch would your household 'be willing to pay for its

achievement?

Percent
Percent 1. Would not support the activity.
2. $ .25 per each $1,000 of asscssed value.
3 S.50 per each $1,000 of assessed valun.
-5" 24 * 3l.00 per each $1,000 of assessed value.
__ 5. $2.00 per each $1,000 of assessed value.

1979 SLPPLEMENTAL SURVEY

Introduction

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

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

the boundaries of County School districts as the defined carget areas for the dis

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

area would be randomly selected and surveyed. The questionnaires vere distributed

by a CETA Recreation Staff -ver a four week period. Because of their concern of

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

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 Schoul District.

Surveying District Total Distributed Total Returned 2 of Returns

Anacortes 338 270 80

Burlington 295 162 55

Concrete 75 40 53

r.nway 69 56 81

LaConn.. 80 56 70

Mt. Vernon 445 360 81

Sedro Woolley 430 368 86

Totals 1732 1312 75.75%

'Burlington -
Anacortle EdlN on Concrete 'Conway LaConner Ht. Vernon Sedro Woolley Total

1. Please indicate the number
of persons and their sex
in your houseuholdlin each
age kroups

Hale
tinder 7 35 37 9 B 12 63 76 247
7-12 19 21 11 7 11 44 46 156
13-1lB 23 20 4 a 2 59 60 176
19-26 55 45 7 17 6 92 113 335
27-35 3' 36 12 10 17 07 71 264
36-49 37 35 5 19 9 71 87 263
50-59 39 19 4 13 5 59 54 193
60 + 44 22 11 7 12 22 75 193

Female
Under 7 44 21 9 9' 13 65 64 232
7-12 31. 25 4 7 9 54 53 182
13-15 49 45 a 6 10 67 94 279
19-26 63 46 12 13 11 107 80 332
27-35 64 12 12 9 19 87 54 287
36-49 67 47 9 24 81 93 103 351
50-59 35 18 7 5 8 46 79 198
60 + 58 29 15 7 8 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- Individuals Listed in tile County Survey
ity of-the population, indicated by the survey returns,
is in the age brackets ranging from 19 years of age to hMe Total Percent
I9 years of age with the female gender comprising 53X
of the total of this age group. An indicated in this Under 7 479 12.16
survey and confirmed through personal discussion with 7-12 330 3.50
various achool District Administrative personnel those 13-18 455 11.56
Individuals 'in the 0-7 age bracket are represented an 19-26 667 16.94
the fourth largest population group in Skagit County. 27-35 351 .13.99
36-.9 614 15.59
50-59 391 9.93
60 + 443 11.25
3938

'Uur11lLor5ln - 1�-�� jour - � Ht. -trno ar ulu ~tr
hntlr~~ur ea Iillooft
Anawroresi tI- I on jConeraute Conway L"Cunnur m.Vernun SLedra w~oulley total

WhAt time or times of day,
esttring, the week, would you
mout often haIve free for
participation in activities
that, yoou wateld contiitter rer-
rea t.L I cona I ?

6-)AH An 0 4 2 1 16 21A 1119
9Ah--'-2l.-,a.. 25 12 7 4 6 An Ss 222
12 Oonn-3 PH /its 13 II 6 II 56 RI 244
3 PH-6 I ' 55 27 11 3 ft i 9 f1 671
________ 1-9 PH to 9o Iii 21 202 270 134
after 9II iP 15 2 4 in 1,3

6 AH-12 Noon 96 26 11 6 7 fil 711 240
12 Noon-fI PH of) 12 28 20 199 233 O7R
After 6 PH 47 42 20 In. II - R2 115 292

indicates like majority of participatIon and tonr hours during: tihe week days. Would he from 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M.. Weekend
'ark users hours would be from 12:00 Noon to 6:00 PIH.

Inu long have you lived In
Skarl,, roruunty?
l-Shs than I year. 17 9 2 5 2 1 9 28 82
1-3 yearn 29 I 1 A S IS 53 31 152
4-7 Ye*arn i s 11 1 2 1I t 50 I a I21.9
_ Yi-ISyars 3'12 21 a 9 5 5t6 192
over IS y.-aria Ilia 27 1 2 20 IR2 196 7111

a order to establish credability 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 ware living in the County at the concep-
Ion of the Park and Recreation Commission. Perhaps the greatest impact this question has, in relation to questions five
and eipbt, points out the lack'of Departmeint program and.facility awareneAs by the county residents. Thus an iddicaxion .
t -:.,r~a use ni the local media and the necessity to develop brochures manuals and public presentation to Increase thbx-
nojvledge and auarences ot tha public o tihe' department.

1 I~~~ur~~tnFA Lon"aotes Elnn Concrete ConwayjLaconner- Me. Vernton Sedro, Woolley ~Total

4. no you feel. parks and recrea-
tion should he provided by
Skatilt County?
____yes 156 123 3, 418 49, 3014 261 975
6' 0 0 2 '13 Zi58
___________ Hgo -eispolase 51 43 ii1 7 9 97 279

.a oveywhelming majority 74% were'in favor-of the County provid ing services for Its residents. A more 42 were not In favor
of such aiproposal. and t:Ie- remaining 222 indicated iso respiontie9 -tsot qualstion,

5. Picnic check those Skagit
County Parks you have visited
* or are aware of.
__Ann, wolforel Park 17 6 o0I14 28 f ir
-Conway Park/float Ljitiuicl 27' 44 6 37 14 115 68 1
__Cleveland Center Playground 1328 45 III 45' 415
- Donovan Park ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~514 82 5 3 11 10!176 439
EarldayCeek P-ark 19 5 1 4 21 II 75
Frda CrocksIsan P'ayrkre ~ 51 93 10 9 18 13 197 SS
Galeell slan I'lyrrondl76 19 .2 3 937 21 167
~~~harpe Park 14 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 11 3 281 23 100
__Suar.lt Playffeldls J~t51 6 11 20 139 109 384
(Thei. alove are day use facilities)
sasik River Park l a 649 4it, 11 101 i n 102 314
stIreihoall par)~ 46 S0 41 7 '1 77 134 364
Youing P'ark 9I1 31 1 72
nlieia asva-' a r. rimpil. I g ac 11I .ltlts)
:iewl-lanal r(s-ni'vr lit. Vernnn 2's e s5 6 19 13 title 119 421
* Ailarorti-a Senfor C~enter '16r 21 1 2 4 0in 172
__ 3rtusrlton .Nenlor center A 02 2 325 3! la?
Spdlrn Wnnislly senior C~enter 1 19 11 A 33 177 221
__ ntrrele Sentaor Center t o 1)3 0 2 17 IS7R
(t. 11(ve are Sa,,tifor Centers)

'Me awnreness response. of tnose surveyed wan very poor. Of 17 Vark and center facilities each of the 1312 Individuals 12ur-
voeyed wcre aware of or have visited'an averalte of 2.8 parka. in many cases those facilities or centers that received Rreater
use were within a 5 - 8 m~lo radius of the popllateil areas of Skattit County. flecause of this type of.use one would Burmise
1.1w public Is- 1.) not aware of the other County racilltion and/or 2.) are concerned about the energy problem and choose to
visit parka that are not going to require an extensive, drIving period to reacts.

Burl Initun -
Anncorttu Ed ison Contcrete Conway ICo H. ernun Serdro Uol;y To:ul

6. A. Do you feel the Park and.
reatronal facilities in
It C -.1
Outdoor Facilities
Adlequate 89 fr 24 22 17 153 122 S15
Inadequate 29 30 12 a 18 a S 95 277
No Opinion 94 60 14 27 IR 133 174 520
.Indoor Facilities
Adequate 57 31 15 21 12 10k 101 41
Inadequate 45 5! Ra 19 107 106 344
=_No Opinion 110 9G' 1s 25 19 145 219 627

B. If you marked Inadequate
above, please comment

A. Approximately 39Z of the survey responses indicated the amount and type of outdoor facilities provided by the County are
adequtate. HIowever, 212 indicated the need for improvement and 40X did not respond pointing out the lack of awareness
of County facilities or the inability to rate the parks.

B. 26Z2 of the returns rated the indoor recreation facilities in Skagit County.as adequate. The remaining 74Z (262 tesponded
inadequate, 482 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 avareness.

inaacurtes PAI mua1.itn - C-c r. r a oway Congo nner he~. Vernon Lediro Woolley7fati

recrenat in (solII*I(A-2 B eaaTU
JcUi Allt h, Callsiatty?
___ -i12 211 21, is 2711 2515 9
NO~414621( 72 131

___ al, raaj1.11. ot 21. 10110 101 1(1
le~asae clucek five (5) mostly.
Archery aa..I ri is- r~aosge i t 211It 1) Iii St 60 1111
____ thn rismulm PrL*',o uss~tur 1) 1 9 6 5 2 652
Ittnat ril"Ists Li..ke. 77* to 4a 6o .1 72 1,
___ ilotm r~amill Hi jI twitte r 21) 19 is 6 0 t o 51 ld
___11cyclab/ikisaj; Trail Its 14' 2'. IJlat1 121
__camaping~ 11clittlea lf isa3 12 4 '11It 123 *1
__ fay mic Iicnois sar~aim 59 15 1 4 21 I to 95 l Jot)
*__Gulf Cour#so 166 0 A 4 3 20 "
__Indoor Sports Arnaos 4'. 5'. 9 It 11 92 90 '1II
- atures Tr-Ila 62 la2 I(1 9. lit 112 I l a 31
___1'ayfic..da lIrt sonloot ncL~v- 31 t o 3 I0 t1 74 114

Of(f~rroailW1,0 Tas-aies ll I U 22 9 7 '. 37 47 J

___ 111111001~rn.t00 p laygratroudi 11210I 12S71t
I tlot toI 5 5 20
s~~~arth~~~Da~unn~nIllmonds 1'. 75 SIi�20
!utmmtnp, Pnoln - Indoor ~~22 Its 1 16'1 title I9 561
-. ~~u~m~q~n~ Ionlt; - flast~~~tnaav 26 42 I 1411 1218 321
.Tirnnti Caosrts rot '17 9I lotSI 92
* In~tnsar.lnat.i/tcatlilI'.It43 16 A 4 65 23,

- .Inatnor Commurnity Ce'nter$l 26f . tI , 91* 2
.lIsa~t A~aCo-niers
fa*r(.

An attitude question numaber 7 Indicatcfl npproximarely AIM of the qnientlo~nairlcn r'tlynted we.78 In favor of the County Cs-;
tltab'luInst additional park-and Tecreation fAct~tlostfn In fSkangt fnaanty.-

Question 17 continued.

B. Rank order of responses No: of Responses 2 of Frequency of Responses
Swimming Pools Indoors 568 43
Bicycle/IIiking Trails 452 34
Nature Trails 333 25
Swimming Pools Outdoors 321 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
Playfields for Sports Activities 239 la8
Ilandball/Racquetball Courts - Indoor 233 17
Neighborhood Playgrounds 217 16
Softball Basehall Diamonds 207 15
Archery and Rifle Ranges 188 14
caltwater Boat Ramps I 66 12
L.ake Boat Ramps 165 12
ir'esh Water Boat Ramps (River*) 160- 12
Offroad Vehicle Trail 143 11
Golf Courses 109 8

Uurlht1lltn -
AnalortLes -d Isoun :lsncurete Conway aConialer it. Vernon Sedro Woolley 'total

II. [
8. Ilavr! you participated In any
rerreational activities organ-
Ized by SkaglI C:ounty?

Y 1s q3 48 14 24 16 127 100 181
_ _ No 131 1OI 31 23 38 216 251 793
No response 5 3 a 3 6 1t ;i51

fie responses of thiis question indicates that in one year and six months of its existence, the recreation division of this
Department has served approximately 28z of the County residents. The rate 'of this response could be attributed to several
deficlencies. ,!.) 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 many recreation departme

Anscortalu r lioan Concrete Conway LaConner lMt, Vernon Sedro Woaolley Total

A. Should the County plan,
supervi so and condeuct organized
recreation actlvftfes?
__yen 113 8 30) 3) 11 266 210) 774
110 30 17 5 1 6 21 40) 1:20
__Po response 87 69 13 17 16 714 1142 313

it. if yes, which of the foliow-,

__Adultt Arts n Crafts ActlIvities 16 '1? 9 16 is oil 108 313
__ynstil'ArtH a Craft" Activitiest AS 311 Is 15 is 8 267
__Adult Athletic Le0agues A 55 7 21 13 112' S3 31B
__Yn'tli Athletic LePagues 62 56 a 1 20 Is 129 97 '187
__Adult onstructional prnrgyrams 37 24 7 14 A1 Its7 21sfi
Caointy Wide Chlldrens Summer 62 Al nIt 16 19 its 145 416s
Playgrounds program
,Youth Instructioflal 1'rogramr. 55 29 1115 1 I5 5
Adult Olutdloor Educatinn Pro- 45 23 561.2 IDlS 46 251

Youjth Outdoor rEducation Pro- 55 .1 111 01027
.grams
started County Wide special. 72 43 I ts 22 19 157 71 398
Fevent" 'Fein Runs, Symposiu"s.
Arts ns crnfts FTostivnls* etc.)
--ntlier(e, (speci fy)111

t. Anothe~r attitude question to dete'ro:nj the eigniflcer-tn of such a. service an recreation programming. Approximately 59% of
the response waere In favor of t1he County providing supervised recreation activities to tise County residents. 92 of the
populatio- were not In favor of ouch a proposal and the remaining 32% Indicated a no response to the question.

.Question #93 continued
Rank Order of Responses

Number of Responses X of Frequency of Resporsel

County wide Children's summer playgrounds program 416 32

Varies County wide special events (Fun Runs, Symp-
ouiuns, Arts n Crafts, Festivals, etc.) 398 30

Youth Athletic Leagues 387 29

Adult Athletic Leagues 318 24

Adult Arta-N-Crafts Activitiee 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

j I~~urlingtion -
Anscorte Mon fConcrete LConwy10oner "to Vernon Sedro W~oolley Totv!

Devlo ayear rounde recreation -- Cn~
activities programe for the res-
Idente of-Skcagit County
if ~~~~~.55 39 19 33 15 56 Its Ms
If 75 67 14 18 19 127. 128 448g
- L 30 10 6 2 9 26 28 121
II B 4 ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~0 3 7437
I Orient recreati on facilities
tovard Skcagit County residents,
-CT tnan tchgarde touriati.
II~~~~~~~~~~8 as 22 22 32 168s ISO 593
II ~~~~~~~ ~~~50 66 9 28 12 132 124 �19
- L ~~~~~~~~~~~29 8to 4 3 26 26 110.
U ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~23 42 A 5 12 59
) Coordtnate city and county rec-
rest lou plan'n'to'avoid dupllca-.
tion.
I~~~~~~~~~~to as 8 22 14 22 139 154 534
- it~~~~~~~~~~~4 60 14 30 13 128 129 417
24 20 A s o 5 43 196
___ U '~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~17 6 3 1. 5 is 33
:4) Develop joint fase agraesuauts
;'e;Ueeft Skagit-County School
Districts and Skagit County fol
evening and/or weekend indoors.
facility use, 34 22 24 29 171, 178 603
11* 56 .6i~~-~ ~27 - 12 127- -~ 120
- ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~20 a 6 3 5 24 It 17
if 11 2 '*0" ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 3 63 23
f5) Develop a centrally located
1. Cultural. Arts Center
2. Athletic and CommUnity Cnti.
3. SuIMeIng Pool
A. A combination of the X'bove.
ii ~~~~~~~~~~69 112 is 19 23 209 206 653
Al 52 Is 31 in 94 12P 7
L ~~~~~~~~~~43 872 A 4 22 ~ 16 101
~~~~1. ~~~~~~19 .2 3.3 7 I31 3 2

