1977 
July 
NOAA makes 
second grant for 
Washington pro- 
gram operations, 
$1,750,000 
1976 
Washington program 
approved by Secre- 
tary of Commerce; 
NOAA makes grant 
of $2 million for 
program operation 
Coastal Zone 
Management Act 
amendments signed 
June 
July 
Washington submits 
program for ap- 
Washington resub- 
NOAA makes grant 
mits program to 
NOAA 
liminary approval” 
of $775,000 
to Washington 
program 
July 
1975 
proval by NOAA 
NOAA gives “pre- 
December 
March 
May 
First local master 
program approved 
by Washington State » 
gram development 
grant of $388,820 
NOAA makes pro- 
1974 
April 
May 
1973 
December 
First funding avail- 
able for coastal 
management from 
NOAA 
Table 4—-7.—Washington State/National Coastal Management key dates 
1972 
June 
Guidelines to local 
governments issued 
by Washington 
Department of 
Ecology 
October 
Coastal Zone 
Management 
Act signed 
November 
Washington voters 
approve shoreline 
management 
1971 
June 
Washington 
Shoreline 
Management 
Act passed 
program development process out of an eligible 
Pape ie 
The State instructed the cities and counties to 
prepare programs with five major elements: citizen 
involvement, statement of policy, seven planning ele- 
ments, categorization of shorelines, and provisions 
for variances. The State suggested designating all 
shoreline coastal areas as belonging to one of four 
categories, with future use of the land governed by 
this designation. In order of restrictiveness, they 
were: natural, conservation, rural, and urban. Some 
jurisdictions elaborated on these four basic cate- 
gories; Seattle, for instance, divides its shoreline into 
seven areas, containing two types of conservation 
territory and five subdivisions of the classification 
“urban.” This categorization process has been 
termed the “keystone” of the approach taken in 
Washington State. 
Localities, naturally, will shape their master pro- 
grams in accordance with their perceived needs. For 
some, this means restricting use of the shore by out- 
siders.** Others desiring to promote economic devel- 
opment have made widespread use of the “urban” 
classification of their shores to permit the maximum 
amount of future expansion, and have placed the 
“conservation” and “natural” classifications on rela- 
tively few privately owned lands. 
The negotiating process between State and local 
officials is essentially a political one, where the State 
coastal program office attempts to achieve as many 
of its objectives as it can and local governments 
pursue their interests to the maximum extent. How 
effective the process is depends on expectations. To 
the extent that any alteration of a locally prepared 
master program is achieved, the State program could 
be judged successful. Or the same process could be 
looked at and judged inadequate because the local 
unit of government has made most of the decisions 
about future shore use. 
Characteristics of Program 
The following characteristics typify the coastal 
management program in Washingion: 
e The program is dominated by local units of 
government, the coastal cities and counties. The 
State Department of Ecology, which administers 
the program from Olympia, knows it cannot force 
unpopular policies on a local government and 
that it is constrained in its ability to persuade a 
local unit to alter a policy. A University of 
California researcher who has looked at the pro- 
gram reports that the State has decided to let 
communities adopt programs which, while flawed 
from the standpoint of State objectives, enjoy popu- 
68 Communication from Washington Department of Ecology, 
November 13, 1977. 
69 Jens Sorensen, op. cit. note 66, pp. 5-34. 
IV-36 
