| Washington State's coastal management program was evaluated by analyzing public seaport authority facilities developed betwen 1965 and 1978. A goal achievement matrix provided the structure for determining the conformance of these projects with the goals and objectives of the coastal management program. The matrices were supplemented with descriptive material and an interrupted time series. Changes in conformance with goals and objectives were examined over time and in relation to port size, location, type of facility, and thoroughness of local government review of shoreline management permits.;Four goals derived from the Coastal Zone Management Act and central to the national coastal management program formed the basis for evaluation. These included: (1) preserve and protect the natural resources of the coastal zone; (2) promote the public interest; (3) foster economic development through reasonable and appropriate uses; and (4) enhance coordination of planning and permitting among government agencies. Fifteen objectives derived from Washington State's coastal program expanded the management concepts of the national goals and related the goals to the state program. Measures for rating conformance of port projects with the goals and objectives reflected regulatory details of the state program.;Conformance was evaluated using a ratio of scores assigned to applicable measures compared to their maximum possible score. Conformance ratios for each goal and objective were graphed on an interrupted time series and compared. Descriptive material augmented these analyses with pertinent information not in the goal achievement matrices.;Results showed greater conformance of port projects with goals and objectives of the coastal management program after implementation of Washington's Shoreline Management Act, especially in promoting the public interest. Conformance with environmental protection objectives was achieved through both the coastal management program and more narrowly focused resource protection programs implemented through agency reviews of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 permits. Expedient processing of permits is a growing problem. Smaller ports only developing marinas had more difficulty than larger ports in conforming with coastal goals and objectives. These problems, however, eventually led to greater conformity for marinas than for cargo facilities. Rurality was not important until extensive alterations were proposed for relatively undeveloped shores. At that point, local residents and resource agencies demanded changes in development plans. Local government permit review improved considerably after 1972. This improvement was attributed to the voter approval of the SMA in November 1972, greater familiarity of local governments with the provisions of the Act, and regulatory enforcement of the Act by the State Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's Office.;Seven ports were included: the Ports of Tacoma, Seattle, Everett, Grays Harbor, Bremerton, Brownsville, and Skagit County. Seventeen cargo facilities and seven marinas were examined within three time periods: January 1965 to 1969 (before the National Environmental Policy Act), January 1970 to June 1971 (after NEPA but before Washington's Shoreline Management Act), and June 1971 to December 1978 (after NEPA and SMA). |