Burlingon

Anacorte urlngton -Concret Conway Co nne jt , Vernon Sedro Woolley (Total

(Question 110 continued)

(4) Acquire and conserve lUnd for
fature development and use,
including prime scenic arena
along the SkaRit River, s9lt-
water beaches, or in the "ount-
ains.
1'34 96 22 17 2a 197 628
49 50 13 26 12 114 123 38t
23 17 5 1 1 28 27 108
to 4 3 4 5 7 5 38
(7) Develop outdoor facilities such
as day and overnight camping
Rates, fishing, picnic areas,
beat launches. etc. 19 22 158 164
do 22 22 5
61 66 18 27 14 131 123
31 22 1~~~~ . 3 9 31 41 123
L 31 22 10 3 14
8 3 0 2 5 10 3

(a) Develop a Oyat=o of open t-ailtt
and pathways for hoTas riders,
bicyclists, joggers, hikers. 93 62 22 19 23 176 186 601
54 58 16 25 18 122 114 407
22 20 3 8 3 27 32 115
-i 2 0 3 7 16 2 Al

* other

This question simply aske the individual to establish a priority rating in their own opinion of wihat should be the goal
'of. the County Parke and Recreation Department in future planning. Those items responded to by priority or uajority of
"high" responses are as follows:

-- -----

es2tfon 110 continued

Nsr~y :? "1111irtb" 113pon5J f 'J 3teal-omaa 'rFequancy
Develop a centrally locate~d Zotaty facility
to include%
1. Cultural Arts Center 653 49
2. Athletic and Community Center, and
3. A Swimming Pool

Acquire and conserve land.for future develop-
ment and use, including prime scenic areas 628 47
along the Skagit River saltwater beaches or
in tile mountains

Develop joint use agreements between Skagit
County School Districts and Skagit County 603 45
for evening'andlor weekend facility use.

Develop a system of open trails and pathways6
for horse riders, bicyclist., joggers, and
hikers.

Orient recreation facilities toward Skcagit 553 45
Cournty residents rather than towards tourists.

Coordination of City and County recreation 534 40
plans to avoid duplication.

'lop %utdaor facilities such as day and
UVt:hM1jhL = =. fishing, picnic vzeaa, S355 40
l)oat launches, etc.

Develop a year round recreation activitlt. 33
program for the residents of Skgit Cou~zy.

APPENDIX V

Partial Preliminary Acquisition Grant Application

S'.:Er or OFi :1:;G O1;
DA~cr~T~~ Or ECOLOGY

Application for Preliminary Acquisition Granx
for an Estuarine Sanctuary in Washington State
under the Provisions of Section 315 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 - As
&ended

Dixie Lee Ray, Governor Vilhur C. Hallauer
State of Washington Director, Dopartnent of fEcolaoy

January 19,. 1979

TA.LE OF CONTEN;TS
Pae~
lc e

Introduction .. .. .. ........... 3

Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose.............. ............................................ &

Section I -Site Selection .................. 5

Section iI - Description of Proposed Sanctuary . . . . . . . . 8

(Location, Boundaries, Size). . . . . . . . . . .

Classification of Proposed Sanctuary . . . . .

Description of Characteristics & Resources
of Proposed Sanctuary . .... t � . . .

Section III - Authority to Acquire Property. . . . . . . . . . 12

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

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

Section VI - State Solicitation of Views of Interested
Parties .................... . 15

Section VII - Work Program.................. 17

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

Explanatory Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1. Budget Explanation ..............19
2. Personnel Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. Audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. Personnel Authorized to RequestGnt Anendments
or Revisions ...................1. 1

Appendix

1. Synopsis of Skagit County tVaster Program . . . . . .
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Indirect
Cost Rate Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . ...
3. Washington State Office of Fiscal Mana-iment A-95
Review Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Composite Aerial Photograph of Padilla Bay and
Surrounding Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

SECTION 1 - SITE CrLCT]OX

The entire coastline of the State of Washington falls within the Columbian
biogeographic province. This province, as defined by the Office of
Coastal Zone hanaremet:, consists of "North Pacific coast from Cape
Hendocino to Canad:; mountaincu: rh-reland; rocks 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 P.iver estuaries;

2. Cloacal Bay es:uarine 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 Lu the system;n;

8. Apparent feasibility of achieviilg 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 Publc
individuals, etc. with Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary
related interests. ~~~~~Meetings-Regarding Padilla
related interests.Ba
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. & list. 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 tleilman
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

6-8-79 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. Munce, AICP, Executive Director
7-18-79 Sparks & Smith, Architects Rick Sparks, Owner
7-19-79 Samish Campfire Council Nancy Davis, Executive Director
7-23-79 U.S. Soil Conservation Service Frank Easter, Director
1-25-79 U.S. General Accounting Office Janet L. George, Management Analyst
7-30-79 Skagit Co. Cooperative Extension Jack T. Crawford, Area Extension Agent
7-30-79 Anacortes School District Dr. D.C. "Duane" Lowell, Superintendent
7-30-79 Anacortes Chamber of Conmmerce Maria Petrish, Manager
7-31-79 City of Anacortes 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
8-9-79 Whatcom Co. Cooperative Extension Fred Wepprecht, Community Resource Dev. Agent
8-9-79 Burlington School District Nathaniel Moore, Superintendent

I ^ nF

APPENDIX VII

Padilla Bay Estuarine Sanctuary

Steering and Technical Committee Members

PADILLA BAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY
STEERING COMMITTEE

Joseph R. Blum, Area Manager Bill Malseed, Manager
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Shell Oil Company - Anacortes Refiner3
2625 Parkmont 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 Anacortes, 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 Hall - 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
-tate Department of Game Skagit County Commissioners - Citizen

Bill Bush Fayette Krause
7150 Cleanwater Lane 4332 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 428-1267
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 378-2384
424-3854 U. of W./Friday Harbor Laboratory
Washington Sportsmen Council
Russ Orell
William A. Johnson Skagit Laboratory
Public Lands Building 302 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 Skagit 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 5th 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 ehrehbergi
Biddul-Dhia alternans
Cheatoceros affinis
Cheatoceros decipiens
Coscinodiscus centralis
Coscinodiscus concinus
Coscinodiscus granii
Ditylum brightwvelli
Isthmis nervosa
Melosira moniliformes
Navicula distans
Pleurosigma norna.anii
Pleurosigma sp.
Rhizosolenia spp.
'I'nalassionema rMtzschiciU5
Division Chlorophyta - Green Algae Cladophora sp.
Enteromorrha linza
Enteromorpha sp.
Monostroma fuscum
Monostroma zostericola
Fterochondria woodii
Bhizoclonium sp.
Sea lettuce tUlva lactuca
urospora sp.
Division Phaeophyta - Brown Algae Costaria coetata
Ectocarnus sp.
Rockweed Fucus distichus
Fucus Sp.
Laminaria saccharine
Laiminaria sn.
Bladder kelp Nereocystis leutkeana
Petalonia sp.
Polyneura latissima
Sargassum. muticum
Scyto~iphon sp.

