March 26, 1999

The Honorable Gary Locke

Governor

State of Washington

PO Box 40002

Olympia, Washington 98504-0002

Dear Governor Locke:

Last year you directed my department to create a collaborative approach among interested parties for the development of short and long-term coastal erosion policy recommendations. With the help of local contacts, interested stakeholders were invited to participate, issues were identified, and a coastal erosion task force was formed. This was the first such collaborative approach of its kind in Washington to deal with the issue of coastal erosion. Within the time available, the task force followed your directions to use the best available science, shared collective experiences, and judgements and developed policy recommendations, which encouraged both coastal economic development and the environmental protection of coastal natural resources. I am pleased to present you with the final report of the Coastal Erosion Task Force.

The task force was inclusive in both membership and opinion. It included representatives from every major local and regional interest group concerned about coastal erosion: officials from local cities, counties, ports and other jurisdictions; tribal nations; local economic development and conservation organizations; environmental groups; a fisherman association; a local college; state agencies; federal agencies; property owners and others. The membership roster is in the appendix of this report.

The task force developed 22 short and long-term policy recommendations. This report was designed to be used not as a regulatory document, but as guidance to interested stakeholders. The majority of the voting members of the task force endorsed and signed the final re ort. Seven

member elected to sign a minority report, which is included in the final report. Two absent members did not vote.

If any additional funding is made available through my department for coastal erosion activities, I

expect the attached final report will provide guidance.

Sincerely,

Tim Douglas

Director

Attachment

cc: Task Force Members

WASHINGTON COASTAL EROSION TASK FORCE REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1998, Governor Gary Locke directed the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development to create a Coastal Erosion Task Force. The Task Force's goal was to develop short and long-range policy recommendations on coastal processes. This document should not be used as a regulatory document.

The following recommendations resulted from the Task Force and steering committee

meetings:

1. Coastal erosion solutions and policies should not come at the expense of the state's natural resources and critical habitat; solutions should minimize interference with fishing areas and/or keep solution impacts to a minimum.

2. Dredged material should be managed as a resource and reused beneficially within the Columbia littoral cell. For example, dredged sand should remain within the active littoral zone.

3. The Southwest Washington Coastal Erosion Study should be completed. The federal, state, and local partners will establish roles and expectations among themselves.

4. Scientific studies of coastal processes along the southwest coast of Washington should examine the influence of the Columbia River system. These studies should also include an analysis of the effects and opportunity for mitigation of past interventions in coastal processes, particularly those related to navigation projects and engineering studies describing the effects of hard structures on high-energy shorelines.

5. Long-term scientific monitoring of the condition of southwest Washington ocean beaches, and the impacts and performance of past and proposed interventions to the system, should be a priority.

6. There should be an independent technical review of all state-funded coastal studies and analyses that will form a part of the technical foundation for long-term coastal planning, policy development, and/or proposed actions.

7. An assessment of coastal hazards, including predictions of future shoreline change rates, should be conducted.

8. An evaluation of socioeconomic impacts of actions in the coastal zone should be conducted.

9. Policy and projects related to coastal erosion should be analyzed for their long-term costs and benefits.

10. In the long term, state and local governments must develop a policy of land management that:

acknowledges the natural processes of the ocean, and the potential conflicts with private property owners located in the erosion-hazard areas,

encourages and supports the work of local jurisdictions to protect life and property interests,

supports the efforts of governments and non-profit organizations to protect recreational opportunities and the natural qualities of the coast.

11. An inventory of local land use information should be undertaken to determine appropriate policies and actions. The inventory should include an accounting of public infrastructure, platted and unplatted properties, and built and un-built properties. Zoning overlays, as well as shoreline area designations and their applicable rules, regulations, and policies, should be included.

12. Federal, state, tribal and local jurisdictions could use the information gathered from the inventory to better understand how to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare, particularly as it pertains to erosion-hazard areas.

13. State and local governments should take steps to identify the extent of the dynamic >zone and inventory existing natural and community resources within that zone.

14. As part of a comprehensive inventory, erosion-hazard zones should be mapped using available shoreline data and current best science. Such hazard zones may incorporate both accretion and erosion areas; and could identify: imminent, intermediate, and long-term erosion hazards.

15. Federal, state, local, and tribal jurisdictions should work together to define coastal erosion-hazard areas and regulate and discourage development in high-hazard coastal erosion areas. The State should work with local jurisdictions to ensure that mapping projects are based on sound science and consistency of policy.

16. The State should continue to provide technical and financial assistance to local jurisdictions, and tribal governments where applicable, to review and revise comprehensive plans, flood hazard management plans, and development regulations to discourage development in coastal erosion-hazard areas.

17. Local jurisdictions should develop new mechanisms, or re-enforce existing mechanisms, to warn those with property interests of the danger of building or buying in hazardous erosion areas.

1 8. Federal, state, local, and tribal jurisdictions should recognize that effective coastal protection may have some economic consequences for coastal communities, and should take steps to ameliorate these impacts through measures such as shared risk, buyout assistance, and others.

19. Local jurisdictions should develop long-term strategies to assess the location of critical, at-risk public infrastructure such as highways, water and sewer facilities, schools, etc., and private investments in light of coastal zone hazards. These might include threats from chronic hazards like long-term erosion.

20. Southwest Washington coastal communities should continue the development and analysis of alternative strategies to address current and long-term coastal erosion and accretion issues. Financial assistance from a variety of funding sources, including the state should be sought.

21. Federal, state, local, and tribal jurisdictions should adopt the following guidance to address coastal processes (given the unique nature of tribal reservation land, not all criteria may apply to tribes).

A. New development in erosion hazard areas and recently accreted areas should be discouraged, based on assessment of risk.

B. Landowners should be expected to assume all risk if they knowingly buy and develop property (plat or place structures) in such an area.

C. New structural solutions to erosion problems should be discouraged when there is a potentially adverse impact to the natural conditions of the beach, habitat, public access, other recreational resources, long-term maintenance costs, and impact to adjacent properties. The spirit and intent of state laws discouraging armoring-such as sea walls, wave bumpers, rock revetments, and other types of hard structures--in favor of other alternatives that are more likely to preserve a dune/beach environment.

D. In rare circumstances, structural solutions should only be considered in situations where it has been determined that erosion is threatening critical public facilities such as bridges, major highways, sewage treatment plants, utility lines, and municipal water supplies.

E. The selection and implementation of any alternative should be based upon an analysis of effectiveness, impacts, risk, and cost compared to other alternatives within a long-term plan.

F. Maintenance and modification of existing navigation structures should be subject to the criteria for successful solutions outlined in Section V.

22. Public education, participation, and outreach are important to a wide perspective on the issues. While this is a primary responsibility of local, state, and tribal governments, there is an awareness of the need for the general public and nongovernmental organizations to participate in community education issues and recognition of the role of non-governmental organizations in accomplishing this task.

The Coastal Erosion Task Force

March 1999

This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council