URI Coastal Resources CenterRhode Island Sea Grant, January 2016
16
source of information for and provide a detailed implementation mechanism for the
marine spatial plan in state waters through local shoreline permitting.
39
The data and information products from the initial stages of developing the
marine spatial plan can contribute to the ocean component of a local coastal shoreline
inventory, analysis, and characterization. Once the draft marine spatial plan is
completed, the resulting informational maps, recommended environment designations,
and policies can be assessed and further refined by a local jurisdiction for the SMP’s
policies and regulations, and for use in the cumulative impacts analysis. Further, local
SMPs on Washington’s Pacific Coast are required to address the Ocean Management
Guidelines pursuant to ORMA. These guidelines are state regulations that provide
specific guidance on how to address ocean uses within a local SMP. Since the MSP law
requires the integration and use of existing authorities, the Ocean Management
Guidelines policies will also be incorporated into the information, analysis and
recommendations in the final marine spatial plan.
40
V. Developing the Washington Coast Marine Spatial Plan
A. Planning Area Boundary
The boundary for the Washington Pacific Coast sub‐region, which is the first MSP
area for Washington, includes state waters out to three nautical miles and federal
waters out to a depth of 700 fathoms 4200 feet See Figure 4. This boundary was
selected based on agency, stakeholder, and public input, as explained in the summary
report produced for the workshop based on this topic.
41
The boundary follows the continental
shelf off the coast and ranges from 40 to 60 nautical miles offshore, and extends
from Cape Disappointment at the mouth of the Columbia River North to Cape Flattery
and includes the estuaries of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. The study area covers
7,700 square nautical miles of marine waters. The study area does not include the
Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Lower Columbia River Estuary, or Puget Sound.
URI Co
Figure
oastal Resourc
e 4. Washingto
es CenterRho
on Coast MSP P
ode Island Sea G
Planning Area
Grant, January
Boundary Sou
y 2016
urce: Washinggton DNR
1 17
URI Co
B
2.1 2015
see F
Figure
partic Depa
Depa mana
Wash Offici
intera DFW
meet
oastal Resourc
B. Timeline
While the
million in fu
, pre‐plann
Figure 5 belo
e 5. Washingto
In 2012, o
cipate in the
artment of Ec
artment of Ec
ages the acc
hington DFW
ially, the pla
agency team
— that coor
ts monthly to
es CenterRho
e and Resou
e MSP law w
nding was a
ing work has
ow.
on Coast MSP T
once the bud
e process. Th
cology as th
cology has b
ount design
W, which man
nning proce
m of state ag
rdinates on t
o coordinate
ode Island Sea G
urces
as passed in
llocated in t
s been comp
Timeline Sour
dget was in p
he Governor
e lead for th
been strongly
ated to supp
nages fish an
ess is led by t
gencies — inc
the manage
e state agen
Grant, January
n 2010, plann
the 2012 leg
pleted as has
rce: Hennessey
place, state
r’s office des
his process, a
y supported
port the mar
nd shellfish
the State Oc
cluding the
ment of Wa
cy MSP‐rela
y 2016
ning did not
islative sess
s the “Unde
y, 2014
agencies be
signated the
as specified
d by the Was
rine spatial p
resources in
cean Caucus
Department ashington’s
o ted
activitie begin in ear
ion.
42
To dat erstanding
Im
gan designa
Washington by
the law. T shington
DN plan,
and th n
marine wat SOC.
The S t
of Ecology, ocean
resou es.
1
rnest until
te late
mpacts” stag
ting staff to
n The
R, which
e ters.
SOC is an
DNR, and rces,
and
18
ge
URI Co
agenc group
Advis Reso
group gover
Figure n.d.
C
opera from
work conve
time. gathe
and w
the w
RFP tribal
speci proje
22, 2
oastal Resourc
To facilita
cies and stak
ps to accom
sory Council
urce Commi
ps and throu
rnmental or
e 6. Washingto
C. Impleme
During th
ating under
various inte
shops took p
ersations be
. State agenc
er existing da
website.
43
Th work.
This of process, or
l governmen
fic knowledg
ects to includ
015. In the
es CenterRho
ate discussio
keholders, t
plish this go
WCMAC, a
ttees MRCs
ugh other me
ganizations
on Coast MSP P
enting the T
e first half o
the Washing
erest groups
place in the
egan with co
cies worked
atasets that
hese parties
ten involved
collaboratin nts,
academi ge,
skills or a de
Washingt fall
of 2013,
ode Island Sea G
on and plann
he state use
al. These inc
a new Scienc
s. Other key
echanisms in
NGOs. See
Participants S
Timeline
of the pre‐pla
gton Depart
, industry, a
spring of 20
mmunity or
with WCMA
could be ad
also worked
d selecting th
ng with exist
ic institution
abilities, or t
ton State coa
, legislation
Grant, January
ning among s
ed several ex
clude the SO
ce Advisory
y partners w
nclude the t
e Appendix I
ource: “Washi
anning phas
ment of Eco
nd the MRC
013 and com
ganizations AC,
federal a dded
into the d
to identify he
best entit ting
experts ns
or NGOs t to
expand ex astal
waters prompted
th
y 2016
state agenci
xisting group
OC, the Wash
Panel, and e
who have par
ribes and en
for a table l
ington Marine
e in 2012, th
ology and inc
s. The goal a
mmunity outr
up and dow
agencies, and
e newly dev
the approp ty
through a in
various fe o
conduct n xisting
datas Hennessey
he transition
es or betwe
ps and also f
hington Coas
existing coun
rticipated th
nvironmenta isting
all par
e Spatial Plann
he WCMAC w
cluded repre
and objectiv
reach presen
wn the coast
d tribes to id
eloped MSP
riate entitie
a request for
ederal or sta
ew work giv
sets or upco
y pers. comm
n of the WCM
1
en state
ormed new
stal Marine
nty Marine
rough these
al non‐
rticipants.
ning” website,
was esentatives
ve ‐setting
ntations and
during that
dentify and
P viewing too
s to conduct
r proposal
ate agencies
ven their
ming m.
Decembe MAC
into the
19
e
d
ol t
,
r e
URI Coastal Resources CenterRhode Island Sea Grant, January 2016
20
Governor’s office with some new members, including voting seats for each of the state
agencies that had not been on the original council.
In 2013, during Stage 2, “Understanding Impacts” see Figure 5, the language of
the goals and objectives and the boundary of the MSP were finalized through a scoping
process. The Sector Analyses, which identified the current state and future projections
for each sector, were conducted for the shipping, fishing, aquaculture, recreation and
tourism and renewable energy sectors and concluded in 2014.
44
The Ecosystem Assessment
continued over the 2013‐2015 biennium with the development of ecological,
social and economic indicators. New datasets such as recreational data and a cohesive
data set that identifies ecologically important areas off the Washington coast also
were developed. Ecological modeling produced information on predicted at‐sea distribution
for seabirds and marine mammals. Additional work was done to bring existing
data from seafloor mapping together into a seafloor atlas and to document all existing
economic information for the four coastal counties. At the time of this writing, the
Washington Coast MSP process is finishing up the ”Understanding Impacts” stage and
is in the middle of conducting the use analysis to summarize data on current uses, assess
the potential spatial interactions between existing uses and potential new uses, and
inform the development of spatial recommendations Hennessey pers. comm. December
22, 2015.
D. Developing the Goals and Objectives