Division Rhodophyta - Red Algae Botryoglossum farlowialuir
Ceramium californicum
Ceramium sp.
Gonimophyllum skottsberg:
Gracilarionsis sjoestedt!
Odonthalis washinata'ens!
Polysiphonia sp.
Laver Porphyra spp.
Tiffaniella snyderae

Compiled from Sylvester and Clogston 1958, U.S. Armj Corps of Engineers 1976,
Smith and Benedict 1977, and observations of Washington Department of Came 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 borsetail Eouisetum telmateia

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

Division Pinophyta
Family Cupressaceae Juniper Juniverus sconulorum
Western red cedar Thua plicata

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

Division Magnoliophyta
Family Salicaceae Black cottonwood Ponulus trichocarDa
Willow Salix SDD.
Family Betulaceae Red alder Alnus rubra
Family Fagaceae Garry oak Quercus parrnana
Family Urticaceae Stining nettle Urtica dioica
Family Polygonaceae Sheep sorrel Ru.mex acetosella
Family Chenopodiaceae Fat-Hen ArtriDlex Datula
Pickleweed Salicornia virginica
Family Caryophyllaceae Field chickweed Cerastium arvense
Sandspurry SDerguaaria sp.
Family Berberidaceae Oregon grape Berberis nervosa
Family BrassicaceaeCCruciferae)Field mustard Brassica ca_-oestris
Peppergrass LeDidium virginicun var.
menziesii
Family Grossulariaceae Currant Ribes sp.
Foam flower Tiarella trifoliata
Family Rosaceae Rawthorn Crataegus mono~yna
Avens Geum/macroChy2Jum
Ocean-spray Rolodiscus discolor
Osoberry Osmaronia cerasiformis
Western crabapple Pyrus fusca
Nootka rose' Rosa nutkana
Clustered wild rose R osa pisocarna

Common Name Scientific Name

Family Rosaceae Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor
Evergreen blackberry - Rubus laciniatus
Thimbleberry Bubus parviflorus
Salmonberry Tuubus spectabilis
Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus
Hard-hack Siraea. douglasii
Family Fabaceae (Leguminosae) Beach pea Latbyrs 2oiuus
Scot's broom Cytisus scoparius
Clover Trifoliurn spp.
Giant vetch Vicia gigantea
Vetch Vicia sp.
Family Ce].astraceae Mountain-box pachistima &Yrsinites
Family Aceraceae Vine maple Acer circinatum
Big-leaf maple Acer macrophyllum
Family Rhamnaceae Cascara Rhazunus vurshiana
Family Onagraceae Fireweed Enilobiu angustifolium
Willow-herb EDilobium sp.
Family Hippuridaceae Mare's-tail Hipvuris vulzaris
Family Araliaceae Ivy hedera helix
Family Apiaiceae (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 rhododendron Rhododendron macronhyllux
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 snectabilis
Family Scrophularia ceae Foxglove Digitalis purzurea
Parentucellia Parentucellia viscosa
Family Plantaginaceae Ribwort Plantaqo lanceolota
Seaside plantain Tt mta anaritima
Family Rubiaceae Bedstraw Galium sp.
Family Caprifoliaceae Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa var
arborescens
Snowberry Symphoricarnos albus
Family Asteraceae (Compositae) Common yarrow Achillea millegolium
False-dandelion Agoseris sp.
Silver bursage Ambrosia chemissonis var.
bininnatisecta
Pearly-everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea
Coastal mugwort Artemisia suksdorfii
Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Common Name Scientific Name

Family Asteraceac '(Compositaet) Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare
Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucgnthemur
Eriophyllum Eriophvllum lanatum
Gumveed Grindelia integrifolia
Smooth cat's-ear Eypochaeris glabra
Hairy cat's-ear Hypocbaeris radicata
Old-man-in-the-spring Senecio vulgaris
Goldenrod Solidago sp.
Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare
Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale
Family Juncaginaceae Seaside arrov-grass Triglochin maritimum
Family Potamogetonaceae Ribbon-lead pondveed Potamogeton e'ibvdru
Family Ruppiaceae Wideon-grass Rupoia maritima
Family Zosteraceae Eelgrass ' Zostera marina
Dwarf eelgrass Zostera noltii
Family Juncaceae Baltic rush Juncus balticus
Soft rush Juncus effusus
Mud rush Juncus gerardii
Smallflovered woodrush Luzula oarviflora
Family Cyperaceac Lyngby's sedge Carex IYngbv-ei
Bighead sedge Carex macrocevhala
Slough sedge Carex obnupta
Hardstem bulrush Scirnus acutus
;Family Poaceae (Graminae) Quack grass Agropyron remens
Bentgrass Agrostis alba
Cheat grass Bromus tectorum
Orchard-grdss Dactyli glomerata
Tufted hairgrass Deschamosia cestitosa
Saltgrass Distichlis S-Ocata
American dunegrass Elymus mollis
Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensif
Red fescue Festuca rubra
Velvet-grass Holcus mollis
Reed caxarygrass Phaldris-arundinacea
Kentucky 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 Nydrozoa
Order Nydroida Sea Fir Abietinaria 59.
Aglao-henia sp.
Orange-striped Jellyfish Gonionemus vertens
Obelia sp.
Sertularella sp.
Class Scyphozoa
Order Stauromedusae Stalked Jellyfish Halicvstus auricula
Class Anthozoa
Subclass Zoantharia Antho~oleura elecantissima
Order Actiniaria Edvardsia siDunculoides
Brooding sea anemone Efiactis, nrolifera
Tealis ap.

Phylum Ctenophora
Class Tentaculata Sea gooseberry Pleurobrachia bachei

Phylum Platyhelminthes Flatworm Unidentified species

Phylum Nemertea Ribbon worm Unidentified species
Class Anopla
Order Eeteronemertea Cerebratulus californiensir
Class Enopla
Order Boplonemertea Amnhivorus bimacu-latus
Emolectonema gracile
Restless worm Paranenertes peregrina

Phylum Nematoda Unidentified species

Phylum Mollusca
Class Apphineura
Subclass Polyphac~ophora Mossy chiton Mopalia muscosa
Class Gastropoda
Subclass Prosobranchia Assiminea californica
Turret snail Batillaria attra-entaria
Bittium sp.'
Blue top shell Calliostoma ligatum
Cecina manchurica
Finger limpet Collisella digitalis
Shield limpet Collisella -elta
Booked slipper shell Crepidula adunca
Slipper shell Crevidula sp.

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

Common Name Scientific Name

Keyhole limpet Diodora as"era
Chink shell Lacuna variegata
Sitka perivinkle Littorina sitkana
Checkered perivinkle Littorina scutulata
Margarite snail Margarites pupillus
Basket shell Nassarius fraterculus
-Large variegated limpet Notoacmea Dersona
Plate limpet Notoacmea scutum
Japanese oyster drill Ocenebra djaonica
Wrinkled thais Thais lamellosa
Limpet Unidentified sp.
Subclass Opisthobranchia
Order Anaspidea PhyllaDlysia taylori
Order Cephalaspidea Aglaja diomedea
Bubble shell Haminoea sp.
Cylichna sp.
Retusa harDa
Order Nudibranchia
Suborder Eolidacea Opalescent nudibranch Hermissenda crassicornis
Suborder Doridacea Unidentified sp
Subclass Pulmonata Phytia (Ovatella) myosotiE
Class Bivalvia Sculptured nut clam Acila castrensis
Axinonsida serricata
Heart cockle Clinocardium nuttallii
Clinocardium sp..
Japanese oyster Crassostrea gigas
Crenella sp.
Cryptommva californica
Lucinoma sp.
Lyonsia californica
Dipper clam Lyonsia striata
Macoma balthica
Polluted macoma Macoma incuinata
Bent-nosed clam Macoma nasuta
Macoma obliaua
Sand clam Macoma secta'
Eastern sort-shell clam Mya arenaria
Blunt soft-shell clam Mya truncata
Mysella tumida
Blue mussel Mybtilus edulis
Nucula tenuis
Nuculana hanata
Nucujana minuta
Rock oyster Pododesmus macroschisma

Common Name Scientific Name

Native littleneck clam Protothaca staminea
Protothaca sp.
Psephidia lordi
Washington clam Saxxidomus giganteus
Jackknife clam Solen sicarius
Japanese littleneck clam Ta~es Janonica
White tellen Tellina modesta
Tellina sp.
Transennella tantilla
Horse clam Tresus canax
Yoldia thraciaerormis

Phylum Annelida
Class Polychaeta
Family Ampharetidae Am~hareta arctica
Family Aphroditidae Unidentified sp.
Family Arenicolidae Lugworm Abarenicola pacifica
Bough-skinned lugworm Abarenicola clavaredii
Family Capitellidae Ca-Ditella ca-itata
Capitella sp.
Notomastus tenuis
Notomastus sp.
Mediomastus sp.
Family Cirratulidae Chaetozone setosa
Chhaetozone sp.
Unidentified so.
Family Dorvilleidae Dorvillea annulata
Protodorvillea gracilis
Family Glyceridae Glycera americana
Glyiera sp.
Iridescent worm Jemitodus borealis
Family Goniadidae Glycinde picta
Family Resionidae Gyptis brevipalpa
Ophiodromus Du~ettensis
Family Lumbrineridae Lumbrineris latreilli
Famil Maldmnidae Bamboo worm Axiothella rubrocincta:
Maldane glebiflex
Euclymene zonalis
Family Nephtyidae Nephtys caeca
Nephtys ciliata
Family Nereidae Clam worm Nereis brandti
Platynereis bicanaiiculdt,
Family Onuphidae Onuphis eleEans
Unidentified sp.

Common 'Name Scientific Name

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

Phylum Priapulida Priavulus caudatus

Phylum Sipuncula Golfingia pugettensis
Siphonosc-ma ingens
Unidentified sp.

Phylum Arthropoda
Class Crustacea
Subclass Branchioyoda
Order Cladocera Podon sp.
Subclass Ostracoda Unidentified sp.
Subclass Copepoda Microsetella norvegica
Order CaJanoida Acartia clausi
Calanus finmarchicus
Microcalanus pusillus
Pseudocalanus minutes
Order Hiarpacticoida Harpacticus spp.
Order C~fclopoida Corycaeus affinis
Order Monstrilloida Unidentified sp.
Subclass Cirripedia
Order Thoracica Horse barnacle Balanus cariosus
Balanus crenatus
Acorn barnacle Balanus glandula
Subclass Nalacostraca
Superorder Phyllocarida
Order Leptostraca Nebalia sp.
Superorder Peracarida
Order Cumacea Diastylis Sp.
Om~urostylis sp.
Order Tanaidacea Leptochelia savgnLvi
Leptochelia sp.
Pancolus californiensis
Unidentified sp.
Order Isopoda
Suborder Valvifera Eelgrass isopod Idotea aculeata
Idotea fevkesi
Idotea resecata
Idotea rufescens

Common Name Scientific Name

Olive green isopod Idotea. vosnesenskii'
Snyidotea angu.ata
Snyidotea bicuspida
Subbrder. Anthuridea Paranthura elegans
Suborder Flabellifera Oregon pill bug Gnorimosphaeroma oregonens
Order Amphipoda
Suborder Hyperiidea Unidentified sp.
Suborder Gammaridea Az-elisca pugettica
AmvDithoe lacertosa
Amvithoe valida
Anisopammarus confervicol.
Anisoxammarus pugettensis
Aoroides columbiae
Coroohium sp.
Ryale frequens
Ischrocerus anouines
Melita dentata
Beach hopper Orchestia transkiana
Orchomene sp.
Parallorchestes ochotensiz
ParaDhoxus sp.
Photis brevipes
Photis sp.
Pontogenia sp.
Protomedia sp.
Corophid Unidentified up.
Gammarid Unidentified sp.
Lysianassid Unidentified sp.
Phoxocephalid Unidentified spp.
Suborder Caprellidea. Skelton shrimp Cavrella leviuscula
MetacaDrella anomala
Metacaprella kennerlyi
Unidentified up.
Superorder
Order Decapoda
Suborder Natantia
Section Caridea
Family Crangonidae Gray shrimp Crangon nigricanda
Scierocrangon alata
Family Hippo2ytidae Unidentified sp.

