[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
S T A T E 0 F W A S H I N G T 0 N C 0 A S T A L Z 0 N E M A N A G E MEN T P R 0 G R A M F E I S GC 1010 W3 U 5 1976 Coastal Zone Information Center S T A T E 0 F W A S H I N G T 0 N C O A S T A L Z O N E M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M F E I S 'gum GC 1010 .W3 U5 1976 MASTER FILE COPY tAT 0 IF C-0 State of Washington V1 Coastal Zone Management Program Final Environmental Impact Statement 4rEs Of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PrOVertY of CSC Library Office of Coastal Zone Management WHATCOM VANCOUVER ISLAND SAN JUAN SKAGIT ISLAND SNOHOMISH@. CCA LLAM 'j E 1: F E 11 S 0 N KITSAP .@4 KING A4 3P MASON GRAYS HAR R -,0 P ERCE L_-THURSTWI-- -7:, DEPARTMENT OF COM#RCr NOAA "PAC I r-ic.- C 'TAL SERVIUS CENTEfr 0 A Ed 2234-SOUT.I:L,110@SON AVENUE -$@,@14 0 5 -F-ZHIK;@7KUM. 4. Washington State Coastal Zone @w @-wwofmzqr-ww 010M.-M,@7 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ACT STATEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Prepared by: Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20235 WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONh @YJNAGEMFI\71 PROGRAM AIVINISTPATION SurTmiary )Draft W Final Environmental Impact Statement Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) For additional information about this proposed action or this state- ment, please contact: Grant DeHart Pacific Regional Coordinator Office of Coastal Zone Management 3300 hhitehaven Street., N. W. Page I Building - Third Floor Washington, D. C. 20235 Phone (202) 634-4235 This FEIS also meets the State of Washington State Environmental Protection Act Requirements. 1. Type of Action: Proposed Federal approval of State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZNP), 01 ia Washington (X) Administrative 7) Legislative 2. Brief Description of Action: Ttis proposed that the be-cretary of Commerce approve the Coastal Zone Management Program application of the State of Washington, pursuant to P.L. 92-583, CZMA. Approval would permit implementation of the proposed program, ailowing program administrative grants to be awarded to the state, and require that Federal actions be consistent with the program. 3. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental Effi-r-"-s Approval and implementation of the program will intensify the impacts the State has currently felt under the administration of the Shoreline Management Act , (SMA), within the coastal counties and numerous other State authorities. It will provide funds to State and local governments to,enhance their capability to manage their coastal zone, provide for special regional coastal zone programs that take large resource areas into account which transcend polit-Lcal jurisdictions, improve the data base on which coastal decisions are made, and enhance coordination and consultation with Federal agencies to better understand and act in the national interest. This is the first chance in the Nation to determine .the impacts associated with having Federal, State, and local actions consistent to a large degree with respect to coastal land and water uses. It is the clear intentions of both the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Washington Coastal Zone Management Progrr that the majority of the impacts will prove beneficial to the waters and living resources of the coastal zone, as well as the human environment. There will be some economic impacts on certain coastal users and would-be users because of restrictions or prohibitions of land and water uses in some areas, but it will, not preclude their use in other areas. 4. Alternatives Considered: a. The Secretary could deny approval until all outstanding intergovernmental issues are fully resolved. b. The State could withdraw the approval application and continue either in a status quo or attempt 'to use other sources of funding to meet the objectives of the State's shoreline and related CZM programs. 5. Comments: The final environmental impact statement was revised from the draft statement based on written comments received and statements made at a public hearing which was held April 22, 1975, in Seattle, Washington. A total of forty comments were submitted from the following: Federal agencies .............. 16 State agencies ................ 9 Local and'Regional agencies ... 7 Other ......................... 8 A summary of the comments are discussed below: 1. A number of responses, primarily from Federal agencies, expressed a concern that program approval was premature and requested delay for one of several reasons. Some of the reasons, which-are presented in detail in Appendix 10, included the following: - inadequate Federal consultation and coordination - wait until all Local Master Programs are approved - organizational network weak or not adequately described - all Federal lands must be excluded from the State's coastal zone - 'specific agency interests werehot adequately considered - the program did not meet all C24A requirements and guidelines Largely based on these concerns, Washington was granted pre- liminary, rather than full, approval in accordance with Section 306 guideliness (923.3(b)) in May 197S. The State then requested an extension and supplement of their grant and worked specifically to meet the expressed concerns. Washington has since then had and continues to have substantive involvement with the Federal agencies (see Section II), worked on clarifying its organiza. tional network, completing the Local Master Programs, improving technical aspects of their program such as maps, Federal consis- tency implementation, and so on. The substantive responses by the State of Washington and NOAA to these concerns are discussed in terms of impacts (Section V) and available alternatives (Section VI). While P!uch of this work has been accomplished, there are some elements that require continued efforts on the parts of State, Federal, local and public participants. While the CZMA requires that the management system be "in place," it does not require nor can it.be expected that a system is perfected or running at 100 percent efficiency at the time of approval. DOC has determined that Washington has established the ' policies and procedures for implementing a management program that is consonant with objectives of the CZMA. Time, effort, and resources are needed to bring the program to total fruition. Barring any fundamental conflicts unresolved during the Federal agency review or the review of this FEIS, DOC intends to grant approval without substantial further delay. 2. Most of the comments were directed at the Washington.Coastal Zone Management Program rather than the draft environmental impact statement. Responses to these comments were addressed on an individual basis (see Appendix 10 and 11 and program supplement). The significant concerns have been evaluated and incorporated in the management program by the State of Washington and an official amendment that accompanies this FEIS. The major concerns can be broken down into three categories: (a) lack of adequate information to evaluate programwtic elements or the nature of important organizational linkages; (b) lack of clarity in the Federal interaction and consistency policies of the program; (c) and, a legal issue concerning the exclusion of Federal lands from the coastal zone. In addition to a substantially expanded document submitted by Washington describing their program, revisions have been made to the program and the FEIS where it was indicated clarification was needed. 3. Several comments requested descriptive and data clarification. In addition, many comments were directed at correcting technical errors and updating information. Appropriate comments have been incorporated and information has been updated. 4. It was suggested that OCZM assess the history and the impacts associated with ne implementation of the Shoreland Management Act, Local Master Program approvals and shoreline permits and appeals. This, then, could be used as a basis for projecting environmental effects due to increased Federal financial assistance and program approval. Section V has been expanded to include impacts associated with the implementation of the RVA. However, with a few positive modifications, the Washington Coastal Lane Management Program (WCZMP) would continue to be implemer,,.ed by the State under the Washington Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Therefore, at a minimum, this statement jhould address what additional impacts Section 306 funds and Federal consistency will have on the environment d to the existing as oppose , State situation. While the major impacts associated with this action would occur from these two sources (funding and consistency), DOC, feels that this would be a more narrow interpretation of NEPA -requirements and has attempted to look at the total picture, the cumulative impacts, where possible. 5. There were several requests to increase.the qvality of the maps which show the boundaries of the coastal zone. Maps have been improved and included. 6. Several comments questioned the validity of some of the al- ternatives and recommended that they be deleted. The section on alternatives has been changed and updated. Some were not feasible alternatives and have been deleted. 7. A general suggestion to include a State program summary in the FEIS whichis geared-to the requirements outlined in the 306 regula-tions. DOC has chosen the approach to describe the program as it works rather than a point by point review of the Section 306 regulations. It would be very difficult to do this in a summary form and do justice to the program. 8. While the majority of the comments felt that the DEIS was adequate for the type of action that was going to take place, some stated that there was insufficient information. The FEIS has been supplemented:'in many areas, namely: the sections iv on impacts, alternatives, program descriptions and supporting appendices. 9. Because of the possible revisions to be made in the WCZNP and the lack of information, some commenters suggested another draft EIS be written when the State program elements have been clarified. The main changes that have occurred in the Washington CZMP are additions, refinements and expansion to respond to comments and have not affected the basic policies and processes that the DEIS was based on. It is true that a number of substantive elements have been clarified, but it does not change the overall assess- ments made. Therefore, DOC has chosen to file an FEIS with appropriate amendments. 10. A number of comments requested further analysis of the impacts on natural resource agencies, local governments, etc., which can be attributed to implementation of the SMA CZM comprehensive program. This has been done; primarily in the impacts section. 11. Due to a misunderstanding, one person thought that the approach the Department of Ecology took to meeting CZMA requirements was not in accordance with the State constitution. A personal response from the State Assistant Attorney General is enclosed to clarify this misunderstanding. 12. A number of people pointed out that there are unknowns and unfore- seen needs in the future that the current program does not address. A CZM program should not be viewed as a final product. The CZMA (Section 306(g)) allows for amendments. What is important is that the State has an adequate process that can handle changes and conflicts. The State of Washington has such a process. This FEIS should be read in conjunction with the State of Washington's program submission to NOAA entitled, "Kashington State Coastal Zone Program, January 1976," to fully appreciate and gain a more thor- ough understanding of the Washington program. Federal agencies have been sent a,copy because of their responsibility to review the program prior to Secretarial approval. There is at present, however, only a limited number of copies available through the State Depart- ment of Ecology. Copies of the document can be found in the following places: 1. The Planning Office of each of the coastal counties and cities; 2. The following libraries: V CIALLAM COUNTY North -017n @ic Library System 2210 S. Peabody Street Port Angeles 98362 206/457-4464 --.James H. Kirks, Jr. GRAYSHARBOR Aberle-en -TER)erland Library 121 E. Market Street Aberdeen 98520 206/533-2360 -- Rosalie Spellman ISLAND COUNTY Snow Isle Iregional Library P. 0. Box 148 Marysville 98720 206/259-8177 -- Mae L. Schoenrock JEFFERSON COUNTY Port Townsend PUElic Library 1228 Lawrence Street Port Townsend 98368 206/385-3181 -- Madge M. Wallin KING COUNTY Mg- County LiTrary System 300 8th Avenue, North Seattle 98109 . 0 206/344-7465 -- Herbert F. Mutschler KITSAP COUNTY Kitsap Regional Library 612 Sth Street Bremerton 98310 206/377-3955 -- Irene Heninger MASON COUNTY Timberla-n-J -South Mason Library Rte. 5, Box 35 Shelton 98584 206/426-1362 Doris Whitmarsch PACIFIC COUNTY Raymond Public Library 507 Duryea Raymond 98577 206/942-2408 -- Jay Windisch PIERCE COUNTY Pierce County Library 2356 Tacoma Avenue, S. Tacoma 98402 206/572-6760 -- Carolyn J. Else vi SAN JUAN COUNTY Eastsound (Meyers)Library Orcas Island P. 0. Box.165 Eastsound 98245 -- Polly Klauder SKAGIT COUNTY Anacortes Public Library 1209 9th Street Anacortes 98221 206/293-2700 -- G. Douglas Everhart SNOHOMISH COUNTY See Island County THURSTON COUNTY Olympia Public Library 7th & Franklin Olympia 98501 206/352-0595 -- Margaret Coopinger WAHKIAKUM COUNTY Cathlamet Public Library P. 0. Box 337 Cathlamet 98612 206/795-3254 -- Eleanor A. Taylor WHATCCM COUNTY Whatcom County Library 5205 N. W. Road Bellingham 98225 206/733-1250 -- Linda Hellyer And at the following locations in the vicinity of Washington, D.C.: 3. Office of Coastal Zone Management Coastal Zone Information Center 3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W. Page I Building, Room 303 Washington, D. C. 20235 4. Department of Commerce Main Commerce Building 14th and Constitution, N. W. Room 7046 Washington, D. C. 20230 vii 6. List of Entities From Whom.Condients Have Been Requested or Received With Responders Indicated Federal Agencies *Department of Agriculture Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Forest Service Soil Conservation Service Rural Electrification Administration Agriculture Research Service Department of Commerce NOAA EDA Maritime Administration Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Navy *Department of the Interior (combined response) Bureau of Land Management (public lands) Office of Oil and Gas Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Fish and Wildlife Service (commented at Dublic hearing) Bureau of Indian Affairs (Tndian TAnri-01 Geological Survey National Park Service Office of Land Use and Water Planning Bureau of Reclamation Office of Saline Water Bureau of Mines Power Marketing Administration *Department of Transportation (combined response) Coast Guard Transport and Pipeline Safety Office of Environmental Affairs Federal Highway Administration Federal Aviation Administration Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator, Region X U. S. Water Resources Council Department of Health, Education and Welfare Public Health Service Vill TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................. .................................. 1 _II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................... 2 A. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program .................. 2 B. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program ............... 6 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED .................... ... 57 IV. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LANE USE PLANS, POLICIES AND CONTROLS FOR THE AREA ............................... 81, V. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMFM ........ 84 A. Impacts Resulting From the Federal Agency Review Process ............................................... 89 B. Impacts Directly Resulting From Federal Approval ............. 92 C. Impacts Resulting from the State and Local Goverment Action ...................................... ...... 101 D. Impacts on Historic Properties ............................... 113 VI. ALTERNATIVES ...................................................... 116 VII. PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED ..................... ................................... 124 VIII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERKUSES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY.... 125 IX. IRREVOCABLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OFRESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED ...... 126 X. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS ......................... 127 REFERENCES ....................................................... 133 APPENDICES I. Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) II. Final Guidelines, Coastal Zone Management Program Administrative Grants III. Washington Shoreline Management Act of 1971 IV. Final Guidelines,Shoreline Management Act of 1971 V. Maps and Matrices VI. Conclusions and Recommendations from "Washington State Shoreline Management--An Interim Assessment," by Maureen McCrea and Jim Feldman, August 197S VII. State of Washington Board of Tax Appeals Decision on Padilla Bay Tracts VIII. Summary-of Shoreline Hearings Board Decisions Revised Dec. 1973 IX. Coordination and Consultation X. Comments From Federal,State and Local Agencies and by Interested Persons Involved in Review Process XI. Washington Coastal Zone Management Program Supplement, April 1976 *Department of Housing and Urban Development (combined response) Federal lnsurance Administration, Office Of Planning and Management Assistance *Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice *Energy Research and Development Administration *Federal Energy Administration *Federal Power Commission General Services Administration *National Aeronautics and Space Administration *Advisory Council on Historic Preservatiop Federal-State *Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission State *Washington (Governor's Office) Department of Agriculture Department of Emergency Services Department of Commerce and Economic Development Department of Ecology Department of Fisheries Department of Game Department of Highways Departme-nt. of Natural Resources Department of Social and Health Services Office of Community Development Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Parks and Recreation Commission Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management County Clallam County Grays Harbor Island Jefferson King Kitsap ix Mason Pacific Pierce San Juan Skagit Snohomish Thurston Wahkiakum Whatcom Other Parties Alpine Lakes Protection Society American Institute of Planners American Water Works Association *Environmental Defense Fund Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs Izaak Walton League *League of Women Voters Mountaineers . ***National Audubon Society National Wildlife Federation *Natural Resources Defense Council (phoned in coments) North Cascades Conservation Council Northwest Pulp and Paper Association *Pacific Northwest National Seashore Alliance Planning Association of Washington Puget Sound Coalition Sierra Club The,Nature Conservancy Washington Association of Soil and Water Conservation Groups Washington Enviromental Council (verbal response at public hearing) Washington Forest Protection Association Washington Public Utility Districts Association Washington State Association of Sanitarians Washington State Association of Water and Sewer Districts Washington State Grange Washington State Sportsmen's'Council Date Made Available to CEQ and The Public: Draft Statement: March 21, 197S Final Statement: April 9, 1976 x INTRODUCTION In response to the intense pressures upon, the conflicts within, and the importance of the coastal zone ofthe United States, the Congress in 1972 passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 920583; 86 Stat. 1280; hereinafter referred to as the Act; included as Appendix 1). Signed into law by President Nixon on October 27, 1972,the,Act authorized a new Federal program to-be administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Act affirms a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone, and provides assistance and encouragement to the coastal states to develop and'implement rational programs for managing their coastal zones. Three financial assistance grant programs are authorized by the Act. Section 305 authorizes annual grants to assist any United States coastal state or territory in the development of a management program for the land and water resources of its coastal zone (program development grants). Under Section 306, after developing a management program, the state may submit it to the Secretary of Commerce for approval; if approved, the state is then eligible for annual grants to administer its management progran (program administration grants). A third section (Section 312) provides grants for an estuarine sanctuary program, to preserve a representative series of undis- turbed estuarine areas for long-term scientific and educational purposes. I As an additional incentive for state participation, the Act stipu- lates that Federal actions within the coastal zone shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with approved state.. management programs (the "Federal consistency" requirement of Section 307). Guidelines defining the procedures by which states can qualify to receive development grants under Section 305 of the.Act, and the policies for development of a state management program, were published on November 29, 1973 (15 CFR Part 920, Federal Register 38(229):33044-33051). Guidelines for the implementation of the estuarine sanctuary program were published on June 4, 1974 (15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 39 (108): 1922-1927), and the first estuarine sanctuary grant was awarded to the State of Oregon on June 27, 1974. On January 9, 1975, NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) published criteria to be used for approving state coastal! zone management programs and guidelines for program administrative grants (15 CFR Part 923, Federal Register 40(6):1683-1695; see Appendix 2). These criter -an-a-g-URelines set forth (a) the standards to be utilized by the Secretary of Commerce in reviewing and approving coastal zone management programs developed and submitted by coastal states for approval, (b) procedures by which coastal states may qualify to receive program adminis- trative grants, and (c) policies for the administration by coastal states of approved coastal zone management programs. Pursuant to the Section 306 guidelines, OCZM has now received for review and Secretarial approval proposed coastal zone manage- ment programs, in varying stages of completion for: Washington, Oregon, and the San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Develop- ment Commission (seeking segmented approval). The OCZM has determined that approval of a state's coastal zone management program, with resultant impacts of potential funding, consistency of Federal actions and permits, and-ultimately land- use in toto, has the potential for causing a significant impact on tTe- environment, and that,.therefore, an.environmental impact statement (EIS) should be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This EIS is intended to present for review by interested parties the State of Washington's coastal zone management program and its application for approval under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A,. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program The enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 culminated a lengthy history of Federal interest in and coricern for the coastal zone and its resources. Significant national interest can be traced from the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences' (NASCO) 12-volume report`Oceanography 1960-1970,11 (1959) to the Report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources (1969), which proposed that a Coastal Management Act'bo enacted that would "Provide policy objectives for the coastal zone and authorize Federal grants-in- -aid to facilitate the establishment of State Coastal Zone Authorities empowered to manage the coastal waters and adjacent land." (p.56) The National Estuarine Pollution Study (1969), authorized by the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, and the National Estuary Study (1970), authorized by the Estuarine Areas Study Act of 1968, further documented the importance of the 2 conflicting demands upon our Nation's coasts. Together these reports stressed the need to protect and wisely use these import- ant national resources, and concurred that a specific program designed to promote the thoughtful protection and management of our coastal zone was necessary. In response to these recommendations, the first legislative pro- posals for coastal management programs were introduced in 1969. Long and extensive hearings were held on these and subsequent bills during the next three years (e.g.: House 9.1-14, 91-46, and 92-16; Senate 92-15, 92-753, and 92-1049). The overwhelming support for the final Act (P.L. 92-583), which passed 68-0 in the Senate and 376-6 in the House, clearly reflected the need for decisive action in the coastal zone. The Act opens by stating that "there is a national interest in the effective management-, beneficial use, protection, and develop- menlL of the coastal zone." (Section 302(a)). The statement of Congressional findings goes on to describe how competition for the.utilization of coastal resources, brought on by the increased demands of population growth and economic expansion, has led to the degradation of the coastal environment, citing the "loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, perma- nent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion." The Act then states that the "key to more effective protection and use of the land arfd water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over the.lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the states ... in developing land and water use programs ... including unified policies, criteria, standards, methods, and processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance." (Section 302(h)). While local goverments and Federal agencies are required to cooperate, coordinate and participate in the development of the management programs, the state level of goverment is clearly given the central role and responsibility for this process. The Act provides a nunber of incentives and means of achieving these objectives and policies. Under Section 305 it enables the 30 coastal states (Great Lakes states are included) and four coastal territories, on a voluntary,basis, to receive grants from NOAA to cover two-thirds of the costs of developing coastal zone manage- ment programs. Broad guidelines and minimum requirements in the Act provide the necessary direction for developing these programs. For example, during the program development, each state must address specific issues such as the boundaries of its coastal zone; geographic areas of particular concern; permissible and priority land and water uses, and areas for preservation or restoration. During the planning process, the state is directed to consult with local, regional, and relevant Federal agencies and govern- ments, and general public interests. These annual grants can be 3 renewed twice, so that Federal support can be provided to states for up to three years for this program development phase. Upon completion and adoption of the management program by the state, and after approval by the Secretary of Commerce, states and territories are eligible under Section 306 to receive adminis trative grants (presumably in greater amounts than for,program. development) to cover two-thirds of the costs of implementing these programs. The criteria for approval of state coastal zone management programs and guidelines for applying for program administrative grants are provided in Appendix 2. The states' administration of their programs will be reviewed annually by OCZM and, as long as they are administered consistent with the approved management program, the states will remain eligible for annual administrative grants. The Act provides that the views of Federal agencies principally affected by such programs must be adequately considered by the Secretary of Commerce in his review and approval.of the -;nagement program. The Department has established a formal revi-w process to receive the comments from such Federal agencies anG , which serious disagreements may be resolved (15 CFR Part 925, Interim Regulations. Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 41, February 28, 1975). NOAA evaluation of the statutory requirements established in the Act and guidelines will concentrate primarily upon the adequacy of state processes in dealing with key coastal problems and issues. It will not, in general, deal with the wisdom of specific land and water Lsedecisions, but rather with a determination that in addressing those problems.and issues, the state is aware of the full range of present and potential needs and uses of the coastal zone, and has developed procedures, based upon scientific know- ledge, public participation and unified governmental policies, for making reasoned choices and decisions. Management programs will.be evaluated in the light of the Congres- sional findings and policies as contained in Sections 302 and 303 of the Act. These sections make it clear that Congress in enacting the legislation was concerned about the environmental degradation, damage tonatural and scenic areas, loss of living marine resources and wildlife, decreasing open space for public use and shoreline erosion being brought about by population growth,and economic development. The Act thus has a strong environmental thrust, stressing the "urgent need to protect and to,give high priority to natural systems in the coastal zone." A close working relationship between the agency responsible for the coastal zone management program and the agencies responsible,. for environmental protection is vital in carrying out this legisla'ti've intent. States are encouraged by the Act to take into account ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic values as 4 Or well as the need for economic development in preparing and imple- menting management programs through which the states, with the participation of all affected interests and levels of government, exercise their full authority over coastal lands and waters. In addition, the Act provides coastal states and territories with the opportunity to apply for grants to cover one-half of the costs of acquisition, development and operation of estuarine sanctuaries, wherein natural field laboratories are established in order that scientists and students may be provided the oppor- tunity to examine over a period of time ecological relationships in representative undisturbed estuaries of the coastal zone'. Although signed in October 1972, implementation of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program was delayed by the Administration's decision not to request appropriations for the remainder of FY 1973 or FY 1974. This decision was made on the grounds that more information on the nature and extent of state activities and needs was required before committing funds, and because of the desire by the Administration to coordinate or subsume the operation of the coastal zone management program with, or under the then pending land use legislation. Eventually in response to the pressing needs and demands in the coastal zone, and in view of negative action on the land use legislation, thePresident in August 1973, forwarded an amended budget request to Congress for $5 million to begin implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act. This request was amended by Congress to provide a final appropriation of $12 million for FY 1974, and was signed by the President on November 27, 1973. About $7.2 million of this total was for program development grants (Section 305), $4 million for estuarine sanctuary grants, and $800,000 for pro- gram administration within NOAA. The OCZM budget for FY 1975 remained at $12 million, distributed however as $9 million for program development, $2.1 million for state program administration grants, and $900,000 for internal NOAA program administration. About $3.2 million remained available in the estuarine sanctuary program as carry over funds from FY 1974. Currently all eligible states, and three of four eligible territories have received grants under the program. Two estuarine sanctuary grants have been awarded to the States of Oregon and Georgia. S B., The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP) INTRODUCHON The C24A defines "management program" as "a comprehensive state- ment in words, maps, illustrations, or other media of communication, prepared and adopted by the state in accordance with the provisions of this title, setting forth objectives, policies, and standards to guide public and private uses of lands and waters in the coastal zone." (Section 304(g)). On February 14, 1975, Governor Daniel J. Evans, submitted on be- half of the State of Washington, the first coastal zone management program to the Office of Coastal Zone Management/NOAA. The program consisted of docLmentation of state laws, administrative regula- tions, description of programs and processes on how the state was going to manage its coastal zone. A thorough review of the WCZNP by OCZM, other Federal-agencies probably affected by the program, and the public, identified certain aspects of the program needing further development prior to the Secretary of Commerce approving the program. The major concerns expressed dealt with Federal/state relationships, the State's organizational network, and a lack of clarity in the description Qf some of the substantive program elements'.' Preliminary approval was granted the State in May 1975, and the State was given a supplemental development grant to intensively work on the concerns stated above. Realizing that coastal zone management is a dynamic process just as the issues identified,'the State has further developed a pro- cess of communication with Federal agencies in orderto better understand their missions and actions in the coastal zone, how they can cooperatively work together on such arrangements as the Federal consistency requirements, and to get a better under- standing of what the national interests are in the siting of facilities. Similarly, efforts have been made to complete the review of Local Master Programs and approve them prior to Section 306 approval. Arrangements were made with other State agencies to increase the coordination of the various programs. And finally, several program elements have been improved. On December 12, 1975, Governor Evans submitted the WCZMP for final approval. In his cover letter to NOAA, Governor Evans stated the following: "I have reviewed the Washington coastal zone management program, and, as Governor, approve the program and certify to the following: 6 1. The state has the required authorities and is presently implementing the coastal zone management program; 2. The state has established, and is operating, the neces sary organizational structure to implement the coastal zone management program; 3. The Department of Ecology is the'single designated agency to receive and administer grants for implementingthe coastal zone management program, and further the Depart- ment of Ecology is hereby designated as the lead agency for the implementation of the coastal zone management program; 4. The state, in concert with local goverments, has the authority to control land and water uses, control develop- ment, and resolve conflicts among competing uses, S. The state presently uses the methods listed in Section 306(e)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act for controlling land and water uses in the coastal zone, including: (a) the authority derived from the Shoreline Management Act, the Act's implementing regulations including the Final Guide- lines and local master programs; (b) state adminis- trative review of local programs, and permits a associated with the Shoreline Management Act; and (c) direct state regulatory authority for control of air and water pollution; 6. The state has sufficient powers to acquire lands, should that become desirable or necessary under elements of the coastal zone management program; 7. Those state laws cited in the program have been passed by the legislature and enacted into law. Administrative regulations required to implement the laws have been formally adopted by the respon- sible state agencies,; and state approved local master programs have been formally adopted by the appropriate local government; 8. The state's air and water pollution control programs, established pursuant to the,Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1.972 and the Federal Clean Air Act, insofar as those programs pertain to the coastal zone, are hereby made a part of the state's 'coastal zone management program. The regulations appurtenant to the,air and water programs are incorporated into this program and shall become the water pollution control'- requirements and air pollution control requirements 7 applicable to the state's coastal zone management program. Further, any additional requirements and amendments to air and water pollution programs shall also become part of the state's coastal zone management program; and 9. 1 further certify that the Washington coastal zone management program is now an official program of the State of Washington and the state, acting by and through its several instrumentalities, will strive to meet the intent of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and the state's corollary legislation; and to do so in a uniform, cooperative and aggressive spirit." The Shoreline Management Act provides for the basis of manag3-ng the coastal zone. The following section, taken from the WCZNP, explains how this significant and comprehensive piece of legislation works. THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 govern their treatment in operating shoreline pro- grams. The Act defines "shorelines of statewide Requirements and Range of Applicability of the significance" as follows: Act The Shoreline Management Act requires and (1) The area between the ordinary high water defines a planning program and a regulatory permit mark and the western boundary of the state from Cape Disappointment on the south to system, both of which are initiated at the local I Cape Flattery on the north, including har- level under state guidance. The planning program bors, bays, estuaries, and inlets; for each local government consists of a com- prehensive shoreline inventory and a master pro- (2) Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent gram for the regulation of shoreline uses. The salt waters and the Strait of Juan de Fuca inventory covers existing land and water uses, gen- between the ordinary high water mark and eralized ownership patterns, and natural shoreline the line of extreme low tide as follows: characteristics. The master program utilizes the in- (a) Nisqually Delta-from DeWolf Bight to ventory information and is essentially a com- Tatsolo Point, prehensive land use plan with a distinct environ (b) Birch Bay-from Point Whitehorn to mental orientation. The master program includes Birch Point, basic goals and objectives, the designation of all shoreline areas into a categorization system, and (c) Hood Canal-from Tala Point to Foul- specific regulatory language. The entire -planning weather Bluff, function is conducted in conformance with guide- (d) Skagit Bay and adjacent area-from lines prepared and adopted by the Department of Brown Point to Yokeko Point, and Ecology (DOE). The resultlng local master pro- (e) Padilla Bay-from March Point to grams are subject to state review and approval and William Point; are then adopted as state regulations. The regula- tory permit system is overseen by a state adminis- (3) Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait trative appellate body created for the purpose by of Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt waters the Act. north to the Canadian line and.1ying sea- ward from the line of extreme low tide; The management program established in the Shoreline Management Act applies to all "shore- (4) Those lakes, whether natural, artifical or a lines of the state," including both "shorelines" and combination thereof, with a surface, acreage "shorelines of statewide significance." In a nutshell of one thousand acres or more measured at the Act applies to all marine water areas of the the ordinary high water mark; state, to streams with a mean annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second or more, and to lakes larger (5) Those natural rivers or segments ther .eof as follows: than 20 acres. It also applies to adjacent land areas extending landward 200 feet from the (a) Any west. of the crest of the Cascade ordinary high water mark and to all marshes, bogs, range downstream of a -point where the swamps, floodways, river deltas, and floodplains as- mean annual flow is measured at one sociated with water bodies subject to the Act. In thousand cubic feet per second or more, all, there are 791 lakes, 965 rivers and streams, (b) Any east of the crest of the Cascade some 2,400 miles of marine shoreline, and over range downstream of a point where the 3,000 square miles of marine waters subject to annual flow is measured at two hundred the Act. cubic feet per second or more, or those portions of rivers east of the crest of the Special legislative concern was expressed in SMA Cascade range downstream'from the first for those shorelines identified as of statewide con- three hundred square miles of drainage cern and special use priorities were established to area, whichever is longer; 9 (6) Those wetlands associated with (1), (2), (4), master programs where 'a local government and (5) above. declined or refused to do so. Only two counties and two. small towns refused to complete Two interrelated time schedules were set up in programs. The Department has completed and the Act for the Department of Ecology and local adopted programs for all four jurisdictions. governments to establish the framework, guide- lines, and plans which will collectively constitute Policy Direction from the Act the management system. The Department was directed to undertake and complete the following Management goals in SMA place a strong em- no later than the dates indicated: phasis upon a balance between conservation and September 28, 1971 -initial draft of the guide- use of the shorelines. In RCW 90.58.020 the lines and submission to local governments for Legislature declares that "unrestricted construc- comments. tion on the privately owned or publicly owned February 26, 1972-completion of a final guide- shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest," which should be protected through co- line draft and submission for review. ordinated planning, while "at the same time, recog- March 26, 1972-completion of public hearings nizing and protecting private property rights on final draft. consistent with the public interest." The Legisla- June 24, 1972-holding of a public hearing ture further declares that it is the policy of the to adopt final guidelines. state to provide for the managerne 'nt of the state's shorelines "by planning for and fostering all Local governments were to fulfill their basic reasonable and appropriate uses" and that this responsibilities-the completion of an inventory policy is designed to of their shorelines and the drafting of the master program-on the following schedule: "insure the development of these shorelines November 30, 1971-submission of a letter of in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigabl intent to the Department of Ecology indicating ware ill promote and enhance the publi that the governmental unit will undertake and rs, wi Ic complete the shoreline inventory and the master interest. This policy contemplates protecting program. against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the January 26, 1972-last date for responses to the waters of the state; while protecting generally Department of Ecology initial draft of guide- public rights of navigation and corollary rights lines. incidental thereto." November 30, 1972-shoreline inventory to be completed. More specific priorities are given for shorelines, of statewide significance. DOE and local govern- December 24, 1973-submission of master plan ments are directed to give preference to uses in to the Department of Ecology at least eighteen the following order of preference which: months after the effective date of the guidelines (this was later amended to June 20, 1974). (a) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest. in general terms, then, the process of creating (b) Preserve the natural character of the shore- the system was to be completed within three-and- line. a-half years. The state was directed to cooperate (c) Result in long-term over short-term benefit. fully with local governments in meeting their responsibilities. In addition, there is a provision in (d) Protect the resources and ecology of the the Act which authorizes the Department to distri- shoreline. but6 grant funds appropriated by the Legislature to assist local governments. DOE was also authorized Nj(e) Increase public access to publicly owned to undertake the completion of inventories and areas of the shorelines. 10 \,(f) Increase recreational opportunities for the Similarly, the final guidelines recommend@ that public in the shoreline. "water-dependent industries which require frontage on navigable water should be given The Legislature further specifies that where priority over other industrial uses." alterations of the natural condition of such shore- lines are permitted, priority should be given to the While it is not the intent of the Act to catego- following uses: (1) single family residences; (2) rically prohibit all non-water dependent uses, there ports; (3) shoreline recreational uses; (4) industrial is clear intent to establish a preference for water- and commercial developments that are particular- dependent uses. The concept of preference of use ly dependent upon their location on or use of is particularly applicable to shorelines under shorelines; and (5) other developments which will intense development pressures for port- and provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of harbor-related industrial activity where availability people to enjoy the shorelines. of that shoreline resource is limited and the resource is extremely valuable. While the policy citations above are quite The Shorelines Hearings Board (see pages 41-43) general, there are a number of policies in the Act which are considerably more specific. Timber has further expanded and refined the concept and cutting regulations for shorelines of statewide policies of water dependency. The Board, in DOE significance were specifically included Within the and Yount vs. Snobomisb Co., defined water 200 foot zone ofthese areas; only selective com- dependency in the following terms: mercial cutting is allowed so that no more than 30 A water-dependent commerce or industry, to per cent of the saleable trees may be harvested in which priority should be given, is one. which any ten-year period. Authorization -is provided cannot exist in any other location and is depen- for other harvesting methods when they are neces- dent on the water by reason of the intrinsic sary for regeneration. Surface drilling for oil or nature of its operations. A water related gas is prohibited in the waters of Puget Sound industry or commerce is one which is not north to the Canadian boundary and the Strait of intrinsically dependent on a w@terfront location Juan de Fuca seaward from the ordinary high but whose operation cannot occur economically water mark and on all lands within 1,000 feet without a shoreline location. from the mark. There is also a height limit on structures. Permits cannot be issued for any new In light of the fact that the Department of or expanded building or structure of more than Natural Resources' policies for the leasing of thirty-five feet that will obstruct the view of a sub- state-owned tidal areas further supports the stantialnumber of residences on areas adjoining concept of water dependency, the policy of the shoreline except where a master program,does specifying water dependent uses as priori ity uses not prohibit such a height and only when over- has solidified considerably over the past four years. riding considerations of the public interest will be However, an emerging concept of "water served. relativity", promises more difficulty in interpreta- tion. Consistent with these concepts, many local The concept of preferred shoreline uses is as- master programs have established the following serted in both the Shoreline Management Act and preferences for three classes of uses: the Department of Ecology's final guidelines. The Act states that (1) Water-dependent uses are those uses which ... uses shall be preferred which are. . unique to cannot logically exist in any other location or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. but on the water. Alteration of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances (2) Water-oriented uses are uses which are when authorized, shall be given priority for in- helped by their location on the shoreline, dustrial. and commercial development which are but it is possible for them to locate away particularly dependent on their location or use from the waterfront with existing of the shorelines of the state." technology. (3) Non-water oriented uses are all uses which determination of which environment designation can locate equally well away from the water- should be given to any specific area was made as front. follows: (1) The resources of the shoreline areas were Policy Direction from the DOE Guidelines analyzed for their opportunities and limita- Final DOE rules and regulations governing the tions for different uses. Completion of a development of local mast .er programs were comprehensive shoreline inventory was a adopted on June 20, 1972, as Chapter 173-16 of prerequisite for the development of local the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The shoreline master programs. rules and regulations constituted strong policy (2) Each of the plan elements was analyzed for guidelines to local governments on how to con- its effect on the various resources in shore- struct master programs. Of particular interest here line areas. Since shorelines are only a part of are the parts of the guidelines which set forth the system of resources within a local state policy relating to the classification of shore- jurisdiction, it was particularly important line environments, permissible and priority uses, that planning for shorelines be considered and the treatment of shorelines of statewide an integral part of the area-wide planning. significance. Further plans,. policies, and regulations for The guidelines set forth a system of categorizi .ng lands adjacent to the shorelines of the state shoreline areas for local governments to use in their were reviewed in accordance with RCW master programs. The system was designed to pro- 90-58.340. vide a uniform basis throughout the state for (3) Public desires were considered through the applying policies and use regulations t 'o different citizen involvement process to determine shoreline locations. The guidelines suggest cate- how local values and aspirations related to gorization into four distinct environmental types- the development of different shoreline - natural, conservancy, rural, and urban-based on areas. the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities, and the goals and aspirations of the The management objectives and features by local citizenry, In actual fact, some local programs which the DOE guidelines characterize each of the have identified more than the basic four environ- environments (WAC 173-16-040(4)(b)(0-60) are ments and others have only three, depending on quoted in full in what follows because of their the character and diversity of conditions,along the central importance as the basis for environment shoreline in question, but the guidelines did designations within local jurisdictions. achieve a basic standardization. Natural Environment: The natural environment The categorization system is designed to en- is intended to preserve and restore those natural courage uses in each type of environment, which resource systems existing relatively free of hu- enhance the character of that environment and to man influence. Local policies to achieve this utilize performance standards which regulate use objective would aim to regulate all potential activities in accordance with the locally defined developments degrading or changing the natural goals and objectives rather than to simply -exclude characteristics which make these areas unique any iuse from any one environment. Thus, the and valuable. particular uses or types of developments al- lowed in each environment must be designed and The main emphasis of regulation in these areas located to minimize detrimental effects thereby is on natural systems and resources which re- leading to the achievement of the objectives of the quire severe restrictions of intensities and types local shoreline development goals for each type of of uses to maintain them in a natural state. environment. The system results in the superimpo- Therefore,- activities which may degrade the sition of an overall environment class over local actual or potential value of this environment planning and zoning along the shorelines. The are to be restricted. 12 The primary determinant for designatin,r an area The conservancy environment is also the most as a natural environment is the actual presence suitable designation for thosc areas which pre- of some unique natural or cultural features sent too severe biophysical limitations to be considered valuable in their natural or original designated as rural or urban environments. Such condition, which are relatively intolerant of limitations include steep slopes presenting intensive human use. Such features are defined, erosion and slide hazards, areas prone to flood- identified, and quantified in the shoreline in- ing, and areas which cannot provide adequate ventory. The relative value of the resources is water supply or sewage disposal. based on local citizen opinion and the needs Rural Environment: The rural environment is and desires of other people in the rest of the intended to protect agricultural land from urban state. expansion, restrict intensive development along Because of its restrictive regulations, the natural undeveloped shorelines, function as a buffer environment has been utili.-,.ed sparingly throughout between urban areas, and maintain open spaces the state. Publicly owned fragile and ecologically and opportunities for recreational uses, com- valuable shorelands are more likely to be desig- patible with agricultural. activities. nated as natural than privately owned similar The rural environment is intended for those shorelands. areas characterized by intensive agricultural Conservancy Environment: The objective in and recreational uses and those areas having a deziignating -a conservancy environment is to high capability to support active agricultural protect, conserve, and manage existing natural practices and intensive recreational develop- resources and valuable historic and cultural ment. Hence, those areas that are already used areas in order to ensure a continuous flow of for agricultural purposes, or which have recreational benefits to the public and to achieve agricultural potential, should be maintained sustained resource utilization.. for present and future agricultural needs. Designation of rural environments also seeks to alleviate pressur&s of urban expansion on prime The conservancy environment is for those areas farming areas. which are intended to maintain their existing character. The preferred uses are those which New developments in a rural environment are to are nonconsumptive of the physical and bio- reflect the character of the surrounding area by logical resources of the area. Nonconsumptive limiting residential density, providing permanent uses are those Uses which can utilize resources- open space and by maintaining adequate on a sustained yield basis while minimally building setbacks from water to prevent shore- reducing opportunities for other future uses of line resources from being destroyed for other the resources in the area. Activities and uses of a rural types of uses. nonpermanent nature which do not substantial- ly degrade the existing character of an area are Public recreation facilities which can be located appropriate uses for a conservancy environment. and designed to minimize conflicts with agricul- Examples of uses that might be predominant in tural activities are recommended for the rural a conservancy environment include diffuse out- environment. Linear water access which prevents door recreation activities, timuer harvesting on overcrowding in any one area, trail systems for a sustained yield_ basis, passive agricultural safe nonmotorized traffic along scenic corri- uses such as pasture and range lands, and other dors and provisions for recreational viewing of. related uses and activities. water areas illustrate some of the ways to ensure maximum enjoyment of recreational The designation of conservancy environments opportunities along shorelines without con- also seeks to satisfy the needs of the community flicting with agricultural uses. -in a similar as to the present and future location of recrea- fashion, agricultural activities are to be con- tional areas proximate to concentrations of pop- ducted in a manner which will enhance the op- ulation, either existing o- projected. portunities for shoreline recreation. Farm 13 management practices which prevent erosion hav@ designated the water differently from the and subsequent siltation of water bodies and uplands but still using shoreline classes, and a few minimize the flow of waste material into water have added'a separate ri@arine or aquatic environ- courses are encouraged by the master programs. ment. Urban Environment: The objective of the urban Many counties have also identified a fifth shore- environment is to ensure optimum utilization of line environment which is, between the intensively shorelines within urbanized areas by providing developed urban and the agricultural rural environ- for intensive public use and by managing ments. This environment is called either suburban/ development so that it enhances and maintains semirural or rural-residential and is intended to shorelines for a multiplicity of urban uses. identify those shoreline areas with low-density residential development ususally with individual The urban environment is an area of high- water and sewage disposal systems. The objective intensity land-use including residential, com- of the designation is to preserve the low-density mercial, and industrial development. The character. environment does not necessarily include all shorelines within an incorporated city, but is The DOE guidelines also provided policies for particularly suitable to those areas presently shoreline activities which served as the basis for subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, the development of the local shoreline master as well as areas planned to.accommodate urban programs (WAC 173-16-060). The development expansion. Shorelines planned for future urban guidelines were also used as criteria for the evalua- expansion should present few biophysical tion of proposed shoreline developments at both limitations for urban activities and not have a the. local and state levels while local master pro- high priority for designation as an alternative grams were being developed. The following is a environment. brief summary of DOE's development policies. Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis is given to develop- Agricultural Practices: Agricultural practices ment within already developed areas and should not lower water quality by causing particularly to water-dependent industrial and erosion and permitting chemicals or animal commercial uses requiring frontage on navigable wastes to enter water bodies. waters. Arcbaeological Areas and Historic Sites: The in the master programs, priority is also given to National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and planning for public visual and physical access to Chapter 43.51 RCW provide for the protection, water in the urban environment. Identifying rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of needs and planning for the acquisition of urban districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects land for permanent publicaccess to the water in significant in Amer* 'ican and Washington history, the urban e *nvironment should be accomplished architecture, archaeology or culture. The in the course of continuous shoreline manage- Washington State Parks and Recreation Commis- ment. To enhance waterfront and ensure, maxi- sion is responsible for this program. mum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be designed to permit pedestrian Shoreline permits should contain provisions waterfront activities. Where practical, various which would require developers to notify access points are to be linked to nonmotorized authorities if any possible archaeological data transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking are uncovered during construction, and the sites paths. should be preserved if possible. The counties have varied in their approach to Aquaculture: Aquaculture is a preferred use in environment designation for the water areas in suitable water areas but should be conducted their jurisdiction. Many counties have extended the with due consideration for naviL7ation riLyhts shoreline environments over the water areas, others and visual quality. 14 Breakwaters. Breakwaters should be con- In the limited instances when fill is authorized structed in such a way that detrimental effects the fill material should be of such quality that on the movement of sand, circulation of water, it will not cause problems of water quality. and public use of the water surface are re- Marinas: Marinas should be located near high duced or eliminated. use areas and should be designated in a manher Bulkbeads: Bulkheads and seawalls are to be that will reduce damage to fish and shellfish constructed to protect upland property from resources and be aesthetically compatible with imminent erosion and should not cause adverse the adjacent areas. effects on nearby beaches, damage fish and Mining: Removal of sand and gravel from shellfish habitats, or detract from the aesthetic marine beaches should not be permitted. When quality of the shoreline. authorized, removal of rock, sand, gravel, and Commercial D evelopment: Shoreline-dependent minerals from shoreline areas should be con- commercial development and developments ducted in the least sensitive biophysical areas, which will provide shoreline enjoyment for a with-adequate protection against siltation and large number of people should be preferred erosion. New commercial activities should locate in Outdoor Advertising: Off-premise outdoor urbanized areas. advertising signs are discouraged from shoreline locations. Where permitted, signs should be Dredging: Dredging should be controlled in located on the upland side of transportation order to minimize damage to existing ecological routes and should not impair vistas and view- values and natural resources of both the area points. to be dredged and the area for depositing of dredged materials. Single-purpose dredging to Piers: In general, the continued proliferation of obtain fill material shall be discouraged. single-purpose private docks is to be discouraged and the use of community piers or offshore floating devices for boat moorage is encouraged. Forest Management Practices: Forest manage- ment practices are to guard against siltation, Ports and Water.-Related Industry: Industry increased water temperature in spawning streams which requires frontage on navigable waters and lakes, pollution due to application of chem- should be given priority over other industrial icals, and destruction of scenic quality. Only uses. Prior to allocating shorelines for port selective timber cutting is permitted within the uses, regional and state-wide needs for such uses 200-foot area abutting shorelines of statewide should be considered. significance. (RCW 90.58.150) \Recreation: Priority will be given to develop- Jetties and Groins: The effects on sand move- ments which provide recreational uses and other ment from these structures, when proposed, improvements facilitating public,access to shore- should be carefully evaluated and, when neces- lines. Water-oriented recreation is a preferred sary, steps should be taken to investigate ne.ga- use along the shorelines, but it should be located tive effects. and conducted in a way which is compatible with the environment. Landfill: Priority should be given to landfills Residential Development: Residential develop- for water-dependent uses and for public uses. ment should protect the aesthetic quality and In evaluating fill projects and in designating natural character of the shoreline by preserving areas appropriate for fill, such factors as total vegetation, controlling density, using a planned water surface reduction, navigation restrictions, unit development approach when practical, and impediment to water flow and circulation, re- promoting access to the shorelines within a duction of water quality, and destruction of subdivision. Over-water residential structures habitat should be considered. should not be permitted. Road and Railroad Design and Construction: mendations in developing use regula- Whenever possible, major roads and railroads tions. should be located away from shorelines and (c) Solicit comments, opinions, and advice shoreline locations should be reserved for slow- from individuals with expertise in moving recreational driving and nonmotorized ecology, oceanography, geology, traffic. limnology, aquaculture, and other Roads should be designed to fit the topography scientific fields pertinent to shoreline and to prevent erosion and water pollution from management. direct runoff. (2) Preserve the natural character of the shore- Sboreline Protection: Bank stabilization line. measures should be constructed so as to avoid Development Guidelines: the need for channelization and to protect the (a) Designate environments and use regula- natural character of the streamway. Flood pro- tions to minimize manmade intrusions tection measures, such as dikes, should be placed landward of the strearnway, including on shorelines. associated swamps, marshes, and other related (b) Where intensive development already wetlands., occurs, upgrade and redevelop those Solid Waste Disposal: Shoreline areas should areas to reduce their adverse impact not be used for garbage dumps or sanitary on the -environment and :o accom- landfills. modate future growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to extend Utilities: Utility pipes and lines should be in- into low intensity use or underdeveloped stalled with minimum disturbance to the shore- areas. line. After installation, the sites should be re- (c) Ensure that where commercial timber- stored to their preconstruction condition and cutting is allowed as provided in R facilities should be placed underground if C possible. 90.58.150, restoration will be possiZle and accomplished as soon as-pracricable. one other important contribution of the DOE' (3) Result in long-term ove'r short-term benefi .t. guidelines to establishing a solid foundation of state policy to underlay the needed diversity of Development Guidelines: local master programs was the provision of a set of (a) Prepare master programs on the basis development guidelines for implementing the use of preserving the shoreline for future preferences established in the Act for shorelines of generations. For example, actions that statewide significance. What follows is a summary would convert resources into irreversible of the development guidelines given for each use, uses or detrimentally alter natural con- preference in WAC 17 3-16-040(5). ditions characteristic of shorelines of (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest statewide significance should be severely over local interest. limited. Development Guidelines: (b) Evaluate the short-term economic gain (a) Solicit comments and opinions from or convenience of developments in groups and individuals representing state- relationship to long-term and potential- wide interests by circulating proposed ly costly impairments to the natural master programs for review and com- environment. merit by state agencies, adjacent juris- (c) Actively promote aesthetic considera- dictions' citizen advisory committees, tions when contemplating new develop- and statewide interest groups. ment, redevelopment of existing (b) Recognize and take into account state facilities, or for the general enhancement agencies' policies, programs, and recom- of shoreline areas. 16 (4) Protect the resources and ecology of shore-'* incorporated towns. Many counties prepared pro- lines. grams in a cooperative arrangement with the cities Development Guidelines: which allows one document to apply to several (a) Leave undeveloped those areas which jurisdictions. Fifteen cities used the coastal county programs which reduces the number of separate contain a unique or fragile natural documents to 38 - 15 county and 23 city pro- resource. grams. (b) Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would alter the natural function of the As required by the 'Act and the final guide- water system. In areas where erosion and lines, master programs are to include goals, sediment control practices will not be policies, a map of generalized shoreline environ- effective, excavations or other activities mental designations, and specifi c use regulations. Local government preparation of shoreline inven- which increase erosion are to be severely limited. tories to provide the data base is the first phase of (c) Restrict or prohibit public access onto master program formulation. The second phase involved the formulation of shoreline goals and areas which cannot be maintained in a policies. This is to be established through close natural condition under human uses. - cooperation with citizen advisory committees, (5) Increase public access to publicly owned which worked closely with local planners in es- areas of the shorelines. tablishing the goals and policies of the shore- Development Guidelines.' line. Development of specific shoreline environ- ment designations and use regulations by citizens (a) In master programs, give priority to and planners comprises the third phase of the developing paths and trails to shorel 'ine process. areas, to linear access along the shore- lines, and to developing upland.parking. (b) Locate development inland from, the THE FORMULATION -OF LOCAL MASTER PROGRAMS ordinary highwater mark so th@at access is enhanced. PHASE1 SHORELINE INVENTORY \@6) increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines. Development Guidelines: ESTABLISH CITIZEN OVIS (a) Plan for and encourage development of ADVISORY COMMITTE facilities for recreational use of the _T_ shorelines. (b) Reserve areas for lodging and related 'PHASE AREA-WIDE GOALS DEVELOP facilities on uplands away from the shorelines with provisions for non- DEVELOP SHORELINE motorized access to the shorelines. POLICY STATEMENTS The Planning Process and the Local Master Programs 7 The formulation of master programs is the most DEFINE ENVIRONMEN critical task of the shoreline planning process. Each ON ALL SHORELINES local government his been responsible for formula- PHASE 3 1 ting a development plan to guide proposed DEVELOP SHORELINE activities 'along its own shorelines. Within the USE REGULATIONS coastal zone, this includes all 15 counties and 38 17 Local governments were directed by the Act to The- Act required local governments to provide complete shoreline inventories to provide a data opportunities for all citizens, and governmental base for effective planning and administration. agencies with shoreline interests or respons Inventories were to be compiled by December ties to particip ate in the development of master 1, 1972, for ownership patterns, existing land and programs. The final guidelines gave direction to water use patterns, and natural shoreline this broad mandate with the recommendation that characteristics. citizen advisory committees be formed as a vehicle for citizen participation. Key features of citizen The Department of Ecology issued inventory advisory committees delineated in the final guide- guidelines suggesting that local inventories contain lines include the following: a map or series of maps depicting existing land 1. Members should represent a diverse set of uses, ownership patterns, topography, and other interests ranging from commercial to preser- information which lends itself to presentation vationist. in graphic form; and a series of descriptive analyses of the water charac- 2. Citizen advisory committees should guide teristics and the natural features of the shorelines. the formulation of themaster programs Descriptive analyses should be done on an area-by- through a series of public meetings. area basis and should be keyed to the map element 3. Citizen advisory committees should work in a clear and direct man .net. in close cooperation with local government. The majority of counties used large-scale maps 4. Citizen advisory committees are not inten- with overlays to present their inventory. Several ded to substitute for general citizen- input. counties stored information on computer cards and The guidelines further stipulated that the failure tape. Data was often gathered by volunteer task oflocalgover Inments to encourage and utilize citi- forces and agency publications rather than by zen involvement, without proper justification, may, extensive'field work. DOE has since compiled this be considered as failure to comply with the Ac data for the marine shorelines on U.S.G.S. maps on a common base and format. Citizen advisory committees were generally The procedure of cataloging ownership patterns appointed by local governments 'In the summer of and existing land and water uses is adequately 1973. Usually citizen participants were chosen co@ered by local government inventories - past from those who represented a specific interest data bases and previous studies aided in the com- group and members of the public at large. County pletion of this task. But there has been a lack of committee size in the coastal zone varied from 12 analysis of use patterns in local inventories. More- in Mason County to 85 in Pierce County. over, the complex task of inventorying natural Citizen advisory committees worked with local characteristics was beyond the staff capabilities planners during master program formulation. of most local governments within the limited time Somewhere between ten and fifty public meetings, frame and available resources. There was a general and hearings were held in each locality, as man- lack of useful information relating to marine and intertidal areas. dated by the Act and final guidelines. Outside citi- zen advice was solicited. Frequently citizen ad- Inventory information has been used primarily visory committee meetings have included outside in the master program formulation stage of desig- comments from statewide groups and federal nating environments. Inventories have been too and state agencies. general to use during the issuance of shoreline per- mits. Site visits currently provide the detailed in- Generally the range from economic to environ- formation necessary for issuance of permits. There mental interests were well represented by the citi- is also a continuing need to compile usable infor- zen advisory committees. If the composition of mation in a useful format over areas larger than committees was initially unbalanced, committees individual jurisdictions. were usually altered to accommodate the interests 18 left out in the initial selection process. Both cities and counties. In all, the state has disbursed environmental protection and private property approximately $860,000 of state and federal rights were well represented. In addition, several monies to assist local governments to comply with counties, such as Whatcom, Snohomish and Kitsap, the state Shoreline Management Act of 197 1 and appointed technical advisory committees com- the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of .1972. posed of agency, industrial, and commercial representatives. Over the past three years, approxi- The Act gave to the Department of Ecology - mately 2,000 persons with various interests have the authority to designate regional planning units been directly involved in the shoreline management to help coordinate local governments in the formu- planning process throughout the state. lation of master programs and the Department used this authority to designate Lake Washington During the summer of 1973 the state arranged as a region at the request of its eleven local juris- for a workshop to be conducted in each of its dictions. The result 'ing regional goals and policies four state regions to deal with problems en- were adopted as state regulations and have since countered by local governments in implementing been incorporated in several local master programs. the Act. The instruction at the workshops was As such they become the primary policy tool for directed toward resolving basic difficulties in local, state, and federal actions on Lake Washing- interpreting the requirements of the Act and final ton. guidelines. The Department attempted to be responsive and available to local governments in- State review and approval of local master prom formally, providing substantial information on gramsis the final and most significant step in im- specific questions. plementation of the program. DOE has 90 days to Consistent with the state's supportive role in approve or reject proposed local programs. After a ,implementing SMA, the Department attempted to local program has been prepared and appropriate make adequate funding available for local govern- public hearings held, it is submitted to the Depart- ment for review. The Department then distributes ment to carry out their shoreline management In the early stages of develop- it to a review task force consisting of representa- responsi tives from interested state and federal agencies. ment, this activity was carried out in cooperation Federal and other state agency comments are often with the Office of Community Development, the the basis for Department requests for changes in designated state agency for the distribution of the local program. Within 90 days, based on HUD 701 funds. HUD and OCD rated the shore- Ecology staff review findings and the comments line management program high -priority for re- r.eceived from task force members, the 'local ceiving HUD monies in 1972, 1973, 1974, and program is either approved or denied. If denied, it 1975. 1 is returned to the local government with sug- The Department was authorized by the Office gestions for modifications. The local government of Community Development to administer and then has another 90 days in which to prepare the disperse grant funds for the purpose of assisting changes and consider the recommendations. For local units of government in undertaking an in- shorelines of statewide significance, the Act ventory and preparation of their master programs. specifically authorizes the Department of Ecology In excess of $580,000 of HUD and state monies to prepare an alternative if the local program have been made available to local units of govern- repeatedly fails to be consistent with the Act. ment. Approved programs are then adopted as state regulations under the Washington Administative In addition, the state received $388,820 through Code. Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1974, of wh-ich approximately $65,000 went to At this time, all major jurisdictions which were local governments in the coastal zone. In June of to prepare a Imaster program within the coastal 1975, $500,000 was awarded the state, of which zone have a functioning local shoreline program. approximately $215,000 went to coastal zone As of October of 1975 seven counties have yet to 19 submit programs to the Department of Ecology matrixes were assembled. There,is a possibility for review, though all seven expressed their intent that local governments will amend the programs, to submit programs by the end of the year. Most or that changes will be made at DOE's request were held up in the final local government pro- between now and the time of adoption. ceedings and public hearings. All local programs have been developed and completed for some Many of the policies and regulations allow for time - that is, the program documents are com- some discretion or provide for some judgment plete and the work has been completed by the on the part of the administrator. Also, many of staff, the citizen advisory committees, and the the performance standards r@quire judgment, planning commissions. Those that remain out and the actual determination of permissibility require final legislative action by the county or must be made based on such judgmental factors city commissioners and council 's. During this as, the scale of the project, aesthetics, and interim period prior to program approval, the DOE nondegradation of the environment. guidelines are in effect for permit administration In all cases, the requirements of other programs and planning. (5-ap- Art"Avs 5 b.) and regulations must be complied with. While It should be emphasized that the Act provides many of these, such as local health, zoning, sub- that the master programs are the basis for permit division, and state and federal regulations are administration and activities at every stage of specifically adopted by reference into the master their development. SMA states (90.58.140), program, the master program does not affect the applicability of other authorities. A permit shall be granted: (a) From June 1, 197 1, until such time as an applicable master prograhl The shoreline permit must be viewed as a has become effective, only when the development process to determine permissibility, The pro- proposed is consistent with: (i) The policy of Ject design itself, or the ability to redesign or RCW 90.58.020; and (ii) after their adoption, condition the permit to meet standards can make the guidelines and regulations of the department; a given use permissible. and (iii) so far as can be ascertained, the master program being developed for the area. Most programs were written to recognize the natural systems and features found within the To provide an overview of some of the substance broad environment management classification. of the master programs prepared for the coastal Thus, a fragile feature, such as a sand spit, with zone, shoreline use matrices have been assembled a broader environment classification, may for all fifteen coastal zone counties and are in- require the application of additional standards. cluded along with coastal county environment maps in AppendixSCxo this document. The mat- The Shoreline Regulatory Process rices should help to make clear what kinds of uses The regulatory phase of the shoreline manage- are considered permissible in the several shore- ment program consists of a permit system for all line environments, though caution should be substantial developments and shoreline modifica- exercised in using the matrices for an actual deter- tions. The system is administered locally subject mination of an allowable use. They are intended to state review. Once a permit application is acted only as a general citation from the regulations of on by local government-, and prior to the com- each master program. Attention should be given to mencement of development, that decision and the following considerations before judging a pro- the application must be forwarded to the Attorney posal to be permitted in a given environment: General and the Department of Ecology for Proposals must conform to the goals, policies, review. The Department does not have approval and general regulations which apply to all or denial authority over the local decisions, but it development. does have a specified period of time in which to appeal the decision to an independent hearings Seven of the fifteen programs were not approved board created by the Act called the Shorelines by the Department of Ecology at the time the Hearings Board. 20 Although all shoreline developments must be To aid the courts in the anticipated increase in consistent with the policy of the Act and the local shoreline litiga,tibn resultin from the Act, SMA 9 master program, certain exemptions are provided created the quasi-judicial Shorelines Hearings from the substantial development permit require- Board. The Board provides an avenue of review for ment. Substantial developments are those of those aggrieved by a local government permit deci- which the fair market value exceeds'$1,000 or sion and for local governments which take excep- which "materially" interfere with normal public tion to regulations and guidelines adopted by the use of the water or shorelines of the state. Ex- Department of Ecology. It has also played a signifi- emptions are granted for repair and maintenance of cant role in formulating and articulating policy and existing structures, docks costing no more than in resolving conflicts relating to the implementa- $2,500, protective bulkheads for single family tion of the Shoreline Management Act. residences, certain agricultural and irrigation pro- Jects and structures, navigational aids, single The six-member Shorelines Hearings Board is family residences built by the owner for his use, made up of the three members of the Pollution and emergency construction. The permit require- ment is also waived for construction under a certi- Control Hearings Board, the Commissioner of Pub- ficate obtained in conformity with the state's lic Lands, a representative of the Association of Thermal Power Plants Act (RCW Chapter 80.50) Washington Cities, and a representative of the (see pages 92-93) and for certain actions under the Washington State Association of Counties. Terms state's Forest Practices Act (RCW Chapter 76.09) are not specified. The Chairman of the Pollution (see pages 78-81). Control Hearings Board also acts as the Chairman of the Shorelines Hearings Board. An applicant must publish two public notices The Shorelines Hearings Board, together with a week apart upon filing for a substantial develop- the Pollution Control Hearings Board, is recognized ment permit. Local governments must wait a minimum of 30 days before taking action on the as one of the nation's most successful administra- permit. There is no maximum time limit on when a tive appeal bodies. The Board provides a judicial local government decision is to be rendered. After process whereby an impartial body with resource final action is taken, the local jurisdiction must expertise can hear matters without becoming en- notify the applicant, the Department of Ecology, tangled in the costly and time-consuming court and the Office of the Attorney General. The system. The Board is intended to, and does in fact, Department and the Attorney General have 45 deal with substantive as well as procedural issues. days to determine whether an appeal should be Moreover, the Board has been able to avoid lengthy made to the Shorelines Hearings Board. The ap- appeal backlogs. Efficient operating regulations plicant and all other interested persons have 30 have enabled the Board to handle certified appeals days after a permit decision to request a review in an average time of seven months now as of that decision. Appellants must obtain certifica- compared to a nine month average for the appeals tion of the review request from DOE and the certifi.ed in 19,72. Attorney General before the Shorelines Hearings Board can hear the appeal. Assuming that the per- The Board is widely recognized as a credible mit is approved without an appeal, the applicant body in terms of environmental expertise, which is may proceed with his proposed activity 45 days no doubt at least partially due to the Board's after receipt by DOE. Thus, the minimum time relationship with the Pollution Control Hearings possible to complete the permit process is 82 Board (see pages 83-84),'which provides a close bond days. For larger or controversial projects the between the state's shoreline management program process may take longer depending on such things and its other programs for ensuring environmental as whether or not an EIS is required under SEPA Protection. By creating the Board, SMA both or NEPA. The substantial development permit pro- encourages greater citizen access to the appeal pro- cess is presented graphically'in the flow chart on cess and provides a substantive environmental the following page. foundation for the shoreline management program. 21 Aggrieved parties seeking Board review of a State Superior Court. Approximately one Board shoreline permit must file appeals within 30 days decision in every five is appealed to the judicial after the local decision being appealed. As men- system. Because most appeals are settled prior to tioned above, the Department of Ecology and final Board orders, those appeals which move on Attorney General have 45 days upon receiving the to the judicial system represent only 7% of all shoreline permit to request review. After receiving certified appeals received by the Board. a request for review, the state has 30 days to ex- ercise one of three options: (1) certify,the review The state has taken a lead role in the initiation request as valid; (2) certify and intervene (on either of shoreline appeals. As of October of 1975, 102 side) in the request for review; or (3) refuse to out of 201 requests have been made by the Depart- certify the review request for procedural or sub- ment and the Attorney General. The vast majority stantive reasons. All certified requests for review of these appeals concerned development on shore- and state appeals go to the Shoreline Hearings lines of statewide significance. The special Board. Any Board decision can be appealed to statutory attention given to these shorelines by Superior Court, as can any request for review not the delineation of use priorities has been a factor certified. in their constituting such a high percentage of state appeals. In 26 other appeals the state joined The appeal process is initiated when the Board aggrieved parties or intervened on behalf of the receives a Department or Attorney General appeal. defending local government. These appeals have or a properly certified appeal initiated by an included a high percentage of non-water-dependent aggrieved party. The Act requires that the burden development involving landfills or over-water con- of proof rest with the party seeking review. The struction, and most have been on marine shores of first step is the holding of a pre-hearing conference statewide significance. While the state had been to obtain an agreement as to the issues of law, the involved in 102 out of 142 requests for review .facts to be presented, and procedural rules, ob- prior to 1975, citizen appeals are becoming in- jections and motions. The pre-hearing conference creasingly significant. The table below summarizes has served to clear up procedural delays before the appeal activ'ity to date. formal hearing, and more importantly, this process of clarifying the issues and facts has frequently in general, the state has taken an active leader- resulted in a settlement before the formal hearing. The next two steps include the actual formal ship role in applying the Shoreline Management hearing and the circulation of proposed findings Act during the review of local permit decisions. of fact and law to the participants involved. The Creation of the Shorelines Hearings Board has in- information obtained by circulating the proposed creased the accessibility of permit review while at findings is utilized in the preparation of the final the same time substantially reducing shoreline order. litigation to be dealt with by the courts. The re- view process has been both reasonable and efficient Persons aggrieved by a Shorelines Hearings in handling the increased shoreline litigation Board final order may appeal the decision to the brought about by the passage of the Act. Shorelines Hearings Boaids Appeal Resolved Pending Appealed Total Certified Prior to SHB SHB SHB Appeals Appeals SHB Hearing Decision Action Decisions Department of Ecology 102 102 65 32 5 7 Private Applicant 26 24 2 18 4 5 Public Applicant 14 13 1 10 4 Other Aggrieved Parties 1 74 1 57 14 1 34 1 7 Total 1 201 1 196 J 82 94 20 23 As of October 1975 Total Permits Reviewed by DOE: 3242 22 SHORELINE PERMIT PROCEDURE APPLICANT SUBMITS TIME SCHEDULE APPLICATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT 0 APPLICANT PUBLISHES 7 DAYS NOTICE IN LOCAL NEWSPAPER TWICE COMMENTS BY INTERESTED CITIZENS 137 DAYS LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION PERMIT GRANTED, PERMIT DENIED DOE & STATE ATTY. GEN. NOTIFIED AF ICANT APPLICANT PERMIT RECEIVED PERMI 'T APPEALS REVISES PLANS--------p- BY DOE APPEALED BY AGGRIEVED CITIZENS APPEAL CERTIFIED PERMIT NOT PERMIT BY DOEAG APPEALED APPEALED APPEAL BY DOE BY DOE CERTIFI 0 BY 0024 G NO FURTHER APPEALS '82 DAYS HEARINGS BOARD ACTION E: START CONSTRUCTION' PERMIT UPHELD PERMIT REPEALED NO FURTHER APPEALS APPLICANT APPLICANT APPEALS APPEALS REVISES PLANS SUPERIOR COURT ACTION START CONSTRUCTION @EA L T IF 13 00 E A ]G 23 Problems, Goals' and Objectives of the WCZMP In accordance with Section 923.4 of the Section 306 Regulations, the WCDF set forth problems, goals, objectives and policies. The policies for the protection and conservation of the coastal zone natural systems were explained previously. Following are a list of p- blems the Program is attempting to alleviate, the goals and objectives of the Program. Problem Statements (a) The coastal shorelines of Washington are unique and fragile resources, which if not carefully managed, could be subject to destructive changes which will have undesired environmental, economic, and functional consequences for the State. (b) There are a variety of demands on the coastal resource, each compe-,I-ing for certain segments of the resource. Certain resources can withstand and support the demands; some cannot. (c) There are many,classes of interest or activity which use and involved coastal resources such as, recreation, environmental protection, power generation, defense, commerce, resource pollution, industry, communication, transportation, historical significance, protection from destructive natural forces, food, and aesthetic preservation. Each of the above interests uses or affects coastal resources, but balancing each need, knowing how much of the resource to allocate to each interest, and Iciowing what the proper responsi- bilities for each level of goverment for each interest is difficult. An example of the problem could be phrased thusly: Recreation is a local, state, and national interest but the questions are: (1) how much of the coastal resources should be allocated to recreation, and (2) which recreational activities, duties, and authorities are those of Federal agencies, which for state agencies, and which for local agencies? These same'questions arise for every category of interest. (d) There are State, National and local interests which either depend on or may impact on, the State's coastal zonetapability for each interest to be served. (e) There are'a variety of public and private organizations which manage, use, and/or depend on the coastal zone. The needs of these entities may conflict, are not always known, are not always coordinated, and not always met. 24 (f) The needs of various competing interests are not always clearly and comprehensively known, thus creating conflicts and preventing the best prioritization for use of the coastal resources. (g) Various areas in the coastal zone are pre-empted by uses which do not need, are not related to, or are destructive of the coastal management and such conditions will worsen without comprehensive management and control of the use of the coastal zone. (h) Significant portions of the State's economy and ecology depend on special areas in the coastal zone which have high biologic production and importance, but low tolerance to the impact of many human activities. These areas will be lost without special attention by all levels of government. (i) Much of the Coastal Zone and adjacent areas are in private ownership, and unguided, unrestrictive construction of and priviately and publicly owned areas is not in the best interest of the public. (j) Knowledge of the nature, extent, tolerance, capability, value, and importance of the zoastal resources is incomplete, out-of- date, and fraguented. Goal Statements Each of the above listed problems is worthy of solution, with such resolution becoming goals in and of themselves. However, in order to provide more positive direction and to lead into policies, additional statements of goals which combine some of the problems and address matters are presented below. (a).To actively identify and coordinate the diverse interests in the coastal zone, in order to provide the resources necessary to meet the various demands. (b) To promote and encourage by all available means the con- tinued productivity and desired expansions of the biologic resources of the coastal zone. (c) To consult and coordinate with other states, Federal agencies and nations which use or are related to the state's coastal zone. (d) To manage the total resource such that each 'need is met to the maximum extent feasible, and such that the total resource- is maintained, prospers,, and continues to meet the needs. 2S (e) To protect and encourage the natural processes of the coastal zone. Objectives By means of identification of problems, declaration of goals, and the promulgation of policies, the state has set its direction and provides common grounds upon which to pursue Coastal Zone Management. Before progress can be made or measured, objectives must be estab- lished. These are measurable tasks which relate to the problems, goals, and policies which, when accomplished, will indicate the solution of the problems, accomplishment of the goals, and imple- mentation of the policies. It is not suggested that the following list will solve all the problems, but it is a list of presently perceived tasks. Many of these have been addressed already with the passage and-recent history of the Shoreline Management Act and others will be accomplished through the continuing management program. (a) Establish regulatory systems to control the use and impact on the Coastal Zone. (b) Establish, enhance, and maintain coastal planning, management, and regulatory programs at the local level. (c) Promulgate appropriate regulations at all leve*ls-which carry out the policies. (d) Detelmiine the coastal needs and demands. (e) Continually monitor and determine the characteristics of the Coastal Zone. (f) Establish conflict -resolution mechanisms andprocedures. (g) Involve all interested parties in planning and development decisions. (h) Provide methods for appeal and relief. (i) Support and fund local management and administration efforts. (j) Define permissible uses in the coastal zone. (k) Define boundaries for the coastal zone. (1) Provide sufficient authorities and organizations. 26 (m) Designate and protect areas of particular concern. (n) Provide procedures for, and accomplish the designation of areas for preservation and restoration. (o) Determine appropriate sites and criteria for the deposition of dredge spoils. (p) Accomplish strict regulation of ocean beach sand removal for commercial purposes. .(q) Establish criteria for location and development of second homes. (r) Provide increased public access to and along the water, par- ticularly to State-owned tidelands. \@(s) Increase emphasis on the acquisition and development of water- oriented parks and recreation facilities. (t) Develop criteria and techniques for enhancing and restoring urban waterfronts. (u) Identify appropriate sites for aquacultural development and resolve problems of conflicting uses. M Establish siting'criteria for deep draft port facilities. (w) Provide location and design criteria7for major industrial uses, especially petrochemical facilities. (x) Establish criteria.for regulating high rise structures. (y) Provide methods for mitigating the impact of marina develop- ments and accommodate the demand for such facilities. (z) Establish critera. for bulkhead locatian and construction. (4a) Establish criteria for the length, spacing and density of single family residential piers and docks. (bb) Provide dredging guidelines and identification of appropriate locations. (cc) Establish criteria for siting and developing major industrial wood products facilities. (dd) Establish criteria for oil and gas drilling. ,(ee) Provide for the enhancement of the commercial and recreational fishery. 27 (ff) Establish definitive 'guidelines for landfills. (gg) Provide criteria for regulating forest management practices within the coastal zone. (hh) Determine assimilative capacity of Puget Sound for municipal and industrial wastes. (ii) Establish provisions-for the preservation of estuaries and key habitat areas. (jj) Protect and improve water quality. (kk) Preserve the natural shoreline character. (11) Recognize erosion-accr etion processes in the management program. (m) Maintain scenic vistas. (m) Preserve wildlife values. (oo) Provide primary and secondary data requirements. (pp) Maintain close and continuing coordination with all affected agencies and jurisdictions. (qq) Enhance provisions for public access and involve@ient. (rr) Delineate the coastal zone based on best available information. (ss) Provide mechanism for assessing the impact of major Federal developments and actions -in the coastal zone. The solution to the problems and the achievement of goals and ob- jectives will take time and concerted effort of all governmental institutions and the public. For instance, the `65J-ective to achieve greater public access to the shoreline cannot be achieved on a short-term basis. It may, however, be gradually achieved through the policies and process the State has established. The WCDT as the major management tool will serve as a coordinative mechanism to achieve successful results. The transition from program development to implementation and administration will not occur in total immediately upon approval of the Program. The many substantive objectives and the program enhancement objectives which show the concerns of the WCZMP staff in administering the program follow (see also Appendix 11, Program Supplement). 28 PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT OBJECTIVES 1. While control of land and water uses in the coastal zone is considered adequate, there is a need to augment state and local administration with better articulated policy, a better data base, and more thorough reviews through the managerial network. 2. At a policy level, there is a continuing need for an analysis of the parent legislation which makes up the components of the managerial network. Legislative deficiencies and the over- lapping of authorities should be remedied through corrective legislation. 0 3. The program should assure adequate inve sti- gation into certain coastal zone management issues -,uch as outer continental shelf develop- ment, energy generally, utility corridors, and water surface usage. Wherever possible, the comprehensive umbrella of the coastal zone management program should be brought into play to relate these investigations to the entire coastal zone. 4. At the interstate and international level policy interests in the Columbia River, the outer continental shelf, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the northern San Juan Islands, the fisheries re- source, maritime commerce, and other resources. Again, the coastal zone manage- ment umbrella should be used in all appro- priate discussions to relate the consideration to the coastal zone as a whole. 5. The state's coastal zone program includes a number of processes for the identification of areas of particular concern and areas for pres- ervation. There is a need to consolidate and coordinate these ongoing efforts and to further incorporate them into the coastal zone program. 6. If acqusition of some areas should be seen as desirable, the coastal zone program should reinforce and be consistent with state recrea- tion acquisition programs, energy and economic development programs. 29 7. The state will attempt to establish an estuarine sanctuary through Section 3 12 of CZA4A. Similarly, the state will continue to examine all of those coastal esturaine areas which have a particular biological significance for their possibilities as a sanctuary. 8. The Department will continue to assess the use capabilities of wetlands and identify areas of high biological productivity. To do this and concurrently assure their conservation will re- quire detailed knowledge and adequate man- agement criteria. 9. The state will continually monitor and evalu- ate the effectiveness of the program and carry out specific in-depth evaluations of key por- tions of the program. The state intends to conduct such specific evaluations in conjunc tion with other state, federal, and local agencies and the general public. Only in this way can the Department know with any cer- tainty that the program is indeed carrying out the broad policy and intent of the program. To this end it may be necessary and desirable to establish review evaluation committees. 10. The coastal zone program is at the present time the primary vehicle in the state for assuring that the state's interest is con- sidered in oil exploration, trans 'port, and facility siting. While future legislative action may establish other mechanims for dealing with those, issues, it is the policy of the pro- gram to more fully develop data, analysis capabilities, and specific policies that will assure that this interest is recognized. 11. Coastal zone management is a series of de- cisions, in terms of both program develop- ment and implementation. It is desirable that all decisions be founded on as strong a scien- tific basis as possible. Decisions should be made with as much knowledge as possible of the policies and opinions of others. Scientific knowledge and policy knowledge are data and must be organized such that they can be inter- preted and used by everyone with a concern 30 in the coastal zone. Much data has been col- lected and used thus far in the state's coastal zone management efforts and more will be collected as the program continues, but there is general agreement that the systems now used in collection, handling, and delivery should be improved. 12. Local government is also faced with a multi- tude of decisions that would be better made with more detailed and reliable information. A large effort will be made to determine how local decisions could be assisted with scientific information and to determine the type and display of such information that will be most useful to local government. This ef- fort will be coupled with the overall data man- agement program which integrates state and federal informational needs and systems. 13. Several of the activities listed herein will re- sult in special reports which, if appropriate, would become additions or amendments to the program. Other special reports can be- come the basis of agreements or guidelines to the parties in order to solve a coastal zone concern. 14. As a training and informational device, period- ic workshops will be held to bring together large groups to deal with specific coastal zcfne management affairs. 15. Recognizing that the purpose and thrust of the state's coastal zone program is to assure for future generations an environmentally and economically desirable place to live it is the policy of the state, through the coastal zone program, to keep i 'ts citizens aware of the need to protect and plan for its coastal resources. With regard to public awareness it should be noted that policy is not directed at the pro- cesses and tools which have been developed and are being implemented, but at the educa-, tion and information phases as to why it is necessary to manage the coastal zone. 31 Elements of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program Many coments received on the DEIS requested that a better descrip- tion of the WCZMP and how it works be provided in the FEIS. Therefore, Chapter V of the WCZNP, which gives a good description of a very complex management program, is reproduced here in full. Because of the complexity of a comprehensive CZM program and the brevity with which it is presented, there are some aspects that are not fully covered. Chapter III of the WCZNP contains 80 pages describing the State's managerial network that cannot be easily summarized here. There' are, however, some examples of how the State process can and does work. These are developed further in the Program supplement. Changes in the appendices have been made to reflect the appendix numbers in this FEIS. 32 CHAPTER V. WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT INTRODUCTION state interests must be recognized and that there, is The first four chapters have described the state's a local, state, and national interest in the use and coastal resources and its programs for managing conservation of the coastal resources. Additionally, land and water uses. Most of the state's authori- it is a policy of the state (RCW 90.58.260) that where plans, activities, or procedures conflict with ties and programs, including its primary legislative state policies, all reasonable steps available shall be mandate for coastal management, the 1971 Shore- taken by the state to preserve the integrity of its line Management Act, existed prior to enactment policies. This policy 'is consistent with and rein- of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Howeveri the _mere existence of these programs, in forces the policy contained in the Coastal Zone Management Act to encourage and assist the and of themselves, do not provide the broadly- states to exercise effectively their full responsi- based coordinated efforts that Congress envisioned bilities in the coastal zone. in the federal Act. The purpose of the present chapter is to relate the state program to the spec- THE COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY ific requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act, amplifying the previous discussions as neces- The Washington State coastal zone management sary. The chapter is structured to emphasize the area embodies a two-tier concept. The first or pri- relations of the state program to the key policies mary tier, bounded by the "resource boundary," and requirements of Section 306 of the Act and is that area legislatively defined by the Shoreline CFR 92 3.11-92 3.44 of January 9, 1975 relating to Management Act of 1,971; that is, all of the state's coastal zone uses, boundaries, areas of particular marine waters and their associated wetlands, includ- concern, areas for preservation and restoration, ing at a minimum all upland area 200 feet landward state/federal relations, public participation 'and from the ordinary high water mark. The second intergovernmental involvement, the state's mana- tier, bounded by the "planning and administrative gerial network, and some miscellaneous provisions boundary," is composed of the area within the fif- of the statute. teen coastal counties which front on saltwater. GENERAL POLICY The first tier, an area of permit authority under The overriding philosophy of the State of Wash-' the Shoreline Management Act that is bounded by ington is that the coastal zone is among the most the resource boundary, can be defined through se- valuable of resources and that a comprehensive and lective application of definitions in RCW Chapter coordinated program of management is essential to 90.58 to consist of all marine water areas of the prevent damages resulting from uncoordinated and state and their associated "wetlands" together with piecemeal development. This philosophy presumes the lands underlying them out to the western that the coastal resource is viewed as an interrelated boundary of the state in the Pacific Ocean, where unit, irrespective of ownership, jurisdiction, or cur- "wetlands" means those lands extending landward rent individual agency goals and policies. for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a hor- izontal plane from the ordinary high water mark The approach to be used by the state in pursuing and river deltas and tidal waters which are subject coastal zone objectives is that both federal and to the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act. 33 WASHINGTON STATE COASTAL ZONE RESOURCE BOUNDARIES Shoreline Management Boundary 200'Measured Horizontally Saltwater From Normal intrusion Limit Annual High (Upstream Limit of Water Mark the Coastal Zone Management Resource Boundary) Edge of Estuary (Or Could Be Marsh, EST ARY Bag, Swamp, Mud Flat, Or Other Wetland Area) :-A V.. 200' Measured Resource Boundary Horizontally DELTA From Normal Annual High Water Mark ... ............. .. .. ... SALT WATER ............. BODY .... .... .. ...... .... ... ...... 7:7 ... 77.- 7: ........... :.mx 7 7 .1 .7 ':':17 . . . ... 34 "Ordinary high water mark" for all lakes, streams, The planning and administrative or second tier and tidal water is defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(b) boundary is the eastern boundary of the fifteen to be coastal counties which front on marine waters. The basis for the of Wahkiakum County on that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of the Columbia River estuary is the presence of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued measurable quantities of salt water up the Columbia in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a charac- River to Pillar Rock. The second tier is intended to ter distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect be the maximum extent of the coastal zone and as to vegetation as that condition existledl on June 1, such is the context within which coordinated 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter; Provided, coastal policy planning will be accomplished that in any area where the ordinary high water mark can- through the framework of this program. not be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and The use of the two tiers provides the state a basis the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall to differentiate in terms of both the need for con- be the line of mean high water. trol and the intensity of control. The most immed- iate and direct control is exercised in the tier The state enacted regulations specifying criteria adjacent to the water's edge and on water bodies for the designation of wetlands and associated wet- through processes established by the Shoreline lands and mapped those designations for the shore- Management Act. Should a proposal in the second tier line of the state under Chapter 173-22-WAC. The have the potential to have direct and significant im- pertinent provisions are summarized here: pact on coastal waters or directly affect,the coastal (1) "Associated wetlands" mea Ins those wet- zone, the other state programs described in Chap- lands which are strongly influenced by ter III can be invoked. The state network and its and in close proximity to any tidal water. applicability to the two-tier system is described later in thls@chapter, as is the applicability of the (2) The wetlands shall be measured on a hori- boundary system to federal lands. zontal plane two hundred feet in all direc- tions from the line of vegetation. If there EXCLUDED FEDERAL LANDS is no vegetative cover, the measurement will be, whenever possible, from a line The technical definition of the coastal zone under connecting the lines of vegetation on either Section 304(a) of the federal Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972 states that lands the use of which side of an area; otherwise, the measurement is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which will be from the mean higher tide on salt is held in trust by the federal government, its offi- water and the mean high water on fresh cers, or agents are excluded from the coastal zone. water. The Washington coastal zone includes many acres (3) On river deltas and flood plains where of land and many miles of marine shoreline which dikes ihave been placed by governmental fall within the perimeter of lands managed and agencies for public benefit and reasonably owned by various federal agencies. protect against floods, the wetlands will be Those federal lands fall within several categories designated as follows: of jurisdictional status. Technically, all lands under (a) Where the dike is located within two hun- the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the U.S. dred feet of the ordinary high water mark, Government are excluded from Washington's the wetlands shall be that area within two coastal zone since the State of Washington does not hundred feet of the ordinary high water exercise any discretion over the uses which take mark. place on these lands. Those lands held by the,feder- (b) Where the dike is located more than two at government under a concurrent, partial, or pro- hundred feet beyond the ordinary high water prietorial jurisdictional status may be included in mark, the wetlands shall be that area lying the state's coastal zone since the state retains vary- between the apex of the dike and the ordi- ing degrees of discretion as to the uses which take' nary high water mark. place on those lands. superseded by statement in Program supplement 35 The state will emphasize the requirement that broad. guidelines on priority of uses in particular the closest possible coordination and cooperation areas. Prior to CZMA and the subsequent Section between the state and federal agencies be main- 306 regulations, Washington. had already established* tained during the administration of the state's through SMA a process, policies, and guidelines coastal zone program. In this spirit, the state will which enable it to meet the intentions of these two work with federal land managers, regardless of the requirements. jurisdictional status of the lands in question to de- This section describes the process as it meets the velop mechanisms whereby the federal land man- requirements of the 306 regulations and how permis- agers agree to manage their lands in a manner con- sistent with the substance and merits of the state's sibility and priority of uses work, in actuality. It is coastal zone management program to the maximum believed that these management principles, as reflect extent practicable. The state will work with federal ed by the overall coastal zone program, are not only agencies to arrive at a definitive policy and iden- adequate to meet the particular needs of the State tification of excluded lands. The state will make of Washington, but indeed were used in developing every effort to enter into memoranda of under- the CZMA requirements. Since SMA is already in standing with all federal agency land managers as to the implementation stage, the adequacy of the pro- the applicability of the state program to the various c.ess can be verified in practice. The following sec- parcels of federal land or private holdings within tions of SMA and'the state guidelines are of partic- federal lands within the state's coastal zone. ular relevance to determining uses in the coastal zone: As a matter of policy, the state may elect to ex- clude certain federal lands regardless of their juris- (1) RCW 90.58.020. State Policy Enunciated- dictional status. For example, lands held by the Use Preference. .. U.S. Government for readily identifiable national (2) RCW 90.58.100 Programs as Constituting security purposes will be excluded from the state's Use Regulations coastal zone. However, the state intends to work in close cooperation and consultation with the Depart- (3) RCW 90.58.150. Selective Commercial ment of Defense so that its various agencies within Timber Cutting the coastal zone are aware of the substantive poll- (4)' RCW 90-58.160. Prohibition Against Sur- cles and. standards of the state's coastal zone man- face Drilling For Oil or Gas agement program and will'seek consistency with (5) RCW 90.58.270. Nonapplication to Certain those policies and standards to the maximum ex- Structures, Docks, Developments, Etc. tent praciticable. It is expected that if this close (6) RCW 90.58.340. Use Policies For Land cooperation and consultation takes place the feder- Adjacent to Shorelines al land managers will have no difficulty in fully complying with the federal consistency provi- (7) WAC 173-16-040(3). Master Program sions of Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Manage- Elements ment Act. (8) WAC 173-16-040(4). Environments For those federal lands excluded from the state's (9) WAC 17 3-16-060(l)-(2 1). The Use Activit- ies coastal zone, it should be made clear that the state (10) WAC 173-16-070. Variances And Condition- /Ohas not relinquished any of its existing authority al Uses ver those federal lands by not including them with- in the boundaries of its coastal zone management The Legislature set forth principles and policies to @Xprogram. guide actions that would or could occur within the USES IN THE COASTAL ZONE state's shorelines. Brieflv stated, all "reasonable and appropriate uses" would be permitted under spec- Sections 305(b)(2) and (5) of CZMA require ified conditions which would protect against that a management program define permissible land adverse effects to the public health, the land and and water uses within the coastal zone and develop its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the 36 state and their aquatic life." This laid the ground- occurring completely or partially within the resource work for a performance-standards approach to boundary is operationally considered to have a di- land and water use decision making. Two notable rect and significant impact on the coastal waters. exceptions were included by the Legislature, namely: Most developments in the first tier require a sub- (1) that within the resource zone, only selective stantial development permit. Other uses falling un- commercial timber cutting would be allowed, and der the definition of development are managed on a (2) that surface drilling for oil and gas within a case-by-case basis but must be consistent with the specified geographic area would not be permitted. policies of SMA. Further, uses of the lands adjacent Far from being arbitrary, these policies were based to the resource boundary are to be consistent with on previous experience,and scientific studies which the policy of SMA as well, in accordance with showed the potential and real adverse impacts such RCW 90.58.340. A summary of.the regulations foi uncontrolled uses may have on resources SMA was the 2 1 . defined use activities relating to the envi- designed to manage. ronment classifications and a general environment Master programs are to use a systematic inter- map are included in Appendix A to this document. es" A pp.,F) disciplinary approach to ensure a comprehensive Permissibility and priority of uses are closely in- integration of use 's. Seven use elements which in- tegrated in the management system. SMA establish- clude all different shoreline uses are included in ed broad guidelines on priority of uses in particulai master programs as appropriate: economic, public areas. Certain shorelines were designated in SMA access, recreation, Circulation, use, conservation, as shorelines of statewide significance because of historic/ cultural/scientific, and education. their importance to the entire state. Local master WAC guidelines required local governments to programs were required to give preference to uses inventory their coastline and designate environments in accordance with the principles stated in WAC (naturdl, conservancy, rural, and urban) based 173-16-040(5). upon the existing development pattern, the bio- Preference was further given to those uses which physical capabilities &-id limitations, and the goals are consistent with control of pollution and preven- and aspirations of the citizenry. The system was tion of damage to the natural environment or are designed to encourage uses in each environment unique to or dependent upon use of the state's which enhance the character of that environment shorelines. When alteration of the natural condi- and to utilize performance standards which reg- tion of the shoreline is authorized, ulate use activities in accordance with state goals and objectives. priority is given to single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to Based upon studies and analyses, the guidelines parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitat- established 21 shoreline use activities which were ing public access to shor@lines of the state, industrial an,- to be included within the local master programs. commercial developments which are pairticularly depend- (WAC 173-16-060). Using the CZMA terminology, ent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the it was determined that these uses* have a "direct and state and Other developments that will provide an oppor- significant" impact not only on the coastal waters tunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy &!- but on the environment in general and on the users shorelines of the state. (RCW 90.58.020) of th ie coastal resources. In addition, the process To assist in an overview of uses of highest and requires that shoreline use activities not specific- lowest priority, fifteen county shoreline use matrices ally. identified and for which policies and'regula- were assembled and have been placed in Appendix tions had not been developed would be evaluated along with the environment map to provide a on a case-by-case basis and would be required to satisfy the goals and general development policies summary of the types of uses considered to be per- of SMA. missible in the various shoreline "environments." Caution should be exercised in using the matrices To summarize, a permissible use is basically a use for an actual determination of an allowable use. of the coastal land or waters that is consisten .t with. They are intended only to be a general definition of the policies and guidelines governing the Washington the more specific regulations that are part of each State coastal zone management program. Any use master program. 37 The process of determining permissibility and (3) Plan Review/Approval/Consistency priority of uses has been used by the state during (4) Project Review the interim period while local governments were developing their master programs. Each approved (5) Permit Processes master program has designated environments and The general flow of how these elementsrelate is uses which are consistent with those environments shown below: and has set priorities of uses within those environ- ments, particularly for shorelines of statewide sig- The broadest description without identifying the nificance. There @re a number of court cases which actors would be as follows: have sustained the state's stand on permissibility and priority of uses as they meet the objectives of STEP 1: Studies and information are analyzed SMA and related state policies. and the knowledge thus gained is a primary in- THE STATE'S MANAGERIAL NETWORK put into the development of policy. Chapter III discusses in detail the means and au- STEP 2: Policy is developed and is utilized by thorities available to the state and the Department local, state, and federal agencies in the develop- of Ecology to administer and manage a comprehen- ment of plans and programs. sive coastal zone program. T 'he management n 'et- STEP 3: Such plans and programs are reviewed work consists of a variety of formal and informal by the state for determination of adherence to complex interrelationships among agencies, DOE policy. Approvals, certifications, conditions, or offices, and individuals. The following discussion other types of coordination are made as appro- describes how the interrelationships occur, with priate. particular emphasis on DOE's managerial role. STEPS 4 & 5: Projects for review or specific per- in describing this network it is obviously impossible mits when required are handled by the state and to indicate every formal and informal aspect of the appropriate action is taken. system and still retain cohesiveness and understand- ability. Thus, while this network description is ac- STEP 6: The results of permit actions (including curate it is not designed to cover all details of the judicial or quasi-judicial decisions).and project network system. review are used in the refinement of policy, The management network system can best be Before entering into a more detailed discussion oo each of the above network elements it should be desifribed as consisting of the following elements: rioted that the Department of Ecology has the pri- (1) Studies and Information Base mary authorities for coastal zone management and (2) Policy Development -for Coastal Zone Man- intends through its Shorelands Division to remain agement the primary focal point for the* program. STUDIES PERMITS POLICY PLAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT REVIEW *amplified in Prog-ram supplement 38 @ Y LOPMENT Studies and Information Base. taken by the Office of Land Programs, where re@om- mendations are reviewed and-refined. The Assistant in a variety of ways the Shorelands Division Director for Land Programs is a member of the De- as a routine matter becomes knowledgable of -e- partment's Executive Policy Committee, which con- ports, plans, and studies that might have a signi- sists of the several Assistant Directors, the Deputy ficant relationship to the coastal zone. These doc- Director, and the Director. A major agency policy uments may be initiated by federal, state, local, or or proposed state policy is brought to the weekly private entities within or outside of Washington meeting of the Executive Policy Committee with a State. The Division serves as a focal review center recommendation for action. If such policy has for this material and thus becornes both the co- a broad impact on other offices of the Department ordinator for coastal zone matters and the primary the Assistant Director may request an independent formulator and integrator of policy for review and review by the Office of Comprehensive Programs. subsequent adoption by the state. This Office would then review that policy and its While obviously there are an Almost endless potential and probable impacts on other programs. variety of means to acquire material, some specif- The report prepared through such a review would ic examples of the type and flow of such material come under Executive Policy Committee scrutiny. to the Division Are provided below. The coastal zone management program under this approach benefits in two ways. First, the policy (1) The Office of External Affairs serves as the impacts of the coastal zone program on other pro- Department's office representative on a grams can be determined, and second, other offices' variety of boards, commissions, and coun- policies are reviewed and considered by the Office cils. The Assistant Director in charge of this of Land Programs for coastal zone implications@ office is, for instance, the Department's representative on the Thermal Power Plant Some.policy statements derived through the Site Evaluation Council (TPPSEC). Studies above-described network are considered by the resulting from or related to TPPSEC activ- Department to be beyond the scope of a single ities would be available to this office. Those agency. In those cases the policy determination is which would have significance to the coast- escalated to the Natural Resources Cabinet of the al zone program would be forwarded to the Governor's Office. The Natural Resources Cabinet Office of Land Programs, Shorelands Divi- consists of Directors of the natural resources sion. The same how would result from other agencies (the Departments of Game, Fisheries, boards, commissions, or councils represent- Natural'Resources, Ecology,-and Commerce and ed by the Office of External Affairs, as well Economic Development) and the Governor, so that as from other offices within the Department. all agencies would bring to bear their interests, resources, and expertise in terms of overall state (2) The state library, DOE branch, as a matter policy. It is quite conceivable that another state of standard operating procedure routes to agency may bring an issue to the Cabinet meeting all divisions in the Department lists of re- with significance to the coastal zone management ports and studies that are available. Upon program. request these are ordered and routed to pro- gram staff. Generally, after review they are Plan Review and Approval maintained in the state library facilities located at DOE headquarters. This aspect of the coastal zone management net- Policy Development work rests primarily in the Department's Shore- lands Division, Office of Land Programs. Local As indicated above, the initial formulator of coast- master programs and federal plans and programs al zone management policy (aside from direct policy are and will continue to be reviewed within the legislative action and action under direct legislative Division for consistency with the policies of the policy guidance) is the Shorelands Division. The management programs. The Department intends second step in the policy development network is to develop more formalized arrangements with the 39 Office of Field Operations to assure more direct The following responsibilities are assigned to the input from the Tegional offices on plan review. Shorelands Division of Land Programs: Recommendations for plan approvals, denials, or (1) There is a direct assignment of a program modifications are made by the Division after exten- staff person to be the contact individual sive staff review. These are forwarded to the and work directly with the regional offices. Assistant Director, Office of Land Programs, for (2) Program staff are responsible for providing final review and approval. If problems are antici-. pated, the Office will coordinate with other offices neces.sa.ry informa.tion to regional offices and the Deputy Director or the Director. pertaining to program philosophy, guide- lines, operating policies, and information Permits contained in the master plans. (3) Program staff will develop poli ies to assure The shoreline management permit program is 1cl the uniformitv of actions statewide. implemented by two offices in DOE: Land Pro- grams, and Field Operations. Within the Office of In summary, the day-to-day contact under the Field Operations (described below in greater detail) shorelines program with the local agencies which art- four regional DOE offices which have the fol- lowing responsibilities in the shoreline management issue substantial development permits is maintained by the regional offices. But appeals arising from permit program: agencies, citizens, or applicants may be joined by (1) They have full responsibility for DOE DOE and become an integrated Department review and screening of substantial develop- function.. ment permits. Other functions in which the Department is (2) They consult with.the Office of the Attor- involved with SMA operations and implementation ney General on permit reviews, negotiations, include assistance to local communities in the con- DOE appeals, and certification of citizen tinuous updating of inventories and local master appeals. plans, the approval of master programs which have been developed but not yet adopted, and providing (3) In cases where local actions appear to be a continuous forum for public information and incons'istent with either the intent of SMA involvement through presentations, workshops, and or adopted master programs, they make public hearings for master programs and the adop- every effort to negotiate agreement with tion of use regulations. local government prior to initiating an appeal. In addition to SMA permits, other permits are also used to assure the implementation of a sound (4) If they deem that an appeal action. is appro- management program. Assurance that the network priate, the regional staff and the program takes significant actions into account is guaranteed staff (in Land Programs, Shorelands Divi- in three wavs. The first is the EIS review process, sion.) jointly review the permit. If both which covers all major .proiects with significant staffs agree that an appeal is appropriate, effects. Secondly, most major projects will require the appeal action is initiated by the regional one or more permits from DOE. And thirdly, the office. If agreement cannot be reached, the personnel inthe regional offices not only work on Assistant Directors in charge of Field Opera- shoreline/coastal zone matters, but the same indi- tions and Land Programs make the final vidual may be working on water quality and other decision. environmental matters as well. if there is to be a significant impact on the coastal zone, which may Conditional uses and variances coming under not be directly covered under SMA, such impact SNIA authority are handled by the regional offices will be considered in terms of SMA as a matter of in the same manner as appeals. Department practice. 40 Project Review or an issue that is beyond the scope of one particu- While in many cases a project review also involves lar office, say of the Office of Land Programs, the the permit network, it is worthy of separate treat- Assistant Director for that office will request from the Office of Comprehensive Programs an analysis ment here because the network is substantially dif- of the issue in terms of how it fits with other pro- ferent. The fact that there is an overlap in terms of grams, what impacts other programs will have on a process offers an advantage in that it serves as a decision, and what impacts that decision will have fail-safe system for projects having significant on other programs and processes within the Depart- impact among DOE and related agencies. ment. An objective analysis is then made and a Basically, projects for review. enter the network recommendation, along with the Assistant Direc- in one of two ways. They are part of the SEPA/ tor's recommendation of the particular office NEPA system or they are part of the A-95 system. requesting review, go to the Executive Commit- They come to the attention of DOE in the Environ- tee which is comprised of the top departmental mental Review ,Section housed in the Office of Com- management. The issue is examined by the Execu- prehensive Programs. This section handles all en- tive Committee and a final decision is made. If vironmental impact statements in terms of review concurrence is not obtained it goes to the Direc- and comment for the state. Any major project or tor or the Deputy Director for an ultimate decision. any project having a significant effect on the en- This procedure enables the Department to assure vironment goes through this process. They are that, for example, a facility being built within a reviewed internally by the Environmental Review coastal county but not within a shoreline boundary Section and distributed throughout the Department jurisdiction will not have an adverse direct and to the sections, divisions, and offices that have or significant impact upon the coastal zone. might have an interest in and input into the envi- ronmental review process. Consequently, the There are means to assure that projects will be subject to this process. Essentially such assurance is Office of Land Programs receives information on i any project or any development that would have a based upon two things: (1) the integrative approach significant impact on the coastal zone. The Environ- recognized throughout the agency; and (2) the authority. contained within the Office of Land mental Review Section has been directed to keep in mind in all reviews that any direct or significant Programs itself. Most, if not, all, projects that will impacts on the coastal zone are to be reported for have a direct 'and significant impact on the coastal review to the Office of Land Programs, Shorelands zone will require some analysis or action by the Division. The environmental review process, of Officeof Land Programsor throughthe field opera- course,. covers not only projects and developments tions and the shoreline management controls at that but also plans and programs, local rezones, and level. Since shoreline management involves not other legislative and administrative actions. only the coastal waters, but rather almost all the lakes and streams in the state, most, if not all, Integrative Network projects that would have a significant effect on the coastal zone would be within the jurisdictional -While the focal point for the coastal zone man- boundaries of the Shoreline Management Act for agement program is the Office of Land Programs, which the Office of Land Programs has direct Shorelands Division, the major integrative mecha- responsibility. nisms for facilitating the coordination of intra- departmental concerns are contained within the In terms of very large-scale proposals such as Office of Comprehensive Programs. This is done in deep water ports, energ facility siting, and mono- 21y several sections within the Office of Comprehen- buoy systems, the issue would not only be addres- sive Programs, but primarily through the Environ- sed by the Department of Ecology, through the mental Review Section and the Major Authori- shorefine/coastal zone and other programs, but zations Section. The Major Authorizations Section would also go through the Natural Resources is a key element in this process. If there is a project Cabinet and the Governor's Office. *amplified in Program statement 41 Chapter III details several other forums for inter- is to provide a broad took at the sort of thing that actions among agencies which are integral parts of happens in the Stateof Washington when a propos- the overall management network. Not only do they al with the potential to impact the coastline is, provide coordinative and discussion vehicles for made. And second, all of the agency programs specific topical issues and policies, they also serve referred to in the examples are discussed in greater for broader formal and informal interaction among detail in Chapter Ill. In order to facilitate agencies. Though the Cabinet system is the broadest readability, page references have been omitted. and most significant vehicle for policy development and issue resolution the following forums play a somewhat similar and very significant role in this Example I area: (1) TPPSEC (see pages 92-93); (2) the Marine Development of an Offshore Petroleum Resource Advisory Committee (see page 75); I C, Transfer Station (3) IAC (see pages 84-86); and (4) ECPA (see pages 47-50). A not so typical but certainly important exam- pie of how the state's coastal zone management The state's management network can probably network comes into play for an industrial aquatic best be seen in operation, however, as it reponds to use is the development of offshore petroleum specific proposals. Roughly speaking, the response transfer stations. Faced with the dilemma of meet- of the management system varies according to two ing ever-growing energy demands while at the same parameters: the type of proposal made and the time answering a compelling citizen ultimatum to location of the proposed action. For explanatory protect fragile marine env' e officials I ironments, stat purposes here it will be useful to take a brief look turn to a management network which appears to at several different types of proposals in a variety work rather well. of environmental settings relevant to the coastal zone. Examples of the responsiveness of the man- The first phase of network responsiveness relates agement network can be generated endlessly, of to policy determinations and citizen input. The course, but the present discussion will be limited to Legislature would be the Final decision-making the presentation ofthe following five: authority, would draw conclusions from research and studies developed by such agencies as the (1) an industrial project in an aquatic environ- 9ceanographic Commission of Washington and the ment (the development of a petroleum Governor's Energy Policy Council. Citizen partici- transfer station); pacion would come in the form.of programs such as the Alternatives for Washington recommenda- (2) a commercial project on tidelands (the tions and public statements from industry groups, development of a saltwater marina); environmentalist organizations, and maritime assoc- (3) a recreational pr 'ect on saltwater shore- iations,as well as from citizens at large. oj line (the development of a public recrea- As policy development continues - ever chang- tion area); ing and adjusting to new problems and needs - the (4) a residential development on upland shore- existing framework of state laws and regulations line (a residential subdivision); and would be applied., Certainly the very size, location, and public awareness of an offshore petroleum (5) a forest practice on the uplands (a logging) transfer facility would require preparation of an operation). environmental impact statement under the State Environmental Policy Act. Because the facility Two other comments are appropriate here with would require construction in navigable waters, respect to the discussion that follows. First, no Army Corps of Engineer permits would also be attempt has been made to provide a complete necessary. In both cases a broad review of the account of the processes that would be triggered project by a number of state agencies would be or the authorities invoked in each case. The point triggered. 42 The Department of Ecology would be called boats operating in state waters now and the num- upon to implement regulations under such state ber is expected to increase to more than half a laws as the Water Resources Act, the Water Pollu- million by the year 2000. With this boating popu- tion Control Act, the Washington Clean Air Act, larity has come a concurrent demand for additional and the Solid Waste Management Act. In addition, moorage facilities and for development of new the proposer of the transfer station could elect to private and public marinas. But at the same time use the procedures made available by the Environ- there is growing public concern about protecting mental Coordination Procedures Act administered and preserving open shorelines. Marinas, because by DOE. Since in most cases an offshore transfer they often by necessity must be located in fragile system would require leases of underwater bed- estuaries, are considered by some to be an un- lands for both the installation of the station itself wanted intrusion on tidelands and adjacent uplands. and the pipeline to the shore, the Department of The state's coastal zone management program must Natural Resources as manager of state-owned bed- resp.ond to both the need and the concerns for pro- lands and tidelands would fulfill its responsibilities tection. Tideland commercial activities such as under the Public Lands Act and statutes relating marinas are a test for the state's management to tidelands, shorelands, and harbor areas. This is network. an instance where the Legislature might have to Policy considerations are tackled at the state enact new statutes because DNR's authority to lease becilands from outer harbor lines seaward is level through activities of the Legislature as well as presently unclear. Provisions of the Seashore Con- at the local governmental level in the development servation Act would be implemented by the Parks of land use measures such as comprehensive and shoreline management plans. As previously men- and Recreation Commission. Hydraulic permits tioned, marinas could be proposed for environ- would have to be obtained from the-Departments mentally sensitive estuarine areas, and they also of Fisheries and Game. may be sought in the harbors of both large and Several interactions with local agencies would small communities. In any case, nearby residents, occur in land-based development associated with boat owners, and marine industry spokesmen gen- offshore facilities. Permits would have to be ob- erally make their feelings known during the pro- tained from the appropriate county or city under posal and development stages. the Shoreline Management Act and appropriate The state has provided a network through which zoning ordinances and building codes would have this public interest can be addressed. Under SEPA, to be satisfied. If ownership of the proposed off- an EIS may be required for a marina development. shore transfer station were to be public instead of The project definitely would require an SMA sub- private several alternatives would have to be con- stantial development permit from a county or city. sidered. The state could operate the facility Unless the tidelands are privately owned (none through either an existing or a new agency @ut such have been sold by the state since 1969) the owner an arrangement would require legislation. Or the would have to lease the tidelands and any bedlands system could be operated by a public port district either from DNR or from a public port district. or a combination of districts. Port districts in By statute DNR cannot sign the lease until the Washington have broad capabilities although in this applicant has received appropriate Army Corps insta .rice as well new legislation probably would be- permits. Such permit applications trigger a full re- required. view of the project (coordinated by DOE) by state agencies. The Departments of Fisheries and Game Example 2 generally look closely at marina proposals to see if Development of a Saltwater Marina natural fish runs are affected (particularly in the mouths of streams and rivers) or if activities such Washington State with its 2,337 miles of salt- as dredging, bulkheading, or landfills are harmful water shorelines is considered to be a boater's para- to fish or bird or waterfowl habitat. Both agencies dise. There are more than 180,000 recreational would have to approve a hydraulic permit. 43 Al In addition to coordinating the necessary Army facilities. The Legislature has also moved in the Corps permits and reviewing the appropriate sub- policy area by giving the State Interagency Com- stantial development permit, DOE could be called mittee for Outdoor Recreation OAQ expanded upon to issue a state water quality permit if a authority in park and recreation planning. The IAC package sewage disposal system were utilized with administers both state and federal funds for park effluent discharge directly to the adjacent waters. site acquisition and funding and prepares and up- Also, a water rights permit would be issued if a dates the Washington Statewide Comprehensive domestic water supply system hook-up were not Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan (SCORP). available. Noise regulations, established by DOE This plan gives saltwater recreational development and enforced by local governments, would be appli- a high priority and in any case proposals for new cable to the boating activities. public facilities would have to fit in with SCORP if The Department of Social and Health Services they are to be funded through the IAC. has established a set of guidelines relating to marina The most likely agency to develop major public construction and has delegated authority to local recreation areas along saltwater shorelines would health agencies to enforce them. The guidelines be the State Parks and Recreation Commission, stipulate provisions for public water supplies and although some other agencies also have authority sewage systems, sewage pumpout stations for boats, to do so- DNR, particularly in tideland areas; potable water supply for boats, and other sanitary port districts in harbors; and cities and counties facilities and procedures. within their respective boundaries. it is quite possible that the proper zoning would The State Parks and Recreation Commission is not be existent for development of the marina, and autho-rized to acquire recreation sites by outright consequently the proposed development would purchase or through leases from public agencies or likely be required to obtain a rezone from the private individuals. The tidelands and shorelands appropriate city or county jurisdiction. Also, if the owned by DNR provide an interesting example development were in a flood control zone, as iden- case. The present procedure is for State Parks to tified by either DOE or the local government, the purchase the site from DNR, which almost always appropriate flood control permit would have to be withdraws the abutting tidelands and the bedlands obtained if the development were to be allowed to out to one-quarter mile in favor of the Parks and occur at,all. Recreation Commission for development and management with the shoreline park. Example 3 If the IAC is involved, the filing of a specific Development of a Public Recreation Area park acquisition or development plan is required on a Saltwater Shoreline prior to site acquisition. Once the plan has been acquired, the State Parks and Recreation Commis- As the state's population grows and more leisure sion would begin the development work. If the time becomes available, the need for recreational site falls within the SMA 200-foot boundary, a facilities also increases. The State of Washington substantial development permit must be obtained has some of the most beautiful and rugged marine from either a city or a county, whichever is appro- shoreline in the world. The development of public priate. If any work is to be done in the waters off- recreation areas - parks, campgrounds, open space - shore from the park site - boating docks, break- on or near the state's ocean and inland beaches and waters, dredging of areas for swimming - then an adjacent uplands is a task which challenges the Army Corps permit would also be obtained. In state's coastal zone management system. either case the development would be subject to formal review by many state agencies. The initial policy considerations have been undertaken by the people in their approval by state- Prior to acquiring the site for construction, or wide vote of several funding measures to support before funding, the proposing agency would have the acquisition and development of recreational to make a determination of environmental signifi- 44 cance and prepare an EIS if the development were A subdivider must first ensure that the proposed determined to be significant. DOE woulu be in- development is compatible with the appropriate volved in the review of the SMA substantial devel- local government's comprehensive plan and, where opment permit application and the SEPA EIS if applicable, the SMA master program. The next step one is prepared and would also function as the would be to see that the proposed location is prop- coordinator for the Army Corps permit review. eriy zoned if a zoning ordinance exists for the In addition, if a local, municipal, or private water locality. The city or county may also require by supply system were not available and the park ordinance that the Subdivider provide public open necessitated the drilling of a new well for its opera- space, individual front and rear yard setbacks, tion, appropriate water rights permits would have drainage ways, street paving, parks, and other to be obtained from DOE. public improvements. The site plan is also subject to review by the 'A residential use in a shoreline area would also Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) be reviewed by state and local agencies with respect reJating to such things -i numbers of sanitary facil- to its influence upon public access to beaches and ities in relation to the park's capacity, the layout tidelands. The state's comprehensive park and of camp sites to prevent overcrowding, waste dis- recreation plan places high priority on acquiring posal procedures, recreational vehicle disposal saltwater shorelines for public use. While con- pump-out stations, and on-site sewage disposal struction of a single family dwelling by the owner systems. Regulations of DSHS, which mav be en- is generally excluded from the permit system under forced through local health units, are contained in SMA and from the requirement to file an EIS under the Chapter 248-72 WAC. SEPA, it is possible that a major subdivision which is planned for an environmentally sensitive area and Example 4 which has not already been affected by the provi- sions of a local comprehensive plan or zoning might A Residential Subdivision in a Shoreline Area be subject to the preparation of an EIS. And the subdivision would most certainly require an SMA Of all the competing land uses within the coastal substantial development permit. zone, the one which poses the most critical chal- lenge in terms of siting factors is probably residen- If lots are t6 be sold without improvements, tial development, The building of housing has Sig- then the subdivider must register the development nificant impact on numerous nearby uses like with the Real Estate Division of the Department of shopping facilities, factories, schools, and parks. Motor Vehicles under the Land Development Reg- When the residential site is adjacent to a shoreline, istration Act. , another element of complexity is added. How the DSHS,' through the local health authority, re- state is meeting this challenge will in many respects give a clue to the effective.ness of the coastal zone views the subdivision plans for compliance with rianagement system. statutes relating to water supply and sewage dis- posal. If no public sewage system exists, the sub- Although the State of Washington has not yet divider might be required to Install a package sewer established a comprehensive statewide land use system in lieu of septic tanks. It would in all likeli- program, it has addressed the subject through a hood depend upon soil conditions, surrounding number of individual statutes such as the Planning uses, and planning policies of the local government. and Enabling Act, the Shorelire Management Act, If a local water supply system were not available and the Plattingand Subdivision Act, all of which to provide the domestic water and consequently grant rather broad land use authority to local - wells or surface water appropriations were neces- governments. In addition, the state and local regu- sary, a water rights (ground or surface) permit latory network serves to monitor residential would have to be obtained. Further, if a new water development with respect to public health, air, and supply system serving more than 1,000 users was water quality, building codes, solid waste manage- planned, DOE would notify DSHS which in turn ment, noise regulation, and utility installations. would require a comprehensive plan for the pro- 45 pose& development approved by DSHS. If a new ties of the Army Corps of Engineers, and meticu- water supply system were built by a local muni- lous review by the Departments of Fisheries and cipality or water district to serve the subdivision, Game. Washington Future Referendum 27 monies would be available to assist in developing the system. In this example, let us assume that the logging Most of the above reviews are triggered when the operation is to take place on state-owned lands subdivider files a preliminary plat with the county managed by DNR, Under the latter's management program the forest has been assessed for its market or city government. In most cases the coordination potential and subjected to a variety of silvicultural of the review process is by the locality's planning practices including pre-commercial thinning, fertili- department. The developer, if confronted by two zation, and application of herbicides and pesticides. or more state permits, could elect to use the ECPA A specific loggl ng plan is prepared. The timber cut- procedures, which would be initially implemented ting project may be scrutinized by a departmental by the affected county at the time of preliminary team for its environmental impact although in most plat filing. cases a formal EIS is not prepared. Then the timber is sold at public auction and a contract prepared. Example 5 The contractor is required to obtain a number of permits and approvals - from the Army Corps if A Logging Operation on Upland Property the logging operation affects a navigable stream or river,.from the county under SMA if the project Within the coastal zone uplands are some of the involves a stream or river or the construction of a most productive forest lands in the world. How road of more than 500 feet in length, from DOE these lands are controlled is extremely important for compliance with water quality requirements, in the state's coastal zone management system. The from DOE or the local Air Pollution Control environmental impact from industrial uses of these I Authority for any burning, and from DSHS for lands - primarily logging - has significant implica- sanitary facilities. tions for'the coastal area. Non-point sources of water pollution, disruption of streams used for DNR has a master agreement with the Depart- anadromous fish runs, air pollution from slash ments of Fisheries and Game regarding hydraulic burning or timber processing activities, and the permits. However, in cases where logging might conservation techniques used in the actual logging affect a sensitive fish habitat, one or both of the operation all are cause for concern. departments may require that a specific hydraulic The people of the state and the State Legislature permit be obtained. By general guidelines, loggers have addressed these concerns in several ways. The must follow special instructions in construction of most far-reaching action was the passage of the culverts in anadromous fish use waters, must keep Forest Practices Act (RCW Chapter 76.09), which debris out of the streams, and are not allowed to spells out acceptable procedures for virtually all "yard" through or fall trees into streams. Timber types of logging activity on both public and private contractors also must comply with safety regula- forest lands. Implemented through the Department tions as promulgated in RCW Chapter 70.74 and if of Natural Resources, this statute not only calls helicopters or other aircraft are used must meet for enlightened management of forest practices but safety requirements of the State Aeronautics Com- also brings into play considerable coordination of mission as well. When logging is completed and the appropriate regulatory functions of a number burning of slash is begun, the logging operator of state agencies and county governments. But must receive approval from DNR for the burning other regulatory mechanisms are triggered too - of waste on the day it is to be burned. DNR in the water quality requirements of DOE, health and turn coordinates its approval with the DOE Office of sanitary guidelines from DSHS, the responsibili- Air Programs in order to minimize smoke impact. 46 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR Two classifications, the natural and the conserv- CONCERN AND AREAS FOR ancy, and particularly relevant for the identifica- PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION tion of areas to be preserved or restored. The natural environment classification is intended to Chapter II identifies the state's areas of particu- preserve and restore those natural resource systems lar concern according to stated selection criteria. existing relatively free of human influence, permit- In addition, management programs are required by ing an activity only if it contributes to the preser- ti CZMA to show evidence that the state has devel- vation of the existing character. The primary oped and applied standards and criteria for the determinant for designating an area as a natural en- designation of areas of conservation, recreational, vironment is the actual presence of some unique ecological or esthetic values for the purpose of natural or cultural feature considered valuable in preserving or restoring, them. The state has made its natural or original condition which is rela- provisions for the identification of such areas pri- tively intolerant of intensive human use. The ob- marily through the shoreline management process. jective in design@ting a conservancy environment is' The state guidelines for local program prepara- to protect, conserve, and manage existing natural ify that local programs include the follow- resources and valuable historic and cultural areas in tion specl , ing plan elements which pertain to restoration and order to ensure a continuous flow of recreational preservation: benefits to the public and to achieve sustained (1) Public access element for assessing the resource utilization. The environment classification need for providing public access to shore- system is explained in Chapter III and the maps in line areas. Appendix Aprovi de the location of approximately (2) Recreational element for the preservation 140 miles of marine shoreline designated natural. and expansion of recreational opportuni- The State of Washington does not identify all ties through programs of development and areas of preservation and restoration as areas of acquisition including less-than-fee acquisi- particular concern. Areas of particular concern are tion. Master programs were also to recog- designated by state and federal legislation to give nize existing state parks, wildlife recreation prominence to certain large resource areas threat- areas, national parks, national wildlife ened by alternative or competitive uses. By con- refuges, and other areas identified for pres- trast, an area for preservation or restoration is ervation. usually a specific site. It may or may not be within (3) Conservation element for the preservation an area of particular concern. of the natural shoreline resources, consider- With the final adoption of all local master pro- ing such characteristics as scenic vistas, grams, the Department will coordinate the designa- parkways, estuarine areas, for fish and wild- tion of these identified areas along with other state life pro 'tection, beaches, and other valuable programs to provide a consolidated list of candi- natural or esthetic features. date areas. In this regard, the Department has re- (4) Historical/ cultural elements for protection strained its preservation and restoration activities, and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas recognizing that numerous other state and federal having historic, cultural, educational, or programs effectively address the problem. While scientific values. the state programs are discussed in detail in Chapter (5) Restoration element for the restoration of 111, some of the more significant programs of pres- blighted areas and abandoned or dillapi- ervation and restoration are summarized here. dated structures to a natural or useful con- Under. the authority of RCW 79.70.630, the dition. Department of Natural Resources is authorized to The guidelines also called for local programs to acquire and maintain natural areas or areas of scien- classify the shorelines into four environment cate- tific or educational value. Sand Island and Goose gories (urban, rural, conservancy, and natural), each Island in Grays Harbor have been designated under with its own range of permissible uses. this Act. The Department of Game has established 47 a natural area for rhinocerous auklets on Protection History of Federal Participation in the Washington Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and on upland Program natural areas adjacent to Padilla Bay in Skagit The state has provided several means for federal County. agency involvement in the development of its In 1972 the Legislature passed the Natural Area coastal zone management program. Prior to the Preserves Act to "...establi.@h a state system of passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act, in- natural area preserves and a means whereby the terested federal agencies were invited to review and preservation of these aquatic and land areas can be comment on the guidelines for shoreline manage- accomplished" and, provide for the acquis *ition of ment. Final guidelines for the Shoreline Manage- unique and natural lands for inclusion in a state - ment Act reflected manv of the views contributed wide preserve system. The Act also created a by federal agencies. Early participation of agencies natural area preserves advisory committee within was also solicited through the creation of a state/ the Department of Natural Resources to assist the federal task force to review local master programs. Department in carrying out the intent of the Act. Since early 1973, this task force has grown to in- clude more than twenty interested federal agencies. The State of Washington historic preservation Some agencies that were afforded this opportunity program legislation is patterned after the National unfortunately lacked sufficient personnel to parti- Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The state law cipate fully. created an advisory council similar to the National State and federal interest in the management of Advisory Council. The state legislation also estab- the coastal zone increased substantially with the lishes a State Register of Historic Places. The State 1972 passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Register will include all nominations to the National As a result and in recognition of the need for addi- Register and other nominations deemed sufficiently significant by the state advisory council. Of the tional federal nvolvement, the program was expand- ed to establish a better understanding of and rela- 159 properties in Washington State that have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places tionships with federal agencies. since June 18, 197 5, 97 sites are located in the 15 A major effort to increase federal involvement coastal zone counties. began in the fall of 1974. Many agencies were un- informed about the Act and national program and STATE/FEDERAL RELATIONS few agencies were prepared to work with it. While some agencies were developing policy at the nation- While the state's shoreline and related programs al level, others were uncertain as to how it would have traditionally involved inter-action with a impact their programs. The Department of Com- vari*ety of federal agencies, participation in the merce had not yet finalized the Section 306 pro- national coastal zone management program height- gram guidelines, nor had the considerable legal un- ened the importance and broadened the scope of certainties relating to the interpretation of many of this interaction. The Coastal Zone Management the provisions of CZMA itself been resolved. Act stresses the pivotal role of the states in coastal An early effort was made to identif .y as many of management and imposes reciprocal coordination the federal agencies as possible that would be, as duties upon the states and federal agencies. States CZMA states, "principally affected" b' the must provide for federal agency participation, ade- y quate consideration of their views (including state's program The original two dozen identified agencies have since grown to over forty (see national interests"), incorporation of water pollu- Chapter IV), although the " principally affected" tion and air pollution control requirements, and an agencies are approximately half that nuriiber. No effective mechanism for continuing state/federal effort was made to eliminate agencies from the consultation and coordination. This chapter and program, though some clearly have only a peri- Appendices B, D, and F set forth the Washington State coastal zone management program activities, pheral interest in coastal management. approaches, and results associated with these ob- Specific contact people for the program were jectives and requirements. selected by the agencies and correspondence was A (see Arp. 46 *#&,1 1646) 48 directed to the contacts. Early in 1975, a meeting Development of a State/Federal Coordination was held at the Federal Regional Council offices to System (see Appendix 11, Program Supplement) The Washington coastal zone management pro- discuss the state's program and to identify areas which would be of particular concern to a group of gram has attempted to consider adequately the federal agencies with common concerns. The con- views of relevant federal agencies through a number cept of, several subcommittees of federal and state of the participatory devices discussed above: in- agencie .s with common interest, was explored and volvement in key guidelines preparation; review of later rejected when it became apparent that com- local master programs; questionnaire instruments; mon interests were difficult to identify, that such bilateral discussions; formal review of the initial an approach would be unwieldy, and that there was program document; responses to agency comments; more ineed for individual agency consultation. A and acknowledgement of agency and national in- questionnaire was sent out in February of 1975 and terests. This: experience, however, made it clear several of the agencies responded with details about that a more structured and continuing mechanism their coastal zone management concerns, activities, for state/federal interaction is needed to implement programs, problems, and expectations. These have effectively the state's program. The essentials of been considered in the refinement of the Washington this system are set forth below. program. State coastal zone management policy concern- The preliminary Washington program document ing federal views and interests has been adopted in was made widely available in late March of 1975. light of the positive spirit embodied in the Coastal Distribution of the document stimulated extensive Zone Management Act, that is, "to cooperate and federal review of the state's efforts. Many problems partitipate in furthering the purposes of this title." were revealed or clarified and positions and poh- Washington finds, as did the Congress, that there is cies of federal agencies became known to the state, a direct national interest in the effective manage- many for the first time. Many of the federal views ment of the coastal zone and that its carefully identified legitimate deficien@ies or desirable rnodi- planned development, protection, and public use is fications to the program. Others were bascd on a of concern to al[of the citizens of the United States. misunderstanding of the state's program or a dif- Nationwide public interest is manifested in many ferent interpretation of the Coastal Zone Manage- ways: through the use of the coastal zone for inter- ment Act. A few were based on unrealistic expec- national commerce, national defense and security, tations of the state's capability--or legal oblig--tion-- and active and passive recreational pursuits; and in to provide detailed analyses or projections and recognition of the need for managing the natural affirmative functional program initiatives. systems and the uses of man-modified segments of the coastal zone. Generally, the objections addressed the following: Many of the federal agency missions, responsibil- lack of involvement in the development of the pro- ities, and activities directly share in this reflection gram; the need for a concise description of the of national concern and interest. National defense overall program; the definition of coastal zone and security, for example, are among the highest boundaries; lack of information on specific kinds priority of uses of Washington's coastal zone. of "permissible uses ... .. priorities of use," and Similarly, the needs and concerns of a broad spec- "areas of particular concern"; inadequate expression trum of federal agencies such as the National Park of regional and national interests; and administra- Service, the Environmental Protecti .on Agency,the tive or operational mechanisms for coordination Federal Energy Administration, the Army Corps of and consistency. State consideration of specific Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the views is contained in Appendix letthough the fed- Coast Guard must be recognized and reflected in eral comments received have been addressed the program. throughout this document. It 'is the intent and desire of the state to mini- Participation of relevant agencies will continue mize any form of adversary confrontation when and be refined as part of the state's packet system the legislated responsibilities, duties, or procedures that is now in place as described in detail below. of a federal agency conflict with those of the state 49 coastal zone program. Every effort will be ex- (8) A discussion of the permits and licenses hausted through communication and informal issued by the agency which have CZM rele- channels before resorting to formal procedures for vance and a proposal for determining the conflictresolution. consistency of those permits and licenses The state has committed itself to a continuing with the state program. effort to understand and actively consider federal (9) A discussion of any grant programs of CZM interests in the further refinement and implemen- significance offered by the agency and a tation of its coastal zone management program. proposal for determining consistency. A major tool to achieve mutual understanding, (10) A map or series of maps which show those develop consistency of activities, and resolve differ- lands and water areas within the Washington ences is the coordinative packet system adopted by coastal zone which the agency owns, leases, the Department of Ecology. The packet system has, rents, holds in trust, manages, regulates, been designed specifically to assure that a single operates in, or otherwise directly influences. documented basis for considering individual agency views and concerns is established and maintained in Design and development of this system was fully the future. It is also designed to be a dynamic underway by September of 1975 drawing upon a record and focal point for at least the following ren substantial amount of prior experience documented elements of policy and programmatic relevance: earlier. Twenty-nine agencies were identified by OCZM as having potential interests in coastal zone (1) The policy of the state regarding the major management; by late November this number had state/federal interfaces caused by, or part of, increased to forty-seven as a result of state initia- CZM. tives. The packets are available in the Department (2) Organization charts of the agency and the of Ecology central offices in Olympia and range in state, showing the components of both that length from 20 to 100 pages. While it is neither are particularly concerned with CZM. feasible nor desirable to reproduce these tools in (3) A statement about the mission of the this document, a representative packet is presented agency and the CZM implications of that in AppendiAtfor interested reviewers. The mission. packets are summarized briefly Appendix B (4) A discussion of the plans, policies, and Although the development of the packet system programs of the agency relative to CZM and involved a substantial and concentrated expenditure a proposed methodology designed specifi- of resources, it is considered an essential in-progress cally to the agency whereby coordination beginning of an ongoing state/federal process. The and consultation may occur. process will be maintained and enhanced by the (5) A listing and discussion of the facilities assignment of specific staf .f resources in the future. which the agency does not control but which affect its mission. The facilities may Consideration of the National Interest in Facility be either in the coastal zone or near enough Siting to it to impact it. The Coastal Zone Management Act at Section (6) A discussion of the types of activities the 306 (c) (8) and its approval regulations (Section agency undertakes having CZM significance 923.15) require the state to consider adequately and a proposed methodology for determin- th Ie national interest in the siting of facilities neces- ing the consistency of those activities with sary to meet requirements which are of greater than the state program. local concern. The Washington coastal zone man- (7) A discussion of the CZM-related develop- agement program and its related state network of ments of the agency which are in the coastal policies and authorities establish a reasoned means zone and a proposed methodology for deter- to consider the siting of facilities of local as well as mining consistency with the state program. national import. Similarly, SMA and the other so components of the. coastal zone management net- though perhap@ ultimately impossible task. The work are adequate to deal with uses of regional range of interests expressed.by various federal benefit. agencies (see AppendixI06 ranged from fore- seeable needs to meet national security emer- A fundamental criterion to be met is that the gencies, through siting of energy facilities in state program neither arbitrarily exclude nor undeveloped areas, to stringent. requirements to unreasonably restrict the siting of facilities or uses enhance living marine resources and protect of regional benefit. This performance test is met natural habitats. Some of these national interests primarily through the open planning process are incompatible in the finite reaches of the establishing the shoreline program, the appeals coastal zone. Nevertheless, the state has established process available through the Shorelines Heafings a process and has acknowledged in its identifica- Board (one basis of appeal being failure to consider tion of areas of particular concern that it is the greater-than-local interests), recognition of the primary objective of coastal zone management statewide over local interests with respect to shore- to deal openly with these needs and conflicts- lines of statewide significance, and the checks, including those stemming from national per- balances, and procedures associated with the Forest spectives-in the implementation of its program. Practices Act, TPPSEC, water and air quality standards, and related programs. Incorporation of Water Pollution and Air Pollution Requirements In addition, DOE has been refining and will Section 307(f) of CZMA and Section 923.44 of continue to refine its research and policy develop- the approval regulations call for the "incorporation" ment concerning the development of outer conti- of the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution nental shelf resources and the potential effects of Control Act as @mended and the Clean Air Act as Alaskan oil on the state's coastal zone. amended into coastal zone management programs. The Department of Ecology as the lead state agency While the state's coastal zone management pro- for all three programs is the single institutional gram is not a physical siting program, tangible evi- locus for integrating the standards, regulations, and dence of the state's coastal zone accommodation guidelines necessary to achieve the related goals of of national and regional interests and uses is found these programs. The internal network of DOE poli- in the identification of substantial federal facilities cies and management practices assures that this and lands mapped in Appendix.V4.The range of important relationship has been established. permissible uses accommodated and designated in The Governor has certified that the state coastal ,the coastal zone is also readily apparent from an examination of the aggregate of shoreline environ- zone management program incorporates both fed ments described and mapped In Appendix Sk eral water quality and federal air quality standards. Furthermore, any action or proposal which would violate air or water quality standards or regulations Perhaps the most essential ingredient in meeting is 'dered to be inconsistent wi ington national or regional needs is the commitment to a consi th the Wash' coastal zone management program acknowledging State coastal zone program. national values and needs in Washington's coastal zone; establishing a responsive system of consulta- The State Position on the Consistency Provisions tion and coordination; and committ .ing the state to of CZMA a continuing process of interaction with these Sections 307(c) and (d) of CZMA set forth the interests. The state/federal coordination system duties and general processes for federal agency con- is explicitly designed to deal with this dimension @Istency with the state's program. The state intends of coastal zone management. to develop further understanding of these require- ments in consultation with the affected agencies The state believes that the full accommodation during the initial period of program implementation, of all perceived national interests is an evolving Developing such understanding will involve such 51 matters as: which activities should be subject to the approved state program, The primary, mecha- consistency and under what circumstances; work- nism for notification to the state will be the use of able organizational arrangements; the appropriate and consistency with the procedures of Title IV and reasonable procedures to be employed by the of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 various parties involved; and methods to resolve (the A-95 process). disputes in a reasonable fashion. A record of these interactions will become part CITIZEN AND GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVE-. MENT IN PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT of the federal/state coordinative packet syste m. In the interim, before joint understandings have been Involvement in the Shoreline Management Process reached, it is the state's position that federal agen- cies should begin to examine their activities in The various state programs which make up the light of the Shoreline Management Act and its state coastal zone program have been developed guidelines, as well as the Congressional findings under specific requirements relating to citizen and policies in Sections 302 and 303 of CZMA. involvement. The state's shoreline management Uses in or activities affecting the "resource bound- program is probably a national model for maxi- ary" are generally considered by the state to be mizing involvement at all stages of development. within the purview of the consistency provisions. Not only did the Act itself require and foster citizen involvement, but the controversial nature of For coastal zone management purposes, deter- the program made it newsworthy, which kept mination of consistency and any determination citizens aware of the program as it was being relating to the process of permit and license certifi- implemented.. cation shall be undertaken by the State of Washing- ton (Department of Ecology) with the federal agen- The Act originated from the involvement of cy involved, either jointly or by methods proposed concerned citizens. As a direct result of the in the packets or established at a later date. The Washington Environmental Council's Initiative 43, state will be responsible for assuring that local the State Legislature passed the Shoreline Manage- desires and concerns are considered by the state in ment Act of 1971, Alternative Measure 4313, and determining the consistency and conformity of enacted it as an emergency law on June 1, 197 1. federal developments, grants, activities, and the On November 7, 1972, the voters went to the polls certification of licenses and permits.,Tbe p -of- and affirmed the present law. Prior to the election cdic.y tb@c-s,[email protected]@ica@nt-for-a-federal-li,ce@n5e and in order to inform the electorate of the issues oY_Pe@rmit_to_conduct, an@activi,ty,.affec-t-i-ngland,@n-d involved in the two management proposals, an wa s@in_the_coastal, zone,,shall,.providg_t1L -=-use g informational program was established throughout acpAr-tment-of-Ecolog,y-w.i,th-a-co.p-y-of,,thg@-Q-cr-@ti f the state: catiQn-that-the-propos-e-d,ac:@ivity cpMptie@s_w state Information pamphlets were distributed widely _progranL_Methods for determining which throughout the state. activities are subject to the certification process and how certification procedures will be developed A state voters pamphlet was published which will be addressed on a high priority basis with the provided concise explanations of the opposing affected agencies. The state will make every effort issues. to notify the concerned federal agency that the state concurs with or objects to the applicant's certifica- Workshops were sponsored by county extension tion in a timely fashion. offices to inform citizens about the Act and an article comparing the proposals was written and State and local government requests for federal distributed in mass throughout the state; a slide assistance will be made consistent with the state show was developed by the county extension program. Local and state government agencies will service and used extensively to educate the furnish their views to the federal agency as to the public on the issue of and need for shoreline relationship of such federally funded activities to management. 52 In addition, workshops were held with county With the conclusion of the public, meetings assessors, legal representatives, county and city further modifications were made to the draft. officials, and federal agency representatives Prior to the public hearings, a mailing list was who would be directly affected by the Shoreline put together consisting of all individuals who had Management Act, and newsletters, newspapers, attended the public meetini4s or had responded in and professional magazines were all provided some other way to the drafts that had previously with articles comparing the two shoreline been distributed. A copy of the final draft was management alternatives. then sent to each individual for one final review The effort resulted in a Shoreline Management and two public hearings were held, one in Olympia Act which stressed the necessity for citizen input and one in Spokane. Final adoption of the guide- lines was made at a hearing he!d in Olympia. to shoreline programs with administration at the local level and review and advisory authority at the Participat .ion in Local Master Programs state level. Citizen involvement is stressed as a. required inte- The Shoreline Management Act at 90.58.430 gral part of local shoreline master programs. In RCW provides that in order fact, the final guidelines stipulate that failure of [t] o insure that all, persons and entities having an inter- local governments to encourage and utilize citizen est in the guidelines and master programs developed involvement without- proper Justification will be under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity considered as a failure to comply with the Act. for involvement in both their development and implement- The auldelines for citizen involvement were quite ation, the department and local governments sliall explicit and have been adhered to by local govern- [ml ake reasonable efforts to inform the people of the ments throughout the state. state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the respons'bilicies To insure that the needs and desires of the provided in this chapter shall riot only invite but actively people were reflected in local master programs, encourage participation by all persons and privaze groups local governments were required to appoint .and entities showing an interest in shoreline management broadiv based citizen advisory committees, repre- programs of this chapter..." senting both commercial interests and environ- mentaiists, to define goals and to draft policy Participation in Establishment of the Final Guide- lines statements for the master programs. Selection procedures and the size and number of committees With the passage of the Shoreline Jklanagernent have varied among the participating jurisdictionS7 Act of 197 1, the Department of Ecology staff had reflecting the unique needs and resources of each. 90 days to draft a set of guidelines for local govern- Each local committee was to conduct a series of ments and citizen advisory committees to utilize public meet ,ings and encourage the participation of in the formulation of their shoreline programs. governmental agencies and private groups. Local The first draft was mailed out and all interested committees were Iencouraged to issue newsletters to describe the results of the meetings and to give persons, groups, and agencies had 90 days to sub- 0 Information about policy statements and program. mit their comments and criticisms. The Depart- development. ment of Ecology staff then had another 90 days to modify the original draft and mail the modified During the process, which included the drafting draft out again for further comment. After receiv- of goals, policies, and regulations, the committee ing the second set of comments, the draft was took the draft of the master program to public amended for the second time and pubiic meetings meetings for discussion. The committee then were held at various locations within the state. revised the draft and submitted it to local planning Federal and state agency participation in guide- commissions and legislative bodies for action. line preparation was considerable. Local government then sent the master programs 53 and a report of public involvement to the Depart- consecutive weeks. An affidavit of publication ment of Ecology for approval. must be transmitted to the local government by The response by local government to the chal- the applicant. The affidavit is then attached to the lenge presented by the public participation require- application. ments of the Act has been impressive. Of 224 cities All persons interested in the proposed project and counties directly affected by the Act, only have 30 days from the final public ation of the four declined to take on the task of preparing a notice within which they may submit, in writing, master program. Program development has often all comments, views, and criticismsto the appro- extended over an 18-month period and required priate local agency. Local governments may anywhere from five to 40 citizen advisory commit- establish a mandatory or optional public hearing tee public meetings. In the lengthy process over procedure to precede the issuance or denial of 2,000 citizens have been.directly involved in permits in order to allow citizens the opportunity developing the shoreline program in the State of to present their views. Washington. As applications for permits increased, the state, While the state has been careful to assure that local governments, and local committees recog- local interests.have had an opportunity to partici- nized a need for professional expertise in the area of technical assistance in reviewing permits and pate in the formulation of shoreline policy, the in developing master programs, This resulted in the need for balance and assurance that "greater than formation of the Interdisciplinary Advisory Com- local interest" has been recognized has been pro- mittee (IDAC) in December of 1972. The IDAC vided through state and federal review. To assist provided c .ounseling to local governments and local the Department of Ecology in review of local committees on a volunteer basis and provided an shoreline master programs, review task forces were opportunity for the academic community in formed, representing various state and federal addition to the general public to become involved agencies. These task forces provided the oppor- in the per.mit system. tunity for all interested agencies to comment on the master programs. Public Hearings The state was divided into four review areas, Major state programs which comprise the thus reducing the number of programs any one Washington State coastal zone management pro- task force would be required to re-lew and to gram have met state hearing and public involve- ensure that field 'personnel most familiar with the ment requirements. Hearings were held for the area could be involved in the review. The technical Shoreline Management Act itself, as well as for all expertise 'of the task force members and their the regulations and local master programs as knowledge of the geographical areas have greatly required by the Administrative Procedures Act of aided the Department of Ecology staff in arriving Washington (RCW Chapter 34.0 '4). In the imple- at their decisions to approve or deny the shoreline mentation of SMA,, several state regulations have master programs. been adopted in the Washington Administrative Code. Hearing procedures under the Code require Involvement in the Permit Process notice of the hearing in advance of the date and availability of materials prior to the hearing. There The regulatory portion of the program involves is a period for written comments to be received a permit system which cities and counties have the and considered before the decision is made. These responsibility for administering. It is the responsi- written comments match or exceed oral comments bility of local government to instruct the appli- in utility to the decision maker and are often more cant for a substantial development permit and to voluminous than the content of oral presentations publish notices in a local newspaper within the at hearings. Attendance figures for these hearings* county of the proposed development. The notices should not be taken as a lack of interest since must be published at least once a week for two- most of the comments received were written. The 54 following table shows the hearing dates for relevant Chapter 173-20 Shoreline Management Act- chapters of the Washington Administrative Code: Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State Chapter 173-14 Permits for Substantial Develop- Chapter 173-22 Adoption of Designations of Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the ment on Shorelines of the State State Hearing date: December, 1971 17 3-18,-20 and -22 were all heard together. Location: Olympia, Washington Hearing date: June 28, 1972. Location: Attendance: 80 Olympia, Wa .shington. Attendance: 10 Additionally, a joint NOAA/DOE hearing on Chapter 173-16 Shoreline Management Act the entire proposed program was held on April Guidelines for Development of Master Program 22, 1975, following press notification and indi- vidual invitations. A draft environmental impact Preliminary hearing#1 date: March 21, 1972 statement was distributed at the hearings, in pub- lic libraries, and by mail to a number of citizen Location: Spokane, Washington groups, federal agencies, and individuals. Sentiment at the hearing generally fell into two classes: recom- Attendance: 80 mending approval and recommending against ap- Preliminary proval, the latter stemming generally from concern hearing #2 over a lack of environmental protection in the pro- date: March 23, 1972 gram. Location: Olympia, Washington Washington's chief interstate involvement has Attendance: 150 been with the State of Oregon, which shares the Final hearing Columbia River estuary. DOE and other state and local people have participated in CREST date: June 20, 1972 (Columbia River Estuary Study Team), a special Location: Olympia, Washington organization created to examine and plan for the Columbia Rivet estuary. Involvement with other Attendance: 50 states has been through correspondence and Chapter 173-19 State Master Program occasional meetings hosted by OCZM. In addition, Washington has had contact with Alaska at meet- Hearing # 1 ings hostcd by the Federal Regional Council and date: October 15, 1974 DOE and through telephone and written communi- cations. Location: Spokane, Washington Attendance: 40, DESIGNATED AGENCY AND AUTHORITY FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITON Hearing #2 date: October 23, 1974 Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires that a single agency be designated to Location: Olympia, Washington manage the coastal zone program. That agency Attendance: 30 must have the power to administer land and water uses, to control development, and to resolve con- Chapter 173-18 Shoreline Management Act- flicts among competing uses. The Governor's Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines letter submitted with this document designates the of the State Department of Ecology as the single agency and SS certifies that the Department has the necessary In addition, state agencies, and local governments authorities. This designation is particularly appro- have certain limited powers of eminent domain as priate in view of the fact that the key to follows: Washington's coastal management, the Shoreline Management Act, declares in relevant part that Department of Ecology: authority to. acquire shorelines and related [t] he department of ecology is designated the state wetlands. (RCW agency responsible for the program of regulation of 90-58.240) the shorelines of the state, including coastal shore- lines and the shorelines of the inner tidal waters Department of Natural of the state, and is authorized to cooperate with the Resources: authority to acquire federal government and sister states and to receive natural areas, natural benefits of any statutes of the United States when- area preserves or ever enacted which relate to the programs of this. areas of scientific or chapter. [RCW 90.58.3001 educational value. The Act further identifies the Department's (RCW 79.70.630) responsibiliti ies in the relationship to the federal Department of Game: authority to acquire government in 90.58.260: for sanctuary and The state, through the department of ecology and other purposes. the attorney general, shall represent its interest (RCW 77.12.200) before water resource regulations management, Parks and Recreation development, and use agencies of the United States, including among others, the federal DoNver commis- Commission: authority to acquire for parks and park- sion, environmental protection agency, corps of engineers, department of the interior, department ways. (RCW of agriculture and the atomic energy commission, 43.51.040) before interstate agencies and the courts with regard to activities or uses of shorelines of the state The state does not currently consider it neces- and the program of this chapter. sary to have outright power of condemnation to The Coastal Zone Management Act also states implement the coastal zone management program. that where necessary for program implementation, The authorities cited above, in conjunction with the state must acquire "fee simple and less than the overall program, prevent inappropriate uses of the coastal zone. fee simple interests in. . propertv.... The Department of Ecology is empowered in RCW 90.58.240 to "tal cquire lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert with other governmental entities, when necessary to achieve implementation of master programs adopted hereunder. . . 56 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED Encompassing the Puget Sound-San Juan Islands-Straits of Juan de tuca complex, the shores of the Pacific coast, and the mouth of the Columbia River as far as tidal influence, Washington's roughly 2700 mile coastal zone is one of the richest and most varied in the nation. It extends from the crest of the Cascades to the Pacific Ocean and includes some of the State's most valuable assets. Within its bound- aries lie the centers of population and industry for the State as well as important living marine resources and large areas of striking natural beauty. Puget Sound, the West Coast's largest deep water protected port and the focus of shipping and industry in the Pacific Northwest, is of central importance. Its excellent harbors and proximity to Alaska make the Puget Sound area a prime candidate for receiving oil from Alaska. The Sound is also vitally important to the marine life which both utilizes the Sound as habitat and which provides one of the major bases for the important commercial fishing and tourist industries. The close proximity and increasing interaction of the population to and with these natural resources has in recent years meant increasing demands on and conflicts for the area and its re- sources. The major competing uses include timber harvest, industry,, commercial fishing, recreation, tourism, second home development, and to a lesser extent, agriculture. These uses are interrelated in a complex manner and highlight the need for coastal zone management. The coastal zone encompasses two types of land formation: glaciated regions in the north and coastal plains to the south and west. The northern area, including Puget Sound, the north shore of the Olympic Peninsula, and the Pacific Coast south to Quinault River, was strikingly molded by glacial activity and is characterized by rugged mountains and glacial valleys. The beaches are narrow, rocky and are backed by high forested bluffs. Rocky outcrops and islands are common offshore. Limited river plains associated with the largest rivers provide the only low flatlands. In contrast, the southern area is a broad coastal plain with wide sandy beaches, dunes, and extensive lowlands. Sand for this region both originates locally and is provided by the northward littoral drift of-sedlm;ents along-the Pacific Coast. The extensive elongated dunes have formed major estuaries at the mouths of the Chehallis and Willapa Rivers, which drain this area. The climate,of the entire area is maritime, with generally mild winter temperatures and cool, moderately dry summers. Nestled between the Olympics and the Cascades, the Puget Sound climate especially reflects the marine influences. The two mountain ranges, combined with the prevailing ocean breezes, cause large variations in precipitation 57 among 1ocalities. Precipitation varies from up to 200 inches per year in the mountains and western slope of the Olympic Peninsula, to a moTe.moderate 3S to 50 inches per year in Puget Sound and the adjacent lowlands. Precipitation is seasonal, being heaviest from October to March and reaching a minimum in July and August. Extensive snowfall in the mountains, however, prolongs the seasonal river discharge into the coastal areas. The Washington coast may be conveniently divided into three general regions: the Puget Sound-San Juan Island-Straits of Juan de Fuca; the Pacific coastline; and the Columbia River. Each region has dif- ferent resources, use patterns, and problems. Puget Sound The Puget Sound region is the most valuable asset in Washington's coastal zone. The following discussion of Puget Sound's character- istics has been adapted with few changes from the National Estuary Study: Puget Sound, an extension of the Pacific Ocean, involves approximately 2,700 square miles of water area within the United States. This area of deep channels, passages, inlets, bays and numerous major and minor islands forms a scenic area surrounded by snow-capped mountains of the Cascade range on the east and the Olympic range on,the west. About 10 major and,.14 minor rivers and numerous small streams flow into Puget Sound and its adjacent waters. The Sound is basically a deep body of water with depths of 100 to 600 feet less than 1 mile offshore. In many shoreline reaches, shoal areas are nonexistent. Large tideflats and marshland areas are restricted to mouths of the major rivers, with Skagit Bay and Samish Bay flats on the north and Nisqually River delta on the south, the most noteworthy areas. Small tideflats and marshes occur at the head of many inlets in South Puget Sound and Hood Canal. The rest of the shoreline is characterized by forested bluffs SO to 500 feet high. The climate of Puget Sound is classed as mid-latitude marine with cool, moist winters and warm summers. The Olympic and Cascade mountain ranges modify the weather of Puget Sound. Port Townsend, in the-rain shadow of the Olympic range, receives about 17'inches of precipitation annually. Seattle has an average annual precipitation of about 36 inches. Seventy-five percent of the precipitation occurs in the 6-month period, October through March. At Seattle, the average daily temperature.in January is about 400 F., while in July it is about 650F. Maximum recorded is 1000F., and the minimum is OOF. Puget Sound's major freshwater sources are the Nooksack, Skagit, StillAguamish, Skokomish, Cedar, Elwha,,Snohomish, Lake Washington, Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually Rivers. Numerous other streams,. both large and small, flow into the Sound. Freshwater inflow, as a S8 result of rainy periods, occurs primarily during the period October through March. Snow melt from the Cascade and Olympic ranges occurs through June. River discharge plays a predominant role in the great productivity of Puget Sound. Tidal circulation varies throughout the area. It is best in the North Sound, where relatively constricted channels and an open connection with the ocean promote good circulation and poorest in the sheltered bays of the South Sound and Hood Canal. Because of the north-south axis of the Sound, there is a difference in the flow of tides. A tide change at Olympia, on the southern most portion of the Sound, will occur approximately 1 hour, 15 minutes after a similar change at Port Townsend, at the north end of the Sound. Tidal,amplitude also varies, being greatest in the southern portion of the Sound and decreasing generally toward its mouth. The tidal currents are variable and strong, and where affected by narrow passages or shallow sills, may exceed 7 knots. Most areas of Puget Sound are usually well mixed. During periods of continuous heavy rainfall, the areas near the mouths of major rivers will approach freshwater-condition. Mixing by strong winds occurs in some areas of the South Sound. Stratification occurs during the late summer in sheltered bays of the South Sound. Census figures for 1974 indicate that about 2.2 million people live in the Puget Sound area. Areas such as the Duwamish Waterway and Commencement Bay have been modified by human activities. Channel modifications, diking, filling, port facilities and industrial complexes have substantially altered these two areas. Other areas, such as Bellingham, Anacortes, and the Snohomish River, have-been modified to a lesser extent. Residential and industrial complexes add both domestic and industrial waste to the Sound. Agricultural runoff from the major river valleys add nutrients to the system. Puget Sound has historically supported substantial fish and wildlife use. Major commercial and recreational fisheries for salmon, bottom- fish, herring and smelt, oysters, shrimp, hardshell clams and crab occur on the Sound. With the development of the surrounding area, some of these fisheries, particularly in the Southern Sound, have declined. The principal causes of the decl 'ine have been (1) habitat degradation brought about by industrial and domestic wastes and unfavorable land use practices; (2) direct habitat destruction through diking and land fills, as well as construction of upstream water development pro- jects and poor timber harvesting practices. The effect of dike and fills on fish populations is understood to damage or destroy nursery, rearing and spawning habitat. Loss of wildlife habitat has not been quantified; however, a noticeable deterioration of wildlife resources has occurred,which can be attributed to habitat disruption. Decline in shellfish production in southern-Puget Sound can also be related 59 to economic conditions. The shellfish stocks in this region are increasing and could be significantly expanded for commercial and recreational harvest. Discharges of waste material, whether of industrial, domestic or thermal character, including the effects of logging, provide the single most important existing stress and threat to the environment of fish and wildlife resources of Puget Sound. The most important anadromous fish species include chinook, coho, sockeye, chum and pink salmon; steelhead.and searun cutthroat trout; and searun Dolly Varden. All of these species use Puget Sound as a migration and nursery area. Many spend the entire saltwater phase of their life cycle in the Sound. Bait and forage fish include Pacific herring, smelt and anchovies.. Her-ring use the shallow end of many inlets and bays of the Sound for spawning purposes. Some species, like surf smelt, spawn only in beach areas having particular substrate composition and water regime. All of these species are important food sources for other fishes. Major spec ies of marine fish inhabiting the Sound are Pacific. codi dogfish, skate, lingcod, sablefish, Pacific hake, starry flounder, Pacific halibut, ratfish, and numerous species of sole, rockfish and surfperch. A great many of these fish contribute substantially to commercial and sport fisheries. A large variety of shellfish inhabit the Sound.- Valued species -include Pacific and native. oysters; Dungeness crabs; littleneck, horse, jacknife, butter, Manila, geoduck, softshell, and cockel clams; rock and Puget Sound pink scallops; pinto abalone; and several species of shrimp. Puget Sound has long been recognized by oceanographers as a unique body of water characterized by great fertility and food producing potential. Primary productivity rates are among the highest observed in marine waters around the world. Because of the high rates of pri- mary productivity, Puget Sound has the potential to produce an estimated 6 billion pounds of bivalve mollusk meats per year. Shellfish stocks support major recreational fisheries in Puget Sound. Approximately 1 million user trips are spent harvesting intertidal shellfish during the low tides of spring and summer each year. The recreational harvest of crab and shrimp with traps (pots) accounts for an estimated 2SO,000 user trips each year. Puget Sound is an important resting place, feeding area and wintering ground for many thousands of birds in the Pacific Flyway. 'This is due largely to the significant belt of tidelands around the Sound. Major waterfowl species include: Mallard, pintail, canvasback, ruddy, harlequin, ring-necked, and wood duck, widgeon, scaup, goldeneye, green-winged teal, shoveler, Canada, lesser Canada and snow geese, 60 and black grant. Mierganser,scooter and -American coot ,lso occur. Gulls and terns are the most common shorebirds. Great blue herons are common salt marsh birds. The major wintering areas for waterfowl in Puget Sound are the Skagit, Snohomish and Nisqually flats, and Padilla-Samish Bays. Each small bay and inlet provides a discreet area for a portion of the total water- front inhabitants population. For example, twenty to thirty thousand snow geese winter in Skagit Bay -- the only concentration of these geese found in the State of Washington. Waterfowl hunting is a major recreational activity on the Sound in fall and early winter. Nearly one-third of Washington's duck and goose hunting occurs in Puget Sound. Harbor seals, killer whales and porpoise are commonly found in Puget Sound, and mammals inhabiting adjacent freshwater areas include beaver, muskrat, mink, weasel, otter and raccoon. Human benefits-from natu7al resources of the Sound include food, industry, recreation, research, education and an environment for living. Estimates made for specific recreational use!5*of Puget Sound for 1965 include 800,000 man-days of hunting, 1.3 million angler-days of salmon fishing, 850,000 angler-days of bottom fishing, and 1.2 million man- days for spor.t shellfish harvest. In addition, commercial fishermen annually harvest over 6 milli-on salmon, 20 million pounds of bottom tal value of fish, and over 6 million pounds of shellfish. The to. recreational fishing effort exceeds that of the commercial fishery, but an estimate of total recreational use of Puget Sound and its resources is not available. (U.S. DOI National Estuary Study, Vol. 5, AppendiZ G, pp. 69-72.) The Sound's principal physical resource is its deep water protected port facilities. The primary ports are at Port Angeles (on the Straits of JuLqn de Fuca), Bellingham, Everett and Seattle-Tacoma. These ports are the closest U.S. ports to the far East, and form the base for an expanding trade with the Orient. Because of the shipping facilities, ral the state's industries have located on the Sound. These natu features have also made it ideal for the location of defense installa tions to sat.;sfy the needs of Navy and Coast Guard. 'These industries (including Defense),,which form the economic base for most of the region's population, have located on the main river plains, filled and diked much of the valuable natural habitat, and chemically polluted the waters upon which the living population of the bay depend. The narrow channels and often fast tidal currents create navigational hazards to shipping; fogs are common andcan obscure visual land- marks used in navigation. The potential future use of the Sound by larger tankers is an additional problem facing the state. Oil refineries, which will almost certainly be used more heavily in the future, and the lumber millsare also major industrial activities in the Sound. 61 Agriculture in this region is primarily restricted tQ the northeast and southeast sections o'f the Puget Sound Basin, large'ly in the flood plains and lowlands adjoining the major rivers. The tourist, recreational and second home industries are among the fastest growing activities-in Puget Sound. Currently ranked behind food, manufacturing and forest products, the tourist industry alone may assume the number one position by the year 2000. The three indus- tries tend to center around the water resources of the area; the physical (waterways, bays, etc.)' the biological (fish and shellfish), and esthetic resources of the Sound serve as the major attractions. The role of 'these water resources is indicated by the fact that the resident population has the highest boat ownership per capita in the nation.. Becduse of the increase in tourism and recreation, and the number of watercraft, much of the Puget Sound area previously inaccessible by land has recently begun to feel the result of man's impact. The National Estuary Study identified filling, dredging and diking; pollution; public access; industrial, commercial and residential development; upstream land and water use; agriculture; and mining as significant management problems facing the Sound. Pacific Coast The Pacific coastline, extending from Cape Flattery to the Columbia River, is divided into two major types: the'rocky, mountainous terrain in the north and the flat coastal plain in the south. The northern coast from Cape Flattery and to the Quinault River is similar biophys ically to the Straits of Juan de Fuca west of Port Angeles, and consists of narrow, stee@ly sloping rocky beache's backed by high forested bluffs. Numerous rocky outcrops exist just offshore. As in the rest of the state's coastline, the climate is strongly marine influenced with mild but wet winters.. The areas of heaviest rainfall occur in this stretch of the coast. Although a few,fishing villages are located along the western coast of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, the northern Pacific Coast proper is scarcely populat'ed and remains largely unaltered. Almost the entire coast (north coast and uplands adjacent to the north coast) are owned by the Federal goverrunent or are part of Indian reservations. There are large estuaries,.good harbors, or industrial sites. The major use of the area is recreational; hikers, campers and climbers use the area, primarily Olympic National Park, on a seasonal basis. Intertidal hardshell clams and razor clams form an important and widely harvested resource along this region's coast. Commercial salmon fishing occurs off the whole coast, but sport fishing activity is concentrated off Cape Flattery and the mouth of the Quillayute River. 62 From the Quinault River south to the Columbia River, the coastal lands are characterized by wide sandy beaches and extensive dunes backed by grasslands and forests. Two major estuaries occur in this region: Grays Harbor at the mouth of the Chehalis River, and Willapa Bay at the mouth of the Willapa River. These two resources have served as a focus for development and industry along the Pacific portion of Washington's coastline, while providing as well important fish and wildlife habitat. The sandy beaches, mud flats, marshes, eelgrass beds, and waterways play an essential role in maintaining fish and shellfish, including salmon, sturgeon, herring, hard and softshell clams, oysters, crabs and waterfowl, which are of intrinsic as well as commercial and recreational value., Food products (fishing and agriculture) and timber-related industries are the major industries in the region, although here, too, the tourist and recreation industries are playing an increasingly important role. Grays Harbor is at present the area most severely impacted by man's activities on Washington's Pacific coast. Various industrial and domestic wastes are discharged into the area, which is also affected by the shipping and log st 'orage associated with the logging industry. Willapa Bay is less affected by industry, but is increasingly affected by tourist and residential (largely second home) development. About 6,300 acres of marsh and tidelands have been filled for agricultural uses, with an equal amount of filling plamed for pasture. An exten- sive discussion of the resources and management of Willapa Bay is pre- sented in the National Estuary Study (Vol. 3, Appendix B., pp. 213-248). Although-the entire Pacific coast region is considered a favorable geologic environment for petroleum production, the area has yet to demonstrate a petroleum resource potential. Prior to 1970, 14 wells had been drilled along the continental margin of Washington and Oregon; all were dry holes. In a recent industry ranking of 17 offshore sites along the United States coasts, the Oregon-Washington coast placed last in desirability of leasing in order to initiate drilling activity. Columbia River For implementing the coastal zone management,program, Washington has defined its coastal boundary as extending up the Columbia River to the eastern boundary of Wahkiakum County, which approximates the limit of measurable salt water influence.. Although major port and industrial activity occurs upriver from this boundary (primarily in the Portland, Oregon area on the opposite bank of the Columbia),. this portion of the Columbia has been little affected by man's activities. The Columbia is the largest river in the Northwest United States, and is the only one with sufficient freshwater discharge to appreciably influence the neighboring Pacific. The portion within the state coastal zone can be classified as a positive coastal plain estuary, displaying 63 a Canad@ inited States Bellingham A 0 Vancouver Island 0 _@_Anacortes a 00 Straits A o Juan de Fuca PortAAngeles -Everett A a As 0* A A -Seattle *0 Hooa A (" + Canal Tacoma A o + Grays Ao A Olympia *0 + Harbor A 0. As LEGEND Bay a Willapa 1,umber Mills oBulk Petroleum Storage 0Refinery AMbn4cipal Waste Columbia rciver 0Food Processing +Other Industry Present Taken from: Washington Marine Atlas, State of Wash- ington, Dept. Natural Resources, Vol. 1-4, 1974. and Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States, Ed. H.T. Odum, et. al., Conservation Foundation, Wash- in'gton, D.C. 1974. 'K91,11'e TA;3.jor Canada United States Bellingham Vancouver Island Anacortes A Straits of Juan de Fuca A' A PortlAngeles'-.. Everett Seattle Ho Cana Tacoma Olympia Grays Harbor LEGEND Willapa Rocky Beaches Bay Sandy Beaches Mud Flats A Offshore Rock Outcrops High Velocity Channels + Columbia xiver', Eelgrass, Benthic Algae Shellfish Waterfowl Taken from: Washington Marine Atlas, State of Wash- ington, Dept. Natural Resources, VT1. 1-4, 1974. and Coastal EcoloEical Systems of the United States, Ed. H'.T. Odum, et. al., Conservation Foundation, Wash- ington, D.C. 1974. T Figure 2 Selected Natural and Physical Resources 65 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, WASHINGTON 4b .......... LEGEND 000 40 5.0QV Source-. "Growth of Cities and Towns-;@'rej rash*" 0 Washington State Planning & Commmity Affairs. Agen _91ympla CY Symbols used on this map are three dimensional. Figure 3 Numbers of people represented by each symbol is portional to the volume following examples ustrate scale used on this map. L9 0 00 a" 0-1 nm Q r, m tq -3 n- W "0' w m 0 C6 r. (n z W0n, CP0 0 rr 0 0 0 w 0 " 0 0 :r 2, 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 41 I m o 0,o o o, cc w 0 co 41 w @ @ 0 W ".Cs co @mw w 'm M M M W 41 W W W W W Im w . " " w co V@ 7. %A @z CY, V, W 41 W w 10 W 10 00 0% a, w .0 CD cc cm a, m m a 10 w '0 LAW ""N@ W-Nm WWWSNWWIAW@@ C;I@lz p W W .4 @4 -4 CD @z .61 CO W @c an w w 0 w Ch wm@6@, 4@ w 10 CC, w 01 Ch w '10 no 4@ w co fn cle I? on" tin co 0 fb w, co 01 4@ co w %A w 10 co !0 14 I'fte co te't I 0, 1 @j a, -4 Lft CD :0 -0 a j mw 0 lr 00 J. Li LO P. LF :2 a 4 rp, Ott _0 4A co va 01 A101, aw 66 6 6 6 pe., CD C, 10 w w 10 th 0, :r m -m V -0' 64 cm @ 4 r. ? - 0 m 0 C". 7 4 a" I n m 00 M. .1 rb :r to m a M _vm ow 0 0 00 n 00 00 -1 w 0 z I c a 0. r, t0 00 C, a I a 10, 10 -4 0 1w, 16 92. cc z F. m 0 P-0 C 1% 0 0 w I all 0 or C, w 0. 0 0 Q.-I j., .4 94 c jo to .12 slight horizonta1 and vertical salinity, but no sharp strati fication. The bottom sediments are largely mud or mixed sand and mud, and are subject to continual natural deposition and erosion patterns. The area is one of shifting sand bars, variously eroding and accreting islands and banks. The climate remains maritime until the Cascades, well beyond the boundaries of the state's defined coastal zone. Fishery resources have been adversely affected by such upriver activi- ties as dredging and spoil disposal, irrigation withdrawls, and problems created by dam construction. But the Columbia remains an important habitat for fish and waterfowl; it is probably best known for its extensive salmon fishery. The river has been subject to extensive dredging for navigation purposes. Upriver hydroelectric dams have had significant effects on downstream water temperature and sedi@iient -loads; in fact, -these i-111DOUndments have water temperature and sediment loads; in fact, these impoundments have changed sediment deposition and discharge patterns in the area which may eventually lead to erosion along the beaches on the Pacific coast. Within Washington's coastal zone, large stretches of the Columbia have been used for log storage. There are few, small industrial and domestic waste discharge sites in the area. Further infoimiation on a description of the physical environment is located in the WCZMP and the Washington Marine Atlas. Socio-Economic Factors In general, Washington has experienced a growth rate in excess of the national average since World War II. This increase has been due primarily to the employment opportunties and amenities found in the Puget Sound region, causing a net immigration to the state. The state experienced a particularly rapid growth in the years between about 1965 and 1969, and far slower growth from 1969 to the present, both demon- strating how the volatile economic condition of the aerospace industry affected the population of the state. In fact, from 1970 through 1973. The state experienced a net emigration, with an actual decline in total population in 1972. This trend has apparently now reversed, and the state, at least in terms of unemployment, is now healthier than the national average. Figure 3 graphically shows that the majority of the state's popula- tion is concentrated in the central and southern region of Puget Sound. The four coastal counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish contain over 5710 of the total state population as well as two of the state's three SMSA's: Seattle - Everett and Tacoma. From 1960 to 1970, these counties experienced an overall increase of 228.1%, with Snohomish County achieving the fastest rate of growth (54.0%). Large gains were realized by the smaller suburban communities surrounding the Seattle area while metropolitan Seattle experienced a 4.7% decline (See Table 2) 68 TABLE 2 POPULATION IN THE COUNTIES OF THE PUGET SOUND PEGION, 1950, 1960. 1970, AND PROJECTED 1980 1950 1960 1970 Projecte 1980 %ChangeinTotab % of %of %of % of PSR PSR PSR PSR County Number Total I Number Total N u in ber Total Number Tot3l 1950-60 11060-70 1970-80 Clallain 26,3q6 1.9 1 30,022 1.7 34,770 1.6 36,000 1.5 13.7 15.8 3-5' Islind 11,079 0.8 19,638 Li 27,011 1.2 31.200 1.3 77,2 37.5, 15.5 Jefferson 11,618 0.8 9,639 0.5 10,661 0.5 11,500 0.5 -17.1 10.6 7.g King 732.992 51.7 935,014 52.9 1,156,633 51.6 1,225.000 51.5 27.5 23.7 5.9 Kitsap 75,724 5.3 84,176 4.8 101,132 4.5 107.700 4.5 11.1 20.3 5.8 Mason 15,022 1.0 16,261 0.9 20,; 18 0.9 24.000 1.0 8.1 28.7 14.7 Pierce 275.876 19.4 321,5qG 18.2 411,027 18.3 428.900 18.0 16.5 27.8 4.3 Sanjuan 3.245 0.2 2,872 0.2 3.856 0.2 4.000 0.2 -11.5 34.2 3.7 Sk2git 43.273 3.1 51.350 2.9 52,381 i.3 54,000 2.3 18.6 2.0 3.0 Snohomish L I I MO 7.9 172,199 9.7 265236 11.8 284,0M 11-9 54.2 54.0 7.0 Thurston 44,884 S.2 55,049 3.1 76.894 3.4 88,000 3.7 22.6 39.6 14.4 Whatcom 66,733 4.7 70.317 4.0 81,950 3.7 95,000 3.6 5.3 16.5 3.7 - 7768,117 - __ ___ __ ___ - - - - 1,418,424 100.0 PSK'Votal _50 0 i243 069 1000 F379 200 1000 747 @6 9 1 Washington State Total 2J78.963 2,853,214 3.404.169 3.615.000 19.9, 19*3 U PSR as 07. of Washington State 59.6 1 61.9 1 65.8 65.8 1 1 1 Souron. U S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population (1950. 1960, 1970). and Pacific Northwest Bell, Population and Household rrends in Washington. Oregon, and Northern Idaho 1970-1983. A more thorough discussion of the population, urbanization, employment and income in the Puget Sound region can be found in "Coastal Resource Use - Decisions on Puget Sound" (see references). One of the more interesting observations made by the authors dealing with socio-economic trends is found in thissummary statement. "While we observed that population growth, urbanization, and higher incomes are related to the degree to which counties have moved away from dependence upon fisheries, forestry, and agriculture, the traditional natural resource base of the region, population, urbanization, and income. growth are closely related to the availability of excel- lent harbors and adjacent land for industrialization and urbanization. Northern Puget Sound, or the main basin, which provides the best harbors and most suitable adjacent land, is also the site of the largest, most urbanized, and highest income counties. Lesser development has occurred at other harbor sites, namely OlyrTia, Bellingham, and Port Angeles, and the least development has occurred elsewhere on the Sound where harbors are not nearly as good and,there are no major port cities." p.33 On the other hand, with the exception of-a few favorable port sites, the Olympic Peninsula and the Pacific Coast regions are sparsely populated. The population along the Pacific coast and mouth of the Columbia is far more stable, and in fact is actually slow.Ly declining in Wahkiakum. County. About 2,07S miles or about 75% of Washington's shoreline landward of the extreme high waterline is in private ownership, as is about 60% of the state's tideland. bf,the remaining coastline, the Federal government owns about.155 miles, including the Olympic National Park and various wildlife refuge areas and defense facilities. Non-Federal. public ownership totals 107 miles, primarily state, county and city parks (see Table 1 ). When tidelands (between extreme low tide and ordinary high tide) which are owned by the state and managed by I various public agencies are included, the public access shoreline mileage increases.to 735 miles. Some of the non-Federal public land is owned by port districts and utilized for waterborne commerce facilities. Additionally, about 40 miles of privately owned shoreline is used for recreational purposes, such as resort areas and privately owned marinas. Most of the 3,000 square miles of marine beds out to the three mile limit are owned by the state under management by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, which also owns and administers leases for nearly 40% of the intertidal areas. State-owned intert-idal areas often abut uplands owned by another land owner. * Thus, within the shoreline/tideland interface, there are many miles of marine resources with a private or local port district upland owner and a state bed- land or tidal owner. This situation leads to inherent conflicts be- tween the aspirations and desires of the upland owner, as often expressed in local land use planning, and the state's interests as the manager of the be.dlands or tidelands. Each of the fifteen coastal counties and thirty-eight coastal cities is responsible for applying a variety of building, land use, and health codes to shoreline segments. Many localities, supported by separate local taxing port districts, compete for commerce and industry in the coastal zone. In these same areas county and regional efforts are often thwarted by city annexations which promote proposals inconsistent with local regional objectives. And on the other hand, well founded town and city development plans a.-Lid programs are all too often dis- regarded or bypassed in favor of physically unsuited county locations where codes may be less stringent. Moreover, some counties and Indian reservations have established working relationships for managing the coastal zone, while others remain at odds over jurisdictional questions. -The major users of the coastal resources are the residential and devel- opment users; the timber industry; the commercial and sport fishing interests; the manufacturing industries; and tourist and -recreational users. About 77 miles of shoreline have nonrecreational development such as commercial and industrial areas. Heavy industry is concen- trated along the shores of Commencement Bay and Elliott Bay, on the tideflats of the Puyallup River, and in the lower Duwamish River area. Irrigated croplands, urban and industrial land use, surface water storage, and water related recreation facility development are all projected to increase at the expense of forest land, nonirrigated agricultural land, and fish and wildlife lands. The vast aesthetic resources of the Washington coastal zone are of benefit to the local, state and national populace as well. The coastal zone of Washington-contains a'tremendous variety of landforms, seascapes.. vegetation and panoramic views which provide rich enjoyment and inspiration to those who view them. An appreciation of this resource as well as the other rich-coastal resources., has led the residents of Washington to be concerned about maintaining a quality environment. The recognition that the State's coastal resources were a limited commodity, while the pressures on them were increasing, led to the passage of the State Shoreline Management Act as well as other environmental laws, and in turn-is a contributing reason why Washington is one of the first states to apply for approval of its coastal zone management program. 71 AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN uplands are reserved through state legislation and local zoning for navigation and commerce. General- Though a broad survey of the coastal zone in ly speaking, large-scale investments in terms of terms of the Puget Sound area and Washington's harbor improvements, channel improvements and Pacific Coast can serve to isolate some important deepening, docking facilities, and long-range pro- questions, many of the issues which constitute grams for general port enhancements ensure that problems for effective management of the state's uses other than navigation and commerce will not coastal resources are of unique or at least special be seriously considered. Such committments do significance in much smaller geographical areas. not formally preclude other public uses within the The state has given recognition to areas of particu- harbor areas, but non-maritime commercial and lar concern in a great many ways, in response to usually allowed only when they do not interfere both state concerns and those identified in the with the primary uses of commerce and navigation. Coastal Zone Management Act. Special problems While many interesting issues relating to ports are frequently the subject of specific legislation or remain to be addressed, the basic issue of primary of specific regulatory or administrative action by ports uses is already settled. resource ownership and management agencies. The fundamental principle used here for the Identified areas of particular concern will recieve identification of areas of particular concern is that fresh attention under the Washington coastal zone such areas must be of greater than local interest management program. Because of the controversies and offer a live issue of competing uses and surrounding their management and ultimate uses, management options. More specifically, selection such areas merit special study and will become foci of the areas of particular concern discussed below of attention for the resolution of management has been guided by the following criteria: (1) the problems as the program matures. Areas of particu- area contains a resource feature of environmental lar concern to the state and the nation in terms of values considered to be of greater than local con- coastal zone management include only those prob- cern or significance; (2) the area is given rec- lematic shoreline segments and water areas where ognition as of particular concern by state or federal options and alternative uses of the coastal re- legislation, administrative and regulatory program source are still open possibilities for action. Areas or land ownership; and (3) the area has the the fate of which has for all practical purposes al- potential for more than one major land or water ready been determined provide no forum for the use or has a resource being sought by ostensibly in- expression of dynamic concern that might result compatible users. in more effective management and will not be created in what follows here. An example of such These criteria lead to the identification of the predetermination is provided by the 50-mile following areas as areas of particular concern: (1) Pacific Ocean Strip of Olympic National Park. The the Nisqually Estuary; (2) Hood Canal; (3) the outstanding natural qualities of its rugged shore- Snohomish River Escuary; (4) Skagit and Padilla line features have been recognized as a national Bays; (5) the Northern Strait and Puget Sound asset and will be managed in their natural state. Petroleum Transfer and Processing Area; (6) the Though the Strip is an area of particular interest in Dungeness Estuary and Spit Complex; (7) Grays the State of Washington, it is not an area of parti- Harbor; (8) the Willapa Bay Estuary; (9) the cular concern requiring the attention of the state's Pacific Coastal Dune Area; and (10) the Conti- coastal zone management program. nental Shelf. A map delineating these areas is found on the following page. Nor can the state's major harbor industrial port areas be usefully identified as areas of particular One final remark should be made here in pas- concern, in spite of the fact that the Port of sing. Idenitified areas of particular concern are Seattle (Ouwamish Waterway and Elliot Bay) and based on existing authorities, expressions of the Port of Tacoma (Commencement Bay and the legislative concern, and current resource manage- Tacoma Tideflats) are of central significance to the ment conflicts. They are intended to represent econimic valley of the state and the Pacific areas which are responsive to the requirements. Northwest. Significant port/harbor areas and their 72 of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the House of Repres--.tatives passed a reSCILIcion re- state pro,,-am at the present time. The list pre- questing the Legislative Council to con U-1,act a study sented below is not to be considered exhaustive. on potential'uses of the Nisqually with the aid of Its purpose is simply to highlight special geo- two recognized scientists, Doctors IGordon Alcorn graphical areas. Other areas will be considered for and Dixie Lee Ray. Their subsequent report found inclusion over time with adjustments in designa- that the delta could not support industrial and port tion criteria. activities and at the same time serve as a national The Nisqually Estuary wildlife preserve and recreation site. As a result, the Governor created a task force to study and The Nisqually Delta is one of the largest unde- recommend a management system to protect the veloped estuarine areas in the state, second in size delta's resources, safeguard its potential for re- only to the delta of the Skagit River. The estuary creational uses, and permit orderly development in serves as an important nursery area for the fisheries the Nisqually River Basin. of Puget Sound and as the nesting and resting place for some 160 species of migiatory waterfowl and The ultimate disposition of the Nisqually's marshbirds. Located between the Skagit and Col- resources has not yet been determined. Most of the umbia Rivers, the delta region is on the major fly property west of the river is now within the Nis- line of the Pacific flyway and is the only place of qually National Wildlife Refuge and the delta's any size left in southern Puget Sound for migra- tideflats were recently declared a National Natural tory birds to rest. La .ndmark. But the areas east of the river remain in private ownership, and property on the delta's The Nisqually has the potential to provide periphery which could impact the whole area has significant opportunities for recreational activities been the subject of several local land use ranging from wildlife photography, fishing, dig- controversies. ging for clams, oysters and geoducks in the summer to waterfowl hunting in the fall. The delta is of Hood Canal historical signihcance "as the site bf Fort Nisqually, a fur trading post and one of the earliest settle- Hood Canal is a criacially carved fiord some sixty ments in the state. It is also the site of the signing miles long which is bounded by the towering of the Medicine Creek Treaty and the home of & Olympic Mountains on the west and the low hills Nisqually Indians. of the Kitsap Peninsula on the east. its 242- miles The Nisqually Delta offers a classic example of of shoreline are owned by large timber companies, numerous private parties with small lots, and pub- values competing for the use of a firnited resource. lic agencies at all three levels of aovernmenr.' Its As one of few remaining large, relatively flat tidal areas in Puget Sound, the delta had long been in- waters fall within three counties: Mason, Jefferson tended by porr and industrial interests to be the and Kitsap. Commercial fishing and shellfish pro- next major industrial and harbor area on Puget duction are prominent industrial activities in the Sound. But the 4,000 acre delta was also recog- Canal, which is also well known for its production nized by conservationists for its environmental of market and seed oysters- The relatively un- spoiled nature of the rcgion provides excellent op- values as one of the few remaining unaltered wet- portunities for education and research on such land areas on the west coast. And so the stage was subjects as oyster culture, water pollution, and set for what was to become one of the major bivalve bloassay procedures. environmental issues in the state during the late 1960s and early 197,0s. Fragmented ownership gives rise to an obvious problern in the Canal's management. Sta-Le-owned Continuing controversy eventually prompted uplands managed by the State D pacimcnc. ot Z@ e legislative action. In 1971, the Legisiature gave Natural Resources (`DNR) are scattered th-:)z.