lar support. As a consequence, locally prepared 
coastal “master programs” which initially were re- 
jected by the State were approved after informal 
negotiations on the second submission, whether or 
not all of the imperfections were corrected." “° 
e A limitation of the program is its basic 200- 
foot coverage. Except for special wetlands and flood- 
plains, prime coverage of the Shoreline Management 
Act of 1971 on which the coastal management pro- 
gram is based is limited to the first 200 feet inland. 
The State is trying to persuade counties and cities 
to bring their plans for the rest of the coastal area 
‘into conformity with the objectives set out for the 
200-foot zone. The initial proposal by environ- 
mentalists was for a 500-foot zone. 
e Two important exemptions from the require- 
ment that a permit be obtained for development 
within the 200-foot zone are owner-built, single- 
family homes and bulkhead installations, as noted 
above. Two researchers at the University of Wash- 
ington found that single-family homes constituted 
one half of the development around Puget Sound. 
They also found that 90 percent of the work on 
Puget Sound shoreline bulkheads was proceeding 
without a special shoreline permit.” 
¢ Nine of the 15 coastal counties, mostly small 
and rural, voted against shoreline management in 
a 1972 referendum. Higher levels of noncompliance 
with the program’s permit requirement and more 
extensive use of the most permissive category for 
the coast (the designation “urban”) are found in 
these counties. 
© Twenty-five percent of the State’s coast has 
been designated an area of Statewide significance, 
which means local governments must abide by 
specific State policies for the types of uses to be per- 
mitted in these areas. Local governments, however, 
sometimes use the shoreline use categorization 
process to thwart State objectives in recreation or 
for providing more public access.** One place where 
the State objective of opening up access to the shore 
has been successful is with the Port of Seattle, 
which reports that the most significant impact of the 
shoreline act was to encourage access points for the 
69a Jbid., pp. 5-55. 
79 Darrel Peeples, assistant attorney general, State of Wash- 
ington. “Recreation: Marine Promise.” NOAA Conference on 
Marine Recreation, Los Angeies, University of California, 1975, 
pp. 148. 
71 Maureen McCrea and Jim Feldman. Washington State Shore- 
line Management: An Interim Assessment. Program in Social 
Management and of Technology, University of Washington, 
University of Washington, Seattle, 1976, pp. xx. 
72 Interview September !2, 1977, with Al O’Donnell, Wash- 
ington Department of Natural Resources, and David Heiser, 
State Parks and Kecreation Commission. Also, memo from Stite 
Parks Commissioner Charles Odegaard to Governor Daniel 
Evans, May 27, 1976, 
public in port projects.?* Generally, the question of 
access is a balancing act between preservation and 
development interests and State and local perspec- 
tives; some State departments are seen as too 
development-minded by local governments, which 
use shoreline management as a bargaining tool vis- 
a-vis the State. 
e The program is credited with preventing some 
of the more egregious proposals for use of the coast 
from surfacing.** Also, fewer overwater projects 
are being built along the coast.7° 
e The program has succeeded in getting more 
attention for shoreline impacts at the local level than 
would be likely without it. 
e Enforcement of shoreline permits is a problem. 
There is only one full-time enforcement person in 
the City of Seattle to ensure that shoreline permit 
conditions are being met; that person will not be 
employed in this capacity after 1977 and the func- 
tion will be absorbed by the Building Department. 
An estimated 20 percent of shoreline permit condi- 
tions are ignored.’* More difficult to determine are 
the number of projects that proceed without a per- 
mit. Successful prosecution of a blatant violation of 
the shoreline permit requirement in King County 
(Seattle) has improved compliance there.”7 
e The independent Shoreline Hearing Board, to 
which the State may appeal local zoning actions it 
disagrees with, has functioned successfully. Its 
chosen method of operation is to search for com- 
promise, obtaining thereby a scaled-down develop- 
ment proposal. The State is exercising the option to 
appeal in limited numbers—102 of the first 3,242 
permits.”® 
© Coastal Zone Management Office funding has 
a significant impact on local governments. The State 
is passing through $625,000 this year, meaning that 
a considerable amount of Jocal administrators’ time 
can be given to coastal matters. 
e Environmentalists would like to see a stronger 
hand taken by the Department of Ecology, although, 
they recognize the political difficulties involved. 
Other issues have come to the fore, such as the 
question of supertankers in Puget Sound, to occupy 
the relatively limited resources possessed by environ- 
mentalists since the height of coastal zone manage- 
ment activity in the early 1970s.79 
73 Interview, September 13, 1977, Art Yashiaka and Keith 
Christian, Port of Seatule Planning and Research Department. 
«+ Conversations with Nancy Thomas, president, Washington 
Environmental Council, and Dennis Derickson, planner, Snoho- 
mish County, September 13, 1977. 
“*> Maureen McCrea and Jim Feldman, op. cit. note 72, p. 70. 
*6 Interview, September 13, 1977, Rosemary Horwood, plan- 
ner, Seattle Department of Community Development. 
* Jens Sorensen, op. cit. note 66, pp. 5-69. 
7 Maureen McCrea and Jim Feldman, op. cit. note 72, p. 70. 
“? Interview, September 13, 1977, with Nancy Thomas, presi- 
dent, Washington Environmental Council (consisting of 70 mem- 
ber organizations). 
IV-37 