.Common Name Scientific Name

Suborder Reptantia
Section Astacura
Superfamily Thallassinoidea Ghost shrimp Callianassa californiensis
Mud shrimp Upogebia pugettensis
Sectiorn Anomura
Superfamily Galatbeoidea Porcelain crab Petrolisthes eriomerus
Superfamily Paguroidea Hermit crab Pagurus granosimanus
Hairy hermit crab Pa- rushirsutiusculus
Pagurus kenperlyi
Section Bracbyura
Subsection Bracaygnatha
Infrasubsection Oxyrhyncha Decorator crab Oregonia gracilis
Spider crab Pugettis gracilis
Kelp crab Pugettia producta
Infrasubsection Brachyrhyncha
Dungeness crab Cancer magister
Red rock crab Cancer troductus
Purple shore crab Eemigra-psus nudus
Green shore crab Eemigransus oregonensis
Pinnixa occidentalis
Pinnixa schnitti
Burrow crab Pinnixa tubicola
Helmet crab Telmessus cheiragonus

Phylum Bryozoa Unidentified sp.

Phylum Brachiopoda Lamp shell Terebratalia transversa

Phylum Echinodermata
Class Ophiuroidea Amnhiodia urtica
Diamvhiodia Deriercta
Unidentified sp.
Class Asteroidea Blood star Henricia leviuscula
Six-rayed sea star Levtasterias hexactis
Pisaster ochraceus
Sunflower star Pycnooodia helianthoides
Class Echinoidea Green sea urchin Stronailocentrotus
droebachiensis
Class Holothuroidea Red sea cucumber Cucumaria miniata
White sea cucumber Eunentacta nuinguesemita
Leptos,-napta sp.

Phylum Chaetognatha Arrow worm Sagitta elegans

Common Name Scientific Nam~e

'by:lmm Chord ata
Subpbylum-Urochordata
Class Larvacea Aiko~pleura sp.
Class Ascidiacea Harry sea squirt Boltenia vilJlosa.
Broad base sea squirt Cnemcddocarva finmarkiensi.E
Warty sea squirt P-ur haustor

Common Name Scientific Niame

Fa..ily Tholidae Penpoint, gunnel A,22dicbtbys flavidus.
Crescent gunnel Pbolis laeta
Saaddleback gunnel Pholi s ornata
Family Ammodytidae Pacific sand lance Ammodytes bext.2terus
Order Scorpaeniformes
Fanily Scorpaenidae -Tellov rockfiab Sebastes fl avi dus
Sharpcbin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus
Family Hexagrammidae Lingcod Dobiodon el on..atus
Family Cottidae Padded sculpin Art'edlus fenestralis
Silverspo~tted sculpin BleDsas cirrbosus
Buffalo sculpin Enphrs bison
Soft. sculpin Gilbertidia sigalutes
Pacific staghorn sculpin Leptocottus armatus
Great sculpin Myoxocephalus
-Dolyacanthocepb alus
Sailfin sculpin Nauti chthvs oculofasci atus
Tadpole sculpin Psychrolutes paradoxus
Grunt sculpin Phax-mhocottus richardsoni
Ribbed sculpin Triglows Rin~eli
Family Agonidae Sturgeon poacher Agonus aciDenserinus
Smooth alligator fish Anovlagonus inermis
Tubenose poacher Pallasina barbata aix
Family Cyclopteridae Pacific spiny lumpsucker Eumicrotremus orbis
Spotted snailfish Liparis callyodon
Tidepool snailfish LI-Daris florae
Order Pleuronecti formes
Family Bothi dae Speckled sanddab Citharichthys stiernaeus
Family Pleuronectidae Arrovtooth flounder Atherestbes stomias
Rock sole Lepidovsetta bilineata
Slend'er sole Lyopsetta exilis
Dover sole Microstomus tacificus
English sole Parophrys vetulus
Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus
Sand sole Psettictbtys melanostictus

Common fiame Scientific Name

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

Class Osteichthyes
Order Clupeiformes
Family Clupeidae Pacific herring Clupea harengus pallasi

Family Engraulidaec Northern anchovy 2ngraulis morday. mordax
Order Salmoniformes Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Family Salmonidae Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch
Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscba
Coastal cutthroat trout Salmo clarki clarki
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma
Family Osmeridae Surf smelt Hypomesus pretiosus pretios
Longfin smelt Snirinchus thaleichthys
Order I-tyctophi iormes
Family ?rcrtophidae Northern lampfisb Stenobrachius leucovsarus
Order Gobiesociformes
Family Gobiesocidae northern clingfisb Gobiesox maeandricus
Order Gadiformes
Family Gadidae Pacific tomcod Microgadus proximus
Family Ophidiidae Red brotula, Brosmoohycis marginata
Family Zoarcidae Blackbelly eelpout Lycodoosis pacifica
Order Gasterosteiformes
Family Gasterosteidae Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus
Family Syngnathidae Bay pipefish Syngnathus griseolineatus
Order Perciformes Shiner perch Cynatogaster aggregate
Family Embiotocidae
Family Trichodontidae Pacific sandfish Trichodon trichodon
Family Stichaeidae Snake prickleback Lumpenus sagitta
Bluebarred prickleback Plectobranchus evides
Black prickl-back Xiphister atropurpureus

Compiled from Sylvester and Clogston 1958, DeLacey and Miller 1972, Miller et al. unp.
Olshed data.
2 omenclature after Hart 1973.

Common Nam Scientific Name

Family Pholidae Penpoint gunnel AROd~bhY flayidus.
Crescent gun~ne l hls at
Sadd~leback gunnel pblsornata
Family Ammodytidae Pacific sand lance Anoye hexapterus
Order Scorpaenifor-mes
Family Scorpaenidae -Yellow rockfisb Seba~stec flavidus
Sba~rpchin rockfisb Sebastes zacentrus
Family liexagrammidae Lingcod Ouhiodon eloncatus
Family Cottidae Padded scul.pin Artediu-s fenestralis
Silverspotted sculpin BleDsias cirrhosus
Buffalo sculpin Enohrvys bison
Soft scuilpin Gilbertidia. tigalutes,
Pacific staghorn sculpin Levtocottus a =-atus
Great scu.1pin M.yoxocepbalus
ipolyacanthocepbalus
Sailfin scuJlpin Nautichthys oculofasciat-us
.Tadpole sculpin Psychrolutes ;)aradoxus
Grunt sculpin Fharimhocottus ricbardsoni
Ribbed sculpin Triglops pingeli
Family Agonidae Sturgeon poacher Agonus acinenserinus
Smooth alligator fish Anoplagonus inerrmis
Tubenose poacher Pal~a~sina bsarbata aix
Family CycJlopteridae Pacific spiny lumpsucker Eum~icrotremus orbis
Spotted snailfish Liparis callodon
Tidepool snailfish Livaris flra
Order Pleu~ronectjiformes
Family Bothidae Speckled'sanddab Citharichthvs stip22aeus
Family Pleiuronectidae Arro-wtootb flounder Atberesthes stomias
Rock sol e - Le-pidotsetta, bilineata
Slender sole Lyopsetta exilis
Dover sole Microstomnus nacificus
English sole Paro-phrys vetulus
~Starry flounder Platichthys stellatus
Sand sole Psettichthys mnelanostictus

Common Name - .- Scientific Name

Common Loon Gavia immer
Yellov-billed Loon Gavia adamsii
Artic Loon Gavia arctica
Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata- -
Bed-necked Grebe Podiceos grisegena
Horned'Grebe - - - Podiceos au-itus
Eared Grebe Podiceps nixricollis
Western Grebe Aechmo-ohorus occidentalis
Pied-billed Grebe- - -*- Podilymbus podiceos
Double-crested Cormoriant Phalacrocorax auritus
Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus
Pelagic Cormorant Philacrocorax pelagicus
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Green Heron Butorides virescens
Great Egret Casmerodius albus
Black-crowrned Night Heron '4ycticorax nycticorax
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus
Whistling Suan Olor columbianus
Trumpeter Swan. Olor buccinator
Canada Goose Branta canadensis
Black Brant Branta bernicla
White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons
Snow Goose Chen caeruJescens
Mallard Anas olatyrhynchos
Gadvall Anas streoera
Pintail Anas acuta
Green-winged Teal Anas crecca
.Blue-Winged Teal) Anas-discors
Cinnamon Teal Anas Cyanoptera
European Wigeon Anas peneloP-
American Wigeon Anas_ americana
Northern Shoveler, Anas clypeata
Wood Duck Aix sponsa
Redhead Aytbya americana
Ring-necked Duck JAthya collaris
Canvasback Aythya valisineria
Greater Scaup Aythya marila
Lesser Scaup &thya.affinis
Common Goldeneye Buceobala clangula
Barrow's Goldeneye Buceohala islandica

Compiled from Jef.Lery 1976, Layers 1975; tavers, 1972-75, Anderson,
Fackler azid Franelii2 1977 'with revisions by Steven Sweeney, 1978.

Common Name Scientific Name

Bufflehead Bucephala albeol.-
Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus
White-winged Scoter Melanitta deglandi
Surf Scoter Melanitta Dersnicillata
Black Scoter Yelanitta nigra
Buddy Duck Oxyura Jamaicensis:
Hooded Merganser Lo'hodytes 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 Acciniter cooperii
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Swanson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni
Rough~-legged Hawk Buteo lagoous
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocenhalus
Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneus
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Gyrfalcon - Falco rusticolus
Prairie Falcon Falco mixicanus
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
Merlin Falco colunbarius
American Kestrel Falco sparverius
Blue Grouse Dendragaous obscurus
Buffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus
California Quail Lophortyx californicus
Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus coichicus
Sandhill Crane Grus. canadensis
Virginia Rail Rallis limicola
Sora, Porzana carolina
American Coot Fulica americana
Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani
Semipalmated Plover Charadrius seminalmatus
Kilideer 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 pbaeopus
Spotted Sandpipei Actitis macularia
Solitary Sandpipe Tringa solitaria
'Wandering Tattler heteroscelus incanus
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Common N9ame Scientific Name

Family Opbeliidae Armandia. brevis
Family Orbinidae Ha-loscolophos eloneatus
Nainereis sp.
Scoloplos armixer
Scolo-los -uOettensis
Family Owenildae Myriochele oculata
Owenia fulsiformis
Family Paraonidae Aricidea sp..
Family Pbyllodocidae Eteone longa
Eteone sp.
Eulalia. sansruinea
EuJalia sp.
Phyllodoce maculata
Phyllodoce sp.
Family Polynoidae Harmotboe imbricata
Earmothoe sp.
Le-Didonotus saua-matus
Unidentified sp.
Family Sabellidae Chone infundibuliformis
Fabricia sabella oregonice
Potamilla neglecta
Plume worm Pseudopotamilla reniformis
Unidentified sp.
Family Scalibregmidae Scalibregma inflatum
Family Serpulidae Calcareous tube worm Ser-ula vermicuJaris
Unidentified sp.
Family Sigalionidae Pholoe minuta
Unidentified sp.
Family Spionidae Boccardia sp.
Polydora. californica,
Polydor. ligni
Polydora sp.
Prionos-io cirrifera
Prionosojo pinnata
Prionospio steenstrupi
Pseudopolydora kempi f
ScoleleDsis foliosa
Scoleleosis sp.
Spio filicornis
Spiophanes bombyx
Spiophanes cirrata
Unidentified sp.
Family Sternaspidae Sea grub Sternasois foss6r
Family Syllidae Exogone sp.
Syllis sp.