@gh- recognition to the delta's importance to the state out the region %,,,Irh the largest concentratior.s on by designating it a shoreline of statewide signifl- the Tahuya Peninsula and near the Hainma Hamma cance. During the same legislative session, the River. Shoreline owned and managed by DNR 73 totals slightly less than 40 miles. Additional state- appear to be an adequate long-range solution to the controlled shoreline totaling less than 3 1/2 miles is problem. Buc the population is widely scattered included within s,even state parks managed by the and few areas will ever have population densities State Parks and Recreation Commission. necessary to support such a system. Further, Most federallv c'ontrolled land is in Olympic state water quality standards make clear that the physical characteristics of Hood Canal make It National Park and Olympic National' Forest with unusuable as a receiving water without costly ad- only one small segment of the National Forest vanced municipal waste treatment. Sewage drain- actually extending to the shoreline. Other lands age basin studies have examined the alternative of under the 'urisdiction of the United States Navv J waste discharge to land. occupy several miles of shoreline between Bangor and Vinland and on the Toandos Peninsula. Navy The maintenance of good water quality in the operations at Bangor involve substantial amounts Canal is a complex problem, primarily because of of uplands and shoreline for munitions handling the relatively slow flushing time for the inlet. and shipping. A torpedo test range encompasses Nearly six months are required for the change- much of Dabob Bay. The Navy has recently over of Hood Canal as a whole, which is not con- in.1tiated the establishment of a major Trident ducive to the assimilation of waste from municipal submarine base at Bangor. and industrial sources. Concern over the potential Canal ownership is further complicated by the effects of pollutants which find their way into the Canal. is well justified. presence of two Indian reservations extending to the shoreline. The Skokomish Indian Reservation Hood Canal has been the subject of major en- surrounds much of Annas Bay at the mouth of the vironmental controversies since the mid-1960s. Skokomish River, and the Port Gamble Indian Concern on the part of local residents has resulted Reservation includes approximately one mile of in the rejection of several major development pro- shoreline on the eastern side of the entrance to posals, am. odividual bulkheads, land fills and Port Gamble B-ay. docks have been the subject of numerous legal Because of its attractiveness and relatively close actions anL @:quests for administrative review un der the Shoreline Management Act. Statewide-* proximitv to Seattle and Tacoma, the Canal is interest wa formally voiced in 1971 when the extremely popular as a recreation destination and Legislature declared . the Canal a shoreline of as 'a site for second homes. Its popularity, coupled statewide significance. with the fact that less than 20% of the shoreline is state-owned and available for public use, causes considerable crowding at public recreation. sites The Snohomish River Estuary and gives rise to conflicts between Incoming recreational users and second home part-time The Snohomish River system releases the second r *dents. in order to take advantage of the water- largesi: @,,.iumc ui fresh water entering Puget esi I front locations, many home owners have filled in- Sound from a single source and has formed an ex- to the interticlal area to create building sites. This tensive delta and estuarine complex. Lying just to in turn has been responsible for the loss of valued the north of industrial Everett, the state's fifth tideland and has resulted in crowded conditions largest city, the tidal area has accommodated much and aesthetic losses to waterfront landscape. of Everett's economic development and has often Most of the sIouth and west side .of the Canal is been targeted for additional industrial growth. But bordered by extremely steep slopes, which, when the recent maturity of environmental analysis in the state has made clear the sensitivitv of the delta coupled with the tideland landfills, render nearly complex to development. impossible the effective utilization of individual septic drainfields. Widespread drainfield failures The statc has taken a strong role in providing for pose a threat both to water quality and to the development compatible with the environmentally productivity of oyster and clam beds at several sensitive nature of the river and associated estuary. locations. At first glance, sanitary sewers would The estuarine complex was declared a shoreline of 74 ide significance in 1971 and rerpived fur- ject of recent litigation, and disposal at the site has statewl 1 1 1 ther attention from a gubernatorial mediation apparently been terminated. Attempts to re- team established for land use planning and ' flood locate the disposal area within the estuary have control for the Snohomish Basin. In 1974 the team met with effective resistance. Such relocation is recommended that the seaward extensions of the prohibited by Snohomish County's shoreline and delta and biologically functioning surge plains be solid waste progams. maintained in a natural state. The mediation team also gave recognition to the possibility of some of For the most part, water pollution stemming the delta immediately to the north of Everett for from inadequate sewage treatment is not a serious industrial purposes and recommended hat a feasi- problem in the estuary. The Marysville and Everett bility study be undertaken to design ar. economic sewage treatment lagooris on the Snohomish River development study for the area west c. interstate flats usually provide adequate secondary treat- 51. It was further recommended that tne upstream mcnt. Occasionally, however, overloading during floodplains be maintained for agricultural purposes high flow periods results in the discharge of in- and that the filling of wetlands be restricted. To adequately treated sewage to the lower Snohomish implement the recommendations a Snohomish and adjacent marine waters. River Basin Coordinating Council was created to design the structure of a permanent council and to prepare the legislation and intergovernmental Skagit and Padilla Bays agreements necessary to complete the recom- The Skagit River system accounts for over 3 5% mended tasks. The central problem to be worked of the fresh water enterin the Straits and Puget through is maintaining a functioning estuary while 9 at the same time allowing for some fill and loss of Sound. It has created the largest flat tidal areas in wetlands for water-dependent industries. the Puget Sound Basin. While the extensive estuarine area of Skagit and Padilla Bays are The other issue of particular concern with re- ptysically separated by the.Swinomish Channel, spect to the Snohomish River estuary @a d@clinlng their creation from sediments from the same river water quality. The problem is especially acute to system makes it appropriate to treat them together the south in Port Gardner Bay, which is subject to as parts of one natural system. At one time Padilla pollution from municipal sewage treatment Bay received water from the Skagit River by chan- facilities, regional sanitary landfills, urban runoff, nels through the Skagit flood plain and Skagit wood products industry wastes, and river water water still greatly reduces salinity in Padilla Bay contaminants from the upper Snohomish drainage during flood periods. Nonetheless, Padilla Bay is area. more subject to the marine influences common to The wood products industry is the most impor- Samish and Bellingham Bays and the eastern San Juan Islands than is Skagit Bay. tant cause of water quality degradation in the area, though solid waste disposal and sewage treatment The estuary of the Skagit River is the most are serious problems. Sulfite pulp mills currently diverse, least disturbed, and most biologically discharge large amounts of. wastewater which. often productive of all the major estuaries on Puget result in concentrations of sulfite waste liquor Sound. Man has thus far had relatively little ad- toxic to fish and shellfish in Everett Harbor. Major verse effect on the estuarine portion of the system wastewater improvements are scheduled for the or on its water quality. near future. Because of the diversity of habitats it contains, The immediate area contains two sizable sani- almost all plant and animal species found in tary landfills which are discharging an undeter- western Washington will be found within the mined quantity of leachate into the Snohomish estuarine area. The Skagit Delta is the most impor- River near its mouth. A large solid waste disposal tant estuary for waterfowl on the Pacific Coast of area in the delta utilized by the City :)f Seattle the United S@ates. Padilla Bay, with its extensive on the Tulalip Indian Reservation has t)een the sub- eelgrass beds, hosts some 35,000 black brant. 75 More than 200 species of birds have been identified develooed several rinies for diking the area, first on the Skagit delta. Swans and snow geese are for farming and later for industrial development. among the most noteworthy feathered visitors to In fact, detailed plans that have now been aban- doned were even developed for a combined dredge and fill operation to create a Venice-style residen- The fisheries resources of the Skagit River tial area. system are outstanding in comparision to any other stream entering Puget Sound. Padilla and Skagit Bays are important nursery areas for marine fishes The Northern Strait and Puget Sound Petroleum and highly productive of shellfish. Several tidal Transfer and Processing Area areas within both bays contain commercially The state's northern marine waters and adjacent valuable beds of softshell clams. Clam harvesting upland areas are within a petroleum transfer corri- has been a controversial issue for some time in the dor which includes terminal areas for tanker ship- estuarine area and in Port Susan Bay to the south. ments of crude petroleum. The shipping of petro- Conservationists and residents claim that the methods used by some of the larger clam harvest leum to three major refineries in the area has oc- curred for some time and will increase corres- operators destroy important wildlife habitat and constitute a source of noise and sediments which pondingly with a reduction in the Canadian pipe- line supply. Prevailing state policy at this time have caused serious disruption to the area. The indicates that the state is not interested in be- clam harvesters and the State Department of coming a major petroleum processing center or Fisheries which licenses the operations claim that the alleged problems are not serious and most of transportation terminus for a major new pipeline the legitimate concerns can be accomodated through technical adjustments to the harvesting to the midwest, though how much additional equipment. The conflict has resulted in litigation. All parties appear to agree that there is a need for petroleum traffic would actually be generated is additional study analyzing the effects of mechani- ed clam harvesting by large-scale machinery. The Skagit Wildlife Recreation Area operated not entirely clear. But the current shipping of by the State Department of Game contains about over 310,000 barrels dailv to seven refineries with 15,000 acres of salt marsh and tide flats. At pre- a combined capacity of 363,000 barrels has re- sent, a unit of Game Department land and some private holdings are being considered for acquisi- tion, development and operation as an estuarine sulted in oil spills in the past and any increase in sanctuary under a grant request from the Depart- ment of Ecology to the Office of Coastal Zone shipping could be expected to increase the likeli- Management under the provisions of Section 312 hood of a spill in the future. While some spills of the Coastal Zone Management Act, Included at this same application are 5,700 acres of Padilla have been contained or managed, there is wide- Bay and another area of the Thorndyke Creek in spread d1sagreement on the effectiveness of the Jefferson County on the Olympic Peninsula. cleanup techniues. In 1971 Skagit and Padilla Bays were declared by the Legislature to be shorelines of statewide In recognition of the potential impacts of significance. While there would appear to be few threats to the protection of these valuable wet- Alaska North Slope Oil on Puget Sound and the lands, there remain some concerns. For one thing, Padilla Bay is adjacent to two major oil refineries Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Washington State at March Point and faces the possibility of petro- leum spills. And for another plans have been Legislature has taken several steps to prepare for spill threats to the state's inland marine waters. Senate Bill 3253 of May, 1974 set aside $427,000 for a study by the Oceanographic Commission of Washington of the feasibility of offshore mono- buoy and related petrolcurn transfer facilities, which resulted in a report to the Legislature en- titled "Offshore Petroleum Transfer System for Washington State". Senate Bill 29718 of 1974 requested the Department of Ecology to establish a continuing, comprehensive program of baseline studies for the waters of the state that would aid in the maintenance of water quality standards and address the specific problems associated with oil 76 contamination of the marine ecosystem. Further, of wildlife and waterfowl. The area encompassing the 1975 Legislature passed House Substive Bill, the mouth of the Dunaeness River. Cline and 527, which provides for safety standards and pro- Graveyard Spits, and the adjacent submerged lands hibits tankers larger than 125,000 deadweight tons and uplands is a highly complex geo-hydraulic from entering Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan system. The ecosystem's shoreline landforms have de Fuca beyond, a point east of the Dungeness become highly valued public recreation and wild- Lighthouse. The prohibition is currently being life habitat areas. For this reason, resource manage- appealed as unconstiturional by a major oil ment agencies directly involved with responsibili- company. ties in the area, including the Washington State Department of Game and the U.S. Fish and Wild- The baseline study authorized in Senate Bill 2978 focused attention on water which run the life Service, have indicated their concern that any major development in the area couid have serious greatest risk of damage from oil spills including the environmental conseuences. Any development areas where marine life is being utilized for food that required extensive filling, dredging, or break- production. The first study area chosen was North waters could affect currents and tidal patterns Puget Sound, where there are existing refineries, thereby altering deposition and sodimentacion and crude and refined product transfer points, and eventually changing the shoreline landforms. tanker routes. In 1915 when Woodrow Wilson formally es- The upland impacts of petroleum transfer and tablished Dungeness Spit as a 556-acre refuge for procesing could be particularly significant in the migratory and resident birds, the primary impor- existing processing areas at Cherry Point in tance of the area was as a wintering site for black Whatcom County and March Point in the brant. The shallow waters of the harbor provided Anacortes area. Other specific ares which could the proper environment for the growth of eelgrass, be impacted significantly depending on the out- and while many waterfowl use the plant for food, come of studies in process and on poilicy decisions the brant is almost totally reliant upon it, yet to be made, include the Port Angeies area and Thousands of wintering waterfowl of many dif- Burrows Bay west of Anacortes. The Oceano- graphic report described a preferred altrnative ferent kinds will be found today in New Dungeness which contemplates unloading tankers at or west of Harbor between Dunzeness and Graveyard Spit. Port Angeles and piping crude petroleum to Puget Varied ecological conditions make the area a Sound refineries. This alternative would involve a valuable habitat for fish and shellfish, too, pro- major pipeline crossing of Admiralty Inlet. In viding productive shellfish beds on the tidal flats February 1975, the Legislature authorized the and sport fishing and crabbing in the relatively sheltered waters of New Dungeness Bay. Oceanographic Commission to conduct another study, a site-specific feasibility analysis of the The Dungeness estuary and spit complex is a Admiralty Inlet crossing area. Oil companies have good example of resource use conflicts in the proposed making Burrows Bay a major oil tanker coastal zone. Competition is strong amiong com- unloading area as another alternative. mercial, aquacuitural, recreational, and wiidlife management interests. The Dungeness Estuary and Spit Complex Dungeness Spit: on the Olympic Peninsula, is a Grays Harbor narrow neck of land extending five-and-a-half Grays Harbor has long been an area of special miles into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is claimed concern. The shallow estuary of approxlimately by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be the 100 square miles of surface water presents com- longest natural sandsplit in the world. plex management problems in terms of maintaining The Dungeness estuary and spit complex is a good water quality while providing a navigation natural area uniuqe within the state and has been channel for industrial needs. For many years recognized nationally for its significance in terms Aberdeen and Hoquiam, located at the mouth of 77 the Chehalis River, have constituted a major port- South Bay. Oysters, clams and crabs live in the industrial harbor. The resultant water quality outer bay. To assure continued productivity, a problems of the harbor have long been recognized balance between the filling of intertidal areas and and in fact prompted some of the earliest water the preservation of wetlands must be maintained. quality efforts and studies in the state. In recog- Since the filling of lowlands has provided the only nition of the state's concern, the Bay has been flatland available for industry and commerce in designated a shoreline of statewide significance. the area, pressures to fill are not uncommon. The fact that the area contains several Wildlife Recreation Areas managed by the Department of The fact that Grays Harbor is extremely shallow, Game is a further indication of the state's interest. shrinking to less than one half of its total surface area at low tide, necessitates substantial dredging Substandard water quality in Grays Harbor requirements to ensure the maintenance of harbor results from pollution from municipal and indus- navigation channels. The dredged material in turn trial point sources and non-point sources. The becomes a disposal problem. To dispose of it at wood products industry is the most important sea or in deeper waters is likely to cause water contributor to such water quality problems. Local quality problems, while to deposit it in intertidal pulp mills discharge large quantities of toxic waste- areas causes the loss of valued wetlands. At pres- waters (largely sulfite waste liquor) into the har- ent, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has funded bor. Waste treatment before discharge ranges from a study to be completed by the State Depart- good to nonexistent. A large amount of mill ments of Game, Fisheries, and Ecology to deter- water is held during critical low flow periods (sum- mine the effects of dredge material on aquatic life mer months) for discharge during higher flows. and water quality. In the meantime, the Corps Other wastes are also commonly held for release plans to undertake a study to determine the feasi- during outgoing tides. bility of deepening the navigation channel to Grays Harbor bacterial contamination is partly forty feet. due to inadequate facilities and treatment at the Willapa Bay four municipal sewage treatment plants. Other I Grays Harbor discharges and those from the upper Willapa Bay, one of the largest relatively natural Chehalis River drainage will continue to cause estuaries on the west coast, is recognized in the water quality standards violations. Point source Shoreline Management Act as a shoreline of state- discharges from local fish and shellfish processers, wide significance. About half of its shoreline is lumber companies, and cranberry processing firms salt marshland containing large fish and shellfish are not considered significant compared with other populations. area dischargers. The sh .ellfish in the estuary support the Willapa Nonpoint source contamination contributes Bay oyster industry and the Bay provides ex- significantly to the poor quality of the water in tensive feeding and nursery grounds for young Grays Harbor. Pollutants include woodwaste fish. The area is an important producer of salmon, landfill, septic tank leachates, urban runoff, cutthroat and steelhead. Harbor seals, sea lions dredging, and log storage wastes. Current studies and porpoises will be found in the Bay as well. deal with proper disposal of ship channel dredging spoils and the possible consolidation and relocation Located on the Pacific flyway, che bay Is of of woodwaste landfills. critical importance to a large number of water- related birds. The protected Bay waters and as- Somewhat isolated from industrialized areas, sociated marshlands provide substantial shelter and the harbor is quite productive in terms of marine nesting places, while the Bay's extensive tidal life and provides important waterfowl habitat. flats are a rich source of food. The Willapa Anadromous fish pass through Grays Harbor to National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1937 and from the ocean and anadromous fingerlings to provide protected area's for the Bay's bird popu- use the harbor as a feeding ground. Bottom fish, 1@tions, especially the Canadian geese and black ;turgeon, and herring are found in and around brant that winter in the area. 0 78 The shorelines of Willapa Bay.are relatively maintenance.in the face of significant impacts free of intrusions and modifications. The largest from human activities. In many areas develop- concentration of filled areas is along the Willapa ment has encroached into the dunes causing al- River Channel and at the industrial shipping cen- teratio'n of landscape and resource features. Devel- ters at Raymond and South Bend. This amounts to opments usually require a drainage system which more than six thousand acres of marsh and tide- lowers the water table thereby destroying the vege- lands that have been filled for agricultural pur- tation and resulting in barren areas of blowing poses and a little over 300 acres reclaimed for high sand. The same result can be brought about by the way and industry. This intrusion and siltation from removal of sand, the filling of wetlands between other sources pose a threat to the Bay's shellfish dunes, and other requirements of urban industry. Area residents are also concerned about development. recent intrusions by recreationists -into productive The area's management has for many years suf- shellfish beds. A recent decision by the Corps of fered from conflicts between local interests and Engineers to discontinue maintenance of the Bay as a shipping channel after 1977 can be expected state interests. In addition to disputes over the to c2[use some difficulties leading to readjustments ow .nership of accreted lands, there has been local in the local economy. resistance to state recreation development and pro- grams to provide additional public access and over- The Pacific Coastal Dune Area night facilities in'the area. The state has been con- cerned over the apparent lack of local land use The Pacific Coastal Dune Area of Grays Harbor restrictions to protect fragile dune areas, which has and Pacific Counties is one of the most attractive resource features in the state. Located imme- raised questions relating to the application of the diately to the north of the Columbia River, it Shoreline Management Act with respect to geo- includes three shoreline segments interrupted by graphIcal Jurisdiction. The question has already the mouths of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay@. been the subject of some study and will continue In all, the beach areas are some 54 miles in length to be evaluated under the coastal zone manage- and vary in width from 500 feet to over 7,000 ment pirogram. Other conflicts have arisen over the potential dangers associated with allowing auto- feet. The region attracts, large numbers of visitors mobile traffic t@ on public beaches. to its beaches and to several popular sport salmon fishing areas. The State Parks and Recreation Com- The Continental Shelf mission maintains several developed parks and pro- vides numerous access points to the popular The continental shelf is the submerged land beaches, which attracted over three million visitors sloping gradually outward from the exposed edge in 1974. of a continent for a varying distance to the con- .Management Iof the area's beaches has a long his- -@inental slope, where the continental mass drops tory of conflicts, most notably between state more abruptly to the ocean floor. State jurisdiction agencies and local or private upland owners over over the coniinental shelf extends seaward one access to and development in the dune area. The marine league from the coastline of the state, Legislature has given clear indication of the state's N,.ihich comes to three nautical miles or about 3.5 I statute or land miles. The boundaries of counties concern by declaring the beaches a public high- on the ocean coast are coterminous with the way and a public recreation area and by designa- boundaries of the state. ting the area a shoreline of statewide significance. in recognition of the area's attractiveness to recreationists, the state's Interagency Committee Beyond tht state's continental shelf boundary lies the outer continental shelf under the juris- for Outdoor Recreation and the State Parks and Recreation Commission have made acquisition of diction of the federal government. The outer these Pacific beaches a high funding priority. continental shelf is the seaward nortion of the con- tinental shelf and has been defined by Congress to Because the dune system is very complex and include all submerged lands lying seaward and delicate, there is considerable concern about its outside of the area of stite jurisdiction and of 79 which the subsoil and sea bed appertain to the roles, and both the University of Washington and United States and are under its Jurisdiction and the Oceanographic Commission of Washington control. have been heavily involved in reseach activities in the area. The complexity of the ownership/ The continental shelf off the coast of Washing- management patterns that result from this web of ton varies in width from 10 to 3 5 miles, averaging responsibility necessitates a careful coordination about 25 miles. Water depth graduates from mean among agency programs that may be difficult to low tide to about 600 feet at the edge of the con- achieve. tinental slope. Interest in managing the resources of the con- The need for coordination is dramatized by the increasing national attention giver to the shelf tinental shelf is shared by a great many agencies. as an energy source. The goals of the Ford Ad- The primary federal actors include the Department ministration's Project Independence indicate that of Commerce through the National Oceanic and the expansion of domestic energy production is Atmospheric Administration's Offices of National necessary to decrease national reliance on foreign Ocean Survey, National Marine Fisheries Service, energy sources. The outer continental shelf is Pacific Oceanographic Laboratories and Coastal viewed as a major source which will contribute Zone Management; the Department of the Interior, significantly to national self-sufficiency. At pres- particularly through the Fish and Wildlife Service USGS, and the Bureau of Land Management; ent the development of outer continental shelf oil and gas resources is a very uncertain business, due the Navv, the Army Corps of Engineers; and the Coast Guard. The submerged lands of the shelf largely to a lack of information on the available reserves of oil and gas in the shelf, the biological that are under state jurisdiction are state lands owned and administered by the Department of impacts of oil, spills on marine ecosystems, and Natural Resources. But the State Departments Of the environmental, economic and social impacts Ecology, Fisheries, and Game also have managerial on the coast of offshore drilling operations. 80 IV. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO I USE PLANS, POLICIES AND CONTROLS FOR THE AREk In the introduction to the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Con ' gress found that "present st-ate and local institutional arrange- ments for planning and.regulating land and water uses .... are inadequate," and that,"the key t more e."fective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is for the states to ... develop land and water use programs for the coastal zone, including unified policies, criteria, standards, methods and processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance." (Section 302(g) and (h)). Both the Washington Shoreline Management Act and its coastal zone manage- ment program substantially recognize these objectives, and are in fact designed to provide both a more unified approach toward managing the coastal resources and a comprehensive management program itself. This action, by the State and (if approved) the Federal government combined, would be expected to have a direct relationship to and significant impact on existing land use plans, policies and controls in the State's coastal zone. The majority of the State's coastal shorelands have been zoned by traditionai zoning methods and for purposes of the SMA, a@l shorelines could be considered zoned.' In addition, a variety of land use plans or projections of varying scope have been prepared by different local, state and even Federal @gencies. These are frequently coi'ncident to the state's coas t, and are again primarily for area,s around Puget Sound. The National Estuary Study identifies about 100 sepa'rate institutional organizations, including state agencies, city and county croVernments, special purpose districts and Federal agencies which ill some way take part in the manage- ment of the coastal resources and users in Washington. These agencies, authorities and policies have generally been implemented in a fragmented fashion, frequently achieving conflicting objectives. The Washinaton Coastal Zone Management Program is intended to coordinate government and agency actions into a comprehensive program to achieve common, explicit objectives. It will interact with existing or future land-use policies and controls in many ways. More explicit documentation on the interaction betiieen state, local and Federal 6overnments and agencies can be found in Chapters III and IV of the Washington Management Program. The SMN and DOE have set, after extensive public hearings and input, statewide objectives and policies for management of the coastal zone. These will provide new and coordinated direction to existing agencies and controls. The SM@k has also mandated that all coastal county and city governments must develop Master Programs regulating the use of land and waters in all associated wetlands and the 200 foot uplands area of the shoreline. the DOE, again after public hearings, has established guidelines set- ting minimum requirements to be met by county and city governments as they develop their Master Programs. The local government Master Programs for shoreline areas will supersede all existing local land use plans, zoning and other controls. Local zoning will function as the implementing tool of the new Master Programs. In general, however, the Master Programs reflect existing land use and policies (among other elements of consideration), so the impact of this requirement should not be great on those existing land uses. The Snohomish County government, for example, evaluated and coordinated several state and Federal programs, such as the Land Use Allocation Plan Managed Marine Lands (Department of Natural Resources); Washington Marine Atlas (Department of Natural Resources); National Flood Insurance Program; Puget Sound Governmental Conference Interim Regional Development Plan; U.S. Corps of Engineers - Snohomish River Basin Study; and existing county, municipal and Port Authority plans, policies'and regulations, during the preparation of its Master Program. In addition, the CZM Act requires that the state coastal zone management program be coordinated with the implementation and requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Clean Air Act. A number of tribes in the Western Washington Agency have completed or are working on various land use plans; they are as follows: 701 Plans and 'Similar Plans Makah, Tulalip, Squaxin island, Muckleshoot, Nisqually, Skokomish, Lummi, Swinomish, Quileute, Port Gamble, Quinault and Shoalwater. Water Resource Inventories Chehalis, Lummi, RUER-le-s-So--ot, Nisqually, Quinault, Skokomish, Squaxin Island and Tulalip have completed inventories or inventories presently in progress. It is pianned to conduct water resource inventories on all reservations. Housing Authorities Makah, Swinomish, Quinault, Quileute, Lower Elwha, Port Gamble, Tulalip, Lummi, Muckleshoot, Chehalis, Nisqually, Shoalwater, Skokomish and Squaxin Island presently have established Housing Authorities. A demonstration housing project is ongoing at Quileute and is planned to continue construction for the next 10 years. 82 The State's policy with respect to Indian management of coastal zone resources is included in the WCZMP, p. 112-114. While Indian trust lands are exlcuded for legal purposes from the, coastal zone, it.is clear that the plans, policies and activities occurring on Indian lands will affect ad acent landholders and coastal waters and vice versa. Finally, approval of the state coastal zone management program by the Secretary of Commerce will have implications on other Fed- eral agency policies and controls. Section 307(c) of the Act provides that: (1) Federal agencies conducting or supporting activities or undertaking development in the coastal zone of a state shall insure that the activities or projects are to the maximum extent consistent with the approved state'management program, and (2) except in the interest of national security, Federal agencies shall not issue licenses or permits for any activity affecting land or water uses in the coastal zone unless the state issues a certification within the time requirements of the CM that the activity complies with the approved program. Although all of these impacts have the potential for significantly .affecting land-use plans, policies and controls, it should again be recognized that throughout the development of the state guide- lines, procedures and program, the DOE has maintained close contact with other affected Federal and state agencies and local govern- ments. A variety of advisory committees and task forces have been established to provide greater cooperation and coordination in implementation of the program. 83 V. PROBABLE IWACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT As indicated in the description of the Federal coastal zone management program (Section II), it is clearly the intention of the CZM Act to produce a net environmental gain or benefit in the Nation's coasts. The Act encourages states to achieve this goal through better coordination, explicit recognition of long- term objectives and the development of a more rational decision- making process in concert with the overall CZN[ policies. It might be expected that this process, which could affect much of the activity along the coasts, would have,a substantial environmental impact. Both beneficial and adverse environmental and socio-economic effects will derive from Federal approval and state implementation of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. However, it is clear that the fundamental criterion for assessment must be based upon the Act's declaration of policy that reads: "to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of land and water resources of the coastal zone giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic values as well as to needs for economic development." (emphasis added) Protection of the coastal zone may be viewed as beneficial to the environment and to the public welfare for many reasons but it also may have adverse socio-economic effects on property owners and would-be property owners who have based their plans on business as usual. Further, beneficial impacts will be classified as those that promote the intent of the CZMA and, in this case, primarily the RVA'. These objectives are listed.together in Table 3. In an attempt to fully understand the impacts associated with Federal approval, it was determined that there should be an exploration of the impacts which have resulted from the imple- mentation of the SMA as well as what may happen as a result of external comment, Federal funds and the implementation of Federal consistency requirements. This is an EIS based on a comprehensive program that will be implemented over many years. It is impossibleto assess discreet impacts that may occur over time, but a few points can be made. There are safeguards built into the CZM system because both the CZMA and the SMA require, during program development and implementation, that the intent of NEPA be met. Resource inventories, designation of boundaries, permissible uses, areas of particular concern, areas to be preserved or restored, and consideration of alternatives are all part of an overall process associated with managing coastal resources in Washington State. Additionally, each major action associated 84 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act State Shoreline Management Act Congressional Declaration of Policy Legislative Findings Section 303: 11 ... (a) to preserve, protect, Chapter 90.58.020: "It is the policy of the state develop, and where possible, to restore or to provide for the management of the shorelines enhance, the resources -of the Nation's of the state by planning for and fostering coastal zone for this and succeeding all. reasonable and appropriate uses. This generations ... policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the'public health, the land and its vege- tation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting gen- a erally public rights of navigation nd corollaiy rights incidental thereto." and "The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of state-wide signif- icance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of state-wide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of state-wide signifi- cance, shall give preference to uses in the CD following order of preference which: U4 (1) Recognize and protect the state-wide in- terest over local interest; (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (3) Result in long term over short term benefit; (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary." Sec. 303: "...(b) To encourage and assist the Chapter 9.0.58.020: "In the implementation of states to exercise effectively their respon- this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy sibilities in the coastal zone through the the physical and aesthetic qualities of development and implementation of manage- natural shorelines of the state shall be pre- ment programs to achieve wise use of the served to the greatest extent feasible consistent land and water resources of the coastal zone with the overall best interest of the state and giving full consideration to ecological, the people generally. To this end uses shall cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well, be preferred which are consistent with control Go ON as to needs for economic development-..." of pollution and prevention of damage to-the natural environment or are unique to or depend- ent upon use of the state's shoreline. Altera- tions of the natural condition of the shore- lines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences,.ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marines, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial develop- ments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. and "Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water." Section 303: (c) for all Federal agencies Chapter 90.58.100(l): 11 ... (b) Consult with engaged in programs affecting the coastal and obtain the comments of any federal, state, zone to cooperate and participate with state regional, or local agency having any special and local governments and regional agencies expertise with respect to any environmental in effectuating the purposes of this title, impact; and (d) to encourage the participation of (c) Consider all plans, studies, surveys., the public, of Federal, sta .te, and local inventories, and systems of classification governments and of regional agencies in the made or being made by federal, state, regional, development of coastal zone management or local agencies, by private individuals, or programs. With respect,to implementation by organizations dealing with pertinent shore- -of such management programs, it is the lines of the state; ... national policy to encourage cooperation Go among the various state and regional agencies 90.58.130: "Involvement of All Persons and including establishment of interstate and- - - Entities Having Interest, Means. To insure regional agreements,-cooperative procedures; that all persons and entities having an interest and joint action particularly regarding in the guidelines and master programs developed environmental problems.11 under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments shall: (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline manage- ment program of this chapter and in the perform- ance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and _q private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; (D and (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local govern" ment, including,municipal and public corporations having interests,or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments. 6G CD with theWCZMP comes under the scrutiny of either NEPA or SEPA requirements. So, while actions will be studied for compliance on an individual basis, the overall purpose of this EIS is t.o determine if implementation of the WCZNP process can reasonably meet the objectives the State has set and therefore, further the cause of the broader national CZM@and NEPA goals. A._ Impacts.Resulting From the Federal Agency Review Process The formal Federal agency review of the Washington program has and will have a profound impact upon the effects of the program and its administration by NOAA. The short term impacts have basically involved a substantial delay and clarification of program implementation in the State. The longer term impacts of this stringent review process appear to be salutary both on the effectiveness of the program and NQAA1s administration and performance monitoring responsibilities. Since the decisionto award preliminary rather than final approval in May 1975 the Department of Ecology has directed a substantial amount of its limited resources to development of the management program document. This has diluted the program's ability to fully carry out its operational planning, review and regulatory functions. More importantly, the anticipation of additional resources by the State and especially its local governments, scheduled for March 1, 1976, has not materialized. Nor have the restrictions on the use of 305 funds only for planning and program development been lifted., Thus, the extended period of formal review has had the practical result of inhibiting needed inplem'entary .activities within the State. The impacts of the review process in the longer range should prove beneficial to environmental management at all affected levels of government. NOAA believes that the following positive impacts of the Washington program have resulted from this review process: 1. The revised and amended management program document is a more precise and complete statement of Washington's CZM goals, policies, procedures, organi- zational arrangements, environmental controls and future plans. It is therefore a much more complete statement of the SMA/CZM program that will be made available widely to all interested parties. 2. In particular, the program proposed for approval now has undergone very rigorous evaluation by relevant Federal agencies -- has responded to their views in many different ways -- and therefore provides a solid framework for cooperative and reciprocal state-Federal CZM interaction in the future. -89 3. Key areas in need of priority managerial attention. in the future have been identified by the State. This is true both in terms of geography (e.g. coastal waters management, regional planning integration) and specific functional problems (e.g. non-point source water quality management and oil transport or refining in the coastal zone). 4. The network of authorities within the State, including the State Environmental Policy Act, that can be used to support the Shoreline Management Program in a unified manner have been fully documented. S. Finally, major progress has been made in the further adoption of coastal Local Master Programs during the additional nine months of the development-review process. However, there remain some areas of uncertainty concerning the impact of Federal agency positions on the future implementation of the Washington CZM program. These positions,, as they potentially relate to the environmental and other impacts of the program are set forth below: 1. Federal agencies owning or managing lands have taken the position that all such lands are excluded from a state's coastal zone under S.304(a) of the Act. NOAA and the'State of'Washington hold the different view that only those Federal lands that are under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction or are held in trust by the Federal Government are so excluded. Becausb this legal interpretation was a major cause of Federal agency ob- jections to the program, and because it is so germane an issue, NOAA has requested an opinion of the U. S. Attorney General on the matter. The affected Federal agencies have been invited to also present their positions to him. Prior to an Attorney General's opinion on this matter, NOAA and Washington have agreed to exclude all Federal lands from its coastal zone so that its program may proceed with implementation. The major.potential impact of this position is whether Federal land agencies will rely on "exclusion" to avoid their obligations to seek consistency with state CZM policies and standards for development projects under S. 307(c)(2) of the Act. Experience should quickly demonstrate whether this is the case, or whether this is an important flaw in the Act that should be revised. 90 2. The Act places the states in the pivotal and difficult position of "adequately considering" the views of Federal agencies and the "national interest" in the siting of facilities. As a review of Appendix 10 demon- strates, the Federal views and claims of national interest are extremely varied and sometimes conflicting or extend beyond the requirements of the Act. The Federal agency views range from specific consideration of transportation, urban development and.future defense needs to marine ecosystem protection, preservation of critical areas and fisheries management. National interests are asserted concerning energy facilities and their long range planning, ports and highways, marine navigation and resource extraction. While the State has acknowledged that many of these views are legitimate expressions of agency and national in-- terests, it in-effect has asserted that these interests can be accomodated within the policy framework of the Shoreline Management Act and the associated environ- mental standards and criteria of the program. The State and CZM Act both recognize that there may be overriding national needs, authorities or feasibility factors that must vary from or preempt the program. However, these factors must be demonstrated and worked out in the context of the consistency provisions of the Act. Given this largely interested situation, it is difficult to assess the impact of various Federal agency or national interests as they may affect the coastal resources of Washington or the policies of NEPA. The State has committed itself to a sustained effort to enhance its program capabilities for dealing with these interests, but some uncertainty remains concerning the eventual impacts stemming from Federal activities. NCAA's continuing role in administering the CZM program thus assumes some importance. For instance, NOAA will have to maintain credibility in providing its "good offices," mediation and ultimate review functions as set forth in S.307 of the Act. It will also need to utilize the review of performance (S.309) and annual re- porting (S.313) authorities to assure that approved state programs are effectively and judiciously imple- mented and that the Congress and other interested parties are apprised of inconsistencies, coordination or lack thereof and outstanding problems. 91 3. Finally, the Federal review (and DEIS) process raised questions'of the scope, depth, detail and documentation expected to qualify for CZM approval. In Washington, breadth of Federal coverage (42 agencies are covered in the "packet system") initially resulted in lack of detailed consideration of key policies or issues. General or very specific expressions of Federal agency interests often were not directed to the objectives and policies of the proposed CZM program. The broad scope of some Federal interests (e.g. multi-state energy grid planning) simply over- whelmed the pTogrammatic and geographic coverage.of the CZM effort. NOAA believes that the impact of claims that CZM must address every possible ramification of Federal interest would so dilute the central thrust of coastal resource management as to make it ineffective. This underscores the importance of relating and even in-,. tegrating other planning and managerial programs (e.g. comprehensive planning under "701", wastewater treatment planning under '1208", planning for OCS development, etc.). B. Impacts Directly Resulting From Federal Approval Impacts.associated with the Federal approval of the WCZMP fall into two categories: (1) impacts due to a direct increase of 'funds and funding options to the state and local governments, and (2) impacts from the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Program Funding Federal approval will permit the Office of Coastal Zone Management to award program administrative grants (Section 306) to Washington. This will increase the level of employment of specialists such as planners, scientists, permit review and enforcement officials at both the state and local goverment levels, and provide 92' or augment the professional basis for- resource management which may not have previously existed. As pointed out in Section II, one of the weaknesses of the Washington program to date has been a lack of funding and inadequate staffing to administer and enforce the various program requirements. Federal 306 grants will be used to help administer and enforce the state and Local Master Programs, and provide the resources for continual improvement of those program. Funds will be used to' allow for more detailed studies related to the human and natural environments which will increase the quality of the base from which coastal zone management decisions will be made. An increase in the staff will speed up the permit review and appeals system and provide better enforce- ment of the program regulations. In the first Section 306 grant application received for review by OCZM from the State in anticipation of @pproval, the following objectives were listed to be accomplished during the grant period. 1. ENHANCE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPABILITY TO MANAGE THEIR SEGMENTS OF THE COASTAL ZONE THROUGH THEIR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. This will be accomplished through direct grants and by State initiated programs designed for local use. 2. PROVIDE SPECIAL REGIONAL COASTAL ZONE RROGRAMS. Multi-jurisdictional activities whereby local programs may be coordinated, unified, and more effectively administered by the management of coastal resources shared by several local governments. 3. ASSIST OTHER STATE AGENCIES WHICH HAVE COASTAL AREA RESPONSI- BILITIES While the Department of Ecology is the lead CZM agency,, other State agencies have important roles to play in implementing the State Coastal Zone Management Program. The efforts of these agencies will be directly enhanced through assistance and by joint undertakings with DOE for specific purposes. 93 4. ORGANIZE AND MAKE MORE USABLE THE EXISTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE COASTAL ZONE. This useful information varies from scientific, land, and water data to existing 'state, Federal, and local regulations and policies applicable to the coastal zone. In addition to the fulfillment of identified needs, an equally important need is to assure that information is.readily available and is of utility in the decision-making process. This becomes critical when judging or evaluating projects and proposals, environmental assessments, or new policy and regulations. To assure the utility of such system, data gaps must be filled and a continuously updatable data.system must be established. 5. E1,11ANCE COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES IN ORDER TO BETTER UNDERSTAND AND ACT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND TO RESOLVE BASIC STATE FEDERAL CONFLICTS. This effort will involve considerable amounts of staff time to work with Federal agencies. Three general program elements (coordination, administration, and enhancement) which are discussed in Chapter VI of the WCZNT document will be implemented by eight tasks. The total grant request is for $3,000,000 ($2,000,000 Federal/$1,000,000 State) for a 13 month-period. The tasks are described below in order to show how funds will be used. TASK AREA 1. LOCAL ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION The primary burden of comprehensive land use and shorelands use rests with local governments. Using several systems and authori- ties, the 53 coastal counties and cities must consult with appli- cants and developers, examine and review proposals, conduct formal and informal review procedures and hearings, rule on permits, inspect the work, file complaints, initiate and follow through on legal and enforcement actions and so forth. Additionally, locals must deal with state and Federal agencies, as they conduct their CZM related affairs. A local goverment would have to have a complete, endorsed shoreline master program before it would be eligible for these grants. 9.4 TASK AREA 2. LOCAL PROGRAM E4MCEVE@T The local shoreline Master Program is one of the primary elements of the State CZM program. There is a need to improve on and refine these programs. One of the most pressing needs is"better Federal involvement and representation in many of the local pro- grams. In other cases, local governments will need special inven- tories or studies to help them make critical land and water use decisions. None of the anticipated program enhancements are of a long-range nature but are directed to meet immediate and near future management needs. This task benefits the general program element of enhancement as discussed in Chapter VI of WCZMP,.but also benefits.all of the local responsibilities in CZM. Local eligibility for these grants is dependent on having a completedLocal Master Program. Any scientific endeavor undertaken with these grants would be coordinated through and subject to the criteria established by the data management and CZM environmental studies program dis- cussed in Task Area 7. TASK AREA 3. REGIONAL PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS DOE has long encouraged regional treatment of problems or issues which affect more than one local goverment. This falls into several possible categories including such coastal resources as an estuary,water body, or bay which extends into several counties or cities. All of the Shoreline Master Programs for those Jurls- dictions address that resource, but often in a manner that is less comprehensive than.is ultimately desired. There is a need at this time for the several local governments to re-address that resource in.a more concentrated and coordinated effort. Wherever possible, existing regional groups and associations will be used. The demand for this will be signficant, and DOE expects. to make funds available on a no-match basis to local regional efforts to encourage such efforts. Such grants would be'subject to stringent conditions. Any.local goverment entering into such a regional grant program would first have to demonstrate that adequate administration of its present program was taking place and that gove rnm ent might also be under a CZM administration grant in addition to th& regional grant. Any scientific endeavor undertaken with these grants would be coordinated through, and subject to the criteria established by, the data management and CZM environmental studies program discussed in Task Area 7. 95 TASK AREA 4. DOE A04IMSTIRATION As the lead CZM agency, the Department of Ecology bears the principal burden of CZM administration for the State. Federal coordination remains a preeminent task and is treated separately as Task Area 6. Other duties include: 1. Review and approval of 'Local permits, programs, grants planning activities, 2. Coordination of 1, above, with other State and Federal agencies, 3. Review, coordination, and involvement with Federal affairs, insofar as they involve matters related to the "consistency" requirements of Section 307 of the C31 Act, 4. Publication of special reports; conduct public information and involvement programs, 5. Administer special contracts for State program enhancement, 6. Administer interagency programs and contracts, 7. Assess effectiveness of C7 ZM program; provide legislative liaison for CZM affairs, 8. Enfo.rce DOE CZM -regulations, including inspection of coastal deure-lopments; monitor coastal activities, 9. Conduct workshops for all CZNI interested groups; meet routinely with local, State and Federal officials, 10. Develop legislation; refine and expand DOE's CZM related administrative regulations; analyze actions and findings of hearing board-- and judicial bodies as they affect CZM, 11. Generally act in any capacity needed to promote sound land and water uses in the coastal zone. TASK AMk 5. OTHER STATE AGENCY AalINISTRATION Involves 306 grants to other State agencies to enhance their ability to review permits, EIS's, and other C31 activities. Grants would be for environmental personnel. TASK AREA 6. FEDERAL COORDINATION PROGRAM This is a special task area for DOE CZM personnel and relates to the general work occurring in Task Area 4. This includes: completion and finalization of Federal packets; improvements to packets; special negotiations and agreements with Federal agencies, seeking better articulation of thenational interest. TASK AREA 7. CZM ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Continuation of existing data management, baseline studies, and other. The entire program is now being directed toward providi ing the best data base and delivery/interpretative system possible for making CZM management decisions. These decisions are made routinely-by local and state goverment. And major legislative and gubernatorial policy making which involves such matters as OCS development, tanker traffic,@ dredging, energy facilities and' others will be aided by the data system. TASK AREA 8. CZM PROGRAM ENHANCEMT STUDIES DOE will need to contract for assistance in several program areas, and this task area is intended to be used for this pur- pose. Areas to be examined will be: 1. Program effectiveness generally, 2. *Enforcement effectiveness,. 3. Legal studies, 4. Special studies for areas of particular concern,,and for restoration and preservation, S. Facility siting, 6. Program document supplements. it is clear that the use-of these funds is not intended for construction or development purposes or for any alterations to the enviroment, but will be used for the purpose of better managing. the enviroment to preserve it, protect it and enhance it, while at the same time allowing economic development to occur in a manner which is least damaging-to the coastal environment. It is therefore presumed that Section 306 funds will have a beneficial impact on the enviroment. 97 Federal Consistency Federal approval and state implementation of the State's coastal zone management program will also have implications for Federal agency actions and on the national interest in the siting of facilities. As explained earlier, the Federal consistency require- ments of the Act (Sections 307(c) and (d)) require that Federal activities or development projects must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with approved state programs. Federal agencies issuing licenses or permits for any activity affecting the coastal zone are generally constrained from doing so until the state certifies that the proposed activity is in fact consistent with its management program. In addition, Federal agencies are in most cases restricted from assisting proposals affecting the coastal zone unless they are consistent with the coastal manage- ment program.. Although states have pr -eviously had the opportunity to comment upon Federal actions, licenses or permits, in the past this com- ment has not generally been required or binding. This new responsibility will provide for more coordinated and comprehensive management of coastal resources and uses, and has the potential for reducing the fragmented, single-purpose and frequently con- flicting nature of activities affecting the coastal zone. The process for determining consistency has been previously described in Chapter II, The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, of this EIS. While no previous test cases exist under the administration of the CZMA, the following can be said about the impacts associated with the implementation of a consistency- seeking process. The overall purpose of Federal consistency is to provide for closer cooperation and coordination between Federal, state and local government agencies involv,-,d in coastal zone related .activities and management. This is considered to be a desirable impact, iZ one of the objectives of the CZMA, and is parallel with the general goals of NEPA for incorporating environmental and adopted plan values in Federal agency decision-making. In cases where projects are judged inconsistent with the management program and the state has objected to or denied certification, Federal agencies will have to deny permit applications unless the appeal procedures established by the Act are applied. The impacts associated with a Secretarial override, should it be exercised, could be significant, but would depend on an evaluation of each specific case. There are two reasons the Secretary may find it necessary to override a state decision which would be inconsistent with a state program, namely: 98 1) that an activity or project is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA, or 2) an activity or project is necessary in the interest of national security. When the time comes, these will be tough issues to face. National security may be easier to define than the objectives of the CZMA, but both could entail large scale projects and ac- tivities that could adversely affect a state's policies toward its natural and socio-economic environment. These could include anything from the establishment of a park or wildlife refuge to a large scale military exercise using landing barges and troop movements in the less inhabited areas. There may be large or small scale naval facilities that must be built with no other practicable alternative but to be located in the coastal zone. It is not the purpose of this EIS to speculate on which types of activities or projects may fall within the "override" pro- visions in Section 307(c) and (d). Clearly, however, the Secretary would intervene directly in this state-Federal process only in extraordinary circumstances. It is important to note that these problems may arise and that there is a process which will enable difficult decisions to be made. It is not expected that there will be many such situations arising. The legislative history of the CZqA sheds further light on this subject. "There may, however, arise, after the approval of the program, some circumstances not foreseen at the time of its (state program) approval which may present a federal agency with an obstacle or situation which as a practical matter may prevent complete adherence to the approved program. For that reason, the committee felt that some leeway should be written into the statute with respect to ac- tivities of federal agencies in connection with approved pro- grams. (Referring to the clause: 'to the maximum extent pract- ticable.1). It is not anticipated that there will be any con- siderable number of situations where as a practical matter a federal agency cannot conduct or support activities without deviating from approved state management programs." (H.R. 92- 1049, p. 20). Federal approval of a state's program would also signify that the state has an acceptable procedure to insure the adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. Such facilities might include energy production and transmission; recreation; interstate transportation; production of food and fiber; preservation of,life and property; national defense and aerospace; historic, cultural, esthetic and conserva- tion values; and mineral resources, to the extent they are dependent on or relate to the coastal zone. 99 This policy requirement is intended to assure that national con- cerns over facility siting are expressed and dealt with in the development and implementation of state coastal zone management programs. The requirement should not be construed as compelling the states to propose a program which accommodates certain types of facilities, but to assure that such national concerns-are included at an early stage in the- statels planning activities and that such facilities not be arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably restricted in the management program. This provision might have two impacts. First, it will prohibit a state from arbitrarily or categorically prohibiting or excluding any use or activity dependent on the coastal zone. Whereas in the lack of a comprehensive planning program such consideration might simply be ignored by oversight or default, t 'his requirement will insure they are specfically included. On the other hand,, the existence and approval of a consultative procedure will protect the state from the capricious imposition of actions or projects by Federal agencies in the name of the National Interest. In either event, the procedure should lead to the more deliberate and thoughtful and less fragmented and wasteful, siting of such facilities in the coastal zone. Finally, Federal approval of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program would be the first of thirty-four steps (there being thirty-four coastal states and territories) necessary to ultimately achieve the national goals and policies in the Act, to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations. 100 C. Impacts Resulting from the State and Local Government Actions Although the Washington shoreline management program was begun prior tothe passage of the Federal CZM Act, and would continue even if Federalfunds or approval were withheld, approval by the Secretary can be expected to affect the program in such a fashion as to make it more complete, effective, and timely. It would therefore seem appropriate to examine the impacts of the state program. An Overall Assessment of the Development and Beginning Imple- mentation of the Shoreline Management Act. Since the basis of the WCZMP is the implementation of the SMA, an attempt has been made to understand the.impacts which have been, and are associated with, this Act. A great deal has been written on the SMA and several significant-, studies have been conducted. In addition, each,EIS undertaken by local units of goverment on the LocalMaster Program has attempted.to under- stand what the impacts would be to the 'Locality. One of the most important studies to date has been conducted by two graduate students at the University of Washington with a study supported by the Washington Sea Grant Program. The study entitled 'Washington State Shoreline Management - An 'Interim Assessment" (see References) listed the following findings: -The Shoreline Management Act has provided an impetus for better management of Washington state shorelines; -Citizen involvement in shoreline use decisions has been enhanced through implementation of the SMA; -Inadequate shoreline data bases have imTeded the formulation of master programs and the issuance of shoreline permits; -The Department of Ecology has represented statewide interests most actively through the review of sho--reline permits and the issuance of the Final Guidelines; The quasi-judicial Shorelines Hearings Board has been both reasonable and efficient in handling increased shoreline litigation brought about by, passage of the Act while reducing litigation to be dealt with by the courts; -Public access to Puget Sound shorelines has only minimally increased; -Non-water-dependent uses dominate the development projects on the upland shorelands, a prima-r source of which are single family residence developments; -Minimizing shoreline damage and alt-eratior. has been the SMA goal most actively pursued by local and state agencies since enactment of the Shoreline Management Act. The study was conducted on an interim basis before many Local Master Programs had been approved and is therefore an incomplete assessment. Three counties were intensively studied, namely: King (urban area); Snohomish (transitional rural-urban area), and San Juan .(rural region). While the study has a great deal of interesting items of information, it is too lengthy to be made a part of the record. However, the conclusions and recommendations are included as part of Appendix 6. The designation of all coastal areas into one of several environ- mental types (natural, conservancy, rural, urban and in some cases aquatic and suburban) in the Local Master Programs will have many effects. Some of the impacts, both beneficial and adverse, which may be expected occur as a result of these designations and the management applied to them are summarized in Table .4 - These are intended to be a general description of types of impacts. Not all Master Programs are the same, but the impacts associated with each program are discussed at the county and city level through the SEPA process. Lands designated as natural, or to a lesser extent conservancy, as well as lands designated by the State for preservation or restoration, will be provided increased long-term, if not permanent, protection. These resources, their values and benefits, will be perpetuated, which will be generally beneficial to the environment. In contrast, lands designated rural and especially urban poten- tially will guarantee the ultimate development of such areas with concomitant loss of natural resources. Population, commercial, and industrial densities will likely increase in such areas. While this might be considered a negative or adverse environmental impact, and assuredly will be in some circumstances, it must be recognized that not all development or activity in the coastal zone can or should be halted. As long as these determinations are based on sound information and processes which reflect the value Orf the natural environment, a process for determining where develop- ment should go,.as well as where it should not, can be environmentally beneficial, for the designation of specific areas for development will focus and restrict such activities to carefully chosen sites. This will reduce the development pressures on other environmentally sensitive or valuable areas, and will also serve to reduce urban sprawl with its variety of induced impacts. The environment designation maps included in Appendix Sh (see note in Appendix) show how the counties have allocated the use of their shoreline resources. A Shoreline Use Matrix of the uses which will be permitted or conditioned under the permit processing system within these environments is also included in Appendix 5C. The map and the matrix will give the best overall picture of the management of uses along the shoreline. TABLE 4 IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS URBAN Beneficial Adverse 1) Intens ification of development within already 1) Continued accommodation of many activities that developed areas and/or their redevelopment along will have a detrimental effect on the ecolo- with multiple u se. gical balance of the shoreland environment. 2) Discouragement of the type of development that 2) Specification of shoreline dependent and water- would further degrade the environment or have ad- oriented uses is left to the discretion of permit- verse impacts upon adjacent environments. issuing authorities. 3) Localization of urban land uses within a spe- 3) Possible continued approval of past unrelated cific shoreline area. uses. 4) Control and prohibition of many activities that 4) Lack of consideration of regional issues. CD have taken place in the past and have adverse effects on the ecology of.the shoreline. 5) Possible incompatible designations at political boundaries. 5) Protection of the ecology of and public interest in shoreline areas without disrupting economic 6) Possible inconsistent use activity standards activities that are dependent upon it or find the among jurisdictions. location advantageous. 7) Increased costs to developers because of com- 6) Promotion of proper development in suitable pliance with the program. locations. 8) Increased costs of administering permits and 7) Prevention of uncoordinated piecemeal development regulations. along the shorelines. 9) Possible reduction of the values and development 8) Enhancement of existing shoreline development potential of multi-family zoned properties. and restoration of damaged shorelines. 10) Subjection of property owners to disruption 9) Intensified use of partially developed but in their cur-rent situations and future plans. underutilized urban shoreline areas for shor6- line related uses. Table 4 11) Loss of income, diminishment of capital re- sources, increase in expenses, and the reduction in work-force of large organizations. 12) Possible reduction in goverment sponsored social services through loss of taxable revenue. RURAL Beneficial Adverse 1) Intention to preserve agricul-ilural land, serve 1) Continued accommodation of many activities low-density residential development purposes, and that will. have a detrimental effect on the eco- maintain open spaces and opportunities for recrea- logical balance of the shoreland environment.. tional use. 2 Specification of shoreline dependent and water- 2@ Development of industrial and commercial uses oriented uses'is left to the discretion of permit- CD On character with the environment) of the rural issuing authorities. shcareline a.rea. 3) Possible conti;rued approval of past Lmffelated 3) Re(iuction of _the pressure and increased time issues. for review of the proposed. development and greater opporttm.ity to impose conditions that may favor 4) Lack of consideration ofregional is3ues. the environ)-iient. S) Possible incompatible designations at political 4'! Reduction of the environmental. impacts of past boundaries. development and use practices and provide for -public use and enjoyment. 6) Possible inconsistent use activity standards among jurisdictions. S) Promotion of proper development in suitable locations. 7) Increased costs to developers because of com.- pliance with the program. 6) Prevention of uncoordinated piecemeal develop- ment along the shorelines. 8) Increased costs of administering permits and regulations. 0 Table 4 9) Possible reduction of the values and develop- ment potential of multi-family zoned properties. 10) Loss of past tax revenue on areas formerly zoned for higher densities. 11) Subjection of property owners to disruption in their current situations and future plans. 12) Loss of income, diminishment of capital re- sources increase in expenses, and the reduction in work force of large organizations. 13) Possible reduction in government sponsored social services through loss of taxable revenue. CONSERVANCY C> U1 Beneficial Adverse 1) Retention of this shoreline area primarily free 1) Possible continued approval of past unrelated fTom extensive development and maintenance of uses. its existing character. 2) Continued approval of activities that will 2) Protettion,,conservation, and management of perpetuate adverse impacts. existing nAturel resources and valuable--historic and cultural areas.. 3) Possible damage by public recreational use. 3) Prohibition of a number of major land use de- 4) Lack of consideration of regional issues. velopments that are consumptive of shoreline resources 5) Possible incompatible designations at political 4) Protection of 100-year flood plains and shore- boundaries. lines with steep slopes and all the natural con- 6) Possible inconsistent use activity standards ditions that are associated with unstable water- among jurisdictions. front environments. Table 4 5) Protection of scenic areas, commercial forest 7) Increases costs to developers because of com- land, and low intensity agricultural and recrea- pliance with the program. tional activities. 8) Increased costs of administering permits and 6) Increase in a variety of active and leisure regulations. time opportunities near.the shoreline with as little disruption of its natural character as- 9) Loss of past tax revenue and speculative possible. profit on areas formerly zoned for higher densities. 7) Increase in recreational opportunities. 10) Subjection of property owners to disruption in their current situations and future-plans. 11) Loss of income, diminishment of capital re- sources, increase in expenses, and the reduction in work force of large organizations. 12) Possible reduction in government sponsored social services through loss of taxable revenue. NATURAL Beneficial Adverse 1) Preservation and restoration of natural features 1) Possible continued approval of past unrelated that are kept relatively free of human influences. uses. 2) Preservation of wildlife habitats for any native 2) Continued approval of activities that will or migratory animal and especially for diminishing perpetuate adverse impacts. species. i 3) Possible damage by public recreational use. 3) Protection of shoreline areas that have scien- tific, scenic, and recreational values. 4) Lack of consideration of regional issues. 4) Prohibition of all developments that would ad- .5) Possible incompatible designations at political versely affect the natural character of the environ- boundaries. ment. Table 4 5) Protection of wildlife, vegetation, water, and 6) Possible inconsistent use activity standards other resources on which the physical well being among jurisdictions. of residents depend. 7) Increased costs to developers because of 6) Increase in recreational opportunities. compliance with the program. 7) Increase in public access to publicly owned 8) Loss of harvestable timber resources. shorelines in areas where such access is not detri- mental to environment. 9) Subjection of property owners to disruption in their current situations and future plans. 10) Loss of income, diminishment of capital resources, increase in expenses, and the reduction in work force of large operations. 11) Possible reduction in goverment sponsored social services through loss of taxable revenue. CD -4 AQUATIC Beneficial Adverse 1) Protection of the quality and quantity of water;-l) Continued accommodation of many activities that preservation of it for shoreline dependent uses will have a detrimental effect on the ecological such as navigation, recreation, and its.natural balance of the shoreland environment. character including aquatic habitats. 2) Specification of @horeline dependent and water- 2) Prohibitions upon some uses that were pre- oriented uses is left to the discretion of.permit- viously detrimental. issuing authorities. ,3) Restrictions upon other uses to alleviate 3) Possible continued approval of past unrelated impacts upon the environment. uses. 4) Lack of consideration of regional issues. 5) Possible incompatible designations at political boundaries. Table 4 6) Possible inconsistent use activity standards among jurisdictions. 7) Increased costs to developers because of com- pliance with the program. 8) Increased costs of administering permits and regulations. 9) Subjection of property owners to disruption in their current situations and future plans. 10) Loss of income, diminishment of capital re- sources, increase in expenses, and the reduction in work force of large organizations. NO Beneficial Adverse 1) Improvement to the 1-o-caT @vicinity and to 1) Lack of consideration of regional issues. conditions downstream because of prohibitions and restrictions imposed on upland development as 2) Possible incompatible designations at political a result of the Master Plan. boundaries. 3) Possible inconsistent use activity standards among jurisdictions. 4) Increased costs to developers because of com- pliance with the program.. S) Increased costs of administering p ermits and regulations. 6) Subjection of property owners to disruption in their current situations and future plans. The protection of natural areas and conservancy areas will mean that some of the natural resources will not be able to be utilized. Mining is prohibited in most cases and the harvesting of timber is restricted but not totally prohibited. Considering the state's overall resources, these impacts should be minimal, however, the cumulative restrictions fronji a variety of enviroTmental protection authorities could increase the adverse economic impacts especially within a local area. The drilling of oil directly within Puget Sound and onall.lands within one thousand feet landward is pro- hibited. While it has not been fully determined what oil resources exist within this area and the economic opportunities foregone by this policy, it should not be considered as an irrevocable loss. County Assessor and Real Estate Appraiser Evaluate The Shoreline Management Act A Research Intern from the Community Services Program at Saint Nlrrtin's College, completed a Shoreline Management Property Value Study to evaluate and assess the impact of the SMA on property values.* The intern conducted a random sample questionnaire to county assessors and real estate appraisers. With a 51% response (considered good), he was able to evaluate the following: 1. That 70% of -t-he appraisers believed that the R4k had an influence on property values while 73% of the assessors did nor- (a significant conflict between the responses). The major reason was that it limits use and development. 2. 78% of the county assessors felt that RCW 90.58.290, "The Restrictions imposed by this Chapter (SMN) shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property," was adequate for them in their assessments. Some had already established in-house procedures. A further example of the impact the 'implementation of the SMA has had on current property holders in the coastal zone, is shown in the Tax Appeal Board decision made on properties at Padilla Bay. The Board's two page decision is included in Appendix 7 but is summarized here. Prior to passage of the S114A, appellants had bought approximately 5,790 acres, or about 33,156.44 waterfront feet of second class tidelands. For several years they wanted *Final Report - County Assessor and Real Estate Appraiser Shore- line Management Property Value Study, Dave Tucker to Rod Mack, DOE, May 2, 1974. 109 to dredge and fill the tidelands and build a series of fingers of land on which to build homes. Because of the economy in 1968 and after an expenditure of.$600,000, they stopped. The SAA classified Padilla Bay as a "shoreline of statewide significance," the purpose of which was to preserve the natural character if possible and minimize man-made intrusions. The appellant-assessor appraised the land at $252,480; the County Board of Equalization at $126,240, and the Board of Tax Appeals at $66,315, "in recog-. nition of the lack of utility of subject property" for develop- ment purposes. The ramifications of this decision (April 12, 1975) has undoubtedly affected other private shoreland holders. Thus, there is a loss of tax revenue, private wea'lth, and the fore- closure of future options within the immediate boundaries of the coastal zone. Impact on taxes, whether positive or negative, is of course only one measure of the inpact to a community. The community will derive other substantive benefits resulting from coastal zone management; these include protection of natural resources and the benefits they provide, the protection of water quality and reduced costs associated with degraded water quality, and the maintenance of aesthetic, cultural, and higtoric features and values. Even.if property taxes were torise slightly in response to these CZM efforts, the overall costs to society would decline. By reducing the careless destruction of coastal resources and the benefits they provide, the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program can be expected to produce long-term economic benefits, while reducing short-term gains made at the expense of those resources and which frequently encumber society with long-term maintenance costs. The restriction on the use of land imposed by the categories, and the requirements to reduce the visual and environmental impacts of development and coastal activities, may increase operating or capital costs for some operations. These will be balanced by public gains from the continued protection or enhancement of the coastal resources. To the extent they occur such losses really reflect the external costs of such operations, which have tra-, ditionally been borne by the public but which are now through regulatory authority being charged to the responsible individual. The designation of the 200 foot boundary may tend to increase the development pressure on adjacent lands immediately inland from the boundary (that is, just outside of the substantial development permit boundary). This will result from two causes: first, activities and development prohibited or restricted in th6.coastal zone may simply relocate just outside of its bound- aries. In some cases developers may relocate simply to avoid the permit procedure. 110 Secondly, the value or attractiveness of these lands will be enhanced as the coastal resources are protected and as assurance. is provided that future uses will remain consistent or compatible with desired objectives. The state intends to closely monitor such activities and regulate them as necessary or desirable by other state authorities (such as air and water pollution controls, flood plain zoning, etc). The 200 foot boundary in many cases will affect projects that lie beyond if part of the project is located in.the 200 foot zone. In the case of Merkel et al vs. Port of Brownsville, et al No. 956.-11, State of Washington, April 27, 1973', the Court of Appeals decisively ruled that in accordance with the 3@% that lands adjacent to shorelines must be taken into consideration if the consistency stressed in the 24A was to be achieved. The following quotation from the court decision illustrates the judicial interpretation of the integrity of the SMA. "The coercive effect the construction of one segment would have upon the other is obvious. If clearing and construction activity is allowed to continue in the uplands portion before the wetlands portion has been approved, it is obvious the entire area will be affected. The legislature, in extending the scope of SMA to consideration of the use of lands adjacent to shorelines, sought to prevent this type of coerced land use development. To permit the piecemeal development urged upon us by the Port would lower the enviromental mandates of these acts to the status of mere admonitions. The result would be frustration rather than fulfillment of the legislative intent inherent in these acts. This project will have a significant effect upon the environment. It is to the public's benefit that any project significantly af- fecting the environment and shorelines of this state comply with the procedures established by SEPA and SMA to insure that the environmental aspects have been fully considered. Irreparable damage would flow from allowing any portion of this project to proceed without.full compliance with the permit requirements of the SMA. We can appreciate the added expense the Port must incur as a result of our holding but these inconveniences are far outweighed by the public's interest in attaining and main- taining an environment consistent with legislatively promulgated goals. It was, therefore, error to dissolve restraint in the area more than 200 feet inland from the level of ordinary high water." A further sample of enforcement is included in Appendix 8 which shows some of the decisions of the Shoreline Hearing Board with respect to.some of the different uses in the shoreline. A sunnary of shoreline permits for marine waters by type of activity and county is shown in Appendix 5d. The exemption by the State.of certain activities (e.g. agricul- ture, private residence, and private bulkheading) from 24A permit requirements will have the potential fcr an adverse environ- mental impact on coastal resources. Exemption from the SMA permit procedure, however, does not provide exemption front the policies and regulations of the Master Programs, the SN14 or from other state and Federal regulatcry authoritiesi which will' be fully utilized- to iu=iinize the impact of such activities on coastal lands and waters. The inpact of the program on the distribution of people in S4 coastal areas may be sig L - .,nificant. Future re dential subdivisions and multi-family dwellings may be prohibited from specific areas. This may ultimately result in greater population densities in rural and urban areas, but will also tend to,limit urban sprawl into non-developed areas. The program is intended to protect water dependent uses and coastal resources. Mis would result in the protection and even enhancement of commercial and spott,fishinc, industries, and the con- tinuation of other water dependent industries. The program is not intended to displace existing non-viater dependent industries, but with time and t6 arrival of new industrie's, gradual shifts in industrial patterns may occur. The program is not expected to affect employment. The state program will also provide I'or areater coordination of state, local and Federal.actions to explicitly identified goals. This will reauce conflict and counter-productive activities. Although the new mechanisms and procedures will undoubtedly disrupt established procedures, practices, and relationships, suchdisruptio.ns will be only short-lived. During the developmen@ process of the SIMA, there has been little done to plan on an areawide basis. Generally speaking the impacts associated with inadequate planning on a large-scale resource basis could-be significant if the planning remained localized. While the SVIA gave the Department of Ecology authority to designate regional planning units to help coordinate local governments in the formulation of Master Programs, it did so sparingly for various reasons. The Lake Washington Region was, however, a pilot project in this endeavor. A.significant part of Washington's first year Section 306 grant is allocated, however, for the benefit of better regional studies. 112 D. Impacts on Historic Properties Since this proposed action does not directly involve a specific project, there will be no direct effect on National Register property. In keeping with the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and Executive Order 11593, provisions in both the CZMA and the SMA require that full consideration be given the historic values of coastal resources and properties. The CMvR states that "important ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values in the coastal zone which are essential to the well-being of all citizens are being irretrivably damaged or lost" (Section 302(e)), and therefore, it is the national policy "to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic., and esthetic values as well as needs for economic evelopment.11 CEmphasis added) CSection 303(b)). Likewise, Section 90.58.100(2) of the SYR requires that seven basic land and water use elements must be incorporated into the Master Programs. (2)(g) states: "an historic, cultural, scien- tific, and educational element for the protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values." More explicit instructions on the intepretation of this par- ticular element is noted below and taken from the "Final Guide- lines - WAC 173-16." The full text is included to show the thoroughness of the process and the concern expressed by the State. This holds true for all the use activities. "TIM USE ACTIVITIES (WAC-173-16-060) This section contains guidelines for the local regulation of use activities proposed for shorelines. Each topic, representing a specific use or group of uses, is broadly defined and followed by seVeral guidelines. These guidelines represent the criteria upon which judgments for proposed shoreline developments will be based until Master Programs are completed. In addition, these guidelines are intended to pro- vide the basis for the development of that portion of the Master Program concerned with the regulation of such uses. 113 Archeological Areas and Historic Sites (WAC 17'3-16-060(20)) 'forts, Archeological areas, ancient villages, military old settlers homes, ghost towns, and trails were often located on shorelines because of the proximity of food resources and because water provided an important means of trans- portation. These sites are nonrenewable resources and many are in danger of being lost through present day changes in land use and urbanization. Because of their rarity and the educational link they provide to our past, these locations should be preserved. Guidelines: (a) In preparing shoreline master programs, local governments should consult with professional archeologists to identify areas containing potentially valuable archeological data, and to establish procedures for salvaging the data. (b) Where possible, sites should be permanently preserved for scientific study and public' observation. In areas known to contain archeological data, local governments should attach a special condition to a shoreline permit providing for a site inspection and evaluation by an archeologist to ensure that possible archeological data are properly salvaged. Such a condition might also require approval by local government before work can resume on the project following such an examination. (c) Shoreline permits, in general, should contain special provisions which require developers to notify local governments if any possible archeological data are uncovered during excavations. (d) The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and chapter 43.51 RCW provide for the protection, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American and Washington history, 'architecture, archeology or culture. The state legis- lation names the director of the Washington state parks and recreation commission as the person responsible for this program." As an example, the Snohomish County Master Program, a basic tool which will help implement the goals of the SAN, states that it is their policy to "preserve and protect to the maximum 114 extent all shoreline area sites, buildings, structures and objects which have been placed on the national or state historical register." In addition, local master programs are reviewed by the State historic preservation officer prior to approval. In order to ensure full consideration of historic values, the Department of Ecology has prepared a base map which locates those historic sites, buildings, etc., (within the coastal zone) which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, State and local registers. These maps in turn can be used by DOE and county permit processing agents to determine on a case by case basis if projects will affect these areas. Historic, archeological,and architectural areas will be included under the provision of areas for preservation or restoration (see p. 130 para. 2, WCZMP), and will therefore be included under the purview of the management program. Therefore, a policy exists for the preservation of historic properties and a process will exist to execute the program. A more thorough explanation of the State agencies involved is located on page 8.8, para. 2 ofthe WCZMP. VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The DEIS contained a description of nine alternatives. Based upon comments received on the DEIS and a re-evaluation by NOAA, it was determined that most of the alternatives were neither required to be considered nor feasible. Some alternatives would have caused indeterminant delays with no guarantees or hopes of pos- sible action occurring in the affirmative. In addition, some. alternatives, even though they were considered, would have made those who administer the Coastal Zone Management Act, negligent in their responsibilities as mandated by Congress. The following alternatives have been deleted from the FEIS as deserving further consideration at this time. This does not mean that segments or even whole ideas expressed in some of the al- ternatives cannot be accommodated at a later date as circumstances change. Program approval is not irrevocable and the CZMA has specific provisions which allow for amendments and changes in programs. 1. The Secretary could-delay Washington C7M program approval until all coastal city and county Master Programs are completed and approved by the Washington Department of Ecology. 2. The Secretary could delay approval of the Washington CZM program until legislation is passed for comprehensive statewide and nationwide land use progranz. 3. The Secretary could delay CZM program approval until the Federal establishment has developed specific policies for the siting of facilities meeting requirements which are of national interest. 4. The State might exert complete control over the implementation of the CZM Program. 5. In contrast to the above alternative, county and city govern- ments might exert complete control over implementation of the CZM programs with no overall guidelines and performance standards from the state. CZM money would be given directly to local governments through an organization such as an association of counties. 6. The State could extend the boundary of most direct control to 500 feet, measured horizontally, inland from the ordinary high tide instead of the proposed 200 feet. The proposed boundary around estuaries, river mouths, etc., would be- maintained. 116 7. The definition of what shall constitute permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters could include uses excluded from the SMA definitions of "substantial development" as well as those included by that definition. 8. The State could compensate land owners for a drop in value of property or for economic opportunities lost as a result of construction permits denied by the SMA within the 200 foot boundary. It has become clear to DOC that there are only two major alter- natives to consider along with the major action of approval. The first deals with a delay or denial of approval based upon the management program in its revised and amended state. The importance of this alternative is minimized if the program has met the thresholds of acceptability. However, there may be reasons based on incompleteness of certain program components or major alternatives still open to the State prior to anticipated approval that would make this a viable alternative. The only other feasible alternative is for the State to withdraw its program approval application because it has decided not to partcipate any longer. These two alternatives are discussed below. It is at the State level where the numerous other alternatives have been considered and decided upon prior to progran approval submission (i.e., boundaries, uses, etc.). The following are considered to be feasible alternatives which have been considered by DOC. A. The Secretary Could Deny Approval Until All Outstanding Federal-State Issues are Fully Resolved State CZM programs are reuired to provide for intergovern- mental and public participation, consultation and consideration of the views of all relevent parties in the development of their programs. Washington has made significant efforts to comply with these stringent coordination duties. Specific activities and procedures for coordination are documented in the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP), especially in Chapter V and Appendices D and F of that document, as amended. Comments supplied by Federal agencies indicate that there continue to be differences of,interpretation of CZMA require- ments and outstanding issues or needs for clarifitation. Major issues that remain concerning the WCZMP include: The extent to which "national interests" have been considered by the State; the degree of specificity accorded by the State to various, often competing, functional objectives; and the specific policies and procedures the State will utilize to implement its program. A legal issue over the interpretation of Federal lands 117 that must also be excluded from the State's coastal zone has also risen. The State's position on these matters is that the processes and policies it has developed and shall maintain or enhance during implementation adequately meet the requirements of the CZMA. The WC31P acknowledges that there are needs to refine, supplement, and seek further clarification of its program during implementa- tion. It has set forth,objectives and proposed activities in Chapter VI, "Continuing Development of the Management Program," for program coordination, program administration, and program enhancement. NOAA has considered many alternatives with the State and various representatives of Federal agencies concerning the final contents of the management program. The following paragraphs reflect the agreed NOAA/Washington positions on key review issues and the alternatives considered in reaching these positions. 1. Federal land-owning or management agencies seek exclusion of all their lands from the coastal.zone as described in Section V. NOAA and the State were confronted with three alternatives given the strong objection to their initial legal interpretation of this issue: (a) deny approval of the State's program unless it change its position to that held by other Federal agencies; (b) approve the.program over the strong objections of the reviewing agencies; or (c) seek a definitive opinion on the legal interpretation of S. 304(a) of the Act, adapt an interim position that injures none of the parties, and camit NOAA. to abide by the Attorney General's opinion. Adoption by NOAA of alternative (a) would have pre-judged an admittedly ambiguous legal issue that may have significant effects on the State by administrative fiat.. Following alternative (b) equally would have atteMted to adopt a position in'opposition to the relevant Federal interests by administrative discretion and without the clarification of this issue which is expected from the Attorney General's "third party" analysis. A lengthy mediation process might be invoked over a legal issue that appears most appropriately to be settled as a matter of law, not program or administrative negotiation. Thus NOAA and the State have agreed to adopt alternative (c) which should allow for implementation without jeopardizing the positions of any participant. 2. NOAA and the State were also confronted with serious disagreements concerning the policies and general procedures that were to govern the consistency provisions of the Act. Two major alternatives were evaluated by NOAA and the State in view of these objections: (a) to require that all of the detailed procedural understandings be worked out prior to approval; or (b) agree to establish the basic framework and direction for applying the consistency pro- 'visions, initiate detailed consultation on procedures, and finalize the details of consistency during the first year of program administration. Alternazive.(a) is not a requiremezit under S. 306 of the Act, nor NOAA's implementing regulations. However, NOAA recognized that there were legitimate fears that a vaguely defined "system" of consistency would beimposed upon Federal agencies, without their opportunity to participate in its development. NOAA also believes that the development and refinement of the particulars of the consistency "system" must be worked out over time and with the experience that only implementation will provide. Therefore, NOAA.and the State, in consultation with key regional Federal representatives, decided to adopt alternative (b) that reaches a middle ground and becomes part of the supple- mented Washington program. 3. Many agencies continue to be concerned about the lack of detailed program "elements" to address the diverse interests or functional missions they represent. After considering the feasibility and utility of encyclopedic treatment of these interests in the program document, the State, with NOAA concurrence, has decided on the following course of action: to provide an updated 'synopsis of agency profiles in Appendix B of the management program; maintain an active "packet-system" continuing consultation and refinement of agency interests; and to devote a specific portion of 306 resources to program enhancement of state-Federal relations. 4. Some Federal agencies still object to approval of the program prior to the final approval of all Local Master Programs. In considering alternatives to the imposition of this criterion, NOAA has been guided by the following factors: (a) the State's statutory authorities, regulations, review ---T-app processes anc eal authorities under the Shoreline Manage'- ment Act and associated CZM programs are sufficient to meet the Act's requirements without approval of local programs; (b) even though final approval is not considered a require- ment; NOAA and the State made accelerated local p--ugress a condition of,the enhanced 305 grant; (c) substantial progress was made in bringing LMP's officially into the State program (all coastal LNP's will be submitted by March 31, 1976); and (d) the State has made submission of adopted LMP's a prerequisite for local participation in the 306 program. 119 The Secretary, and by delelgazion the Administrator of NOAA, was thus confronted with very significant alternatives in weighing his responsibility to deny, condition, or approve the WCZMP. The consequences of these options involve substantial matters of policy, the integrity of the national Coastal Zone Management Program and the financial capabilities of the State to implement its program pursuant to the Declaration of Policy in the CZMA. The following paragraphs set forth how these alternatives are viewed by NOAA. Denial of approval pending full resolution of all outstanding issues is not required by the CZMA, or its implementing regulations. However. the Administrator must find that the State has provided for: full participation; coordination; and adequate consideration of Federal views, including "national interests"; and established an effective mechanism for continuing consultation and coordination. These are inherently judgmental criteria that must be weighed primarily in terms of demonstrated performance by the State during program development. It is also apparent that the Congress intended that these coordination processes continue after program approval to deal with unresolved, unclear or new CZM issues. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 307(a) of the CZMA NOAA has attemted "to consult with, cooperate with, and, to the maximum extent practicable,coordinate its activities with other interested Federal agencies." This has consisted of efforts to exchange information and views with all. affected Federal agencies through designated headquarters and regional agency representatives. NOAA also responded to agency comments received during the initial and second formal reviews of the WCZMT. The State agreed to address many of these c0aamients following preliminary approval in May, 1975. Subsequently, the State prepared an amendment for its program. NOAA believes that substancial improvements in dealing with these Federal issues are reflected in the program now being considered for approval. This program has also clarified other intergovernmental relationships, processes and arrangements. An additional 45 day period for formal Federal agency and other interested parties to review the WCZMP was provided by N6AA December 18, 1975. It is a NOAA responsibility to fully consider whatever comments emerge from this review prior to approving the WCZWP. NOAA may approve the WCZMP over the objections or reservations of Federal agencies or other governmental entities. It is clear however, that this course of action will be taken only after careful and full consideration of legitimate Federal and, other views. 120 The Secretary concludes that: (1) the WCZMP can be approved. even though all intergovernmental issues are not fully resolved, but that-adequate policies and processes for their-resolution must be in place; (2) significant.remaining issues or differences have been dealt with in an official supplement to the program; (3) lie has discretion to approve the WCZMP over the objections of other Federal agencies, but this action will only be taken after every effort has been made to resolve or to establish an effective framework for resolution of differences. Any alternative to the above position would, in the view of the Secretary: (1) interpose Federal agency vetoes over State of CZM programs that otherwise meet the threshold requirements the C M ; (2) virtually assure that the three year development period provided by-the Congress cannot be met; (3) deny funding assistance for implementation that is critical to meeting the purposes of the CZMA; (4) also deny funding assistance for developing and refining specific administrative.policies and procedures that must be worked out in practice; and (5) violate the major state managerial thrust of the CZMA, while weakening the recip- rocal duties placed upon Federal agencies to support and seek consistency with State CZM programs. B. The State could withdraw the approval application and con- tinue either in a status quo or attempt to use other sources of funding to meet the objectives of the State's shoreline and related CZM programs. In the voluntary, cooperative program provided for by the CZMA, there exists a possibility for a state to withdraw its application without sanctions or penalties, except withdrawal of OCZM funding. For a state who has made great strides in the development of a coastal zone management program, this wouid be considered as a real policy and fiscal loss not only to the state, but cumulatively, to the. National-objectives set forth in the Act. The legislative history of the CZMA shows that Congress did not intend that the requirements of the Act be so stringent or difficult to achieve that any State would be precluded from achieving program approval after reasonable effort and time. Nevertheless, experience has shown that the process Of adequate program development is not an easy one. Of particular significance are the difficult "balancing" policies of the Act, especially State-Federal relations. Programs must adequately consider myriad interests which are often conflicting and competing for a scarce resource that various interests would like to have managed "their way." In many cases, there are hurdles with legislatures and lack of adequate resources or staff to accomplish everything that must be done within a 121 relatively short time frame. Yet the developing maturity of the CZM program to date, with 33 of 34 coastal States and territories participating, speaks to the importance the States place on managing their coastal resources. The reasons for a withdrawal can be diverse. There may still exist weaknesses in the development process that may go unnoticed even after the State has submitted its program for approval. A case in point would be the recent experience of the State of Maine. After the State had submitted a program for its Mid-Coast Region for segmented approval, the Governor asked for the applica- tion to be withdrawn after the public hearing revealed that some of the public and localities wanted extra time in order to more fully participate. The.Program application was returned until such a time as the state felt it would be ready to resubmit the. program. Another situation that could arise during this critical transition period would be if there were a number of outstanding issues (as was discussed in Alternative A) which turned into unresolved or unresolvable issues. If the State were put into an uncompromising situation with respect to its policies or authorities, it may decide that the incentives are not strong enough to keep it in the CZM program while maintaining the integrity of its goals and objectives. The SMA, Chapter 90.58.260, clearly states Washington's mandate in this regard, "90.58.260 STATE TO REPRESENT ITS INTEREST BEFORE FEDERAL AGENCIES, INTER-STATE AGENCIES AND COURTS: The State, through the Depart- ment of Ecology and the Attorney General, shall represent its interest before water resource regulation, management, development, and use agencies of the-United States, including among others, The Federal Power Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior, Department of Agri- culture, and the Atomic Energy Commission, before interstate agencies and the courts with regard to activities or uses of shore lines of the state and the program of this chapt6r. Where federal or interstate agency plans, activities or procedures conflict with state policies, all reasonable steps available shall be taken by the State to preserve the integrity of its policies." 122 Faced with this sort of conflict, a State might withdraw from the National CZM program and support its efforts with solely local resources. A review of other related Federal assistance programs and management policies indicates that States could achieve some of their coastal objectives utilizing other Federal programs, But that the unique managerial and integrative support contained in the CZMA would be diminished substantially, if not totally thwarted. Although untested, it is believed that the CZMA set up a process whereby such drastic measures could be avoided and where serious disagreements can be mediated. Section 307(b) states: "The Secretary shall not approve the management program submitted by a State pursuant to section 306 unless the views of Federal agencies principally affected by such program have been ade- quately considered. In case of serious disagreement between any Federal Agency and the state in the development of the program, the Secretary, in cooperation with the Executive Office of the Presi- dent, shall seek to mediate the differences." Section 307 Interim Regulations-have been established to provide guidance on matters that reach this potential impasse,but as a matter of practical fact, the CZM program is dependent for success upon reciprocal acceptance of intergove rnm ental cooperation as the basis for achieving National CZM goals. 123 WHICH VII. PROBABLEADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CANNOT BE AVOIDED While'an overall assessment of the probable effects would indicate the Washington coastal zone management program is environmentally beneficial, a number of potential adverse impacts can be identified. The regulations and controls deriving from the Master Programs and the State Management Program will assure that some areas will be developed more fully and more swiftly than if develop- ment were to proceed in a fragmented, less controlled fashion. This can result in the loss of environmental amenities associated with those resources. This will be offset by a corresponding increased protection of other areas and resources. The same program regulations and plans will reduce or restrict the usability of some lands; this may result in diminished value for some coastal property, with a loss to the property owner and a decrease in property taxes. Downzoning causes a disrup- tion to the property owners' current situation and future plans. Development pressures may increase on lands adjacent to@but immediately inland from the 200 foot shoreline permit zone, with possible degradation of environmental resources in that zone. Population and industrial growth will be limited to specific areas, with the result that both will ultimately become more densely concentrated. Development in urban and rural environment can be intensified increasing further pressure on and degradation of coastal resources. However, environmental guidelines and policies can in many cases minimize the adverse impacts' by imposing cer- tain conditions on the construction. The encouragement of public use of the conservancy and natural envirornnents may adversely impact the fragile nature of these shoreline areas. Landfills are prohibited from some areas but not all, and they are only discouraged for uses that are not shoreline dependent. There may be,particular circumstances in accordance with Sections 307(c)(3) and (d) of the CZMA, whereby Federal licenses, permits and projects will not be required to be consistent with the State's management program when based on the Secretary of 124 Commerce's findings that tAhese actions would be consistent with the purposes of the CZMA or necessany in the interest of national security. The impacts of some of these actions may be detrimental to -the envirorment. viii. RELATIONSHIP BE71WRq LOCAL SHORT-TEIW USES OF -11-fE FNVIROMT-NT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEIN01-f OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY' While approval of the proposed Slate Coastal 4" one Management program will restrict local, short-term uses.of the environment, it will also provide long-term assurance that the natural resources and benefits provided by the Washington coast will be available for.future use and enjoyment. This theme is central to the State and Federal programs. Without the implementation of rationally based land and water uae management programs .intense short-term uses and gains, such as provided by residential or indUstrial development, might be realized. However, such uses would most likely result in long-term restrictions on coastal resource use and benefit be- cause of degradation of the environment. Without proper manage- ment the traditional conflicts beLiveen coastal resource users residential, commercial, industrial, timber, recreational, and wildlife -- could be expected to occur. By providing a sound basis for decision-making, and by protecting the important s@@gments of the natu:fal system, the Management program will directly contribute to the,long-term maintenance of the environment. Public use and access preserves many options for future public use that may have been foreclosed without the program. it has often been the case that where 'restrictions are imposed on, say the area and type of development centemplated, that technical and innovative. improvements are generated, thereby bringing more returns fzom less opportunity. Implementation of the Pro gram will result in minimization of thie social costs which inevitably accompany environmentally destructive development and whose -mitigation requires public investment. IX. IRREVOCABLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITTMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BEIMPLOY1ENTED Natural Resources The approval of the State Coastal Zone Management Program, and implementation of the local goverment Master Programs, will lead certain areas of the Washington coastline to be intensely, and for all practical purposes, irrevocably developed. This is especially true for urban, and in many cases, rural environ- ments. Although not irrevocable, limitations have been put on timber and mineral extraction in the 200 foot resource boundary and the drilling for oil in Puget Sound and 1000 feet environs. Fiscal Resources There may be an irretrievable loss of tax revenue within the first tier of the coastal zone boundary but the loss may be offset within the second tier or still within the local govern- ment jurisdiction. There will be an increase in the resources (time, money, personnel) needed-to administer the Program for granting or denying permits and for enforcement. However, the Congress has seen fit to provide assistance to State and local governmi@nts to help in these matters. There will.be additional costs involved in rezoning existing land use categories to conform with the Master Program and the scquisition, develop- ment and operation of public areas'. 126 X. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS The State.DOE has actively encouraged and solicited participation by a variety of State and Federal agencies, local governments, special interest groups and the public at large during the prepara- tion and implementation of its Coastal Zone Management Program. A partial list of those involved includes representatives of all counties or county planning departments, all state agencies, and the following Federal agencies: EPA, FPC, FEA, Federal High- way Administration, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Bureau of,Indian Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey,,Maritime Adminis tration, Economic Development Administration, NOAA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense, Civil Preparedness Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Federal Regional Council. The State has established a Federal agency committee to assist in coordination.and coopera- tion in development of the program. As the State received Federal CZM funds to develop its Program, representatives.from the Office of Coastal Zone Management also met with a variety of Federal and.state agencies to ensure coordination. These included meetings, generally with the regional representatives, between OCZM and FEA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Soil Conservation Service, the Economic Development Administration, the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, the Federal Regional Council, and the Department of the Interior, HEW, HUD and Navy. Meetings were also held with the Puget Sound Governmental Conference and the Pacific Northwest National Seashore Alliance. In accordance with Section 306(c)(2) of the CZMA, the State began a process of coordinating its Program with all plans applicable to areas within the coastal zone. This was done at the local, State and,Federal levels of goverment. A sample @of the types of responses received are included in Appendix 9. In all cases, attempts were made to formalize communications. Meetings that were held with designated local goverment con- tacts brought out the following needs: 1. Need of an expert '@Hatline" the counties could use to bring the knowledge and experience of recognized.experts in various fields to bear on administrative problems.. A rapid response capability is desired. 127 2. More formalization o-f-E.coun,11-y permit systems. That is, ly-4 integration of the variotls local _Lssued permits to streamline the process. Corollary to this is a desire to increase the integration of State and Federal permit systems. This cculd mean additional refinement and support to the Environmental Coordina-IC-ion Act of 1973 (ECPA), the t coordination system. State's existing permi L 3. Leaal assistande. Often coLmty prosecutors are overloaded and lack experience in environmental law. 4. Enforcement and enforcement analysis assistance. There is not enough manpower available to check the results of t a permit ("Did the applicant do what he was told?") and to check the wisdom of permit decisions and conditions ("Did we make the applicant do the right things?") 5. Need for assistance.in hearings and need for more formaliza- tion of hearing. 6. Need for additional scientific data on critical areas, both in terms of location and tolerance to human activity. 7. Need for broader efforts at Public education. Newsletters, workshops, presentations, etc. 8. Some need for equipment, boats, etc. 9. Need for an encyclopedia of Zood development. 10, Most critical of all, counties must be supported and equipped in such a fashion that they will not have to be dependent on Federal fim&- forever. When CZM money runs out (guaranteed oniy three years) , the Program should not run out with it. These are items that -1ocai governments felt direct Section 306 assistance would be able to help. The State is attempting to meet these needs through large 'scale effoi I-ts and financial assistance. Tn addition, one of the three malor elements of DOE @rogram administration and implementat-Lon deals directly with program coordination. An exerpt from the IVCZZMP follows: "PROGRAM COORDINATION OBJECTIVES It is the objective of the Department to con- tinue to refine the processes and procedures for dealing with federal consistency and federal relationships generally to improve intra-state , agency and program coordination, and to maintain a strong state/local interrelationship. Federal Coordination There is a clear need for greater state/federal cooperation and understanding. There are four specific actions intended to be under taken fol- lowing program approval to meet this objective: 1. The preliminary packets sent to 43 federal agencies will be finalized in terms of informa- tional content and agreement as to the methods and procedures suggested in them. 2. 'Where seen as necessary, agreements between .individual federal agencies and the state will be developed to deal with matters not now addressed in the packets. Such agreements, specifically tailored to particular agencies and directed at specific issues, will ultimately be included as a part of the packets. kdditional effort will be undertaken to better coordinate agency policies from-a coastal zone management perspective. Also, specific ques- tions remain unanswered with some agencies in the area of consistency generally. An important activity to be undertaken is to clarify and formalize these issues in a manner acceptable to both the state and the affected agency. 4. The state will also build and enhance a special relationship with certain existing bodies which are ideally constituted to enhance coordination -for coastal.zone management needs. These are: (a) The Federal Regional Council, which can be helpful in coastal management as a federal "one-voice" on problems and is- sues that require a consensus for consis- tency purposes; 129' (b) The Pacific Northwest River Basins Com-. mission, which can be helpful from the standpoint of a joint federal/state focus on technical applications of standards and principles of multi-purpose character stemming from Water Resource Council mandates; and (c) The Pacific Northwest Regional Com- mission, which can be helpful as its pre- liminary plan evolves, to aid both state and federal "line operations" with coastal policy including criteria and constraints for both growth and energy questions. Packets are prepared for these three bodies, which can be developed into mechanisms for all forms of coordination serving federal agencies and the state in many instances, especially those involving concerns shared by a number of federal departments. State Coordination Aside from the important coordination measures needed for federal participation in coastal zone management, the state will take further action to coordinate coastal zone activity among state agencies. The objective in this case is the coordinated appli- cation of all relevent state efforts in the coastal zone. These actions will-be as follows:. 1. There is a continuing nL@,ed for restudy of the parent legislation for the components of the managerial network. Occasional gaps and over- laps in authorities have been.identified and will be examined in detail with recommendations for corrective legislation. 2. In light of coastal zone management, it is necessary to reevaluate arrangements between and among state agencies (through interagency agreements or other formal mechanisms) to make the roles and responsibilities of respective agencies more explicit and effective. 3. Agency study committees and ad hoc advisory committees will be assembled as the need arises to deal with multi-agency.concerns. 130 4. State agenqies currently involved in local shoreline master program review will continue to participate in the review of new programs as well as major amendments of,approved programs. 5. The use of state programs such as SEPA and ECPA (see Chapter III) will be emphasized in coordinating agency reviews of projects and proposals. 6. The Governor's Natural Resources Cabinet and other high level policy groups will be asked to deliberate.major policy considerations. 7. Other existing multi-agency entities such as the IAC and TPPSEC can provide coastal zone management coordination for specialized facil- ities in-the coastal zone such as recreation facilities and power plants, respectively, for the two groups cited. Local Coordination It is the role of the Department of Ecology to serve as an intermediary between federal and local entities within the context of the state's program. to insure that both federal and local interests are fully considered by each party and that all attempts will be made to achieve an equitable arrangement that is mutually satisfactory. Actions to be taken to achieve local coordina tion with state, federal and other local entities are as follows: 1. Meetings-of.loc.@I-citizen advisory@and tech- nical committees, which are composed of rep- resentatives for a broad spectrum of interests who meet to discuss issues in refining local shoreline programs, will continue. 2. The integration of other local planning efforts into the shoreline programs will be undertaken by a substantial number of local jurisdictions. 3. Emphasis will be placed on multi-jurisdictional approaches to program implementation so that coastal resources shared by more than one local 'goverment can be dealt with by all concerned entities. 4. The roles of the Washington State Association of Counties and the Association of Washington Cities, which are now staffed and charged with providing CZM/91A assistance and coordination for all of their members, will be continued. 5. Periodic workshops and seminars, sponsored by DOE and/or the associations, will provide for the discussion of coastal zone management issues. 6. Revisions and corrections of local master programs will continue to be made so that the program components for adjoining juris- dictions are made compatible, emerging issues are addressed and administration is improved generally. 132 REFERENCES Bish, Robert L., et. al. Coastal Resource Use Decisions on Puget Sound, Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washingtoh Press, Seattle, 1975. Crutchfield, James A., et. al. 1969. Final report. Socioeconomic, Institutional, and Legal Considerations in the Manage- ment of Puget Sound. University of Washington. FWCA Contract No. 14-12-420. Environmental Quality Committee, Young Lawyers Section of the American Bar Association, et. al;, Shoreline Management: The Washington Experience Proceedings of a Symposi=, Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington Press. Seattle, 1972. Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, 1973, Grays Harbor Erosion Management Study. McCrea, M. and J. Feldman,. Washington State Shoreline Management - An 'Interim Assessment. Washington Sea Grant.Program, Grant No. 04-3-158-42, August 1975. Odum, H. T., et. al. Editors, 1974. Coastal Ecological Systems of Ahe United States. Conservation Foundation, Wash- ington, D. C. 4 volumes. Oregon State University, 1971. Oceanography of the Nearshore Coastal Waters of the Pacific Northwest Relating to Possible Pollution. Water Quality Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Administrationj 2 volumes. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, (1969). Columbia - North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study of Water and Related Lands. Appendix XVI. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, 1970. National Estuary Study, U.S. Goverrment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 7 7 volumes. Washington, State of, Department of Ecology, 1 976, Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. Washington, State of, Department of Ecology, 1975, Baseline Study Program; North Puget Sound An Interim Report to the 44t1h Legislature. Washington, State of, Department of Natural Resources, 1974. Wash- ington Marine Atlas, 6 volumes. Washington, State of, Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management, 1974. Pocket Data Book, 1973. Washington, State University, 1972. Oil on Puget Sound, An Interdis- ciplinary Study in Systems Engineering. Washington Sea Grant Publication, University of Washington Press. 629 pages. Washington, King County Shoreline Management Master Program, DEIS, Department of Budget and Program Planning. December 3, 1975. 134 APPENDIX I COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) of 1972 0 (Coastal Zone Act) Public Law 92-583 92nd Congress, S. 3507 October 27, 1972 An act 86 STAT, 1280 To establish a national policy and develop a national program for the manage- ment, beneficial use, protection, and development of the land and water resources of the Nation's coastal zones and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the act entitled Marine Re- "An Act to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated sources and Engineering national program in marine science, to establish a National Council Development Development Marine Resources and Engineering Development, and a Commission Act of 1966, amendment. on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, and for other pur- poses", approved June 17. 1966 (So Stat. 203), as amended (33 U.S.C. 80 Stat. 998 1103-1124), is further amended by adding at the end thereof the fol- 84 Stat. 865. lowing new title: TITLE III-MANAGEMENT OF THE COASTAL ZONE SHORT TITLE SEC. 301. This title may be cited as the "Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972". CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS SEC. 302. The Congress finds that- (a) There is a national interest in the effective management, bene- ficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone; (b) The coastal zone is rich in a varietv of natural, commercial, rec- creational, industrial, and esthetic resources of immediate and potential value to the present and future well-being of the Nation; (c) The increasing and competing demands and upon the lands and waters of our coastal zone occasioned by population growth and eco- nomic development, including requirements for industry, commerce, residential development, recreation, extraction of mineral resources and fossil fuels, transportation and navigation, waste disposal, and har- vesting of fish, shellfish, andother living marine resources, have resulted in the loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use, ,and shoreline erosion; (d) The coastal zone, and the fish, shellfish, other living marine resources,and wildlife therein, are ecologically fragile and conse- quently extremely vulnerable to destruction by man's alterations; (e) Important ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values in the coastal zone which are essential to the well-being of all citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost; (f) Special natural and sceniccharactoristics are being damaged by ill-planned development that threatens these values; (g) In light of competing demands and the urgent need to protect and to give high priority to natural systems in the coastal zone, pres- sent state and local institutional arrangements for planning , and regu- lating land and water uses in such areas are inadequate; and (h) The key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over the lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the states in cooperation with Federal and local governments and other vitally affected interests in developing land and water use programs for the coastal zone including unified policies,criteria, standards, methods, and processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance. 0 Pub. Law 92-583 2 October 27, 1972 DECLARATION OF POLICY SEC. 303 The Congress findsand declares that it is the national policy (a) to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations, (b) to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the devel- opment and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of tile land and water resources of the coastal zone giving full consideration to ecological, cultural,historic, and esthetic values as well as needs for economic development. (c) for all Federal agencies engaged in programs affecting the coastal zone to cooperate and par- ticipate with state and local governments and regional agencies in the purposes of this title and (d) to encourage the par- ticipation of the public,of Federal, state and local governments and ofregional agencies in the development of coastal zone management programs. With respect to implementation of such management pro- grams it is the national policy to encourage cooperation among the state and regional agencies including establishments of inter- state and regional agreements, cooperative procedures, and joint action particularly regarding environmental problems. DEFINITIONS SEC 304. For the purposes of this title-- (a) "Coastal zone" means the coastal waters (including thelands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein and thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and in proximity to the shorelines of the several coastalstates, and includes transitional and material areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The zone extends, in Great Lakes waters, to the international bound- ary between the United States and Canada and, in other areas, seaward to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea. The zone extends inland from the shorelines to the extent necessary to control shorelands, thhe uses of which have direct and significant impact on the coastal waters. Excluded from the coastal zone are lands the use of which is by law subject solelyto the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government annd its agents. (b) "Coastal Waters" means (1) in the Great Lakes area, the waters within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States consisting of the Great Lakes, their connecting waters, harbors, , and estuary-type areas such as bays, shallows,and marshesand (2) in other areas, those waters, adjacent to the shorelines, which contain a measurable quantity ot percentage of sea water, including, but not limited to, sounds, bays, lagoons, bayous, ponds, and estuaries. (c) "Coastal state" means a state of the United States in, or bor- dering on the Atlantic,Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound, or one or more of the GreatLakes. For the pur- poses of this title, the term also includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. (d) "Estuary" means that part of a river or stream orother body of water having unimpaired connection with the open sea, where the sea water is measurably dilated with fresh water derived from land drainage. The term included estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes. (e) "Estuarine sanctuary" means a research area which may include any part or all of an estuary, adjoing transitional areas, and adja- cent uplands, constituting to the extent feasible a natural unit. set October 27, 197Z 3 Pub. Law 9Z-583 86 STAT. 1282 aside to provide scientists and students file opportunity to examine over a period of time the ecological relationships within the area. f) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Commerce. "Management program" includes, but is not limited to, a com- prehensive statement in words, maps, illustrations, or other media of communication, prepared and adopted by the state iii accordance with the provisions of this title, setting forth objectives, policies, and stand ards to guide public and private uses of lands and waters in the coastal zone. (h) "Water use" means activities which are conducted in or oil the water; but goes not mean or include the establishment of any water quality standard or criteria or the regulation of the discharge or runoff of water pollutants except the standards, criteria, or regulations which am incorporated in any program as required by the provisions of section 307(f). (i) "land use" means facilities which are conducted in or on the shorelands within the coastal zone, subject to the requirenients out- lined in section 307(g). MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GRANTS SEC. 305. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make annual grants to any coastal state for the purpose of assisting in the development of it management program for the land and water resources of As coastal zone. (b) Stich management program shall include: (1) an identification of the boundaries of the coastal zone sub- ject to the management program; (2) a definition of what shall constitute permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and signifi- cant impact on the coastal waters; (a) all inventory and designation of areas of particular con- cern within the coastal zone; (4) an identification of the means by which file state proposes to exert control over the land and water uses referred to in para- graph (2) of this subsection, including a listing of relevant con- stitutional provisions, legislative enactments, regulations, and judicial decisions-, (5) broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular areas. including specifically those uses of lowest priority; (6) a description of the organizational structure proposed to implement the management program, including the responsibli- ties and interrelationships local, areawide,state, regional, and interstate agencies in the management process. (c) The grants shall not exceed 662/3% per centum of the costs of the Limitation. program in any one year and no state shall be eligible to receive more than the annual grants pursuant to this, section. Federal funds received from other sources shall not be used to match such grants. In order to qualify for grants under this section, the state must reasonably demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such grants will be listed to develop a management program consistent with initial ments set forth in section 306 of this title. After making the initial grant to a coastal state, no subsequent grant shall be made under this section unless the Secretary finds that the state is satisfactorily devel- oping such management program. (d) Upon completion of the development of the state's management program, the state shrill submit such program to the Secretary for 1-3 86 STAT, 1283 Pub. Law 92-583 4 October 27, 1972 review and approval pursuant to the provisions of section 306 of this title, or such other action as he deems necessary. On final approval of such program by the Secretary, the state's eligibility for further grants under this section shall terminate, and the state shall be eligible for grants under section 306 of this title. Grants, (e) Grants under this section shall be allocated to the states based allocation, of rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary: Provided, however. That no management program development grant under this section shall be made in excess of 10 per centum nor less than 1 per centurm of the total amount appropriated to carry out the purposes of tills section. (f) Grants or portions thereof not obligated by a state during the fiscal year for which the were first authorized to be obligated by the state, or during the fiscal year immediately following, shall revert to the Secretary, and shall be added by him to the funds available for grants under this section. (g) With the approval of the Secretary, the state may allocate to a local government, to an areawide agency designated under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 80 Stat. 1262; 1966, to a regional agency, or to an interstate agency, a portion of the 42 Stat. 208. grant under this section, for the purpose of carrying out the provi- 42 USC 3334. sions of tills section. (h) The authority to make grants under this section shall expire on June 30, 1977. ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS Limitation SEC. 306 (a) The Secretary is authorized to make annual grants to any coastal state for not more than 66 2/3% per centum of the costs of administering the state's management program, if he approves such program in accordance with subsection (c) hereof. Federal funds received from other sources shall not be used to pay the state's share of costs. (b) Such grants shall not be allocated to the states with approved pro- grains based on ruled and regulations promulgated by the Secretary which shall take into account the extent and nature of the shoreline and area covered by the plan, population of the area and other rele- vant factors: Provided, however, That no annual administrave grant under this section shall be made in excess of 10 per centum nor less than I per centum of the total amount appropriated to carry out the pur- poses of tills section. Program requirements, (c) Prior to granting approval of a management problem submitted by a coastal state, the Secretary shall find that: (1) The state has developed and adopted a management program for its coastal zone in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary, after notice, and with the opportunity of full partici- pation by relevant Federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, regional organizations, port authorities, and other interested parties, public and private which is adequate to carry out the purposes of this title and is consistent with the policy declared in section 303 of this title. (2) The state has: (A) coordinated its program with local, areawide, and inter- state plans applicable to areas within the coastal zone existing on January 1 of the year in which the state's management program is submitted to the Secretary, which plans have been developed by a local government, an areawide agency designated pursuant to regulations established under section 204 of the Demonstration 1-4 October 27, 1972 5 Pub. Law 92-583 86 STAT, 1284 Cities and -Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, a regional 80 Stat. 1262 agency, or an interstate agency; and 82 Stat. 208 42 USC 3334. (B) established an effective mechanism for continuing con- suitation and coordination between the management agency desig- nated pursuant to paragraph (5) of this subsection and with local governments, interstate agencies, regional agencies, and areawide agencies within the coastal zone to assure the full participation of such local governments and agencies in carrying out the pur- poses of this title. (3) The state has held public hearings in the development of tile management program. (4) The management program and any change therto have been reviewed and approved by the Governor. (5) The Governor of the state has designated a single agency to receive and administer the grants for implementing the management program required under paragraph (1) of this subsection. (6) The state is organized to implement the management program required under paragraph (1 of this Subsection. (7) The state has the authorities necessary to implement the pro- gram, including the authority required under subsection (d) of this section. (8) The management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. (9) The managements program make provision for procedures whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of preserv- ing or restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values. (d) Prior to granting approval of the management program, tqhe Secretary shall find that the State, acting through its chosen agency or agencies, including local governments, areawide agencies designated under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, regional agencies, or interstate agencies, has authority for the management of the coastal zone in accordance with the mangement program. Such authority shall include power-- (1) to administer land and water use regulations, control devel- opment in order to ensure compliance with the management pro- gram, and to resolve conflicts among competing uses and (2) to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in lands, waters, and other property through condemnation or other means when necessary to achieve conformance with the manage- ment program. (e) Prior to granting approval, the Secretary shall also find that the program provides: (1) for any one or a combination of the following general tech- niques for control of land and water uses within the coastal zone; (A) State establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation, subject to administrative review slid enforce- ment of compliance; (B) Direct state land and water use planning and regula- tion: or (C) State administrative review for consistency with the management program of all development plans, subjects, or land and water use regulations, including exceptions and variances thereto proposed by any state or local authority or private developer, with provider to approve or disapprove after Public notice and within opportunity for hearings. 1-5 86 STAT. 1285 Pub. Law 92-583 6 October, 27, 1972 (2) for a method of assuring that local land and water use regulations within the coastal zone do not unreasonable restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit. (f) With the approval of the Secretary, a state may allocate to a local governemnt, an areawide agency designated under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 80 Stat. 1262; 1966, a regional agency, or an interstate agency,a portion of the grant 82 Stat. 208, under this section for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this 42 USC 3334, section: Provided. That such allocation shall not relieve the state of the responsibility for ensuring that any funds so allocated are applied in furtherance of such state's approved management program. Program (g) The state shall be authorized to amend the management pro- modification. gram. The modification shall be in accordance with the procedures required under subsection (c)of this section. Any amendment or modification of the program must be approved by the Secretary before additional administrative grants are made to the state under the pro- gram as amended. Segmental (h) At the discretion of, the state and with the approval of the development. Secretary, a management program may be developed and adopted in segments so that mmediate attention may be devoted to those areas within the coastal zone which most urgently need management pro- grams: Provided. That the state adequately provide for the ultimate coordination of the various Segments of the management program into a single unitied program and that the unified Program will be com- pleted as soon as is reasonably practicable. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND COOPERATION SEC. 307. (a) In carrying out his functions and responsibilities under this title, the Secretary shall consult with, cooperate with, and to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate his activities with other interested Federal agencies. (b) The Secretary shall not approve the management program sub- mitted by a state pursuant to section 306 unless the views of Federal agencies principally affect by such program have been adequately considered. In case of serious disagreement between any Federal agency and the state in the development of the program the Secre- tary, in cooperation with the Executive Office of the President, shall seek to mediate the differences. (c)(I) Each federal agency conducting or supporting activities direcly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or support those activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable consistent with approved state management programs. (2) Any Federal agnecy which shall undertake any development project in the coastal zone of a state shall insure that the project is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state mangement programs. Certification. (3) After final approval by the Secretary of a state's management program, any applicant for a required Fedearl license or permit to conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the coastal zone of that state shall provide in the application to the licensing or permit- ting agency a certification that the proposed activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. At the same time, the appli- cant shall furnish to the state or its designated agency a copy of the certification, with all necessary information and data. Each coastal state shall establish procedures for public notice in case of all such 1-6 October 27, 1972 7 Pub. Law 92-583 86 STAT. 1286 certifications and to the extent it deems approriate, procedures for public hearings in connection therewith. At the earliest practicable Notification time, the state or Its designated agency shall notify the Federal agency Concerned that tbe state concurs with or objects to the applicant's certification. If the state or its designated agency fails to furnish the required noticification within six months after receipt of its copy of the applicants's vertification, the state's concurrence with the certification shall be conclusively presumed. No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has con- curred with the applicant's certification or inall, by the state's failure to act, the concurrence is conclusively presumed unless the Secretary, on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after pro- viding a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments from the Fed- eral agency involved and from the state, that the activity consistent with the objectives of this title or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security. (d) State and local governments submitting applications for Fed- eral assistance under other Federal programs affecting the coastal zone shall indicate the views of the appropriate state or local agency as to the relationship of such activities to the approved management pro- gram for the coastal zone. Such applications shall be submitted and coordinated, In accordance with the provision of title IV of the Inter- trovernmental Coordination Act of 1968 (82 Stat 1098). Federal agen- 42 USC 4231. cies shall not approve proposed projects that are inconsistent with a coastal state's management program, except upon a finding by the Secretarv that such project is consistent with the purposes of this title or necessary in tbe interest of national security. (e) Nothing in this title shall be construed- (1) to diminish eitlier Federal or state jurisdiction, responsi- bility, or fights in the field of planning, devvlopment, or control of water resources, submerged land; or navigable waters, not to displace, supersede, limit, or nodify any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally established joint or common agency of two or more statvs or of two or more states and the Federal Government; nor to limit the authority of Congress toatithorize and find projects; (2) as superseding, modifying, or repealing existing laws appli- cable to the varions Federal agencles; nor to affect the jurisdiction, powers. or prerogatives of the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, the Permanent Engineering Board, and the United States operating entity or entities established plir- stiant to the Columbia River Basin Treaty, signed at Washington, Januarv 14. 1961, or the International Boundary and Water olli- mission, United States and Mexico. (f) Not withstanding any other provision of this title, nothing in this title shall in any way affect any requirement (1) established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended or the Clean Air Ante, P. 816. Act as amended or (2) established by the Federal Government or by 81 Stat. any state or local government pursuant to such Acts. Such require- 84 Stat- ments shall be incorporated in any program developed pursuant to 42 USC 1857 this title and shall be the water pollution control and air pollution control requirements applicable to such program. (g) When any state's coastal zone inanagenient program submitted for approval or proposed for modification pursuant to section 3086 of this title includes requirements as to shorelands which also would be subject to any Federally supported national land use program which may be hereafter enacted, the Secretary, prior to approving such pro- 1-7 86 STAT, 1267 Pub. Law 92-583 8 October 27, 1972 gram. shall obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, or such other Federal official as may be designated to administer the national land use program, with respect to that portion of the coastal zone management program affecting such Inland areas. PUBLIC HEARINGS SEC 308. At public hearings reQuired under this title must be announced at least thirty days prior to the hearing date. At the time of the annoucement, all agency materials pertinent to the hearings, including documents, studies, and other data, must be made available to the public for review and study. As similar materials are subse- fluently developed, they shall be made available to the public as they become available to the agency. REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE SEC. 309. (a) The Secretary shall conduct a continuing review of the management programs of the coastal states and of the performance of each state. financial (b) The Secretary shall have the authority to terminate any financial assistance, assistance extended under section 306 and to withdraw any unexpended termination portion of such assistance if (1 ) he determines that the state is failing to adhere to and is not justified in deviating from the program approved by the Secretary; and (2) the state has been given notice of the proposed termination and withdrawl and given an opportunity to present evidence of adherence or justification for altering its program. RECORDS SEC 310. (a) Each recipient of a grant under this title shall keep such records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including records which fully disclose the amount and disposition of the funds received under the grant, the total cost of the project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective audit. (b) The Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United Audit. States or any of their, duly authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, docu- ments, papers, and records of the recipient of the grant that are perti- nent to the determination that funds granted are used in accordance with this title. ADVISORY COMMITTEE Coastal Zone SEC 311.(a) The secretary is authorized and directed to establish Management a Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee to advise, consult Advisory with, andmake recommedations to the Secretary on matters of Policy Committee, concerning the coastal zone. Such committee shall be composed of not establishment; more than fifteen persons designated by the Secretary and shall per- membership. form such functions and operate in such a manner as the Secretary may direct. The secretary shall insure that the committee member- ship as a group possesses a broad range of experience and knowledge relating to problems involving management, use, conservation, pro- tection, and development of coastal zone resources. (b) Members of the committee who are not regular full-time Compensation, employees of the United States, while serving on the business of the travel ex- committee, including traveltime, may receive compensation at rates penses. not exceeding $100 per diem; and while so serving away from their I-8 October 27, 1972 9 Pub. Law 92-583 86 STAT 1288 homes or regular places of business may, be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 3, United States Code, for individuals in the Govern- 80 Stat. 499; ment service employed intermittently. 83 Stat. 190. ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES SFc. 312. The Secretary, in accordance will rules and regulations Grants, promulgated by him, is authorized to make available to a coastal state grants of up to 50 per centum of the costs of acuisition, development, and operation of estuarine sanctuaries for the purpose of creating natural field laboratories to gather data and make studies of the natural and human processes occurring within the estuaries of the Federal share. coastal zone. The Federal share of the cost for each such sanctuary shall not exceed $2,000,000. No Federal funds received pursuant to section 305 or section 30 shall be used for the purpose of this section. ANNUAL REPORT SEc. 313. (a) The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Presi- dent for transmittal to the Congress not later than November I of each year a report on the administration of this title for the preceding fiscal year. The report shall include but not be restricted to (1) in identifi- cation of the state programs approved pursuant to this title during the preceding Federal fiseal year and a description of those programs; (2) a listing of the states participating in the provisions of this title and a description of the stuttis of each state's programs and its accom- plishments during the preceding Federal fiscal year; (3) an itemiza- tion of the allocation of funds to the various coastal states and a breakdown of the major projects and areas on which these funds were expended; (4) an identification of any state programs which have been reviewed and disapproved or with respect to which grants have been terminated under this title, and a statement of the reasons for such action; (5) a listing of all activities and projects which, pursuant to the provisions of subsection(c) or subsection (d) of section 307, are not consistent with an applicable approved state management pro- gram: (6) a summary of the regiiiations issued by the Secretary or in effect during the preceding Federal fiscal year; (7) a sunirnary of a coordinated national. strategy and program for the Nations coastal zone including identification and discussion of Federal, regional, state and local responsibilities and functions therein, (8) a summary of outstanding problems arising in the administration of this title in order of priority; and (9) such other information as may be appro- priate. (b) The report reuired by subsection (a) shall contain such recom- mendations for additional legislation as the Secretary deenis nevessary to achieve the objectives of this title and enhance its effective operation. RULES AND REGULATIONS SEC. 314. The Secretary shall develop and promulgate, pursualit to section 5253 of title 5, 41 7nited States Code, after notice and oppor- 80 Stat. 383. tunity for full participation by relevant Federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, regional organizations, port authorities, and other interested parties, both public and private, such niles and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. 1-9 86 STAT. 1289 Pub. Law 92-583 10 October 27. 1972 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS SEC. 315. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated- (1) the sum of $9,000,000 for the fiscal -year ending June 30, 1973, and for each of the fiscal years 1974 through 1977 for grants under section 305, to remain available until expended; (2) such sums, not to exceed $30,000,000, for the fiscal year endi ng June 30, 1974, and for, each of the fiscal years 1975 through 1977, as may be necessary, for grants under section 306 to remain available until expended; and (3) such sums, not to exceed $6,000,000 for the fiscal year end- ing June 30, 1074, as may be necessary, for grants under section 312, to remain available until expended. (b) There are also authorized to be appropriated such sums, not to exceed $3,000,000, for fiscal year 1973 an for each of the four succeed- ing fiscal years, as may be necessary for administrative expenses incident to the administration of this title. Approved October 27, 1972. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 92-1049 acoompanying H.R. 14146 (Comm. on Mero Marine and Fisheries) and No. 92-1544 (Comm . of Conference). SENATE REPORT No. 92--753 (Comm. on Commerce). CONGRESSIONALRECORD, Vol. Il8 (1972): Apr. 25, considered and passed Senate. Aug. 2, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 14146. Oat. 12, House and Senate agreed to conferenoe report. WEEXLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. Sp No. 44; Oct. 289 Presidential statement. I-10 APPENDIX 2 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM APPROVAL REGULATIONS Reprinted from FEDERAL REGISTER THURSDAY, JANUARY 9,1975 WASHINGTON, D.C. Volume 40 Number 6 PART I DEPARTMENT OF C0MMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING federal register II-1 RULES. AND REGULATtON5 The regidations below set forth (a) was amended to reflect the requir2,en, criteria and procedures to be utilized In of the National Environmental tc- reviewing and approving coastal zone Act environmental Impact statemen management programs pursuant to sec- requirements. tion 306 of the Act, and (b) procedures 3. Several comments Indicated that the by which coastal States may apply to States did not have a clear understand- receive administrative grants under see- Ing as to what was mennt tinder � 923.11 tion 306(a) of the Act. The criteria and (b) (4) which refers to Federal lands sub- Procedures under (a) constitute the ject solely to the discretion of. or which "guidelines for section 306" referred to is held In trust by, the Federal govern- In 15 CPR 920. ment, its offIcers and agents. This section Tile National Oceanic and Atmospheric has been amended in order to provide a Administration is publishing herewith procedure for Identifying those lands the final regulations describing proce- which are within the framework of this dures for applications to receive admints- section. trative grants under section 306 of the 4. Several commentators indicated Act. The final regulations and criteria that there was uncertainty as to what the Published herewith were revised from the requirements of the national Interest proposed g-uldellnes based on the com- were pursuant to � 923.15. This section ments received. A total of thirty-two (32) has been amended In order to more suc- States, agencies. organizations and Indl- cinctly state what the requirements are victuals submitted responses to the pro- pursuant to this section and how a Posed section 306 guidelines published in State must meet these requirements dur- the FEDERAL REGISTER on August 21, 1974. ing the development and administration Of those responses received, nine (9) of its coastal zone management prograxrL were wholly favorable as to the nature At the request of several commentators, and content of the guidelines as they ap- sever-al additions have been made to the peared In the FEDERAL . REGISTER on list of requirements which are other than Aulgust 21, 1974. Twenty-three (23) com- local in nature. Title [email protected] and Foreign Trade mentators submitted suggestions con- 5. Several commientat-an indicated cerning the proposed Section 306 guide- that � 923.26, which pertains to the de- CHAPTER IX-NATIONAL OCEANIC AND lines. g-ree of State control needed W imple- ATMOSPHERIC ADMIMSTRATION The following analysis summarizes key mem a coastal zone management pro- -PART 923--COASTAL ZONE MANAGE- comments received on various sections gram. did not offer sufficient guidance In MENT PROGRAM APPROVAL REGULA- of the draft regulations and presents a Interpreting the legislation. In response TIONS rationale far the changes made: to these comments, � 923.26 has been ex- The National Ooeanic and Atmospheric 1. Several commentators asserted that panded to include specific examples of Administration (NOAA) on August 21, the giridelines did not adequately reflect how a State may implement this section 1974, proposed guidelines (origirw1ly the environmental considerations con- 6. Comments received indicate ther@ published as 15 CFR Part 923), pursuant tained In the Act. No changes were made was some misunderstanding in interpret- to the Coastal Zone Management Act of in response to these comments since the ing � 923.43. which deals with geographi-O 1972 (Pub. L. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280). guidelines more than adequately reflect cal segmentation. This section has been hereinafter referred to as the "Act," for the environmental concerns In the legis- subbtantially axnended in order to indl- the purpose of defining the procedures by lation as evidenced In part by the com- cate that Lhe segmentation issue refers to which States car. qualify to receive ad- ment section under 1 923.4: geographical segmentation of a State's ministrative grants under the Act. Management programs will be evaluated In coastal zone management program. The Written comments urere to be sub- the light of the Congressional findings and requirements for a State to receive ap- mitted to the Office of Coastal Zone Policies as contained in Section 302 and Sec- proval on a segmented basis are clearly Management, National Oceanic and At- tion 303 of the Act. These sections make It set forth in the amendment to the regu- mospheric Administration, before No- clear that CongTess, in enacting the legisla- IaLions. vember 22, 1974. and consideration has tlon, was connerned about the environmental 7. Extensive discussions have taken. degradation. damage to natural and scenic been given these comments. areas. loss of living ranrine resources and place with various elements of the U.S The Act recognizes that the coastal wildlife, decreasing open space for public use Flivironmental Protection Agency @ EPA) zone is rich in a variety of natural. com- and shoreline crosion being brought about by concerning the applicabilitY of air and merctal, recreational, industrial and population prowth and economic develop- water pollution requirements to the esthetic resources of immediate and po- ment@ The Act thus has a strong environ- development, approval and implerrien- tential value to the present and future mental thrust, stressing the 'urgent need to tation of State management programs protect and to give high priority to natural pun@uant to � 923.44 of the proposed reg- well-being of the nation. Present State ystenis In the coastal zone. and institutional arrangements for plan- 6 ulations. State coastal zone management ning and regulating land and water uses 2. Several comments were received on PrOgrflms have also been surveyed in or- in the coastal zone are often inadequate the necessity of the Secretary of Com- der to determine current and anticipated to deal with the competing demands and merce preparing and circulating an en- problems. issues and op por tuni ties asso- the urgent need to protect natural sys- vironmental Impact statement on each ciated with carrying out the require- tems In the ecologically fragile area. Sec- individual State application as required ments of section 307(f) of the Coastal tion 305 of the Act authorizes annual by @ 923.5. The National Environmental Zone Nfana,,ernent Act, and 4 923.44 of grants to any coastal State for the pur- Policy Act, 42 USC 4332, and imple- the draft approval regulations. Con- pose of assisting the State In the devel- menting regulations, 38 FR 20562. Augmst solidated EPA comments have been re- opment of a management progmm for 1' 1973. require an environmental lm- c(,Jvcd, together with State reviews, and the land and water resources of its pact statement be prepared and ir- one comment, from the private sector. coastal zone (development grant). Once culated on each individual State's ap- Specific clarifications and changes as a a coastal State has developed a manage- plication. An environmental Impact result of these reviews are contained in ment program, it is submitted to the See- statement shall be prepared on each in- f4 023-4@ 923.12. 923.32 and � 923.44 of retary of Commerce for approval and. if dividual State's application by the Sec- the-se regulations. approved. the State is then eligible under retary. primarily on the basis of an 8. One commentator objected to the Section 306 to receive annual grants for environmental assessment, and other amount of detail required in section 306 administering its management program relevant data, Prepared and submitted applications and the undue administra- (administrative grants). by the individual States. This section tive burden proposed pursuant to Sub- 11-2 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 RULES AND REGULATIONS Part F of the proposed regulations. 'Me AVTROnrrT: 86 Stat.'1280 (16 U.S.C. 1451- 305 of the Act, and which does not revisions attempt to both clarify and re- 1464). make the State eligible,for grants under duce those requirements, while still re- Subpart A--General Section 306 of the Act. quiring sufficient information for the "Use of regional beinefit" means a land Office. of Coastal Zone Management to � 923.1 Purpose- or water use that typically provides approve management Programs and (a) This part establishes criteria and benefits to a significant area beyond the make sound funding decisions. Procedures to be employed in reviewing boundaries of a single unit of the lowest Accordingly. having considered the and approving coastal zone management level of local, general-purpose govern- comments and other relevant informa- programs submitted by coastal States ment. tion, the Administrator concludes by and for the awarding of grants under � 923.3 Submission of management adopting the final regulations describing Section 306 of the Act. progra Ms. the Procedure for application to receive (b) The Act sets forth in sections 305, administrative grants under section 306 306 and 307 a number of specific re- ia) Upon completion of the develop- of the Act, as modified and set forth quirements which a management pro- ment of Its management program, a below. gram must fulfIll as it condition for ap- State shall submit the program to the proval by tile Secretary. These require- Secretary for review and final approval R'ffe@-tive date: January 8, 1975. ments are linked together as indicated in accordance with the provisions of Dtate,i: January 6, 1975. in the subparts which follow. Presenta- these regulations. A program submitted tion of tile Stale management progTam for final approval must comply with all ROSETIT M. WlTrTE. in a similar format is encouraged since of the provisions set forth in Subparts Administrator, National Oceanic it will enable more prompt and sys- A-E of this part, including, in partic- and AtMOSPILcric Administra- tematic review by the Secretary. How- War, Subpart C, which requires that cerm tion. ever. there is tic requirement that a tain authorities and plans of organiza- Subpart A-General State present its management program tion be in effect at the time of the sub- SLC. in the format which corresponds exactly mission. 9231 Pucpose. to the listing of categories below. The (b) Optionally, the State may submit 923.2 Definitions. broad categories are: Land and Water for the preliminary approval of the See- 428.3 Submission of management pro. Uses, Subpart B; Authorities and Orga- retary a program complying with the grants. 923,4 Evaluation of management pro. nization, Subpart C: Coordination, Sub- substantive requirements of this part, grams-generea. part D; and Miscellaneous, Subpart E. but for which the proposed authorities 923 5 Environmental impact assessment. Subpart F, Applications for Administra- and organization complying with the, Subpart O-Land and Water Uses tive Grants, deals with applications for provisions of Subpart C are not yet legal- administrative grants upon approval of ly effective. In reviewing a program sub- 123.10 General. State coastal zone management pro- mitted for preliminary approval, the P23-11 Boundary of the coastal zone. grams which will be subject to periodic Secretary may grant such approval sub- .)23.12 Permissible land and water itses. 923.13 Areas of particular concern. review by the Secretary in accordance ject to establishment of a legal zegime 923.14 Guidelines on priorities. with Section 309 of tile Act. In addition providing the authorities and organiza- 023 '16 National interest facilities. to providing criteria against which State tion called for in the program. If the 923.16 Area designation for preservation and coastal zone management programs can State elects this option, it shall continue regLoration. be consistently and uniformly Judged to be eligible for funding under Section 923.17 L.)cal,,regulatlons and uses of re- In the approval process and establish- 305 but it shall not yet be eligible for gif, al beneft. ing procedures for the application by funding under Section 306 of the Act Subpart C-Authoritics and Organization States for administrative grants, it is until such time as its program is finally 923.20 General. the intent of this part to provide guid- approved. Upon a showing by the State 923.21 INTeans of exerting State control over nrice to coastal States in the develop- lond and water uses. that authorities and organization neces- 923.22 Organizational structure to tmple-- ment of management programs. There- sary to implement the program which ment the management program. fore, many of the sections dealing with has received preliminary approval are in 923.23 Designation of a single agericy. approval requirement in the subparts effect, final approval shall be granted. 923.24 Authorities to administer land and are followed by a "comment" which re- Comment. The purpose of the optional water uses, control development fers to a section or sections of the Act procedure is to provide a State with an oiam - aiid resolve confLicts. and. indicates the interpretation placed portunit7 for Secretarial review of its pro- )23.25 Authorities for property acquisition. upon tile requirements of the Act or the grant before State legislation Is enacted to 923 2G Techniques for control of land and regulation by the Secretary. put the program Into legal effect. Some water uses. States may prefer not to utilize the optional Subpart D-Coordination 9123.29 Definitions. procedure, especially those which have leg- 023.30 General. In addition to the terms defined in, islative authority enabling the coastal zone 923.3 1 Full participation by relevant bodies the Act and 15 CFR 920.2, the following agency of the State to put the progrAm Into in the adoption of management terms shall have the meanings indicated effect by administrative Fiction. in an7 event, programs. below: the Office of coastal zone h1anagement will I be available for consultation durint; alt 92132 Consultation and coordination with -nnal approval" means. with respect other planning. to a coastal zone management program. phases of development of the program. Subpart E-Miscollansous approval of a program which terminates (c) States completing the require- @23.40 General. the eligibility of the State for grants ments set forth in Subpart B-Land and 923.41 Public hearings. tinder Section 305 of the Act and makes Water Uses, and Subpart D--Coordina- 923.42 Gubernatorial review and approval. the State eligible for grants under Sec- tion, will be deemed to have fulfilled the D23.43 Segmentation. tion 306 of the Act. In cases where a statutory requirements associated with 923.40 Applicability of air and water pollu- State has elected to follow the geo- each criteria. If, however, a State chooses tion control requirements. graphical segmentation option pursuant to adopt alternative methods and pl-DCe- Subpart F-Applications for Administrative to � 923.43, final approval will appM dures, which are at least as comprellen- 923.50 , General. Grants only to that specific geographical se.- sive as the procedures set forth below, 923.51 Administration of the program. ment. The State will continue to remain for fulfilling those statutory require- 923.52 State responsibility. eligible for development grants pursuant ments contained in Subpeats B and D, 923.53 Allocation, to Section 305 of the Act for the re- they may do so upon prior written ap- 923.54 Geographical segmentation. mainder of the State's coastal zone. proval of the Secretary. The States are 923.55 Application for the initial adminis- "Prelimiriary approval" means, with encouraged to consult with the Office of trative grant. 923.56 Approval of applications. respect to a coastal zone management Coastal Zone Management as early as 923.57 Amendments. program, approval ofa program which possible. 92358 Applications for second and subse- does not terminate the eligibility of the Comment. The thrust of the Act Is to en- quent year grants. State for further grants under Section courage coastaL States to exercise their full H-3 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 RULES AND REGULATIONS 1685 authority over the lands and waters in the Congress, In enacting the legislation, was and considered. In this connection develop coastal zone by developing land and water concerned about the environmental degrada- ments outside the coastal zone may often use programs for the zone, Including uni- tion, damage to natural and scenic areas, loss have a significant impact within the coast fied policies, criteria, standards, methods of living marine resources and wildlife, de- zone and create a range of public prb and processes for degling with land and creasing open space for public use and shore- and Issues which must be dealt with in the water uses of more than local significanice. line erosion being brought about by popula- coastal zone management program. While the Act mandates a State to meet spe- tion growth and economic development. The The Secretary encourages the States to cific statutory requirements in order for the Act trus has a strong environmental thrust, develop objectives toward which progress can State to be eligible for administrative stressing the urgent need to protect and to be measured and will review program sub- It does not require the State to follow spe- giving high priority to natural systems in the missions in this light. While it is recognized cific processes in meeting those require- coastal zone. A close working relationship that many essential coastal zone manage- ments. The Secretary will review any State between the agency responsible for the ment objectives are not uantifiable (e.g. management program that meets the re- coastal zone management program and the public aspirations, "quality of life"), others quirements contained In Subparts B and D agencies responsible for environmental pro- are, and should be set forth in measurable in addition to the other subparts contained tection is vital in carrying out this legis- terms where feasible (e.g. shore erosion, herein. lative intent. States are encouraged by the beach access, recreational demand, energy Act to take into account ecological, cultural, facility requirements).Identifying and an- � 923.4 Evaluation of management pro- historic and esthetic values as well as the alyzing problerms and issues in measurable grams-general. need for economic development in preparing terms during the program development phase (a) In reviewing Management pro- and implementing management programs will facilitate the formulation of measur- through which the States, with the partici- able objectives as part of the approval sub- grams submitted by a coastal State pur- pation of all affected interests and levels of mission. suant to � 923.3. -the Secretary will eval: government exercise their full authority over uate not only all of the individual pro Coastal lands and waters. � 923.5 Environmental impact assess- gram elements required by the Act and Further assistance in the intent ment. set forth in Subparts B-E of this part, of the Act may be found in the Congression- Individual environmental impact but the objectives and policies of the al Committee Reports associated wlth the statements will be prepared and circu- State program B-E as well to assure that they passage of the legislation Senate Report 92- .753 and House Report 92-1049). It is clear lated by NOAA as an integral part of the are consistent with national policies de- from these reports that Congress intended review and approval process for State clared in Section 303 of the Act. management programs to be comprehensive coastal zone management programs pur- (b) Each progam submitted for ap- and that a state must consider all subject suant to the National Environmental proval shall contain a statement of prob- areas which pertinent to the particular Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 USC 4321 lems and issues, and objectives and poli- circumstances which prevail in the State. A et se) and its Implementing regulations. cies. The statements shall address: comprehensive program should have con- The Administrator of NOAA will circu- (D) Major problems and issues, sidered at least the following representative late an environmental Impact statement within and affecting the State's coastal elements: (1) Present laws, regulations, and appli- prepared primarily on the basis of an en- zone; cable programs for attainment of air and vironmental impact amessment and other (2) Objectives to be attained in inter- water quality standards, on land and water relovant data submitted by the individual agency and intergovernmental coopera- uses and on environmental management by applicant States. tion, coordination and instructional ar- all levels of govemment: rangements; and enhancing manage- (2) Present ownership patterns of the land Subpart 8---Land and Water Uses ment capability involving issues and and water resources. Including administra- � 923.10 General. troblem identification, conflict resolu- tion & publicly owned properties; (a) This subpart deals with land and (3) Present populations and future trends, tion, regulation and administrative effi including assessments of the impact of pop- water uses in the coastal zone which are clency at the state and local level: ulation growth on the coastal zone and es- subject to the management program. (3) Objectives of the program in pres- trarine environments: (b) in order to provide a relatively ervation, protection, development, resto- (4) Present uses, known proposals for simple framework upon which discus- ration and enhancement of the States changes and long-term requirements of the sion of the speeift requirements asso- coastal zone-, coastal zone: (4) Policies for the protection and co (5) Energy generation and transmission; ciated with this subpart may proceed, it may be helpful to categorize the vari- (6) Estuarine habitats of fish, shellfish and servation of coastal zone natural sys- wildlife: ous types of land and water uses which tems, cultural, historic and scentific areas, (7) Industrial needs: the Act envisions. renewable and non-renewable resources, (8) Housing requirments; (1) The statutory definition of the and the preservation, restoration and (9) Recreation, including beaches, parks, landward portion of the coastal zone economic development of selected coastal wildllife preserves, sport fishing, swimming states that it "extends inland from the zone areas. and pleasure boating: (10) Open space, including educational shorelines only to the extent necessary and natural preserves, scenic beauty, and (c) The Secreetary will review the to control shorelands, the uses of which management prograni for the adequacy public access, both visual and physical, to have a direct and significant impact on of State procedures utilized in its devel- coastline, and coastal estuarine areas; the coastal water." Thus the coastal opment and will consider the extent to (11) Mineral resources requirements; zone will include those lands and only which its various elements have been (12) Transportation and navigation needs; those lands where any existing, pro- integrated into a balanced and compre- (13) Floods and food damage prevention, jected or potential use will have a "di- hensive program designed to achieve the erosion (including the effect of tides and cur- rect and significant impact an the coastal rents upon beaches and other shoreline above objectives and policies. areas), land stablity climatology and me- waters." Any such use will be subject to Comment. Evaluation of the statutory re- teorology: the terms of the management program, utrements established in this subpart will (14) Communication facilities: pursuant to Section 305(b) (2). concentrate primarily upon the adequacy of (15) Commercial fishing and (2) There mav well be uses of certain State processes in dealing with key coastal (16) Requirements for protecting water lands included within the coastal zone problems and issues, it will not in general, quality and other important natural re- which wi11 not have such "direct and sig- deal with the wisdom of specific land and sources. nificant lmpact." Such uses may be sub- water use decisions but rather with a determi- The list of considerations is not meant to be ject to regruintion by local units of gov- mination that in addressing those problems exclusive, nor does it mean that each con- ernment within the framework of the and issues, the State is aware of the full sideration must be given equal weight. State management program. range of present and potential naeds and initiative to determine other relevant factors (3) The Act also requires that man- uses of the coastal zone, and has developed and consider them in the program is essen- tial to the management of the coastal zone agement programs contain a mehtod of procedures, based upon scientific knowladge, public participation and unilled govern- as ervisioned by Congress. assuring that local land and water use mental policies, for making reasoned choices In assessing programs submitted for ap- regulations within the coastal zone do and decisions. proval, the Secretary. In consultation with not unreasonably restrict or exclude Management programs will be evaluated in other concerned Federal agencies, will ex- the light of the Congressional findings wald amine such programs to determine that the land and water uses of regional benefit. policies as contained in Sections 30M and 36M full range of public problems and issues af- This requirement is described more fully of the Act. These sections make it clear that fecting the coastal zone have been identified in � 923.17. 11-4 FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 40, NO. 64-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 RULES AND REGULATIONS (c) As part of the State's manage- the Act regardless of whether those uses (3) A State's coastal zone must in- ment program. it must address and ex- are found. upon emalystq, to be "Per- clude transitional and Intertidal areas, ercise authority over the following: missible." The coastal zone must include salt marshes, wetlands and beaches. (1) Land and water uses which have within it those lands which have any Hence the boundary determination pro- a direct and significant Impact upon existing, projected or potential uses cedure must include a method of Identi- coftstal waters. These uses are described which have a direct and significant im- fying such coastal features. In no case. more fully in 1923.12. pact upon the coastal waters and over however, will a State's landward coastal (2) Areas of particular concern. See- which the terms of the management zone boundary, include only such areas tion 305(b) (3) specifies that the man- program will be exercised. In some in the absence of application of the pro- agement program Include an inventory States, existing regulations controlling cedure called for herein or In 1923.43. and designation of areas of particular shoreland uses apply only in a strip of (4) Since the coastal zone excludes concern within the coastal.zone. Section land of uniform depth (e.g. 250 feet, lands the use of which is by law subject 923.13 deals more thoroughly with this 1,000 yards, etc.) behind the shoreline. solely to the,discretion of, or which Is statutory requirement. Such areas must Such a boundary *ill be acceptable if held in trust by the Federal government, be considered of Statewide concern and It approximates a boundary developed itg officers and agents, the coastal zone must be addressed In the management according to the procedure outlined boundary must Identify such lands which program. above and extends Inland sufficiently for are excluded from the coastal zone. In (3) Siting of facilities necessary to the management program to control order to complete this requirement, the meet requirements which are other than lands the uses of which have a direct State should indicate those FederallY local in nature. The management pro- and significant impact upon coastal owned lands, or lands held in trust by the gram must take "adequate consideration waters. States may wish, for administra- Federal government. and over which the of the national interest involved In the tive convenience, to designate political State does not exercise jurisdiction as to siting of facilities necessary to meet re- boundaries, cultural features, property 'use. In the event that a State falls'to quirements which are other than local lines or existing designated planning and Identify lands held by an agency of the In nature'. (Section 306 (c) (8) ). This re- envtronmental control areas, as bound- Federal government as excluded lands, quirement is more fully discussed in aries c& the coastal zone. While the Sec- and the agency, after review of the pro- 1923.15. retary will take into account the desir- gram under Section 307(b). is of the 923.11 Boundaries of the coastal zone. ability of identifying a coastal zone opinion that such lands should be ex- which is easily regulated as a whole, the cluded, the disagreement will be subject (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill selection of the boundaries of the coastal to the mediation process set forth In said the requirement contained in Section 305 zone must bear a reasonable relation- section. (b) (1). the management program must ship to the statutory requirement. Noth- show evidence that the State has devel- ing In this part shall preclude a State 1923.12 Permissible lead and water oped and applied a procedure for Iden- from exercising the terms of the man- uses. tifying the boundary of the State's agement program in a landward area (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill coastal zone meeting the statutory defl- more extensive than the coastal zone the requirements contained In Section nition of the coastal zone contained In called for In this part, If such a course 3051b) 121, the management must show Section 304(a). At.a minimum this pro- is selected, the boundaries of the coastal evidence that the State has developed cedure should result in: zone must nevertheless be identified as and applied a procedure for defining (1) A determination of the inland above and the provisions of the Act will "Permissible land and water uses within boundary required to control, through be exercised only In thedeflned coastal the coastal zone which have a direct and the management program, shorelands zone. It should be borne in mind that the significant impact upon the coastal wa- the uses of which have direct and sig- boundary should include lands and ters," which includes, at a minimum: nificant impacts upon coastal waters, waters which are subject to the manage- (1) a method for relating various ape- (2) A determination of the extent of ment program. This means that the cific land and water uses to Impact upon the territorial sea, or where applicable, policies, objectives and controls called coastal waters, Including utilization of of State waters in the Great Likes, for in the management program must be an operational definition of "direct and (3) An identification of transitional capable, of being applied consistently significant impact." and Intertidal areas, salt marshes, wet- within the area. The area must not be so (2) an inventory of natural and man- lands and beaches. extensive that a fair application of the made coastal resources. (4) An identification of all Federally management program becomes difficult (3) an analysis or establishment of owned lands, or lands which are held In or capricious, nor so limited that lands a method for analysis of the capability trust by the Federal government, UA of- strongly influenced by coastal waters and suitability for each type of resource fleers and agents in the coastal zone and and over which the management pro- and application to existing. projected or over which a State does not exercise any gram should reasonably apply, are Potential uses. control as to use. excluded. (4) an analysis or establishment of a (b) Comment. Statutory citation: See- Q) Inasmuch as. the seaward bound- method for analysis of the environmen- tion 305 (b) (1) : . ary of the coastal zone Is established in tal Impact of reasonable resource utill- Such management pro the Act, the States will be requira-d to zatlons. gram shall Include (b) Comment. Statutory citation: an Identification of the boundarles of utilize the statutory boundary, i.e. in the Section 305 (b) (2) the coastal zone subject to the man ein ut Great Lakes, the international bound- programs. ary, between the United States and Can- Such management program shall Include ada, and elsewhere the outer limits of the 0 1 a definition of what shall constitute Useful background information con- United States territorial sea. At present, permissible land and water uses within the cerning this requirement appears In Part astal zone which have a direct and sig- this limit is three nautical miles from the cocent impact upon the coastal waters. 920.11. which Is Incorporated Into this appropriate baseltnes recognized by In- n part by reference. ternational law and defined precisely by Useful background information concern- (1) The key to successful completion the United States. In the event of a stat- Ing this requirement appears in 15 CFR of this requirement lies in the develop- utory change in the boundary of the ter- 920.12. which is Incorporated into this ment and use of a procedure designed to ritorial sea, the question of whether a part by reference. Completion of this re- Identify the landward extent of the corresponding change in coastal zone quirement should be divided into two coastal zone. Included in this procedure boundaries must be made, or will be distinct elements: a determination of must be a method for determining those made by operation of law, will depend on those land and water uses having a di- "shorelands, the uses of which have a the specific terms of the statutory change rect and significant impact upon coastal direct and significant impact upon the and cannot be resolved In advance. In waters, and an identification of such coastal waters." These uses shall be con- , sidered the same as the "land and water be waters of Lake Michigan, the bound- uses which the State deems permissible. uses" described in � 923.12, reflecting the ary shall extend to the recognized bound- (1) Section 305(b) (4). In Identifying requirements of Section 305(b) (2) of aries with adjacent States. those uses which have a "direct and sig- FEDEr!Al RMISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 0 RULES AND REGULATIONS 1687 surrounding resource utilization and Useful background information concern- nificant impact," the State should define that phrase in operatitonal terms that which will have a tolerable impact ing the requirement appears in 15 CFR can be applied uniformly and consist- upon the environment. These analyses, 920.13, which is incorporated here by ently, and should develop a method for In part, will be provided through exist- reference. It should be emphasized that relating various uses to impacts upon ing information on environmental pro- the basic purpose of inventorying and coastal waters. Existing, projected and faction programs, and would be sup- designating areas of particular concern potential uses should be analyzed as to plemented to the extent necessary for within the coastal zone is to express some the level and extent of their impact, be determining the relationship between measure of Statewide concern about it adverse, benign or beneficial, intra- land uses and environmental quality. them and to include them within the state or interstate. These impacts should Where a State prohibits a use within purview of the management program. then be assessed to determine whether the coastal zone, or a portion thereof, it Therefore, particular attention in re- they meet the definition of "direct and should identify the reasons for the pro- viewing the management program will be significant Impact upon coastal waters." hibition, citing evidence developed In directed toward development by the State (These are the ones by which the bound- the above analyses. It should be pointed of implementing policies or actions to aries of the coastal zone are defined.) out that uses which may have a direct manage the designated areas of particu- Those uses meeting that definition are and significant impact on coastal lar concern. automatically subject to control by the waters when conducted close to the � 923.14 Guidelines on priority of uses. management program. shoreline may not have a direct and (2) In determining which land and significant impact when conducted (a) Requirement. The management water uses may be deemed permissible, further inland. Similarly, uses which program shall include broad policies or a State should develop a method for as- may be permissible in a highly indus- guidelines governing the relative priori- suring that such decisions are made in trialized area may not be permissible in ties which will be accorded in particular an objective manner, based upon evalua- a pristine marshland. Accoridingly, the areas to at least those permissible land tion of the best available information definition may also be correlated with and water uses identifled pursuant to concerning land and water capability and the nature (including current uses) and 923.12. The priorities will be based upon suitability. This method should inlude location of the land on which the use is an analysis of State and local needs as at a minimum: to take place. The analyses which the well as the effect of the uses on the area. State will undertake pursuant to this Uses of lowest priority will be specifically (I) An inventory of significant natural section should also be useful in satisfy- stated for each type of area. and man-made coastal resources, includ- ing the reuirements of J 923.13 through (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- ing but not limited to, shorelands, 923.17. tion 305(b)(5) beaches, dunes, wetlands, uplands, bar- rier islands, waters, bays, estuaries, har- � 923.13 Areas of particular concern. Such management program shall in- clude ... broad guidelines on priority of bors and their associated facilities. This (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the uses in particular areas, including specifically should not be construed as requiring requirements contained in Section 305 those uses nt lowest priority. long-term, continuing research and base- (b)(3), the management program rotist line studies, but rather as providing the As pointed out in 15 CFR 920.15, the show evidence that the State has made priority guidelines will set forth the basic information and data critical to an inventory and designatlon of areas successful completion of a number of re- degree of State interest in the preserva- of particular concern within the coastal tion, conservition and orderly develop- quired management program elements. zone. Such designations shall be based States are encouraged, however, to con- upon a review of natural and man-made ment of specific areas Including at least tinue research and studies as necessary coastal zone resources and uses, and those areas of particular concern identi- to detect early warnings of changes to upon consideration of State-established fled in 923.13 within the coastal zone, coastal zone resouxces. It is recognized criteria which include, at a minimum, and thus provide the basis for regulating land and water uses in the coastal zone, that in some States a complete and de- those factors contained In 15 CFR 920.13 tailed inventory of such resources may namely: as well as a common reference point for be expensive and time consuming in re- (1) Areas of uniue, scarce, fragile or resolving conflicts. Such priority guide- lation to the value of information vulnerable natural habitat, physical fea- lines will be the core of a successful gathered in the development of the man- ture, historical significance, cultural management program since they will agement program, Much information. of value and scenic importance; provide a framework within which the course, already exists and should be in- (2) Areas of high naturea productiv- State, its agencies, local governments tegrated into the inventory. The Secre- ity or essential habitat for living re- and regional bodies can deal with tary, in reviewing this particular sources, including fish, wildlife and the specihc proposals for development activ- reuirement, will take into account the various trophic levels in the food web ities in various areas of the coastal zone. nature and extent of the State's coast- critical to their well-being: In order to develop such broad guidelines, line, the funding available and existing (3) Areas of substantial recreational the management program shall indicate data sources. value and/or opportunity; that a method has been developed and (11) An analysis or establishment of (4) Areas where developments and applied for (1) analyzing State needs which can be met most effectively and a method for analysis of the capabil- facilities are dependent upon the utiliza- ities of each resource for supporting tion of, or access to, coastal waters; efficiently through land and water uses various types of uses (including the (5) Areas of uniue geologic or topo- in the coastal zone, and (2) determining capability for sustained and undimin- graphic significance to industrial or com- the capability and suitability of meeting ished yield of renewable resources), as mercial development; these needs in specific locations in the well as of the suitability for such re- (6) Areas of urban concentration coastal zone. In analyzing the States' source utilization when evaluated in where shoreline utilization and water needs, there shouk: be a determination conjunction with other local, regional uses are highly competitive; made of those reuirements and uses and State resources and uses. Resource 7) Areas of significant hazard if de- which have Statewide as opposed to capability analysis should include veloped, due to storms, slides, floods, ero- local, significance. Section 302(h) of the physical, biological and chemical param- sion. settlement, etc.; and Act states in part that land and water eters as necessary. (8) Areas needed to protect, maintain use programs for th8 coastal zone should (iii) An analysis or establishment of or replenish coastal lands or resources. Include "unified Policies, criteria, stand- a method for analysis of the impact of including coastal food plains, aquifer. re- ards. methods and processes for dealing various resource uses upon the natural charge areas, sand dunes, coral and other with land and water use decisions of environment (air, land and water) . reefs, beaches, offshore sand deposits and more than local significance." The in- Based upon these analyses and appli- mangrove stands. ventory and analyses of coastal resources cable Federal, State and local policies (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- and uses called for in � 923.12 will provide and standards, the State should deflne tion 305 (b)(3). the State with most of the basic data permissible uses as those which can De Such management program shall include needed to determine the specific loca- reasonably and safely supported by the . . . an inventor and designazion of areas tions where coastal resources are resource, which are compatible with of particular concern within the coastal zone. capable and suitable for meeting State- FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6--THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 11-6 1688 RULES AND REGLATIONS Wide needS. In addition these analyses than one locality (generally the lowest can be supplied only through the use of sbculd permit the State to determine unit of local. general-purpose govern- facilities in the coastal zone in order possible constraints on development ment, excluding situations such as with to make reasonable provision for such which may be applied by particular uses. cities and counties which exercise con- facilities In Light of the size and popu- The program should establish special current jurisdiction for the same geo- lation of the State. the length and char- procedures for evaluating land use deci- graphic areas). In order to provide as- acteristics of its coast and the contribu- sions, such as the siting of regional sistance to the States in completing this tion such State is already making to energy facilities, which may have a sub- requirement. a listing is presented below regional and national needs. This will stantial impact on the environment. In which Identfies those requirements require the State to enter Into discus- such cases, the program should make which are both (1) other than local in sions with appropriate Federal agencies provision for the consideration of avail- nature, and (2) possess siting character- and agencies of other States in the re- able alternative sites which will serve the istics In which, In the opinion of the gion, a process which should begin early need with a minimum adverse impact. Secretary, there may be a clear national in the development of the management The identifying and ordering of use pri- Interest. For each such need. there Is a program so that the full dimensions of orities in specific coastal areas should listing of associated facilities. In addi- the national interest may be considered lend to the development and adoption. of tion, the principal cognizant Federal as the State develops its program State policies or guidelines on land and agencies concerned with these facilities ( 923.31 and �923.32). The management water use in the coastal zone. Such pol- are also listed. This list must not be con- program should make reference to the icies or guidelines should be part of the sidered. inclusive, but the State should views of cognizant Federal agencies as management program as submitted bry consider each requirement and facility to how these national needs may be met the State and should be consistent with type in the development of its manage- In the coastal zone of that particular the State's specified management pro- ment program. Consideration of these State, States should actively seek such gram obJectives. Particular attention requirements and facilities need not be guidance from these Federal agencies, should be given by the State to applying seen as a separate and distinct element particularly In view of the fact that all these guidelines on use priorities within of the management program, and the management programs will be reviewed those "areas of particular concern" des. listing is Provided to assure that the with the opportunity for full comment ignated pursuant to 923.13. In addi- siting of such facilities Is not overlooked by all affected Federal agencies prior to tion. States shall indicate within the or ignored. As part of Its determInation approval. it is recognized that Federal management program uses of lowest Of Permissible uses in the coastal zone agencies will differ markedly in their Priority in particular areas, including ( 923.12), as well as of priority of uses abilities to articulate policies regarding guidelines associated with such uses. ( 923.14), the State will have developed utilization of individual. State's coastal a procedure for inventorying coastal re- zones. NOCAA's Office of Coastal Zone 923.15 National interest in the siting sources and identifying their exising or Management will encourage Federal of Facilities. potential utilization for various purposes agencies to develop policy statements re- (a) Requirement. A management pro- based upon capability, suitability and garding their perception of the national gram which integrates (through develop- impact analyses. The process for re- interest in the coastal zone and make ment of a body of information relating sponding to the requirements of Section these available to the States. The States to the national interest involved In such 306(c) (8) should be Identical to. and should also consult with adjacent and siting through consultation with cogni- part of, the same procedure. No separate nearb y States which share similar or zant Federal and regional bodies, as well national Interest "test" need be applied common coastal resources or with re- as adjacent and nearby States) the siting and submitted other than evidence that gional interstate bodies to determine how of facilities meeting requirements which the listed national interest facilities have regional needs may be met in siting fa- are of greater than local concern into been considered in a manner similar to cilities. SpecifIc arrangements of "trade- the determination of uses and areas of all other uses. and that appropriate con- offs" of coastal resource utilization Statewide concern, will meet the re- sultation with the Federal agencies listed should be documented with appropriate quirements of Section 306(c) (8) , has been conducted. As a preliminary to supporting evIdence. The importance of (b) Comment. Statutory citation: See- adequate consideration of the na- this type of interstate consultation and tion 306(c)(8): tional interest, the State must determine cooperation in planning cannot be over- Prior to granting approval of a manage- the needs for such facilities. Manage- emphasized for it offers the States the ment program submitted by a Coastal State, ment programs must recognize the need opportunity of resolving significant na- the Secretary shall find that the man- of local as well as regional and national tional problems on a regional scale with- agement program provides for adequate con. sideratlon of the national interest involved Populations for goods and services which out Federal. Intervention. in the siting of facilities necessary to meet Requirements which are other than local in nature and in the of which theremay be a clear national Interest (with associated facilities and cognizant Federal agencies) requirements which are other than local in nature. This policy requirement is intended to Requirements Associated facilities Cognizant Federal Agencies assure that national concerns over fa- cility siting are expressed and dealt with 1. Energy production and transmis- Oil and gas wells: storage and distri- Federal Energy Administration, in the development and implementation sion. bution facilities: refineries: nu- Federal Power Commission. Bu- clear, conventional. and hydro- reau of Land Management. Atomic of State coastal zone management pro- electric powerplants, deepwater Energy Commission. Maritime Ad- ministration. Geological Survey. grams. The requirement should not be ports. Department of Transportation, construed as compelling the States to Corps of Engineers. propose a program which accommodates 2. Recreation(of an interstate nature)-- National seashores, parks, forests; National Park Service, Forest Serv- large and outstanding beaches and lee. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. certain types of facilities, but to assure recreational waterfronts; wildlife that such national concerns are included at an early stage in the State's planning 3. Interstate transportation --------- Interstate highways, airports, aids Federal Highway Administration, to navigation; ports and harbors, Federal Aviation Administration, activities and that such facilities not be railroads. Coast Guard. Corps of Engineers, arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably re- Maritime Administration. Inter- state Commerce Commission. stricted in the management program 4. Production of food and fiber--------- Prime agricultural land andfacil- Soil Conservation Service. Forest without good and sufficient reasons. It ities: forests: facilities: Service, Fish and Wildlife Service. fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service. is recognized that there may or may not 5. Preservation of Life and property---- Flood and storm protection facili- Corps of Engineers, Federal Insur- be a national interest associated with ties:disaster warning facilities ance Administration, NOAA, Sol] Conservation Service. the siting of facilities necessary to meet 6. National defense and aerospace------ Military installations; defense man- Department of Defense, NASA. requirements which are other than local ufacturing facilities: launching and tracking facilities. in nature. Requirements which are other 7. Historic. cultural. and con- Historic sites; natural areas: areas of National Register of Historic Places, than local in nature shall be considered servation values. cultural significance: wild National Park Service, Fish and life areas of species and Wildlife Service, National Marine those requirements which, when ful- habitat preservation. Fisheries Service. filled, result in the establishment of fa- 8. Mineral resources................ ... Mineral extension facilities needed Bureau of Geological Survey. to directly support activity. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6--THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 II-7 RULS AND REGULATIONS 1689 1923-16 Area And d fw preservao 48okbils land and water uses of regional the State has identified a means for con- tion and reatorstion. trolling each permissible land and water (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the This requirement Is Intended to prevent Ube specified in 1923.12. and for preclud requirement contained in section 308(c) local land and 'water use decisions from Ing land and water uses In the co-Ah (9), the management progritni must show artitrartly excluding certain land and 2OD0 which are not permissible. TOW evidence that the State has developed water uses which are deemed of impor- management progmm should contain a and applied standards and criteria for tance to more than a single unit of local list of relevant constitutional provisions. the designation of'areas of eorAervation, government. For 1he purposes of this re- legislative enactments, regulations, Judi- recreational, ecological or sethetic values quirement. a use of regional benefit will clal decisions and other appropriate offi- for the purpose of prenerving and restor- be one which Provides services or other cial documents or actions which estab- Ing them. benefits to citizens of more than one unit lish the legal basis for such controls, as (b) Comment Statutory citation: Sm. of local, general-purpose government well as documentation by the Governor tion 300(c) (9): (excluding situations such as in cities or his designated legal officer that the Prior to granting approval of a manage- and counties which exercise jurisdiction State actually has and Is prepared to im- over the same geographic Areas). In plement the authorities, Including those men% program submitted by a coastal State. the Secretary shall And that 0 - - the ma- order to assure that arbitrary exclusion contained in Section 306(di, required to agement program makes provision for pro. does not occur, the State must first implement the objectives. policies and cedurea whereby apecific areas may be desig- IdentIfy those uses which it perceives individual components of the program. ZMted for the purpose of preserving or will affect or produce some regional (b) Comment. Statutory citation: restoring them for their conservation, recre- beneft. This designation would normally Section 305 (b) (4) : stion, ecological or esthetic values. . be derived from the inventory and anal- Such management program shall Include (1) This requirement is closely linked Yals Of the uses contained In J 923.12. In - - an Identification of the means by to that contained In 1923.13, dealing with any 'event. however. these uses should which the State proposes to exert control designation of areas of particular eon. Include those contained in the table of over the land and water uses refeired to In cern. Unless the State can=ake a com- 1923.15. In addition, the State may paragraph (2) of this'subsection. including a determine that certain land and water listing of relevant constitutional provisions. pelling case to the contrary, all areas legislative enactments. regulations and Judi- designated according tQ the methods uses may be of regional benefit under Lai decisions; called for in this part shall also be con- certain sets of circumstances: the State ' sidered as areas al particular concem. should then establish standards and Statutory citation: Section 306(c) (1) (2) This requirement is reasonably criteria for determining when such con. Prior to granting approval of a manage- self-explanatory. The State must de. ditions existt There should be no blanket ment program submitted by a coastal State, velop procedures for the designation of exclusion or restrictions of these uses In the Secretary shall And that . . . the areas wfth certain characteristics. The Areas of the coastal zone. by local regu- State has the authorities necessary to Ira- State, In doing so, must: lation unless it can be shown that the pieme-t the program, including the author. (I) Establish standards and criteria for exclusion or restriction is based upon ity required under subsection (d) of this the possible designation of coastal areas reasonable considerations of the suit- section. Intended for preservation or restoration ability of, the area for the uses or the Useful Information concerning this re- because of their conservation, recrea- carrying capacity of the area. The re- quirement appears in 15 CP`R- 920.14, tional. ecological or. esthetic values, and QuIrement of this section does not ex- which Is Incorporated into this part by - (11) Apply those standards and criteria clude the possibility that in specific areas reference. The key words in this require- to the State's coastal resources. (In this, certain uses of regional benefit may be ment are. "to exert control over the the Inventory associated with the re- prohibited. However, such exclusions land and water uses." This reflect's the quirement of 1923-13 will be most help- may not be capricious. The, method by Congressional finding that the "key to 1111.) . which the management program will more effective protection and use of the (3) The requirement of the statute assure that such unreasonable restric- land and water resources of the coastal goes to the procedures rather than sub- tions or exclusion not occur in local land zone Is to encourage the States to exer- stance, the fact that a State may be find water use decisions will, of course. cise their full authority over the lands unable to move rapidly ahead with % be up to the State, but It should include and waters in the coastal zone 1 0 *.11 Program of Preservation or restoration the Preparation of.standards and criteria It is not the intent of this part to specify will not prevent the I@rcgram from being relating to State Interpretation of "im- for the, States the "means" of control; approved. The State should also rapk in reasonable restriction or exclusion", as this Is a State responsibility. The State order of relative priority areas of its well as the establishment of a continuing must, however, describe in the manage- coastal zone which have been designated mechanisms for such determination. ment program its rationale for develop- for the purposes set forth In this section. Subpart C-Authorities and Organization Ing and deciding uWn such "means." As funds become available, such a rank- � 923.20 General. The "means" must- be capable of actually Ing will provide a set of priorities for implementing the objectives, policies selecting areas to be preserved or re. This subpart deals with requirements and individual components of the man- stored. that the State possess necessary authori- agemerit program. As such, requirements ties to control land and water uses and shall be reviewed in close conjunction 923.17 Local regulations and uses of that it be organized to implement the with 1923.24, 923.25 and � 923.26. relat- regional henefiL management. It should be 'emphasized Ing to actual authorities which the Stat3 (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill that before final approval of a coastal must possess. The management program the requirement contained in Section zone management program can be given should also indicate those specific Iand 306(e) (2). the management program by the Secretary of Commerce, the au- and water uses over which authorit@: must show evidence that the State has thorities and organizational structure Jurisdiction or control will be exercise-@ devilovied and applied a method for de- called for in the management program concurrently by both State and Feclerpl termining uses of regional benefit, and must be in place. Preliminary approval, agencies, Particularly those uses affectin, that It has established a methodfor as- however, can be given to a proposal water resources. submerged lands ana suring that local land and water use which will require subsequent legislative navigable waters. The management pro- controls In the coastal zone do not un- or executive action for Implementation gram must provide for control of land reasonably'or arbitrarily restrict or ex- and eligibility for administrative grants and water Uses In the coastal zone. a, - clude those uses of regional benefit. under Section 306. though the exercise of control may Le (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- � 923.21 Means of exerting Stale control vested in, or delegated to, various ager.- tion 306 (e) (2) over land and water uses. cles or local government. As part of th3 Prior to granting approval, the secretary (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill approval of a management program, thp shall also And that the program provides Secretary must find that the means fcr 0 * * for a method of assuring that local the requirements contained in Sections controlling land and water uses identi- land and water use regulations within the 305 (b) (4) and 306 (c) (7), the manage- fled in 1923.21 are established and in Coastal Sons, do not unreasonably restrict or Ment prograrn must show evidence that place, and that the means Include the 11-8 FID9RAL MISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 1690 RULES AND REGULATIONS an to resolve conflicts amoung competing authorities contained in 923.24 and the Act. Review of the management Pro- uses***** � 923.25. This finding will be based -upon grain for compliance with this require- documentation by the Governor of the ment will be undertaken as a 3 single re- This requirement ahall be reviewed in coastal State or his designated legal offl- view with review of the requirements close conjunction with that of 923.21. eer that the State possesses and is pre- contained 923.31, full participation 923.25 and 923.26, dealing with author- pared to implement the requisite au-, by interested bodies in adoption of man- ities which the State's organizational thorities. agement programs, and � 923.23, desig- structure must posess In order to ensure � 923.22 Organizational structure to im- nation of a single State agency. implementation of the management pro- plement the management program. �923.23 Designation of a single agency. grain. The lanuage of this requirement Makes it clear that the State may choose (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the to administer its program using a -va- requirement contained in Section 305(b) requirement of Section 306(c) (5), the riety of levels of governments and agen- (6), the management Program must con- management program must contain ap- cies, but that if It does, the State must tain a description of how the State is or- propriate documentation that the Gov- have available to it the authorities spec- ganized to implement the authorities emor of the coastal State has designated fied. identifted in � 923.21. In addition, the a single agency to be responsibility for re- management program must contain a ceiving mid administering grants under � 932.25 Authorities for property acqui- certification by the Governor of, the Section 306 for Implementing an ap- sition. State or his designated legal. officer that proved management program. (a) Requirement. The management the State has established Its organiza- (b) Comment. Statutory citation: See- program, shall contain documentation tional structure to implement the man- tion 306 (c) (5) : by the Governor or his designated legal agement program. Prior to granting approval of a manage- officer that the agency or agencies, in- (b) Comment. Statutory citation Sec- mnt program submitted by a coastal State, eluding local governments, areawide tion 305 (b) (6) the Secretary shall find that the Gov- agencies, regional or Interstate agen- Such management program shall in-, of the state has deignated a single govenor of the State has, cies, responsible for implementation of clude a description of the organizational agency to receive and administer the grants the management program have available structure proposed to implement the man for Implementing the management program agement program, including the responsi- required under paragraph (1) of this subsec the power to acquire fee simple and less tion. than fee simple Interests in lands, waters bilities and interrrelationships of local area and other property through condemna- wide, State, regional and interstate agencies This requirement is closely related bo tion or other means where necessary to in the management; process. that contained in 923.22, relating, to a achieve conformance with the manage- Statutory citation: Section 306(c) (6) description of the organizational struc- ment program. Where the power in- Prior to granting approval of a manage- ture which will implement the manage- cludes condemnation. the State shall so ment program submitted by a coastal State. ment program. While this requirement is indicate. Where the power includes other the Secretary shall find that the state self explanatory, it should be pointed out means, the State shall specifically iden- is organized to implement the Management that States will und uboubtely come for- tify such means. progam required under paragraph (1) of this ward with a wide variety of organiza- (b) Comment. Statutory citation: See- subsection. tional structure, to implement approved tion, 306 (d)(2): Useful background information and management program. Some will prob- Prior to granting approval of the manage- guidance concerning this requirement ably be quite complex, utilizing a vaxiety ment program, the Secretary shall find that appears in 15 CFR 920.16. which is in- Of control techniques at a number of gov- the state, acting through its chosen agency corporated Into this part by reference. ernmental levels. Nothing in this part or agencies. including local governments, Tile legislative history of the Act makes should be construed as limiting the OP- areawide agencies designated under Section it clear that the States should be ac- tios, available to a State for implement- 204 of the, Demonstration Cities and Metro- corded maxinium flexibility in organiz- Ing its program. The purpose of the re- politan Development Act of 1966, regional Ing for implementation of their coastal quirement is simply to identify a single agencies or interstate agencies, has authority agency which will be fiscally and pro- for the management of the coastal zone in zone management programs. Thus, accordance with the management program. grammatically responsible for receiving neither the Act, nor this Such authority shall Include power to Organizational model which must he fol- and administering the grants under Sec- acquire lot simple and leas than fee simple lowed. While individual State programs tion 306 to implement the approved man- Interests in lands. waters and other Prop- management program. erty through condemnation or other means may have a wide range of interstate. State, local or areawide agency roles to q� 923,24 Authorities to administer land when necessary to achieve conformance with play, the program will be reviewed closely and water uses, control development the management program for assurance that it constitutes an or and resolve conflicts. In most cases, it will not, be necessary ganied and unified program. Consistent (a) Requirement. (1) The manage- to acquire fee simple ownership. Nor- with this Principle. there must be a clear ment program must contain documenta- mally, appropriate use restrictions will point of responsibility for the program. tion by the Governor or his designated be adequate to achieve conformance with although program implementation may legal officer that the agencies and gov- the program. In other cases. an ease- be undertaken by several State entities. ernments chosen by the State to admin- ment may be necessary to achieve con- In those cases, where a complex inter- ister the management program have the formance with the management pro- agency and intergovernmental process 'Is authority to administer land and Water gram. Where acquisition is necessary. established. the State must submit a de- regulations, control development in ac- this section contemplates acquisition by scription of roles and responsibilities of cordance with the management program condemnation or through other means. each of +he participants and how such and to resolve use conflicts. However, the mere authority to acquire roles and responsibilities contribute to a (b) Comment. Statutory citation Sec- an interest In lands or waters by pur- unified coastal zone management pro- tion 306(d) (I) : chase from a willing vendor will not be gram. This description should be suf- Prior to granting approval of the manage- sufficient in cases where the acquisition ficiently detailed to demonstrate that a meat program, through Secretary shall land that of interests in real property Is a neces- coherent program structure has been the State. acting through its chosen agency sary and Integral part of the program. proposed by the State and the State is or agencies, including local govenments, prepared to act in accordance with the areawide agencies designated under Section In such cases, the power of condemna- tion need be no broader than necessary objectives of the management Program. 