Common NalO~rd~e_ � Scientific Name

Lesser Yellovlgs- ---* Tringa flaviges
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 Calldris alpina
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus giiseus
Long-billed Dowitcher -- -- - Limnodromus scolonaceus
Stilt Sandpiper Micro-oalama hMiantooiis
Semipalmated Sandpiper- - Calidris pusillus
Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
Sanderling Calidris alba
Wilson's Phalarope Steganopus tricolor
Northern.Phalarope Lonines ibbatus
Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius Darasiticus
Glaucous Gull Larus byperboreus
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 plpixcan
Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelDhia
Reerman's Gull Larus heermanni
Common Tern Sterng hirundo
Caspian Tern Hydroprogne casmia
Common Murre Uria aalge
Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus cblumba
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratum
Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramnhus antiauum
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 Ty�tea scandia
Py npW Owl Glaucidium gnoma

Common Name Scientific Name

Barred Owl Strix varia
Long-eared Owl Asio otus
Short-eared Owl Asia flammeus
Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acaadicus
Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor
Black Swift Cypseloides niger
Vaux's Swift' Chaetu-a vand. -
Rufous Hummingbird Selasnhorus rufus
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon
Common Flicker-=- - ----- - Colaptes auratus
Pileated Woodpecker DryocoDus DileatuS
Lewis' Woodpecker Asyndesmus levis
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker SvphYravicus varius
Hairy Woodpecker Dendroconos villosus
Downy'Woodpecker Dendrocovos pubescens
Eastern Kingbird TIyrannus kyrannus
Western Kingbird Tyrarnus verticalis
Willow Flycatcher Zmnidonax traillii
Eammond's Flycatcher Emrxidonax ha"mondii
Western Flycatcher Evidonax difficilis
Western Wood Pewee Contopus sordidulus
Olive-sided Flycatcher Nuttallornix borealis
Horned Lark Eremoiphila alnestris
Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina
Tree Swallow Iridoprocne bicolor
Bank Swallow Rimaria rizaria
Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidovteryx ruficollis
Barn Swallow Hirundo rusticat'
Cliff Swallow Petrochenlidon pyrrhonota
Purple Martin Progne subis
Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis
Steller's Jay Cyanacitta stelleri
Common Haven Corvus corax
Common Crow Corvus brachyrhynches
Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga coliubiana
Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus
Mountain Chickadee Parus eambeli
Chestnut-backed Chickadee Parus rufrescens
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus
Ped-brested Nuthatch Sitta canadensis
Brown Creeper Certhia familiaris
Dipper Cinclus mexicanus
House Wren Troglodytes aedon
Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes
Bevick's Wren Thryomanes bevickii
long-Billed Marsh Wren Telmatodytes palustris

Common Name Scientific Name

Mockingbird Mimus polyrglottos
American Robin Turdus mi gratorius
Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius
Hermit Thr-ush Hylocichia guttata_--
Swairison 's-Thrush Catharus ustultata
Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides
Townsend's Solitaire My~adestes townsendl.-__. -
Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta
Ceda~rWaxwing. Bombycilla cedrorum,
-Golden-crowned Kinglet Reuu satraDa_.__-
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regu~lus 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 Den-droica townsendi
Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petchia _
Yellow-rumped-Warbler Dendroica coronata
Black-thro~ated Gray 'Warbler Dendroica nigrescens
Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi
M4acGillivray' s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei
Common Yellow-throat Geothly-Dis t~rIchas
Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla
House Sparrow Passer domesticus
Westorn Meadowlark St4.,urnella neglecta
Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthoc e-halus Xantboc eoh alus
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoenicius
Northern Oriole Icteru~ galbula
Brewer's Blackbird Eunhagus cyanocemhalus
Brow~n-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater
Western Tanager Piranxa ludoviciana
Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus
Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena
Evening Grosbeak Hesperiphona vespertina
Purple Finch Carpodacus ?u~rpureus
louse Finch Carpodacus mexi canus
Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator
Gray-crowned Rosy Finch Leucosticte tevhrocotis
Pine Siskin Spinus sinus
American Goldfinch Spinus tristis
Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra

CO~M~n Name Scientific Name

Rufous-sided Towhee Pi~ilo erythrophtbalmus
Savannah Sparrow- .-.--Passercu2us sandw-icbensis
Dark-eye Junco Junco'byemalis
Tree Sparrow -- -S-Pizella ar~borea
Chipping Spa~riow. S~pizella Passerina
Brewer'Is Sparrow Spizella ~pallida
Earris' Sparrov-._.. - - Zonotrichia _queru]la
White~-crowned- Sparrow - -Zonotrichia leucoj~hrys
Golden-crQwn.e-d Sparrow.,.. Zonotrichia atricapoila.
'White-throated 1Sparrpw= -:- - Zonotrichia albicollis .
*FoX Sparrow.-.... Passerella iliaca
Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii.
Swamp Sparrow Melospi za georgi ana
Song Sparrow Melospaza melodia
Lapland Lonagspu~r Calcarius la-Donicus
Snow Bunting 'Plectro-obenax nivali s

-P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 i` A.
V -~~ ~ ~ -~~ - -~

Common Name Scientific Name

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola -
Oldsquav Clangula hyema.lis
Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus
Wbite-wihged Scoter Melanitta deglandi
Surf Scoter Melanitta Dersnicillata
Black Scoter Melanitta nigra
Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis
Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus
Common nerganser Mergus merganser
Red-breasted Merganser- Mergus serrator..
Turkey Vulture -- - Cathartes aura
Goshawk Accipiter gentilis
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus
Cooper's Hawk Acci-Diter coo-perii
Bed-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Swanson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni
Bough-legged Haw;k Buteo lagoous
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucoceDhalus
Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneus
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Gyrfalcon - Falco rusticolus
Prairie Falcon Falco mixicanus
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
Merlin Falco columbarius.
American Kestrel Falco sparverius
Blue Grouse Dendragapus obscurus
Buffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus
California Quail Lophortyx californicus
Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus coichicus
Sandhill Crane Grus. canadensis
Virginia Pail Rallis limicola
Sora, Porzana carolina
American Coot Fulica americana
Black Oystercatcher Haemato-Dus bachmani
Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semiDalmatus
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica
Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola
Surfbird - Aphriza virgata
Buddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres
Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala
Common Snipe Capella gallinago
Long-billed Curlew Numenius axericanus
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia
Solitary Sandpipe Tringa solitaria
Wandering Tattler heteroscelus incanus
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Cormon Name' -Sientiific Name

Common Loon Gavi a immer
Yellow-billed Loon Gavia ada~msii
Artic Loon Gavia arctica.
Red-throated Loan Gavia stellata- -
Red-necked Grebe Podiceps Srisegena
Horned Grebe - -Podiceps auritus
Eared Grebe. ?odicep nigricollis
'Western Grebe Aecbmonhorus occidentalis
Pied-billed Grebe- --- Podilymbus -DodicevDs
Double-crested. Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus
Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocora~x peniciljlatus.
Pel agic Cormorant Pha~lacrocorax pelagicus
Great Blue Heron Ardea he-rodias
Green Heron Butorides -virescens
Great Egret Casmnerodius albus
Black-crourned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax
American Bittern Botau'rus lentiginosus
WhistlingSwan Olor columbianus
Trumpeter Swa-n. Olor buccinator
Canada Goose Branta canadensis
Black Brant Bran~ta b~erni~cla
White-fronted Goose Anser-albifrons
Snow Goose Chet caeruJaescens
Malla~rd Anas 'olatyrhynchos
Gadwall Anas stre-Dera
pintail Anas acuta
Green-winged Teal Anas 'crecca
.Blue-Winged Teal Anas-discors
Cinnamon Teal Anas dyanoptera
Eurolpean Wigeon Anas penelope
American Wigeon Anas' americana
Northern Shoveler` Arias clyneata
Wood Duck Aix sponsa
Redhead Aythya wiericana
Ring-necked Duck Ayhy collaris
Canvasback Aytbya valisineria
Greater Sca~up Aythya marila
Lesser Scaup Aythya .aIfinis
Common Goldeneye Buce-Dhala clangula
Barrow's Goldeneye Bucenhala islandica

Com -iled from Jefr..ery 1976, Lavers 1975; tavers, 19T2-75, *Anderson,

Fackler arid Frankliji 1977 'with revisions by Steven Sweeney, 1978.

Common Name Scientific Name

Family Tholidae Penpoint gunnel Apodicbthys flavidus.
Crescent gunnel Pholis laeta
Saddleback gunnel Pholis ornata
Family -Ammodytidae Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexapterus
Order Scorpaeniformes
Family Scorpaenidae Yellow rockfisb Sebastec flavidus
Sharpchin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus
Family hexagrammidae Lingccd Oohiodon elonratus
Family Cottidae Padded sculpin Artedius fenestralis
Silverspotted sculpin Bensias cirrhosus
Buffalo sculpin Enophrys bison
Soft sculpin Gilbertidia sigalutes
Pacific staghorn sculpin Leptocottus arnatus
Great sculpin Myoxocephalus '
polyacanthocephalus
Sailfin sculpi'n Nauticbthys ocuj.ofasciatus
Tadpole sculpin Psychrolutes paradoxus
Grunt sculpin Phamrmhocottus richardsoni
Ribbed sculpin Triglops ;ingeli
Family Agonidae Sturgeon poacher Aronus acinenserinus
Smooth alligator fish Anoplagonus inermis
Tubenose poacher Pallasina barbata aix
Family Cyclopteridae Pacific spiny lumpsucker Eumicrotremus orbis
Spotted snailfish Liparis callpodon
Tidepool snailfish M-Daris florae
Order Pleuronectiformes
Family Bothidaes Speckled sanddab Citharichthvs stig-naeus
Family Pleuronectidae Arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias
Rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata
Slender sole Lyopsetta exilis
Dover sole Microstomus pacificus
Englaish sole Parophrys vetulus
starry flounder Platichthys stellatus
Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus

Common'Name Scientific Name

Class Cbondrichthyes
Subclass Elasmobranchii
Order Squali formes
Family Squalidae Spiny dogfish Sgualus 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 Oncorhyncbis nerka
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshaytscha
Coastal cutthroat trout Salmo clarki clarki
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma
Family Osmeridae Surf smelt Hypomesus pretiosus pretios
Longfin smelt S-oirinchus thaleichthys
Order I.Vctophiformes
Family I-Tyctophidae Borthern lampfish Stenobrachius leucopsarus
Order Gobiesociformes
Family Gobiesocidae Northern clingfish Gobiesox maeandricus
Order Gadiformes
Family Gadidae Pacific tomcod Microgadus proximus
Family Ophiduidae Red brotula Brosmophycis marginata
Family Zoarcidae Blackbelly eelpout Lycodopsis pacifica
Order Gasterosteiformes
Family Gasterosteidae Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus acuaeatus
Family Syngnathidae Bay pipefish Syngnathus griseolineatus
Order Ferciformes Shiner perch Cymatogaster aggregata
Family Embiotocidae
Family Trichodontidae Pacific sandfish Trichodon trichodon
Family Stichaeidae Snake prickleback Lumvenus sagitta
Bluebarred prickleback Plectobranchus evides
Black pricklbback Xiphister atropurpureus

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

Common Name Scientific Name

Family Pholidsae Penpoint, gunnel Apodichtbys flavjdus.
Crescent gunnel Pholis laeta
Saddleback gunnel Pholi s ornata
Family Ammodytidae Pacific sand lance Ammodytes bexapterus
Order Scorpaenliformes
Family Scorpaenidae -Tellov' rockfisb Sebasten flavidus
Sha~rpchin rockfisb Sebastes zacentrus
Family Nexagrammidee lingcod Onhlodon eloncatus
Family Cottidae Padded sculpin Artedius- fe-nestralis
Silverspotted sculpin Blewsias cirrhosus
Buffalo sculpin Enphy bison
Soft sculpin Gilbertidia sigalutes
Pacific sta~gbern sculpin Lentocottus armatus
Great sculpin Myoxocepbhalus
-Dolyacantboc eph alus
Sailfin sculpin Nauti AchtbYs ocuJlofasci atus
Tadpole sculpin Psychrolutes paradoxus
Grunt sculpin Phamrohocottus richardsoni
Ribbed sculpin Triglons pingeli
Family Agonidae Sturgeon poachers Aponus acinenserinus
Smooth alligator fish Anoplagonus inermis
Tubenose poacher Pallasina barbata aix
Family Cyclopteridae Pacific spiny lumpsucker Eumicrotremus orbis
Spotted snailfish Liparis calydon
Tidepool snailfisb LI-oaris florae
Order Fleuronecti formes
Family Bothidae Speckled sanddab Citharichthvs stippaeus
Family Pleuzronectidae Arrowtootb flounder Atheresthes stomias
Rock sole Le-pidopsetta bilineata
Slender sole Lyopsetta exilis
Dover sole Microstomus nDacificus
Eng~lish sole Parophrys vetulus
starry flounder Platichthys stellatus
Sand sole Psettichthys melanostictus

Common Name Scientific Name

Phylum Chord ata
Subphylum Urochordata
Class Larvacea OikopJleura sp.
Class Ascidiacea Hairy sea squirt Boltenia villosa
Broad base sea squirt CnemidocarDa finmarkiensis
Warty sea squirt P-ur haustor

-v ,u

.Comuhon 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 Pasurus hirsutiusculus
Paaurus kennerlyi
Section Brachyura
Subsection Brachygnatha
Infrasubsection Oxyrhyncha Decorator crab Orezonia gracilis
Spider crab Pugettis gracilis
Kelp crab Pugettia producta
Infrasubsection Brachyrhyncha
Dungeness crab Cancer magister
Eed rock crab Cancer mroductus
Purple shore crab Hemigrapsus nudus
Green shore crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis
Pinnixa occidentalis
Pinnixa schzitti
Burrow crab Pinnixa tubicola
Helmet crab Telmessus cheiragonus

Phylum Bryozoa Unidentified s"O.

Phylum Brachiopoda Lamp shell Terebratalia transversa

Phylum Echinodermata
Class Ophiuroidea Amohiodia urtica
DiamDhiodia nerierc-a
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 Stron~rlocentrotus
droebachiensis
Class Holothuroidea Red sea cucumber Cucumaria miniata
White sea cucumber Euventacta ouinguesemita
Leptosynapta sp.

Phylum Cbaetognatha Arrow worm Sagitta elegans

common Name Scientific Name

Olive green isopod Idotea. vosnesenskii'
Snyidote. anxulata
Snyidotea bicus~ida
Suborder. Antburidea Paranthura elegans
Suborder Flabellifera Oregon pill bug Gnorimosphaeroma oregonens
Order Amphipoda
Suborder Ifyperiidea Unidentified sp.
Suborder Gammaridea Ampelisca pugettica
Amnithob lacertosa.
Amvithoe valida
Anisoxanmarus conrervi colt
Anisogammarus jumettensis
Aoroides columbiae
Corovhium sp.
Hyale frecuens
Ischrocerus ancui~es
Melita dentata
Beachbhopper Orchestia transkiana
Orchomene sp.
Parallorchestes ochotensic
Para~boxus sp.
Photis brevives
Photis sp.
Pontogenia sp.
Protomedia sp.
Corophid Unidentified sp.
Gammarid Unidentified sp.
Lysianassid' Unidentified sp.
Phoxocephalid Unidentified spp.
Suborder Caprellidea Skelton shrimp Ca.prella leviusculs
Metacarrella anomala
Metacaprella kennerlyi
Unidentified sp.
Superorder
Order Decapoda
Suborder Natantia
Section Caridea
Family Crangonidae Gray shrimp Crangon nigricanda
Scierocrangon alata
Family Hippolytidae Unidentified sp.

Common Name Scientific Name

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

Phylum Priapulida Priapulus caudatus

Phylum Sipuncula Golfingia pugettensis
Siphonosc-ma ingens
Unidentified sp.

Phylum Arthropoda
Class Crustacea
Subclass Branchionoda
Order Cladocera Podon sp.-
Subclass Ostracoda Unidentified sm.
Subclass Copepoda Microsetella norvegica
Order Calanoida Acartia clausi
Calanus finmarchicus
Microcalanus ousillus
Pseudocalanus minuthLs
Order Harpacticoida Harpacticus spp.
Order Cyclopoida Coryaeus 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 sa.
Oxorurostylis sp.
Order Tanaidacea Leptochelia savignvi
Leptochelia sp.
Pancolus californiensis
Unidentified sp.
Order Isopoda
Suborder Valvifera Eelgrass isopod Idotea aculeata
Idotea fewkesi
Idotea resecata
Id6tea rufescens

Common Name Scientific Name

Order Marsupiala
Family Didelphidae Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana

Order Insectivora
Family Soricidae Vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans

Order Lagomorpha
Family Leporidae Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Order Rodentia
Family Sciuridae Douglas' squirrel Tamiasciurus dougtasii
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 Meohitis meohitis
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 a affecting fair market value of
90.58.010 Short title. property.
90.58.020 Legislative flmding:-Stats policy enunciated-. 90.58.300 Department as regulating state agency---Special
Use preference. authority.
90.51.030 Definitions and concepts. 90.58.310 Designation of shorelines of state-wide signifieance
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 government to submit letters of intent-ent 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..
90.58.090 Approval of master program or segments thereof, not obviated.
when-Departmenta alternatives when shorelines 90.3�.900 Liberal construction 1971 s. e 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 exs.. c 26------
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 of program within two or more adjacent 4321A.420.
local government jurisdictions--Development of
program in segmenu, when.
90.58.120 Adoption of rules programs. etc., subject to RCW
34.04.025-Publichearingsp 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
pory. Sub l development permis -StHo ctur C anal 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 againt surface drilling for oil or pa, dition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional
90.58.170 Shorelines hearings board-Estblished--Mem- uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating in-
ben--Chairman -Quorum for decision- creased coordination in the management and develop-
Expenses of members. ment of the shorelines of the state. The legislature
90.58.175 Rules and regulations. further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and
90.58.180 Appeals from granting. denying or rescinding per-
mnits, procedui-Board to act, when-LHIa the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership;
mis, procedure --Board to act, when--.local
government appeals to board-Grounds for deo that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or
daring master program invalid-Appeals to publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best
court, procedure. public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is
90.58.200 Rules and regulations.
90.f2.200 Rules and regulations. necessary in order to protect the public interest associ-
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 interest. There is, therefor, a
90.58.230 Violators liable for damages resulting from viola-
dtvlon-At ILl torney's �fiee andc osts. dclear and urgent demand for a planned, rational. and
tion-Attorney's fees and costs.
90.58.240 Additional authority granted department and local concerted effort. jointly performed by federal, state. and
govenments. local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an
90.58.250 Department to cooperate with local governments uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the stalc's
Grants for development of master programs. shorelines.
90.8J.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 Nonapplication to certain structures, docks, develop, ment of the shorelines of the state by planning for and
menu. etc.. placed in navigable waters-Nonap. fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy
90.58180 Application to certain rights of action. authority, is designed to insure the development of these shorelines
90.58.0 Application to all state agencies, counties, public and
municipal corporations. in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction

(1979 Laws) jCL 9g035 RCW-p II

90.58.020 Shoreline Management act of 1971

of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will pro- RCW 90.58.030 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 (I) 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 i:gislature declures that the interest of all of the (c) 'Local government' means any county. incorpo-
people shall be paramount in the management of shore- rated city, or town which contains within its boundaries
lines of state-wide significance. 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
, rms for shorelines of state-wide significance, shall municipal corporation, or agency of the state or local
give preference to uses in the following order of prefer- governmental unit however designated;
ence which: (e) 'Hearing board' means the shoreline hearings
( I) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over board established 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 lakes, streams,
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of and tidal water is that mark that will be found by ex-
the Shorclines; amining 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 Ihc shorcsil.; and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark
(t) Previde for any other element as defined in upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abut-
),C'W 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. ting upland, 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
U it. 1) enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of thereafter: Provided. That in any area where the ordi-
nuturall s.,;.,.clines of the state shall be preserved to the nary high 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 are 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
:idences, 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 flow 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 (c) 'Shorelines of state-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. [1971 ex.s. c 286 � 2.] pointment on the south to Cape Flattery on the north,
R s'Uet's neow In subsection (7), a literal translation of the ion including harbors, bays, estuaries, and inlets;
law'; reference '.. section II of this 1971 act... would red 'RCW (ii) Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent salt wa-
90.5.1 10. The above reference to 'RCW 90.58.100' which codifies ters and the Strait of Juan de Fuca between the ordinary
section 10 of this act is believed proper in that (1) section 10 flits the high water mark and the line of extreme low tide as
elements includable within the master programs while section 11 nei- follows
ther defines nor mentions such elements. and (2) in the course of pa follows:
sage of the bill. section 7 was deleted causing old section II to be (A) Nisqually Delta-from DeWolf Bight to
renumbered section 10. but the above reference was not amended in Tatsolo Point,
consonance with the renumbering. (B) Birch Bay- from Point Whitehorn to Birch
Point,
(C) Hood Canal-from Tala Point to Foulweather
Bluff,

,CL 90o.s RCW-p 21 (1979 Laws)

Shoreline Mauagement act of 1971 90.58.030

(D) Skagit Bay and adjacent area -from Brown together with maps, diagrams, charts or other descrip-
Point to Yokeko Point, and tive material and text, a statement of desired goals and
(E) Padilla Bay-from March Point to William standards developed in accordance with the policies
Point; enunciated in RCW 90.58.020;
(iii) Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait of (c) 'State master program' is the cumulative total of
Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt waters north to the Ca- all master programs approved or adopted by the depart-
nadian line and lying seaward from the line of extreme ment of ecology;
low tide; (d) 'Development' 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 overlying 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 devel-
measured at one thousand cubic feet per second or more, opment of which the total cost or fair market value ex-
(B) Any east 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 east 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)(e); fire or elements;
(0f '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 measured 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;
areas 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, lakes, and tidal waters which are agricultural service roads and utilities on 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-
Provided, 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 of 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
(g) '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
periods 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;
dude those lands that can reasonably be expected to be (vi) Construction on wetlands by an owner, icscc or
protected from flood waters by flood control devices contract purchaser of a single family residence for his
maintained by or maintained under license from the own use or for the use of his family, which residenct
federal government, the state, or a political subdivision does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet above avcr.
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 of 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
teria to local governments and the department in devel- 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) IC.1 90.53 RC'--p 31