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Met politican Development Act of 1966, regional to achieve conformance with the pro- Although the Act does not prescribe the agencies, or interstate agencies. has authority gram. For example, if a State's program creation of a central management agency for the management of the coastal zone in includes provisions expressly requiring at the State level, it envisions the accordance with the management program. , creation of a coastal zone management Such authority shall include power *** to 'hat power transmission lines and pipe- entity that has adequate legislative and/ administer land and water use regulations, lines be located in specified energy and or executive authority to implement the control development in order to ensure transportation corridors to minimize en- policies and requirements mandated in compliance with the management program vironmental impact. and for State as- KULES AND REGULATIONS 1691 quisition of such transportation corri4. ment plans, projects, or land and water sultation and cooperation with such dors, then the State should have the regulations, Including exceptions and bodies has taken place and will continu power to acquire corridors for such pur- variances thereto proposed by a" State in the future. poses through conderrination. It is not or local authority or private developer, � 923.31 Full participation by rel '10 necessary that the power to acquire real with power to approve or dimpprove af- bodies in the adoption of manage. property be held by any one particular ter public notice and an opportunity for ment programs. agency involved In implementing the hearings." This option leaves the local (a) Requirement. In order to f ulftll the management program. The authority unit of government free to adopt zoning must, however, be held by one or more ordinances or regulations without State requirement contained in section 306(c) agencies or local governments with a criteria and standards other than the (1). @ the management program must statutory responsibility to exercise the Program Itself, but subjects certain ac- show evidence that: authority without undue delay when tions by the local unit of goverriment to (1) The management program has necessary to achieve conformance with automatic State review, Including public been formally adopted in accordance the management program. notice and a hearing when requested by with State law or, in its absence. admin- 923.26 .Techniques for control of land a Party. Such actions include: istrative regulations; (I) Adoption of land and water use (2) The State has notified and pro- and water uses. regulations. ordinarily in the form of a vided an opportunity for full participa- (a) Requirement. The management zoning ordinance or regulation. tion in the development of its manage- Program must contain documentation by (11) Granting of an exception' or vari- ment program to all public and private the Governor or his designated legal of- ance to a zoning ordinance or regulation. agencies and organizations which are li- ficer that all existing, projected and po- (ill) Approval of a development plan able to be. affected by. or may have a tential land and water uses witkin the or project proposed by a private develop- direct Interest in. the management pro- coastal zone may be controlled by my er- This may be defined to exclude ap- gram. The submission of the manage- one or a combination of the techniques Proval of minor projects, such as small ment Progr& shall be accompanied by a specified In Section 306(e) (1). residences or commercial establish- list.identifying the agencies and organi- (b) Comment. Statutory citation., merits, or those which do not have a zatiotis referred to in paragraph (a) (2) Section 306(e) M: significant Impact. of this section. the nature of their In- &' (4) It should be noted that State re- terest, and the opportunities afforded Prior to granting 9.pprov L, the Secretary view is for consistency with the manage- such agencies and organizations to par- shall also And that the program provides ticipate in the development of the man- I * * for any one or a combination cd the ment.program, not of the merits or of following general techniques for control of the facts on which the local decision is agement program, These organizations land and water uses within the coastal based. should Include those identified pursuant zone: (5) The State may choose to utilize to 1923.32, which have developed local, only one of the specified techniques, or areawide or interstate plans applicable (1) Section 306(e)(1) (A) "State es. more than one, or a combination of them to an area within the coastal zone of the tablishment of criteria-and standards for I, different locations or at different State as of January 1 of the year in which local implementation, subject to admin- times. Within the parameters set forth the management program is submitted istrative review and enforcement of com- in the requirement, there is a large va- for approval; and pliance." This option requires the State riety of tools which the management (3) The management program will to establish general criteria and stand- program could adopt for controlling hind carry out the policies enumerated in sec- ards within the framework of the coastal and water uses. The Program should tion 303 of the Act. zone program for Implementation by identify the techniques for control of (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- local government. Such criteria and land and water uses which it intends to tion 306(c) M: standards would provide for application use for existing, projected and potential Prior to granting approval of'a manage- of criteria and standards to specific local uses within the coastal zone. This re- ment program submitted by a coastal State. conditions. Implementation by a local quirement will be reviewed In close con- the Secretary. shall And that * - - (t) he State unit of government would consist of Juriction with those contained in �1923. bea developed and adopted a management adoption of a suitable lcrcal zoning ordt- 21, 923.24 and 923-25, dealing with State program for Its coastal zone In accordance Ith rules and regulations. promulgated by nance or regulation, and enforcement authorities to implement the manage- twhe Secretary, after notice. and with the op- on a continuing basis. Administrative ment program. review at the State level requires pro- portunity of full participation by relevant vision for review of local ordinances and Subpart D--Coordination Fqderal agencies. state agencies, local gov- ernments, regional organizations, port au- regulations . and local enforcement ac- � 923.30 Ceneral. thorittes, and other interested parties. pub- tivity for consistency with the criteria Ile and private. which is adequate to carry and standards as well as programs, not One of the most critical aspects of thu out the purposes of this title and Is consist- review of specific cases on the merits. In development of State coastal zone man- ent with the policy declared In section 303 the event of deficiencies either in regu- agement programs will be the ability of of this title. lation or local enforcement, State en- the States to deal fully with the network forcement of compliance would require of public. quasi-public and private bodies This requirement embodies the actual either appropriate changes in local reg- which can assist In the development approval by the Secretary of Commerce process and which may be significantly of a State's coastal zone management ulation or enforc .ement or direct State 'impacted by the implementation of the program pursuant to all of the terms intervention. program. Each State will have to develop of the Act, plus associated administrative, (2) Section 306(e) (1) (B) "Direct Its ow-n methods for accommodating, as rules and regulations. As the operative State land and water use planning and appropriate, the vaming, often conflict- section, it subsumes all of the require- regulation."' Under this option the State Ing interests of local governments, water ments included in this part, which shall would become directly involved in the and air Pollution control agencies, be considered the "rules and regulations establishment of detailed land and water regional agencies. other State agencies promulgated by the Secretary" men- use regulations and would apply. these and bodies, interstate organizations. tioned In section 306(c) (1). The citation, regulations to indiv4dual cases, Initial commissions and compacts. the Federal however, also includes some specific ad- determinations regarding land and water government and interested private ditionai requirements. for which guid- use in the coastal zone would be made bodies. It is the intent of these require- ance and performance criteria are at the State level, This option pre- ments. for coordination with govern- necessary. These additional requirements empts the traditional role of local gov- mental and private bodies to assure that Include: ernment in the zoning process involving the State, in developing its management (1) Adoption of the management pro@ lands or waters within the coastal zone. program, is aware of the full array of gram by the State. The management pro- M@ Section 306(e) (1) (C) "State ad- interests represented by such organiza- gram must demonstrate that it repre- ministrative review for consistency with tions, that oPportunity'for participation sents the official policy and objectives of the management program of all develop- was provided, and that adequate con- the State. In general, this, will require II-10 FEDERAL RECISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 197S 1692 RULES AND REGULATIONS documentation in the management pro- (2) A listing of the specific contacts them, or which are commonly recognized gram that the State management entity made with all such entities in order to by the entity as a guide for action. The has formally adopted the management coordinate the management program list of relevant agencies required under program in accordance with either the with their plans, � 923.31 will be of use in meeting this rules and procedures established by (3) An identification of the conflicts requirement. It will enable the State to statute or in the absence of such law, with those plans which have not been identify those entities mentioned in (A, which have such plans and to provide administrative regulations. resolved through coordination, and con- (2) Opportunity for full participation tinuing actions contemplated to attempt evidence that coordination with them by relevant Federal agencies. State agen- to resolve them, and has taken place. The process envisioned cies, local governments, regional orga- (4) Indication that a regulate consul- should not only enable a State to avoid nizations, port authorities, and other tive mechanism has been established and conflicts between its program and other interested parties, public and private. A is active, to undertake coordination be- Plans applying within its coastal zone. major thrust of the Act is its concern for tween the single State agency designated but to draw upon the planning capabili- full participation and cooperation in the pursuant to � 923.23. and the entities in ties of a wide variety of local govern- development and implementation of paragraph (B) of Section 3061 (c) (2). ments and other agencies. In development management programs by all interested (b) Comment. Statutory citation: and implementing those portions of the and affected agencies, organizations and Section 306(c) (2) program dealing with power transmission lines, pipelines, interstate transportation individuals. This is specifically included "Prior to granting approval of a manage- facilities and other facilities which will in the statement of national policy in ment program submitted by a Coastal State, section .30310. The State must provide the Secretary shall find that the State significantly impact on neighboring evidence that the listed agencies and has: States of a region, particular attention parties were, in fact, provided with an (A) Coordinated its program with local, should be paid to the reuirements of this opportunity for full participation. It will areawide and interstate plans applicable to section. be left to the States to determine the areas within the coastal zone existing on January I of the year in which the State's Subpart E--Miscellaneous method and form of such evidence, but management program is submitted to the � 923.40 General. it should contain a minimum: Secretary, which plans have been developed (i) A listing as comprehensive as pos- by a local government, an areawide agency The requirements in this subpart do sible, of all Federal and State agencies, designated pursuant to regulations estab- not fail readily into any of the above local governments, regional organiza- lished under section 204 of the Demoastra- categories but deal with several impor- tions, port authorities and public and tion Cities and Metropolitan Development tant elements of an approvable man- private organizations which are likely to Act of 1966, a regional agency, or an Inter- agement program. They deal with public be affected by, or have a direct interest Itnte agency; and hearings in development of the manage- in the development and implementation (B) Established an effective mechanism ment program, gubernatorial review and of a management program including for continuing consultation and coordina- approval,. segmentation of State pro- tion between the management agency desig- grams and applicability of water and those identified in � 923.31l nated pursuant to paragraph (5) of this (ii) A listing of the specific interests subsection and with local governments, air pollution control requirements. of such organizations in the development interstate agencies, regional agencies and � 923.41 Puhlic hearing. of the management program, as well as areawide agencies within the oosstal zone to assure the full participation of such local an identification of the efforts made to (a) Requirements. In order to fulfill governments and agencies in carrying out the requirements contained in section involve such bodies in the development the purposes of this title." 306(c) (3), the management program process. Relevant background information on must show evidence that the State has (a) "Opportunity for full participa- this requirement appears in 15 CFR held public hearings during the devel- tion" is as requiring partici- opment of the management program pation at a11 appropriate stages of man- 920.45(f), and is incorporated by refer- following not less than 30 days notifica- agement program development. The as- ence herein. While the State will exercise its authority over land and wateruses of tion that all documents associated with sistance which can be provided by these Statewide significance in the coastal zone the hearings are conveniently available public and private organizations can by one or more of the techniues set to the public for review and study at often be significant, and therefore con- forth in � 923.28, the State management least 30 days prior to the hearing. that tact with them should be viewed not program must be coordinated with exist- the hearings are held in places and at only as a requirement for approval, but ing plans applicable to portions of the times convenient to affected populations. as an opportunity for tapping available coastal zone. It should be noted that this that all citizens of the State has an sources of information for program de- section does not demand compliance of opportunity to comment on the total velopment. Early and continuing con- the State program with local plans, but management program and that a report tact with these agencies and organiza- the process envisioned should enable a on each hearing be prepared and made tions is both desirable and necessary. In State not only to avoid conflicts and am- available to the public within 45 days. many cases it may be difficult or impos- biguities among plans and proposals, but (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- sible to identify all interested parties to draw upon the planning capabilities tion 306(c) (3): early in the development of the State's of a wide variety of governments And Prior to granting approval of a manage- program. However, the public hearing agencies. Coordination implies a high ment program submitted by a coastal state. requirement of 923.41 should afford an degree of cooperation and consultation The Secretary shall find that * * (t)the opportunity to participate to interested among agencies, as well as a mutual will- State has held public hearings on the de. persons and organizations whose interest ingness on the part of the participants velopment of the management program was not intially noted. to accommodate their activities to the Extensive discussion and statements of (3) Consistency with the policy de- needs of the others in order to carry out policy regarding this reuirement ap- clared in section 103 of the Act. In order the public interest. Perceptions of the pears in �� 920.30, 920.31 and 920.32. to facilitate this review, the State's man- public good will differ and it is recognized which is incorporated herein by refer- agement program must indicate specifi- that not all real or potential conflicts can ence. cally how the program will carry out the be resolved by this process. Nevertheless. policies enumerated in section 303. It is a necessary step. Effective coopera- 6� 923.42 Cu0bernalorial review and ap- 923.32 Consultation and coordination tion and consultation must continue as proval. with other planning. the management program is put into (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the operation so that local governments, in- reuirement contained in section 38MC I requirements contained in section 306(c) terstate, regional and areawide agencies (4), the management program must con- (2) the management program must in- can continue to participate in th4e carry- tain a certification signed by the Gover- clude: -ing out of the management program. The nor of the coastal State to the effect that (1) An identification of those entities "Plans" referred to in (A) shall be con- he has reviewed and approved the man- mentioned whlch have plans in effect on sidered those which have been officially agement program and any amendments January I of the year submitted. adopted by the entity which developed thereto. Certification may be omitted in FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40. NO. 64-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 II-II RULES AND REGULATIONS 1693 the CIA" Of & PrOgrSIM P&MMed for prio- ments of a management program. Re- 923.44 Applicability of air and W eftr liminsr7 approval. atonal agencies and local governments poilution control requirementa. (b) Comment. Ststutor7 citation: aw- mcw play a lame role in developing and (a) Requirement. In order to :tu:,4 tion 306(c) M: carrying out such - segmented Programs, the requirements contained in Section Prtw to grantIng approval of a manage- but there must be a continuing State 307(f) of the Act the management Pro- meat Program submitted by a atiastal staw voice throughout this process. This State gram must be developed In close coordi- the Secretary shall And Mat 0 $ 0 the man- involvement shall be expressed in the nation with the Planning and regulatory &Pment program and any changes thereto first segment of the management pro- systems being implemented under the hay* been reviewed and approved by the gram in the form of evidence that (1) the Flederal Water Pollution Control Act and Clovornor. boundaries of the coastal zone for the Clean Air Act, as amended, and be con- This requirement Is self-exp1matory. entire State have been defl ned (Pursuant sistent with applicable State or Federal to 1923.11) and M) there has been &de- water and air pollution control stand- 119211.43 Segmentation. quate consideration of the national In- ards in the coastal zone. Documentntion (a) Requirement. If the State Intends terest involved In the siting of facilities by the official or officials responsible for to develop and adopt its management necessary to meet requirements which State Implementation of air and Water Program In two or more segments. It shall are other than local in nature (pursuant pollution control activities that those re- advise the Secretary tia early as prac- to � 923.15) for the State's entire coast- quirements have been Incorporated into ticable stating the reasons why segmen- al zone. These requirements are de- the body of the coastal zone management tAtIon is appropriate and requesting his signed to assure that the develoliment of program should accompany submission approval. Each segment of a management A Statewide coastal zone management of the management program. Program developed by segments must program proceeds in an orderly fashion (b) Comment: Statutory citation: show evidence (i) that the state win and that segmented programs reflect ac- Section 307(f) : fixercise Policy control over each. of this curately the needs and capabilities of Notwithstanding any other provision of segmented management programs prior the State's entire coastal zone which are this title. nothing In this title shall In any to. and following their Integration into represented in that particular segment. way affect any requirement (1) established a complete State management progrwn, (3) The Act's intent of encouraging by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, such evidence to Include completion of and assisting State governments to de- as amended. or the Clean Air Act, as amend- the ed, or (2) established by the Federal govern- the requirements of I 923.U (Boundaries veiOP a comprehensive program fo. of the coastal zone) and J 923.15 (Na. control of land and water uses In the ment, or any State or local government pur- tiOnal Interest In the siting of facilities) coastal ?One is clear. 771ts intent should suant to such Acts. Such requirements shall for the State's entire coastal zone, (2) therefore apply to segments as well, and be incorporated In any program developed pursuant to this title. and shall be the water that the segment submitted for approval segmented management programs pollution control requirements and air pol- includes a geographic area on both sides should be comprehensive In nature lution control requirements applicable to of the coastal land-water interface, and and deal with the relationship between such program (3) that a timetable and budget have and among land and water uses. No ab- been established for the timely comple- solute minimum or maximum geographic (1) The basic purpose of this require- tion of the remaining segments, or size linlim4ons will be established for ment Is to ensure that the management segment. the area of coverage of a segment. On Program does not conflict with the na- M Comment. Statutory citation: See. the one hard, segments should Liclude tional and State policies. pla and, u ra tion 306(h) an area large,enough to permit compre- lationa mandated by the =de III Watte; At the' d hensive analyses of the attributes and Pollution Control Act, as amended. and iscretion of the State and with linitations of coastal resources within the Clean Air Act as amended. The pol-0 the approval of the Secretary, a manage- ' icies and standards adopted pursuant to ment program may be developed and adopt- the segment of State needs for the util- . 04 In segments so that immediate attention ization or protection.of these resources these Acts should be considered essential may be devoted to those areas within the and of the interrelationships of such util- baselines against which the overall man- Coastal Was Which maat urgently need man- izations. On the othex hand. It is not agement program is developed. This is a 890-ot Programs: Provided, That. the state contemplated that a segmented man- specific statutory requirement that re- adequately Provides for the ultimate ooordl. agement program will be developed'sole- flects the overall coastal zone manage- nation of the various segment@ of the man- ment objective of unifled state manage- age-nt Program Into a single. unined pro. 17 for the purpose of protecting or con- are= and that the unified program will be trolling a single coastal resource or use. ment of envirorunentat laws, regulations completed as soon " reasonably practica- however desirable that may be. and applicable standards. To this end. ble. (4) One of the distinguishing features management programs should provide of, a coastal zone management program 'or continuing coordination and cooper- (1) This section of the Act reflects a Is its recognition of the relationship be- ation with air and water programs dur- recognition that It ntay be desirable for tWeen land uses and their effect upon Ing subsequent administration of the ap- e State to develop and adopt Its man- coastal waters. and vice versa. Segments proved management program. agement Program in segments rather should likewlse recognize this relation- (2) There are also significant oppor- than all at once because of a relatively ship between land and water by includ- tunities for developing working relation- long coastline, developmental pressures Ing at least the dividing line between ships between air and water quality or public support In specific areas. or them, plus the lands or waters on either agencies and coastal zone management earlier regional management programs side which are mutually affected. In the programs. These opportunities include developed and adopted. It is Important case of a segment which Is predominant- such activities as joint development of to note. however, that the ultimate ob- ly land. the boundaries shall include Section 208 areawide waste treatment jective of segmentation is completion of those waters which are directly and sig- management planning and coastal zone & management Program for the coastal nificantly impacted by land uses In the management programs: consolidation zone of the entire State in a timely segment. Where the predominant part and/or Incorporation of various plan- fashion. segmentation is at the state's of the segment is water, the boundaries ning and regulatory elements into these option. but requires the approval Of the shall. Include the adjacent shorelands Secretary. States should notify the Sec- closely related programs; coordination strongly influenced by the waters, includ- retary at as early a date as poasible re- Ing at least transitional and inter-tidal of monitoring and evaluation activities; garding Intention to prepare & Manage- areas. salt marshes, wetlands and increased management attention being ment program in segments. beaches (or 51milar such areas in Great accorded specifically to the coastal (2) Continuing Involvemert at the Lake States). waters: consultation concerning tb* de- State as well as local level in the de- (5) Segmented management programs sirability of adjusting state water quality VeIOVment and Implementation of seg- submitted for approval will be reviewed mented Programs Is essential. This em- and approved in exactly the same man- standards and criteria to complement P128sts 012 State participation and cO- ner as programs for complete coasta 'I coastal zone management policies; and Ordination with the program as a whole zones, utilizing the same approval designation of areas of particular con- should be reflected in the Individual seg- ' terift.. pi= th,:;3o of @tis s@ction. vern or priority uses. ;FIIERAL F.EGIS',ZR, VC4. Mo. 6--f4i)RSDAY, JANUARY 7, 1975 1694 RULES AND REGULATIONS Subpart F---Application for Administrative 923.S3 Allocation. taneoualy with the distributlon of the, Grants Section 306(f) allows a State to al- preapplication form. 923-5O General. locate a portion of its administrative (c) Costs Plaimed as changes to the The Primary purpose of administrative grant to sub-State or multi-State entities grant project must be beneficial and grants made under section 306 of the Act if the work to result from the allocation necessary to the objectives of the grant is to assist the States to Implement contributes to the effective implamenta- project. The allowability of costs will be coastal zone management programs fol- tion of the State's approved coastal zone determined in accordance with the provi- lowing their approval by the Secretary of management program. The requirements sions of FUC 74-4. Administmtlve grants Commerce. The purpose of these guide- for identifying such allocations are set made under section 306(a) of the Act lines is to define clearly the processes by forth in I 923.55(e). are clearly intended to assist the States in administering their approved man- which grantees apply for and administer � 923-54 Geographical segmentation. agement Programs. Such intent precludes grants under the Act. These guidelines shall be used and interpreted in con- Authority is provided in the Act for a tasks and related costs for long range junction with the Grants management State's management program to be de- research and studies. Nevertheless it is Manual for Grants under the Coastal veloped and adopted in segments. Addl- recognized that the coastalzone and its Zone Management Act, hereinafter re- tional criteria for the approval of a seg- management is a dynamic and evolving ferred to as the "Manual." This Manual mented management program are set Process wherein experience may reveal contains procedures and guidelines for forth in Subpart E 1923.43. Application the need for specially focused, short-term the administration of all grants covered Procedures for an administative grant studies, leading to improved management under the Coastal Zone Management to assist in administering an approved processes and techniues. The OCZM will Act of 1972.It has been designed as a segmented management program will be consider such tasks and their costs, based tool for grantees, although it addresses the same as set forth in this subpart for upon demonstrated need and expected the responsibilities of the National applications to administer an approved contribution to more effective manage- Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- Management program for the entire ment programs. tion and its Office of Coastal Zone Man- coastal zone of a State. (d) The FDrm CD-292, Application for agement, which is responsible for admin- J 923.55 Application for the initial ad- Federal Assistance (Non-Construction istering Programs under the Act. The ministrative grant. Programs), constitutes the formal appli- Manual incorporates a wide range of catlon and must be submitted 60 days Federal requirements, including those (a) The Form CD-288. Preapplica- Prior to the desired grant beginning date. established by the Office of Management tion for Federal Assistance required The application must be accompanied by and Budget, the General Services Ad- only for the initial grant must be sub- evidence of compliance with A-95 re- ministration, the Department of the mitted 120 days prior to the beginning quirements including the resolution of Treasury, the General Accounting Office date of the requested grant. The Pre- any problem, raised by the proposed and the Department of Commerce. In application shall include documentation, proiect. The OCZM win not accept appli- addition to specific policy requirements signed by the Governor, designating the cations substantially deficient in adher- of these agencies, the Manual includes State office. agency or entity to apply for ence to A-95 requirements. recommended pollcies and procedures for and administer the gmnL copies of the (e) The State's work program imple- grantees to use in submitting a grant approved management program are not menting the approved management pro- application. Inclusion of recommended required. The preapplication form may gram is to be set forth in Part IV. Pro- policies and procedures for grantees does be submitted prior to the Secretary's gram Narrative, of the Form CD-292 and not limit the choice of grantees in select- approval of the applicant's management must describe the work to be accom- ing those most useful and applicable to Program Provided, after consultation plished during the grant period. The local requirements and conditions. with 040MM, approval is anticipated work program should include: within 60 days of submittal of the (1) An Identification of those elements 923.51 Administration of the pro- Preapplication. ot the approved management program. gram. (b) All applications are subject to the that are to be supported all or in part The Congress assigned the responsi- provisions of OMB Circular A-95 (re- by the grant and the matching share, billty for the administration of the vised). The Form C13-288. Preapplica- hereinafter called the grant project. In Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to tion for Federal Assistance will be anv event, activities related to the es- the Secretary of Commerce, who has des- transmitted to the appropriate clear- tablishment and implementation of State ignated the National Oceanic and Atmos- inghouses at the time it Is submitted to pheric Adminigtration (NOAA) as the responsibilities pursuant to Section 307 the Ofrice of Coastal Zone Management (c) (3) and Section 307(d) of the Act, are agency, in the Department of Commerce (2OCZM). If the application is deter- to be included in the grant project. to manage the program. NOAA has estab- mined to be Statewide or broader in na- (2) A Precise statement of the major lished the Office of Coastal Zone Man- ture, a statement to that effect shall be tasks required to implement each ele- agement for this purpose. Requests for attached to the Preapplication form ment. information on grant applications and submitted to OCZM. Such a determina- (3) For each task, the following should the applications themselves should be tion dries not preclude the State clear- be specified: directed to: inghouse from involving areawide (1) A concise statement of how each Director, Office of Coastal Zone Management clearinghouses in the review. In any task will accomplish all or part of the (OCZM) event, whether the application is con- program element to which it is related. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- sidered to be Statewide or not, the Pre- Identify any other State, areawide, re- tration. application form shall include an attach- U.S. Department of Commerce ment indicating the date copies of the gional interstate agencies or local gov- Rockville. Maryland 20862 Preapplication form were transmitted to ernments that will be allocated respon- 923.52 State responbibility. the State clearinghouse and if appli- sibility for carrying out all or portions of cable, the identity of the areawide clear- the task. Indicate the estimated cost (a) The application shall contain a frighouse(s) receiving copies of the Pre- of the subcontract/ grant for each designation by the Governor of a coastal application form and the date(s) allocation. State of a single agency to receive and have fiscal and programmatic responsi- transmitted. The Preapplication form (11) For each task indicate the esti- bility for administering grants to imple- may be used to meet the project notifi- mated total cost. Also Indicate the esti- ment the approved management pro- cation and review requirements of 2O8M33 mated total man-months, if any, allo- gram. Circular A-95 with the concurrence of cated to the task from the applicants (b) A single State application will cover the appropriate clearinghouses. In the in-house staff. all Program management elements, absence of such concurrence the project (III) For each task, list the estimated whether carried out by State agencies, notification and review procedures, cost using the object class categories 664. areawide/regional agencies, local govern- established State and areawide clearing- through k.. Part III. Section B-Budget ments, interstate or other entities. houses, should be implemented simul- Categories of Form CD-292. 11-13 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6--THURSDAY, JANUARY 9. 1975 RULES AND REGULATIONS (4) The sum of an the task costs in Secretary of Commerce, with any ap- sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph proved amendments, is operative and has should equal the total estimated grant not been materially altered. This stat- project costs. ment will provide the basis for an annual (5) Using two categories, Professional OCZM certifacation that the approved of personnel in each category on the ap- management program remains in effect plicant's in-house staff, that will be as- thus fulfilling, in part, the requirements signed to the grant project. Additionally of section 309 (a) for a continuing re- indicate the number assigned full time view of management programs. and the number assigned less than full (3) The Governor's document desig- time in the two categories. nating the applicant agency is not re- (6) An identification of those manage- quired, unless there has been a change ment program elements, if any, that will of designation. not be supported by the grant project, (4) Copies of the approved manage- and how they will be implemented. ment program or approved amendments 923.56 Approval of appllcatlons. thereto are not required. (a) The application for an adminis- [FB. Doc. 75-788 Filed 1-8-75:8:45 am] trative grant of any coastal State with a management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, which complies with the policies and requirements of the Act and these guidelines, shall be ap- proved by 0CZM, asumming available funding. (b) Should an application be found deficient, OCZM will notify the appilcant in writing. setting farth in detail the manner In which the application falls to conform to the requirements of the Act or this subpart. Conferences may be held on these matters. Corrections or adjust- ments to the appilcation will provide the basis for resubmittal of the application for further consideration and review. (c) OCZM may, upon finding of exten- uating circumastances relating to applica- tions for assistance. waive appropriate administrative requirements contained herein. 923.57 Amendments Amendments to an approved applica- tion must be submitted to, and approved by, the Secretary prior to initiation of the change contemplated. Requests for sub- stantial changes should be discussed with OCZM well in advance. It is recognized that, while all amendments must be ap- proved by OCZAC most such requests will be relatively minor In scope; therefore. approval may be presumed for minor amendments if the State has not been notified of objections within 30 working days of date of postmark of the request. 923.58 Applications for second and subseuent year grants. (a) Second and subseuent year ap- plications will follow the procedures set forth in this subpart, with the following exceptions: (1) The preapplication form may be used at the option of the applicant. If used, the procedures set forth in 923.55 (b) will be followed and the Preapplica- tion is to be submitted 120 days prior to the beginning date of the requested grant. If the preapplication form is not used, the A-95 project notification and review procedures established by State and areawide clearinghouses should be followed. (2) The application must contain a statement by the Governor of the coastal State or his designee that the manage- ment program as approved earlier by the II-14 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY. JANUARY 9, 1975 APPENDIX 3 WASHINGTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON (RCW) SHORELINE-MANAGEM ENT ACTOF 1971 Chapter 90.58 RCW Amended effective February 14, 1974 Chapter 61, laws of 1974, amended one section. Index Sections 90.58.010 RCW Short title. 90.58.020 RCW Legislative findings--State policy enunciated--Use preference. 90.58.030' RCW Definitions and concepts. 90.58.040 RCW Program applicable to shorelines of the state. 90.58.050 RCW Program as cooperative between local government and state--Responsibilities differentiated. 90.58.060 RCW -Timetable for adoption of initial guidelines--Public hearings, notice of. 90.58.070 RCW` Local governments to submit letters of. intent--Department to act upon failure of local government. Amd 90.58.080 RCW Timetable for local governments to com- plete shoreline inventories and master programs. 90.58.090 RCW Approval of master program or segments thereof, when--Departmental alterna- tives when shorelines of state-wide significance--Lateir adoption of master program supersedes department program. 90658.100 RCW Programs as constituting use regula- tions--Duties when preparing programs and amendments thereto--Program contents. 90.58.110, RCW Development of program within two or more adjacent local government juris- dictions--Development of program in segments, when. 90.58.120 RCW Adoption of rules, programs, etc., sub- ject to RCW 34.04.025--Public hearings, notice of--Public inspection after approval or adoption. 90.58.130 RCW involvement of all persons and entitiei having,interest, means.. 90.58.140 RCW Development permits--Grounds for grant- ing--Departmental appeal on issuance-- Administration by local goverment, con- ditions--Rescission--When permits not required--Approval when permit for var- iance or conditional use. 90.58.150 RCW Selective commerical timber cutting, when. 90.58.160 RCW Prohibition against surface drilling for oil or gas, where. -- 90.58.170 RCW Shorelines hearings board--Established-- Members--Chairman--Quorum for decision- Administrative and clerical assistance-- Expenses of members. 90.58.175 RCW Shorelines hearings board may adopt rules. 90.58A80 RCW Appeals from granting, denying or rescind- ing permits, procedure--Board to act, when--Local goverment appe'ala to board-- Grounds for declaring master program invalid--Appeals-to court, procedure. .90.58.190 RCW Review and adjustments to master programs. 90.58.200 RCPf Rules and regulations. 90.58.210 RCK Court actions to insure against conflict- ing uses and to enforce. 90.58.220 RCK General penalty. 90.58@230 RCW Violators liable for damages resulting fz violation--Attorney's fees and costs. 90.58.240 RCK Additional authority granted department and local governments. 90.58.250 RCW Department to cooperate with local govern- ments--Grants for development of master programs. 90.58.260 RCW State to represent its interest before federal agencies, interstate agencies and courts. 90.58.270 RCW Nonapplication to certain structures, docks, developments, etc., placed in navigable waters--Nonapplication to cer- tain-rights of action, authority. 90.58.280 RCW Application to all state agencies, counties, public and municipal corpora- tions. M.58.290 RCW Restrictions as affecting fair market value of property. 90.58.300 RCW Department as regulating state agency-- Special authority. 90.58.310 RCW Designation of shorelines of state-wide significance by legislature--Recommenda- tion by director, procedure. 90.58.320 RCW Height limitation respecting permits. 90.53.330 RCW Study of cit -Iss and t-owns submittzd le.. islatu--e--o-cope. 90.58.340 RCW Use policies for land adjacent to shore- lines, development of. 90.58.350 RCW Nonapplication to treaty rights. 90.58.360 RCW Existing requirement for permits, certi- ficates, etc.,, not obviated. 90.58.900 RCW Liberal construction. 90.58.910 RCW Severability. 90.58.920 RCW Effective date. 90.58.930 RCW Referendum to the people--1971 act-- Determining if act continues in force and effect. Chapter 90.58 RCW SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 As Amended by Chapter 203 Laws of 1973 RCW 90.58.010 SHORT TITLE. this chapter shall be known and may be cited as-the "Shoreline Management Act of 1971." (1971 lst ex.s. c 286 1.1 90.58.020 Legislative findings--State policy enunciated --USE PREFERENCE. The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever increasing pres- sures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased cooidination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state. The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unre- stricted construction on the privately owned or publicly,owned shorelines of'the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefore, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordi- nated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines. it is the policy of the state to provide for the manage- ment of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fos-"'N tering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates pro- tecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. The legislature declares that the interest of all of thel";11/ people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines*of state-wide@significance. 'The department, in adopting guide- lines for shorelines of state-wide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of state-wide significance, shall give preference to uses 'in the following order of preference which: (1) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local_tnterest; Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; Result in long term over short term benefit; .(4 Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (0) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the 9 relines; (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. In the implementation of this policy the public's oppor- tunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end '-,,,juses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shore- line. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences, ports, shore- line recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, in_dustx-la-17@anccunercial devvJ4pSents whic4_axa-parttvulazly-dependent on their loca- tion on or use of-the shorelines of the state'and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. I Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state 3hall be designed and conducted in a manner to,minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use,of the water. 11971 lst*ex.s. c286 5 2.1 Reviser's note: In subsection (7), a literal translation of the session law's reference 0 . . . section 11 of this 1971 act . . ." would read "RCW 90.58.110". The above reference to "RCW 90.58.100" which codifies section 10 of this act is believed proper in that (1) section 10 lists the elements includable within the master programs while section 11 neither, defines nor mentions such elements, and (2) in'the course of passage of .the bill, section 7 was deleted causing old section 11 to be renumbered section 10, but the above reference was not amended in consonance with the renumbering. 90.58.030 DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS. As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions and concepts apply: (1) Administration: (a) "Department" means the department of ecology; 111-2 (b) "Director" means the director of the department of ecology; (c) "Local government" means any county, incorporated ity, or-town which contains within its boundaries any lands or waters subject to this chapter; (d) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corpo- ration, association, organization, cooperative, public or municipal corporation, or agency of the state or local govern- mental unit however designated; (e) "Hearing board" means the shoreline hearings board established by this chapter. (2) Geographical: (a) "Extreme low tide" means the lowest line on the land reached by a receding tide; (b) "Ordinary high water mark" on all lakes, streams, and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long con- tinued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a char acter distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter: Provided, That in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found,,,the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water; (c) "Shorelines of the state" are the total of all "shore- lines" and "shorelines of state-wide s ignificance" within the state; (d), "Shorelines" means@all of the,water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated wetlands, together with the lands underlying them; except (i) shorelines of state-wide significance; (ii) shorelines on segments of steams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associ- ated with such upstream segments; and (iii) shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes; (e) "Shorelines of state-wide significance" means the following shorelines of the state: (1) The area between the ordinary high water mark and the western boundary of the state from Cape Disappointment on the south to Cape Flattery on the north, including harbors, bays, estuaries, and inlets; (ii) Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent salt waters and the Strait of Juan de Fuca between the ordinary high water mark and the line of extreme low tide as follows: (A) Nisqually Delta--from Dewolf Bight to Tatsolo Point, (B) Birch Bay--from Point Whitehorn to Birch Point, (C) Hood Canal--from Tala Point to Foulweather Bluff, (D) Skagit Bay and adjacent area--from Brown Point to Yokeko ,Point, and (E) Padilla Bay--from March Point to William Point; 111-3 Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt waters north to the Canadian.line and lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide; (iv) Those lakes, whether natural, artificial or a combination thereof, with a surface acreage of one thousand acres or more measured at the ordinary high water mark; (v) Those natural rivers or segments thereof as follows: (A) Any west of the crest of the Cascade range down- stream of a point where the mean annual flow is measured at one thousand cubic feet per second or more, (B) Any east of the crest of the Cascade range down- stream of a point where the annual flow is measured at two hundred cubic feet-per second or more, or those portions of rivers east of the crest of the Cascade range downstream from the first three hundred square miles of drainage area, whichever is longer; (vi) Those wetlands associated with (i), (ii), (iv), and (v) of this subsection (2) (e) (f) "Wetlands" or "wetland areas" means those lands extend- ing landward for two hundred feet in all directions as mea- sured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; and all marshes, bogs, swamps, floodways, river deltas, and flood plains associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to he designated as to location by the department of ecology. (3) 'Procedural terms: (a) "Guidelines",means those standards adopted to imple- ment the policy of this chapter for regulation of use of the shorelines of the state prior to adoption of master programs. Such standards shall also provide criteria to local governments and the department in developing master programs; (b) "Master program" shall mean the comprehensive use plan for a described area, and the use regulations together with maps, diagrams, charts or other descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020; (c) "State master program" is the cumulative total of all master programs approved or adopted by the department of ecology; (d) "Development" means a use consisting of the construc- tion or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand# gravel or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary naturewhich interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters over- lying lands subject to this@ chapter at any state of water level; (e) "Substantial development" shall mean any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds one thousand dollars, or any development which materially inter- feres with the normal public use of.the water or shorelines of state; except that the following shall not be considered 111-4 substantial developments for the purpose of this chapter: (i) Normal maintenan-e or repair of existing structures. or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements; (ii) Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single family residences; (iii) Emergency construction necessary to protect pro- perty from damage by the elements; (iv) Construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure on wetlands; (v) Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys; (vi) Construction on wetlands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single family residence for his own use.or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height -,f thirty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter. (vii) Construction of a dock, designed for pleasure 'craft only, for the private noncommercial use of.the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single family residence, the cost of which does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars. [1973 c 203 5 1; 1971 Ist ex.s. c 286 S 3.1] 90.58.040 PROGRAM APPLICABLE TO THE SHORELINES OF THE STATE The shoreline management program of this chapter shall apply to the shorelines of the state as defined in this chapter. (1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 4.1 90.58.050 PROGRAM AS COOPERATIVE BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND STATE--RESPONSIBILITIES DIFFERENTIATED. This chapter establishes a cooperative program of shoreline management between local government and 'the state. Local government shall have the primary responsibility for initiating and administering the regulatory program of this chapter. The department shall act primarily in a supportive and review capacity with primary emphasis on insuring compliance with the policy and provisions of this chapter. (1971 lst ex.s. c 286-5 5.1 90.58.060 TIMFTABLE FOR ADOPTION OF INITIAL GUIDELINES--- PUBLIC HEARINGS, NOTICE OF. (1) Within one hundred,twenty days from June 1, 1971, the department shall submit to all local governments'proposed c juidelines consistent with RCW 90.58.020 for: (a) Development of master programs for regulations of the uses of shorelines; and (b) Development of master programs for regulation of the uses of shorelines of state-wide significance. ' (2) Within sixty days from receipt of such proposed guide- lines,.local governments shall submit to the department in writing proposed changes, if any, and comments upon the pro- posed guidelines. (3) Thereafter,and within one hundred twenty days from the submission of such proposed guidelines to local govern- ments, the department, after review and consideration of the comments and suggestions submitted to it, shall resubmit final proposed guidelines. (4) Within sixty days thereafter public hearings shall be held by the department in Olympia and Spokane, at which interested public and private parties shall have the oppor- tunity to present statements and views on the proposed guide- lines. Notice of such hearings shall be published at least once in each of the three weeks immediately preceding the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county of the state. (5) Within ninety days following such public hearings, the department at a public hearing to be held in Olympia shall adopt guidelines. 11971 lst ex.s. c 286 S 6.1 90.58.070 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO SUBMIT LETTERS OF INTENT ---DEPARTMENT TO ACT UPON FAILURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. (1) Local-governments are directed with regard to shorelines "of the state in their various jurisdictions to submit to the director of the department, within six months from June 1, 1971, letters stating that they propose to complete an inventory and develop master programs for these shorelines as provided for in RCW 90.58.080. (2) If any local government fails to submit a letter as provided in subsection (1) of this section, or fails to adopt a masier program for the shorelines of the'state within its jurisdiction in accordance with the time schedule provided in this chapter, the department shall carry out the requirements of RCW 90.58.080 and adopt a master program for the shorelines of the state within the jurisdiction of the local government. [1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 7.1 90.58.080 TIMETABLE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO COMPLETE SHORELINE INVENTORIES AND MASTER PROGRAMS. Local governments are directed with regard to shorelines of the state within their various jurisdictions as follows: (1) To complete within eighteen months after June 1, 1971, a comprehensive inventory of such shorelines. Such inventory shall include but not be limited to the general ownership patterns of the lands located therein in terms of public and private ownership, a survey of the general natural character- istics thereof, present uses conducted therein and initial projected uses thereof; (2) To develop, within twenty-four months after the adop- tion of guidelines as provided in RCW 90.58.060, a master program for regulation of uses of the shorelines of the state consistent with the guidelines adopted. [1974 3rd ex.s. c 61- 51, 1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 8.1 This 1974 amendatory act is necessary for the immediate preser- vation of the public peace, health and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately. [1974 3rd ex.s. c 61 5 2.1 111-6 90.58.090 APPROVAL Or MASTER PROGRAM OR SEGMENTS THEREOF'o, WHEN--DEPARTMENTAL ALTERNATIVES WHEN SHORELINES OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIrICANCE--LATER ADOPTION OF MASTER PROGRAMS SUPERSEDES DEPARTMENTAL PROGRAM. Master programs or segments thereof shall become effective when adopted or approved by the depart- ment as approDriate. within the time period provided in RCW 90.58.080, each local government shall have submitted a master program, either totally or by segments, for all shore- lines of the state within its jurisdiction to the department for review and approval. (1) As to those segments of the master program relating to shorelines, they shall be approved by the department unless it determines that the submitted segments are not consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable,guidelines. If approval is denied, the department shall state within ninety days from the date of submission in detail the precise facts upon which that decision is based, and shall submit to the lo,cal government suggested modi ,fications to the program to make it consistent with said policy and guidelines. The local government shall have ninety days after it receives recommen- dations from the department to make modifications designed to eliminate the inconsistencies and to resubmit the program to the department for approval. Any resubmitted program shall take effect when and in such form and content as is approved by the department. (2) As to those segments of the master program relating to shorelines of state-wide significance the department shall have full authority-following review and evaluation of the submission by local government to develop and adopt an alter- native to.the local government's proposal if in the depart- ment's opinion the program submitted does not provide the optimum implementation of the policy of this chapter to satisfy the state-wide interest. If the submission by local govern- ment is not approved, the department shall suggest modifica- tions to the local government within ninety days from receipt of the submission. The local government shall have ninety days after it receives said modifications to consider the same and resubmit a master program to the department. Thereafter, the department shall adopt the resubmitted program or, if the department determines that said program does not provide for optimum implementation, it may develop and adopt an altei- native as hereinbefore provided. (3) In the event a local government has not complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.070 it may thereafter upon written notice to the department elect to adopt a master program for the shorelines within its jurisdiction, in which event it shall'comply with provisions established by this chapter for the adoption of a master program for such shore- lines. Upon approval of such master program by the department it shall supersede such master program as may have been adopted by the department for such shorelines. [1971 lst ex.s. c 286 9.) 111-7 90.58.100 PROGRAMS AS dONSTITUTING USE REGULATIONS--- DUTIES WHEN PREPARING PROGRAMS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO--PROGRAM (ZONTENTS. (1) The master programs provided for.in this cha ter, when adopted and approved by the department, as approprpi;te shall constitute use regulations for the various shorelines of the state. In preparing the master programs, and any amendments thereto, the department and local governments shall to the extent feasible% (a) Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts; (b) Consult with and obtain the comments of any federal, state, regional, or local agency having any special expertise with respect to any environmental impact; (c) Consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state; (d) Conduct or support such further research, studies, surveys, and interviews as are deemed necessary; (e) Utilize all available information regarding hydrology, geography, topography, ecology, economics, and other pertinent data; (f) Employ, when feasible, all appropriate, i@odern scientific data processing and 'computer techniques to store, index, analyze, and manage the information gathered. (2) The master programs shall include, when appropriate., the following: (a) An economic development element for the location and design of industries, transportion facilities, port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state; (b) A public access element making provision for public access to publicly owned areas; (c) A recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational.opportunities, including but not limited to parks, tidelands, beaches, and recreational areas; (d) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thorough- fares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the shoreline use element; (e) A use element which considers the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the use on .:ihorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, indus- try, transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land; (f) A conservation element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wild- life protection; 111-8 (g) An historic, cultural, scientific, and educational element for the protection and restoration-of buildings, sites, and areas having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values; and (h) Any other element deemed appropriate or necessary to effectuate the policy of this chapter. (3) The master programs shall include such map or maps, descriptive text, diagrams and charts, or other descriptive material.as are necessary to provide for ease of understanding. (4) Master programs will reflect that state-owned shore- lines of the state are particularly adapted to providing wil- derness beaches, ecological study areas, and other recreational activities for the public and will give appropriate special consideration to same. (5) Each master program shall contain provisions to allow for the varying of the application of use regulations of the program, including provisions for permits for conditional uses and variances, to insure that strict implementation of a pro- gram will not create unnecessary hardships or thwart the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. Any such varying shall be allowed only if extraordinary circumstances are shown and the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. The con- cept of this subsection shall be incorporated in the rules adopted by the department relating to the establishment of a' permit system as provided in RCW 90.58.140(3). (1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 10.1 90.58.110 DEVELOPMENT OF-PROGRAM WITHIN TWO OR MORE ADJA- CENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT JUAISDICTIONS--DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM IN SEGMENTS, WHEN. (1) Whenever it shall appear to the director that a master-program should be developed for a region of the- shorelines of the state which includes lands and waters located in two or'more adjacent local government jurisdictions, the director shall designate such region and notify the appropriate units of local government the'keof. it shall be the duty of the notified units to develop cooperatively an inventory and master program in accordance with and within the time provided in RCW 90.58.080. . - (2) At the discretion of,the department, a local govern- ment master program may be adopted in segments applicable to particular areas so that immediate attention may be given to those areas@of the shorelines of the state in most need of a use regulation. (1971 lat ex.s. c 286 5 11.] 90.58.120.,ADOPTION OF RULES, PROGRAMS, ETC., SUBJECT TO RCW 34.04.625--PUBLIC HEARINGS, NOTICE OF--PUBLIC INSPECTION AFTER APPROVAL OR ADOPTION. All rules and regulations, master programs, designations and guidelines, shall be adopted or approved in accordance with the provisions of RCW 34.04.025 in- sofar as such provisions are not inconsistent with the provi- sions of this Chapter. In addition: 111-9 (1) Prior to the approval or adoption by the department of a master program, or portion thereof, at least one public hearing shall be held in each county affected by a program or portion thereof for the purpose of.obtaining the views and comments of the public. Notice of each such hearing shall be published at least once in each of the three weeks immediately preceding the hearing in one or more newpapers of general circulation in the county in which the hearing is to be held. (2). All guidelines, regulations, designations or master programs adopted or approved under this chapter shall be available for public inspection at the office of the department or the appropriate county auditor and city clerk. The terms "adopt" and "approve" for purposes of this section, shall include modifications and rescission of guidelines. (1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 12.1 90.58.130 INVOLVEMENT OF ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES HAVING INTEREST, MEANS. To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs devel- dped under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments shall: (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only'invite but actively encourage partici- pation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and (2) Invite and encourage participatiorf by all agencies of federal, state, and local govp-rnment, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State'and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments. 11971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 13.1 90.58.140 DEVELOP14ENT PERMITS--GROUNDS FOR GRANTING--- DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON ISSUANCE--ADMINISTRATION BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CONDITIONS--RESCISSION--WHEN PERMITS NOT REQUIRED--- APPROVAL WHEN PERMIT FOR VARIANCE OR CONDITIONAL USE.. (1) No development shall be undertaken on the shorelines of the state except those which are consistent with the policy of this chapter and, after adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelines, regulations or master program. (2) No substantial development shall be undertaken on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit from the government entity having administrative jurisdiction under this chapter. A permit shall be granted: (a) From June 1, 1971, until such time as an applicable master program has become effective, only when the development proposed is consistent with: (i) The policy of RCW 90.58.020; III-10 and (ii) after their adoption, the guidelines and regulations of the department; and (iii) so far as can be ascertained, the master program being developed for the area. In the event the dep-artment is of the opinion that any permit granted under this subsection is inconsistent with the policy declared in RCW 90.58.020 or is otherwise not authorized by this section, the department may appeal the@issuance of such permit within thirty days to the hearings board-upon written notice to the local government and the permittee; (4) After adoption or approval, as appropriate, by the department of an applicable master program, only when the development proposed is consistent with the applicable master program and the policy of RCW 90.58.020. (3) Local government shall establish a program, consis- tent with rules adopted by the department, for the admini- stration and enforcement of the permit system provided in this section. Any such system shall include a requirement that all applications and permits shall be subject to the same public notice procedures as provided for applications for waste disposal permits for new operations under RCW 90.48.170. The administration of the system so established shall be performed exclusively by local government. (4) Such system shall include provisions to assure that construction pursuant to a permit will not begin or be author- ized until forty-five days@from the date of final approval by the local government or, except in the case of any permit issued to the state of Washington, department of highways, for the construction and modification of the SR 90 (1-90) bridges across Lake Washington, until.all review proceedings are ter- minated if such proceedings were initiated within forty-.five days from the date of final approval by the local government. (5) Any ruling on an application for a permit under authority of this section, whether it be an approval or a denial, shall, concurrently with the transmittal of the ruling to the applicant, be filed with the department 'and the attorney general. (6) Applicants for permits under this section shall have the burden of proving that a proposed substantial development is consistent with the criteria which must be met before a per- mit is granted. In any review of the granting or denial of an application for a permit as provided in RCW 90.58.160 (1), the person requesting the review shall have the burden of proof. (7) Any permit may be rescinded by the issuing authority upon the finding that a permittee has not complied with con- ditions of a permit. In the event the department is of the opinion,that such noncompliance exists, the department may appeal within thirty days to the hearings board for a rescission of such permit upon written notice to the local government and the permittee. (8) The holder of a certification from the governor pur- suant to chapter 80.50 RCW shall not be required to obtain a permit under this section. (9) No permit'shall be required for any development on .Shorelines of the state included within a preliminary or final plat approved by the applicable state agency or local govern- ment prior to April 1, 1971, if: (a) The final plat was approved after April 13, 1961, or the preliminary plat was approved after April 30, 1969,, or (b) Sales of lots to purchasers with reference to the plat, or substantial development incident to platting or required by the plat, occurred prior to April 1, 1971, and (c) The development to be made without a permit meets all requirements of the applicable state agency or local goverment, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter,, and (d) The development does not involve construction of buildings, or involves construction on wetlands of buildings to serve only as ccmunity social or recreational facilities for the use of owners of platted lots and the buildings do not exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level, and (a) The development is completed within two years after the effective date of this chapter. (10) The applicable state agency or local government is authorized to approve a final plat with respect to shorelines of the state included within a preliminary plat approved after April 30, 1969, and prior to April 1, 1971: Provided, That any substantial development within the platted shorelines of the state is authorized by a permit granted pursuant to this sec- tion, or does not require a.permit as provided in subsection (9) of this section, or does not require a permit because of substantial development occurred prior to June 1. 1971. (11) Any permit for a variance or a conditional use by local government under approved master programs must be sub- mitted to the department for its approval or disapproval. (1973 2nd ex.s. c 19 5 1, 1971 Ist ex.s. c 286 5 14.1 90.S8.lS0 SELECTIVE C014MERICAL TZKBER'CUTTING, WHEN With re"ct to timber situated within two hundred feet :;@utting landward of the ordinary high water mark within shorelines of state-wide significance, the department or local government shall allow only selective commerical timber cutting, so that no more than thirty percent of the merchantable trees may be har- vested in any,ten year period of time: Provided, That other timber harvesting methods may be permitted in those limited instances where the topography, soil conditions or silviculture practices necessary for regeneration render selective logging ecologically detrimental: Provided further, That clear cutting of timber which is solely incidental to the preparation of land for other uses authorized by this chapter may be permitted. 11971 lst ex.s. c 286 S IS.]. 90.58.160 PROHIBITION AGAINST SURFACE DRILLING FOR OIL OR GAS, WHERE. Surface drilling for oil or gas is prohibited in the waters of Puget Sound north to the Canadian boundary and the Strait of Juan de Fuca seaward from the ordinary high water mark and on all lands within one thousand feet landward from said mark. [1971 lst ex.s. c 286 S 16.] 90.58.170 SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD--ESTABLISHED-- MEMBERS--CHAIRMAN--QUORUM FOR DECISION--ADMINISTRATIVE AND 111-12 CLERICAL ASSISTANCE--EXPENSES OF MEMBERS. A shorelines hearings board sitting as a quasi judicial body is hereby established which shall be made up of six members: Three members shall be members of the pollution control hearings board; two members, one appointed by the association of Wa3hington cities and one appointed by the association of county commissioners, both to serve at the pleasure of the associations; and the state land commissioner or his designee. The chairman of the pollution control hearings board shall be the chairman of the shorelines hearings board. -A decision must be agreed to by at least four members of the board 'to be final. The pollution control hearings board shall provide the shorelines appeals board such administrative and clerical assistance as the latter may require. The members of the shorelines appeals board shall receive the compensation,, travel,, and subsistence expenses as provided in RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060. (1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 17.] 90.58.175 The shorelines hearings board may adopt rules and regulations governing the administrative practice and procedure in and before the board. 11973 2nd ex.s. c 203- 3.] 90.58.180 APPEALS FROM GRANTING, DENYING OR RESCINDING PER14ITSl PROCEDURE--BOARD TO ACT, WEEN--LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPEALS TO BOARD--GROUNDS FOR DECLARING 14ASTER PROGRAM INVALID--APPEALS TO COURT, PROCEDURE. (1) Any person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a permit on shorelines of the state, or rescinding a permit pursuant to RCW 90.58.150 may seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a request for the same with-, in thirty days of receipt of the final order. Concurrently with the filing of any request for review with the board as provided in this section pertaining to a final order of a local govern- ment, the requestor shall file a cony of his request with the department and the attorney general. If it appears to the depart- ment or the attorney general that the requestor has valid reasons to seek review, either the department or the attorney general may certify the request within thirty days after its receipt to the shorelines hearings board following which the board shall then,, but not otherwise, review the matter covered by the requestor: Provided, That the failure to obtain such certification shall not preclude the requestor fromobtaining a review in the superior court,under any right to review otherwise available to the requestor. The department and the attorney general may intervene to protect the public interest' and insure that the provisions of this chapter are complied with at any time within forty-five days from the date of the filing of said copies by therequestor. (2) The department or the attorney general may obtain review of any final order granting a permit, or granting or denying an application for a permit issued by a-local government by filing a written request with the shorelines appeals board and the appropriate local government within forty-five days from the date,the final order was filed as provided in subsec- tion (5) of RCW 90.58.140. !H-13 (3) The review proceedings authorized in subsection (1) and (2) of this section are subject to the provisions of chapte 34.04 RCW pertaining to procedures in contested cases. judici al review of such proceedings of the shorelines hearings board may be had as provided in chapter 3,4.04 Rew. (4) Local government may appeal to the shorelines hearings board any rules,, regulations.. guidelines, designations or master programs for shorelines of the state adopted or approved by the department within thirty days of the date of the adop- tion or approval. The board shall make a final decision within sixty days following the hearing held thereon. (A) In an appeal relating to a master program for'shore- lines, the board, after full consideration of the positions of the local government and the department,, shall determine the validity of the master program. If the board determines that said program: (i) is,clearly erroneous in light of the policy of this chapter; or (ii) constitutes an implementation of this chapter in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or (iii) is arbitrary and capricious-, or (iv) was developed without fully considering and eval- uating all proposed master programs submitted to the department by the local government; or (V) was not adopted in accordance with required procedures; the board shall enter a final decision declaring'the program invalid, remanding thaTmaster program to the department with a statement of the reasons in support of the deterain&tion, mid directing the department to.adopt, after a thorough consultation with the affected local government, a new master program. Unless the board makes one or more of the determinations as herein- before provided, the board shall find the master program to be valid and enter a final decision to that effect. (b) In an appeal relating to a master program for shore- lines of state-wide significance the board shall approve the master program adopted by the department unless a local govern- ment shall, by clear and convincing evidence and argument, per- suade the board that the master program approved by the depart- ment is inconsistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines. (c) In an appeal relating to rules, regulations, guide- lines, master program of state-wide significance and designa- tions, the standard of review provided in RCW 34.04.070 shall apply. (5) Rules,, regulations, designations, master programs and guidelines shall be subject to review in superior court, if authorized pursuant to RCW 34.04.070: Provided, That no review shall be granted by a superior court on petition from a local government unless the local government shall first have obtained review under subsection (4) of this section and the petition for court review is filed within three months after the date of final decision by the shorelines hearings board. [1973 c 203 5 2; 1971 lst ex.s. c 286 S 18.3 111-14 90.58.190 REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENTS TO MASTER PROGRAMS. The department and each local government qhau-periodi I y___xq_ w C-a . 1 Vic y master pr ,,pny master pFograms_under its jurisdiction and make such adjust- nvntv--themr6-to_ as ar-e necessary. Each local government shall submit any proposed adjustments, to the department as soon as they are completed. No such adjustment shall become effective until it has been approved by the department. [1971 lat ex.s. c 286 19.1 90.58.200 RULES AND REGULATIONS. The department and local governments are authorized to adopt such rules as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the.provisions of this chapter. (1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 20.1 90.58.210 COURT ACTIONS TO INSURE AGAINST CONFLICTING USES AND TO ENFORCE. The attorney general or the attorney for the local government shall bring such injunctive, declaratory, or other actions as are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the state in conflict with the pro- visions and programs of this chapter,, and to otherwise enforce the provisions of this chapter. (1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 21.] 90.58.220 GENERAL PENALTY. In addition to incurring civil liability under RCW 90.58.210, any person found to have wilfully engaged in activities on the shorelines ofthe state in violation of the provisions of this chapter or any of the master programs, rules, or regulations adopted pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than one thou- sand dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than ninety dayst or by both such fine and'imprisonment: Pro- vided, That the fine for'the third and all subsequent viQlations in any five-year period shall be notless than five hundred nor more than ten thousand dollars. (1971 lst ex.s. c 296 5 22.1 90.58.230 VIOLATORS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM VIOLATION--ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. Any person subject to the regulatory program of this chapter who violates any pro- vision.of this chapter or permit issued pursuant thereto shall be.liable for all damage to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to violation. The attorney general or local government attorney shall bring suit for dam- ages under this section on behalf of the state or local govern- ments. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this section on their own behalf and on the behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been estab- lished for the costof restoring an area affected by a violation the court shall make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished within a reasonable time at-the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including money damages, III-is the court in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. (1971 lst ex.s. c 286 23.1 90.58.240 ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY GRANTED DEPARTMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT&c In addition to any other powers granted hereunder, the dtpartment and local governments may: (1) Acquire lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert with other governmental entities, when necessary to achieve implementation of master programs adopted hereunder; (2) Accept grants, contributions, and appropriations from any agency, public or private, or individual for the purposes of this chapter; (3) Appoint advisory committees to assist in carrying out the purposes of this chapter; (4) Contract for professional or technical services required by it which cahnot be performed by its employees. (1972 Ist ex.s. 53 5 1; 1971 ex.s. c 286 S 24.1 90.58.250 DEPARTMENT TO COOPERATE WITH 1-JOCAL GOVERNMENTS --GRAITTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MMTER PROGRAMS. The department is directed to cooperate fully with local governments in discharg- ing their responsibilities wider this chapter. Funds shall be avii1able. for distribution to local governments on the basis of applications for preparation of master programs. Such applications shall be submitted in accordance with regulations developed by the department. The department is authorized to ma-ke and administer grants within appropriations authorized by the legislature to any local government within the state,for the purpose of developing a master shorelines program. No grant shall be made in an amount in excess of the recipient's contri-, bution to the estimated cost of such program. [1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 25.1 90.58.260 STATE TO REPRESENT ITS INTEREST BEFORE FEDERAL AGENCIES, INTERSTATE AGENCIES AND COURTS. The state, through the department of ecology and the attorney general, shall repre- sent its interest before water resource regulation management, development, and use agencies of the United States, including among others, the federal power commission, environmental pro- tection agency, corps of engineers, department of interior, department of agriculture and the atomic energy commission, before interstate agencies and the courts with regard to activi- ties or uses of shorelines of the state and the-program of this chapter. Where federal or interstate agency plans, activities, or procedures conflict with state policies, all reasonable steps available shall be taken by the state to preserve the integrity of its policies. (1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 26.] 111-16 90.58.270 NONAPPLICATION TO CERTAIN STRUCTURES, DOCKS, DEVELOPMENTSe ETC., PLACED IN NAVIGABLE WATERS--NONAPPLICATION TO CERTAIN RIGHTS OF ACTION, AUTHORITY. (1) Nothing in this statute shall constitute authority for requiring or ordering the re val of any structures, improvements, docks, fills, or developments placed in navigable waters prior to December 4, 1969, and the consent and authorization of the state of Washing- ton to the impairment of public rights of navigation, and corollary rights incidental thereto, caused by the retention and maintenance of said structures, improvements, docks, fills ordevelopments are hereby granted: Provided, That the consent-herein given shall not relate to any structures, improve- ments,, docks, fills, or developments placed on tidelands, shore- lands, or beds underlying said waters which are in trespass or in violation of state statutes. (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as altering or abridging any private right of action, other than a private right which is based upon the impairment of public rights con- sented to in subsection (1) hereof, (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as alter- ing or abridging the authority of the state or local governments to suppress or abate nuisances or to abate pollution. (4) Subsection (1) of this section shall apply to any case pending in the courts of this state on June 1, 1971 relat- ing to.the removal of structures, improvements, docks,, fills, or developments based on the impairment of public navigational rights. 11971 lat ex.s. c 286 5 27.] 90.58.280 APPLICATIONS TO ALL STATE AGENCIES, COUNTIES$. PUBLIC AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to all agencies of state government, counties, and public and municipal corporations and to all shorelines of the state owned or administered by them. (1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 28.1 90.58.290 RESTRICTIONS AS AFFECTING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY. The restrictions imposed by this chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property. 11971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 29.] 90.58.300 DEPARTMENT AS REGULATING SITATE AGENCY--SPECIAL AUTHORITY. The department of ecology is designated the state agency responsible for the program of regulation of the shore- lines of the state, including coastal shorelines and the shore- lines of the inner tidal waters of the state, and is authorized to cooperate with the federal government and sister states and to receive benefits of any statutes of thp' United States when- ever enacted which relate to programs of this chapter. [1971 lat ex.s. c 286 5 jO.] 90.58.310 DESIGNAT.ION OF SHORELINES OF STATE-WIDE SIGNI- FICANCE BY LEGISLATURE--RECOMMENDATION BY DIRECTOR, PROCEDURE. 111-17 Additional shorelines of the state shall be designated shore lines of state-wide significance only by affirmative action of the legislature. The director of the department may, however, from time to time, recommend to the legislature areas of the shorelines of the state which have state-wide significance relating to special economic, ecological, educational, developmental, recreational, or aesthetic values to be designated as shorelines of state-wide signif icance. Prior to making any such recommendation the director shall hold a public hearing*in the county or counties where the shore- line under consideration is located. It shall be the duty of the county commissioners of each county where such a hearing is conducted to submit their views with regard to a proposed desig- nation to the director at such date as the director determines but in no event shall the date be later than sixty days after the public hearing in the county. 11971 lst ex.s. 286 5 31.) 90.58.320 HEIGHT LIMITATION RESPECTING PERMITS. No per- mit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding con- siderations of the public interest will be served. [1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 32.1 -,90.58.330 STUDY OF SHORELINES OF CITIES AND TOWNS SUB- MITTEDTO LEGISLATURE--SCOPE. The department of ecology, the, attorney general, and the harbor line commission are directed as a matter of high priority to undertake jointly a study of the locations, uses and activities, both proposed and existing, relating to the shorelines of the cities, and towns of the state and submit a report which shall include but not be limited to the following: (1) EVents leading to the establishment of the various harbor lines pertaining to cities of the state; (2) The location of all such harbor lines; (3) The authority for establishment and criteria used in location of the same; (4) Present activities and uses made within harbors and their relationship to harbor lines; (5) Legal aspects pertaining to any uncertainty and incon- sistency; and (6) The relationship of federal, state and local govern- ments to regulation of uses and activities pertaining to the area,of study. The report shall be submitted,to the legislAture.not later' than December 1, 1972. (1971 lst ex.s c 286 � 3@.] 90.58.340 USE POLICIES FOR LAND ADJACENT TO SHORELINES, DEVELOPMENT OF. All state agencies; counties, and public and 111-18 municipal corporations shall review administrative and manage- ment policies, regulations, plans, and ordinances relative to lands under their respective jurisdictions adjacent to the shorelines of the state so as to achieve a use policy on said land consistent with the policy of this chapter, the guidelines, and the master programs for theshorelines of the state. The department may develop recommendations for land use control for such lands. Local governments shall, in developing use regulations for such areas, take into consider ation any recommendations developed by the department as well as any other state agencies or units of local government. 11971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 34.) 90.58.350 NONAPPLICATION TO TREATY RIGHTS. Nothing in this chapter shall affect any rights established by treaty to which the United States is a party. (1971 lst ex.s c 286 5 35.] 90.58.360 EXISTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS, CERTIFI- CATES, ETC., NOT OBVIATED. Nothing in this chapter shall obviate any requirement to obtain any permit, certificate, license, or approval from any state agency or local government. [1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 36.] 90.58.900 LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION--1971 lst ex.s.,c 286. This chapter is exempted from the rule of strict construction, aiid it 9'hall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which it was enacted. 11971 lst ex.s. c 286 S 37.1 90.58.910 SEVERABILITY--1971 lst ex.s. c 286. If any provision of this chapter, or its application to any person or legal entity or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or legal entities or circumstances, shall not be affected. [1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 40.) 90.58.920 EFFECTIVE DATE--1971 lst ex.s. c 286. This chapter is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, the support of the state government, and its existing institutions. This 1971 act shall take effect on June 1, 1971. The director of ecology is author- ized to immediately take such steps as are necessary to insure that this 1971 act is implemented on its effective date. (1971 lst ex.s. c 286 5 41.] 90.58.930 REFERENDUM TO THE PEOPLE--1971 ACT--DETERMIN- ING IF ACT CONTINUES !N FORCE AND EFFEC'T. This 1.071 act con- stitutes an alternative to Initiative 43. The secretary of iii-19 state is directed to place this 1971 act on the ballot in con- junction with Initiative 43 at the next ensuing regular elec- tion. This 1971 act shall continue in force and effect until the secretary of state certifies the election results on this 1971 act. If affirmatively approved at the ensuing regular general election, the act shall continue in effect thereafter. [1971 lot ex.s. c 286 5 42.1 111-20 APPENDIX 4 FINAL.GUIDELINES FOR THE WASHINGTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 State of Washington Department of Ecology FINAL GUIDELINES SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 June 20, 1972 IV-1 I _TA rf,-,, STATE OF WASHINGTON r 'If CIO VF RNO" OLYMPIA DANIEL J. EVANS cOVERNOR The State of Washington possesses shoreline areas whose uniqueness and diversity are unequalled in the Nation. We have inherited a treasure of untamed rivers, peaceful lakes, and bountiful marine areas. Such grandeur lured our forefathers here and continues to attract tourists in ever-increasing numbers. we have all had the opportunity to explore these natural areas - to swim and boat in the waters, observe the marine life, and fish in our cold, clear mountain streams. Experiences in other parts of the Country, however, and increasingly so here in Washington, show that we cannot continue to take our shoreline resources for granted. Our shorelines are a limited asset - we cannot increase them, but we can lose them if we fail to protect them through a sound, comprehensive management program. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, which was passed by our Legislature and became effective on June 1, 1971, provides the means for developing the necessary planning and management program between local government and the state. Local governments have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning program and administering the regulatory require- ments o'f the Act, with the Department of Ecology acting in a supportive and review capacity. Another important fe@ture of the Shoreline Act is the emphasis it places on citizen involvement, for only through an active shoreline program in which the citizens are able to participate from the outset can the ob- jectives of shoreline management be attained. The need for comprehensive shoreline management is clear - the tools for implementing a management program are available. 1 urge you to accept these guidelines and use them in mo@ring toward a level of environmental quality in our shoreline areas which we can share with pride. Sincerely, Daniel J E S @Governor Dani@. @E r Sr , 'It(.(A June 2, 1972 I )t B Enclosed is a copy of the Final Guidelines for local government, prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. As required by the Shoreline Act, these Guidelines will be formally adopted in a public hearing, to be held in the Olympia City Hall on June 20, 1972, at 9:30 A. M. Following the time table set forth in the Act, the first set of proposed guidelines was distributed to local governments on September 28, 1971. Local governments then had a period of ninety -days to review the guidelines and submit comments and suggestions to the Department of Ecology for consideration in the revision of the guidelines. Final proposed guidelines were then submitted to local governments and interested citizens and groups on January 26, 1972. An extensive series of public information meetings were held to discuss the final proposed guidelines and to obtain additional input for their refinement. Two public hearings were held on the final proposed guidelines-one in Spokane on March 21, 1972, and one in Olympia on March 23, 1972. The enclosed Final Guidelines are a result of comments received in those hearings and from the correspondence and comments of - concerned individuals, citizen groups and industry. We feel confident that these Final Guidelines are expressive of the concerns of the citizens of the State for the management of their shorelines and of the intent of the Legislature in framing the Shoreline Act. The primary duty for implementing the plan- ning phase of the shoreline program, based on the direction set by these Guidelines, now rests with the cities and counties of our State. Sincerely, J@OA. Director JAB:gk IV_3 State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. DE 72-12 (1) 1, John A. Biggs, Director, Department of Ecol- ogy of the State of Washington, by virtue of the authority vested in me, after due notice and in a meeting open to the public, held in the City of Olym- pia Commission Chambers, City Hall, 8th and Plum, Olympia, Washington, on June 20, 1972, do promul- gate and adopt the annexed rules and regulations, to wit: The adoption of guidelines for the development of master programs for regulation of the uses of shorelines of the state pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 286, Laws of 1971, First Extraordinary Session, Chapter 90.58 RCW, adopting a new chapter 173-16 WAC. as permanent rules of this agency. (2) This order after being first recorded in the order register, of this agency, shall be forwarded to the Code Reviser for filing, pursuant to chapter 34.04 RCW and chapter 1- 12 WAC. APPROVED AND ADOPTED June 20,1972. By JOHN A. BIGGS Director IV-4 PURPOSE WAC 173-16-010 PURPOSE. This regulation is adopted pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, in order to: (1) Serve as standards for implementation of the pol- icy of chapter 90.58 RCW for regulations of uses of the shorelines; and (2) Provide criteria to local governments and the department of ecology in developing master pro. grams. WAC 173-16-020 APPLICABILITY. The provisions of this chapter shall apply state-wide to all shorelines and shorelines of state-wide significance as defined in RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-16-030.. IV-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Washington Administrative Page Cade Nmber INTRODUCTION ... THE MASTER PROGRAM 2 WAC 173-16-040 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 2 WAC 173-16-040(l) POLICY STATEMENTS .. .... . 3 WAC 173-16-040(2) MASTER PROGRAM ELEMENTS 3 WAC 173-16-040(3) ENVIRONMENTS 4 WAC 173-16-040(4) Natural Environment A WAC I 73-16-040(4)(i) Conservancy Environment 5 WAC 173-16-040(4)(ii) Rural Environment 5 WAC 173-16-04014)(iii) Urban Environment 5 WAC 173-i6-040j4)jiv) SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE 6 WAC 173-16-040(5) THE NATURAL SYSTEMS 6 WAC 173-16-050 MARINE BEACHES 6 WAC 173-16-050(l) SPITS & BARS 7 WAC 173-16-050(2) DUNES ..... . 7 WAC 173-16-050(3) ISLANDS 8 WAC 173-16-05014) ESTUARIES 8 WAC 173-16-050(5) MARSHES, BOGS AND SWAMPS 8 WAC 173-16-050(6) LAKES 8 WAC 173-16-050(7) RIVERS, STREAMS AND CREEKS 8 WAC 173-16-050(8) FLOOD PLAINS 9 WAC 173-16-050(9) PUGET SOUND ... 9 WAC 173-16-050(10) PACIFIC OCEAN 9 WAC 173-16-050(l 1) THE USE ACTIVITIES ... 10 WAC 173-16-060 AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ... 10 WAC 173-16-060(j) AUACULTURE .. ..... 11 WAC 173-16.060(2) FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .11 WAC 173-16-060(3) COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT I I WAC 173-16-060(4) MARINAS 12 WAC 173-16-060(5) MINING 12 WAC 173-16-060(6) OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS 12 WAC 173-16-060(7) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 13 WAC 173-16-060(8) UTILITIES ......... . ... .... . 13 WAC 173-16-060(9) PORTS AND WATER-RELATED INDUSTRY 13 WAC 173-16-060(10) BULKHEADS 14 WAC 173-16-060(11) BREAKWATERS 14 WAC 173-16-060(12) JETTIES AND GROINS 14 WAC 173-16-060(13) LANDFILL 15 WAC 173-16-060(14) SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 15 WAC 173-16-060(151 DREDGING 15 WAC 173-16-060(16) SHORELINE FLOOD PROTECTION 15 WAC 173-16-060(l ROAD AND RAILROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 16 WAC 173-16-060(16) PIERS 16 WAC 173-16-060(198) ARCHEOLOGICAL AREAS AND HISTORIC SITES 16 WAC 173-16-060(20) RECREATION 17, WAC 173-16-060(21) VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES 417 WAC 173-16-070 GLOSSARY 18 WAC 173-16-030 APPENDIX 19 WAC 173-16-200 IV-6 INTRODUCTION The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 is based eral terms so that they can be used by all local on the philosophy that the shorelines of the State are governments, -regardless of size or geographical loca- among the most valuable, and fragile, of its natural tion. The critical point of the entire program is the resources and that there is great concern throughout manner in which local governments interpret and uti- the State relating .a their utilization, protection, resto- lize these guidelines in the development of their mas- ration, and. preservation. Therefore, coordinated plan- ter programs. ning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the State, while at The information in this guideline package has the some time recognizing and protecting private been presented in three parts: The Master Program, property rights consistent with public interest. This which sets forth the procedures required for comple- planning is to be a rational and concerted effort, tion of the master programs; The Natural Systems, jointly performed by federal, state and localgovern- which provides a brief look at each of the natural ment. It is further felt that the interest of all of the phenomena which is part of the total shoreline envi- people .shall be paramount in the management of ronment; and, The Use Activities, which presents the shorelines of statewide significance, and that the pub- actual standards for the establishment of master pro- lic should have the opportunity to enjoy the physical grams and provides direction for shoreline develop- and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the ment until master programs are completed. Each of State. the parts is pre@ecled by an explanatory paragraph The express pur Ipose of the Shoreline Management which relates that part to the others in the program. Act is to provide for management of Washington's These guidelines are the beginning of a program shorelines by planning for and fostering all reason- which will become more meaningful as our knowl- able and appropriate uses. This policy is directed at edge of our environment increases. Our knowledge is enhancement of shorelines rather than restriction of not yet sophisticated enough to precisely determine uses. the nature of the complex and interrelated chemical, biological, physical and aesthetic factors within our As required by the Shoreline Management Act of environment. 1971, these guidelines have been written to serve as standards for implementation of the policy of this The guidelines were written with a spirit of opti- legislation for regulation of uses of the shorelines, mism, with the hope that our legacy of natural gran- prior to adoption of master programs, while also pro- deur in. Washington will be used more wisely in the viding criteria to local governments and the Depart. brief period of time it is entrusted to us, so that ment of Ecology in developing master programs. succeeding generations may have it to enjoy and ex- The guidelines have been written in relatively gen. tend our concern into their future, IV-. 7 THE MASTER PROGRAM. The act requires that prior to approval or adoption (WAC 173-16-040) of a master program, or a portion thereof, by the department, at least one public hearing shall be held The master program is to be developed by local in each county affected by the program for the p pose of obtaining the views, and comments a government to provide an objective guide for regulat- f t he ing the use of shorelines. The master program should public. clearly state local policies for the development of The act charges the state and local government shorelands and indicate how these policies relate to with not only the responsibility of making reasonable the goals of the local citizens and.to specific regula- efforts to inform the people of the state about the tions of uses affecting the physical development of shoreline management program, but also actively en- land and water resources throughout the local govern- courages participation by all persons, private groups, ments' jurisdiction. and entities, which have an interest in shoreline man- agement. The master program developed by each local gov- ernment will reflect the unique shoreline conditions To meet these responsibilities, the local govern- and the development requirements which exist and ment agencies responsible for the development of the are projected in that area. As part of the process of master program should establish a method for obtain- master program development, local governments con ing and utilizing citizen involvement. The extent of identify problems and seek solutions which best sat- citizen involvement in the formulation of the master isfy their needs. program will be considered by the department in the A master program, by its definitibn, is general, review of the program. A failure by the local govern. comprehensive and long-range in order to be applica- ment to encourage and utilize citizen involvement, or ble to the whole area for a reasonable length of time to justify not having done so, may be noted as a under changing conditions. failure to con@ply with the act. "Gen6ral" means that the policies, proposals and Though the department recognizes various forms guidelines are not directed towards any specific sites. of citizen. involvement as viable approaches for in- volving the public in the master program, the local *'Comprehensive" means that the program is di- government will be encouraged to utilize the method rected towards all land and water uses, their impact as suggested in these guidelines. If a local government on the environment and logical estimates of future does not fol 'low these guidelines, it should provide an growth. It also means that the program shall recog- explanation of the method used. The department will nize plans and programs of the other government be available to explain and h Ielp organize the sug- units, adjacent jurisdictions and private developers. gested approach to citizen i.nvolvement upon request. "Long-range" means that the program is to be The suggested approach to citizen ini/olvement t directed at least 20 to 30 years into the future, look be utilized by the local government agency responsi beyond immediate issues, and follow creative objec- ble for the development of the master program in tives rather than a simple projection of current trbnds cludes the following: and conditions. (a) Appoint a citizen advisory committee whose Finally, chapter 90.58 RCW requires that the mas- function will be to guide the formulation of the master ter program shall constitute use regulations for the program through a series of public evening meetings various shorelines of the state. Specific guidelines are and at least one public hearing. The committee mem- outlined in RCW 90.58.1000) for preparing the master bers should represent both commercial interests as well as environmentalists. However, the advisory com- programs to accomplish this purpose. It is the inten- mittee itself is not to be a substitute for general citizen tion of these guidelines, especially those related to involvement and input. The aim of the committee will citizen involvement, and the inventory to aid in carry-. be to utilize citizen input in: irig out this section of the act. (i) Studying existing, public policies related to To facilitate an effective implementation of chapter shorelines. 90.58 RCW throughout the state, the procedures on Iii) Defining the needs to satisfy local demands for the following pages shall be observed while develop- shorelines. ing master programs for the shorelines. Exceptions to some of the specific provisions of these guidelines (iii) Studying the type and condition of local may occur where unique circumstances ju3tify such shorelines relative to needs. departure. Any departure from these guidelines must, Jiv) Developing goals and policies for the master however, be compatible with the intent of the Share- program with the local government fulfilling the tine Management Act as enunciated in RCW specifications of the master program, including des- 90.58.020. Further, in all cases, local governments ignation of the environments. must meet the master program requirements specified [v@ Identifying use conflicts. in the Shoreline Management Act of 197 1. (vi) Proposing alternatives for the use of shore- lines. (vii) Examining the effects of the master program Citizen Involvement (WAC 173-16-0400)) on the environment. While public involvement and notification is re- (b) The citizen advisory Icommittee should hold at quired of the master program at the time of adoption least three public meetings during development of the by t@e cct, the generol public must be invoivpJ in the master 'program and clesignolion of the environment initoal pl.onn;ng stacie during formu!,ation of the mas- acco-dit.ig to the following guidelines: ter plan. N F-'ubl;c notice (as stated in subsection I below) IV- 8 must be provided seven days prior to the evening (i) Public notice shall include: meeting. (i) Reference' to the authority under which the rule (ii) All meetings must be open to the public for is proposed. free discussion. 00 A statement of either the terms or substance of (iii), Meetings should be held in the evening at a the proposed rule or a description of the subjects location accessibie to the general public. and issues involved. (iv) Record of all meetings should be filed with (iii) The time, place and manner in which inter- the local government and made available to the ested persons may present their views thereon (as public. stated in RCW 30.04.025). M Local government should provide resource per- sons to assist in the preparation, organization Policy Statements (WAC 173-16-040(2)) and diffusion of information. Each local government shall submit policy state- (vi) The final evening meeting should be held at ments, developed through the citizen involvement least seven days prior to the public hearing. process, regarding shoreline development as part of (c) A newsletter should be published by the advi. its master program. Because goal statements are often sory committee in cooperation with the local govern- too general to be useful to very specific decision prob- ment. lems, the policy statements are to provide a bridge for formulating and relating use regulations to the goals (i) The information sheet should be available to also developed through the citizen involvement proc- the public at posted locations. ess. In summary, the policy statements must reflect the (ii) It should be available after- the first evening intent of the act, the goals of the local citizens, and public meeting and prior to the second. specifically relate the shoreline management goals to (iii) The date, time, and location of future meet-, the master program use regulations. ings. and hearings should be stated. Clearly stated policies are essential to the viability fiv) A phone number should be provided to obtain of the master programs. The policy statements will not further information. only support the environmental designations ' ex- (A Public notice should be made of the availabil- plained below, but, also being more specific than goal ity of the newsletter as , stated in subsection (d) statements, will provide an indication of needed envi- (d) Publicity of the master program should utilize: ronmental designations and use regulat .ions. (i) Public notice postings as per subsection (i) The following methodology for developing policy below. statements is recommended: (ii) Newsletter. (a) Obtain a broad citizen input in developing (iii) Radio, T.V. and local news media. policy by involving interested citizens and all private (iv) A local paper of general circulation. and public entities having interest or responsibilities (v) Announcements to community groups. relating to shorelines. Form a citizen advisory commit- tee and conduct public meetings as outlined in WAC (elI At least one public hearing should be held by 173-16-040(l) to encourage citizens to become in- the local government after the three public meetings volved in developing a master program. have been held to discuss the proposed master plan. (b) Analyze existing policies to identify those pol- (i) Public notice (as stated in subsection (i) below) icies that may be incorporated into the master pro- must be made a minimum of once in each of three gram and those which conflict with the intent of the weeks immediately preceding the hearing in one act. Further, identify constraints to local planning and or more newspapers of general circulation in the policy implementation which are a result of previous area in which the hearing is to be held. government actions, existing land-use patterns, cc- (ii) The master program should be available for tions of adjacent jurisdictions or other factors not sub- public inspection at the local government office and ject to local control or influence. available upon request at least seven days prior to (c) Formulate goofs for the use of shoreline areas the public hearing. and develop policies to guide shoreland activities to (f) Prior to adoption of the master program, all achieve these goals. reasonable attempts should have been made to ob- tain a general concurrence of the public and the advi- The policies should be consistent with RCW sory committee. The method of obtaining or measur- 90.58.020 and provide guidance and support to local ing concurrence must be established by the local gov- government actions regarding shoreline management. ernment and must provide a clear indication of how Additionally, the policies should express the desires of citizen input is utilized. local citizens and be based on principles of resource .(g) If the 'level of concurrence on the master pro- management which reflect the state-wide public inter- gram-is not considered adequate by the advisory com- est in all shorelines of state-wide significance. mittee at the conclusion of the public hearing, the local government should hold subsequent public meet- Master Program Elements (WAC 173-16-040(3)) ings and public hearings until such time as adequate Consistent with the general nature of master pro- concurrence as per subsection (f) above is reached. grams, the following,lond and water use elements are (h) Attached to the master program upon its sub- to be dealt with, when appropriate, in the local mas. m'ission to the department of ecology shall be a rec. ter programs. By dealing with shoreline uses, system- ord of public meetings and citizen involvement. A atically as belonging to these generic classes of activi. discussion of the'use of citizen involvement and mea- ties, the policies and goals in the master programs surement on concurrence should be included. can be clearly applied to different shoreline uses. in IV- 9 and urban) which prov de the framework for imple- .he absence of. this kind of specificity in the master I programs. the application of policy and use regula- menting shoreiine ;Doiicies and,regulatory measures. tions could be inconsistent and arbitrary. This system is designed to encourage uses in each The picin elements are: environment which enhance the character of that envi- ronment. At the same time, local government may (a) Economic development element for the location and design of industries, transportation facilities, port place reasonable standards and nestrictions on devel- opmen' facihties, tourist facilities, comm' ercial and other clevel- , so that sich development does not disrupt or opments that ore particularly dependent on shorelond destroy the character of the environment. locations. The basic intent of this system is to utilize per- @b) Public access elements for assessing the need formance standards which regulate use activities in for providing public access to shoreline areas. accordance with goals and objectives defined locally (c) Circulation element for assessing the location rather than to exc!ude any use from any one environ- and extent of existing and proposed major thorough- ment. Thus, the particular uses or type of develop- fares, transportation routes, terminals and other public ments placed in each environment must be designed facilities and correlating those facilities with the shore- and located so that there are no effects detrimental to line use elements. achieving the objectives of the environment designa- (d) Recreational element for the preservation and tions :.,id local development criteria. expansion of recreational opportunities through pro- This approach provides an "umbrella" environ- grams of acquisition, development and various means ment class over local planning and zoning on the of less-than-fee acquisition. shorelines. Since every area is endowed with different Ie) Shoreline use elerrent for considering: resources, has different intensity'of development and Ill The pattern of distribution and location require- attaches. different social values to these physical and ments of land uses on shorelines and ad:ocent economic characteristics, the environment designations areas, including, but not,limited to, housing, I com- should not be regarded as a substitute for local plan- ning and land-use regulations. merce, industry, transportation, public buildings and utilities, agriculture, education and natural re- The basic concept for using the system is for local sources. governments to designate their shorelines into envil- (ii) The pattern of distribution and location re- ronment categories that reflect the natural character of quire-nents of water uses :ncluding, but'not limited the shorel;ne areas and the goals for use of character- to, ocluaculture, recreation and transportation. istically different shorelines. The determination as to If) Conservation element for the preservation of which designation should be given any specific area the natural shoreline resources, considering such char- should be maderin the following manner: zicteristics as scenic vistas, parkways, estuarine area's (i) The resources of the shoreline areas should be analyzed for "heir opportunities and limitations for For fish and wildlife protection, beaches and other c .0 valuable natural or oesthiitic,features. different uses. Completion of the comprehensive in- (g) Historical/cultural eelment for protection and ventory of 4sources is a requisite to identifying restoration of buildings, sites and areas having his- resource attributes which determine these opportu. oric, cu!tural, educational or scientific values. nities and limitations. (h) In addition to the above-described elements, (ii) Each of the plan elements should be analyzed local governments are encouraged to include in their for their effect on the various resources throughout moster programs, an element concerned with the res- shoreline areas, Since shorelines are on1v a part of toration of areas to a natural useful condition which the system of resources within local juri .scliction, it cire blighted by abandoned and dilapidated struc- is Particularly important that planning for shore. Local governments are also encouraged to in- lines be considered an integral part of area-wide -!ude in their master programs any Other elements, planning. Further, plans, policips and regulations which, because of present uses or future needs, are for lands adjacent to the shorelines of the state deemed appropriate and necessary to effectuate the should be reviewed in accordance with RCW 90- Shoreline Management Act. .58.340. (iii) Public clesires should be considered through the citizen' involvement process to determine which Environments (WAC 173-16-040(4)) environment designotions reflect local values and In order to plan and effectively manage shoreline aspirations For the development of different shore. resource, line areas. a system of categorizing shorel.inL- areas is required for use by local governments in the prepara- The management objectives' and features which tion of master programs. The system is designed to characterize ead-1 of the environments are given below orovide a uniform basis for applying policies and use to provide a basis for environment. designation within regulations within distinctively different shoreline local jurisdictions. :jrecis, To accomIclish this, the environmental desiana- @ion to be given any specific area is to be basei on Natural Environment (WAC 173-116-040(4)(b)(0) The @he existing development pattern, the biophysical capa- bilities and iimitations of the shoreline being consid- natural environment is intended to preserve and re- ered for development and the goals and aspirations store those natural resource systems existing relatively of iocal citizenry. free of human influence. Local policies to achieve this objective should aim tc regulate all potential develop- The recommended system classifies shorelines into ments degrading or changing the natural characteris- Four distinct environments (natural, conservancy, rural tics which make these areas unique and valuable. IV-10 Ili.. imm, ol togulution in these uren% spaces and opportunities for recreational uses compat- should be on natural systems and resources which ible with agricultural activities. require severe restrictions of intensities and types of The rural environment is intended for those areas uses to maintain them in a natural state. Therefore, characterized by intensive agricultural and recrea- activities which may degrade the actual or potential tional uses and those areas having a high capability wilue of thi,; etivironment should be strictly regulated. Any (irtivily which would bring about a change in the to support active agricultural practices and intensive existing situation would be desirable only if such a recreational development. Hence, those areas that are change would contribute to the preservation of the alre ody used for agricultural purposes, or which have existing character. agricultural potential should be maintained for pres- ent and future7 agricultural needs. Designation of rural The primary determinant for designating an area environments should also seek to alleviate pressures of as a natural environment is the actual presence of urban expansion on prime farming areas. some unique natural or cultural features considered New developments in a rural environmert are to valuable in their natural or original condition which reflect the character of the surrounding area by lim;t- are relatively intolerant of intensive human use. Such Ing residential density, providing permanent open features should be defined, identified and quantified space and by maintaining adequate building setbacks in the shoreline inventory. The relative value of the from water to prevent shoreline resources from being resources is to be based on local citizen opinion and destroyed for other rural types of uses. the needs and desires of other people in the rest of the state. Public recreation facilities for public use which can be located and designed to minimize conflicts with Conservancy Environment IWAC 173-16-040(4)(b)(ii)). agricultural activities are recommended for the@ rural The objective in designating a conservancy environ- environment. Linear water access which will prevent ment is to protect, conserve and manage existing not- overcrowding in any one area, trail systems for safe ural resources and valuable historic and cultural areas nonmotorized traffic along scenic corridors and provi- in order to en 'sure a continuous flow of recreational sions for recreational viewing of water areas illustrate benefits to the public and to achieve sustained re- some of the ways to ensure maximum enjoyment -of source utilization. recreational opportunities along shorelines without conflicting with agricultural uses. In a similar fashion, The conservancy environment is for those areas agricultural aclivities should be conducted in a man- which are intended to maintain their existing charac- ner which will enhance the opportunities for shoreline ter. The preferred uses are those which are noncon- recreation. Farm management practices which prevent sumptive of the physical and biological resources of erosion and subsequent siltation of water bodies and the area. Nonconsumptive uses are those uses which minimize the flow of waste material into water can utilize resources on a sustained yield basis while courses are to be encouraged by the master program minimally reducing opportunities for other future uses for rural environments. of the resources in the area. Activities and uses of a nonpermanent nature which do not substantially de- Urban Environment (WAC 173-16-040(4)(b)(iv)) The ob- grade the existing character of an area are appropri- jective of the urb6n environment is to ensure optimum ate uses for a conservancy environment. Examples of utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by uses that might be predominant in a conservancy providing for intensive public use cnd by managing environment include diffuse outdoor recreation, activi- development so that it enhances and maintains shore- ties, timber harvesting on a sustained, yield basis, lines for a multiplicity of urban uses. passive agricultural uses such as posture and range . The urban environment is an area'of high-intensity lands, and other related uses and activities. land-use including, residential, commercial, and in- The designation of conservancy environments clustrial development. The environment does not nec- should seek to satisfy the needs of the community as essarily include all shorelines within an incorporated to the present and future location of recreational areas city, but is particularly suitable to those areas pres. proximate to concentrations of population, either ex. ently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as isting or projected. For example, a conservancy envi. well as areas planned to accommodate urban expan- ronment designation can be used to complement city, sion. Shorelines planned for future urban expansion county or state plans to legally acquire public access should present few biophysical limitations for urban to the water. activities and not have a high priority for,designation The conservancy environment would also be the as an alternative environment. most suitable designation for those areas which pre- Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a sent too severe biophysical limitations to be desig- limited resource, emphasis should be given to devel- nated as rural or urban environments. Such limitations opment within already developed areas and particu- would include areas of steep slopes presenting ero- larly to water-clepen dent industrial and commercial sion and slide hazards, areas prone to flooding, and uses requiring frontage on navigable waters. areas which cannot provide adequate water supply or sewage disposal. In the master program, priority is also to be given to planning for public visual and physical access to water in the urban environment. Identifying needs Rural Environment (WAC 173-16-040(4)(b)(iii)) The and planning for the acquisition of urban land for rural environment is intended @to p rotect agricultural permanent public access to the water in the urban land from urban expansion, restrict Intensive develop- environment should be accomplished in the master ment along undeveloped shorelines, function as a program. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum buffer between urban areas, and maintain open public use, industrial and commercial facilities should IV-11 be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities. term and potentially costly impairments to the Where practiccible, various access points ought to be naturcif dnvironment. linked to nonmotcrized transportation routes, such as (iii) Actively promote aesthetic consideration, when bicycle and hiking paths. contemplating new development, redevelopm en t Shorelines of State-wide of existing facilities or for the general enhancemento Significance (WAC 173-16-040(5)) of shoreline areas. The act designated certain shorelines as shorelines (d) Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines. of state-wide significance. Shorelines thus designated Development guidelines: are important to the entire state. Because these shore- (i) Leave undeveloped those areas which contain lines are major resources from which all people in the a unique or fragile natural resource. state derive benefit, the guidelines and master pro- (ii) Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would grams must give preference to uses which favor public alter the natural function of the water system. In and long-range goals. areas where erosion and sediment control practices Accordingly, the act established that local master will not be effective, excavations or other activities programs shall give preference to uses which-meet the which increase erosion are to be severely limited. principles outlined below in order of preference. (iii) Restrict or prohibit public access onto areas Guidelines for ensuring that these principles are incor- which cannot be maintained in a natural condition porated into the mo-ster programs and adhered @to in under human uses. implementing the act follow each principle. (e) Increase public access to publicly owned areas (a) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest of the shorelines. Development guidelines: over local interest. Development guidelines: (i) In master programs, give priority to developing (i) Solicit comments and opinions from groups and paths and trails to shoreline areas, linear access individuals representind state-wide interests by along the shorelines, and to developing upland c;rcu!ating proposed master programs for review parking. and comment by state agencies, adjacent juris- (ii) Locate development inland from the ordinary dictions' citizen advisory committees, and state- highwater mark so that access is enhanced. wide interest groups. (See appendix, Reference (f) Increase recreational opportunities for the pub- N o. 3 2.) lic a n the shorelines. Development guidelines: (ii) Recognize and take into account state agencies' (i) Plan for and encourage development of facilities policies, programs and recommendations in devel- for recrectional use of the shorelines. oping use regulations. Reference to many of these (ii) Reser@,e areas for lodging and related facilities agencies' policies are provided in the appendix. on uplands well away from the shorelines with This information can also be obtained by contacting provisions for nonmotorized access to the shore agencies listed in the Shoreline Inventory Supple- lines. ment Number One. (iii) Solicit comments, opinions and advice from individuals with expertise in ecology, oceanog- THE NATURAL SYSTEMS raphy, geology, limnology, aquacultbre and other scientific fields pertinent to shoreline management. (WAC 173-16-050) Nomes of organizations and individuals which can provide expert advice con be obtained from the This section contains brief and general descriptions department's resource specialist listing. of the natural geographic systems around which the Jb) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. shoreline management program is designed. The intent Develo *oment guidelines: of this section is to define those natural systems to (i) Designate environments and use regulations to which the Shoreline Management Act applies, to high- minimize man-made intrusions on shorelines. light some of the features of those systems which are (ii@ Where intensive development already occurs, susceptible to damage from human activity, and to upgrade and redevelop those areas to reduce their provide a basis for the guidelines pertaining to hu- adverse impact on the environment and to accom-' man-use activities contained in WAC 173-16-060. Modate future growth rather than allowing high It is intended that this section will provide criteria intensity uses to extend into low intensity use or to local governments in the development of their underdeveloped areas. master programs, as required in RCW 90.58.030(c). (iii) Ensure that where commercial timber-cutting is al,lowed as provided in RCW 90,58.150, refor- (1) Marine Beaches-Beaches are relatively level land estation will be possible and accomplished as areas which are contiguous with the sea and are soon as practicable. directly affected by the sea even to the point of origin- (c) Result in long-term over short-term benefit. De- ation. The most common types of beaches in Washing- velopment guidelines: ton marine waters are: (i) Prepare master programs on the basis of pre- Sandy beaches: Waves, wind, tide and geological serving rhe shorelines for future generations. For material are the principal factors involved in the forma- example, actions that would convert resources into tion of beaches. The beach material can usually be irreversible uses or detrimentally alter natural con- traced to one of four possible sources: The cliffs behind ditions characteristic of shorelines of stote-wide the beach; from the land via rivers; offshore wind; significance, should be severely limited. and finally from longshore drifting of material - Lo njA (ii) Evaluate the short-term economic gain or con- shore-drifting material must have been derived i, venience of developments in relationship to long- tialiy from the first three sources. Most beach materiavw IV-12 in Puget Sound is eroded from the adjacent bluffs is characterized by less stressful tidal influences but is composed of glacial till. subject to the forces of waves and currents which The effect of wave action on the movement and affect the distribution and kinds of organisms in this lepo-,ition of beach material varies depending upon zone. t1he size of the ma 'terial. Hence,, in most cases, beaches Muddy shores: Muddy shores occur where the composed of different sized material are usually char- energy of coastal currents and wave action is mini- acterized by different slopes and profiles. The entire mal, allowing fine particles of silt to settle to the bot- process of beach formation is a dynamic process re- tom. The result is an accumulation of mud on the sulting from the effect-of wave action on material shores of protected boys and mouths of coastal transport and deposition. Initially, wave action will streams and rivers. Most muddy beaches occur in es- establish currents which transport and deposit material tuarine areas. However, some muddy shore areas may in various patterns. However, once a particular beach be found in coastal inlets and embaymLnts where form and profile is established it begins to modify the salinity is about the same as the adjacent sea. effects of waves thus altering the initial patterns of material transport and deposition. Hence, in building Few plants have adapted to living on muddy beach structures such as groins, bulkheads or jetties, it shores. Their growth is restricted by turbidity which is particularly important to recognize that subsequent reduces light penetration into the water and thereby changes in wave and current patterns will result in a inhibits photosynthesis. In addition, the lack of solid series of changes in beach formation over time. [See structures to- which algae may attach itself and silta- WAC 173-16-060(6), (1 1), (112) and (13)]. tion which smothers plants effectively prevents much plant colonization of muddy shores. While the lack of In the process of beach formation, sand particles oxygen in mud makes life for fauna in muddy shores are transported up the beach by breaking waves tkat difficult, the abundance of food as organic cletritus wash onto the beach in a diagonal direction and provides nutrition for a large number of cletritus feed- retreat in a vertical direction. At the some time, long- ers. shore currents are created in the submerged intertidal area by the force of diagonally approaching waves. (2) Spits and Bars-Spits and bars are natural forma. Beach material suspended by the force of the break- tions composed of sand and gravel and shaped by ing waves is transported in one direction or another wind and water currents and littoral drifting. Generally by the longshore current. Longshore drifting of mate- a spit is formed from a headland beach (tall cliff with ir@al often results in the net transportation of beach a curved beach at the foot) and extends out into the material in one direction causing the loss of material water (hooks are simply hookshaped spits). While in some areas and gains in others. spits usually have one end f.ree in open water, bars generally are attached to land at b6th ends. These The profile of a beach at any time will be deter- natural forms enclose an area which is protected from mined by the wave conditions during the preceding wave action, allowing life forms such as shellfish, to period. Severe storms will erode or scour much material reproduce and live protected from the violence of the away from the beaches due to the force of retreating open coast. [See WAC 173-16-060(16)], waves. During calm weather, however, the waves will constructively move material back onto the beach. This (3) Dunes-Dunes are mounds or hills of sand which destructive and constructive action, called cut and fill, have been heaped up by wind action. Typically, is evidenced by the presence of beach ridges or dunes exhibit four distinct features: berms. New ridges are built up in front of those that Primary dunes; The first system of dunes shore- surAive storm conditions as sand is supplied to the beach in succeeding phases 'of calmer weather. in ward of the water, having little or no vegetation, time, the more stable landward ridges are colonized which are intolerant of unnatural disturbances. by successional stages of vegetation. The vegetation Secondary dunes: The second system of dune's stabilizes the ridges, protects them from erosion and shoreward from the water, with some vegetative promotes the development of soi I. cover. Rocky beaches: Rocky beaches, composed of cob- Back dunes: The system of dunes behind the sec- bles, boulders and/or exposed bedrock are usually ondary dunes, generally having vegetation and some steeper and more stable than sandy shores. Coarse top soil, and being more tolerant of development than material is very permeable which allows attacking the primary and secondary systems. waves to sink into the beach causing the backwash to be reduced correspondingly. On sandy shores a strong Troughs: The valleys between the dune systems. backwash distributes sand more evenly, thus creating Dunes are a natural levee and a final protection a flatter slope. line against the sea. The destructive leveling of, or On rocky shores a zonal pattern in the distribution interference with the primary dune system (such as of plants and animals is more evident than on muddy cutting through the dunes for access) can endanger or sandy shores. The upper beach zone is frequently upland areas by subjecting them to flooding -frorn very dry, limiting inhabitants to species which can heavy wave action during severe s@orms and destroy tolerate a dry environment. The intertidal zone is a a distinct and disappearing natural feature. Removal narrow area between mean low tide and mean high of sand from the beach and shore in dune areas tide that experiences uninterrupted covering and un- starves dunpz, of their natural supply of sand and may covering by tidal action. One of the major characteris- cause their destruction from lack of sand. [See WAC tics of this zone is the occurrence of tidal pools which 173-16-060(16)]. Appropriate vegation can and should harbor separate communities which can be considered be encouraged throughout the entire system for stabii- subzones within the intertidal zone. The subticlal zone ization. [See WAC 173-16-060(21)). IV-13 (A) Islands-An island, broadly defined, is a land is high because of the costs involved in making these s@jrrounded by water. Islands ore particularly areas suitable for use. Unlimited public access into -portclr)" -.@ *.@-e sto!e of Washington since iv,,c, entire then) . 110'.% k,\ V, , 111,1\ , OV 10 , 1011110k,10 tk1 IIIV I I Ok4lllrl counties ore r-nade up of islands and parts of several plant and oninial life ietiding there. other counties are islands. A fairly small island, suc.h (7) Lokes-A lake can be defined broadly as a body as those in our Puget Sound and north coast area, is of standing water located inland. Lakes originate in an intriguing ecosystem, in that no problem or area of several ways. Many lakes are created each year by study can be isolated. Every living and nonliving man, either by digging a lake basin or by damming a thing is on integral part of the functioning system. natural valley. Natural lakes can be formed in several Each island, along with the mystique afforded it by ways: by glaciers gouging basins and melting and man, is a world of its own, with a biological chain, depositing materials in such a way as to form natural fragile and delicately balanced. Obviously it does not dams; by landslides which close off open ends of take as much to upset this balance as it would the rnainland system. Because of this, projects should be valleys; extinct craters which Fill with water; changes planned with a more critical eye toward preserving in the earth's crust, as can happen d0ring earth- the very qualities which make island environments quakes, forming basins which,fill with water; or by viable systems as well as aesthetically captivating to changes in a river or stream course which isolate parts humans. of the old course forming lakes, called oxbow lakes. (5) Estuaries-An estuary is that portion of a coastal A lake,' like its inhabitants, has a life span. Thi 's stream influenced by the tide of the marine waters lifetime may be thousands of years for a large lake or just a few years for a pond, This process of a lake into which it flows and within which the sea water is. aging is known generally as evtrophication. It is a measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land natural process which is usually accelerated by man's drainage. activities. Human sewage, industrial waste, and the Estuaries are zones of ecological transition be- drainage from agricultural lands increases the nu- tween fresh and saltwater. The coastal brackish water trients in a lake which in turn increases the growth of areas are rich in aquatic life, some species of which algae and other plants. As plants die, the chemical are important food organisms for anodromous fish process of decomposition depletes the water's supply species which use theme areas for feeding, rearing and of oxygen necessary for fish and other animal life. migration. An estuarine area left untouched by man is These life forms then disappear from the lake, and the rare since historically they have been the sites for lake becomes a marsh or swamp. major cities and port developments. Because of their Shallow lakes are extremely susceptible to in- importance in the food production cl@ain and their creases in the rate of eutrophication resulting from natural beauty, the limited estuarial areas require discharges of waste and nutrient- laden -runoff waters. ccireF--l aftention in the planning function. Close scru- Temperature stratification does not normally occur in tiny should be given to all plans for development 'in shallow lakes. Efficient bottom -to-surface circulation of estuories which reduce the area of the estuary and water in these shallow takes 'moves nutrients to the interfere with water flow. [See WAC 173-16-060(14)]. surface photosynthetic zone encouraging increased Special attention should be given to plans for up- biotic productivity. Large quantities of organic matter stream projects which could deplete the freshwater are produced under these conditions. Upon decompo- supply of the estuary. sition, heavy demands are made on the dissolved @6) Marshes, Bogs and Swamps-Marshes, bogs and oxygen content of shallow lakes. Eventually, the oxy- swamps ore areas which have a water table very gen level drops and some fish and other life forms close to the surface of the ground. They are areas die. which were formerly shallow water areas that grad- The entire ecosystem of a lake can be altered by ually Filled through nature's processes of sedimenta- man. By removing the surrounding forest for lumber tion foiten accelerated by man's activities) and the or to provide a building site or form land, erosion into decay o; shallow water vegetation. the lake is accelerated. Fertilizers, whether agricultural Althcugh considered abysmal wastelands by or those used by homeowners, can enter the lake many, these wet areas are extremely important to the either from runloff or leaching along with other chemi- food chain. Many species of both animal and plant cals that interfere with the intricate balance of living life depend on this wet environment for existence. organisms. The construction of bulkheads to control Birds rind waterfowl choose these locations for nesting erosion and filling behind them to enlarge individual places. Viet areas are important as ground water properties can rob small fish and amphibians of their recharge areas and have tremendous flood control habitats. The indiscriminate construction of piers, Value. docks and boathouses, can deprive all of the water- front owners and the general public of a serene nat- The h'gh-water table and poor foundation support ural view and reduce the lake's surface. (See WAC provided by the organic soils in these areas usually 173-16-06015), (8), (11), (12), j 13)]. prevent development on them. The extraction of peat 'rom bog-, is possible when it is accomplished in such (8) 'Ri4ers, Streams and Creeks-Generally, rivers, a manner that the surrounding vegetation and wildlife streams and creeks can be defined as surface-water is ler. uric ;sturbed and the access roads and shore- runoff flowing in a natural or modified channel. Runoff 1; results either from excessive precipitation which can- mes ore returned to a natural state upon completion not infiltrate the soil, or from ground water where the ' tl@e oceration. or water table intersects the surface of the ground. T@-e potential of marshes, bogs and swamps to Drawn by gravity to progressively lower levels and provi6e permanent open space in urbanizing regions eventually to the sea, the surface runoff organizes into IV-14 a system of channels which drain a parricular geo- connected inlets, boys and channels with tidal svo graphic area. water entering from the west and freshwater strearis entering at many points throughout the system. Mcst The drainage system serves as a transportation of what is known as Puget Sound was formed by network for nature s leveling process, selectively erod- glacial action that terminated near Tenino in Thurstc:n ing materials from the higher altitudes and transport- County. The entire system, of which Puget Sound is ing the materials to lower elevaticns v.,here they are actually a small portion, also includes the Strait )f deposited. A portion of these motericifs eventually Georgia and the Strait of, Juan de Fuca. The larce reach .es the sea where they may form beaches, dunes complex may be divided into nine oceanogropl@iic or spits. areas which are interrelated: Strait of Juan de Fuc i, Typically, a river exhibits several distinct stc!ges as Admiralty Inlet,. Puget Sound Basin, Southern Pug @t it flows from the headwaters to the mouth. In the Sound, Hood Canal, Possession Sound, Bellingham upper reaches where the gradient is steepest, the- hy- Bay, San Juan Archipelago, and Georgia Strait (fro n draulic action of the flowing water resuits in a net Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters, Appendix XV, Plan erosion of the stream bed and a V-shaped cross sec- Formulation). tion, with the stream occupying all or most of the The economic development of the central PugAt valley floor. Sound Basin has been stimulated by the fact that tI-,e Proceeding downstrewn, the gradient decreases sound is one of the few areas in the world which and the valley walls become gentler in slope. A point provides several deePwater inland harbors. The use (-,f is eventually reached where erosion and deposition Puget Sound waters by deep-draft vessels is on tFe equalize and the action of thp !tream changes 'r@om increase due tr@ its proximity to ti@ie develor,;ng Asiol vertical cutting to laterc-: meandering. As the icitercif counties. Th;s increased trade .- ill attract .!,.ore indu@- movement continues, a flood plain is forrned, over try and more people which will put more use pressure which tne river meanders and upon which materials on the Sound in the forms of recreation (sport fishing, are deposited during floods. Finally, when the river boating and other water-related sports) and the rr- eniers a body of standing water, the remaining sedi- qui .rements for increased food supply. ment load is deposited. Puget Sound waters are rich in nutrients and sup- Extensive human use is mode of rivers, including part a wide variety of marine fish and shellfish spe- transportation, recreation, waste and sewage dump- cies. An estimated 2,8210 miles of stream are utilized ing and for drinking water. Rivers are dammed for the by onadromous fish for spawning ' and rearing production of -flectric, power, diked for flood control throughout the area. Some of these fish are chinook, and withdrawn for the irrigation of crops. Many of coho, sockeye, pink and chum salmon, steelhead, sea- 1hese activi.ties directly affect the natural hydr@ulic run cutthroat and Dolly VardL-n trout. All these fish functioning of the streams and rivers as well as the spend a portion of their lives in the saltwaters of biology of the water courses. (See WAC 173-16-060 Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean before returning to (17)). streams of origin to spawn. The juveniles of these fis) spend varying amounts of time in the shore waters cf (9) Flood Plains-A flood plain is a shoreland area the area before moving to sea to grow to. maturity. which has been or is subject to flooding. It is a Aquaculture or sea farming is now in the process of natural corridor for water which has accumulated becoming reality in the Puget Sound complex. The from snow melt or from heavy rainfall in a short mass pr@cluction of seaweed, clanns, geoducks, scoi- period. Flood plains are usually flat areas with rich lops, shrimp, oysters, small salmon, lobsters and other soil because they have been formed by deposits from possibilities loorns as an important new industr@. flood waters. As such they ore attractive places for Shoreline' management is particularly crucial to thr@ man to build and farm until the next flood posses success of sea farming. Aquaculture on any scale co-! across the plain. In certain areas, these plains can be be compatible and coexist with maritime shippinci proofed'' by diking or building levees along and shoreland industrial activities only by carefL,; the adjacent river or stream, but always with provi- planning and regulation; sions for tremendous amounts of water that will sooner or later be generated by weather conditions. The shoreline resources of Puget Sound inclucl,@ tide St-eamway modifications can be placed in such a way few beach areas which are not covered at high to cause channelization. Chonnelization tends to de- Bluffs ranging from 10 to 500 feet in height rim, stroy the vital and fragile flood @iain shoreline hobi- nearly the entire extent of the Sound making access tc. tats and increase the velocity oi waters in times of beach and intertidal areas difficult. Because of thp extreme flow. [See WAC 173-16-060(1711. This may glacial-till composition of these bluffs, they ore sus- cause considerable damage downstream even in ceptible to fluvial and marine erosion and present areas already given some flood protection. In unpro- constant slide hazards. Although Puget Sound is pro- tected flood plains, land-use regulations must be ap- tected from the direct influence of Rociflic Ocean plied to provide an adequate open coniclor within weather, storm conditions can create very turbulent which the Fffects of bank erosion, channel shifts and and sometimes destructive wave action. Without rec- increased -runoff may be contained. Obviously, struc- ognizing the tremendous energy contained in storm tures which must be built on a flood piain should be waves, development of shoreline resources can be of a design to allow the passage of water and, wher- hazardous and deleterious to the resource charactpris- ever possible, permanent vegetation should be pre- tics which make Puget Sound beaches attractive. (WAC served to prevent erosion, retard runoff, and contrib- 173-16-060(11), (12), 03)]. ute to the natural beauty of 4 ie flood piain. (11) Pacific Ocean-From Cape Flattery or) the nortl-. (10) Puget Sound-Puget Sound is a complex of int er- to Cape Disa ppointment on the south, there are ap- IV- 1 proximately 160 miles of beaches, rocky headlands, or types of natural systems (as described in WAC inlets and estuaries on Washington s Pacific Coast. The 173-16-050) within which a use is proposed and shoreline south of Cape Flattery to the Quinoult River should impose regulations on those developments and i5 generally characterized as being rugged and rocky, uses which would tend to affect adversely the natural with high bluffs. The remaining shoreline south of the characteristics needed to preserve the integrity of the Quinoult River is predominantly flat sandy beaches system. Examples would include but would not be with low banks and dunes. limited to proposed uses that would threaten the char- During the winter, Pocific'currents set toward the acter of fragile dune areas, reduce water tables in north, while during summer months they set to the marshes, impede water flow in estuaries, or threaten south. Associated with the summer currents is a gen- the stability of spits and bars. eral offshore movement of surface water, resulting in These guidelines have been prepared in recogni- upwelling of water from lower depths. This upwelled tion of the flexibility needed to carry out effective local water is cold, high in salinity, low in oxygen content planning of shorelines. Therefore, the interpretation and rich in nutrients. It is this latter characteristic and application of the guidelines may vary relative to which causes upwelled water to be extremely signifi. different local conditions. Exceptions to specific provi- cant in biological terms, since it often tr@iggers sions of these guidelines may occur where local cir- "bloom's'' of marine plant life. curnstances justify such departure. Any departure from Directions of wave action and littoral drift of sedi these guidelines must, however, be compatible with ments shift seasonally with Pacific Ocean storms. A the intent of the act cis enunciated in RCW 90.58.020. though very little data are available on the net direc- It should be noted that there are several guide- tion of littoral transport, the University of Washington lines for certain activities which are not explicitly de- has offshore data which indicate a northerly offshore fined in the shoreline act as developments for which flow. RCW 43.51.650 declares: substantial development permits are not required (for example, the suggestion that a buffer of permanent beaches bounding the Pacific Ocean from the vegetation be maintained along water bodies in agri- Straits of Juan de Fuca to Cape Disappointment at culture areas). While such activities generally cannot the mouth of the Columbia River constitute some of be regulated through the permit system, it is intended the lost unspoiled seashore remaining in theUnited that they be dealt with in the comprehensive master States. They provide the public with almost program in a manner. consistent with policy and intent unlimited apport6nities for recreational activities, of the Shoreline Act. To effectively provide for the like swimming, surfing and hiking; for outdoor management of the shorelines of the state, master sports, like hunting, fishing, clamming, and boat- programs should plan 'for and foster all reasonable ing; for the observation of nature as it existed and appropriate uses as provided in RCW 90.58.020. for hundreds of years before the arrival of white inen and for relaxation away from the pressures Finally, most of the guidelines are intentionally and tensions of modern life. In past years,* these written in general terms to allow some latitude for recreational activities have been enjoyed by count- local government to expand and elaborate on them as less Washington citizens, as well as by tourists local conditions warrant. The guidelines are adopted 2,'rom other states and countries. The number of state regulations, however, and must be complied people wishing to participate in such recreational with both in permit application review and in master activities grow annually. This increasing public program development. pressure makes it necessary that the state dedicate the use of the ocean beaches to public recreation and to provide certain recreational and sanitary facilities. Nonrecreational use of the beach must be strictly limited. Even recreational uses must be regulated in order that Washington's unrivaled Agricultural Practices seashore may be saved for our children in much the some form as we know it today." (-See Appendix NAC 173-16-06001) Reference Nos. 30 and 31). Agricultural practices are those methods used in vegetation and soil management, such as tilling of THE USE ACTI .VITIES soil, control of weeds, control of plant diseases and insect pests, soil maintenance and fertilization. Many (WAC 173-16-060) of these practices require the use of agricultural chem- icals, most of which are water soluble and may wash This section contains guidelines for the local regu. into contiguous land or water areas causing signifi- lation of use a .ctivities proposed for shorelines. Each cant alteration and damage to plant and animal habi- topic, representing a specific use or group of uses, is tats, especially those in the fragile shoreline areas. broadly defined and followed by several guidelines. Also, I-arge quantities of mineral and organic sedi- These quidelin.es represent the criteria upon which ments enter water bodies through surface erosion judgments for proposed shoreline developments will when proper land management techniques are not be based until master programs are completed. In utilized. Guidelines: addition, these guidelines are intended to provide the (a) Local governments should encourage the main- basis for the develupment of that portion of the mas. tenance of a buffer of permanent vegetation be- ter program concerned with the regulation of such tween tilled areas and associated water bodies uses. which will retard surface runoff and reduce In addition to application of the guidelines in this siltation. section, the local government should identify the type (b) Master programs should establish criteria for IV-16 the location of confinLd cinin)(il feeding opeici- sediment food and the turbidity of the water. Guide- tions, retention and storage ponds for feed lot lines: wriste,, and stork 'piles of manure solids in (a) Seeding, mulching, matting and replanting shorelines of the state so that water areas will should be accomplished where necessary to not be polluted. Control guidelines prepared by provide stability on areas of steep slope which the U.S. Environmentcj'l Protection Agency should have been logged. Replanted vegetation @je foIIOWerl. JAI.%o *%r-r- Reference Nos. 3, 4, 5, should br, of rt similar type-and concentration 1), 7 jrirl 8.) as existing in the general vicinity of the (c) Local governments should encourage the use logged area. of erosion control measures, such as crop rota- jb) Special attention should be directed in logging tion, mulching, strip cropping and contour cul- and thinning operations to prevent the accu- tivation in conformance with guidelines and mulation of slash and other debris in contig- standards established by the Soil Conservation uous waterways. Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. fc) Shoreline areas having scenic qualities, such as those providing a diversity of views, unique landscape contrasts, or landscape panoramas should be maintained as scenic views in tim- ber harvesting areas. Timber harvesting prac- Aclucculture tices, including road construction and debris removal, should be closely regulated so that (WAC 173-16-060(2)) the quality of the view and viewpoints in Aquaculture (popularly known as fish farming) is shoreline areas of the state are not degraded. the culture or farming of food fish, shellfish, or other (d) Proper road and bridge design, location and aquatic plants and animals. Potential locations for construction and maintenance practices should aquacultural enterprises are relatively restricted due to be used to prevent development of roads and specific requirements for water quality, temperature, structures which would adversely affect shor---- flows, oxygen content, and, in marine waters, salinity. line resources. The technology associated with present-day aquacul- (e) Timber harvesting practices in shorelines of the ture is still in its formative stages and experimental. state should be conducted to maintain the Guidelines for aquaculture should therefore recognize state board of health standards for public the necessity for some latitude in the development of water supplies. (See Reference No. 34). this emerging economic water use as well as its poten- (f) Logging should be avoided on shorelines with tial impact on existing uses and natural systems. Guide- *Slopes of such grade that large sediment run- lines: off will be precipitated, unless adequate resto- (a) Aquacultural enterprises should be located in ration and erosion control can be expeditiously areas where the navigational access of upland accomplished. owners and commercial traffic is not signifi. (g) Local governments should ensure that timber cantly restricted. harvesting on shorelines of state-wide signifi- (bj Recognition should be given to the possible cance does not exceed. the limitations estab- detrimental impact aquacultural development lisked in RCW 90.58.150 except as provided in might have on the visual access of upland cases where selective logging is rendered eco- owners and on the general aesthetic quality logically detrimental or is inadequate for prep- of the shoreline area. aration of land for other uses. (c) As aquaculture technology expands with in. (h) Logging within shoreline areas should be con- creasing knowledge and experience, emphasis ducted to ensure the maintenance of buffer should be placed on underwater structures strips of ground vegetation, brush, older and which do not interfere with navigation or im- conifers to prevent temperature increases ad- pair the aesthetic quality of Washington shore- verse to fish populations and erosion of stream lines. banks. Forest Management Practices Commercial De461opment (WAC 173-16-060(3)) (WAC 173-16-060(4)) Forest management practices are those methods Commercial developments are those uses which used for the protEction, production and harvesting of are involved in wholesale and retail trade or business timber. Trees along a body of water provide shade activities. Commercial developments range from small which insulate the waters from detrimental tempera- businesses within residences, to high-rise office build- ture change and dissolved oxygen release. A stable ings. Commercial developments are intensive users of water temperature and dissolved oxygen level provide space because of extensive floor areas and because of a healthy environment for fish and other more delicate facilities, such as parking, necessary to service them. forms of aquatic life. Poor logging practices on shore- Guidelines; lines alter this balance as well as result in slash and (a) Although many commercial developments ben- debris accumulation and may increase the suspended efit by a shoreline location, priority should be IV-17 given to those commercial developments which Mining are particularly dependent on their location and/or use of the shorelines of the state and (WAC 173-16-060(6)) other development that will provide on oppor- tunity for substantial numbers of the people to Mining is the removal of naturally occuring mate- enjoy the shorelines of the state. rials from the earth for economic use. The removal of sand and gravel from shoreline areas of Washington (b) New commercial development on shorelines usually result in erosion of land and silting of water. should be encouraged to locate in those areas These operations can create silt and kill bottom-living where current commercial uses exist. animals. The removal of sand from marine beaches can deplete a limited resource which may not be (c) An assessment should be made of the effect a restored through natural processes. Guidelines: commercial structure will have on a scenic (a) When rock, sand, gravel and minerals are re- view significant to a given area or enjoyed by moved from shoreline areas,adequate protect- a significant number of people tion against sediment and silt production should be provided. (d) Parking facilities should be placed inland (b) Excavations for the production of sand, gravel away from the immediate water's edge and and minerals should be done in conformance recreational beaches. with the Washington State Surface Mining Act. (See reference No. 20). (c) Local governments should strictly control or prohibit the removal of sand and gravel from marine beaches. (d) When removal of sand and gravel from ma- rine beaches is permitted by existing legisla- tion, it should be taken from the least sensitive biophysical areas of the beach. Marinas (WAC 173-16-060(5)) Marinas are facilities which provide boat launch- ing, storag, supplies and service for small pleasure craft. There are two basic types of marinas: the open- type construction (floating breakwater and/or open- pile work) and solid-type construction (bulkhead and/or landfill). Depending upon the type of construc- tion, marinas affect fish and shellfish habitats. Guide- Outdoor Advertising, Signs lines: and Billboards (a) In locating marinas, special plans should be (WAC 173-16-060(7)) made to protect the fish and shellfish resources Signs are publicly displayed boards whose pur- that may be harmed by construction and oper- pose is to provide information, direction, or advertis- ation of the facility. ing. Signs may be pleasing or distracting, depending (b) Marinas should be designed in a manner that upon their design and location. A sign, in order to be will reduce damage to fish and shellfish re- effective, must attract attention; however, amessage sources and be aesthetically compatible with can be clear and distinct without being offensive. adjacent areas. There are areas where signs are not desirable, but (c) Master programs should identify locations that generally it is the design that is undersirable, not the are nearhigh-use or potentially high-use areas sign itself. Guidelines: for proposed marina sites. Local as well as (a) Off-premise outdoor advertising signs should regional "need" data should be considered as be limited to areas of high-intensity land use, input in location selection. such as commercial and industrial areas. (d) Special attention should be given to the design (b) Master programs should establish size, height, and development of operational procedures for density, and lighting limitations for signs. fuel handling and storage in order satisfactory (c) Vistas and viewpoints should not be degrated means for handling those spills that do occur. and visual access to the water from such vistas (e) Shallow-water embayments with poor flushing should not be impaired by the placement of action should not be considered for overnight signs. and long-term moorage facilities. (d) Outdoor advertising signs (where permitted (f) The Washington state department of fisheries under local regulations) should be located on has prepared guidelines concerning the con- the upland side of public transportation routes struction of marinas. These guidelines should which parallel and are adjacent to rivers and be consulted in planning for marinas. (See Ref- water bodies (unless it can be demonstrated erence No.16). that views will not be substantially ob- (g) State and local health agencies have stand- structed). ards and guidlines for the development of (e) When feasible, signs should be constructed marinas which shall be consulted by local against existing buildings to minimize visual agencies. (See Reference No. 18). obstructions of the shoreline and water bodies. IV-18 Residential Development projects on shorelines, banks should be re- stated to pre-project configuration, replanted (WAC 173-16-060(8)) with native species a-n'dprovided maintenance The following guidelines should be recognized in care until the newly planted vegetation is es- the development of any subdivision on the. shorelines tablished. of the state. To the extent possible, planned unit M Whenever these facilities must be placed in a developments (sometimes called cluster developments) shoreline area, the location should be chosen should be encouraged within the shoreline area. so as not to obstruct or destroy scenic views. Within planned unit developments, substantial por- Whenever feasible, these facilities should be tions of land are reserved as open space or recrea- placed underground, or designed to do mini- tional areas for the joint use of the occupants of the mal damage to the aesthetic qualities of the development. This land may be provided by allowing shoreline area. houses to be placed on lots smaller than the legal (cl To the extent feasible, local government should minimum size for normal subdivisions, as long as the attempt to incorporate major transmission line total number of dwellings in the planned unit devel- rights of way on shorelines into their program opment does not exceed the total allowable in a for public access to and along water bodies. regular subdivision. Guidelines: (d) Utilities should be located to meet the needs (a) Subdivisions should be designed at a level of of future populations in areas planned to ac- density of site coverage and of occupancy commodate this growth. compatible with the physical capabilities of the shoreline and water. The Washington State Thermal Power Plant Siting (b) Subdivisions should be designed so as to cide- Law (chapter RCW 80.50) regulates the location of quately protect the water and shoreline oes- electrical generating and distribution facilities. Under thetic characteristics. this low, the state preempts the certification and regu- e lation of thermal power plant sites and thermal power 1c) Subdividers should be encouraged to provid plants. (See Reference No. 28). public pedestrian access to the shorelines within the subdivision. (d) Residential development over water should not be permitted. (e) Floating homes are to be located as moorage slips approved in accordance with the guide- Ports and Water-Related Industry lines dealing with marinas, piers, and docks. IWAC 173-16-060(10)) In planning for floating homes, local govern- ments should erasure.that waste disposal prac- Ports are centers for water-borne traffic and as tices meet local and state health regulations, such have become gravitational points for industrial/ that the homes are not* located over highly manufacturing firms. Heavy industry may not specific- productive fish food areas, and that the homes ally require a waterfront location, but is attracted to are located to be compatible with the intent of port areas because of the variety of transportation the designated environments. available. Guidelines: M Residential developers should be required to (a) Water-dependent industries which require front- indicate. how they plan to preserve shore vege- age on navigable water should be given prior- tation and control erosion during construction. ity over other industrial uses. JgJ Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water M Port facilities should be designed to permit supply facilities, must be provided in accord- viewing of harbor areas from viewpoints, ance with appropriate state and local health waterfront restaurants and similar public facili. regulations. Storm drainage facilities should be ties which would not interfere with port opera- separate, not combined with sewage disposal tions or endanger public health and safety. systems. (c)'Sewage treatment, water reclamation, clesalini- H Adequate water supplies should be available zation and power plants should be located so that the ground water quality will not be where they do not interfere with and are com- endangered by overpumping. patible with recieational, residential or other public uses of the water and, shorelands. Waste treatment ponds for water-related in- dustry should occupy as littie shoreline as pos- sible. Utilities (d) The cooperative use of docking, parking, cargo handling and storage facilities should be (WAC 173-16-060(9)) strongly encouraged in waterfront industrial areas. Utilities are services which produce and carry elec- (e) Land transportation and utility corridors, serv- tric power, gas, sewage, communications and oil. At ing ports and water-related industry should this time the most feasible methods of transmission follow the guidelines provided under the sec- are the lineal ones of pipes and wires. The installation tions dealing with utilities and road and rail of this apparatus necessarily disturbs the landscape road design and construction. Where feasible' but can usually be planned to have minimal visual ou and physical effect on the environment. Guidelines: transportation and utility corridors sh Id be located upland to reduce pressures for the use la) Upon completion of installation/ maintenance of waterfront sites. IV-19 (f) Master program planning should be based on Breakwaters a recognition of the regional nature of port MAC 173-16-060(12)) services. Prior to allocating shorelands for port uses, local governments should consider state- Breakwaters ore another protL-ctive structure usually wide needs and coordinate plonning with built offshore to protect beaches, bluffs, dunes or 0 other jurisdictions to avoid wasteful duplica-, harbor areas from wove action. However, because off - tion of port services within port-service re- shore breakwaters ore costly to build, they are sel- gions. dorn constructed to protect the natural features alone, (g) Since industrial docks and piers are often but are generally constructed for navigational pur- longer and greater in bulk than recreational or poses also. Breakwaters can be either rigid in con- residential piers, careful planning must be un- struction or floating. The rigid breakwaters, which are dertaken to reduce the adverse impact of such usually constructed of riprap or rock, have both bene- facilities on other water-dependent uses and ficial and detrimental effects on the shore. All break- shoreline resources. Because heavy industrial waters eliminate wave action and thus protect the activities are associated with industrial piers shore immediately behind them. They also obstruct the and docks, the location of these facilities must free flow of sand along the coast and starve the be considered a major factor determining the downstream beaches. Floating breakwaters do not environmental compatibility of such facilities. have the negative effect on sand movement, but can- not withstand extensive wave action and thus are impractical with present construction methods in many areas. Guidelines: (a) Floating breakwaters are preferred to solid landfill types in order to maintain sand move- Bulkheads ment and fish habitat. (WAC 1173-16-0600 U) Jb) Solid breakwaters should be constructed only where' design modifications can eliminate po- Bulkheads or seawalls are structures erected paral- tentially detrimental effects on the movement lel to and near the high-water mark for the purpose of sand and circulation of water. of protecting adjacent uplands from the action of (c) The restriction of the public use of the water waves or currents. Bulkheads are constructed of steel, surface as a result of breakwater construction timber or concrete piling, and may be either of solid must be recognized in the master program and or open-piling construction. For ocean-exposed loca- must be considered in granting shoreline per- tions, bulkheads do not provide a long-lived perma- mits for their construction. nent solution, because eventually a more substantial wall is. required as the beach continues to recede and layer waves reach the structure. 0 While bulkheads and seawalls may protect the uplands, they do not protect the adjacent beaches, and in many cases are actually detrimental to the beaches by speeding up the erosion of the sand in Jetties and Groins front of the structures. MAC 173-16-060(13)) The following guidelines apply to the construction of bulkheads and seawalls designed to protect the Jetties and groins are structures designed to mod- immediate upland area. Proposals for landfill must ify or control sand movement. A jetty is generally comply-with the guidelines for that specific activity. employed at inlets for the purpose of navigation im- Guidelines: provements. When sand being transported along the (al Bulkheads and seawalls should be located coast by waves and currents arrives at an inlet, it and constructed in such a manner which will flows inward on the flood tide to form an inner bar, not result in adverse effects on nearby beaches and outward on ebb tide to form an outer bar. Both and will minimize alterations of the natural formations are harmful to navigation through the shoreline. inlet. (b) Bulkheads and seawalls should be constructed A jetty is usually constructed of steel, concrete or in such a way as to minimize damage to fish rock. The type depends on foundation conditions and and shellfish habitats. Open-piling construction wave, climate and economic considerations. To be of is preferable in lieu of the solid type. maximum aid in maintaining the navigation channel, (c) Consider the effect of a proposed bulkhead on the jetty must be high enough to completely obstruct public access to publicly owned shorelines. the sand stream. The adverse effect of a jetty is that (d) Bulkheads and seawalls should be designed to sand is impounded at the updrift jetty and' the supply blend in with the surroundings and not to of sand to the shore downdrift from the inlet is re- detract from the aesthetic qualities of the duced, thus causing erosion. shoreline. Groins are barrier-type structures extending from (e) The construction of bulkheads should be per- the backshore seaward across the beach. The basic mitted only where they provide protection to purpose of a groin is to interrupt the sand movement upland areas or facilities, not for the indirect along a shore. purpose of creating land by filling behind the bulkhead. Landfill operations should satisfy Groins can be constructed in many ways using the guidelines under WAC 173-16-060(14). timber, steel, concrete or rock, but can be classified IV- 20 into basic physical categories as high or low, long or collection, transportation and disposal are of vital short, (and permeable or impermeable) concern to all persons and communities. If the dis- posal of solid waste material is not carefully planned of sand by a groin done at the ex- and regulated, it can become not only a nuisance but pense of the adjacent downdrift shore, unless the a severe threat to the health and safety of human groin system is filled with sand to its entrapment beings, livestock, wildlife and other biota. Guidelines: capacity Guidelines: (a) Master programs must consider sand move- (a) Local master programs and use regulations ment and the effect of proposed jetties or must be consistent with approved county or multicounty comprehensive solid waste man- groins on that sand movement. Provisions can be made to compensate for the adverse effects agement plans and regulations of jurisdic- of the structures either by artificially transport- tional health agencies. ing sand to the downdrift side of an inlet with (b) Local governments must regulate sanitary jetties, or by artificially feeding the beaches in landfills and solid waste handling in accord- case of groins. once with regulations for solid waste handling (b) Special attention should be given to the effect when adopted by the department of ecology. these structures will have on wildlife propaga- New regulations restricting sanitary landfills tion and movement, and to the design of these within any water course and within flood structures which will not detract from the aes- plains of any water course have been pro- thetic quality of the shoreline. posed for adoption by the department. Landfill Dredging (WAC 173-16-060(14)) (WAC 173-116-06006)) Dredging is the removal of earth from the bottom Landfill is the creation of dry upland area by the of a stream, river, lake, bay or other water body for filling or depositing of sand, soil or gravel into a the purposes of deepening a navigational channel or wetland area. Landfills also occur to replace shoreland to obtain use of the bottom materials for landfill. A areas removed by wave action or the normal erosive significant portion of all dredged materials are depos- processes of nature. However, most landfills destroy ited either in the water or immediately adjacent to it, the natural character of land, create unnatural heavy often resulting in problems of water quality. Guide- erosion and silting problems and diminish the existing lines: water surface. Guidelines: (a) Local governments should control dredging to (a) Shoreline fills or cuts should be designed and minimize damage to existing ecological values located so that significant damage to existing and natural resources of both the area to be ecological values or natural resources, or alter- dredged and the area for deposit of dredged ation of local currents will not occur, creating a materials. hazard to adjacent life, property, and natural (b) Local master programs must include long- resources systems. range plans for the deposit and use of spoils (b) All perimeters of fills should be provided with on land. Spoil deposit sites in water areas vegetation, retaining walls, or other mecha- should also be identified by local government nisms for erosion prevention. in cooperation with the state departments of (c) Fill materials should be of such quality that it natural resources, game and fisheries. Deposit- will not cause problems of water quality. ing of dredge material in water areas should Shoreline areas are not to be considered for be allowed only for habitat improvement, to sanitary landfills or the disposal of solid correct problems of material distribution affect- waste. ing adversely fish and shellfish resources, or (d) Priority should be given to landfills for water- where the alternatives of depositing material dependent uses and for public uses. In eval- on land is more detrimental to shoreline re- uating fill projects. and in designating areas sources than depositing it in water areas. appropriate for fill, such factors as total water (c) Dredging of bottom materials for the single surface reduction, navigation restriction, imped- purpose of obtaining fill material should be iment to water flow and circulation, reduction discouraged. of water quality and destruction of habitat should be considered. Shoreline Protection Solid Waste Disposal MAC 173-16-060(17)) (WAC 173-16-060(15)) Flood protection and streamway modifications are those activities occurring within the streamway and Generally, all solid waste is a possible source of wetland areas which are designed to reduce overbank much nuisance. Rapid, safe and nuisance-free storage, flow of high waters and stabilize eroding stream- IV- 21 banks. Reduction of flood damage, bank stabilization should be done after the environmental impact to reduce sedimentation, and protection of property of the transportation facilities needed to serve from erosion are normally achieved through water- those areas have been assessed. shed and flood plain management and by structural works. Such measures are often complementary to one another and several measures together may be neces- sary to achieve the desired end. Guidelines: (a) Ripropping and other bank stabilization meas- ures should be located, designed and con- Piers structed so as to avoid the need for channeli- zation and to protect the natural character of (WAC 173-16-06009)) the strearnway. A pier or dock is a structure built over or floating (b) Where flood protection measures such as dikes upon the water, used as a landing place for marine are planned, they should be placed landward transport or for recreational purposes. While floating of the streamway, including associated swamps docks generally create less of a visual impact than and marshes and other wetlands directly inter- those on piling, they constitute'an impediment to boat related and interdependent with the stream traffic and shoreline trolling. Floating docks can also proper. altef beach sand patterns in areas where tides and (c) Flood protection measures which result in chan- littoral drift are significant. On lakes, a proliferation nelization should be avoided. of piers along the shore can have the effect of sub- stantially reducing the usable water surface. Guide- lines: (a) The use of floating docks should be encour- aged in those areas where scenic values are high and where conflicts. with recreational Road and Railroad Design and boaters and fishermen will not be created. Construction (b) Open-pile piers should be encouraged where IWAC 173-16-060(18)) shore trolling is important, where there is sig- nificant littoral drift and where scenic values A road is a linear passageway, usually for@motor will not be impaired. vehicles, and a railroad is a surface linear passage- (c) Priority should be given to the use of commu- way with tracks for frain traffic. Their construction can nity piers and docks in all new major water- limit access to shorelines, impair the visual qualities of water-oriented vistas, expose soils to erosion and front subdivisions. In general, encouragement retard the runoff of flood waters. Guidelines: should be given to the cooperative use of piers and docks. (a) Whenever feasible, major highways, freeways Id) Master programs should address the problem and 7railways should be located away from of the proliferation of single-purpose private shorelands, except in port and heavy industrial piers and should establish criteria for their lo- areas, so that shoreland roads may be re- cation, spacing, and length. The master pro- served for slow-moving recreational traffic. grams should also delimit geographical areas (b) Roads located in wetland areas should be de- where pile piers will have priority over floating signed and maintained to prevent erosion and docks. to permit a natural movement of ground (el In providing for boat docking facilities in the water. master program, local governments should (c) All debris, overburden, and other waste mate- consider the capacity of the shoreline sites to rials from construction should be disposed of absorb the impact of waste discharges from in such a way as to prevent their entry by boats including gas and oil spillage. erosion from drainage, high water, or other means into any water body. (d) Road locations should be planned to fit the topography so that minimum alterations of natural conditions will be necessary, (e) Scenic corridors with public roadways should Archeological Areas and Historic Sites have provision for safe pedestrian and other nonmotorized travel. Also, provision should be (WAC 173-16-060(20)) made for sufficient view pointsi rest areas and Archeological areas, ancient villages, military picnic areas in public shorelines. forts, old settlers homes, ghost towns, and trails were (f) Extensive loops or spurs of old highways with often located on shorelines because-of the proximity high aesthetic quality should be kept in service of food resources and because water provided an as pleasure bypass routes, especially where important means of transportation. These sites are main highways, paralleling the old highway, nonrenewable resources and many are in danger of must carry large traffic volumes at high being lost through present day changes in land use speeds. and urbanization. Because of their rarity and the edu- (g) Since land-use and transportation facilities are cational link they provide to our past, these locations so highly interrelated, the plans for each should be preserved. Guidelines: should be coordinated. The designation of po- (a) In preparing shoreline master programs, local tential high-use areas in master programs governments should consult with professional IV-22 archeologists to identify areas containing po- the preservation and enhancement of scenic tentially valuable archeological data, and to views and vistas. procedures for salvaging the data. (f) To avoid wasteful use of the limited supply of (b) Where possible, sites should be permanently recreational shoreland, parking areas should preserved for scientific study and public obser- be located inland away from the immediate valion. In areas known to contain archeologi- edge of the water and recreational beaches. cal dato, local governments should attach a Access should be provided by walkways or special condition to a shoreline permit provid- other methods. Automobile traffic on beaches, ing for a site inspection and evaluation by an dunes and fragile shoreland resources should archeologist to ensure that possible archeologi. be discouraged. cal data are properly salvaged. Such a cond.i. (g) Recreational developments should be of such tion might, also require approval by local gov- variety as to satisfy the diversity of demands ernment before work can resume on the project from groups in nearby pepulation centers. following such an examination. (h) The supply of recreation facilities should be (c) Shoreline permits, in general, should contain directly proportional to the proximity of popu- special provisions which require developers to lation and compatible with the environment notify local governments if any possible or- designations. cheological data are uncovered during excava- (i) Facilities for intensive recreational activities tions. should be provided where sewage disposal d) The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and vector control can be accomplished to and chapter 43.51 RCW provide for the protec- meet public health standards without ad- tion, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruc- versely altering the natural features attractive tion of districts, sites, buildings, structures and for recreational uses. (See Reference No. 35). objects significant in American and Washing- U) In locating proposed recreational facilities such ton 'history, architecture, archeology or culture. as playing fields and golf courses and other The state legislation names the director of the open areas which use large quantities of ferti- Washington state parks and recredtion com- lizers and pesticides in their turf maintenance mission as the person responsible for this pro- programs, provisions must be mode to prevent gram. these chemicals from entering water. If this type of "facility is approved on a shoreline location, provision should be made for protec- tion of water areas from drainage and surface runoff. (k) State and local health agencies have broad Recreation regulations which apply to recreation facilities, WAC 173-16-060(211)) recreation watercraft and ocean beaches which should be consulted by local governments in Recreation is the refreshment of body and mind preparing use regulations and issuing permits. through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. Wa- (See Reference Nos. 30, 3 1, 35, 36, 37). ter-related recreation accounts for a very high propor- tion of all recreational activity in the Pacific Northwest. The recreational experience may be either an active one involving boating, swimming, fishing or hunting or the experience may be passive such as enjoying the natural beauty of a vista of a lake, river or saltwater VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES area. Guidelines: (a) Priority will be given to cle .velopments, other (WAC 173-16-070) than single-family residences which are ex. The act states that each local master program empt from the permit requirements of the act, shall contain provisions covering conditional uses and which provide recreational uses and other im. variances. Any permit for a variance or a conditional provements facil .itating public access to shore- use granted by the local government under approved lines. master programs must be submitted to the department (b) Access to recreational locations such as fishing for approval or disapproval. streams and hunting areas should be a combi. nation of areas and linear access (parking This provision of the act should be utilized in a areas and easements, for example) to prevent manner which, while protecting the environment, will concentrations of use pressure at a few points. assure that a person will be able to utilize his prop. (c) Master programs should encourage the linkage erty in a fair and equ .itable manner. of shoreline parks, and public access points @I) Conditional uses. The objective of a condi- through the use of linear access. Many types tional use provision is to provide more control and of connections can be used such as hiking flexibility for implementing the regulations of the mas. paths, bicycle trails and/or scenic drives. ter 'program. With provisions to control undesirable (d) Attention should be directed toward the effect effects, the scope of uses within each of the four the development of a recreational site will environments can be expanded to include many uses. hove on the environmental quality and natural Uses classified as conditional uses can be permit. resources of an area. ted only after consideration by the local government (e) Master programs should develop standards for and by meeting such performance standards that IV- 23 make the use compatible with other permitted uses to implement the policy of this chapter for regulation within that area. of use of the shoielines of the stote prior to odoption COnditioric"I use permits will he c or of niastet progiams. Such t.tundards slitill olso piovido gronted only oft ctit,li(I to loccil goveinment.; und the departi,iivrit in r:ie appli(ont con defvionstrate ull of Ilic followirig: devel0pilig 1110OLM PlOgI1,1111S. lall rhe use will cause no unreasonably adverse effects on the environment or other uses. (7) "Hearings board" means the shorelines. hear- (b) The use will not interfere with public use of ings board established by the act. public shorelines. (8) "Local government" means any county, incor- (c) Design of the site will be compatible with the porated city, or town which contains within its bound- surroundings and the Master Program. aries any lands or waters subject to the Shoreline Act (d) The proposed use will not be contrary to the of 1971. general intent of the master program. (9) "Master program" means the comprehensive (2) Variances. Variance deals with specific require- use plan for a described area, and the use regula- ments of the master program and its objective is to tions, together with maps, diagrams, charts or other grant relief when there are practical difficulties or descriptive material and text, a statement of desired unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the goals and standards developed in accordance with strict letter of the master program. The property owner the policies enunciated in section 2 of the act. must show that if 'he complies with the provisions. he cannot make any reasonable use of his property. The (10) "Ordinary high-water mark" means the mark fact that he might make a greater profit by using his on all lakes, streams, and tidal waters, which will be property in a manner contrary to the intent of the found by examining the beds and banks and ascer- prograrn is not a sufficient reason for variance. A taining where the presence and action of waters are variance will be granted only after the applicant can so common and usual, and so long continued in all demonstrate the following: ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character (a) The hardship which serves as basis for grant- distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to ing of variance is specifically related to the property vegetation, as that condition exists on the effective of the applicant. date of this chapter, or as it may naturally change (b) The hardship results from the application of thereafter: PROVIDED, That in any area where the ordinary high-water mark cannot be found, the ordi- the 'requirements of the act and master program and nary high-water mark adjoining saltwater shall be the not from, for example, deed restrictions or the appli- line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high- cant's own actions. water mark adjoining freshwater shall be the line of (c) The variance granted will be in harmony with mean high water. the general purpose and intent of the master pro- gram. U 1) "Permit" means that @equired by the act for (d) Public welfare and interest will be preserved; substantial development on shorelines, to be issued if more harm will be clone. to the area by granting the by the local government entity having administrative variance than would be done to the applicant by jurisdiction and subject to review by the department denying it, the variance will be denied. of ecology and the attorney general. (121 "Shorelines" means all of the water areas of GLOSSARY the state, including reservoirs, and their associated wetlands, together with the lands underlying them, (WAC 173-16-030) except: DE-FINITIONS. As used herein, the following words (a) Shorelines of state-wide significance; and phroses shall have the following meanings: (b) Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet (1) "Act" means Shoreline Management Act of per second or less, and the wetlands associated with 197 1, chapter 90.58 RCW. such upstream segments; and (2) "Department" means state of Washington, (c) Shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres. in size department of ecology. and wetlands dssociated with such small lakes. (3) "Development" means a use, consisting of (13) "Shorelines of state-wide significance" means the construction or exterior alteration of structures; the following shorelines of the state: dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any (a) The area between the ordinary high-water sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading; driving of pil- mark and the western boundary of the state from ing; placing of obstructions; or any project of a per- Cape Disappointment on the south to Cape Flattery on monent or temporary nature which interferes with the the north, including harbors, bays, estuaries, and in- normal public use of the surface of the waters overly- lets; ing lunds subject to the act at any state of water lb) Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent salt- level. waters and the Strait of Juan cle Fuca between the (4) "Director" means the director of the depart- ordinary high-water mark and the line of extreme low ment of ecology. tide as follows: (i) Nisqually Delta-from DeWolf Bight to Tafsolo (5) "Extreme low tide" means the lowest line on Point; the land reached by a receding tide. (ii) Birch Bay-from Point Whitehorn to Birch (6) "Guidelines" means those standards adopted Point; IV-24 (iii) Hood Conal-from Tola Point to Fpulwecither APPENDIX "A" @1@) P-ly '111-1 lium Bruwn (WAC 173-16-200) flomt to Yokeko Point; and Agricultural Practices (V) Padilla Bcjy@-from March Point to William 1. Chapter 15.57 RCW, Washington Pesticide P"'ri, Act. Formulation, distribution and sale of ag- (r) fho,,o (wmw. of Purof Sound (ind the Strait of ricultural pesticides. J11(ift 'If. Imil (111,1 '111f(i(j.111 "(111w(ilvis 110101 to Ille 2. Chaplei 17.2 1 RCW, Washington Pesticide Ap- Canadion line and lying seaward from the line of plication Act. Application equipment, licen- extreme low tide; sing, records, handling of and enforce rient. (d) Those lakes, whether natural, artificial or a 3. Agricultural Extension Service, Washington combination thereof, with a surface acreage of 1,000 State University, Pullman, June 1964, Cattle acres, or more, measured at the ordinary high-water Manure Handling and Disposal. mark; 4. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag- (e) Those natural rivers or segments thereof, as riculture, Washington State University, Pull- follows: man, October 1965, Guideline for Sanitary (i) Any west of the crest of the Cascade range Handling of Animal Manure. . downstream of a point where the mean annual flow 5. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag- is measured at 1,000 cubic feet per second, or more; riculture, Washington State University, Pull- (ii) Any east of the crest of the Cascade range man, June 1969, Guidelines for Handling An- downstreom of a point where the annual flow is imal Wastes as Related to Water and Air measured cit 200 cubic feet per second, or more, or Pollution Contra(. those portions of rivers east of the crest of the 6. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag- Cascade range downstream from the first 300 riculture, Washington State University, Pull- square miles of drainage area, whichever is longer; man, June 1971, The Stockman's' Role in (f) Those wetlands associated with (a) through (e) Water Pollution Control. above. 7. Eric B. Wilson, University of Idaho, A Pacific (14) "Shorelines of the state" means the total of Northwest Cooperative Extension Publication, all ''shorelines'' and ''shorelines of state-wide signifi- PNW Bulletin 53, January 1963, Your Feedlot cance'' within the state. -Build It-Mechanize It. 8. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag- (15) "State master program" means the cumula- riculture, Washington State University, Pull- -tive total of all master programs approved or adopted m6n, June 1971, Livestock Waste Manage- by the department of ecology. ment Guidelines. (16) "Substantial development" means any devel- opment of which the total cost, or fair market va'I 'ue, Forest Management Practices exceeds $1,000, or any development which materially 9. Chapter 76.04 RCW, Forest protection, fire and interferes with normal public use of the water or burning control, permits and enforcement. shorelines of the state except that the following shall 10. Anonymous, Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ex- not be considered substantial developments: tension Publication, March 1971, Building (al Normal maintenance or repair of existing Woodland Roads, distributed by Washington structures or developments, including damage by fire, State University Cooperative Extension Serv- accident, or elements; ice, College of Agriculture. (b) Construction of the normal protective bulk- 11. State of Washington Departments of Fisheries, head, common to single-family residences; Game and Natural Resources, Agreement, re- fc) Emergency construction necessary to protect. lated to management of projects affecting property from damage by the elements; land and fisheries resources. (dl Construction of a barn or, similar agricultural 12. Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Council, structure on wetlands; Task Force Report, August 7971, Log Storage (e) Construction or modification of navigational and Rafting in Public Waters. aids, such as channel roarkers and anchor buoys; Aquaculture (f) Construction on wetlands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser, of a single-family residence, fo; 13. Chapter 75.16 RCW, Food fish and shellfish his own use or for the use of his family, which resi- conservation and propagation. dence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above 14. Chapter 248.58 WAC, State Board of Health, average grade level and,which meets all requirements Shellfish. of the state agency or local government having juris- diction thereof. Archeological Areas and Historic Sites (17) "Wetlands" or "Wetland areas" means those 15. RCW 43.51.750-820, Preservation of sites and lands extending landward for 200 feet in all direc- funding requirements. tions, as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high-water mark and all marshes, bogs, Bulkheads and Breakwaters swamps, floodways, river deltas, and flood plains as- 1 16. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Cri- sociated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters. teria governing the design of bulkheads, which are subject to the provisions of the act. landfills and marinas. IV-25 Landfill 26. WAC 248.50.100 State Board of Health Regu- 17. Wilbour v. Gallagher 77 Wn.2d 306, 462 P. lation, Disposal of Human Excreta. 2d 232 (1969). See Bulkheads, this,page. 27. Chopter 248.96 WAC, State Board of Health Regulation, Individual Sewage Disposc Marinas .be adoptedl. See Bulkheads, this page. Utilities 18. Chapter 248.148 WAC, Marinas (to be adopted). 28. Chapter 80.50 RCW, Thermal Power Plants-- Site Locations. Mining 29. Ports and Water Related Industries, Washing- 19. RCW A3.51.685, Accreted lands, sale of sand ton Department of Natural Resources, Pro- and lease and removal permits. posed Harbor Area Guidelines. 20. Chapter 78.44 RCW, Surface Mining Act. Re- Pacific Ocean Beaches clornation requirements, site inspection and 30. RCW 79.16.160 Declared a Public Highway. permits. 31. RCW 79.16.172 Declared a Public Recreation Outdoor Advertising Area. 21. Chapter 47.42 RCW, Highway Advertising Environmental Impacts Control Act. Sign locations, scenic areas and 32. Chapter 43.21C RCW, Washington State Envi- permits. ronr-nental Policy Act of 1971 requires all Residential Development branches of government to include in every recommendation or report on proposals fo, 22. Bach v. Scrich. 74 Wn.2d 575, 445 P. 2d 648 legislation and other major actions signifi- (1968). cantly affecting the environment, a detailed 23. Washington State Department of Social and statement by the responsible official on the Health Services, Health Services Division, environmental impact of the proposed action. Standards for Individual Sewage Waste Dis- Public Health, State Board of Health posal Systems. 33. WAC 248.50.140 Stagnant Water. 24. U.S. Deportment of Agriculture, Soil Conserva- tion Service, June 1967, Know the Soil You 34. Chapter 248.54 WAC, Public Water Supplies. Build On, Bulletin No. 320. 35. Chapter 248.72 WAC, Camps and Parks. Agriculture, Soil Conserva- 25. U.S. Department cil 36. Chapter 248.92 WAC, Public Sewage Dis. tion Service, (September 1968) Soil Conserva- posal. - tion, "Soil and Water Conservation in Subur- 37. Chapter 248.98 WAC, Swimming Pools, Bath- bia'' reprints available. ing Beaches and Wading Pools. IV- 2.6 APPENDIX 5 MAPS AND MATRICES a. Map of Coastal Zone Counties and Cities b. Status of Master Program for Cities and Counties, October 1975 c. Shoreline Use Matrix by County d. Summary of Shoreline Permits for Marine Waters e.- Federal Coastal Lands and Waters f. Indian Reservation Map g. Map of Areas of Particular Concern h. Environment Designatkn Map NOTE: not included in FEIS distributed to Federal agencies because of limited number of copies available, and are included in WCZMP which was previously submitted for review. Blaine Bellingham WHATIOM, 14 Friday Harbor necortes SKAGIT SANJUAN LaCanner Oak Harbor ISLAN6 Stanwood Coupeville Port Townsend Port Angeles CLALLAM Langley Marysville Everett SNOHOMISH Mukilteo Poulsbo dmonds JEFFERSON Br merto Winslow n KITSA Seattle KING Orchard Normandy Park MASON Des Moines ? df ig Harbor R on GRAYSHARBOR I Shelton Taco Steilacoom Dupont (-'\Hoquiam Ocean Shores I Aberdeen Olympia PIERCE Westport Cosmopolis THURSTON Raymond South Bend PACIFIC NOWTH Long Beach llwaco ;WAHKIAKUM COASTAL ZONE COUNTIES AND CITIES 5-a V-1 i-n STATUS OF MASTER PROGRAM FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES, OCTOBER 1975 Master Program Program Resubmitted Amended COUNTY Master Accepted for County Doing Program Program Denied Resubmitted Program Program Program Review Program for Approved Letter sent ta to DOE for Appfoved Approved Cities Received city by DOE Local Government Review Date Yos/No. note Date Yes/No Date Date Date Yes/No Date *CLALLAM COUNTY 316175 Yes 316175 6/13175 *Port Angeles 3/6/75 Yes 3/6/75 Yes 6/13/75 *GRAYSHARBOR COUNTY 6117/74 Yes 6119174 9/17/74 7123175 Yes 8/5175 *Aberdeen 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 No 3/20/74 6/10/74 Yes 6/30/75 *Hoquiam 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 3/20/74 *Ocean Shores 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 Yes 3/20/74 6/21/74 Yes 8/12/74 Montesano 12/20/73 Y s 12/20/73 No 3/20/74 *Westport 12/20/73 Y:s 12/20/73 Yes 3/20/74 6/24/74 Yes 11/7/74 Elma 12/*73 Yes 12/20/73 Yes 3/20/74 6/24/74 Yes 9/18/74 Oakville 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 No 3/20/74 *Cosmopolis 12/20/73 Yes 12/20/73 Yes 3/20/74 6/24/74 Yes 8/12/74 *ISLAND COUNTY *Coupeville Yes *Langley Yes *Oak Harbor Yes *JEFFERSON COUNTY 9/20/74 Yes 9/23/74 12/20/74 *Port Townsend 9/20/74 Yes 9/23/74 Yes 12/20/74 *KING COUNTY Auburn 1/29/74 Yes 1/29/74 No 4/4/74 Beaux Arts 12/1-9/73 Yes 5/22/74 No 8/12/74 Bellevue 6/21/74 Yes 6/27/74 No 9/17/74 2/17/75 Yes 2/26/73 Black Diamond No Bothell 11/29/74 Yes 11/29/74 No 2/27/75 Carnation 12/20/74 Yes 1/15/74 No 4/14/74 9/12/74 Yes 8/16/74 *Des Moines 1/3/74 Yes 1/3/74 No 4/3/74 Duvall 5/16/74 Yes 5/28/74 No 8/12/74 I *Denotes Coastal Zone Counties and Cities on Saltwater STATUS OF MASTER PROGRAM FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES, OCTOBER 1975 Master Master Program County Doing Program Program Denied Program Resubmitted Amended COUNTY Program Accepted f or Program for Approved Letter sent to Resubmitted Program Program, Received Review City by DOE Local Government to DOE for Approved Approved Cities Date Yes/No Date Date Review Yes/No Date Date YedNo Date YedNa Date *KING COUNTY (CONT.) Hunts Point 12/20/73 Yes 12/22/73 No 3/19/74 6/20/74 Yes 11/15/74 Yes 7/2/75 Issaquah No Kent 2/1/74 Yes 2/1/74 No 4/9/74 Kirkland 5/31/74 Yes 5/31/74 No 8/27/74 Lake Forest Park 1/28174 Yes 1/28/74 No 4/19/74 Medina 1/21/74 Yes 1/22/74 No 4/19/74 7/23/74 Yes 11/22/74 Mercer Island 6/27/74 Yes 6/28/74 No P/24/74 *Normandy Park 1/28/74 Yes 2/8/74 No 4/5/74 North Bond 7/9/74 Yes 6/2on4 No .9/14/74 Pacific 2/19/74 Yes 8/26/74 No 9/19/74 Redmond 6/24/74 Yes 6/27/74 No 9/20/74 Renton 6/1/74 Yes 6/12/74 No 9/5/74 *Seattle No Skykomish No Snoqualmie 6/20/74 Yes 6/26/74 No 8/16/74 Tukwila 6/28/74 Yes 7/9/74 No 9/26/74 Yarrow Point 12/26/73 Yes 12/28/73 No 3/26/74 6/21/74 Yes 3113/75 *KITSAP COUNTY *Bremerton No *Pon Orchard No *Poulsbo No *ffinslow No *MASON COUNTY 12/20/73- Yes 1/28/74 4/426/74 7/30/74 Yes 8/6/75 *Shelton 12/20/73 Yes 1/28/74 4/26/74 12/13/74 Yes 3118n5 *PACIFIC COUNTY 3/11/74 Yes 3/11/74 6/11/74 8/29/74 Yes 4/8/75 *Ilwaco 3/11174 Yes 3/11/74 Yes 8/29/74 Yes 5/2/75 *Denotes Coastal Zone Counties and Cives on Saltwater STATUS OF MASTER PROGRAM FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES, OCTOBER 1975 Master Master Program County Being program Program Denied Program Resubmitted Amended COUNTY program Accepted for Program for Approved Letter sent to Resubmitted Program Program Received Review City 'by DOE Local Government to DOE for Approved Approved Cities Ye&/No Date Date Review Date Yes/No Date Date Yes/No Date Yes/No Date *PACIFIC COUNTY (CONT.) *Long Beach 3/11/74 Yes 3111/74 Yes 6/11/74 8/29/74 Yes 5/2/75 *Raymond 3/11/74 Yes 3/11/74 No *South Bend 3/11/74 Yes 3/11/74 Yes 6/11/74 8/29/74 Yes 5/2/75 *PIERCE COUNTY 1/13/75 Yes 1/14/75 4/4/75 Bonney Lake 5/5/75 Yes 8/4/75 No 8/6/75 Buckley 1/13/75 Yes 1/14/75 Yes 4/7/75 Carbonado No shorelines *Dupont 6/26/74 Yes 6/26/74 No 9/28/74 6/4/75 Yes 6111/75 Eatonville 1/13/75 Yes 1/14/75 Yes 4129/75 Fite 6/11/74 Yes 6/11/74 No 9/13/74 *Gig Harbor 6/30/75 Yes 7/2/75 No 9/10/75 Orting 1/14/75 Yes 1114/75 Yes 4/8/75 Puyallup 3/13/74 Yes 3/13/74 No 5/31/74 Roy 2/27/75 Yes 2/27/75 Yes 419/75 *Ruston 1/23/74 Yes 1/23/74 No 9/20/74 South Prairie No *Steilacoom No Sumner 4/17/74 Yes 9/11/74 No 12/11/74 *Tacoma 1/29/74 Yes 1/29/74 No 4/25/74 Wilkeson No *SNOHOMISH COUNTY 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 12/27/74 Arlington 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 Brier 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 *Edmonds 12/21/73 Yes 12/28/73 No 3/19/74 11/25/74 *Denotes Coastal Zone Counties and Cities on Saltwater STATUS OF MASTER PROGRAM FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES, OCTOBER 1975 Master Master Program County Doing Program Program Denied Program Resubmitted Amended COUNTY Accepted for Resubmitted Program Program Program Review Program for Approved Letter sent to to DOE for Approved Approved Cities Received City by DOE Local G o.vernment Review Date Yes/No- Date Yes/No Date Date Date Yes/NOT Date Yes/No Date *SNOHOMISH COUNTY (CONT.) *Everett 2/25/75 No 3/24/75 No Gold Bar 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 Granite Falls 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27175 Index 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 Lake Stevens 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27N *Marysville 6/26/74 Yes 6/26/74 No 9/18/74 12/19/74 Yes 1/22/75 Monroe 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 Mountlake Terrace 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 <i *Mukilteo 6/26/74 Yes 6/26/74 No 9/20/74 Snohomish 6/26/74 Yes 6/26/74 No 9/20/74 *Stanwood No Sultan 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 Woodway 10/16/74 Yes 10/16/74 Yes 12/27/74 *SAN JUAN COUNTY *Friday Harbor No *SKAGIT COUNTY *Anacorles No Concrete Yes Hamilton ? *LaConner Yes Lyman Yes Mount Vernon Yes *THURSTON COUNTY Bucoda Lacey *Denotes Coastal Zone Counties and CiOes on Saltwater STATUS OF MASTER PROGRAM FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES, OCTOBER 1975 Master Master Program County Doing Program Program Denied Program Resubmitted Amended COUNTY Program Accepted for Program for Approved Letter sent to Resubmitted Program Program Review to DOE for Approved Approved Received City by DOE Local Government Cities Date Yes/No Date Date Review Yes/No Date Date Yes/N ]o Date Yes/No Date *THURSTON COUNTY (CONT.) *Olympi" Tenino Tumwater Yelm *WAHKIAKUM COUNTY 1/22/74 Yes 1122n4 4122n4 1/7/75 Yes 6/17/75 Cathlamet 1/22/74 Yes 1/22/74 Yes 4122n4 1/7/75 Yes 6/17n5 *WHATCOM COUNTY *Bellingham 7/1/74 Yes 7/9/74 No 9/30/74 *Blaine 814/75 Yes 8/4/75 Whatcom Reg. 9/29/75 Everson 814/75 Yes 8/4/75 Whatcom Reg. 9/29/75 Ferndale Whatcom Reg. Lynden 8/4/75 Yes 8/4/75 Whatcom Reg. 9/29/75 Nooksack 8/4/75 Yes 8/4/75 Whatcom Reg. 9/29/75 Sumas 8/4/75 Yes 8/4/75 Whatcom Reg. 9/29/75 L *Denotes Coastal Zone Counties and Cities on Saltwater CLALLAM COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Submitted, but not approved Ln A ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted Permitted Permitted and Permitted, limit live- encouraged stock access 2. AQUACULTURE Permitted if it does Permitted if it does Permitted if it does Permitted use in those not interfere with not interfere with not interfere with areas especially suited recreation, navigation, recreation, navigation, scenic quality for aquaculture and scenery and scenery 3. FOREST MANAGEMENT Permitted - Selective Permitted Permitted cutting (30 percent per 10 years) 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted - Not permitted - Permitted it proven ne- Permitted - shoreline Permitted DEVELOPMENT new development or cessary and if located dependent preferred expansion of existing near existing. Per- development mitted - log booming 5. MARINAS Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 6. BOAT LAUNCHING Permitted if sparsely Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted located 7. MINING Not permitted Not permitted Permitted - condition- Permitted, but no Permitted, but no at use gravel or sand gravel or sand re- removal from moval from marine marine beaches beaches 8. OUTDOOR ADVER- Not permitted - ad- Not permitted - ad- Advertising signs Permitted - directional Permitted TISING vertising signs. vertisiag signs. generally incompatible signs. Permitted - directional Permitted - directional with environment All other signs - signs signs conditional uses 9. RESIDENTIAL Permitted - individual Permitted - individual Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. DEVELOPMENT single family homes. single family homes Floating homes per- Floating homes per- Floating homes per- Not permitted - all and floating homes mitted if proper waste mitted if proper waste mitted it proper waste other types of if proper waste dis- disposal provided. disposal provided. disposal provided residential develop- posal provided. Not permitted - over- Not permitted - over- ment Not permitted - water residences water residences. subdivisions CLALLAM COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Submitted, but not approved ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 10. UTILITIES Permitted (under- Permitted (under- Permitted - en- Permitted - en- Permitted ground) ground) couraged underground couraged underground 11. PORTS AND Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Permitted INDUSTRY 12. BULKHEADS Not permitted Permitted for pro- Generally discouraged. Permitted when neces- Permitted when tection only above Permitted - protective sary, but not to necessary, but not high water line when bulkheads above high create new land to create land property eroding water line only 13. BREAKWATERS Not permitted Not permitted Generally not Permitted for im- Perinitted for im- permitted provement of naviga- provement of naviga- tion and channel tion and channel maintenance maintenance 14. LANDFILL Not permitted Not permitted Permitted to raise Permitted. Cre ation Permitted. Shoreline C@ building site. of new land for water dependent uses Not permitted to dependent uses only preferred create new land 15. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Not permitted Must be consistent Not permitted DISPOSAL with local and state health regulAtions 16. DREDGING Not permitted Permitted to improve Permitted. Permitted, Conditional Permitted to aid navigation. Not permitted if sole use if the sole purpose navigation, but re- Not permitted it the purpose is to obtain is to obtain fill stricted if purpose sole purpose is to fill material material is to obtain fill obtain fill material material 17. SHORELINE Permitted. For pro- Permitted for pro- Permitted. Permitted., Permitted PROTECTION tection only. Dikes tection only. Dikes Not permitted - chan- Channelization to be not to cause not to cause - nelization minimized channelization channelization 18. ROADS AND Not permitted -,major Not permitted - major Not permitted - major Permitted. Locate Permitted. Have to RAILROADS highways. highways. highways. Roads in uplands when locate carefully. Permitted - access and Permitted - access and wetlands - conditional practical scenic roads scenic roads use GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: August 5, 1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - conditional use 2. AQUACULTURE Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - conditional use 3. FOREST Not permitted Permitted Peimitted Permitted - MANAGEMENT conditional use 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - water Permitted - water DEVELOPMENT conditional use related related Permitted - Permitted - conditional uses conditional uses for others for others 5. MARINAS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted conditional use conditional use 6. BOAT LAUNCHING Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted RAMPS 7. MINING Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted - conditional use conditional use 8. OUTDOOR Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - ADVERTISING appurtenant signs appurtenant signs. appurtenant signs. appurtenant signs. only Non-appurtenant Non-appurtenant Non-appurtenant signs permitted - signs permitted - signs permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use 9. RESIDENTIAL Not permitted Permitted - single Permitted Permitted DEVELOPMENT family All others permitted - conditional uses 10. UTILITIES Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted conditional use 11. PORTSAND Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - INDUSTRY conditional use conditional use conditional use CLALLAM COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Submitted, but not approved ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AOUATIC 19. PIERS Permitted - generally Permitted - generally Permitted - com- Permitted Permitted discouraged. discouraged. munity piers Community piers Community piers preferred pref erred preferred 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL May suspend construction up to 30 days for evaluation. AREAS AND HISTORIC SITES 21. RECREATION Permitted - low in- Permitted - low Permitted - camp- Permitted Permitted tensity development. intensity. Access sites and parking Access by foot trail, mainly by foot inland Not permitted - ITails golf courses 22. EDUCATIONAL Permitted - con- Permitted - con- Permitted - con- Permitted AND SCIENTIFIC ditional use ditional use ditional use RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CD GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE U[SE'MATRIX Approval Date: August 5,1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL. SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 12. BULKHEADS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted. Permitted conditional use 13. BREAKWATERS Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 14. JETTIES AND Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted GROINS 15. LANDFILL Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted conditional use conditional use 16. SO LID WASTE Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - DISPOSAL conditional use conditional use conditional use 17. EFFLUENT Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted DISPOSAL conditional use 18. DREDGING Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted coamid0w use 19. SHORELINE Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted PROTECTION conditional use 20. ROADSAND Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted RAILROADS conditional use conditional use 21. PIERS Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Z2. ED-UCATWNAL AND Permitked Permitted @**rmitted ARCHEOLOGICAL AREASAND HISTORICAL SITES 23. RECREATIONAL Permitted - fisiting, Permitted Permitted Permitted PRACTICES water sp4rL hiking and sight-seeing 24. LOG STORAGE AND Not permitted Permitted - Permittect Permitted RAFTING conditional use J ISLANn COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL Shoreline RESIDENTIAL URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Not permitted secondary use primary use secondary use secondary use secondary use 2. AQUACULTURE Farming & Farming permitted Processing farming Permitted - Processing per- Permitted - processing per- - primary use. permitted - secondary use mined - primary primary use mitted - con- Processing per- secondary use use - ditional use mitted - secondary Farming per- use mitted - secondary use 3. FOREST Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Not applicable MANAGEMENT primary use secondary use secondary use secondary use 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Permitted - con- Water dependent Water dependent Water dependent Permitted - DEVELOPMENT ditional use, water permitted - permitted - permitted - pri- water dependent dependent only secondary use secondary use mary use. secondary use or Non-water dependent subject to secondary use conditional uses 5. MARINAS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use secondary use secondary use primary use secondary use (includes float- (includes float- (includes float- (includes float- (includes float- plane bases) plane bases) plane bases) plane bases) plane bases) 6. BOAT LAUNCHING Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use primary use primary use primary use primary use 7. MINING Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 8. OUTDOOR Permitted - On premise signs Permitted - on On premise signs On premise signs Not permitted. ADVERTISING conditional use on permitted - premise signs - permitted - permitted - promise. Not per- secondary use. secondary use secondary use. secondary use. mitted - off Billboards per- Off premise signs On premise bill- Off premise signs promise. mitted - conditional and billboards per- boards permitted - and billboards use. mitted - conditional conditional use permitted - Not permitted - use conditional use off premise signs ISLAND COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL Shoreline RESIDENTIAL URBAN AQUATIC 9. RESIDENTIAL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted Permitted, including Multi-family Permitted. subject DEVELOPMENT conditional use conditional use for motels - primary use residence permitted - to conditional use all primary use. (boatel) Single-family- residence permitted - secondary use 10. UTILITIES Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use primary use primary use primary use 11. PORTS AND Not permitted Water dependent Ports and water Permitted - Water dependent Water dependent INDUSTRY industry permitted - dependent use conditional use permitted - primary industry and ports conditional use permitted - use. permitted - secondary use. Non-water dependent secondary and Non-water dependent secondary use conditional use. and ports use Not permitted - permitted - non-water dependent conditional use uses 12. BULKHEADS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Not permitted secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use 13. BREAKWATERS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use 14. LANDFILL Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Conditional use conditional use secondary use secondary use seconilary use 15. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted DISPOSAL 16. DREDGING Permitted - -permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use secondary use secondary use secondary use conditional use 17, SHORELINE Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - PROTECTION secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use secondary use ISLAND COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL Shoreline RESIDENTIAL URBAN AQUATIC 18. ROADSAND Permitted, subject Vista parking lots Railroads, vehicular Railroads, vehicular Railroads, vehicular Not permitted RAILROADS to conditional use permitted - routes and non-vista routes and non-vista routes and devices primary use. parking lots parks permitted - permitted - Railroads and permitted - -conditional use primary use. vehicular routes conditional use Parking lots permitted - con- permitted - secondarV ditional use use 19. PIERS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Connector permit- Permitted - float- conditional use secondary use secondary use secondary use ted - primary use plane bases. - Jetties and groins permitted - conditional use 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - AREASAND secondary use primary use seconfiry use secondary use primary use secondary use HISTORIC SITES 21. RECREATION Parks, campgrounds Parks, campgrounds Parks, trails and Parks, trails, Parks, trails, path- Underwater parks and camping and camping clubs pathways for non- camping clubs ways for non- permitted - clubs permitted - permitted - vehicular use permitted - vehicular use primary use conditional uses secondary use permitted - primary use. permitted - primary use. Campgrounds and primary use. Campgrounds and camping clubs Campgrounds and camping clubs permitted - camping clubs permitted - secondary use permitted - secondary use secondary use 22. EDUCATIONAL AND Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - SCIEN -TIFIC secondary use primary use secondary use secondary use primary use secondary use RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 23. TRAILSAND Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - PATHWAYS FOR secondary use secondary use primary use primary use primary use NON-VEHICULAR USE JEFFERSON COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: December 20, 1974 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use primary use secondary use secondary use 2. AQUACULTURE Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Processing conditional use primary use. secondary use permitted - (includes Processing primary use. processing) permitted - Farming secondary'use permitted - secondary use 3. FOREST Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - MANAGEMENT conditional use primary use secondary use secondary use 4. COMMERCIAL Permitted - Permitted - Hotels, boatels, Hotels, motels, DEVELOPMENT conditional use conditional use motels permitted - boatels and water primary use. dependent per- Water and non- mitted - primary water commercial use . permitted - Non-water depen- secondary use dent permitted - secondary use 5. MARINAS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted conditional use conditional use secondary use (includes float (includes float (includes float plane bases) plane bases) plane bases) 6. BOAT LAUNCHING Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use primary use primary use 7. MINING Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 8. OUTDOOR Permitted - On premise signs On-premise signs On-premise ADVERTISING conditional use permitted - permitted - secon- permitted - secondary use . dary use. secondary use. Others permitted - Off premise signs Off-premise conditional use and billboards per- permitted - mitted subject to conditional use conditional use ISLAND COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL Shoreline RESIDENTIAL URBAN AQUATIC 24. HARVESTING SHELL- Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Permitted - FISH AND NATURAL conditional use RESOURCES JEFFERSON COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: December 20, 1974 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AaUATIC 18. ROADS AND Trails for non. Trails for non- Trails for non- Permitted - RAILROADS vehicular use vehicular use vehicular use primary use permitted - and vista parking permitted secondary use. lots permitted - primary use. Roads, railroads primary use . Others permitted - and parking lots Non-vista parking conditional use permitted @ lots permitted - conditional use secondary use. Roads and railroads permitted - conditional use 19. PIERS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use secondary use primary use 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - AREAS AND secondary use primary use secondary use primary use HISTORIC SITES 21. RECREATION Permitted - Permitted - Parks permitted - Permitted - secondary use. secondary use primary use. primary use. Campgrounds Campgrounds and Campgrounds and permitted - camping clubs vista parking lots conditional use permitted - permitted - secondary uses secondary use 22. EDUCATIONAL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - AND SCIENTIFIC secondary use primary use secondary uses primary use RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT JEFFERSON COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: December 20, 1974 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 9. RESIDENTIAL Permitted - Single family Permitted - Multi4arnily DEVELOPMENT conditional use and subdivisions primary use residences per- permitted - mitted - primary secondary use Use. Multi-family and Other residential mobile home permitted - parks permitted - secondary use conditional use 10. UTILITIES Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use primary use primary use 11. PORTS AND Permitted - Permitted - Water dependent Water dependent INDUSTRY conditional use conditional use industry per- industry permitted mitted - - primary use. 00 secondary use. Non-water Non-water dependent dependent industry permitted industry permitted - secondary use conditional use 12. BULKHEADS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use secondary use secondary use 13. BREAKWATERS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use secondary use secondary use secondary use 14. LANDFILL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use secondary use secondary use 15. SOLID WASTE Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - DISPOSAL conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 16. DREDGING Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use secondary use secondary use 17. SHORELINE Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - PROTECTION conditional use secondary use secondary use secondary use KING COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AaUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted 2. AQUACULTURE Aquatic resource Permitted Permitted Permitted Aquatic resource practices restricted practices restricted to natural adjacent to hatcheries and beds National environ. ment; permitted elsewhere 3. FOREST GeneralIV not Permitted - Permitted - Timber Not permitted MANAGEMENT permitted timber harvest timber harvest preservation is (unless approved encouraged by State Fisheries and Game Depart- ments) 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted under DEVELOPMENT special conditions 5. MARINAS Not permitted Not-permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted -- shoreline dependent uses only 6. MINING Not permitted (un- Permitted Permitted Not permitted Not permitted less approved by (unless approved (unless approved by appropriate State by State Fish and appropriate State agencies) Game Departments) agencies) 7. OUTDOOR Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted ADVERTISING 8. RESIDENTIAL Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with Permitted Not permitted DEVELOPMENT restrictions restrictions restrictions 9. UTILITIES Permitted only Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted where necessary 10. PORTS AND INDUS- Not permitted Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted subject TRY industries. to policy and Ports permitted - regulations of conditional use "Piers and Moorage" use KINS COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIlItSINNIENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL, CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AaUATIC 11. BREAKWATERS Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permitted to protect an urban environment 12. JETTIESAND Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted off-shore GROINS of Urban, Rural and Consermwy environments 13. LANDFILL Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted - except for beach feeding 14. SOLID WASTE Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted DISPOSAL conditionally <i @a 15. DREDGING Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted C@ 16. SHORELINE Structural Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted with PROTECTION protection not with restrictions restrictions permitted 17. TRANSPORTATION Permitted for Permitted Pernitted Permitted Permitted with FACILITIES pedestrian restrictions facilities and use only 18. PIERS Not permitted - Permitted with Permitted Permitted Permitted permanent facilities. restrictions - Permitted - residential piers. floating Not permitted - facilities with commercial and restrictions industrial piers 19. RECREATION Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted KITSAP COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SEMI-RURAL URBAN AOUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted 2. AGUACULTURE Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 3. FOREST Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Generally not Not permitted MANAGEMENT permitted 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Not permitted, Permitted - Limited use Permitted with Not permitted DEVELOPMENT conditional use permitted - restrictions conditional use 5. MARINAS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 6. BOAT LAUNCHING Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 7. MINING Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Not permitted conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 8. OUTDOOR Not permitted, On-premise signs Permitted - on Permitted - on Permitted Permitted - on ADVERTISING except on.premise permitted sub- premise signs. premise. premise'signs. signs. lect to conditional Others not Others not Others not Permitted subject use. permitted permitted permitted to conditional use Others not permitted 9. RESIDENTIAL Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted DEVELOPMENT 10. UTILITIES Permitted - Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted conditional use conditional use I I.. PORTSAND Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Permitted - Pe.rmitted INDUSTRY conditional use 12. BULKHEADS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted conditional use conditional use KITSAP COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SEMI-RURAL URBAN AaUATIC 13. BREAKWATERS Not-permitted Permitted - Permittcd Permitted Permitted Permitted (JETTIES, GROINS) conditional use 14. LANDFILL Not permitted Permitted, subject Permitted subject Permitted - hrmitted - Peiraftled 'to conditional to conditional conftaaal usif conditionalAm Use - use 15. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Permitted - Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted DISPOSAL conditional use 16. DREDGING Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted conditional use 17. SHORELINE PRO- Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted TECTION conditional use 18. ROADS AN13 Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Generally RAILROADS conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use not permitted 19. PIERS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted conditional use 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted AREAS AND ronditional use HISTORIC SITES 21. RECREATION Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted conditional use. Not permitted - floats and anchor buoys 22. EDUCATION AND Permitted - Permitted with Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted SCIENTIFIC conditional use restrictions conditional use conditional use conditional use RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 23. BOATHOUSES Not permitted Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted conditional use MASON COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: August 6, 1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL URBAN Residential Commercial Industwial 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted - passive Permitted - con- Permitted - con- Permitted Not permitted Not permitted only ditional use ditional use Not permitted - teed lots 2. ADUACULTURE Permitted - with Permitted - con- Permitted - con- Permitted Permitted Not permitted restrictions ditional use ditional use 3. FOREST MANAGE- Permitted - with Permitted - con- Permitted - con- Permitted Not permitted Not permitted MENT restrictions ditional use ditional use 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Permitted - water Permitted - con- Permitted - water Permited - water Permitted - water DEVELOPMENT dependent uses ditional use dependentand dependentand dependent and only oriented. oriented. oriented. Others permitted - Others permitted - Others permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use 5. MARINAS Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 6. MINING Permitted subject Permitted subject Permitted, subject Permitted, subject Permitted subject Permitted subject to RCW 78.44 to RCW 78.44 to RCW 78.44 to RCW 78.44 to RCW 78.44 to RCW 78.44 7. OUTDOOR ADVER- Generally not Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with TISING permitted restrictions restrictions restrictions restrictions restrictions 8. RESIDENTIAL Not Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted Not permitted DEVELOPMENT 9. UTILITIES Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 10. PORTS AND Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Kai permitted Not permitted Not permitted INDUSTRY 11. BULKHEADS Not permitted Permitted to( Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with erosion control restrictions restrictions restrictions restrictions 12. BREAKWATER Permitted for Permitted Permitted Permitted Permi"ed Permitted JETTIES AND protection of GROINS natural systems only MASON COUNTY MASTER-PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: August 6, 1975 ENVIRONMENTS URBAN SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL Residential ial -Imfustrial 13. LA NOFILL Not permitted Not permitted Permitted 14. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Not permitted Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with DISPOSAL restrictions restrictions restrictions restrictions 15. DREDGING Permitted if Permitted if Permitted if Permitted if Permitted when Permitted when necessary for flood necessary for necessary for necessary for necessary for necessary for control navigation navigation navigation navigation navigation 16. SHORELINE Permitted only to Permitted with Permitted Permitted PROTECTION protect life and restrictions property 17. ROADSAND RAIL- Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted ROAD 18. PIERS Permitted with Permitted with Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted restrictions restri@tions 19. ARCHEOLOGICAL Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted AREAS AND HISTORICAL SITES 20. RECREATION Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted PACIFIC. COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM -SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: April 9, 1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 2. ADUACULTURE Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 3. FOREST Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted MANAGEMENT Permitted 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Permitted with Permitted DEVELOPMENT restrictions 5. MARINAS Not permitted Not permitted Permitted - Permitted conditional use conditional use 6. MINING Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use Ln 7. OUTDOOR Generally not Permitted - Permitted Permitted ADVERTISING permitted conditional use 8. RESIOENTIAL Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted DEVELOPMENT conditional use conditional use 9. UTILITIES Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 10. PORTS AND Generally not Generally not Generally not Pernitted INDUSTRY permitted permitted permitted 11. LANDFILL AND Generally not Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - DREDGING permitted conditional use conditional use conditional use 12. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Generally not DISPOSAL -permitted 13. ROADS Generally not Permitted Permitted Permitted permitted conditional use conditional use 14. SHORELINE WORKS Generally not Permitted - Permitted - Permitted AND STRUCTURES permitted conditional use conditional use PACIFIC COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: April 8,1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 15. ARCH EOLOGICAL Permitted Permitted Not permitted Permitted AREAS AND HISTORICAL SITES 16. RECREATION Low intensity Low intensity Low and Permitted permitted - permitted - medium conditional use. conditional use intensity per- Others not mitted - permitted conditional use 17. SEWAGE COLLEC- Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted TION AND TREAT- conditional use conditional use conditional use MENT 18. DUNES Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted MODIFICATION C7% PIERCE COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: April 4,1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL RURAL-RESIDENTIAL URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted with Permitted - Permitted Permitted. Permitted. limited grazing low intensity only Not permitted - Not permitted - only, subject to noxious chemicals noxious chemicals conditional use requirements 2. AQUACULTURE Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted 3. FOREST Commercial Permitted Permitted Not applicable Not applicable MANAGEMENT utilization not permitted 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted DEVELOPMENT water dependent and water related uses . -4 Not permitted - non-water depend- ent uses 5. MARINAS Not permitted Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted subject to conditional use 6. BOAT LAUNCHING Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted RAMPS conditional use 7. MINING Not permitted Parmitied - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 8. OUTDOOR Permitted - Permitted - Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with ADVERTISING warning and in- warning and in- exceptions exceptions exceptions formation signs; formation signs; temporary temporary decorations; decorations; national, state, national, state, and institutional and institutional flags. flags. PIERCE COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: April 4, 1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL RURAL-RESIDENTIAL URBAN AQUATIC 9. RESIDENTIAL Not permitted Permitted Permitted. Permitted Permitted DEVELOPMENT 10. UTILITIES Generally not Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted permitted If allowed, subject to conditional use 11. PORTSAND Not permitted Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - INDUSTRY conditional use conditional use conditional use 12. BULKHEADS Permitted - Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted conditional use conditional use 13. BREAKWATERS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted conditional use 00 14. JETTIES AND Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted GROINS conditional use 15. LANDFILL Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted conditional use 16. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted DISPOSAL 17. DREDGING Permitted only for Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted habitat maintenance. conditional use EIS required 18. SHORELINE Permitted - Permitted for Not permitted - Permitted Permitted with PROTECTION nonstructural protection only channelizing Not permitted - channelization on ACTIONS protection only - subject to con- All others - channelization a limited basis conditional use ditional use conditional use Not permitted - channelizing PIERCE COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: April 4, 1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL RURAL-RESIDENTIAL URBAN AQUATIC 19. ROADS AND Roads restricted Permitted, subject Permitted Permitted Permitted RAILROADS to those necessary to conditional use to protect ad- joining lands from major diasters. Not permitted - railroads 20. PIERS Not permitted Permitted -- floats Permitted - f I oats Permitted - floats Permitted - il oats and buoys, and buoys. and buoys. and buoys. Piers and docks Piers and docks Piers and docks Piers and docks permitted - permitted - permitted - permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 21. EDUCATIONAL Permitted. Same as Urban. Permitted. Permitted. Permitted. AND ARCHEOLOGI- Interpretive Permitted. Interpretive Interpretive Interpretive CAL AREAS AND centers permitted - I nterpretive centers permitted - centers permitted - centers permitted - HISTORICAL SITES conditional use cenrers permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use 22. RECREATION Not permitted - Not permitted - Not permitted - Not permitted - Not permitted - golf courses, high intensity OR V trails and OR V trails and areas ORV trails and areas structures for parks and OR V areas recreational pur- trails and areas poses, 0 R V trails and areas, resorts, high intensity parks and paved trails 23. EFFLUENT Permitted - Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted DISPOSAL single family single family Community permitted - conditi-6nal use 24. LOG STORAGE AND Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - RAFTING conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use SAN JUAN CO UNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted See Aquaculture limited construction 2. AQUACULTURE Permitted it struc- Permitted if Permitted Permitted if Permitted Permitted. If tures or mechanized natural resources, scenic qualities abutting more harvest practices are environment not impaired than one upland not required systems, and scenic environment, the qualities not m .ost restrictive impaired shall govern 3. FORESTMANAGE- Not permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted Permitted subject Not permitted MENT to a conditional use 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Permitted if of a Permitted it for See Urban Water dependent Permitted if water DEVELOPMENT low intensity, low intensity uses. permitted dependent'(Most recreational nature. All others permitted Non-water depen- restrictive upland Other low intensity conditional use dent - cooditional environment shall uses permitted as only. See Urban use govern) conditional uses. Water dependent permitted 5. MARINAS Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted for conditional uses shoreline dependent only facilities. (See Aquatic above) 6. MINING Not permitted Not permitted - Permitted provided See Urban Permitted Not permitted open pit variety. that a 50 it. buffer (Provided adverse (except as approved Other types of undisturbed soil impacts on human by the appropriate permitted - and vegetation be environment state agencies) conditional uses.' maintained between adequately con- the site. including trolled) accessory develop- ments, adjacent properties, water bodies and wet- lands SAN JUAN COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL, CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 7. OUTDOOR Not permitted Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with Permitted Water dependent ADVERTISING restrictions restrictions restrictions outdoor advertising signs are permitted with restrictions 8. RESIDENTIAL Permitted - single Permitted with - Permitted - multi- Permitted Permitted Not permitted DEVELOPMENT family residence restrictions family dwellings sub- only ject to restrictions. Permitted - single family residences 9. UTILITIES Not permitted With Permitted with Permittbd Permitted Permitted Permitted it no exceptions restrictions feasible alternate 10, PORTS AN D Not permitted Not permitted. Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Water dependent INDUSTRY Log handling, conditibnal use conditional use water related and permitted, dry and wet water dependent subject to upland storage facilities uses environment (the permitted - more restrictive conditional uses environment 11. BULKHEADS Not permitted Permitted on Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted with marine shorelines restrictions 12. BREAKWATERS Not permitted Floating breakwaters Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted subject permitted if made to restrictions yisuatty cempatibte. Rigid breakwaters permitted as condi- tional uses only. 13. JETTIESAND Not permitted Jetties not permitted. Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted subject GROINS Groins permitted for to upland environ- creating a new beach ment. (The most only if the natural restrictive governs) sand movement is not altered. SANJUAN COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM -SHORELINE U9E MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 14. LANDFILLS AND Not permitted. Permitted (above See Suburban Permitted (above Permitted Permitted subject SO LID WASTE ordinary high tide Permitted (above ordinary high to upland environ- DISPOSAL line only) ordinary high tide tide line) ment. (The most line only) restrictive governs) 15. DREDGING Not permitted Permitted on a Permitted Permitted Permitted limited basis Spoil sites limited to designated D.N.R. sites 16. DOCKS AND PIERS Not permitted Permitted where Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted (Most no alternative site restrictive upland is available. environment will govern) 17. ARCHEOLOGICAL Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted AREAS AND HISTORIC SITES 18. RECREATION Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted subject to upland environ ment (the most restrictive governs) 19. TRANSPORTATION Not p .e,rImitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted FACILITIES pedestrian trails (where no alternative exists, roads are permitted). Permitted subject to conditional use - ferry terminals. Not permitted - airports, parking lots and other facilities. SKAGIT COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL RURAL-RESIDENTIAL URBAN AaUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted, passive Permitted, passive Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted use only use only 2. ADUACULTURE Permitted - Permitted, subject Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - certain uses only to conditional use conditional use 3. FOREST Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted with Permitted with Permitted - MANAGEMENT fire damaged and required 75' buffer clear cutting hydraulic diseased only strip exception permit approval required for stream crossing 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Not permitted, Permitted - Permitted - Permitted Not permitted, DEVELOPMENT With certain conditional use conditional use with certain exceptions exceptions 5. MARINAS AND Not permitted, Not permitted - Permitted Permitted, sub- Permitted Permitted, if LAUNCH RAMPS except for certain marinas. ject to conditional consistent with exceptions Permitted - use upland use boatlaunches 6. MINING Not permitted Permitted, sub- Permitted Permitted, subject Permitted, sub- Not permitted, ject to conditional to conditional use ject to conditional except sand and use use gravel from river bars 7. OUTDOOR Not permitted, Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permittedi ADVERTISING with certain with certain exceptions exceptions 8. RESIDENTIAL Not permitted Permitted, with Permitted with Permitted Permitted Not permitted, DEVELOPMENT certain exceptions certain exceptions with certain exceptions 9. UTILITIES Not permitted Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with Permitted Permitted - exceptions exceptions exceptions conditional use . SKAGIT COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL RURAL-RESIDENTIAL URBAN AQUATIC 10. PORTS AND Not permitted Not permitted - Permitted ' sub- Not permitted Permitted Permitted, with INDUSTRY log handling and ject to conditional certain exceptions storage permitted use subject to conditional use 11. LANDFILL Not permitted, with Permitted - Permitted Permitted as Permitted Not permitted, certain exceptions conditional use conditional use except for ones : ssociated with pproved water dependent and water related uses <i 12. DREDGING Not permitted - Permitted - Spoil disposal Spoil disposal Permitted Permitted - if dredging and spoil conditional use permitted - permitted - consistent with disposal conditional use conditional use upland designation U11 13. SHORELINE Not permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted PROTECTION 14. PIERS AND DOCKS Not permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - in with exception conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use conjunction with for docks. on adjacent environ- rivers, piers ment prohibi.ted, and dock mooring boates, floats permitted in marine waters 15. RECREATION Non-intensive Permitted with Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - permitted - exception conditional use conditional use For underwater parks, recreation, with exceptions SKAGIT COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL RURAL-RESIDENTIAL URBAN AOUATIC 16. EDUCATIONAL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - ANDSCIENTIFIC conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 17. SHORE DEFENSE Not permitted - Not permitted. - Some permitted - Some permitted - Some permitted - Permitted WORKS with exception Bulkheads permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use subject to conditional use conditional uses 18. TRANSPORTATION Not permitted Permitted with Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - FACILITIES exceptions - - conditional use conditional use conditional use conditional use Not permitted - airports and terminals 4@- SNOHOMISH COUNTY MASTER, IDPO-AM -ORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: December 27, 1974 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted passive only 2. AQUACULTURE Permitted - no Permitted Permitted Permitted - con- Permitted construction ditional use 3. FOREST Permitted with Permitted Permitted Permitted - con- Permitted - con- MANAGEMENT -limitations ditional use clitional use 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Permitted - low Permitted with Permitted with Permitted DEVELOPMENT intensity recrea- limitations limitations -tional only 5. MARINAS Not permitted Permitted - con- Permitted Permitted - con- Permitted clitional use on clitional use marine water. Not permitted on lakes and Ul rivers 6. MINING Not permitted Not permitted - Permitted Not permitted Permitted open pit. Permitted subject to conditional use - scalping 7. OUTDOOR Permitted - public Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with ADVERTISING facilities type limitations limitations limitations limitations only 8. RESIDENTIAL Not permitted Permitted with Permitted Permitted Permitted DEVELOPMENT limitations 9. UTILITIES Not permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted except where necessary to cross water 10. PORTS AN 11 Not permitted Permitted subject Pernitted subject to Not permitted Permitted INDUSTRY to conditional use conditional use SNOHOMISH COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM -!@JORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: December 27, 1974 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AaUATIC .11. BULKHEADS Not permitted Permitted - not Permitted. Permitted Permitted on lakes and rivers 12. BREAKWATERS Not permitted Permitted - con- Permitted Permitted Permitted ditional use 13. JETTIES AND Not permitted Not permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted GROINS jetties. Permitted with limitations - groins 14. LANDFILLAND Not permitted Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with Permitted SOLID WASTE limitations - limitations limitations DISPOSAL not allowed on lakes and rivers 15. DREDGING Not permitted Permitted with Permitted Permitted Permitted limitations 16. SHORELINE Permitted with Permitted with Permitted Permitted Permitted PROTECTION limitations limitations 17. ROADSAND Not permitted Permitted with Permitted Permitted Permitted RAILROADS limitations 18. PIERS Not permitted Permitted - con- Permitted Permitted Permitted ditional use 19. ARCHEOLOGICAL Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted AREAS AND HISTORIC SITES 20. RECREATION Permitted - Permitted - Permitted. Permitted Permitted low intensity low intensity only only THURSTON COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL- CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AaUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted - passive Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - uses. except practices except practices except feedlots Not permitted - producing soil producing soil and confinement practice, producing erosion erosion lots soil erosion 2. AQUACULTURE Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted - low only low intensity intensity only 3. FOREST Not permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted MANAGEMENT commercial use. conditional use conditional use Preservation activities permitted - conditional use 4. COMMERCIAL Not permitted Permitted - Permitted 7 Permitted DEVELOPMENT only low conditional use intensity activities 5. MARINAS AND Not permitted Permitted, sub- Permitte d subject Permitted BOAT LAUNCHING ject to conditional to conditional FACILITIES use use 6. MINING Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted conditional use conditional use 7. OUTDOOR Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted ADVERTISING conditional use on conditional use premise on premise 8. RESIDENTIAL Not permitted - Not permitted - Not permitted - Not permitted - DEVELOPMENT over Wa -ter. over water. over wat 'er. over water. Permitted with Permitted - with Permitted with Permitted with density restrictions density restrictions density restriction density restriction THURSTON COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 9. UTILITIES Not permitted - Not permitted - Not permitted - Permitted with sewage treatment sewage treatment sewage treatment restrictions plants and storm plants and storm plants and storm and sanitary out- and sanitary out- and sanitary out- falls. Other sys- falls. Other sys- falls. Other sys- tems permitted - tems permitted - tems permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use (Sewer mains not (Sewer mains not (Sewer mains not clear) clear) clear) 10. PORTSAND Not permitted Not permitted. Not permitted. Log Permitted, subject INDUSTRY Log storage permit- storage permitted, to conditional ted, subject to subject to use conditional use conditional use CD 11. LANDFILLAND Not permitted Permitted - con- Permitted - Permitted - DREDGING ditional use. Not conditional use conditional use permitted - creat- ing new land area 12. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Permitted - 'Permitted - Permitted - DISPOSAL conditional use conditional use conditional use 13. ROADSAND Not permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - RAILROADS new railroads. Per- conditional use conditonal uses conditional uses mitted -condition- al use - roads 14. ARCHEOLOGICAL Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted AND HISTORIC SITES 15. EDUCATIONAL AND Permitted - Permitted - Perm itted' - Permitted - SCIENTIFIC limited activities limited -activities limited activities limited activities RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 16. SHORELINE Not Permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted WORKSAND conditional use conditional use conditional use STRUCTURES WAHKIAKUM COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: June 17,1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Permitted - con- Permitted - Permitied. Permitted ditional use passive only 2. AQUACULTURE Permitted - con- Permitted - con- Permitted Permitted ditional use ditional use 3. FOREST Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted MANAGEMENT limited basis 4. COMMERCIAL Permitted - con- Permitted - con- Permitted - con- Permitted DEVELOPMENT ditional use clitional use ditional use S. MARINAS Permitted - con- Permitted - Pefmitted Permitted ditional use limited basis 6. MINING Permitted - con- Permitted Permitted Permitted ditional use 7. OUTDOOR Permitted - limited Permitted Permitted Permitted ADVERTISING basis 8. RESIDENTIAL Single family Permitted - single Same as DEVELOPMENT permitted - con- family subject to conservency Permitted ditional use . conditional use Other residential not permitted 9. UTILITIES Generally not Permitted Permitted Permitted permitted 10. PORTS AND Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted INOUSTRIES conditional use conditional use conditional use 11. LANDFILL AND Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted - DREDGING limited basis conditional use 12. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - DISPOSAL conditional use limited basis conditional use WAHKIAKUM COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM -SHORELINE USE MATRIX Approval Date: June 17,1975 ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 13. SHORELINE Permitted - Generally not Permitted, Permitted PROTECTION conditional use permitted 14. ROADSAND Perm itted - Permitted - Same as Permitted RAILROADS trails only subject to con- conservency ditional use 15. PIERS Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted conditional use. 16. ARCHEOLOGICAL Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted AREASAND HISTORIC SITES 17. RECREATION Permitted Permftted - Permitted - Permitted t@ 00 low intensity medium intensity 18. SEWAGE Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted COLLECTION AND TREATMENT WHATCOM COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AOUATIC 1. AGRICULTURE Generally not Permitted Permitted Permitted Not permitted permitted 2. AOUACULTURE Permitted - Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use 3. FOREST Generally not Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with Permitted with MANAGEMENT permitted restrictions restrictions restrictions restrictions 4. COMMERCIAL Not peimitted Generally not Permitted Permitted Generally not DEVELOPMENT permitted. permitted Permitted - resorts, restaurants and campgrounds 5. MARINASAND Generally not Marinas permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted - BOATLAUNCH permitted conditional use. conditional use RAMPS Launch ramps (No overwater permitted building) 6. MINING Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Not permitted Permitted, conditional use subject to conditional use 7. OUTDOOR Generally not Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted - ADVERTISING permitted conditional use 8. RESIDENTIAL Not permitted Permitted with Permitted with Permitted Generally not DEVELOPMENT restrictions restrictions permi tted 9. UTILITIES Generally not Permitted with Permitted Permitted Permitted - permitted restrictions conditional use 10. PORTS AND Not permitted Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - INDUSTRY shoreline dependent shoreline dependent shoreline dependent conditional use or related only or related only or related only 11. LANDFILL Generally not Permitted - Permitted Permitted Generally not permitted conditional use permitted WHATCOM COUNTY MASTER PROGRAM - SHORELINE USE MATRIX Not Submitted ENVIRONMENTS SHORELINE USES NATURAL CONSERVANCY RURAL SUBURBAN URBAN AQUATIC 12. SOLID WASTE Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted DISPOSAL 13. DREDGING Generally not Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted - permitted conditional use conditional use 14. SHORELINE Generally not Permitted - Permitted with Permitted with Generally not PROTECTION permitted conditional use restrictions restrictions permitted 15. ROADSAND Not permitted Permitted - Permitted Permitted Generally not RAI LWAYS conditional use permitted 16. PIERS Generally not Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - Permitted - permitted cov%diliov%al use tondition-al use conditiodal use conditional use 17. ARCHEOLOGICAL Permitted - Permitted - Permitted with Permitted with Permitted - AREAS AND conditional use conditional use restrictions restrictions conditional use HISTORIC SITES 18. RECREATION Permitted - Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted - conditional use conditional use conditional use 19. FLOOD CONTROL Not permitted Not permitted - Permitted - Permitted Not permitted WORKS channelization channelization and dams and dams permitted - othets conditional use SUMMARY OF SHORELINE PERMITS FOR MARINE WATERS 92U 20 0 C 0 Action CL U ro- 1E c. Marine Ta an U Issuing Agency Water tc DOE r C .2 C6 0 wig Ch cc CD L3 Body. 1! W E i s C, E W Cr 0 3, cc 4 C4 in 0 ca -3 cc 1 0 J" A Clallam County 27 0 Juan de Fuca 6 9 3 9 3 4 1 3 7 1 2 2 1 23 4 Grays Harbor County 20 0 Pacific (11) 9 1 1 4 - 1 2 2 - 1 3 .1 - 1 3 - 17 3 Grays Harbor (9) Island County 18 3 North Puget (20) 1 6 3 7 2 1 - 3 2 3 1 1 - I - - 2 21 0 Juan de Fuca (1) Jefferson County 54 4 Juan de Fuca (14) 18 10 5 11 11 6 4 - 8 5 6 6 - 6 1 - 2 1 1 1 55 3 North ?.%et (16) Hood Canal (28) King County 35 0 South Puget 7 6 3 5 1 7 2 1 8 - 2 4 1 - 3 1 - - 1 34 1 Kitsap County 98 1 Hood Canal (19) 831 12 20. 6 16 3 5 5 3 9 14 5 4 5 2 - - 1 96 3 North Puget (7) South Puget (73) Mason County 74 3 Hood Canal (55) 927 4 24 4 18 2 1 3 2 15 21 - 2 3 - - - 1 70 7 South Puget (22) Pacific County 27 2 Willapa (10) 6 7 1 12 1 - 4 4 5 2 2 - 2 4 2 24 5 Pacific (11) Columbia (8) Pierce County 48 2 South Puget 411 6 13 2 8 4 6 4 6 7 12 - 4 1 3 - - 1 - 48 2 San Juan County 68 3 North Puget 15 14 13 28 1 23 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 7 2 2 - - - - 65 6 Skagit County 23 1 North Puget 4 - 3 4 - - 3 1 3 4 2 2 1 - - 2 - - 1 - 24 0- Snohomish County 21 2 North Puget 6 - - 1 - 2 - - 8 2 3 4 - - 1 1 - - 1 23 0 Thurston County 27 0 South Puget 5 5 2 5 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 4 1 3 2 - - - 2 24 3 Wahkiakum County 11 0 Columbia I 1 -1 5 - - - 3 - - 2 2 - I - - - - 3 10 1 Whatcom, County 15 0 North Puget 6 5 1 4 - 1 - - 4 2 3 - - 3 2 1 - 15 0 0 0 M 0 1. 0 0 0 r M 0 M Pr :3 C Q. (A (D .0 M M 0 V () " P, z " R 0 0 0 10 = f@ M a 0 W M C 0 W 21 M 0" 00 n 0 rD M LQ CL t" Approved 0 C, 0 0 C,0 0 C, 0 0 0 0 Denied (n (n W tn 7. z 7- z = CI -6 0 0 n W M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " H " 0 0 r r r r W W r C C C r r C C 00 aQ 09 OQ OQ 00 0* go go 09 00 to a C 00 cc W W X- Commercial "n Residential Marina M Recreation Aquaculture M ,a M Piers/Docks Solid Waste Disposal Dredging Cn Utilities 1 41 1 1 -1 1 1 011 1 Road/Railroad Landfill M I f I Bulkheads Breakwater M i I cc Ports & Water W Other Outdoor Advertising Water Dependent Not Assigned I t I I Forest Management Jetties/Groins i Bridge Construction Agriculture Flood Protection K) 41 4- 10 00 Concur a G 0 - X, Review rm SUMMARY OF SHORELINE PERMITS FOR MARINE WATERS C 0 Action COL j! a 00 Marine Aa Taken 0 Issuing Agency DOE Water 0 Cc C. 3: LL C'. 00 Body M Cn M Cm 0 'l E U cr CL Co. 0 CC C, A I li cc M 't C'/S3a =- A cgs Raymond 1- 0 4illapa Bay - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0 Gig Harbor 11 2 South Puget 3 1 3 1 - I - 1 5 - - 2 - - - - - - - - 2 1 Ruston 3 0 South Puget 2 - - I - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - 3 0 Stellacoom 3 1 South Puget - - - 2 - 2 1 - - - 2 - - - 1 - - - - - 1 4 0 Friday Harbor 6 0 North Puget 3 3 - - - 2 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - Edmonds 7 0 North Puget 2 1 - 2 - I - - I - - 2 - I - - - - - - - - - 7 0 Everett 14 0 North Puget 6 - - 1 - 12 1 1 3 1 2 2 - 2 - - - - - - - 3 1 Marysville 2 0 North Puget - - 1 - - - - - - - - - I --- - - - - - - 2 0 Ul Mukilteo 1 1 North Puget I - - - - - - Stanwood 1 0 North Puget I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0 Olympia 15 1 South Puget 10 - I - 1 1 1 2 2 7 - I I - - - - - - - - - 12 4 Bellingham 21 0 North Puget 14 - 2 1 - 2 2 2 1 - 1 4 -1 2 - - - --- - - 20 1 Blaine 5 0 North Puget 4 - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - 5 0 FEDERAL COASTAL LANDS AND WATERS WHATCOM C*l SANJUAN SKAGIT ISLAND CLALLAM SNOHOMISH JEFFERSON O@O KI SAP KING MASON GRAYSHARBOR PIERCE THURSTON PACIFIC NORTH *WAHKIAKUM MAJOR COASTAL MILITARY INSTALLATIONS LAND HOLDINGS IN WASHINGTON -.j S.- e V-46 C-1 JEFFERSON COUNTY COAST GUARD STATIONSMOLDINGS (Major) (1) Indian Island Annex of NTS-Keyport (2) Naval Underwater 30 Range-Dabob Bay PACIFIC COUNTY (3) U.S. Naval Res.-Bangor NAD (35) Cape Disappointment (31) Destruction Island- USCG GRAYSHARBOR ISLAND COUNTY (36) Point Grenville Sta. on the Indian Res. (4) Lake Hancock Rocket Range (37) Grays Harbor Sta. - Westport (18) Ault Field-Navy See # 31 Destruction Island Sta. - Grays Harbor (19) Naval Air Station-Whidbey Island (20). Crescent Harbor-Seaplane Base Naval Res. JEFFERSON COUNTY (21) Naval Outlying Field-Coopesville (38) Marrowstone Point Station - Jefferson Co. KITSAP COUNTY CLALLAM COUNTY (3) U.S. Naval Res.-Bangor NAD See # 27 Cape Flattery Station - (Tatoosh Island) (5) Keyport Naval Torpedo See # 26 Neah Bay Station ' (6) Kingston Naval Degaussing Station (39) Port Angeles Air Sta. - Port Angeles (15) Bremerton Annex of PSNS (40) Slip Point (16) . PSNS-Bremertan See# 25 New Dungeness Station (17) Manchester - Fuel Annex NSCPS (22) Chioco Marine Center ISLAND COUNTY (23) Battle Point-USN Res. Bainbridge Island (41) -Smith Island Station SNOHOMISH COUNTY (7) NRC-Everett SKAGIT COUNTY (28) Paine Field (42) Burrows Island Station (29) U.S. Military Res.-Edmonds SNOHOMISH COUNTY (30) Lighthouse Res.-Elliot Point-USCG (43) Mukilteo Lighthouse KING COUNTY See # 30 (8) Naval Reserve Center (Seattle) Lk. Union (9) Naval Support Activity - Sand Poiat KITSAP CO U NTY (44) Point No Point Station PIERCE COUNTY (10) N&MCRC-Tacoma KING COUNTY (11) Acoustic Range (Sec. 2) Fox Island-Navy (45) Fort Lawton (32) Fort Lewis (portion of) SAN JUAN COUNTY WHATCOM COUNTY (46) Turn Point Station (12) NRTF-Bellingham (47) Lime Kiln Light Sta. (above Deadman Cove) (48) Patos Island (No. of Sucia Island) GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY (49) Sucia Island (No. & So.) (13) NMCRC - Aberdeen (14) Naval Oceanographic Facility (Pacific Beach) waterfront 2,675 LF (34) Point Daman CLALLAM COUNTY (26) Waadah Island - Coast Guard (27) Tatoosh Island - U.S. Lighthouse Res. USCG .(24) Ediz Hook - USCG Res. (25) Dungeness Spit - U.S. Lighthouse Res. USCG THURSTON COUNTY (33) Fort Lewis - (part of) V-47 C A N A D A 0 131;ie 0, L IF 0ob.111 SIVA ay Dakof Birch Point It- URBANIZED INC OR PO R A TEO Birch Say AREAS ,,oo Point Whitehorn WHATC M CherrV Pt CO NTY PR RAM NOT SUBMITTED U.S.C.G. 0- Patos Is, Sandy Point Lumm I U.S.C.@G- BELLI&IHAM 'j. SIB say U ROANIZ ED J, Suci a NCORP',ORATED Island' Bellingham AREAS Bay j NavoIRTF Waldron Is. A, Chuck so ORC S Q, SLAND Lawr ce Spieden Pt liza Is. %P 44, - Show LEGEND @3 Ul Istand Indian Lands SAN JUAN 0 Military Reservation A ISLA 0 V Lopez Th is -ap sho-s menv classes of Federal U.S.C.G. Friday < 0 lands. Excluded lands are defined in the Deadman Harbor S.C.G. Coastal Zone Management Act and dis. 0 Turn Pt. cussed in Chapter V of the Washington Station LOPEZ Catur Coastal Zone Management Program. Iland A ISLAND 9L.- ENVIRONM T % DESIGN ATIOMS--,ZZ::@ NOT FIN UZED 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles Approximate Iceberg Point SAN JUAN COUNTY V-48 C-2 ra s Y' "say a y a 0 IZ ED 11 AT '0 i'-h Bay S ,@rn T C Ch.'r, 0 P, P @RR A @INTT @U @BM I T T W H A T C 0 M SAMISH SAY G.e SAN JUAN Is. MDILLA S-sh . 0 0 SAY U.S.C.G NACORE S K A G I T Surrovvs Is. PROGRAM NOT SUBMITTEP_._@ 0- URLINGTON 04, 0 N T Y 0 @-..ZED w INCDR"RATEb IS 'mmii 0,ARE&S 'L. zecepti v Indian MOUNT VERNON pass _,-'U.S.N. Ault field 0 COUNTY PROGRAM NOT SUBMITTED U.S.C.G. OAK H SKAGIT 0 BAY Smith Is. % U. Pt. Browin U.S.N. Seaplane STANWOOD Air Sta. Base@ 0 P CAMANO v Fl,- COUPEV Is. 0 < U.S.N.'V. 0 SNOHOMISH Outlying ,p, COUNTY I Protection U.S.C.G. . Field PROGRAM APPROVED PORT 0Marcowstone, I LA D TOWNSEND Point Station ke Hcsncoclk@" 9 Rcket Range A N.T. K.yl:@Olt r COUNTY z". USNRC YVERETT Yale U.S.C.G. Elliot Pt. j@' IPEFFERS S c G U.S.A.*F. Paine Field U. Point No in; .COUNTY Is, ROGRAM APPROVEO 12-20-74 10, ....ZEO Indian Res. /1.1CORP-Ar" 4ju.S@ Military I E.S OLYMPIC .1 z Reservation 1@ KINGSTON' OEDMONOS n ,Degaussine NATIONAL Naval Under-ter 3D Range a K I T S A P st" FOREST U.S.N. Bangor 'r N.A.. Q 'N.A.0 K IN G U S.N. K'Yport N. YZ' totion* U.S.N. C'3) Tr,.dK.'S lo ttle Pt.c ------ dile Marine.Conter III nd P.S.N.S. Bremertonl An7x 0 COUNTY N-' PROGRAM @ @&- [email protected] BREMERTON P. S.N.S.11.11@ Moncherster@:' ,0 LEGEND .... R1111 ..CAs National Forest @!@ ORCHARD Indian Lands @@P- T M A S 0 N Military Reservations Tni. - -m 11- 11-d.E.-d.d1.nd1.-.;i'-" '@. z- ---, -1 . dim icn V of th, Vv-t ro,0 2 4 68 10 Miles Approximate V-49 SNOHOMISH CO. LEGEND ;-,, -h. a ad 71 National Forest saffirnaralsh P Navol @upport Indian Lands S. @,Pp- R AED Activity Military Reservation INCPOR At 0Sand Point A E7R Wildlife Refuge U.S.C.G. Kirkland SKIShoe 0 Bay Fort Lawton V SAINSMO We t JEFFERSON ISLAND IA COUNTY ON.R.C.IBellov" Elliott SEATTLE 0 Bay 0,00 Alk, OL MPIC V 0 2 4 6 8 10 pt UR NIZED F 11 1 - I , I a I , I , I Miles Appr ximate INICO ORATED NATIONAL EldoiD V. AI.101 ARE FOREST K I T S A P %Pt C 0 U N T 08urlest Rent a Ifai OVG$Mn VASHON K I G Ho dspo" ISLAND PRO RAM NOT SUBMITTED Oxent pollefly 'y Ind.. COU TY Muckleshoot pfi. - Q/ 0 G.@ Hot D@ iiiii, Indian $4 CR. Reservation' ROGRAM APPROVED -75 Aubur.n 0 M A S 0 N say NAM.C.R.C. C, TACOMA 9 C 0 U T t _ -'JURBANIZEO I, N 'TE INURSAN @ a U.S.N. INCORPORA D CORPORATED i S IIJkREAS Accoustic AREA Range L 0 0 La .6r Puyatlup IspeN, tp A.clen;an 0 island Steilocoom to E A Nisquolly National Wildlife RGANIZED Refuge 1; RPORATEO --COUNTY IAREAS 01-acey 4-4 Nisqually *AM AP I PROVED -75 Indian L A YMP". Reservation'@ T H U #TON This map sh- -any cl- of PROGRAM NOT S lands. E,cludd land, are d.fin.d in he 0 YJ N T Y Coastal Zone Man" -M Act and di, cussed in hapte, CV of the Washington Coasta, one Management Program. V-50 C-4 Y CO' V r ol n @t U.S.C.G, j Cape Flatter U.S.C.G. 2 4 6 01 41 LEGEND LJ National F Seklu Sjjp point National P j Clall .4 IV M, Indian La Bay Pillar Point Military A A (j C A Wildlife R Its Crescent a Cape y Be Alavo 9 F,esh..ter Bev Edit Ho.k U.S.C.G. - - - - - - - U.S.C.G. Air Slution 0--ZED OLYMPIC ...... 41" .. PORT NG ES NATIONAL FOREST "c F@ Cape Johnson A, WMIM, P,- Xf A@ % FORKS La Push 1110YU10 Bagachis C Quillayute R, Indian Reservation Techwhit Head YMPIC' dMon Cr. Go- A A T 10 N A L Hoh Head Hoh Indian Reservati J EFFERSON COU Destruction Island 0 U.S.C.G. ef -,7 C at RK We aloloch Clearwater `@'QLY YMPIC",@ 1V :2,4 LEGEND National Forest National Parks Indian Lands Military Reservation Naval Oceanographic Facility Pacific Beach GRAYS 0 2 4 6 a 10 Point Grenville HARBOR,* imiles Approximate COUNT This maP shows many classes of Federal lands. Excluded lands are U.S.C.G. E. defined in the Coastal Zone Management Act and discussed in Chap- S ter V of the Washington Coastal zone management Program. M 0 C L HUM009 V- 52 rHun C-6 "s Rl U S. EG.0 Moclips Joe C, 0 G R A Y St COUNTY PROGRAM APPR E 8-5- 5 1A. Capolis Beach fik r!k. H 0 7 ANIZED HOGUIA RPORAT AREA U.S.N. ABE EEN Point G R A Y S MONTESANO )oman H A R BOR hitholis River Point Brown N.M.C.R.C -1 Westport 71 W@ U.S.C.G Cr. ,,/a @z L $hoalwater LEGEND Indian Rea. Creek North Cove - = Indian Lands Willopo National Militarv Reservation Wildlife Refuge A. Y C7 V 0. Wildlife Refuge LeOdbetter Point SOUTH BEND Bay Centerr CL P A C I I C AP COUNTY PROGRAM VED 4-8-75 Willopa National 01 Wildlife efuge Ocean Park T is map sho-s many classes of Federal lahch. Excluded lands are defined in the Coastal Zone m-gen,ent Act and dis- ertittill in ch. t V of thft Washington ssed 'Coastal Zone Paeragement Program. Long N.0selle U.S.. G. Reservation co CDUNT_Y PROGRAM APPROVED 6-17-75 a r Say Cape W A fq K 1A K U m 0i SZ-P-07ntment U.S.C.r' Wilson Cr. Reservation L U 8 1 A RIVER 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles Approximate V-53 SPITISH COLUMBIA ... ... . ... WAS"INGTON L T A 1. C 0 u v f 0 JU a f S L A 0 0 -.Swinomish N K A- G 4 makah Ozette T lali wer M n 0- C w N 0 H Port Gambl@ Port Madiso( n j E I I S Quileute Quinualt AE.TO@ b. @Skokornis Muckle-c%hrwnt r T TA60hf SIELTON J 3.-twallup quakon p a @ . I - .- i Island LYMPI @IAMABEROEEN E- Cl Nis ually .-Shoa.lwater S 'ON T so BIEK@ p I I A T, a ion Vicinity WaShingto. State Reservat 0@10M n 5-f V- 54 Cherry Point WHATCOM Northern Strait and Puget Sound Petroleum Transfer and Processing P dilla Bay Area . . ..- ows y March Pt. SKAGIT Large Oil Tanker SANJUAN Exclusion kagit Say ISLAND 0 Dungeness Ba Admiralty Inlet CLALLAM Port Angeles (possible transfer ite) SNOHOMISH Snohomish River Estuary JEFFERSON Hood Canal KITSAP KING MASON GRAYSHARBOR Coastal Nisqually Estuary % Dune System PIERCE r r Grays Ha bo Coastal Dune THURSTON System Willapa Bay PACIFIC Coastal Dune NORTH System 'WAHKIAKUM AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN S-g V-55 4N@ON C A N A D A 0 Blaine rayl y Birch Point it. UR 8 AN I ZED Birch IS Y" t N C 0 R P 0 A A T E DS16C A R E A S "00* Point Whitshorn WHATIC M Ch 0 CO NTY PR RAM NOT SUBMITTED 0 19 Sandy Point Lumm i ,.,r, Suci a Bay RBA141ZED Isl on @[email protected] ellinghom AREAS Bay T let Waldron Is. Chuck ORC S L ISLAND aw, C Spieden P, lira Is. @49 ............ . . P ch z, LEGEND Shaw Island M Natural Lp SAN JUAN V Conservancy ,A ISLAND M Rural 0 + Lopez Friday < 0 Harbor Aquatic LOPEZ Urban jjc a.,dur ISLAND a ENVIRONM T ESIGNATI ED 0 2 4 6 a 10 NOT FIN L I j IMiles Approximate iceberg Point SAN J UAN COUNTY V-56 A-2 W H A T C 0 M SAMISH Sinclair is. IL BAY A; SAN JUA Is %PADI LL A S-Sh 0 BAY ACOR E S K A G I T PROGRAM NOT SUBMITTEP----e%^ URL!NGTON R.W N T Y 0 UR 4 COMANIZIED N(AR POR.TED winom E.S ZDecept! ndion MOUNT VERNON Res. p... COUNTY PROGRAM NOT SUBMITTED OAK HARBOR % SKAGIT 0. BAY P1, BroIiirn STANWOOD CAMANO p 1*:OUPEVILL -0 R-r IP is. 0 NOHOMISH < f Protection COUNTY PROGRAM APPROVED RT L A OWNSENO - 4 12 7-74 A TUL ALI I N DI AN RE SERVATI C, COUNTY S.k VERETT C-) j 0 a Tola luf 7@N PEFFERS N COUNTY ___J@ROGRAM APPROVEO 112-20-74 URBANIZED OLYMPIC z- INCORPORATED AREAS KINGST OEDMONDS NATIONAL K I T A P FOREST PORT IZ-A FRIES. K N G 0. nbrid z LEGEND I sland Natural Conservancy COUNTY Rural PROGRAM Suburban SLIBMITTF BREMERTON UREIANIZED Urban INCORPORATED AREAS T ORCHAR M A S 0 N 0 2 4 6 8 10 I -1 - I - 1 - I - !Miles Approximcite LEGEND SNOHOMISH CO. 0 =,.h-0-"d-- - - Sommom'sh Natural fConservancy 0, - - - - - - - - - uNaA wiZED Rural INCORPORATED AREAS Suburban Sivishoe 0 Urban say We t JEFFERSON C,O U N T Y ISLAND n eell"Us Elliott SEATTLE 0 Bay Alki 4 6 8 10 P, UN NJ OLYMPIC 0 2 ZED F I Miles Approximate INCO ORATED NATIONAL ARE Eidoo @.1111 I FOREST K I T S A P % Pt C 0 U N T \01 08urle" Caton ASHON K I G Ka dsporl 0 1@ I S LAND PRO RAM NOT SUBMITTED QlKent Poverty komish@" say lndon@ COU T Y r ,v.,i. vati*4 Giiij, 0 a Gig arba I S kokomsh R. Q- 84, PROGRAM APPROVED -6-7 41 Auburn 0 M A S 0 N TACOMA 0 ;a C 0 U NT op Z --jU*8.N1ZED 1, UASANIZ 0 imCORPORATED iNCORPORATED S S NAREAS ARE A R. L WN Sumner 4 Island 0 L a Puyap.. nde 0 slard 0 too Ame,con P I E R C E r Lake RGANIZE COUNTY RPORATEO AREAS LOCOY PROGRAM APPROVED'4-4-75 L O@YMPIA Wntrater T H rU PROGRAM NOT SUBMITTED @'T ON 0 NTY -10 V- S8 A4 Cap VANCO UVER ISLAND Flattery e 1h M a -k a h30Y 0 2 Ind 1 In Rog ,olion kv Sekiu Slip point Ij R"@@ Clalf A IV m B a ID Pillar Point U C A Agate Crescent Cape Bay Bay Alava Freshwater Bay Edit Hook URBANIZED OLYMPIC 0'. L INCUR AORAtEDO 40@ ' --- 'i . I ARE 3 PORT NG NATIONAL FOREST L m $ It u N PROGRA Cape Johnson VL OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK QuIllotrute 8-gachl R, I Ri- FORKS U1110yulle C A L A M COUNTY La Pus 8094chie R'. op 0 LY M P I C Teahwhit Head O'LYMPIC Good an Cr. L N A T I ON A L N@A T I ON A L Hoh Head X\*\\ Hoh Indian Reservati n. J EFFERSON COU4TY Destruction Island 0 at let PA R K K loloch --T Clearwater FOREST salm 0 INALT North Forl' AKE Ra ft qer 0 U I N A U L T N D I A N R E S E R V ATI OiN Point Grenville GRAYS .0 2 4 6 8 10 HARBOR* Miles Approximate COUNT E. The coastal shorelines in this map are under federal or indian jurisdiction Humptuti MOCLIP V-60 A-6 1,Quinault 1ndiq.-,v4-,- Re Uj 0 s odips Joe 0 G R A S.- L2 cc COUNTY PROGRAM APPR E 8-5- 3 Copolis Beach H 0 X, 6 kUiR ANIZeD HOQUIA 1 R,0@4T AaE EEN G R A Y S K40NTESANO H A R 8 0 R Chehalis River Point Brown -j0f(,Westporf 0 Cc V/0 R,ef t4o Smith Sho lwater. I.di'an Res. Cre0k LEGEND North Cove Natural Conseryancy X. RAYMOND Rural 0 Urban Leadbetter 11 6 +- c@' SOUTH BEND a a y Center q P A C I I C C, COUNTY PROGRAM P VIED 4-8-75 Willopa National 61, Wildlife efuge Ocean Park Long Raselle ms COS., COUNTY PROGRAM APPROVED 6_17_7, Cap W A H K 1A K M O's"IDPointmert 1@ Wilson Cr. C 0 L U M 9 1 A RIVER thlomet 0 G 0 2 4 6 a to Miles Approximate V-61 APPENDIX 6 Conclusions'and Recomendations from 'Washington State Shoreline Management - An Interim Assessment." by Maureen McCrea and Jim Feldman, August, 1975. CONCLUSIONS 1. Master program responsibilities were accepted by the vast majority of local governments in Washington State despite their financial and manpower resource limitations in implementing the Shoreline Management Act. In Puget Sound local planners have conscientiously assumed the primary role in the formulation of master programs with minimal state aid. 2. Through public hearings and citizen advisory committees, planners:have worked closely with citizens to produce master programs. By providing for repre- sentatioft of environmental as well as economic interests, these citizen advisory committees have supplied local governments with well-balanced and competent public input. Further, citizen committees have comprised an important constituency for planners, which has made it increasingl y difficult for local administrators and commissioners to delete personally objectionable master program provisions in tife name of the public interest. 3.' The majority of local shoreline inventories were compiled on large-scale maps using overlays with minimal aid from-the Department of Ecology and university, expertise. inventorying ownership patterns and existing land'and water uses was well handled by local government, but natural characteristics inventories were beyond their capability. Inadequate knowledge of shoreline processes, particularly in the marine area, has resulted in a deficient biological, hydrological and geolog- ical shoreline data base. In-addition, no attempt has been made by the Department of Ecology to organize inventory data compiled by Puget Sound local governments into a workable regional inventory to aid its permit and master program review. Because of the general nature of1most shoreline inventories, they have been of VI-1 limited use in shoreline permit issuance, but have provided useful information in the environmental designation stage of master program formu-1ation. 4. Public support of local and state government action is necessary for the effective implementation of Shoreline Management Act policy. Unfortunately, delays inherent in the permit system for minor projects are eroding public support for shoreline management and threaten to weaken the Act's effectiveness for major or controversial shoreline projects. 5. Inadequacies in the shoreline data base and local government manpower have necessitated outside expertise to facilitate effective management of the state's shorelines. Federal and state agencies, special interest organizations and the Interdisciplinary Advisory Committee have been the primary sources of outside expertise. Generally, use and availability-of experts have been propor- tional to the public's interest in or the size of the proposed project. While experts have usually been willing to help loca 1 governments, their.own time limitations have often forced them to give g eneral advice or'outline an approach to the problem without providing the substantive information.necessary to answer the-local inquiry. Further, the Interdisciplinary Advisory Committee, created specifically to provide voluntary assistance to local governments with shoreline problems, acted too slowly to be of practicable aid in the permit process. 6'. In' implementing its review and supportive responsibilities, the Department of Ecology has acted within the bounds of its mandate under the Shoreline Management Act. Both the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's Office (DOE/AG) have taken an active role in reviewing local permit decisions; they have been involved jointly in 72 percent of the 142 permit review requests to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Differentiation between the roles of the DOE and AG occurs prior 01 VI-2 to an appeal, with the DOE specializing in the shoreline policy issues and the AG concentrating on the legal aspects. In the certification of appeals by aggrieved parties, the DOE/AG have adopted a "fair pleading" stance which allows a liberal interpretation as to what constitutes ."valid reasons" for Shorelines Hearings Board review. All appeals which are filed correctly and contain a complaint which, if true, could alter the local government permit ruling are certified by the DOE/AG. 7. The Department of Ecology's primary supportive actiVities to local governments in their compliance with the SMA have consisted of preparing the Final Guidelines and maintaining informal communication channels with local governments. While the department has been responsive and available to local government inquiry, with the exception of permit regulation procedures it has refrained from assuming an'assertive role. Local governments in particular received minimal state support in the formulation of master programs, as beyond the development of the Final Guidelines, t@e DOE was reluctant to provide any substantive direction. Limited resources and political considerations have hindered the DOE's ability to provide important supportive aid to local govermneRt shoreline activities. 8. Conformance is reasonably good between the requirements of the 1972 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and Washington State's Shoreline Management Act. Based on the CZMA and the 'propo�ed section 306 federal guidelines, Washington State's.shoreline program,appears to meet the following' key federal requirements: (1) active use of.citizen 'and state agency participation in the development of the management program.; (2) ability to delineate proposed shoreline uses; (3) capability to administratively regulate the coastal zone; and (4) a VI-3 conservation-oriented program. Washington State's program, however, does not completely satisfy federal standards because of (1) inadequate coordination with federal agencies and a process for achieving consistency; (2) problems with aquatic planning and management r"ovisibns in both the master program and inventories; tardiness of local governments in submitting master programs which are essential for a final evaluation of the Washington coastal zone program. During the interim period the State Department of Ecology has actively pursued compliance.with federal standards. 9. Coordination between state and local governments over the management of the state's shorelines has improved since the passage of the Shoreline Management Act. The main reasons for the improvement in coordination are the comprehensiye shoreline policy framework established by the Act and its implementation through the substantial permit regulations. Active DOE/AG review of local government decisions has expanded state interests into many traditionally local shoreline decisions. Similarly, local government permit issuance authority h as substantially increased local control over state agency projects. Increased state and local coordination has been encouraged to avoid disagreement and delays caused by'con- frontation over permit issuance and review. The tools used to aid coordination efforts have primarily been the DOE Final Guidelines and informal telephone liaison. Conflicts arising from differences in state agency mandates have been a major hindrance to further improvements in shoreline management coordination. '10. A systematic method of SMA permit enforcement has not been implemented by either local governments or the DOE/AG during the interim period. While enforcement of violated SMA permits has generally not been a problem, permit evaders have posed a difficult enforcement problem for state and local governments. VI-4 A lack of field inspectors has forced local governments to rely on citizens$ environmental organizations and the Army Corps of Engineers for the detection of permit non-compliance. In those instances when permit evaders have been found, local governments have usually obtained'prompt permit compliance. 11. The Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) has provided an avenue of,redress which is more accessible to the citizen and less expensive and time-consuming than the courts. The SHB's review process has been both reasonable and effi- cient in handling the increased shoreline litigation while reducing litigation to be dealt with by the courts. A particularly useful Board procedure has been the pre-hearing conference which has been effective in clearing up procedural delays and in encouraging appeal settlements prior to a final hearing. Pre-hearing and informal conferences have often circumvehted the need for a formal hearing. Permit review decisions by the Board have often been based on pragmatic compromise and have been guided by considerations of equity rather than a strict interpreta- tion of the Act. Further, the SHB has required local 'governments to adequately consider the environment before issuing a shoreline permit, which for many major or controversial projects has resulted in compliance with the impact statement provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. 12. Minimizing shoreline damage and alteration has.been a goal actively pursued by most local and state agencies since enactment of the Shoreline Management Act. Implementation of the environmental policy of the SMA has been aided through the substantive review of environmental considerations by the Shorelines Hearings Board and the environmental expertise of the Department of Ecology. The effect of the Act has been most evident in the reduciion of fills and overwater construction for non-water-dependent development, in the provisions made for requiring structural VI-5 setbacks, and in minimizing damages caused by bulkheads. Environmentally damaging shoreline activity proposals were rarely prohibited by local and state agencies but rather were modified through permit compromises or conditions. As a result, permit modifications have enabled state and local governments to minimize ecologi- cal damage without prohibiting growth. 13. Implementation of the Shoreline Management Act has had considerable influence on recreational development on saltwater shorelines. Since the passage of the Act, local governments have acquired substantially more control over state agency recreation proposals through shoreline permit regulation. Many public recreation projects have been halted by local governments and/or the Shorelines Hearings Bo@rd. Development-intensive projects have been prohibited by these decisions based upon the development's conflict with the environmental policy of the SMA. Saltwater recreation development, in response to these decisions, has been sharply modified since the enactment of the SMA. 14. Public access to the saltwater shorelines of Puget Sound has increased only minimally since enactment of the Shoreline Management Act. Local governments have generally failed to provide public access components when issuing shoreline development permits. Despite the Department of Ecology's active support for increasing public access to Washington State shorelines, they have had limited success in obtaining greater access as Shorelines Hearings Board decisions have rarely required public access components. In these limited instances when public access has been provided by local government or the SHB, it has been reserved for large-scale developments in urban environments. The failure of local governments to condition shoreline permits upon providing access has curtailed a potentially economical method for increasing iecreational use of public saltwater shorelands. V1-6 15. Water dependency policy ha@ been implemented contingent upon whether a proposed development occurs in the onshore or offshore environment. Non-water- dependent development proposed offshore has been strongly opposed by the DOE and frequently prohibited by the Shorelines Hearings Board. In contrast, the criteria of water dependency has not been used to restrict development on the uplands by local government and the SHB. This is verified by an examination of SMA permits and development statistics which show a substantial amount of non-water-dependent development on the shorelines of Puget Sound. 16. Local and state government authority is reduced for developments exempt from the SMA permit requirement. Although exemptions must comply with the policy of the Act and the master program, exempted developments are not subject to the public notification requirements of the Act, DOE/AG review or Shorelines Hearings Board jurisdiction. It is important, therefore, that these developments do not have a substantial impact on the shoreline. However, single family residences and bulkheads common to single family residences were shown to be significant shoreline developments in the three Puget Sound counties. Single family residence@ comprise over one-half of all onshore development, and ninety percent of Puget Sound bulkheads were constructed without an SMA permit. Omitting these develop- ments from the permit requirement undermines the scope of the Act, particularly as single-family residences are a non-water dependent use. .17. Implementation of the Shoreline Management Act has improved citizen and agency compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Amy Corps VI-7 of Engineers permit requirement through additional resources and attention focused on the shoreline region. Direct coordination between local goyernments and the Department of Ecology with the Corps of Engineers concerning SMA and Corps penOt issuance has substantially improved the compliance with, and enforcement of, both types of pemits. Similarly, the application of SEPA has been augmented by the "discretionary staqe" of SMA.permit issuance. Frequen Shorelines Hearings Board rulings have demanded SEPA compliance. 18. State interests were more actively represented in the review of proposals for development on shorelines of statewide significance than for development on other shorelines in the state. The vast majority of permit review requests made to the Shorelines Hearings Board by the Department of Ecology and Attorney General have involved development on shores of statewide significance. Special attention given by the SMA to these shorelines through the delineation of the seven specific. development criteria has been an important reason for this emphasis. The list provides specific criteria on which to base an appeal. VI-8 RECOMMENDATIONS Shoreline ownershi p patterns and existing land and water use inventories should be updated every three years, one-third each year. Natural characteristics inventories should be updated at five-year intervals. A. Updated inventories should reflect: (1) New inventory techniques; (2) Improved knowledge ofs horeline processes; (3) Changes in the physical environment; and (4) Uniform regional approaches. B. The Department of Ecology should develop explicit guidelines for updating local government inventories. (1) Workshops should be held in designated regions, such as Puget Sound, to assist the Department of Ecology in the preparation of the guidelines. (2) Guidelines should address specific regions to be inventoried as a system. (3) New inventories should be coordinated into a useable state inventory. C. A task force should be appointed at the pounty level to assist local* governments in completing their natural characteristicsinventories. 2. Based upon the large amount of landheld by out of county residents (Appendix 1) and the recognized national value of the islands, San Juan County uplands should be designated as shores of statewide significance. The Shoreline Mana'ement Act should be amended to include these-coastal uplands. 9 VI-9 3. To overcome the problems encountered in minor shoreli'ne development, a bonding system for minor projects should be established once master programs are approved. Bonding would enable an applicant to commence construction before the expiration of the 45-day review period of the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General. A. Only projects meeting the following criteria would be eligible: (1) The development must be minor and explicitly approved in the local master program; (2) The development must be removable and all signs of it eliminated; (3) The activity must create only short-term perturbations in the natural system with no irreversible effects. B. Bonds-'would be posted with the local government and should cover the cost of,removing the project should it subsequently be found in conflict with the policy of the Shoreline Management Act. The bond would be returned to the applicant after the 45-day review period if no appeals were filed.. C. Authority must be extended to the local governments and the Department of Ecology and Attorney General to issue stop-work orders. 4. In recognition of the problems encountered at the local level, the Office of the State Attorney General should increase its efforts to enforce the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act when permits are either violated or not applied for. 5. The even numbered composition of the'Shorelines Hearings.Board has been an annoyance to members and I I tigants - Another member shoul d be added to the SHB to Increase its membership to seven to prevent tied decisions. VI-10 6. Puget Sound is a valuable, highly sought area for development. To assure, a rational development of its limited miles of shoreline, local govern- ments and the Shorelines Hearings Board should reevaluate their onshore water- dependency policy in order to discourage the proliferation of non-water-oriented development. 7. Large-scale developments utilizing an extensive amount of shorelines should be encouraged'to contain a public access provision. 8. Exemptions should not be granted to development which comprises a significant use of the shoreline or alters the environment because of limited local and state management authority. The exemption of such development under- mines the implementation of the goals and policies of the SMA. Permit exemptions should be confined to those instances where delays in permit issuance would cause unnecessary hardship or create needless administrative chores. A. Single-family residences are the primary development in competition with public access and recreation for Puget Sound shorelines. The significance of this shoreline development necessitates its regula- tion by the SMA permit requirements. B. Corps permits indicate that a large number of bulkheads are constructed under the exemption clause for single-family residences. Because bulkheads for residences constitute a substantial shoreline use which is frequently detrimental to the environment, this development should be subject to the permit requirements of the SMA. Despite the utility-of docks in the San Juan Islands, guidelines should be issued to assure that the proliferation of piers and docks are kept to a minimum in urban areas where access and unobstruct@d water surface are at a premium6 VI-11 D. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the responsibility of local governments if property damage resuits from the refusal to grant an emergency exemption, the DOE/AG should transmit to local governments any information which results from decisions which will help the local government handle emergency exemptions. 9. The Sea Grant Advisory Service should establish a program-to provide quick response to local government requests for shoreline information on marine shores subject to the following provisions: A. Administrative red tape should be minimized. B. Local governments must actively'indicate their support for a program before funds are allocated for that program. VI-12 APPENDIX 7 State of Washington Board of Tax.Appeals Decision on Padilla Bay Tracts.. -Skagit County Assessor Docket No. 8483 REMARKS: At Issue in this appeal is the local board of equalizatidn*s redetermined valuation of $126,240 placed'on the respondentts 521 tracts of tidelands, upon which the appellant -assessor had found a value of $252,480. The appellant contends the value is $252,480 as previo*usly found. Subject tracts which-are platted but. unrecorded comprise approximately 5,790 acres,'orib6ut33,156.4.4@@tertrodtl-feA-t and are a portion of second class tide- - lands called the Padilla Bay Tracts.. Subject property is located within the total'of k46 tracts. The Padilla Bay tracts are numbered as follows: beginning with number one at the west tip of Samish Island and continuing with a consecuti,@Pe numbering to a point south of Bay View, where the last.tract number is 846. Most tracts have a baseline distance following the government meander' line of apprbxi- mately 63.64 feet. Each tract is a thin, triangular strip of tidelands with a surveyor's. -control point indicated on the west side of Hat Island, the point where all 846 tracts converge. The second class tidelands extend between the. meander line and mean.low water line and vary in distance from two to three miles. The.size of the tracts vary, for example, tract one is approxtmately. 12,8U.67 feet long and consists of 9.37 acres, while the longest tract (number 220) is approximately 17,200 feet and consists of approximately 11.6 acres. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (Ctiaptei,-90.58), specifically RCW 90.5b.030 (2) (e) (ii) (E) lists Padilla Bay from March Point to Williams Point (which included subject property) as a "shoreline of state-wide significance". As such, this area is subject. to the guidelines established by a cooperative program of management between the state and local governments. S 'ubsequeat ,implementation of the act is con'tained in "Final Guidelines", issued by the State Department of Ecology on June 20, 1972, whereiti'it is directed that the natural character of "shorelines of'state-wide significance" be preserved by -designating environments and issuing regulations to minimize man-made intrusions on shorelines. .- At the present time, the area involved in this appeal is not zoned, although It is most probable that it will be restri'ted. to a "conservancy environment wherein the intent Is that ihey maintain their Sexisting character". The preferred uses are described as those which "are nonconsumptive of the physIcal and-biologicai resources o'f the area" or to their present 19natural" states another classification established by the Shoreline Management Act. With respect to the tracts under appeal, they vary -in -length from approximately 13,800 feet to 15,400 feet. The tracts are completely submerged at high tide and have no legal or public access to the uplands which are under different ownership. The major portion of the property is exposed at low tide with a water depth of one or two-feet*over the ie "mainder. There is no direct* access to.the property by public road. Legal access is only by water. The land iwmediately abutting* subject property has two major uses. The highir land on a bank varying from 10 to 100 feet in height overlooking the subject Is mostly used for occasional single family residential or recreational use. The low flat area abutting subject'is used for agricultural purposes, with little likelihood of a change of usage in the,foreseeable future. Historically, In 1930, an attempt was made to establish an oyster business. In an effort to obtain capital for the venture, the'promoters gave a deed to a tract in lieu of a share of stock. Investors were lotated throughout the country. The venture proved unsuccessful, and many holders of triet deeds lost title through' tax foreclosures. (Some of these deeds were purchased by the'respondent from the treasorerafter reverting to county ownership for tax delinquencies.) In 1964, respondent corporation began purchasing tracts and assembling parcels with a view to development. Respondent planned to hydraulically dredge the bay and form a series of fingers of land on which homes were to be built. After an investnent of $600,000 and the purchase of the parcels under apppeal, further progress.of the contemplated development was halted in 1968 due to the state of the ecohbmy and the Vii-I opposition of the Samish Padilla Conservation Association formed to block the projected development by buying some strategically located tracts to prevent the dredging necessary for the beginning of the development. Appellant assessor testified; (a) That he was not certain that the value attributed to subject was proper, particularly in view of the consequences of the Shoreline Management Act; (b) that the Board should provide guidance as to whether a separate value should be attributed to the easterly 1,000 feet of each tract, since it provided an amenity to the upland owner (this is not germane to this appeal, since respondent does not own any upland); and (c) that in attribuit- ing value to subject property he did not take into consideration Sec. 90.58.290 of the Shoreline Act which directs that the assessor consider the restrictions imposed by the act in establishing fairmarket value. The assessor attributed value on each tract as follows: $420 on the easterly 1,000 feet (area adjacent to the land) and $80 on the remainder of the tract. The assessor introduced documentary evidence of sales, which were purchases of tracts by the respondent in 1964 for $500 and $1,153 per tract, a sale by the respondent in 1967 of two tracts for $500 each and a 1967 transaction for one tract at $1,000. Based on these sales the assessor attributed a value of $500 per trict, which was reduced to $250 per tract by the local board of equalization. The respondent testified that in assembling the parcels, as time went on, purchases of the tracts became increasingly difficult,, and the corporation was forced to pay two to ten times as much as they felt the parcels were worth. They estimated that completion of the project would require 10 to 15 years. The respondent asserted, that further acuisition of land and planning was halted due to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and its implementing guidelines which presently appear to constitute an insurmountable obstacle to the entire project. The respondent does not agree with the theory or operation of the act since it feels its properties use has been unconstitutionally restricted. The Corporation has no other assets, it was formed for the sole purpose of the Padilla Bay Development. It derives no income from the tracts and its annual budget of $18,000 is used for payment of tax levies, payment of options on long term agreements and legal and accounting costs. The respondent intro- duced an appraisal, which concluded with the recommendation that subject property should be valued at $2.00 per front foot for a total value of $560500 rounded to $57,000. The respondent also introduced evidence of five sales of submerged tidelands in various parts of the state, two of which vere transacted in 1969, and three in 1973. All the sales pertained to property which had either a, definite economic use for public access I, which is not true of subject, and also were not comparable with respect to subject in total acreage. The Board is of the opinion that this appeal is sui generis. The evidence clearly indicates that the commonly accepted appraisal techniues normally used to determine value are not applicable In this case. "The appellant-assessor had presented sales of comparable property which occurred prior to the passage of the Shoreline Management Act, and therefore, in the Board's opinion, are not a valid indicator of value as the assessment date. In view of the ligislative enactment, further development of these parcels by the respondent corporation for the purpose for which the corporation was organized, is not possible. The highest and best use has not yet been determined. The Board also wishes to emphasize that in finding value, criteria are not being established as a basis for valuing other tidelands, since the Board is well aware that such tidelands have varying values and uses, as evidenced by their commercial use in areas such as Seattle and Tacoma. Upon analysis of the evidence, and in recognition of the lack of utility of subject property, the Board finds the value of these 521 tracts is $2.00 per front foot, for a total value of $66,315. The Board regrets that this tideland appeal does not afford it the opportunity to give the assessor the guideline to valuing second class tideland that be has requested. Further the Board is of the opinion that there has not been sufficient time Interval since the enactment of the Shoreline Management Act to afford an , accurate assessment of its effect on the market value of all shorelines except in special factual circumstances, as those in the instant case and in a few other unique cases where the Act has clearly adversely affected market value. VII-2 APPENDIX 8 Summary of Shoreline Hearings Board Decisions Revised December 1973 SHB #7 Participants! Appellant: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Public) Respondent: City of Mukilteo (Public) Board Members: Arden Olson; Arnold M. Hansen; Matthew Hill; James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial Development Pe'rmit - for an enlarged boat launching facility and make other improvements. Would include dredging of tidelands and placing this material on the inter-tidal area; expansion of launching ramp; installation of groins and a pile and plank breakwater supporting a fishing dock; revision and redesign of existing parking spaces. Location: Mukilteo State Park Conclusions: Denial of Substantial Development Permit to Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and said commission "should devise a plan for the redevelopment of Mukilteo State Park which recognizes a broader spectrum of.recreation needs ... with more Park and less Parking." Findings: 1) Natural accretion beaches' are a limited natural resource which are being continuously reduced by accelerated and unrestricted processes intended bo serve the demands of urbanization. Mukilteo State Park comprises such a beach and it would be further imperiled by the proposed extension of.the launching facility. (Natural accretion beaches must be protected from developments which may have deleterious effects on them). 2) Proposed developments must 'be consistent with the planning, .objectives,for the.-area as determined by the local compre- hensive plans. 3) In proposing.a development such as this, plans must include an alternative for solving the potential traffic and con- gestion problems which would accompany this type of develop- ment. At the present time, the boaters would share the same road with a high volume of ferry traffic, which would only compound the traffic problem. 4) The size and scope of the proposed development would have an uncertain, but potentially detrimental effect on adjacent beach areas. 5) The need for additional boat launching facilities to serve the population is recognized, however, the distribution and VIII-1 SHB #7 location of such facilities should be coordinated on a i regional basis with full participation of co'ncerned local governments and consistent with the policies and guide- lines of the Shoreline Management Act. 6) A multi-service park, which is consistent with.the existing comprehensive plan of the area, is of more value to the public and more in the public's interest, than a park which is largely dedicated to a single,purpose activity such as boating. VIII-2 SHB #13 Partici2Ants: Appellants: League of Women Voters Respondents: King County and King County Department of Parks (Public) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Matthew Hill; Robert Hintz; Arden Olson; James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for construction of four boat launching ramps (south end of beach); a waterfront parking area adjacent and accessory to the ramps; general landscaping and placing a culvert under the parking lot; c-shaped fishing pier; rock rip-rap bulkhead on seaward side of parking lot; concrete bulkhead. Location: Seahurst Park (southend beach area) Conclusions: "Substantial development permit is cancelled in part by reason of 'the ecologically improvident nature of the proportions of the plans the permit was intended to implement. Findings: 1) An Environmental Impact Statement is required on all proposed developments which will have significant impact on the surround- ing environment. 2) Parking lots are not a use dependent upon the shorelines and therefore are not acceptable developments for shorelines. 3) Any changes to streams or any additional culverts to an area must be consistent with the Washington State Department of Fisheries' policies. 4) Provisions for additional boat launching ramps at multi-service parks where there,are already existing ramps will not be allowed due;to the influx of people who would be using the park for a single purpose and subjecting others visiting the park to an increase to smell, noise and the inevitable degradation of the waters. These,elements, resulting from the additional boat launch- ing ramps would render the entire beach area much less attractive to those who came to the park for other purposes. 5) When there is no showing 'of any popular demand for the develop- ment of a particular segment of a plan (such as the proposed fishing pier), then we see no reason to permit another structure to be built on the shorelines. 6) The construction of a sea wall and/or bulkhead that would stabilize and protect the existing beach (shoreline) from further erosion and would facilitate existing recreational uses is quite acceptable and necessary. VIII-3 SHB #8 Partici pants: Appellants: Virgil A. Counter (Private) Respondents: Whatcom County (Public) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; Robert Hintz; Tracy Owen; James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for construction of a 2-bedroom house on a pier built over the water. Location: Lake Whatcom; Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Lake serves as a municipal water supply for the City of Bellingham. Conclusions: Denial of the substantial development permit by Whatcom County upheld. Findings: 1) Section 2 of the Act provides for the protection against adverse effects to the public health. The proposed sewage system consitutes a threat to the public health, through possible contamination of the city water supply. 2) Section 2 of the Act provides that permitted uses shall be designed and conducted so as to minimize any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline. This proposed development had not been designed and conducted to minimize such damage, in that it is entirely practical to construct the dwell'ing on the available upland,thus, eliminating the threat to the public water supply and minimizing intrusion on the shoreline. 3) Investing in a development that had not been approved by local regulatory authorities does not establish for the appellant any personal rights which would outweigh the public interest. VI11-4 SHB #16 Participants: Appellant: Department of Ecology (Public) Respondent: Island County (Public) Intervenors: Penn Cove Association (Private) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; Matthew Hill; Robert Hintz; William Hunter Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for a marine facility. Certain conditions were appended to the permit to insure water quality protection, public service and access to the beach. Location: Westend of Penn Cove on Whidbey island Conclusions: The decision of Island County to allow this development, be upheld subject to specific conditions set by the Hearings Board. Findings: 1) Protection against adverse effects to public health. 2) Protect against adverse impacts to the land, on wildlife, .to vegetation and on aquatic life! 3) Stressed that developments (according to the A'ct) be unique to or dependent on the State's shoreline. 4) Developments must provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state; must supply a legal public easement to the county, providing public access to the public beach. 5) Developments must minimize insofar as practical, any re- sulting damage to the shoreline area and any interference with public use of the'water. 6) In developing this project, 2 acres of public clam beds will be rendered inaccessible; it is the responsibility of the permittee to provide in kind for this loss of public clam beach. 7) A plan.of development, operation and maintenance must be submitted to the County and State Department of Fisheries, after it has been approved by the State Department of Social and Health Services. . 8) Prior to commencement of construction, the permittee must protide to the Washington State Department of Fisheries, insurance or personal surety in the amount of $10,000.00 each year for ten years, guaranteeing the public beabh will not be declared unsafe for public Shellfish collection due VIII-5 SHB #16 to impacts caused by the operation of presence of the proposed development. 9) No spoil is to be deposited north of the county road and within 200 feet of the Shoreline Management Act strip. 10) A survey and report of existing conditions on and affecting the public beach prior to construction must be submitted to the Washington State Department of Fisheries at no expense to said agencies. VIII-6 SHB #22 P-articipants: Appellant: Ballard Elks Lodge (Private) Respondent: City of Seattle (Public) In tervenor: Department of Ecology and Attorney General (Public) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; Matthew Hill; Gordon Erickson; James Sheehy Permits: Type: Substantial development permit to construct an assembly room, swimming pool, gymnasium, restaurant and cocktail lounge. This called for over-the-water construction Ust permit denied) 2nd permit called for partial con- struction over unwetted land and partly over water. City of Seattle gave its okay, except that construction must be entirely over unwetter lands. Location: Seattle King County bounded*on the east by Seaview Avenue Northwest and extending on the west to the northeast boundary of Salmon Bay Waterway. Conclusions: Permit remanded to the City of Seattle for amendment of its condition to permit over the water construction on piling southwestward only to an extension of a line drawn 151.5 degrees true from the southwestern corne r of the L-shaped pier at the southern end of the Port of Seattle Shilshole Marina. Findings: Must recognize the realities,of the existing shorelines where intensive development is already in existence. To follow.a "dry land only" rule would mean that adjacent property owners and other nearby property owners could take advantage of irregularly filled shorelands and could build structures protruding further than the City's con- dition to appellant would permit appellant to build.' 2) We feel that the realities of construction both existing an&that which may be permitted in the future, will be more clearly defined and a practical approach of the principles--of the Shoreline Management Act in this area will be,achieved more equitably if a no-further-west construction line is created. This line would require appellant to retreat slightly to the east when compared with appellant's permit application, but will be an advance to the west, permitting a minimal over the water construction when compared with the City's condition in granting the Substantial Development Permit. The spirit of the City's condition would be recognized by such a line and the realities of the eastern shore would be given a more logical symmetry. The above SHB decision was appealed to the Superior Court and the decision overturned. That decision is now being appealed to the Court of Appeals. VIII-7 SHB #24 Participants: Appellants: Citizens of the Port of Friday Harbor; Department of Ecology and Attorney General Respondents: Friday Harbor First Corporation (Private) Board Members:. Walt Wood-ard;,Ralph Beswick; Gordan Erickson; Arnold Hanson; Matthew Hill; James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for construction of a five story commercial - residential complex, including a first floor, full-length public espl@Lnade fronting proposed water and tourist-oriented shops and facilities. Location: At Friday Harbor, San Juan County Conclusions: Permit granted subject to the following two conditions: (1) limit structure to 4 stories and (2) first floor tenacy must be limited to shoreline-oriented uses. Findings: 1) The motion to remand is denied for the reason that the environ- mental impacts involved in this substantial developme'nt weke not complex or obscure, but relatively simple and obvious. The evidence shows that the environmental impacts of this pro- posed development were.placed before the Town Council just as clearly as they were placed before this Board and a formal environmental impact statement by the appropriate authorities would have added nothing to the information readily available to the Friday Harbor Town Council. 2) Reprimanding citizens and local governments for their lack of initiative in establishing necessary zoning regulations and for not.developing a comprehensive land use plan. 3) The first floor public esplanade would be a marked improvement over the present status of the property, which now prevents and discourages pedestrian enjoyment of the shoreland. The first floor tenancy must be restricted to suitable and appro- priate shoreline oriented uses in order for this portion of the structure to meet the prerequisites of the Shoreline Management Act substantial development permit. 4) A reduction in the building's height, from five to four stories, would preserve, in great part, the public's view of the harbor from the top of the cliff. This action would help alleviate the deleterious effect on the public's shoreland rights. VIII-8 SHB #30 Participants: Appellant: R. C. Carlson and S. J. Kammeyer (Private) Respondent: City of Bonney Lake XPublic) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; Robert Hintz; James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for further development of waterfront property for park and recreational use with facilities for boat launching and daytime boat moorage. Location: Lake Tapps in Pierce County Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Conclusions: Appeal denied and the granting of the permit is sustained. Findings: Substantial development permit not required as provided in Section 14 (9)(A) of the Shoreline-management Act, of which exemption applies to a final plat approved after April 13, 1961, or the preliminary plat approved after April 30, 1969. The project is consistent with the policy of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the proposed guidelines of the Department of Ecology. VIII-9 SHB #29 Participants: Appellants: Merle Steinman (Private) Respondents: City of Seattle (Public) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; W.A. Gissberg; Tracy Owen; James Sheehy Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for construction of a bulkhead and fill. Location: Seattle, Wn. , on Beach Drive S.W. (south of Al ki Point), Conclusions: Denial by City of Seattle for a substantial development permit upheld by the Hearings Board. Findings: 1) The Shoreline Management Act requires the person who is requesting a review of his permit application, shall have the burden of proof. 2) Section 2 of the Shoreline Management Act, clearly states that "unrestricted construction on the privaterly owned shorelines of the State is not in the best, public interesti" 3) The Shoreline Management Act further states that "Permitted uses in the shorelines of the State shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water." 4) The fill, which would create an area for boat storage and boat launching, is not justifiable, in light of the number of individuals (those in the duplex) who would be utilizing it, relative to the amount of unnecessary drainage that would take place in the intertidal area. The above are the findings of the SHB. This decision is presently being appealed. VIII-10 SH8 #45-45A Partic 1pants: Appellants: M.W. Brachvogal, et al and Randy and Carol McIlrath(Private) Respondents: Mason County (Public); Twanoh Falls Beach Club(Private) Board Members: W.A. Gissberg; Walt Woodard; James Sheehy; Robert Hintz Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for,development to "repair and replace piling, float, etc. and construct a new float." Location: Hood Canal seven and eight tenths miles southwest of Belfair, Washington. Shoreline of Statewide Significante. Conclusions: Permit remanded to Mason County Commissioners to consider the environ- mental factors of the project. If the permit is granted, further conditions will be imposed. Findings: 1) The county Commissioners must indicate that they did consider the environmental impacts which may result from the proposed development and that an environmental'impact statement is or is not required. 2) The site of the proposed development is on a shoreline of statewide significance, therefore: A) Minimal development of facilities will be allowed. B) Community or joint ownership offers the next highest benefit cost ratio (to public ownership), providing an effective means for multiple use and enjoyment of this highly aesthetic, recreational and ecological shoreline resource. C) It is imperative that controls be established so not to allow overcrowding in the beach area and water area. Increase in small boat movement could prove to be hazardous to swimmers, besides contributing further air, water and noise pollution in the immediate vicinity. VIII-11 SHB #62A Participants: Appellants: State of Washington Department of Ecology and Attorney General Respondents: Grays Harbor County - Walter B. Welti Board Members: W. A. Gissberg (presided); Ralph Beswick Permit: Type: Substantial Development Permit to develop recreation building sites and a bulkhead with fill extending over 1800 feet along the ocean beach. Location: At Oceancrest Addition to Moclips, First Addition to Sunset Beach, Section. Shoreline Statewide Significance. .Conclusion: The permit is remanded to Grays Harbor County for reissuance of a permit containing the additional condition that the protective bulkhead shall be constructed within five feet seaward, measured from the toe of the existing bank. In all other respects and-conditions, the permit is affirmed. Findings: The purpose of Mr. Welti's proposed bulkheading and fill is twofold: (1) for the purpose of creating land by filling behind the bulkhead, and (2) to provide protection to upland area against further erosion. 1) Department of Ecology's guideline with respect to the bulkheads if found at 173-16-060(11), which in part provides: "...(3) The construction of bulkheads should be permitted only where they provide protection to upland areas or facilities, not for the indirect purpose of* creating land by filling behind the bulkhead..." 2) The proposed bulkhead violates WAC 173-16-060(11)(e) and the policy section of the Shoreline Management Act. The primary purpose of this project (to reclaim and recreate land) interferes with the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of a natural shore- line of statewide significance. There would be no enhance- ment of the public interest, however, a bulkhead within 3 to 5 feet seaward from the line of vegetation would be in compliince with and meet the spirit of the Shoreline Management Act. VI.II-12 #77 Participants: Appellants: Department of Ecology and Attorney General Wubl.ic) Respondents: Grays Harbor County (Public) and Bruce M. Ferguson (Private) Board Members: Walt Woodard; Ralph Beswick; W.A. Gissberg; Robert Hintz Permit: Type: Substantial development permit for harvesting of timber by clear-cutting methods. (Imp. finding - decided a permit was not required for harvesting trees.) Location: Cedar Creek, a tributary to the Copalis River in Grays Harbor, Washington. (14 mi. from the ocean); Shoreline of Statewide Significance Conclusions: Permit allowing clearcutting is reversed within the area of the site (Cedar Creek). In the area of selective cutting, the present permit requirement of replanting seedlings maybe and is stricken. In other respects, the permit is approved and affirmed. Findings.: 1) Commercial timber cutting was believed, by SHB, not to be a "development"@subject to the permit system of the Shoreline Management Act. (definition of "development" as found in the Act - RCW 90.58.030(e)(d).), however since parties never raised this issue, SHB decided merits. 2) There are certain activities which are not explicitly defined in the Shoreline Management Act as developments and therefore do not require substantial development permits. However, guidelines have been developee for these activities and-it is intended that they (activities) be dealt with in the compre-. hensive master program in a manner consistent with policy and intent of the Shoreline Management Act, and timber cutting is one of those areas. 3) On a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, RCW 90.58.150, pro- hibits the cutting of timber by clearcutting (within 200 feet abutting landward of the ordinary high water mark ... ) unless selective cutting is ecologically detrimental due to topography, soil conditions or silvicultural practices necessary for re- generation. 4) RCW 90.58.020 recognizes that "...the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible", Thus the permit.to clearcut was reversed within that area of the site which is within 200 feet abutting landward of the ordinary high water mark. The measurement of 200 feet shall begin where the first vegetation having an upland character in this case, by the line of trees and brush bordering the marshy area adjacent to the creek. Within this strip, only selective commercial timber cutting may occur. VIII-13 APPENDIX 9 Sample Responses of States Effort to Coordinate Existing Plans Affecting Areas Within the Coastal Zone A. Local B. State C. Federal The purpose of this Appendix is to show that the State CZM staff has made considerable efforts in attempting to coordinate with the various levels of goveniment concerned. Because of the volume involved, these are only samples. The majority of the documenta- tion was submitted as part of the State's.initial draft program. With respect to Federal agency involvement, most agencies not con- strained by a lack of persomel were considerably involved in the development of the 34A and local Master Programs. A. Local Agencies 1. Clallam County 2. City of Bellingham 3. City Of Edmonds 4. Town of Steilacoom IX-1 CLALLAM COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 127 East First Street Aky4x#Vr;K b B K4;;;@64 49 PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 98362 February 11, 1974 Mr. Murray R. Walsh Coastal Zone Management Section Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington Dear Mr. Walsh:, As requested in your memorandum dated January 29, 1975, 1 am sending a listing of all local plans in effect on January 1, A. (1) Clallam County Comprehensive Plan (2) Clallam County, WaRhington (3) Clallam County Planning Commission (4) M. G. Poole & Associates (5) A comprehensive land use plan dealing with land use, transportation, and public facilities.- (6) It could restrict coastal zone activities to those uses considered consistent with the plan's policies. B. (1) Clallam County Comprehensive Water and Sewerage,Plan (2) Clallam County, Washington (3) Clallam County Department of Public Works (4) Stevens, Thompson & Runyon, Inc. (5) A plan outlining the future need and generalized future. design of domestic water and sewer systems. (6) The plan proposes certain water system and'sewer system facilities in the coastal zone areas, including treat- ment plant sites and outfalls. The location of these facilities could substantially affect land use in the coastal zone. C.' (1) Clal'am. County Resource Recreation Master Plan L (2) Clallam County Park Board (3) Clallam. County Park Board (4) Leroy A. Jones (5) To guide future recreation developments in a manner IX- 2 Letter to Coastal Zone Management Section re: Local plans in effect on January 1, 1975 Page No. 2 7. that will produce the most satisfactor results. y provides guidelines for Clallam. County in developing its recreation potential. (6) Many of the recreation facilities are proposed along the coastline, in the.coastal zone. These facilities include major roads and highways with roadside parks, scenic drives, beaches, beach access, and boat launching areas. D. (1) Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan (2) City of Port Angeles (3) Port Angeles Planning Commission (4) M. G. Poole & Associates (5) A comprehensive land use plan which considers land use, transportation systems, and public facilities. (6) It would designate those activities which are considered to be compatible in the coastal zone area of the city,. Also, generalized locations for certain specific facili- ties are listed. E. (1) Makah Indian Reservation Comprehensive Plan (2) Makah Tribal Council (3) Makah Tribal Council (4) Consulting Services-Corporation, Seattle (5) A plan establishing future land use goals which guide overall development of the reservation. (6) Many of the future goals and specific proposed facilities are located in the coastal zone. F. (1) Planning Document One & Two (2) Quileute Tribe of Indians (3) Quileute Tribe of Indians (4) People Space Architecture Company, Spokane (5) Background information and a future land use plan, providing a guide to overall development of the reservation. (6) Many of the fut ure goals and specific proposed facilities are located in-the coastal zone. I believe the above represents a complete listing of plans in effect on January,l, 1975. Sincerely, fKe-nneth W. Sweeney P1 i g KWS:jml Planning Director IX-3 OFFICE OFF PLANNING AND DE VELOPMENT, 210 Louie Street, Bellingham, Waih. 98225 February 7, 1975 Mr. John Biggs, Director Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington 98501 Dear Mr. Biggs: C, Responding toyour request for a listing of relevant physical plans and studies which have been adopted within the City of Belling ,ham and which may influence Coastal Zone Management, the followina is submitted: 1. The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Bellingham, IVA Sponsor - Bellingham City Planning Commission Implementing Agency - Mayor of Bellingham and the City Council Primary Consultants - Bellingham Planning Staff; Aarstad Associates; Clark, Coleman &- Rupeiks Purpose - The plan outlines the basic guidelines and principles for establishing public policy to guide future development and serves as a foundation for such implementing measures as zonin.g. subdivision, review, redevelopment and rehabilitation. Coastal Zone Management Implications - The Land* Use Plan provides an estimate of the types of development that may be planned for the Bellingham. Bay Shoreline. In doing so, the potentiaCuses, range from public and recreational to heavy industrial and commercial. This broad spectrum of uses has re- quired the formulation of other plans and policies to insure compatibility and environmental quality. C)l IX-4 Paf,e'Two February 7, 1975 Mr. John Biggs, Director Department of Ecology 2. The City of Bellingham Zoning Ordinance Sponsor - Mayor of Bellingham and City Council Implementing Agency - Planning Department and Plans and Permits; Division of Public Works Department Primary Consultants - Citizens of BeLlingham,Plannirig Commission, and Planning Department staff Purpose - It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the health, safety, and general welfare by guiding the development of Bellingham by means of a. comprehen- sive land use plan which is, in part, carried out by the provisions of this ordinance. It is further intended to provide regulations and standards -which will lessen congestion in the streets, encourage high standards of development, prevent the overcrowding of the land, provide adequate light and air, avoid excessive con- centration of population,- and facilitate adequate pro- visions for transportation, utilities, schools, parks, open space, and other necessary public needs. It is also the purpose of this ordinance to aive consideration to the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses, with a view to conserving and en- hancing the value of the land and buildings, and encou raging the most appropriate use of these throughout the city. Coastal Zone Management and Implications - The zoning ordinance establishes the means of public input and standards whereby decisions are made that will result in -long Bellingham Bay such the development of the properties a that compatibility and quality are maintained. 3. Shoreline Management Master Program Sponsor - Mayor of- Bellingham and City Council Implementing Agency - Office of Planning and Community Development Primary Consultants - Shoreline Citizen Committee Planning Staff and'Planning Commission IX_ 5 Pa-e Three February 7, 1975 Mr. John Bi-gs, Director 0 Department of Ecology Purpose - The purpose is, essentially that of R. C. W. 90. 58, wherein "The le-islature further finds thaE much of the shorelines of the state-and uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that un- restructed construction on the privately owned or publicly own--d shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state, while at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with, the public interest. There is, therefore, a clear and urgent, demand for a planned, rational, concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordina ted and piec em eal development of the s, tatel s shorelines. Coastal Zone Management Implications - Bellingham's Shoreline Master Programhas been adopted by the state; and, inde.ed, the local implementation of the standards and guidelines will hopefully be totally compatible with those of the Coastal Zone Management Program. 4. Master Plan for Port and Industrial Development as amended Sponsor - Port of Bellingham Commission Implementing Agency, - Same Primary Consultants - Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy & Stratton Engineers, New York Purpose - To study the routes of prospective industrial development of Whatcom County and the need for wa.ter- front sites, improvement of marine terminal facilities, and additional facilities for fishing vessels and pleasure craft. - The report presents a comprehensive plan for meeting these needs and includes a suggested program for financing the recommended developments, Coastal Zone Management Tmplications-The plan provides,a means of identifying those areas that are suitable for 0 varir,:-ls water dependent industrial and commercial, as well as developed recreational uses. Moreover, where potential conflicts exist, the plan will aid in identifying Mechanisms of mitigating those conflicts and matching the objectives of the Shoreline Master Porgram and Coastal Zone Management Program. IX-6 Paae Four Mr. John Biggs, Director Department of Ecology 5. Pollution Control for Bellingham Bay: Sewerage Facilities Design Study Sponsor - Mayor of Bellingham and City Council Implementing Agency - Same and the Public Works Department Primary Consultants - Cornell, Howland, Hayes, Merryfield; Seattle, WA Purpose - To conduct an industrial waste testing program, determine the optimism waste treatment facility plan,. and establish a financial program to ir-n-pLement the recommended sewerage plan including th-e necessary coordination with- the city's bond council and financial consultants. Coastal Zone Management Implications - This study identified the predictable sewage treatm- ent needs that would help eliminate polluting outfaLLs entering Bellingham Bay, and later provided a. basis for separa- tion of Industrial Wastes from the current treatment plant (1975) through the Pollution Disclosure Act of 19 71 (R. C. W. 9 0. 52). 6. Water Quality Management Plan, Phase I Report Sponsor - Whatcorn County Council of Governments of L Implementing Agency - This is the first three phases of. studies to be prepared for a Comprelhensive Water Quality Plan for Whatcom County. The implementation agencies and mechanisms are to be identified in Phase III. Primary Consultants - Cornell, Howland, Hayes, Merryfield, and Hill; Seattle, WA Purpose - To characterize the water quality. conditions of fresh and marine waters of Whatcom. Cotinty; to inventory and assess sanitary, industrial, and other waste sources and activities which have or potentially have an effect on water quality; to outline a program. for developing a plan for solving identified problems and for indicating how citizens and local and state agencies can develop an ongoing program that effectively meets their 'concerns. IX- 7 Pa.-e Five February 7. 1975 Mr. John Biggs, Director Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Management Implications - This study provides further data todetermine methods of reducing the degradation of fresh and marine water systems and is another step in producing balanced -land development policies. 7. A Comprehensive Drainage Plan for the City of Bellinglia m. Sponsor - Mayor of Bellingham and City Council Implementing Agency - Same and the Department of C> Public Works Primary Consultants Kramer, Chin, & Mayo, Inc., Seattle, WA Purpose - The purpose of this report was to design a C, comprehensive storm drainage plan for the City of Bellingham and recommend a system, of capital improvements, including storm trunk sewers, runoff control facilities, and land use regulations that would minimize flooding, siltation and pollution. Coastal Zone Management Implications - This study centered on storm water drainage and mechanisms to maintain hicyh water quality and control quantity with an emphasis on losvlands, flood plains, and upland development. Individual drainage basins were studies and characterized recommendations submitted accent the shoreline and Coastal Zone Management Progr@arris objections. 8. City of Bellingham Subdivision Ordinance Sponsor - Mayor of Bellingham and City Council Implementing Agency - Office of Plahning and Community Development and City Council. Primary Consultants - Bellingham Planning Commission. and Planning Staff Purpose - To fulfill the requirements of R. C. W. 58-17, to regulate the subdivision of land. Coastal Zone Management Implications - The subdivision ordinance requires that the governing body determine that appropriate provisioSis are made in the subdivision to serve the public interest concerning drainage ways, open space, water supply, sanitary wastes, parks, and other items. Moreover', flood, inundation, or swamp conditions may be grounds for disapproval of a subdivision; consideration of these criteria should have a positive impact on the Coastal Zone Management Prog ram. ix- 9 P-C' C., e S; x February 7, 1975 Mr. John Biggs, Director Department of Ecology 9. There are numerous other studies and plans, such as: The Recreation, Parks, and Open Space Plan; The Fairhaven Study; The Whatcorn Creek Redevelopment Plan, etc.; which are,in effect,subunits and updates of the Bellingham Compre- hensive Plan. The relation of these plans to the Coastal Zone Management Program should be considered as in item. number 1 of this list. Although there may be other ordinances adopted by the City that could affect the Coastal Zone Management Program, this listing should summarize the major plans and policies concerning this area., Should further assistance be required, please do not hesitate to contact this offic e. Very truly yours, Robert S. Andersen Environmental Planner RSA/klm IX-10 !IPT, OF CITY of EDMONDS Civic Center Edmonds, Washington 98020 Telepho7,620?) 7N?f H 17.51 February 5, 1975 Mr. John Biggs, Director Department of Ecology State of Washington Olympia, Washington 98504. Attention: !1r. Murray Walsh Re: Coastal Zone Management Gentlemen: in response to your memo of January 29, 1 am enclosing a summary of planning documents in effect in our jurisdiction. Kay C. Shoudy Assistant Cit.y Planner KLS:jP enc: IX-11' PLANNI CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHIN11TON NG DOCUMENTS IN EFFECT AS OF FEB. 5, 1975 PURPOSE OR NAME OF DOCUMENT SPONSORING AGENCY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY PRIMARY TYPE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS DOCUMENT IMPLICATIONS CBD Plan City Council Planning Dept. Clark.Coleman & Assoc. flarrative Maps Comprehensive Ci ty Council Planning Dept. Clark.Coleman Narrative- Recommended public acquisiticn Plan - 1963 Rupeiks. Seattle Inventory of tidelands - land u%es on shore and tidelands. Comprehensive City Council Planning and Map Established "park" classifica- Land Use and Engineering Dept. .Thoroughfare tion on tidelands. commercial Plan (revised and residential use on shore- through 1974) lines, location and classifi- cation of streets. Official Street City Council Engineering Dept. Map Street Widths Map 1964(revised through 1974) Zoning Ordinance City Council Clark,Coleman A Ordinance Zoning for use on tidelands, and Map 1964 Rupeiks, Rei& Map@ shorelines and Puget Sound (amended to 1974) Middleton & A;soc. waters. Supplement to Private Applica- Planning Dept. Reid-Middletd Revise Compre- Established Industrial Park Comprehensive tion - Union oil Assoc.. Edmonds, hensive Plan classification on privately Plan - Industrial Company WA. Map* owned marsh on shQ I Park Proposal 1965 ne. Supplement to City Council Planning Dept. Reid-Middleton & Establish Comp- Residential and commercial'o Comprehensive Plan- Assoc., Edmnds, rehensive Plann- use along sh6reli n6w q North Edmonds-March WA. ing and Land Use 1965 for Annexation M CITY OF EOMOPIDS, WAMINrTON PLANNING DOCUMENTS IN EFFECT AS OF FEB. 5, 1975 (Page 2) PURPOSE OR NA14E OF DOCUMENT SPONSORING AGENCY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY PRIMARY TYPE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS DOCUMENT IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Sewer- City Council Engineering Dept. Reid-Middleton VAssoc Inventory and control of storm-drainage age Plan 1965 Maps Into Sound,Sewage Treatment and outfall into Puget Sound. Bicycle Paths & City Council Engineering Dept. Narrative S Trails Maps Comprehensive City Council Engineering Dept. Narrative Water System Plan Maps 1973 Comprehensive Parks Park Board Parks and Recreation Narrative- Development of shoreline and Recreation Plan Department Inventory parks and recreation. 1974 policies maps F-4 X capital improve- City Council All Departments Budget ments Plan 1974-78 Shoreline Management Department of Planning Dept. Policy Plan Regulation through permit Master Program 1 1174 Ecology and Use system of all develaDment Regulations in Puget Sound waters within City jurisdiction and uplands 200 f t. from MHHW. Comprehensive Policy City Council Planning Dept. Policy State- Will affect all documepts Plan 1974 - in process wents to update related to shoreline use. 1. General Goals and coordinate (adop. 1974) existing plans 2. Circulation Element:Compre- hensive Downtown Parking Plan SAohomish County Sndhomish Engineering Dept. R.W. Beck & Narrative Solid Waste Plan co..(Inter- Assoc., Snohomish Inventory Oct. 1974 local agreement) County Dept. of Policy Dept. of Public Works 9 Statements Ecology Planning P4COR;IORATED 1N 1854 TV -_A YA Ir 'Zi @T R LF 7. _72 1715 LAFAYETTE STREET STEILACOOM, WASHINGTON 98388 (2061 588-3490 13 February-1975 John A. Biggs, Director Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504 RE: Coastal Zone Management Program Dear Mr. Biggs; Local plans which were in effect for the Town of Steilacoom as of January 1, 1975 include the following: A. 1. Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision'.0rdinance adopted 1962 2. sponsored by Town of Steilacoom. and a 701 grant 3. implemented through zoning by the Town of Steilacoom 4. written by Harstad Associates, Seattle 5. purpoze is to guide land use throughout Town including shoreline area 6. CZM implications include recognition of the signifi- cance of the,railroad separating the Town from shore- line and recommendations that adjacent use be limited to residential and recreational activities - the Sub- division Ordinance and Zoning Code work to pievent encroachment onto the shoreline via yard.requirements B. 1. An Ordinance establishing.the Steilacoom Historical District, adopted 1973, 2. sponsored by the Town of Stdilacoom 3. implemented through a Preservation and Review Board 4. written by the Town Council after consultation with other municipalities 5. purpose is to recognize the significant historical role of the Town and promote education, cultural, aesthetic and social values of the Town 6. CZM implications include the preservation and protec- tion,of buildings and places of historical significance. along the water's edge C. 1. Park and Recreation Plan adopted 1974 2. sponsored by the Town of Steilacoom 3. implemented through the capital improvement program and subdivision regulations by the Town of Steila6oom FIE; I;_ IX-14 13"Februarv 1975 Mr. John A. Biggs 4. written by Dennis Clarke, Town Planner 5. purpose is to review existing needs and project demands for recreational facilities 6. CZM implications include the recommendation for a waterfront trail system linking existing parks with each other, the Town center and future sites - also programed is a fishing pier which would increase pub- lic access, opportunity for sport fishery and contri- bute to the historical character through use of a former pier site D. 1. Six year capital improvement program for roads, re- vised 1974 2. sponsored by the Town of Steilacoom 3. implemented jointly through State and Federal aid along with the Town of Steilacoom 4. written by Bert Pettitt, Town Administrator after consultation with Harstad Associates and Sitts and Hill Engineers 5. purpose is to create and maintain a rational circu- lation system 6. CZM implication include the priority to improve Chambers Creek road which parallels the shoreline for approximately 2 miles and serves as a scenic route E. 1. Steilacoom shoreline inventory, 1972 2.. sponsored by the Town 04f Steilacoom with the Pierce County Planning Department 3. implemented by the Town of Steilacoom 4. written by Richard Siefert, Pierce County Planning 5. purpose is to identify shoreline characteristics and uses 6. CZM implications include the basis for 'evaluating pre- sent policy and recommending changes for the future.in the shoreline area F. 1. Preliminary Shoreline Management Plan locally adopted 1973, final draft pending we recognize and support your intent to pass the majority of CZM administration funds on to the coastal counties and cities. If we can be of further assistance, don't hesitate to call on us. Cordially, Dennis Clarke To wn Planner IX-15 B. State Agencies 1. Interagency Committee for Outdoor-Recreation 2. Office of Commmity Developnent 3. Department of Natural Resources 4. Parks and Recreation Comission IX-16 STATE OF WASHINGTON January 27, 1975 4800 Capital Blvd. John A. Biggs, Director Townwater, Washington 98504 Department of Ecology St. Martin's Campus Daniel J. Evans, Governor Olympia, WA 98504 Worram A. Bishop, Chairman PARTICIPATING AGENCIES Dear Mr. Biggs: Department of Commerce and Economic Development In response to a request from Mr. Marvin Vialle, the following John S. Director information about the IAC's involvement and relationship to the Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Management Program is being provided. John A. Biggs, Director Department of Fisheries Haar C. Tollafran, Director Coastal Zone Management Related Goals Department of Game Carl N. Director Department of Highways The IAC has adopted several goals which being very broad in nature, George H. Andrews, Director relate to the coastal zone resource. 1) Provide for development Department of Natural and use of outdoor recreation resources in a manner to maximize Resources preservation of the natural quality of the environment; 2) provide State Parks and Recreation a system of public recreational facilities and opportunities for Commission state residents and visitors; 3) assist local government in pro- viding the type of facilities which, under its jurisdiction, will CITIZEN MEMBERS best serve the local needs for outdoor recreation; and 4) encour- Adele Anderson, Ph.D. age programs which promote outdoor education, skill development, Lewis A. Bell participation opportunity and proper husbandry of recreation re- Warren A. Bishop Micoale Brostrom sources. Mrs. Frederick Lemere ADMINISTRATOR Other goals, more specific in nature, should also be noted: Stanley E. Francis *CONSERVE, for the maintenance and improvement of public welfare, those significant scenic, historical and unique lands with rec- reation and/or conservation values. *TAP the wealth of public knowledge and sentiment towards outdoor recreation to assure that the State of Washington will continue on a worthwhile and desirable course of resource conservation and facility development for the future. *PERPETUATE and enhance wildlife and fish resources, for present and future enjoyment. *GUARANTEE that the public, including handicapped and economically disadvantaged, has ample opportunity and access to existing public owned or controlled lands, tidelands and beaches. *STIMULATE and facilitate the flow of information to the public through media and all possible federal, state and local agencies. Mr. Biggs -Page 2- January 27, 1975 Coastal Zone Management Related Policies The IAC has adopted priorities for local and state agencies participating in the outdoor recreation program. -Local Agencies- Local agency priority objectives provide the basis from which the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation will implement programs to help alleviate existing recreational deficiencies and to enhance recreational opportunities at the local level throughout the state. This document-establishes policy for the allocation of funds from the State Outdoor Recreation Account to local government through the grants-in-ald program. These priorities apply only to IAC participation in supplementing the outdoor recreation programs of local governments.. A. General. Priorities Acquire and develop fresh and saltwater shorelines intended to provide fa- cilities for multiple water related activities. Acquire, develop, and/or redevelop recreation areas for a wide variety of activities to serve the local population. B. Specific Priorities Listed below is the order of priority for acquisition and development of, specific kinds of recreational areas. This list is not all-inclusive in that,other types of,lands, may be considered for fund allocation where local plans or policy substantiate a public need for-such lands. Development is Intended to include major redevelopment projects where the conditions of existing recreation facilities have e'liminated or drastically reduced use of the site. Within each of the seven priorities, facilities designed for multiple use will be given priority over single purpose facilities. I., Acquisition of Shorelines 2. Development of Local Recreation Areas, 3. Development of Shorelines. 4. Acquisition of Local Recreation Areas 5. Trail Acquisition and Development 6. Acquisition and Development of Regional Recreation Areas Priorities I and 3 relate to both Freshwater and Saltwater shorelines. They are presented in more detail as follows: Priority I.- SHORELINES ACQUISITION First pr,iority is the acquisition of shorelines and necessary uplands to support multiple water related activities accessible to local residents. Priority order is: I. Acquisit-Ton ofshorelines in urbanized areas where the resource is environmentally endangered or is in danger of being lost to other uses. IX-18 Kr. Biggs Page 3 January 27, 1975 2. Development of swimming facilities and water related upland uses. 3. The:development of boating access, destination areas, and upland parking. State Agencies These priorities pertain to state agencies. There is no percentage or other factor established for the allocation of set amounts of funds to any given priority. The objective is to maintain a balance between priorities and various classes of recreational lands and waters. A. General Priorities The general priorities for cohsideration of state agency capital-requests are: Acquire critical, scenic and unique lands with recreation ind/or conservation values which are not duplicated anywhere else within the state. Develop outdoor recreation facilit.ies for boating, camping, fishing, hunting, picnicking, sightseeing., trails and related outdoor recreation activities. Acquire water oriented lands especially where potential supply is limited. Provide public access to existing state owned or controlled lands, tidelands and beaches. B. Specific Priorities Listed below is the order of priority for acquisition and development of specific kinds of recreational areas. This list is not all-inclusive in that other types of lands may be considered for fund allocation where the public need for such lands is adequately substantiated. 1. Critical Resource Acquisition V1. Freshwater Acquisition 11. Critical Resource Development VII. Regional Acq. and Dev. 1111. Saltwater Acquisition VIII. Trails IV. Freshwater Development IX. Scenic Roads V. Saltwater Development, X. Forest Portions of priority Nos., 11, and 11, and Priorities 11 land V relate to the coastal zone. They are detailed as follows: Priority I ACQUISITION OF CRITICAL RESOURCE AREAS First priority is given to the acquisitionof critical resource areas that are imminently in danger of being lost to a public recreation use, and for which failure to make such acquisition will result in a defacto reduction of usable acreage available to public use or enjoyment. These lands are critical to maintaining Washington's high quality natural heritage and are limited in potential supply. !X-19 Mr-.. Biggs Page 4 January 27, 1975 The development of parking and sanitary facilities and such other im- provements as necessary to make the Pacific Ocean beaches in the North and South Pacific Coast Districts accessible-for public use within the limits of sound resource management practices. The development of internal vehicular access, trails, sanitary and such other improvements as necessary to make state owned or administered crit- ical resource areas, accessible and usable for as broad a rar.ge of rec- reational activities as feasible consistent with sound resource manage- ment i.n the following Districts: North, Central and South Puget Sound, Lower Columbia, Upper Columbia, Yakima Valley, and the Columbia Basin. The provision of such facilities as necessary to accomodate public access to wetland areas. The geographic priority is statewide. Development of Outstanding Natural Areas statewide for sightseeing, interpretat.ion and hiking. Priority III - SALTWATER ACQUISITION The highest priorities for Saltwater Shorelands will be given to acquisition of beaches and to public rights-of-way for access to publicly-owned beaches which may be Used with a minimum of development along the Pacific Ocean, Straits of Juan de Fuca Islands, Hoods Canal, Puget Sound, Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor and along the Columbia River as far inland as Cathlamet.' These priori- ties include as well, provision for the acquisition ofupland areas necessary for boating access, supportive parking, camping and other facilities which must be physically located away from fragile beach areas. However, the acquis- ition of such upland areas will be high priority only when contiguous to sub- stantial publiciy-owned or controlled beach areas. The priority order fat acquisiton is: Acquisitionof right-of-way for public recreational access to state-owned tidelands and beaches in the North and South Pacific Coast, North, Central and South,Puget Sound and the Lower Columbia Districts. The acquisitionof boating access sites in the North Coast and,the North Central and South Puget Sound Districts. Acquisition ofboater destination areas in North Puget Sound. Acquisition of large saltwater shoreland areas to provide Regional type recreational opportunities on all areas of Puget Sound. Acquisition of saltwater access in the Lower Columbia R'iver District. Priority V - SALTWATER DEVELOPMENT Development priorities for Saltwater thorelands and for the provision of rec- reational access to saltwater beach, tideland and water areas and necessary ancillary support facilities for fishing, boating, picnicking, camping and related emerging recreational activities. The priority order for development is: IX-20 Mr. Biggs Page 5 January 27, 1975 The development of public access to state-owned tidelands and beaches in the South Pacific Coast and North, Central and South Puget Sound Districts. The development of boating access sites i,n the North, Central, and South Puget Sound Districts. Development of boating access in the Lower Columbia District. Coastal Zone Related Programs One of IAC's primary programs is the administration of a grant-in-aid program .for the acquisition,and development of outdoor recreation land. With the high priorities given to saltwater shorelines as indicated above, the impact of this program becomes obvious. A problem encountered in this program deals with the fact that many funded projects are subject to a permit under the shoreline man- agement act. Quite often these projects are delayed or dropped due to action taken by various agencies. This means the funds can be 'It,ied up" for extended period of time before the problem's are resolved. Coastal Zone Management - Related Plans and Studies 1. Washington Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan Fourth Edition. This document identifies the Pacific Ocean beaches, the San Juan Islands, and Puget Sound as having some of the greatest influences on public outdoor rec- reation in the State. Extensive data or demand, need, and inventory, is in- cluded. 2. Accretion, Beach Inventory This study is nearing completion in the sense that it is recognized as only a preliminary effort in this important area. It inventories the significant, undeveloped, Class I accretion beaches in the Puget Sound, San Juan Islands,. Straits-of Juan de Fuca, and Hood Canal areas. These beaches are recognized as having great recreational potential, yet they are truly threatened as a resource. Shoreline Management Act While not being actively involved in the formulation of this act, the IAC has always been interested and concerned. We have reviewed the various guidelines issued by the Department of Ecology, and were particularly pleased that in the inventory procedures the local agencies were instructed to use a classification system developed by IAC on the rivers of statewide significance. Local Master Programs The IAC served as a member of the task force established to review local master programs. IX-21 Mr. Biggs Page 6 January 27, 1975' Miscellaneous Iff related activities, the IAC has for several years worked for the establishment of a state system of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers. This program-would 'he compatible with and supplementary to the Shoreline Management Act. I trust this information will be useful in your application to the Department of Commerce. Sincerely, STAN @LEYRZ@ Administrator SEF:RSL:sr IX-22 15@,T A r DANIEL J. EVANS FOCHARD W. HEMSTAD DIRRCTOR GOVERNOR STATE OF WASHINGTON Office of the Governor OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OLYMPIA. WASHINGTON 08904 206/753-2200 March 17, 1975 Mr. Marvin Vialle Assistant Director for Land Programs Department of Ecology St. Martin's College Olympia.Washingtgn 98504 '04A-AAA04@ Dear This letter is to summarize for the Coastal Zone @1anagement program of the State of Washington the role that the Office of Community Development (OCD) and its predecessor agency, the Planning and Community Affairs Agency (PCAA) has played in coastal zone planning in the state generally, and in implementation of the Shoreline Management Act specifically. The first part of the letter is a general description of the agency ana its functions that impact most directly' on shoreline and coastal management and is followed by a more specific description of our shoreline and coastal zone activities. The Office of Community Development, located within the Office of the Governor, is designed to meet both state and local 'community-needs'in cooperative plaming and development efforts. In doing so, the agency works through the 'Washington Partnership", a principle that calls for close working -relationships between state and local governments and participation by citizens in the process. More specifically, the Office of Community Development works to: 1. Assist communities in determining priorities for the development of human and physical resources; 2. Achieve a closer working relationship between local and state government in defining needs, establishing priorities, and allocating resources that affect communities; and 3. Encourage citizen involvement in the development of plans and ,priorities at the local and state levels. IX-23 Marvin Vialle March 17, 1975 Page Two. Agency Services In meeting these goals, the agency carries out a variety of physical resource planning and development responsibilities, both at the state and community levels. These responsibilities essentially smooth the flow of federal and state dollars into designated communities and allow trained staff to provide technical assis- tance to those in public agencies, elect6d officials, and citizens' groups. The Office of Community Development is an administrative structure within the Governor's Office and is responsible for the functions of the Planning and Community Affairs Agency and the Office of Economic Opportunity. The agency carries out planning and community affairs functions contained in Chapter 43.63A RCW and other state and federal statutes. Functions and Activities of the Office Affecting the Coastal Zone Land Use Purpose: To study land use patterns in the state and to recommend changes in policy and laws as they relate to land use issues; To work 'with local officials and citizens toward more effective use of land. Environment Purpose: To facilitate the meting of local governments and-state and federal agencies in relationship to pollution.requirements and standards for air, water, noise and solid waste disposal. Energy Purpose: To assist local government in recognizing actions needed to prepare for energy-related issues. "701" Planning Program - HLJD Purpose: To establish local community planning processes by encouraging the incorporation of planning and management processes in decision-making; To promote interlocal cooperation toward the solution of common concerns. IX-24 Mr. Marvin Vialle March 175, 1975 Page Three Federal Projects Clearinghouse Purpose: To review proposed local goverment requests for federal assistance in order to determine compliance with federal requirements (A-95). Grants Management: Indian Economic Assistance Purpose: To create long-term reservation employment programs by providing funds for training and enterprise. Trident Coordiaation Purpose: To coordinate state agencies in responding to secondary impacts created by the cons@ruction of Trident Submarine Base. Specific Participation in Shoreline Management Act Program and RelateT-Activities 1. Financial Assistance As the HUD "701" funding agency for Washington, OCD devoted a significant portion of the available "701" money over the last four years to helping local government meet theJr planning'responsibilities,under the Shoreline 'Management Act. Over the four year period, $523,500 was made available to local goverments for shoreline planning. This was matched by DOE and local funds. Attached is a county breakdown of the distribution of these funds. In addition to direct financial assistance for shoreline management planning, the office has provided 701 funds to help comm-mities, both within the coastal zone and elsewhere, to meet the land use requirements of the National Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This assistance was directed toward: 1) flood plain management regulations for controlling land,uge and develop- ment in the flood plain, 2) identification of flood and slide hazard areas, and 3) citizen awareness programs. The Office of Community Development provided technical assistance to the DOE in the administration of the shoreline planning grant program, including the development of distribution ratios. 