90.58.030 Shoreline Management act of 1971

thai now exist or arc hereafter created or developed as a governments, the department, after review and consider-
part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of ation of the comments and suggestions submitted to it,
making use of system waters. including return flow and shall resubmit final proposed guidelines.
artificially stored 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
own .d lands. when such marking does not significantly opportunity to present statements and views on the pro-
intertere 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 zcd primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or the department at a public hearing to be held in
diking system; Olympia shall adopt guidelines. [1971 ex.s. c 286 � 6.]
(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 RCW 90.58.070 Local governments to submit letters
th, 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 of the state in their various jurisdic-
mi'til facilities until a new or reconstructed Hood Canal tions to submit to the director of the department, within
btidgc is opcr to traffic. 11979 Ist cx.s. c 84 � 3; 1975 six months from June I, 1971, letters stating that they
Ist cx.s. c1IX82 � 1; 1973 Ist ex.s. c 203 � 1; 1971 ex.s. c propose to complete an inventory and develop master
286 3-.] programs for these shorelines as provided for in RCW
90.$8.080?
Intent-1979 1ist exm c $4: See note following RCW 43.21C.032 90.58.080.
(2) If any local government fails to submit a letter as
provided in subsection (1) of this section, or fails to
.i..v 90.58.040 Program applicable to shorelines of adopt a master program for the shorelines of the state
the state. hce 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
fined in this chapter. [1971 ex.s. c 286 � 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. [1971 ex.s. c
RCW 90.58.050 Program as cooperative between lo- 286 � 7.]
cal government and state-Responsibilities differenti-
ated. This chapter establishes a cooperative program of
shoreline management between local government and RCW 90.58.080 Timetable for local governments to
t,- state. Local government shall have the primary re-
sponsibility for initiating and administering the regula- cal governments are directed with regard to shorelines of
rory 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- (I) To complete within eighteen months after June I.
mary emphasis on insuring compliance with the policy 1971, a comprehensive inventory of such shorelines.
and provisions of this chaptcr. 11971 ex.s. c 286 � S.] Such inventory shall include but not be limited to the
general ownership patterns of the lands located therein
in terms of public and private ownership, a survey of the
RC'M 90.58.060 Timetable for adoption of initial general natural characteristics thereof, present uses con-
guidelines-Public hearings, notice of. (I) Within one ducted therein and initial projected uses thereof;
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
(u) Development of master programs for regulation of of the state consistent with the guidelines adopted. [1974
the uses of shorelines; and ex.s. c 61 � 1; 1971 ex.s. c 286 � 8.]
(b) Development of master programs for regulation of
the uses of shorelines of state-wide significance.
(2) Within sixty days from receipt of such proposed RCW 90.58.090 Approval of master program or
guidelines, local governments shall submit to the depart- segments thereof, hbenl)epa rtmenl alternaties
when shorelines of state-wide significanct-Later
ment in writing proposed changes, if any, and comments adoption o f master program sup er sedes departmen tal
upon the proposed guidelines. adoption of master program supersedes departmental
upon the proposed guidelines.
(3) Thercafier and within one hundred twenty -days program. Master programs or segments thereof shall be-
from the submission of such proposed guidelines to local come effective when adopted or approved by the depart-
ment as appropriate. Within the time period provided in

ch. 9aM RCw. - 41 (1979 Laws)

Shoreline Management act of 1971 9038.100

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 approval. (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
ceives 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 element for the location
partment shall have full authority following review and and design of industries, transportation facilities, port
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 ments 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 element making provision for
of the policy of 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 element 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, tidelands, beaches, and recreational
the submission. The local government shall have ninety areas;
days after it receives said modifications to consider the (d) A circulation element 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 hereinbefore (e) A use element 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 element 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- (g) An historic, cultural, scientific, and educational
lines. 11971 ex.s. c 286 � 9.] element for the protection and restoration of buildings,
sites, and areas having historic, cultural. scientific. or
educational values; and
RCW 90.58.100 Programs as constituting use regu- (h) Any other clement deemed appropriate or ncccs-
ltions--Duties when preparing programs and amend- sary to effectuate 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 de-
approved by the department. as appropriate, shall con- scriptive material as arc nccc-sary to provide fur c.se of
stitute use regulations for the various shorelines of the understanding.
state. In preparing the master programs, and any (4) Master programs will reflect that state-owned
amendments thereto, the department and local govern- shorelines of the state are particularly adapted to pro-
ments shall to the extent feasible: viding wilderness beaches. ecological study areas,.and

(1979 Laws) [CI. 90. RCW--p 5

90.8.,100 Shoreline Management act of 1971

oth, recreational activities for the public and will give RCW 90.58.130 Involvement of all persons and anti-
app ..priate special consideration to same. ties having Interest, means. To insure that all persons and
(5) Each master program shall contain provisions to entities having an interest in the guidelines and master
allow for the varying of the application of use regula- programs developed under this chapter are provided with
tions of 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- ment and implementation, the department and local
plemcntation of a program will not create unnecessary governments shall:
huar.hips or thwart the policy enumerated in RCW 90- (I) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of
.58.020. Any such varying shall be allowed only if ex- the state about the shoreline management program of
traordin: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
;'shient cf a permit system as provided in RCW management programs of this chapter; and
90.58.140(3,. [1971 ex.s. c 286 � 10.] (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 90.59.110 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 segments, 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. [1971 ex.s. 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 permits-Grounds
tor shall designate such region and notify the appropri- for granting-Administration by local government,
ate units of local government thereof. It shall be the conditions-Applications-Notices----Rescis-
,'ucv of the notified units to develop cooperatively an in- sion-When permits not required----Approval when
.ory and master program in accordance with and permit for variance or conditional use. (1) No develop-
ianin 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,
ap,:i,;able 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 ex.s. c 286 on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit
� 11.] from the government entity having administrative juris-
diction under this chapter.
A permit shall be granted:
RCW 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 master 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 are 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 of 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 thereof for the purpose of ob- RCW.
taining the views and comments of 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, tern 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) A notice of such an application is published at
guidelines. [1975 Ist ex.s. c 182 � 2; 1971 ex.s. c 286 � least once a week on the same day of the week for two

Ch 90.8 RCW? 61 (1979 Laws)

Shoreline Management act of 1971 90.58.140

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- strucaion 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: ernment 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- timately ordered by the courts: Provided, That construc-
ment 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 corn on the appellant;
ments or such 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(1) 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 appeal 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 subsec-
such a hearing 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 are termi-
at such hearing, nated 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 permittee 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 filing as defined in subsection (6) of this section ex- 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 filing; intervener.
(b) If a permit is granted by the local government and (6) Any ruling on an application for a permit 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 of fil- denial, shall, concurrently with the transmittal of the
ing. (ii) the hearings board approves the granting of the ruling to the applicant, be filed with the department and
permit by the local government or approves a portion of the attorney general. With regard to a permit other than
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 filing' as used herein shall mean the date of
review of the hearings board decision is filed pursuant to actual receipt by the department. With regard to a per-
the provisions of chapter 34.04 RCW, the permittee may mit for a variance or a conditional use, 'date of filing'
request, within ten days of the filing of the appeal with shall mean the date a decision of the department rend-
the court, a hearing before the court to determine ered 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 subtanti;ll
significant. irreversible damaging of the environment, development is consistent with the criteria which must

(1979 Laws) I�'O 90.L R('W-. 71

9058.140 Shoreline Management act of 1971

be rr. :tooe a pe.mit is granted. In any review of the the Hood Canal bridge. The permit shall be processed in
granting o, denial of an application for a permit as pro- accordance with this chapter. Following a denial of a
vided in RCW 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 "suing 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 Ist
cvent the department is of the opinion that such non- ex.s. c 84 � 4.1
compliance exists, the department shall provide written lt t 19" e . s a following RCW 43.21C.32
notice to the local governenint and the permittee. If the
cecp:trtment is of the opinion thalt such noncompliance
c n inucs 14 exisl thirty days after the dale of the notice, RCW 90.58.150 Selective commercial timber cut-
and the ]:;c voovcrnmcnt 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 petitie- to the local government and the permit- the department or local government shall allow only se-
tce: Provided. That the request by the department is lective 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-
' 0) 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
I plot approved by the applicable state agency or authorized by this chapter may be permitted. [1971 ex.s.
local , ..crnment prior to April I, 1971, if: c 286 � 15.]
(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 oil 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
(I I) The applicable state agency or local government Canadian boundary and the Strait of Juan de Fuca sea-
i. 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.]
17'" 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 bearings board- Es-
quire a permit as provided in subsection (10) of this see 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 nermit 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. 11977 ex.s. c 358 � 1; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 51 members of the pollution control hearings board; two
� 1; 1975 Ist 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 i, board. A decision must be agreed to by at least four
1981. the department of tranoortation or any affected members of the board to be final. The members of the
private property owner, or bi t i, 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 Ist 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- ltet 1979 st ex. c 47: See note following RCW 43.21B.005.
.ices necessary as a consequence of the destruction of

CL 90.J RCW-p 81 (1979 Laws)

Shoreline Management act of 1971 90.58.190

RCW 90.58.175 Rules and regulations. The shore- (4) Local government may appeal to the shorelines
lines hearings board may adopt rules and regulations hearings board any rules, regulations, guidelines. desig-
governing the administrative practice and procedure in nations, or niaster programs for shorelines of the state
and before the board. [1973 Ist ex.s. c 203 1 3.] 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 90.58.180 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-
Grounds for declaring master program Invalid--Ap- sitions of the local government and the department, shall
peals to court, 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 90.58.140 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 filing a request for the (ii) Constitutes an implementation of this chapter in
same within thirty days of the date of filing 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 filing 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 of a local government, the requestor shall file the department by the local government; or
a copy of 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 reasons to the board shall enter a final decision declaring the pro-
seek review, either the department or the attorney gen- gram invalid, remanding the master program to the de-
eral may certify the request within thirty days after its partment 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: Provided. That the failure local government, a new master program. Unless the
to obtain such certification shall not preclude the re- board makes one or more of the determinations as here-
questor from obtaining a review in the superior court inbcfore provided, the board shall find 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 ap-
the provisions of this chapter are complied 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 filed 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-
fled or as to whether the period for the department or lines, master programs of state-wide significance. and
the attorney general 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 certified 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. vided, 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 filing a written request with review is filed within three months after the date of final
the shorelines hearings board and the appropriate local decision by the shorelines hearings board. [I975-'76 2nd
government within thirty days from the date the final ex.s. c 51 � 2; 1975 Ist ex.s. c 182 � 4; 1973 Ist cx.s. c
order was filed as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6) as 203 � 2; 1971 ex.s. c 286 � 18.1
now or hereafter amended.
(3) The review proceedings authorized in subsections
(I) and (2) of this section are subject to the provisions of RCW 90.58.190 Review and adjustments to master
chapter 34.04 RCW pertaining to procedures in con- programs. The department and each local government
tested cases. Judicial review of such proceedings of the shall periodically review any master programs under 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) CI. 0s.5 RCW-p 91

90.58.190 Shoreline Management act of 1971

cuo.j Itecd. No such adjusintmeint shall become cffective (I) Acquire lands and casements within shorelines of
until it has been approved by the departmcnt. [1971 the state by purchase. lease, or gift, 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 squired 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 � 24.1
tOc attorney for the local government shall bring such
injunctive. declaratory. or other actions as are necessary
to insure that no uses are made of 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.
charptcr. and r, otherwise enforc the provisions of this grams. The department is directed to cooperate fully
chaptcr. 11971 cx.>. c 286 � 21.] with local governments in discharging their responsibili-
ties under this chapter. Funds shall be available for dis-
tribution to local governments on the basis of
R('W 90.58.220 General penalty. In addition' to in- tiuint oa oenet ntebsso
cRCW ty0.58.220 General penalty9. In addition tin 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-
foun to ave ilflly ngagd inactvitis ontheapplications shall be submitted in accordance with regu.
found to have wilfully engaged in activities on the ations developed by the department. The department is
shorelines of 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-
r:gulations adopted pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a ernment within the state for the purpose of developing a
.ss misemneanor. and shall be punished by a fine of master shorelines program.
.. . n tw enty-five nor more than one thousand No grant shall be made in an amount in excess of the
dollars or Jy imprisonment in the county jail for not recipients contribution to the estimated cost of such
more than ninety days, or by both such fine and impris- program. [1971 ex.s. c 286 � 25.]
onment: Provided. That the fine for the third and all
subsequent violations in any five-year period shall be not
less than five hundred nor more than ten thousand dol- RCW 90.58.260 State to represent its interest before
lars. [1971 ex.s. c 286 � 22.] federal agencies, interstate agencies and courts. The
state, through the department of ecology and the attor-
ney general, shall represent its interest before water re-
RCW 90.58.230 Violators liable for damages result- source regulation management, development, and use
ir'- from violation-Attorneys fees and costs Any agencies of the Unites States, including among others,
person subject to the regulatory program of this chapter the federal power commission, environmental protection
%.ho 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 exs c 286 i 26.
the behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability
has bcn 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-
assui that restoration will be accomplished within a tures, docks, developments, 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 ox.s. c 286 � 23.1 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
governmenls may:

[Ca. 90.S. RCW--Vp 101 (1979 Law,)

Shoreline Management act of 1971 90.58.340

the retention and maintenance of said structures, im- where the shoreline under consideration is located. It
provements. docks. fills 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, improvemcnts, docks, fills, 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
underlying 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. [1971 exs. c 286 � 31.]
(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 90.58.320 Height limitation respecting per-
of public rights consented 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-five 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 i, 1971 hibit the same and then only when overriding considera-
relating to the removal of structures, improvements, tions of the public interest will be served. [1971 cx.s. c
docks, fills, or developments based on the impairment of 286 � 32.]
public navigational rights. [1971 ex.s. c 286 � 27.]
R(W 90.58.330 Study of shorelines of cities and
RCW 90.58.280 Application to all state agencies, towns submitted to legislature---Scope. 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 � 28.] shorelines of the cities, and towns of the state and sub-
mit a repori which shall include but not be limited to the
following:
RCW' 90.58.290 Restrictions as affecting fair mar- (I) 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 J 29.] 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 uncertainty and
agency Special authority. The department of ecology inconsistency; and
is designated the state agency responsible for the pro- (6) The relationship of federal, state and local gov.
gram of 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. 11971 cx.s. c 286 � 33.]
ccive benefits of any statutes of the United States when-
ever enacted which relate to the programs of this
chapter. 1[1971 ex.s. c 286 � 30.] RCW 90.58.340 Use policies for land adjacent to
shorelines, development of. All state agencies. counties,
and public and municipal corporations shall review ad-
RCW 90.58.310 Designation of shorelines of state- ministrative and management policies, regulations,
wide significance by legislature---Recommendation by plans, and ordinances relative to lands under their re-
director, procedure. Additional shorelines of the state spectivc jurisdictions adjacent to the shorelines of the
shall be designated shorelines of state-wide 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 de-
be designated as shorelines of state-wide significance. partment as well as any other state agencies.or units of
Prior to making any such recommendation the dircc- local government. [1971 cx.s. c 286 � 34.]
tor shall hold a public hearing in the county or counties

(1979 Laws) [(h. 90.8 RCW-p Itl

90.58.350 Shoreline Management act of 1971

RCW 90.58.350 Nonapplication 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. 11971 ex-s. c 286 � 36.1

R(CV' 90.58.900 Liberal construction- 1971 ex.s.
c 286. fhis 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. 11971 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 ch:apter 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 necessary to insure that this 1971 act is implemented
on its effective date. (1971 ex.s. c 286 � 41.1

RCW 90.58.930 Referendum to the people- 1971
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 1,971 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. 11971 ex.s. c 286 � 42.]
Revber's note: Chapter 90.58 RCW [1971 eus. c 2861 was approved
and validated at the 1972 Seneral election as Alternative Measure 43B.

IC.I 90.58 RCW-- 121 (1979 Laws)

CHAPTER 190.
[S. B.86.1
TIDELANDS IN SKAGIT, SNOHOMISH.
ISLAND COUNTIES.
As 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
game 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:
SECTnON 1. Section .77.40.090, chapter 36, Laws of cow 7.44.09o
1955, and RCW 77.40.090 are each amended to read
as follows:
The commissioner of public lands shall withdraw Public
from sale or lease, except lease for the production grao1undsg
of oysters or for booming or industrial uses; Pro- kands in
tided, That the director of game has approved such Snohoisdh
industrial uses as not being generally incompatible counutes
with the primary function of these lands as public
[r151t

Cis. 190.1 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 o:ern.-
nt ',.secton _27 and gopernment Iots1. 2, 3
and 4, section 34, township 35 north, range 2 east,
W,MI., 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 poin'. 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 SiVinomish Indian Reservation, thence west-
erly along the north line of said Indian reservation
to the base of Marches Point, thence northerly aloLg
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 coun:y
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.
t185 23

SESSION LAWS, 1955. [CH. 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 Swinornish 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 mean-
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
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.
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 #12 - 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 wetland 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
followingdiscussion.

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. 1976.) 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 managing 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 waters 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,

e. 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 300
square miles of drainage area, whichever is longer.

Priority uses for these shorelines are Identified for state and local
authorities. Basically, statewide interests take precedence over local interests,
and higher value Is given to the long-term preservation of these resources than
Increased public recreational access and use. Since most of the significant
wetland and floodplain 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 wetland 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 help shape these types. Although the number of environ-
ments chosen may vary from one local agency to another, the guidelines do
achieve a basic standardization. (Dep. Ecol. 1976. p. 32.) The guidelines

111.12.2

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
wtldlife 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.

Floodplains, 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 criterla'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 communities 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.

111.12.3

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, that 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 too] 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 can open
up a wider range of recreational opportunities than might be available were
the same area converted to a reservoir. Even more important is the amount of
potential lands for recreational 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 effect before the plight of wetlands and floodplains became of such concern
that the 1977 Presidential Executive Orders #11988 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. 77-11, was also issued by GovernorRay 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, following 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 saletor 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 (ONR), which administers the Tidelands Program, continues to lease
tidelands for purposes of aquaculture and for various marine-related uses, but
has allocated 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 city parks. When those tidelands (between extreme low
tide and orginary high tide) 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 prtvately owned marinas. (Dep. Ecol. 1976. p. 10.)

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 Shoreline 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, an;J 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.

111.12.5

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 recognizes 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 agencies 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 wetland 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-
tlon, and priority for action in the conservation of the state's floodplains.

111.12.6'

Discussion

Some floodplains, for a wide variety of reasons,
several of which are discussed 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
on existing authorities, expression of legislative con-
cern, and current resource management conflicts. While
broader in scope than Just floodplains alone, most do
contain significant amounts of floodplains. It should
be noted, also, that only areas in western Washington
were identified, since they were developed for use In
the Coastal Zone Program, only. The Identifiled 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
some areas are of greater concern than others, and, there-
fore, recommends that appropriate actions be taken by the
state, In. cooperation with other levels of government to:

- Identify the most significant floodplain areas
throughout the state having sites within them
warranting retention under public ownership and/
or management for conservation 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, as appropriate to
specific sites.

Problem Statement #3

Saltwater tidelands provide one of the most popular recreational re-
sources available within the state, but access to and use of these saltwater
beaches is often difficult due to "checkerboarded" 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, especially 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, recomn-
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.

111.12.9

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, D. C.

U. S. Dep. Housing and Urban Dev. 1978. Questions and answers - national
flood insurance program. 29 p. U. S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, 0. C.
(pamphlet)

USDI. Heritage Conserv. Recreation Serv. 1978. Floodplain management and
wetlands protection: Implementation of Executive Orders 11988 and 11990.
Federal Register, Part III, 43(199): 47449 - 47451.

USDI. Heritage Conserv. Recreation Serv. 1979. Floodplain management and
wetlands protection - final guidelines. 20 p. U. S. Gov. Print. Off.,
Washington, 0. 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 subdivisions. 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. I n Was hington 'Water
News 3(4): 1 - S.

Washington Water Res. Cent. 1979. Presidential water policy Initiativ'es. In
Washington Water News 4(1): 1 - S.

~~~~ A ~~~~~~~~~~~~s'"'4~~~~~~~~~~~~A,.
A ' N.,~~~,l
/ N,'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A
NN'N'.Nt 'A~~~~~~~~~~~

CERTIFICATION Of ENROLLED ENACTMENT

SENATE BILL No 3371

CHAPTER NO.

Passed- the Senate February 26, 8910

PassedtheH ~ March 12, 1.980
as amnen~el!I

March 13, 1980 - The -Senate
concurred in the House amend-
ment, and passed the bill as
amended. CERTIFI CATE
Yeas 48 Nays 0 b~I Sidney R. Snyder, Secretary of the Senate of the
State of Washington do hereby certify that the attached
is enrolled 4 I7
as %passed by the Senate and she House of Representa -
tives on the dates hereon set forth.

Secretary of the Seat

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~IC

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 3371
AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE

State of Washington By Senators Peterson, Wanamaker and
46th Legislature Golt (By Department of Ecology
1980 Regular Session Request)

Read first time Zanuary 21, 1980, and referred to Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES.

I AN ACT Relating to tidelands; authorizing the purchase of

2 tidelands for establishment of an estuarine sanctuary;

3 and making an appropriation.

4 BE IT ENACTED 3! THE LUGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF VASEINGTON:

5 NEW SECTION. Section 1. For the purpose of establishing

6 an estuarine sanctuary in Padilla Bay, Skagit county, there is

7 appropriated from the general fund to the department of ecology

8 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 grants to a. federal, state, or

13 local agency and for administering the establishment of an

14 estuarine sanctuary in Padilla Bay, Skagit County.

15 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 from 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 RC9, the

22 shoreline management act, and guideline and master programs

23 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 result of the

27 passage of this section.

-1- ESB 3371

Passed t he Senate March 13, 1980.

Passed-the House March 12, 1980.

~'Tpubiicai ~Speaker of the' House.

U..GoVE8N4E8 PRINTING OFFICE 1980 0-318-629/63-89

4� ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~,