2. CZM-"701" Land Use Coordination As the '1701" planning agency for the state, OCD is faced with meeting the new HUD requirements for a land use planning element within the "701" program. IX-25 Mr. Marvin Vialle March 17, 1975 Page Four Because of th e-recent agreement between HUD and NOAA that an approved coastal zone management program will be accepted by HUD as the land use element applicable to coastal areas, approval of this program is of vital concern to OCD. 3. Technical Assistance Field staff personnel at the office have maintained close liaison with local planners and elected officials during the implementation of the SMA. This included a series of workshops in the sumer and fall of 1971 to introduce these local officials to the SMA and what it required of local government. Field staff worked closely with individual local governments to develop a strategy to accomplish the shoreline planning required. Other activities included the preparation of a shoreline planning "cookbook" and the organization of four regional groups of shoreline planners (both state and local) to help expedite interlocal coordination. Also, the agency has cooperated with the DNR to provide a forester-planner field representative to assist local governments with timber management in shoreline areas. 4. Budget Inquiry Kit In January, 1974, OCD distributed the Budget Inquiry Kit to all local governments, regional planning agencies, and Indian trib6s in the state asking for their reactions to 107 state programs. Attached is a summary of the responses for the shoreline management program.. As a result of the responses received from the questionnaire, the Governor selected shoreline management as a subject for more detailed analysis and follow-up with local governments. That analysis is attached, along with the results of the local response. S. Participation with DOE The office has participated with the Department of Ecology on anumber of ad hoc task forces and projects. This has included assistance in developing, and review of, the statewide WA guidelines; assisting in the review of local shoreline master programs; participating on the state agency CZM advisory group (including review of the proposed CZM program); and working with DOE to identify cross-irpacts and opportunities among various environmental planning programs (e.g., Section 208 water quality planning, air quality planning) and the CZM program. 6. Nisqually Task Force Study In 1970-1971, in response to public outcry over a proposal to build a superport on the Nisqually delta, the office (then PCAA) formed the IX-26 Mr. Marvin Vialle March 17, 1975 Page Five Nisqually Task Force to examine land and water use alternatives for the entire river basin. Although not all recommendations of the Task Force have been implemented, the prime recommendation, that the delta be preserved as a federal wildlife refuge, has been accomplished. Also, the work of the Task Force may have been partly responsible for the designation of the Nisqually Delta as a "shoreline of statewide significance" in the SMA. I hope this brief explanation of OCD's responsibilities and program will help assure expeditious federal approval of the Coastal Zone Prokram and subsequent Program Administration Grant. If further information or documentation would be helpful, please.notify me. S* erely, chard W. Hemstad Director RWH: c IX-27 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BERT L.. COLE, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 Coastal Zone Management related goals: The Department of Natural Resources is the largest marine land proprietor in the State of Washington. The Department manages 1,300 miles of tidelands, 6,700 acres of constitutionally established harbor areas and 2,000 square miles of marine beds of navigable waters. These lands are managed as a public trust to maximize the benefit to each citizen of the state. Under careful planning and multiple use management a variety of uses and activities, such as navigation; public use; production of food; minerals and chemicals; and improvement of marine plant and animal habitat, can occur simultaneously or seasonally on Department of Natural Resources' managed land. This ooncept has incorporated in it, the avoidance of permanent single purpose us6s.on lands that have multiple use potential. In most cases, the concept includes the identification of the primary use of the land, but provides for compatible secondary uses. Plans for use of these lands will Tidentify the primary use and establish performance standards which,will insure that secondary uses do not conflict with primary use activities. Although nast of the Department's marine land is to be managed for a combination of uses, certain primary uses requi,re that more severe limitations be placed on other uses. For example, marine areas allocated for environmental reserves are to be managed to protect the natural biological productivity of the area. The primary use in this case is to maintain natural conditions and productivity, thus limitations are necessary on human activities that interfere with this process. Coastal Zone Management related policies: The management plan for marine lands includes policies and guidelines for: 1. Navigation and commerce IX-28 2. Public use 3. Food, mineral and chemical production 4. Protection of the natural marine environment 5. Uses by abutting upland owners, and 6. Revenue production The policy statements and guidelines apply to all Department of Natural Resources managed tidelands, harbor areas and beds of navigable waters. They are the primary basis on which the Department's multiple use management plan and programs are developed. These policies apply only to Department of Natural Resources lands and not other government agencies that administer programs on marine lands. POLICY I:- Na igation and Commerce To provide for navigation and commerce on tidelands, harbor areas and beds of navigable waters. Guidelines: 1. Priority consideration shall be given to meeting the expanding need for navigation and commerce on first class tidelands and existing harbor areas. 2. Prior to establishing new harbor areas for deep draft commerce, an* up@to-date comprehensive study of national dependence on Washington State to provide for commerce must be completed and a statewide harbor 'development plan based on national and state needs must be developed. 3. Harbor lines will be adjusted, when justified, to provide reasonable oppor- tunity to meet the future needs of commerce. 4. Water dependent uses of the tidelands, harbor areas and beds of navigable waters shall be given preference over other uses. 5. Several industries using the same harbor area facility shall be given preference over single industry use. IX-29 6. Harbor areas will be reserved for landings, wharves, streets and other conveniences to navigation, commerce, however, where no current constitu- tional use -is practical and other public uses are in demand, interim public use may be authorized. 7. Provisions will be made to minimize interference with surface navigation even though other uses have been allocated. 8. Development of additional sites for navigation and commerce will not generally be authorized on second class tidelands if existing first class tidelands can meet the need. 9. Development, such as floating p.iers and breakwaters, will be encouraged so as to provide alternatives for increasing capacity for waterborne commerce without imposing environmental costs of establishing new harbor areas and their associated dredging and maintenance. 10. Shallow draft uses, such as barge terminals and marinas, will be preferred over deep draft uses in areas requirin@ extensive maintenance dredging. 11. Anchorages and harbors of refuge may be allocated to provide protection and moorage space for watercraft. 12. To provide for public safety, comprehensive mooring buoy locations, lighting and marking plans and programs will be implemented. POLICY 2: Public Use To provide for the protection and improvement of marine lands for public use. Guidelines: 1. Selected second class tideland tracts of 1,000 contiguous feet or more or smaller areas of special recreational quality, which have not been withdrawn for governmental or aquacultural uses, wIll be managed for public use. IX-30 2. Whenever practica], leases of first class tideland will provide for . public access to the water. Areas of second class tidelands, designated for public use, will be identified as public use beaches, properly advertised and marked and will be maintained on a regular basis for.public use. Areas allocated for public use will not be managed to produce a profit for a concessionaire or the administering agency without a lease fee being charged. Where the State owns the abutting uplands, priority will be given to joint development of the uplands and second class tidelands for public use. 6. Selected second class tidelands will be set aside for development of self-guiding marine nature walks. 7. Selected second class tidelands capable of clam or oyster production, except1those designated for aquacultural uses, will be set aside for public use. 8. Provisions shall be made to insure that traditional sports fishing areas are protected from competing uses that create obstructions. 9. Notice will be served to the current lessees of tidelands allocated for future public use, that prior to renewal of current leases, such leases will be modified to permit public use or will be terminated. 10. Bedlands abutting upland parks shall be considered for underwater parks. 11. Motorized vehicular travel will not be pe mitted on Department of Natural Resources' managed public use tidelands. 12. In recognition of the increasing impact by the recreating public on the Statels beaches, new programs will be devoted to public education about stewardship of State marine resources. I X- 31 POLICY 3: Food, Mineral Chemical Production To provide for the production of food, minerals and chemicals on marine lands with preference given to renewable resource activities. Guidelines: Tidelands and beds of navigable waters, especially valuable for aqu'aculture, will be so designated and protected from conflicting uses which would limit their utility for this purpose. 2. Information shal,l be provided to encourage commercial aquacultural activity to expand thto proper locations. 3. Provisions shall be made to insure that traditional commercial fishing areas are protected from competing uses that create obstructions. 4. Certain lands' will be selected for habitat improvement where such environ- ments can be improved by adding structures, materials and plants. 5. Whenever structures are used for aquaculture on the beds of navigable waters, they shall be located in such a way as to minimize the interference with navigation and fishing and minimize adverse visual impacts. 6. Marine lands will be inventoried as to the location of significant deposits of minerals and aggregates, and a determination made as to the significance and dependence of the State on such deposits. POLICY 4: Protection of Natural Marine Environment To protect and enhance the quality of the natural marine environment. Guidelines: 1. Provisions for leasing tidelands and beds shall include requirements for protecting the natural marine environment. 2. Areas of special educational or scientific interest or areas of- special environmental importance may be withdrawn as reserves and protected from competing uses. IX-32 3. Provisions shall be made to insure that structures on Department of Natural Resources managed land are properly maintained. 4. Unsightly abandoned structures shall be removed from Department of Natural Resources marine lands as funds permit. 5. Long term commitments will be avoided when leasing for water dependent uses which are essential to the economy and public welfare, but have adverse environmental impacts. Leases and permits will not be issued for non-water dependent uses which havesignificant environmental impacts. Easements or leases for the development of underwater pipelines and cables will not be granted except where adverse environmental impacts can be shown to be less than the impact of upland alternative, and when granted will include proper provisions to insure against substantial or irrevocable damage to the environment. Structures and uses on marine lands will be designed to provide for safe passage of migrating animals whose life cycle i.s dependent on such migration. 8. The use of floating breakwaters shall be encouraged as protective structures rather than using permanent earth and rock fills. 9. Second class tidelands will generally be maintained free of bulkheads. 10. Beach material from tidelands and beds will generally not be used to backfill bulkheads and seawalls. 11. Filling on second class tideland will generally not be permitted. 12. When material from tidelands and beds is permitted as back fill and when filling on second class. tidelands is permitted, provisions to stabilize fill material will be required. 13. Spoil disposal sites will be provided on the beds of navigable waters for certain materials that are approved for such disposal by regulatory agencies. IX-33 POLICY 5: Uses by Abutting Upland Owners' To provide certain tidelands and bedlands for use by abutting upland owners and to consider certain riparian interests in the management of marine lands. Guidelines: 1. When tidelands are leased to someone other than the abutting upland owner, such leases will provide for the abutting owner to reach the beds of navigable waters. 2. Second class tidelands not allocated for public use may be made available for lease to the abutting upland owner without providing for public use. 3. In those cases where tidelands are managed for public use, the rights of private upland owners abutting public use tidelands will be recognized by suitable marking of the intervening property lines and properly posting the tidal tract. Anchorage areas on the beds of navigable waters shall be designated for use by upland owners for mooring boats. 5. To reduce the burden on marinas, private mooring buoys and floats associate4 with shoreline residences will be encouraged. 6. Where there is no interference with normal routes of navigation for watercraft, swim floats and mooring buoys will be authorized on tidelands and bedlands shoreward of the 3 fathom contour or within 500 feet of mean high tide, whichever is appropriate. The placement of floats and buoys beyond the 3 fathom contour or 500 feet will be evaluated on a case by case- basis. POLICY 6: Revenue Production To manage the marine lands under a pricing system which will compensate the public for reduction in the availability of the public lands due to private use and thereby produce revenue to reduce the general tax burden. IX-34 Guidelines: I . The value of Department of Natural Resources managed tidelands and beds of navigable waters to the general public will be recognized by charging competing lessees the full market price..for the land. 2. Lease rates may be reduced depending on the degree to which the use interferes with the public use of the same property. Total withdrawal for private use requires a full rental payment. 3. When the effects of marine.uses have,an identifiable adverse impact on Department of Natural Resources land, a value will be placed on the loss or impact and charged to the, user. 4. Available revenue from leasing of marine lands shall be used for marine land management programs that are of direct benefit to the public. 5. First class tidelands and harbor areas, unless withdrawn by the Commissioner of Public Lands as recreational use property, will be managed to produce' revenue and service to the public. 6. Lease rates may be reduced jor up to five years as an incentive when lessees are involved in research or development work which Is in the public interest. Coastal Zone Management Related Programs Prior to August 8, 1971, the State of Washington had authority to sell tidelands and shorelands to private individuals, companies and corporations. Chapter 217, Session Laws of 1971, First Extraordinary Session as amended by Chapter 186, Session Laws of 1974, First Extraordinary Session prohibits the sale of any State owned aquatic lands, except'to public agencies. However, tidelands and shorelands may be leased for general purposes for terms of up to fifty-five years. IX-35 PROGRAM 1: Administer First Class Tideland and Beds of Navigable Water Leases First class tidelands include the beds and shores of navigable tidal waters lying within or in front of, the corporate limits of any city and within one mile thereof upon either side and between the line of ordinary high tide and the inner harbor line, where harbor lines have been established, and within two miles of the corporate limits on either side and between the line of ordinary high tide and the line of extreme low tide. Platted first class tidelands may be leased to anyone for a term of up to fifty- five years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terns and conditions of lease fixed, provided the state finds it in the best Interest of the publ,ic to lease. Unplatted first class tidelands may be leased to the owner of the abutting lands for a term of up to fifty-five years upon application, after be Ing Inspected in the field and terms and conditions of lease fixed, provided the state finds it in the best interest of the public to lease. If the abutting uplands are not improved for residential purposes, first class tidelands may be leased to anyone for booming purposes. Beds of navigable waters are defined as that area lying below the line of extreme low tide in waters where the tide ebbs and flows and below the line of navigability in navigable rivers and lakes. Beds of navigable waters in front of first class tidelands may be leased to' the owner of the abutting lands for a term of up to ten years upon application, after 'being inspected in the field and terms and conditions of lease fixed. IX-36 Beds of navigable waters may be leased to anyone for booming purposes. Each applicant for lease of bed of navigable waters is required to obtain a permit to place structures or improvements in navigable waters from the United States Army, Corps of Engineers or other federal regulatory agency. A copy of such permit must be filed with the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources. The permit from the United States Army, Corps of Engineers grants authorization only insofar as it concerns navigation and does not include ownership rights.. PROGRAM 2: Administer Leases on First Class Shore Lands and Beds of Navigable Waters First class shorelands include the shores of a navigable lake or river belonging to the state, not subject to tidal flow, between the line of ordinary high water and the line of navigability, and within or in front of the corporate limits of any city or within two miles thereof upon either side. Platted first class shorelands may be leased to anyone for a term of up to fifty- five years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terms and conditions of lease fixed, provided the state finds it in the best public interest to lease. Unplatted first class shorelands may be leased to the owner of the abutting lands for a tem-up to fifty-five years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terms and conditions of lease fixed, provided the state finds It in the best interest of the public to lease. If the *abutting uplands are not improved or occupied for residential or commercial purposes, first class shorelands may be leased to anyone for booming purposes. Beds of navigable waters in front of first class shorelands may be leased to the owner of the abutting lands, or to anyone for booming purposes. IX-137 PROGRAM 3: Administer Harbor Leases Harbor area is a reserved area in navigable waters within or in front of cities and within one.mile of the corporate limits on either side thereof as established by the State Harbor Line Commission under the provisio ns of Article XV of t.he State Constitution. The width of such harbor area varies from a minimum of 50 feet to a maximum of 2,000 feet. Harbor area is forever reserved for landings, wharves, streets and other conveniences for navigation and commerce. The State Legislature, by general laws, provided for the leasing of the- right to build and maintain wharves, docks and other structures on harbor areas for the convenience of navigation and commerce. Lease terms are. I imited to not more than thirty years. Rental rates are based on a percentage of the full and true value of the harbor area as determined by the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources. The percentage rate is fixed for the duration of the lease. However, the valuation is subject to change every fifth year for the duration of the lease. If the harbor area is within a Port District, the application for' lease must be referred to the Port Commissioner's for their recommendations. PROGRAM 4: Administer Second Class Tidelands and Beds of Navigable Water Leases SECOND CLASS TIDELANDS Second class tidelands include the beds and shores of navigable t'idal waters outside of and more than two miles from the corporate limits of any incorporated city or town, between the line of ordinary- high tide and the line of extreme low tide. Second class tidelands may be ]eased to anyone for a term of Iup to fifty-five years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terms and conditions IX-38 of lease fixed, provided the state finds it in the best Interest of the public to lease. Beds of navigable waters in front of second class tidelands may be leased to the ow.ner of abutting lands or to anyone for booming purposes. DEEP SEA OYSTER LEASES Beds of navigable tidal waters below the line of extreme low tide not In front of nor within two miles of an incorporated city or town, may be leased for the purposes of planting and cultivating oysters, clams or other edible shellfish for periods not to exceed ten years. Where the lands are used for the cultivation of oysters, the parcels leased shall not exceed forty acres. Where the lands are used for the cultivation of clams or other edIble shell-fish, leases may be granted for larger parcels. The application must be referred to the Director of the Department of Fisheries to determine whether it is necessary to retain any part of the lands described in the application, to protect existing oyster beds and to secure adequate seeding thereof. If the answer is negative, then such lands may be leased. GEODUCK CLAM LEASES The State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources, is authorized to lease for terns of 5 to 10 years beds of navigable waters 10.0 feet or more below the I ine of mean lower low tide and one-fourth ml le or more seaward f rom the I Ine of ordinary high tide for the commercial harvest of geoduck clams. IX-39 Tracts containing geoduck clams may be selected by the State of Washington, Department of Natur@l Resources, in cooperation with the State of Washington, Department of Fisheries and after fixing the terms and conditions offer such tracts for lease at auction after a period of advertisement. PROGRAM 5: Administer Second Class Shorelands and Beds of Navigable Water Leases Second class shorelands include the shores of a navigable lake or river, not subject to tidal flow, between the line of ordinary high water and the line of navigability and more than two miles from the corporate limits of any city. Second class shorelands may be leased to anyone for a term of up to fifty-five years upon application, after being inspected in the field and terms and conditions of lease fixed, provided the state finds it in the best Interest of the public to lease. Beds of navigable waters in front of second class shorelands may be leased to the owners of the abutting lands or to anyone for booming purposes. PROGRAM 6: Granting Right of Way on Aquatic Lands Easements for rights of way for electric power transmission lines, telephone lines, pipelines, etc. upon, over and across state owned aquatic lands may be granted by the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources upon application, after being inspected in the field and, terms and conditions of easement fixed. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND REMOVAL OF STATE 04NED ROCK, GRAVEL, SAND AND SILT FROM BEDS OF NAVIGABLE WATERS, TIDELANDS AND SNORELANDS The State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources, may enter into agreement providing for the purchase and removal of rock, gravel, sand and silt from state owned beds of navigable waters, tidelands and shorelands. Payment for such materials is made upon a royalty basisas fixed by the State of Washington, Department of Natural Regources. IX-40 No payment of royalty is required when gravel, rock, sand or silt or other material is removed from state owned beds and shores of any navigable.. river or stream by public agencies or under public contract for channel or harbor iMprovemeni, or flood control unless the same is sold or used for some other purpose. Such public agency shall obtain a permit from the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources for removal of materials. PROGRAM 7: Public Beach Marking Selected tecond class tideland tracts of at least 1000 contiguous feet, or smaller areas of special recreational value which have not been withdrawn for goverrunental or aquacultural use, have been designated as public use beaches. The Department of Natural Resources is now in the process of marking these beaches to enable the public to identify the public land from the surrounding private land, This program has run into problems with the Shoreline Management Act. The cost of marking a beach is approximately $300-00. In an attempt,to, appease some of the local land owners who object to the publ ic* use of @ubl ic 'property, certain county officials have taken the positio n that since the cost of marking all of the beaches in a county equals more than $1,000.00, a substantial development permit is necessary. Fortunately, we have been able to reason with all, of the individuals thus far encountered. 'PROGRAM 8: Oyster Spat Collection- This program has the dual goals of producing oyster seed to be used in stocking public beaches and developing methods of better utilizing the rather limited area capable of producing oyster. larvae. Dabob Bay on Hood Canal is the only area in Puget Sound that produces sufficient oyster larvae on a regular enough basis to make collection feasible. The co-Ilecting area in sheltered shallow water is presently being utilized nearly to capacity. The Department of Natural IX-41 Resources is attempting to perfect workable spat collecting techniques usable for the deep open waters in the middle of the bay. PROGRAM 9: Habitat Improvement Building Artificial Tire Reefs The Department of Natural Resources is presently embarking on a program of improving the fishing potential for many species of reef inhabiting fishes In areas where they do not now exist by building artificial tire reefs. This will be done In conjunction with various sportsmans groups, public agencies and the Marine Resources Siting Committee and Corps of Engineers. The Department's role is primarily coordination guideance and controls through the Corps of Engineers permit system. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT RELATED PLANS AND STUDIES PROGRAM 10: Deve.lop__Seaweed Aquaculture The Department of Natural Resources is conducti.ng a program of economic analysis and field and. laboratory research aimed at the eventual commercial harvest of seaweeds in Pug1t Sound. Iridaea cordata, a red seaweed containing the comme.rcially important phycocolloid, carrageenan, has been the subject of most of the research effort to date. As this alga is of rather limited distribution in Puget Sound and since the natural populations are such as to preclude an economically feasible harvest, the major impetus of the Department's effort has been to develop the techniques necessary to produce an economically harvestable crop on an artificial substrate. PROGRAM ]I- Develop Shellfish Aquaculture The 0epartment of Natural Resources is currently investigating methods increasing the amount of space available for growing shellfish, both by rehabilitating existing beach areas and by growing shellfish on structures suspended In the water column. DM/nr 2/19/75 IX-42 February 18, 1975 DeDartment Name: Washington State Pa'rks and Recreation Commis sion Name of Director: Charles H. Odegaard 1. Coastal Zone Management Related Goals: Generally, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission shall "Permit the use of state parks and parkways by the public . . ."RCW 43.51.041(3). RCW 43.51.80 specifically provides for the expansion of existing parks in the island counties. In RCW 43.51.22 The Commission is authorized to establish landing and other. facilities for small pleasure boats at places on Puget Sound . . . where such facilities will be of greatest advan- tage. . ." RCW's 43.51.240 and .250 relate to various parcels of tidelands specifically under the jurisidiction of the.Commission and development of access to them. Probably, the most significant series of laws is RCW 43.51.650 43.51.675 which establishes the Seashore Conservation Area and outlines the principles-and purposes under which it is to be managed. The power to control traffic on the ocean beach highways is given to the Commission in RCW 43.51.680. The management of accreted lands is given to the Commission in RCW 43.51.685. Also embodied in this section are several permits that the Commission can grant, including: a. Leasing of lands for oil and gas exploration. b. Sale of accreted sand to cranberry growers. c. Mining leases for "black sands". d. Permits for removal of sand for construction purposes. RCW 43.51.750 through 43.51.820 set up the system for preservation of historic,prODerties which is under the jurisdiction of the Commission. As many historic and archaeological sites are located in close proximity to water, the presence of these sites will need to be considered in the management of the coastal zone. The state boating safety program was given to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to administer by Governor's Order in the late 1960's. in December 1971 State Parks became the administering agency for all federal funds relating to recreational boating. Since we are the primary state agency concerned with boating programs, any section of the CZM program that would involve marinas, launches, recreation dest@ination sites, or other recreational boating- related activities would be of a concern to us. IX-43 2. Coastal Zone Management Related Policies: The most current statements of agency policy are contained in the 1975-77 budget documents. These statements were examined for specific references to the Coastal Zone.- None were found that specifically applied to CZM. There are a host'of general policies that apply to park areas statewide. These include new acquisitions to meet rising demands, careful environmental coordination to ensure that high quality is' maintained, and the establishment of adequate planned maintenance programs to keep the park operating properly. Where any park areas are in the Coastal Management Zone, these general policies would apply. In general, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is concerned that CZM will allow for the orderly acquisition, development, and maintenance of park areas to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the state of Washington. 3. Coastal Zone Management Related Programs: Aside from the overall program of acquisition and development of park areas, the only ongoing programs directly related to the Coastal Zone are those permits already described in RCW 43.51.685. The permits described therein have been available and the process did work without difficulty prior to the implementation of the Shoreline Management Act. Because of that Act's requirements and the environmental questions,raised by the Department of Ecology, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has temporarily ceased i.ss,uing permits. 4. Coastal Zone Management - Related Plans and Studies: Aside from ongoing plans for acquisition and development of recreation areas along the ocean beaches, several specific studies are available: a. A Report on the Future of theLong Beach Peninsula Seashore by Battelle Northwest, July 1970. This report is designed as a planning tool which the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and Pacific County,can use in evaluating alternative uses of the Peninsula. b. Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters-Boating Access by Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Boating Access Committee, January 1973. This study enumerates the available boating access areas along the Puget Sound area and outlines a program for acquisition of sites to alleviate a demonstrated need. c. Pleasure Boating Study by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, November 1968. This study generally discusses the status of pleasure boating in Puget Sound and adjacent waters and recommends expansion of facilities as needs indicate. IX-44 5. Other Difficulties.: None 6. Shoreline Management Involvement: a. Shoreline Act The Washington State Parks and.Recreation Commission and staff played no part whatsoever in the formulation and passage of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. b. Guidelines The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and commented on the guidelines as developed by the Department of Ecology by letter of April 3, 1972,. State Parks' concern at that time related to what appeared to be the possibility for long delays in the permit process. In fact, delays have occurred with nearly every project processed under SMA. c., Permits State Parks has processed applications for substantial development permits for about 100 projects to date. Copies of all pertinent correspondence are available from our offices in Olympia but due to the extremely voluminous nature are not provided. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has experienced substantial difficulty in pursuing a normal program of outdoor recreational facility improvement since the Shoreline Management Act has been in effect. -This has apparently been due to the fact that local jurisdictions responsible for enforcing the Act are most urgently concerned with local, rather than statewide, interests. Numerous projects'of regional- or statewide interest have been altered or cancelled due to adverse reactions as a result of the Shoreline Act hearing process. In actuality, only a small number of vociferous neighbors to a state park can nullify legislative mandates. In several cases, long delays have caused grossly inflated project costs. In many cases, however, local officials have concerned themselves with statewide concerns and acted affirmatively in spite of some local objection. d. Local Master Program Formulation State Parks' experiences in Master Program formulation were not particularly favorable. Some county citizen shorelines committees were heavily weighted toward preservation and opposed any development. For that reason and the fact that State Parks did not receive any staffing for Shoreline Management coordination until May 1974, it ILX-45 seemed more reasonable to respond to Master Program reviews requested by the Department of Ecology @fter they had certified that the Programs were reasonably adequate. Review of Master Programs e. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the following city/county Master Programs and responded to the Department,of Ecology: Edmonds - 3/21/74 No comment Pend Oreille County - 2/22/74 - Objections raised by Parks Grant County - 3/4/74 - Objections raised by Parks Cities in Grays Harbor County - No reply - Maps inadequate Des Moines - 2/21/74 - No comment Medina - 3/25/74 - Objections raised by Parks Mercer Island - 3/21/74 - No comment Mason County - 3/5/74 - Objections raised by Parks Cowlitz County - 3/18/74 Objections raised by Parks Wahkiakum County - 3/4/74 Objections raised by Parks Kent - 3/21/74 - No comment Normandy Park -.3/25/74 - Objections raised by Parks Auburn - 3/21/74 - No comment Soap Lake - 2/27/74 - No comment Tacoma 3/21/74 - No comment Redmond 3/25/74 - Objections raised by Parks Redmond 9/20/74 - No comment Douglas County - 8/9/74 - No comment Hunts Point - 2/27/74 - No comment Beaux Arts Village - 2/27/74 - Objections raised by Parks Lake Forest Park - 2/27/74 - No comment Moses Lake - 2/27/74 - No comment Franklin County - 3/4/74 - Objections raised by Parks Lewis County - 3/4/74 - No comment Walla Walla County - 8/9/74 - No comment Pacific County - 5/17/74 - Serious objections Chelan County - 8/9/74 - Objections raised by,Parks Okanogan County - 7/10/74 - Objections raised by Parks Kirkland - 7/8/74 - No comment Renton - 7/8/74 - No comment Klickitat County - 7/12/74 - Objections raised by Parks Bellevue - 7/18/74 - No comment Yakima County - 7/12/74 No comment Garfield County - 8/9/74 No comment Dupont 8/6/74 - No,comment Tukwila 8/27/74 - No comment Skamani'a County - 8/6/74 - No comment Jefferson County - 10/24/74 Objections raised by Parks Snohomish County - 11/l/74 No comment Clark County - 11/l/74 - Objections raised by Parks Whitman County - 12/17/74 - Objections raised by Parks Bellingham - 8/19/74 - No comment Spokane County - 9/20/74 Objections raised by Parks IX-46 The above record may not be totally inclusive but serves to demonstrate that State Parks hat attempted to assist in review. Where objections were raised, a significant conflict was evident between the local Master Program and statewide recreation. Shoreline Management Guidelines call for substantial consideration of public access and public recreational activity in Master Programs. Staff only commented adversely when a substantial conflict was evident. f. Miscellaneous The inclusion of the Shoreline Management Act within the Coastal Zone Management concept can be very valid and desirable if statewide and regional goals can be achieved. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is vitally concerned about the quality of the recreational experience of the shoreline user. For that reason, it is imperative that the shoreline areas be conserved, commensurate With reasonable development and use. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Charles Odegaard Director -sg IX-47 C. Federal Agencies 1. Agenda of Federal Agency Meeting 2. Request by DOE to Affected Federal Agencies 3. Forest Service Response 4. National Park Service Response. 5. Sample of "Packet" System with Coast Guard (still in draft form) IX-48 January 9, '1975' COAS TAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - FEDERAL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES MEETING Thursday, January 16, 1975 10:00 a.m. At: Arcade Plaza Bldg. First Floor Second Avenue Seattle 1. Presentation of Draft Management Program 2. Boundaries of Federal Jurisdictions 3. Determination of National Interest and Needs of Washington Coastal Zone 4. Federal Agency plans in Coastal Zone 5. Federal Agency 'involvement in Shoreline Management. Permits, reviews, Master Programs and other. 6. Conflict resolution and identification of existing conflicts. 7. Name of other Federal agencies and people who ought to be involved. 8. Names of people agencies in Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia, and the Pacific Northwest Region generally who should be involved. 9. Identification and description of areas of particular concern, and areas for presarvation and restoration. Please confirm attendance with Anne H. Haines - Departm ent of Ecology, Coastal Zone Management, Olympia, Washington 987#04. (206) 753-3829. AHH:ss 1X-49 January 17, 1975 Coastal Zone Management, State of Washington, Department of Ecology - Memorandum of Request TO: Federal Agencies Involved or Affected by the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program FROM: Marvin Vialle, Assistant DirectorA'', Office of Land Programs SUBJECT: Agency statements regarding Agency's Plans, Policies and Concerns in Coastal Zone and Agency's past participation in Shoreline Management. As you may know, the State of Washington will be-applying to the. Department of Commerce for section 306 approval of its Coastal Zone Management Program, We wish to insert statements .L from each af"ected Federal Agency into our application docu- ment. The purpose of this staterment is two-fold, one is to ascertain the goals, policies, plans and programs of the agency that have coastal zone connections or imiolications, and secondly, it is an effort to document the agency's*past-involv-ement with Washington's Shoreline Management Program (Shoreline Management f6r;.is the basis for our approach to Coastal Zone Management). There is an urgent need for these statements; we must have them by February 15, 1975 or earlier. They need not be long nor overly detailed. Also, it may be approprLate for various sub- agencies to prepare separate statements. We will insert state- ments from any level whether Department, Administration, Office, Service, Division or other subdivision. This is the first step in the new involvement and consultative process established by our Coastal Zone Management Program. Following is 'a suggested outline to assist the preparer of the statement. ix- so Page Two January 17, 1975 Agency Name.- Department Name: Name of Director or Chief:- Coverage of Agency's District: Statewide, Region 10, National etc. Coastal Zone Management Related Goals: This-t4ould be statements or excerpts from the agency's mission which have implications or could have imnacts on the Coastal Zone. References to Federal legislation would be appropri@Lte here. Coastal Zone Management Related Policies: These would be adopted policies or operating policies of the agency which pertain to Coastal Zone Management. Again references to Federal la%q w ould be appropriate if there are declarations of policy in the !a-...,. These can be policies the agency uses to guide.its own actions which it uses in approving, licensing, reviewing, or comme nt4 ng on proposals and plans-of others. Coastal Zone !4anagement Related Programs: This wo-,.:ld be a listing of th2 agency's programs which could affect the Coastal Zone. These would be ongoing p--ograms such as permit systems, o,:)er_=tions, field responsibilities etc. of an established nature. A brief description of the nature, coverage and important aspect-s of each wol@ld suffice. Also, a description of difficulties encountered in the execution of each prc. -,gram. This is important since resolu- tion of these difficulties is a primary objective in the Coastal Zone Management Program. Coastal Zone Management - Related Plans & Studies: This would be a list of adopted plans and expected, completed, or underway studies related to the coastal zone. All that is needed is a bibliographic reference for each.document listed plus a short description of the salient points regarding the Washington Coastal Zone. Again, problems and difficulties that arise be- yond agency ccntrol should be listed and explained. Other Difficulties: Please list other difficulties that mav not fit in the categories above. Any difference of opinion, dispute, or.other matter which the agency feels has an adverse effect on its mission. Shoreline Management Involvement S reline Act Please list Any and all involvements the agency had ho IX-51 Page Three January 1.7, 1975 AM in the initial formulation and passage of the Act. (It would help to include any letters, opinions, statements, etc. which pertain here). Guidelines Department of Ecology has adopted several sets of guidelines pursuant to-its duties under Shoreline Management. Please list all involvements here and again, if possible supply any pertintent correspondence. Permits Often Federal agencies have become involved in our Substantial Development Permit system. Please list suchin- volvements and supply copies of pertinent correspondence. Local Master Program Formulation In several cases federal agencies were consulted and involved in the formula 'tion of local Shoreline Master Programs. Again list such involvements as much as possible and supply copies of pertinent correspondence. Review of Master Program Same as above only in this case the age.ncy would have participated in the master program review process used by,Department of Ecology. Please list and document as above. Miscellaneous Please note any other Shoreline III-lanagement re- lated involvement or participation which does not fit into the above categories. If any help or clarification is needed please call Rod Mack or Murray Walsh (753-6871) in Olympia. Time is of the essence for this request, so extensive dr3cumentation on research is not desired. This consultative process will continue for some time and this is just the beginning. Thank you far any help you can give. These statements will be directly inserted into our application document and should appear as letters signed by the agency chief. MV:sc IX- 52 ""Al 0* C ,,lop *I C" U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Northwest Administrative Service Office 1700 Westlake Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 March 7, 1975 Mr. John A. Biggs, Director Department of Ecology State of Washington Olympia, Washington 98504 Dear Mr. Biggs: Attached is a response from the Seattle National Weather Service, WSFO, to your preliminary draft coastal zone management program. I am sorry for the lateness of this response and sincerely hope that it does not cause a problem. We do appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the development of your coastal zone plan. Yours truly, Daite Gough' Director Attachment IX-53 Agency Name: U, S, Forest.Service Department Name: 'Department of Agriculture Name of Director or Chief: T. A. Schlapfer Regional Forester AM Coverage of Agency's District: Oregon and Washington Pacific Northwest Region Coastal Zone Management Related Goals The Forest Service has the Federal responsibility for national. leadership in "forestry." I/ This includes participation in setting national prior- ities, formulating programs, and establishing Federal policies that relate to man and his natural environment,, especially the forest-related environment. Rangeland,,grassland, brushland, alpine areas, water areas, and wildlife habitats are included within the scope of forests and the forest-related environment. Forestry is the protection and management of this land and its natural resources for the many and varied purposes of mankind. Forests provide raw matarials for basic necessities of life as well as natural environments for many leisure and educational activities. The Forest Service seeks to attain a harmonious relation between man and his natural environment. Basic Authorities and ObAectives More than 140 Federal laws define*various Forest Service authorities. 2/ A few are particularly important to the Agency's basic mission. Creative Act of 1891 - (86 Stat. 1103; 16 USC 471) Established authority for the President of the United States to set aside public lands as public reservations. Organic Administration Act if 1897 - (30 Stat. 34, as amended; 16 USC 473-478, 479-482, 551) Established authority for Secretary of Agriculture to manage the National Forests. l/ This responsibility is delegated to the Chief of-the Forest Service under Administrative Regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (7 CFR 2.60). 2/ These laws are listed in the Forest Service Manual, Chapter 1000. The major laws are described in Forest Service "The Principal Laws Relating to the Establishment and Administration of the National Forests and to Other Forest Service Activities, I'U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 453, Revised January 1974. IX-54 2 Weeks Law of 1911 (36 Stat. 961, as amended; 16 USC 480, 500, 513-519, 521, 552, 563) Established authority for cooperation with States and for purchase of lands to add to the National Forest System, Clarke-McNary Act of 1924 - (43 Stat. 653, as amended; 16 USC 5059, 515, 564-570) Established authority for cooperative forestry programs with the States. McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928 - (45 Stat. 699, as amended; 16 USC 581, 581a, 58la-1, 58lb-581i) PL 90-193 (81 Stat. 579) Established the Forestry Research Program. Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 - (50 Stat. 525, as amended 7 USC 1010-12) Authority under which National Grasslands are administered. Forest Pest Control Act of 1947 - (61 Stat. 177; 16 USC 594-1 to 594-5) Established policy and authority for forest insect and disease control. Cooperative Forest Management Act of 1950 - (64 Stat."473, as amended; 16 USC 568c, 568d) Expanded authority for cooperation with States by providing technical assistance to landowners and timber processors, Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 215; 16 USC 528-531) Established multiple-use and sustained-yield policies, Wilderness Act of 1964 - (78 Stat. 890; 16 USC 1131-36) Established a National Wilderness Preservation System, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (PL 93-86; 87 Stat. 221). Authorized a forestry incentives program for non-industrial private land. 3 Many other Federal laws and regulations further define the purpose and conduct of particular programs. In 1970 the Forest Service specified policy guidelines and objectives in the "Framework for the Future" (Forest Service, 1970). Eleven major ob- jectives were set forth to define the overall Forest Service mission. Promote and achieve a pattern of natural resource uses that will best meet the needs of people now and in the future. Protect and improve the quality of air, water, soil, and natural beauty. Help to protect and improve the quality of the open space environ- ment in urban and community areas. Generate forestry opportunities to accelerate rural community growth. Encourage the growth and development of forestry-based enterprises that readily respond to consumers' changing needs. Seek optimum forest landownership patterns. Improve the welfare of underprivileged members of society. Involve the public in forestry policy and program formulation. Encourage the development of forestry throughout the world. Expand public understanding of environmental conservation. Develop and make available a firm scientific base for the advance- ment of forestry. These objectives provide a framework to guide Forest Service decision-making. However, they and the associated policy statements identify only the general character and scope of the role the Forest Service should play. Both the objectives and the policies require continuing evaluation. In carrying out its national forestry leadership role, the Forest,Service undertakes a wide variety of activities.. Major responsibilities include administration of the National Forest System, Cooperative State and Private Forestry Programs, Forestry Research, and Human Resource Development Programs. Coastal Zone Management Related Policies Streamside Management Units - Forest Service Manual 8223, R6 Supp. No. 21 March 1974, requires that streams and adjacent land areas, designated as IX-56 4 * Streamside Management Units(SMU), will be managed to maintain and improve water quality. This policy provides broad management direction for Na- tional Forest streams. The policies and direction should be coordinated with the States' policies and directions provided for in State laws such as the Forest Practices Act and Shoreline Management Act. The Department of Ecology was consulted on the initial preparation of the SNU guides and attended several SMU training sessions presented by the Forest Service, Non-point Pollution - Executive Order 11752 and Public Law 92-500 provide some of the basic authorities for cooperation between the States and federal agencies insofar as non-point pollution is concerned. Fish Habitat - Forest Service Manual 2630, E.D. No. 2 - This policy rein- forces and supplements the Streamsid6 Management Units policy and provides for close cooperation with StaLe game and fishery agencies. Assistance - It is the policy of the Forest Service to provide technical assistance to States. An example of this which pertains indirectly to the policies mentioned above involved the Washington State Forest Practices Act, The Forest Service has worked with the Department of Ecology in an advisory capacity on the development of the States Rules and Regulations. Recreation facilities - Forest Service Manual 1500, R6 Supp. No. 20, July 1971. This policy constitutes an agreement between the Washington State Department Wof Health and the Forest Service. It covers major areas of concern relative 0 development and operation of campground'9, picnic grounds and the like. e agreement includes the statement that the "final decision for the means of solution ofsanitation problems on National Forest lands is the respon- sibility of the Forest Service." The Forest Service is currently working with the Department of Social and Health Services on the development of another agreement to more adequately cover this area in more detail. This new agreement will focus on areas of mutual concern such as water quality and sanitation. Land Acquisition - It often becomes a landownership policy of the Forest Service to acquire public ownership of lands of National interest in the coastal zone. This policy generally stems from programs which are initiated by a specific Act of Congress. The action usually authorizes the acquisition of private land for: (1) public access to attractive water, (2) development. of recreation facilities, and/or (3) protection of sensitive physical or visual values. Acquisitions of this type are generally sponsored by a local Congressman. They are initiated by conservation or recreation oriented groups because there is adjacent National Forest lands, and because the Forest Service has the ability through existing laws to acquire or exchange for the desired land. IX-57 5 while there are no programs in Washington State the possibility exists An example of this type of legislation is Public Law 93-535 of Decembe; 22, 1974, which established the Cascade Head Scenic-Research Area as part of the Sius'law National Forest in the State of Oregon. Coastal Zone Management Related Programs Administration - The Forest Service has legislative, executive, and policy authorities for administering Forest Service waters. The State of Washington also has several legislative authorities for admin- istering practices in and adjacent to State waters (1) Forest Practices Act, (2) Shorelines Management Act, and (3) Coastal Zone Management Act. Because there is often intermingled ownership of land (private and federal) within the National Forest boundary, and since practices on these lands and their effects are not necessarily confined to the land on which they occurred, it is desirable that the administration of forest land use,practices, such as logging and,Toad construction, be coordinated with the State. Consistent application of practices to some degree is desirable since many of the timber operators cut both on,private as well as Federal lands. MiBkn .& - There is an agreement dated 3/18/71 between the Forest Service and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. The agreement is con- tained in Forest Service Manual 2803, R6 Supp. No. 5, July 1971, and defines responsibilities under the Washington Surface-Mined Land Reclamat ion Act of 1970. A coordination problem could occur when such activity falls within the Shoreline or Coastal Zone Area under the jurisdiction of the Department of Ecology. Subdivisions - Forest Service.Guidelines for granting access to private sub- division developments whenever such access is across National Forest lands is contained in Forest Service Manual 2700,, R6 Supp. Nos. 48, 49, and 50. These instructions define the criteria to be used in determining whether such access is valid, what constitutes an appropriate method of access, and how such access will be constructed. There is an opportunity for cooperation with State and local governments which may be especially productive when shorelands are involved. Forest Service Manual Instructions and other corres- pondence dealing with access have been sent to the Washington State Association of Counties., Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Washington State Association of County Officials, and the County Road.Administrative Board. Wild and Scenic Rivers Lexislation - The Forest Service has actively parti- cipated in the formulation of Washington State Legislation. Because 'of the involvement of National Forest land, Archie Mills, Planning Staff Officer, Wenatchee National Forest was appointed Forest Service representative to work IX -58 6 with the Washington State Legislature House Committee on Ecology and the Wildland Scenic Committee. The re lationship of the proposed legis- lation and the State Shoreline Management Act is a major issue. Coastal Zone Management --Related Plans and Studies Skagit River Study - A current study to determine whether or not,the desig- nated segments should be included in the National Wild and Scenic River System. One of the problems in the study is the large amount of non-federal land adjacent to the river. A management alternative based on the Washington State Shoreline Management Act-for control of the land within the proposed river corridor is currently being developed by the Mt.-Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. the State,of Washington and Skagit County, This approach to management-appears to be the solution to the problem of Federal-State coordination in instances where most of the lands are in non-federal owner- ship. Other difficulties (Permits) - Washington State has proposed incorporating permit regulations (Chapter 173-14 WAC) that would require the Federal Government to obtain a permit for substantial developments undertaken on land tot owned in fee by the Government. The Forest Service believes that its permanent easements are Federal property and should be treated in the same manner as other National Forest land. A draft memorandum of understanding has been prepared that incorporates the Forest Service Position on Federal Easements in defining each agency's res- ponsibilities under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Forest Service personnel met with Department.of Ecology Staff, May 22, 19749 following an early 1974 attempt by 'Chelan County to require a Shoreline Permit for reconstruction of the Icicle Road. The Forest Service, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, prepares an Environmental Analysis Report or Impact statement as appropriate for each timber sale or road con- struction project by a cooperator across National Forest land. This issue has not been resolved. The following correspondence is on file regarding this issue: October 9, 1974 letter to Mr. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General,, from Mr. Beeman, Acting Director, Lands and Minerals (File 1560); October 1, 1974 letter to C. Merle RoffeTbeT. Staff Director, Lands and Minerals, from Mr, Giahs Attorney; August 2 '3, 1974 letter to Mr. Beeman from Mr. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General; June 10, 1974 letter to Mr. Mack, Department of Ecology, from Mr. Beeman, Acting Assistant Regional Forester,, Lands and Minerals (File 1560). IX-59 7 Shoreline Management Involvement Shoreline Act - There was no Forest Service involvement in initial for- mulation or passage@ of the Act. Guidelines - No Forest Service involvement. Permits - See above "Other Difficulties" section regarding Coastal Zone Management. Local Master Projzram Formulation There was a considerable amount of Forest Service involvement in several of the Master Programs. This involvement has primarily been from the Na- tional Forests in Washington and often at local County meetings where the Forest Service was represented by the District Ranger and his Staff. This type of involvement was considered to be especially appropriate because of the knowledge these individuals have of local situations and problems. Specific instances of involvement are as follows. This is probably not a complete listing,. 11 - A Forest Service forester worked on Master Piograms for Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties while working for local Regional Planning Commissions under the Intergovernmental Personnel Exchange Act. Because this was a coopera- tive program with the State, some material was shared with others through- out Washington. Forest Service-Department of Natural Resources Cooperative Program placed a forester in the Office of Community Development. This individual par- ticipated in the formulation of various Master Programs throughout the State. Fi.ve different specialists from the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest served as members of technical advisory committee. Counties involved were Whatcom, Skagit, Pierce and Snohomish. Olympic National Forest Lands and Recreation Staff participated in review groups for programs in Mason, Grays Harbor (including principal municipal- ities) and Jefferson Counties. Wenatchee National Forest personnel served on Technical and Ci tizen Ad- visory Committees for Yakima, Kittitas, and Chelan Counties. Colville National Forest personnel participated in Pend Oreille and Ferry Counties. The Gifford Pinchot National Forest had a representative on the Technical Subcommittee in Clark County. IX-60 Review of Master Program The Forest Service may become involved in review of Skagit County's Master Program, since study rivers named in the Wild and Scenic River Act are involved. Skagit County has not yet submitted its Master Program for review. Wenatchee National Forest personnel were in attendance at the recent Department of Ecology Program Review meeting. IX- 61 OX United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARk SERVICE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK 000 East Park Avenue IN REPLY REFER TO! red Angeles, Washington 98362 A2427 January 24, 1975 (OLYM)S Mr. Marvin Vialle Assistant Director 'State of Washington Department of Ecology olympia,.Washington 98504 .Dear Mr. Vialle: We are pleased to respond to.your letter of January' 17. Olympic National Park administers some 50 miles of Icoastline in the State of Washington comprising the great .proportion,-of the Pacific seacoast on the Olympic Peninsula. In this area the National Pa@ck Service enjoys "exclusive jurisdiction" (state and local laws and regulations do not apply except in.reg4rds to collecting taxes and issuing warrants);'administration is by means.of federal law, policies'*and regulations as contained in various Codes of Federal"Regulations. The Service:als-o administers San Juan Island National Historical Park comprising two small parcels of land having .a combined 1-ength of about'nine miles fronting on coastal environments on San Juan Island, San Juan County, Washington. These areas are administered under concurrent jurisdiction (both federal and state laws are equally applicable). The National Park Service's mi'ssion as defined by the United States Congress in the Act of August 25, 191-6, establishing the National Park Service states that the Service will regulate the use of these federal areas "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." .This Act and subsequent federal legislation, including 0 7. 76 Lefs Clean Up America For Our 2001h Wirthday IX-62 most particularly the Acts establishing Olympic National Park, dated June 29, 1938, (52 Stat. 1241), and subsequent proclamations enlarging the Park, and (80 Stat. 737), 1966, establishing San Juan Island National Historical Park as well as such other federal laws and statutes as the Antiquity Act, 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, Public Law 89-249 establishing concessions policies, a great listing of federal regulations and federal law pertaining to manage- ment of federal properties and interests (e.g. environmental legislation), even extending to international Conventions such as Treaty Series 981 between the United States and other American Republics covering nature protection and wildlife preservation in the Western Hemisphere, give legislative direction to our administration. Additionally, of course, National Park Service Administrative .Policies as defined by the Director*of the National Park Service and approved by the Secretary of the Interior give decision to our activities. Some.of these policies are .in the form of advisory board reports to the Secretary, as adopted and encompassed within policy dicta; others have evolved or have been sustained from early correspond- ence between the Director and the Secretary extending back to the very first days of the National Park Service. The Park issues permits and contracts, as appropriate, -to provide for privately owned developments and commercial use within the Park,_in accordance with policy to achieve the mission of the Service. A copy of Administrative Policies for Natural Areas of the National Park System, tevised 1970), as currently in force, can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Olympic National Park currently provides visitor and resource protection within the coastal zone above high water line from about one mile north of the mouth of the Queets River to Ozette (Indian Reservation lands excluded), and exercises full control over all developments within our jurisdiction. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with.the State Parks and Recreation Commissi.on we conduct interpretive walks and talks in the beach area below high water, provide beach cleanup, trail maintenance and construction and by means of "deputy" commissions exercise a law enforcement presence on the statelowned beach lands. The highway right-of-way between Ruby Beach and Kalaloch is under the joint administration of the State and the National Park Service. IX-63 The only real difficulty encountered in the.management of existing cooperative National Park Service programs in this area is that our personnel do not have liability bonding when acting under state law in effecting enforce- ment actions on the beaches. Additionally, it would be desirable for state and federal programs, 'projects and regulations providing for public use and wildlife and other resource protection within the coastal area to be more closely coordinated. There are no coordinating problems in the San juans. Olympic National Park has recently completed its wilderness and master plans and related environmental statements. It is expected the master plan will be approved and made public within the next few weeks. The wilderness plan has been approved through the various levels of administration and is now,awaiting action by the U.S. Congress. It is proposed in the wilderness plan that-the portion of coastal park north of the Hoh River be designated a Uwilderness." The.master plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park is currently under study. This.area is not being considered for wilderness. Joint activities and cooperative actions between the federal and state governments are largely,related to ecological research. In the San!Juan area the Park and the University of Washington are engaged in estuarine studies and joint investigations.and regulations have been promulgated'in regard to clams. In Olympic National Park the University of Washington is under permit todevelop an interpretive prospectus for the coastal area. Add 'itlonally, baseline ecological research is scheduled for early consideration. Personnel from b,oth Olympic National Park and San Juan Island National Historical Park have-been observers or informally involved at hearings and work sessions involved in the development of shorelines management plans for their IX-64 respective counties. Formal participation has not been necessary inasmuch as constant contact with state and local planning personnel have assured appropriate zoning and consideration of the federal interests. Sincerely yours, /Ro6gWerW.aAllin Superintendent IX-65 APPENDIX D. SAMPLE PACKET--FEDERAL/STATE CZM SYSTEM INTRODUCTION determination of national interest for federal facilities; (6) the process for determination of The packet system is intended to become a consistency of federal CZM activities with state primary instrument of understanding and coordina- programs; (1) a discussion of CZM-related.facility tion between federal and state official counterparts developments by the federal agency and their as they each relate to their responsibilities under consistency with state interests; (8) a discussion coastal zone management. The packets have been of the agency's regulatory functions with CZM prepared to identify ten elements of basic informa- relevance; (9) a discussion of any grant programs tion although it is recognized that the 47 federal offered and their consistency with state interests; agencies which have coastal responsibilities do not and (10) maps of areas within the coastal zone all fit neatly into the packet pattern. The ten basic under jurisdiction of the federal agency. elements within the packet system include: (1) a Statement of DOE policy as it relates to the agency's The sample packet included in this appendix has federal coastal zone management resposibilities; been prepared on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wild- (2) the federal agency's organization and specific life Service. However, please note that the v&sion areas of involvement in the CZM process; (3) a contained berein-is-only a draft and bas not been statement of the federal agency's mission and its reviewed and approved by the Nib and Wildlife CZM implications; (4) mechanisms providing for Service. Likewise, the policy statement by DOE CZM coordination and input from the state on (packet element # 1) is at this time only a draft. federal plans, policies and programs; (1) the process DOE will initiate discussion in the weeks ahead througk which each agency provides an opportunity to further refine the packet system and its for the state to understand and participate in the implications. for the various federal agencies. IX-66 December 1, 1975 neral Policy The overriding philosophy of the State of Washington is that the coastal zone is among the most valuable of resources and,that a comprehensive and coordinated program of management is essential to prevent damages resulting from uncoordinated and piecemeal development. This philosophy presumes that the coastal resource be viewed.as an interrelated unit, irrespective of ownership, jurisdiction or current individual agency goals and policies. The overall approach to be used by the state in pursuing coastal zone objectives is that both federal and state interests must be recognized and that there is a local, state, and national interest in the use and. conservation of the coastal resources. Additionally, it is a policy of the state that where federal or interstate agency plans, activities,, or procedures conflict with state policies, all reasonable steps available shall be taken by the state to preserve the integrity of its policies. (Chapter 90.58.260 RCW.) This policy is consistent with and reinforces the policy contained in the Coastal Zone Management Act to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively-their responsibilities in the coastal zone. In enacting the CZM Act of 1972, Congress acknowledged that there is a direct national interest in the effective manigement of the coastal zone and that its carefully planned development, protection,. and public use is of concern to all of the citizens of the United States. Nationwide public interest is manifested many ways: through the use of the coastal zone for international commerce, for national defense and security, for active and passive recreational pursuits, and in recognition of the com- plex and interrelated natural systems and the use of man-modified segments of the coastal zone. In response to the need for recognizing the national interest in the state program, extensive consultation and coordination has been under- taken with federal agencies within a comprehensive management framework to insure that the missions, responsibilities, and activities of those agencies, and their perceptions of the national interest, are recognized in the program. National defense'and securityj for example, are among the highest priority of uses of Washington's coastal zone. Similarly, the needs and concerns of a broad spectrum of federal agencies such as the National Park Service, the Federal Energy Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Coast Guard are recognized and reflected in the program. IX-67 It is the intent and desire of the state to minimize any form of adver- sary confrontation.when the legislative responsibilities and duties of one agency conflict with those of the state CZM program. Every effort will be exhausted through communication and informal channels before resorting to formal procedures for conflict resolution. Federal Consultation and Coordination The state will make a continued effort to better understand federal interests and proposed federal actions and to better make its interests known to federal agncies. The State/Federal Coastal Zone Management Coordinative Packet System has been designed specifically to ensure that a basis for considering individual agencies needs and concerns is estab- lished and maintained in the future. The system, developed and main- tained jointly between the individual agencies and the State's Department of Ecology, is intended to provide a conti .nu.ing mechanism to issure a mutual understanding of one another's programs. The objective of.each packet ii to arrive at the understanding with each affected agency, that thestate does, in fact, have the necessary informa- tion to take into account the national interest in its coastal zone program. Moreover, the packet is intended to provide the federal agency a basic understanding of how the state perceiives federal interests. When the state does, in fact, have the information necessary to take into account the national interest in the coastal zone program, the packet system will also have provided the federal agency with a recipro- cal understanding of-how to perceive the state's interest. 'For the above Purposes, the packets will be subject to continual updating and elaboration as subjects arise which warrant more specific and concise understandings. For these reasons the state will, to the maximum extent feasible, assure that the program is carried out in a cooperative and coordinated manner. Excluded Lands and the Coastal Zone Boundary The'Coastal Zone Management Act excludes from the coastal zone lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents." It is presumed that the definition applies to both military as well as nonmilitary lands. It is the position of the state that irrespective of flexclusion," developments and activities on those lands should be under- taken with cognizance of and, to the maximum extent practicable, the spirit, intent and policy of the state program and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. Excluded lands are considered to be those owned in fee by the federal government or held in trust, but-do not include such trust or fee lands IX-68 where the federal government or a court of appropriate jurisdiction has granted or reserved unto the state or its local governments substantial jurisdiction over land and water uses. The decision to approve, disapprove, or condition nonfederal activities and developments proposed adjacent to excluded lands, but not on those lands, should be made only after appropriate consideration of the poten- tial impact of that activity or development on the excluded lands, and the national interest in activities thereon. Developments and activities of federal agencies are not considered to be subject to state or local permit systems when those developments and activities take place on excluded lands. Provided, that federal agen- cies are subject to congressionally-mandated, state-operated pertfiit systems without regard to land ownership when such is required by speci- fic federal law or ruling of federal court. Permit systems shall apply to nonfederal activities and developments undertaken on lands subject to nonfederal ownership, lease or easement, even though such lands may fall within the external boundaries of a federal ownership. The Determination of Consistency of Federal Activities and Developments The state will make a continued effort to define, after mutual agreement with the concerned federal agency, which activities and developments are subject to the relevant consistency requirements of section 307. In the interim, before joint agreements have been consumated, it shall be the ' responsibility of the federal agency to examine the activity in light of the findings embodied in section 302 and.the policies embodied in section 303 of the CZMA and determine if the activity "directly affects" the coastal zone of the state. At a minimum, those activities located in the "Resource Boundary" found.in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program shall be considered to directly affect the coastal zone. Fur- ther, the state should be notified of all such determinations for pro- posed new activities or proposed substantial alterations in existing activities outside the resource boundary, but having a direct and signifi- cant impact on the area encompassed by the resource boundary. The resource boundary is defined as those wetlands under the jurisdic- tion of the S'horeline Management Act of 1971 which basically includes the marine waters and their associated wetlands, and those uplands 200 feet back from the ordinary highwater mark. This is' considered to be the primary or first tier resource boundary. The second tier, or admin- istrative boundary, is the fifteen coastal counties which abut marine waters, including Wahkiakum County on the Columbia River Estuary. IX-69 It shall be the responsibility of the federal agency, assisted by the state, to determine that a proposed development, or activity is consis- tent with WCZ11P. Notification of such determination to the state shall be the responsibility of the federal agency. The state will work with affected federal agencies through the informational packet exchange system to arrive at mutually agreed upon mechanisms of notification. State Role in Determination of Consistency For Coastal Zone Management purposes, determination of consistency, and any determination relating to the process of permit and license certifi- cation, shall also be undertaken by the State of Washington (Department of Ecology) with the federal agency involved, either jointly or by methods proposed in the packets or established at a later date. The state iqill be responsible for assuring that local desires and concerns are considered by the state in determining the consistency and conformity of federal developments, grants, activities, and in the certification of licenses and permits. Consistency of Federal Permits and Licenses The policy of the state is that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct an activity affecting land and water uses in the coastal zone shall provide the federal agency certification that the proposed activity complies with the state program. The applicant will be responsible for providing the state a copy of the certification. Methods for determining which. activities are subject-to the certifica- tion process and how applicants will be informed of the need to certify will be developed mutually through the packet information system. The state will make every effort to notify the concerned federal agency that the state concurs with or objects to the applicants certification. Consistency of Federal Grants State and local government requests for federal assistance shall be consistent with the state program. Local and state government will furnish their views to the federal agency as to the relationship of such federally-funded activities to the approved state program. The primary mechanism for notification to the state shall be the use of, and consis- tency with, the procedures of title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooper- ation Act of 1968 (the A-95 process). .IX-70 Element POLICY (cont'd) Specific Policy on U.S. Coast Guard Concerns The state acknowledges the language and intent of Section 307(e), to. wit: "Nothing in this title shall,be construed to diminish either federal or state jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control of water resources, submerged lands, or navigable waters; "and does not expect to manage traditional Coast Guard operations on or in coastal waters in any way. It is ex- pected, however, Coast Guard actions in these areas will be consistent with the CZMP to the maximum extent practicable. U.S. Coast Guard continuing participation in the CZMP processes will, in part, result from reviews'and comments.on local agency shoreline master programs. These reviews will be facilitated by membership of the DOT SECREP on the local Shoreline Master Program Review Task Force. The state recognizes that: 1. In case of serious disagreement between any federal agency and the state in development of the program, mediation is by the Secretary of Commerce in cooperation with the Executive 5"ffice of tbP.Presidpnt. 2. Any federal agency undertaking a development project in the coastal zone shall insure@(for itself) that the project is consis- tent to the maximum practicable@extent with CZMP. 3. Federal agencies shall not approve proposedprojects (of Qtate and local governments) that-are inconsistent with the statL-'s CZMP, except upon a finding'by_the Secretary of Commercf- that the project is consistent or necessary in the interest of national security. Coast Guard elevation of problems needing resolution by the Secretary of Commerce will be through channels, i.e., through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Secretary of Transportation. IX-71 Element POLICY (cont'd) 100 Policy statement about the state/federal relationship enunciated by the Secretary of Transportation and operative for the U.S. Coast Guard: NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION INTEREST IN THE COASTAL ZONE The development of a balanced national transportation system, including well articulated and integrated surface, air, water, and subsurface modes, is a primary element of the national interest. Transportation corridors, inland and coastal ports, and transportation support facili- ties are necessary adjuncts to such a system. Mien essential in the national interest, the construction, maintenance and improvement of present and future transportation systems on and under the surface of the land, on and under those waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and in the air, shall predominateover less essential interests. The national transportation interest is applicable in the coastal zone. It finds expression in the body of federal laws, regulations and the related programs that influence, shape and support the development and functioning of the naLion's tranc-portation system. Basic to'rhis body 0 of law is the Congressional Declaration of Purpose in the Department of Transportation Act (49 USC 1651): "The Congress hereby declares thAt the general welfare, the eco- nomic growth and stability of the Nation and its security require the development of national 'transportation policies and programs conducive to the provision of fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the lowest cost consistent therewith and with other national objectives, including the efficient utilization and conservation of the Nation's resources." The body of federal transportation law (see attachment) provides for both direct federal actions and federal programs or assistance to state and local government. Direct programs include deepwater port regulatory programs and maritime safety, navigation, and marine pollution programs administered by the United States Coast Guard; air traffic control and air navigation pro- grams administered by the Federal Aviation Administration; 'road con- struction programs in federal lands administered by the Federal Highway Administration; rail safety regulations administered by the Federal. Railroad Administration; pipeline safety.regulations admini*stered by the Materials Transportation Bureau; a cargo security program focused in large part on the nation's principal ports; and operation of the St. 0 Lawrence Seaway by the St, Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. The 0 IX-72 Element POLICY (cont'd) national interest in the coastal zone is based on the body of law gov- erning these programs. Each of these direct federal transportation programs has some impact on at least some portion of the coastal zone. Coastal zone management programs should include explicit acknowledgment of and adherence to existing and future national interest in each of these direct transportation programs. Federal assistance programs include federal grants and loans to state and local government for airport construction, highway construction, railroad financial aid, urban mass transportation construction and operation, and for highway traffic safety. States and localities are involved in these assistance programs, not as mere instruments of,fed- eral action, but as policy centers in their own right, with wide lati- tude to shape the transportation systems to serve local needs. But federal statutes governing these assistance programs include constraints reflecting the national interest, such as protection of parklands, and reduction of air, noise, and water pollution. In varying degrees, all .federal transportation assistance programs entail the weighing of national and state-local interests. Coastal zone management programs should reflect coordination with and consideration of transportation facilitiesand programs developed and planned with federal assistance by state and local government. In the application of direct federal transportation prograr-9 and federal ,transportation assistance programs, it is in the national interest to provide fast, safe, efficient, and convenient access via one or more modes of transportation (e.g., airway, highway, railway, waterway, bicycle, pedestrian) for the movement of people, goods, and services to, from, along, and through the coastal zone for purposes including,-,- but not limited to the following: a. providing for the national defense (e.g., access to military installations and ports of embarkation) b. maintaining the public safety and welfare (e.g., hurricane evacuation routes) C. managing public lands in the coastal zone (e.g., access to wildlife sanctuaries) d. providing for public recreation (e.g., beach access) e. facilitating interstate and international commerce (e.g., access to seaports) f. developing and using natural resources in the coastal zone and the outer continental shelf (e.g., oil, fisheries). IX-73 Element PO LICY (cont'd) The national interest related to the different and varying conditions that exist in the coastal zones of the several coastal state-, will be more specifically addressed as each coastal state consults with the Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation during the development of their respective coastal zone programs. ATTACHMENT The body of federal law-governing transportation programs with existing or potential impact on the coastal zone, and administered in whole or in part by the U.S. Department of Transportation includes, but is not limited to: Department of Transportation Act (49 USC 1651, et seq.) Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1958, as amended (49 USC 1301, et seq.) Airport and Airways Development Act (49 USC 1701, et seq.@ Title 23, USC, "Highways," Section 101, et.seq. Urban Mass Transportation Act (49 USC 1601, et seq.) Railway Safety Act of 1970 (45 USC 421) Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-236) Water Resources Planning Act (42 USC 1962) Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 USC 1151) Ports and Waterways Safety Act ef 1972 (33 USC 1221-1227, 46 USC 391a) Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 USC 1501) Outer Continental Shelf Act (43 USC 1331-1343) Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 USC 1431, 33 USC 1401) Coast Guard, Primary Duties (14 USC 2) National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 USC 1381, et seq.) Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended (23 USC 401, et seq.) Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Act of 1954, as amended (33 USC 981, et seq.) Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (49 USC f671, et seq.) Transportation of Explosives Act (18 USC 831-835) Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 USC 1801-1811) IX-74 Element #2 A CHART OF YOUR FEDERAL AGENCY WHICH, INCLUDES REGIONAL AS WELL AS NATIONAL INFORMATION, NAMES OF KEY CONTACT PEO- PLE AND A CODING FOR SPECIFIC AREAS OF INVOLVEMENT. The aim of this element is to reflect the existing interrelationships between levels of government. The 306 document describes the two networks, federal and state. Charts below illustrate the bigger picture relating to the one-to-one relationship described in this packet. The big picture in the 306 document requires a bulky appendix to merely give thumbnail descriptions; to add the substance of all packets would have required 800 pages. These charts below help us to understand where our coastal responsibilities lie. First, note the tabulation of all 47 federal entities on page 2-2; next show your federal and regional organization as it relates to coastal functions. Then consider the state-table of organization and where within the Department of Ecology structure coastal zone management functions are entrusted. To amplify this preliminary pocket, you may be able to offer us better exhibits that reflect your specific interrelation- ships, existing or needed. Later, we hope that a three-dimensional perspective may evolve to give a better feel for the webs of coordination and participation from which more effective coastal management will result. ELEMENT REFERENCES 923.31 Full participation by relevant Adopted Under Section 306 RULES AND REGULATIONS bodies in the adoption of manage- ment programs. carry out the policies enumerated in sec- (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the ment program shall be accompanied by a t1on 303 of the Act. requirement contained in Section 306(c) list identifying the agencies and organi- (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec- (1), the management program must zations referred to in paragraph (a)(2) tion 306 (c)(1): show evidence that: of this section, the nature of their in- Prior to granting approval of a manage- (1) The mangaement prgram has terest, and the opportunities afforded ment program submitted by a coastal State. been formally adopted in accordance such agencies and organizations to par- the Secretary shall find that ... the State with State law or, in its abcence, admin- ticipate in the development of the man- has developed and adopted a management istrative regulations: agement program. These organizations program for its coastal zone in accordance (2) The State has notified and pro- should include those identified pursuant with rules and regulations promitated by v1ded an opportunity for full participa- to 923.12. which have developed local. the Secretary. after notice, and with the op- tion in the development of its manage- areawide or interstate plans appirable portunity of full participation by relevant ment program to all public and private agencies and organizations which are li- Federal agencies. State agencies, local gov- able to be affected by, or may have a to an area within the coastal zone of the ernments, regional organizations. port au- direct interest in, the management pro- State as of Januiry 1 of the year in which gram. The submission of the manage- thorities, and other interested parties, pub- the management program s submitted lic and private, which is adequate to carry for approval: and out the purposes of this title and is consist- (3) The management program will ent with the policy declared to section 303 of this title. FEDRAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6--THRSDAY JANUARY 9, 1975 (PLEASE ATTACH & CODE OTHER SHEETS FOR MORE EXPLANATION) IX-75 11-24-75 FEDERAL COORDINATION in the WASHINGTON STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICE C)F THE PRESIDENT Office of Management and Budget Council on Environmental Quality Federal Property Council Energy Resources Council INTERAGENCY ORGANIZATION'S Federal Regional Council Pacific Northwest River Bosins Commission Pacific Northwest Regional Council DEPARTN--ENTS AGRICULTURE COMMERCE DEFENSE INTERIOR TRANSPORTATION Fa;r,-iers Home Admin. Economic Developmgnt Corps of Engineers Bureau of Indian Coast Guard Rural Electrification Administration Navy Affairs Federal Aviation Administration Maritime Administration Administration Army Bonneville Power Agricultural Stabolizotion National Oceanic and Air Force Administration Federal Highway and Conservation Sv. Atmospheric Administration Bureau of Land Administration Forest Service Notionai Marine Fisheries Managemen't Federal Railroad Soil Conservation Sv. Service Bureau of Outdoor Administration Recreation National Highway Fish and Wildlife Traffic Safety HEALTH ED. HOUSI IG and Service Administration and WELFARE URBAN DEVEL. Bureau of Reclamation Urban Mass Trans- Notional Park portation Admin. Service Office of Pipeline Bureau of Mines Safety Geological Survey INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Energy Research and Development Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission En-,,ironmental Protection Agency Small Business AdminIstrction Federal Energy Administration Advisory Council on Historic Preservation @n @ine,]r, Federal Maritine Commission Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission (interstate compact) Federal Power Commission General Services* Administration 11-26-75 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DF,UTY L-NR SKRETARY JECKMAT DEP'.rrY SECkETARY fc@ i"Y'rT Jtmo-p icyltAm ordww DFPLM $ECWARY 0, OFM OF 10CUTTY1 CoNrocl API.-W lu lf4Z CIVIL RoGm slcRriAMT WAkD I ASSSMW SKRETARY FO Mf'Y. ILANS AND .&MMAT.AU AFF@kS C, wr. LAv:sKjicv 20W@-Y CiML00-11r. CCP.".7" W4 PAC;FiC, AREA VicE AomjvtpL .1osSM4 J. MeLAZZ4 AND DOT 5'i-: /Z c ILI RF-AR ADm.C.A. RicHmmb.,3r. Co t,% rn it rd c r Coyvk4 Person III Mr- GeorSe F/etwr% 3r04 F-ederAl 11-r 2--d Ave. se".file) WA 18104 4-4 2. - Arcit of invdvement: All Coastal Zvji- Irtfercif-I o @, f-he v. @f. C0,57f 6cmra? /h -the :5*n-te c4 Washirigton. IX- 77 KDR A y 'I-" AND [email protected] ffAFF C I F i @C, @R.- A WASHINGTON STATE GOVERNMENT Basic Organization for Coastal Zone Management ELECTORATE LEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL OTHERSTATE ELECTED HOUSEOF OFF4CES REPRESENTATIVES SENATE SUPREME CO GOVERNOR OFFICE OF OFFICE OF PROGRAM COURT OF COMMUNITY OFFICE OF THE PLANNING & APPEALS DEVELOPMENT FISCAL (PCAA) GOVERNOR NIANAGEMIENT SUPERIOR r COURT AGENCIES, DEPA117.1. ENTS, BOARDS,, COMMISSIONS & COUNCILS OF STATE GOVERNMENT BY MAJOR GROUPING NATURAL GENIZRAL HUMAN RESOURCES v. GOVERNMENT RESOURCES RECREATION DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF INTEFIAGENCY CoiM- SERVICES ECOLOGY NUTTEE FOR OU" EDUCATION DOOR RE CUR ECAT I vi4 OEPARTiMENT OF OCEANOGRAPHIC NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY & STATEP RKS& DEPARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECREATION AGRICLLtTURE COMMISSION, DEPART ENT OF DEPARTV.'.zNT .OF THER-JAL KWER L EMERGENCY FISHERIES PLANT SITE E%IALUA- ISERVICES TION COUNCIL DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF SHORELINES HIGH1.1JAYS GAME HEARINGS BOARD T DEPARTMENT OF UC@O .0 POLLUTION CONrROL MOTOR VEHICL HEARINGS BOARD MIC DEVELOPM T L S CarvirvIER &E N EN COUNCIL ON ENVI- STATE CZM ORGANIZATIONS RONMENTAL POLICY IX-78 'JU = E A DNJPRRTI@ @EE GE , RVIC SE ES OEP TM =HI G H@.@J A Y F S E] R T"' rvl IvI E RC LP01 @IC 0 EV E U -xi - - - - - - - - - - - C =0 -1 rn > 0 < < = i-- 0 ==rn >m rmn M m rn C3 2 CD m C, rr m 0 :3 L------- i a < 1 0 RZ rn 9 m X -4 m m m Lp > 2 > n > I M > C3 .0 W rn -4 CA rm H. rn 31 cn C/3 -i ta: w sa I T 1 -0 t-4. Ir a q V) a 0 M aa C, = m I, CO 0 -i cl H Ej rn CD -0 m z r1i m .1i co a --4 m > I tr ::J r- CO -n -f C) @- (r, 0 > rn M m > m ro CA M rm C% < (r - L-------- -I CN ,-A 0 low ram CD > > r- > > M. rn > r" > r-I > Cl m m cn cl > > -n -n > > cn C-) rm en -M CD C-3 F, -n r- Z! - cc -4 r- > cl. CA U = = rm (n rm T, rl & ------ A = M > -M rn =!' rm z CA ca Element CHARTS (cont'd.) 7he state of Washington, Dcpartment of Ecology, recognizes that an under- standing of federal missions and existing coordination mechanisms are essential for good coastal management. The tables of organization reflect levels of hierarchy and interaction already taking place. The narrative in this packet attempts to underscore the what, how and why of these inter- relationships so that any modifications in coordination and participation practices will be consistent with the well-functioning mechanisms found operative as CZM begins at the state level. At the presidential executive level several coordination monitoring instrumentalities exist. While no packet is written about UMB, CEQ, FPC, and ERC, four (4) appear at the head ofthe table. Because none have regional administrative rolks to interface with DOE, all federal depart- ments and independent ag ,encies must ba coordinatively responsive to these levels of executive oversight. Clearly, these four (4) tend to control their respective functions. The 306 document and appendices highlight their significance to coastal management and repetition is not warranted here. Counterparts to this federal oversight at the executive level occur in the state network. The 306 text illustrates how coordination in the broad sense occurs for: a) 0148 nrogrnm reviews such ns the. A-95 process with cor=ents and revi@ws occurring through OPPFIT and OCD, b) CEQ administration of NEPA thro ugh the.circulation of an environ- mental impact statement (EIS) occurs through the state and parallel to the SEPA/EIS functions administered by DOE, c) FPC oversight on propert@ disposal and transfer on a policy basis occurs in parallel through the Governor's sub-cabinet on natural resources, and d) ERC oversight on overall energy policy is paralleled by TPPSEC and the new office being established by the Governor,as may affect the use of the coastal zone. 11/24/75 IX-80 Element A STATEMENT ABOUT THE "MISSION" OF YOUR AGENCY AND THE CZM IMPLICATIONS OF THAT MlSSION. The following information was excerpted from detailed information pro- vided by C. A. Richmond, Jr., Rear Admiral, USCG, Commander, 13th Coast Guard District, by letter of 19 March 1975. More detail is available in a "Coast Guard Jacket" maintained at the Department of Ecology. Transportation 3.21 April 1, 1967 the Coast Guard with those powers, functions and duties relating to the Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of Transportation (49 USC 1655)from the Department of the Treasury. Under the Department of the Treasury, the Coast Guard developed by transfers and combining of agencies and their functions (14 USC 2) the result was an evolved agency much as now exists. 4. Coastal Zone Management Related Goals 4.1 JURISDICTION 4.11 Primary duties (14 USC 2) "The Coast Guard shall enforce ur assist in the enforcement of all applicable federal laws upon the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; shall administer laws are promulgate and enforce regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property on the high seas and on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States covering all matters not specifically delegated by law to some other executive department; shall develop, establish, maintain, and operate with due regard to the requirements of national defense, aids to maritime navigation, ice-breaking facilities, and rescue facilities for ELEMENT REFERENCES The mission of each agency is set forth in the enabling legislation. Appropriate citations of the Act, and amendments, administrative codes, any application or review procedures are appropriate ior an underztanding of how a particular mission relates to the coastal zone interests oi others. Excerpts from relevant documents should be highlighted so that a "marked file" is secured from each affected juris- diction. That file will become part of the DOZ: looseleaf reference system. Several programs of coastal zone significance have operational state/federal counterparts. Federally funded/state administrated "pass-through" arrangements are examples. The magnitude and operational relationship of any joint-jurisdic- tional efforts as relate to CZM should be summarized. Policy documents, plans, and progrimas should be available to broaden the understanding and to harmonize consistency between related missions of other agencies, federal or state. (PLEASE ATTACH & CODE OTHER SHEETS FOR MORE EXPLANATION) IX-81 Element MISSION, (cont'd.) the promotion of safety on and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and shall maintain a state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the Navy in time of war. August 4, 1949, c. 393, S 1, 63 Stat. 496.1' HISTORICAL NOTE Revision Note. This section defines in general terms, for the first time in any statute, all the primary duties of the Coast Guard. It is derived from Title 14, USC,.1946 ed., Title 46 USC 1946 ed. This section contains a codification of functions. It sets forth in general language the primary responsibilities of the Coast Guard: enforcement of all federal laws on waters to which they have applica- tion, safety of life and property at sea, aiding navigation, Section 3 of this title. CROSS REFERENCES Aids to navigation authorized, see Section'81 of this Title. Ice and derelict patrol, see Section 738a of Title.46, Shipping. Jurisdiction, waters under jurisdiction of Coast Guard, see Section 89(a) of this Title. Saving life and property, see Section 88 of th is Title. S 89. Law enforcement (14 USC 89) (a) The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the preven- tion, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. (For such purposes., shall be seized). (b) The officers of the Coast Guard i-iisofar as they are engaged, pursuant to the authority contained in this section, in enforc- ing any law of the United States shall: (1) be deemed to be acting as agents of the particular ex.ecu- tive department or independent establishment charged :with the administration of the particular law; and (2) be subject to all the rules and regulations promulgated by such department or independent establishment with respect to the enforcement of that law. IX-82 Element MISSION (contd.) (c) The provisions of this section are in addition to any powers .conferred by law upon Such officers, and not in li7odtation of any powers conferred by law upon such officers, or any other officers of the United States IX-83 MISSION (corif'd.) C 0 M M I T M E N T The state of Washington, Department of Ecology, recognizes that coordination coming from participation must also relate to,'the federal interagency organizations. Three interagency organizations are described in the 306 document text: (1) the Federal Regional Council, PRC, (2) the Pacific Northwest River Basins Cormission, RRC, and (3) the Pacific Northwest (3-Governor) Regional Commission, PNNRC. . Packets are prepared on each, and there may be an interrelationship between them and the elements that follow for your agency. Insofar as mission for your agency is concerned, and to the extent that interrelationship with, or between, these three interagency organizations 0 is important, the DOE takes cognizance here. The three organizations seem important for continuance of participation and coordination as follows: a) FRC .... can be helpful in coastal management as a federal "one- voice" on problems and issues that require a consensus for consistency purposes. b) RBC .... can be helpful from the standpoint of a joint federal./state focus on technical applicaticrig of standarris and pri.nciple!3 of Liult-'-purp-jse character stemming from the Water 1H.'source Council mandates within interests fostered by the Department of Interior, and c) PNWRC .... can be helpful if their preliminary plan evolves to aid both state and federal "line oDerations" with coastal policy including criteria and constraints for both growth and energy questions voiced loy some federal entities heretofore. @L-moranda of.understanding or process, if necessary, vertically between the:,,3tate and your federal agency in this region, should outline whatever consistency and certification steps seem prudent for timely and responsive inter-action between your office and the DOE on a case-by-case basis. This may require extensive considerations through the 1976 program period. 11/24/75 IX-84 Element A DISCUSSION OF THE "PLANS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS" OF YOUR AGENCY RELEVANT TO CZM, AND A PR0POSESED METHODOLOGY DE- SIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO IT, BY WHICH COORDINATION AND CON- SULTATION MAY OCCUR BETWEEN YOUR AGENCY AND THE STATE. The following information was excerpted from detailed information pro- vided by the Commander, 13th Coast Guard District, by letter of 19 March 1975. More detail is available in.a "Coast Guard Jacket" maintained at the Department of Ecology. 5. Coastal Zone Management Related Policies 5.1 Policy matters pertaining to the Coast Guard are found in part within Title 14, United States Code. 5.2 Policy (14 USC 93) "Commandant; general powers For the purpose of executing the duties and functions of the Coast Guard the Commandant may: (a) maintain water, land, and air patrols, and ice-breaking facilities; (b) establish and prescribe the purpose of, change the location of, consolidate, discontinue, re-establish, maintain, operate, and repair Coast Guard shore establishments; (c) assign vessels, aircraft, vehicles, aids to navigation, equip- ment, applicances and supplies to Coast Guard districts and shore estab- lishments, and transfer any of the foregoing from one district or shore establishment to another; ELEMENT REFERENCES 923.32 Consultation and coordination Adoption Under Section 306 with other planning. (a) Requirement. In order to fullfill the (4) Indicactin that a regular consul- requirements contained in section 300 (c) tive mechanism has been established and Secretary: which plans have been developed (2) the management program must in- is active, to undertake coordination be- by a local government, an areawide agency clude: tween the singel State agency designated designated pursuant to regulations estab- (1) An identification of those entitles pursuant to 923.23. and the entities in lished under section 204 of the Demonstra- mentioned which have plans in effect on paragraph (B) of Section 306 (c) (2). tion cities and Metropolitan Development January 1 of the year submitted, (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Act of 1905, a regional agency, of an later- (2)A listing of the specific contacts Section 306 (c) (2): state agency: and made with all such entities in order to "Prior to granting approval of a manage (B) Established an effective archanism coordinate the management program ment program submitted by a coastal State. for continuine consultating and coordina- with their plans the Secretary shall and...that the State tion between the management agency desig- (3) An identification of the conflicts has: nated pursuant to paragraph (5) of this with those plans which have not been (a) Coordinated its program with loca- subscription and with local governments. resolved through coordination, and con- areawide and interstate plans appligable to local agencies, regional agencies and tinuing resolve them. and areas within the coastal zone starting on areaside agencies within the coastal zone to January 1 of the year in which the State's assure the full participation of areas local management program is submitted to the governments and agencies in carrying out the purposes of this title." FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 40. NO. 40-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975 (PLEASE ATTACH & CODE OTHER SHEETS FOR MORE EXPLANATION) IX-85 Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) (d) conduct experimerits, investigate, or cause to be investigated, plans, devices, and inventions relating to the performanceof any Coast Guard function and cooperate and courdinate such activities with other Government agencies and with private agencies; (e) conduct any investigations or studies that may be of assistance to the Coast Guard in the,performance of any of its powers, duties, or functions; (f) collect, publish, and distribute information concerning Coast Guard operations; (g) conduct or make available to personnel of the Coast Guard such specialized training and courses of instruction, including correspondence courses, as may be necessary or desirable for the good of the service; (h) design or cause to be designed, cause to be constructed, accept as gift, or otherwise acquire patrol boats and other small craft, equip, operate, maintain, supply, and repair such patrol boats, other small craft, aircraft, and vehicles, and subject to applicable regulations under the Federal Property and Administrative Services,Act of 1949, as amended, dispose of them; (i) acquire, accept as gift, maintain, repair, and discontinue aids to naviga- "ion, appl@ances, equipment, and supplies; Q) equip, operate, maintain, supply, and repair Coast Guard districts and shore establishments." 6. Coastal Zone Management Related Programs. Contained within this section are pro grams which have been authorized and are included in present or future funding programs. Reference is shown for aut 'horizing legislation and/or applicable-pertinent section of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 128, 16 USC 1451-1464). 6.1 The law requires Coast Guard goals, programs and projects must include planning to minimize potential adverse impact. 6.11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT (PUBLIC LAW 89-670; 80 STAT. 931) "AN ACT, TO ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORfATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Be it enacted by the Senate'and House of Representatives of the United Stat6s of America in Congress assembled, That: . . . . . . This act may be cited as the "Department of Transportation Act." IX-86 Element COORDINATION (cont'd Section 4(f) The Secretary shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the States in developing transportation,plans-and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of the'lands traversed. After the effective date of this Act, the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires -the use of any land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm'of such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use." 6.12 (49 USC 1653) "GENERAL PROVISIONS - RESPONSIBILITIES OF SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION; LEADERSHIP, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION. (f) Maintenance and Enhancement of Natural Beauty of Land Traversed by Transpor- tation Lines. It is hereby declared to be the national policy that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recre- ation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. The Secretary of the Interior, Housing and'Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the States in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of the lands traversed. After August 28, 1963, the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires tile use of any publicly owned land from a 2ublic park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refiige or national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from .an historic site of national, State or Local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of : uch land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to uch park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use." 6.2 The'Coast Guard must approve the location and plans of all bridges over navigable waters and the operating regulations of all drawbridges. Location and clearances (33 USC 401, 491 to 507 and 525 to 534). Drawbridge Regulations (33 USC 499). Alteration of obstrtctive bridges (33 USC 511 to 524). See also (33 CFR 114, 115, 116 and 117). 6.4 Spec ific programs witb notation of relationship to the Coastal Zone. 6.41 Puget Sound Vessel Traffic System - erect three 90 foot towers to support radar and mirrowave dishes at Bush Point, Point Wilson, Point No Point, State of -Washington. IX-87 Eleinent COORDINATION (cont'd.) "923.2 Definiti-ons (86 Stat. 1280, 16 USC 1451-1464) Substantial Development -- except that the following shall not be considered substantial developments: (e) Construction or modification of navigational aids, such as channel markers and anchor buoys." "923.11 Boundaries of the Coastal Zone. (86,Stat. 1280, 16 USC 1451-1464) Definition -- Excluded from the coastal zone are lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretionlof or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents. 6.42 Although the VTS towers do not fall within the strict definition of "channel markers and anchor buoys" they certainly fall within the meaning of navigational aids in that these towers will provide the means for insuring the safe passage of marine traffic within Puget Sound. 6.43 Install or construct buoys, daymarks and ranges in various locations in Puget Sound, Anacortes Harbor, Baker Bay, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and Columbia River. "923.2(29)(e)",(86 Stat. 1280, 16 USC 1451-1464) cited ab-ove applies. 6.44 Lighthouse Automation and Modernization - Program scheduled for 1975 79 in the State of Washington at: Smith Island Slip Point Cape Flattery New Dungeness Point Wilson Point Robinson Alki Point West Point Mukilteo Point No.Point 6.45 Program will replace certain operating equipment within the structures with automated equipment and will enable the removal of the attending crews. "923.2(29)(a)" (86 Stat. 1260, 16 USC 1451-1464) and "923.11" cited above apply as does the rationale involving the broader definitioft of an aid to navigation. 6.46 Rebuild Duwamish Head Light, Washington, recently destroyed by commercial marine traftic. IX-88 Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) "923.2 Definitions (56 Stat. 1280, 16 USC 1451-1464) (29) Substantial'Development -- except that the following shall not be considered substantial developments: (a) normal maintenance or.repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by fire, accident, or elements." 6.47 Construct small-boat moorings within the existing slip-at Pier 3b Seattle for boats assigned to or operating with Coast Guard Captain of the Port. "923.13 Areas of Particular Concern. (6b Stat. 12oO, lb USC 1451-14b4) The department --- snall give, preterence to uses iti tne following order of preference which; (c) Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline." "923.14. Guidelines on Priority of Uses. (86 Stat. 1280, 16 USC 1451-1464 (a) --- Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the State shall be given priority for single family residences, ports, shoreline recrea- tional uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improve- ments facilitating public access to shorelines of the State --- and other develop- ments that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the-State." Although our project does not fall strictly within the preferences or priorities noted, the project certainly is in keeping with the spirit of providing the opportunity for the people of Washington to safely enjoy the waters and shorelines under consideration. The boats we plan to moor at Pier 36 provide services to the public, incl0ing search and rescue of boaters in trouble, water pollution patrols, vessel inspection for safe operation, etc. We are planning construction of a Loran-C station between Tacoma and Olympia. This project is already on Federal property at Fort Lewis, is an aid to navigation, and is several miles from any land that can be construed as being affected by the Coastal Zone Management Program. Therefore, it is excluded on several counts. But it's effect will be to increase the safety of all users of the navigable waters of Washington and the Pacific Ocean for hundreds of miles at sea. The agencies interested in Coastal Zone Management should be aware of this program. 6.48 In summary, all of the projects we have in being or planned, fall within the spirit and most fall within the letter of the Coastal Zone Management Program. 6.5 Oil Spill Contingency Program: "Seattle Coastal Region Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution Contingency Plan - 3 January 1975." This plan is the regional plan developed pursuant to the Federal Water,Pollution Control Act as amended 1972 (33 USC 1321); included as a section within this docu- ment is the introduction from the plan. 6.6 Puget Sound Vessel,Traffic System. This system is located entirely within the Coastal Zone Management Area. IX-89 Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) 6.61 The Puget Sound Vessel Traffic System became mandatory on 30 September 1974. It primarily involves a communications net controlled by the Vessel Traffic Center in Seattle. The system will expand to include the Strait of Juan de Fucd on a voluntary basis on 1 March 1975. Radar coverage of the Admiralty Inlet area is planned to become operational during October 1975. Eventually the system will be coordinated with a similar system being implemented by the Canadian Ministry of Transport with its traffic center in Vancouver, B.C. 6.62 Authority (33 USC 1224) 6.63 Rules of Operation (33 CFR 161, Subpart B). 6.7 The Port Safety,and Security Program area of the Coast Guard includes insuring compliance with the following Federal Laws and regulations. 6.71 Safeguarding of vessels, harbors ' ports and waterfront facilities of the United States (50 USC 191 - Executive Order 10173 as amended - 33 CFR Parts 3, 6, 121-126: P.L. 92-340, 33 USC 1501). 6.72 Control of anchorage grounds and special anchorage areas for vessels in all harbors, river, bay and other navigable waters of the United States (33 USC 471, 180, 258, 332 - 33 CFR Parts 109, 110). 6.8 The Deepwater-Port Act of 1974 (33 USC 1501). 6.81 This Act defini-s, describes and directs formuiai;ion of ragulations for the 90 . . . . location, ownership, construction, and operations of deepwater ports in wate@7a beyond the territorial limits of the United States"; (33 USC 1501). 6J2 Ports operated under this Act are limited to the handling of oil as the substance is defined within the Act. 5.83 The Coast Guard has circulated Environmental Impact Statements (draft), covering the preparation of design, operation manuals, environmental statements, etc., for deepwater ports as defined within the Act. 6.84 Approval of the Act is so recent, (January 3, 1975) that many questions remain to be resolved; however, several things appear probable as's result of this Act. The Coast Guard will have some role delegated by the Secretary.of Transpor- tation, the adjacent state will have a major voice in any deepwater port develop- ment as defined in the Act. 6.85 It appears that there is a very strong interface between the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Deepwater Ports Act; this interface seems to involve design and planning. The following section identifies some of the interfaces found in Deepwater Ports Act of 1974. It should be.noted that no attempt has been made to determine or explain the extent of relationship between the two acts. Related.Plans and Studies. The Thirteenth Coast Guard District has pending project proposals related to.the Coastal Zone Management area. These projects must survive the budget process; therefore, their realization is likely but not certain. IX-90 Element COORDINATION (conf'd.) Pier 36, Seattle, Washington, consolidation of units-, some future construction/ modification. Quillayute'River Station, LaPush, Washington, construct new station. Port Angeles Air Station, Port Angeles, Washington, build new buildings and rehabilitate administration, hanger buildings. Cape Disappointment Station, Ilwaco, Washington, constru.ct moorage, haulout and repair facilities. San Juan Island Station, Island County, Washington, construct new station. Areas of Special_Import for the Coast Guard. Within the "Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972", the following sections appear to be areas of mutual concern; however, the possible ensuing administrative delay may be avoidable through mutual cooperation. Section 307 (c) (1) "Each Federal agency conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the Coastal Zone shall conduct or support those activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state management programs." Section 307 (c) (2) "Any Federal agency which shall undertake any development projecr ir the Coastal Zone of a state shall insure that the project is, 'to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state management programs." Section 307 (c) (3) "After final approval by the Secretary of a state's manage- ment program any applicant for a required Federal license or permit to conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the Coastal Zone of that state shall provide in the application of the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. At the same time, the applicant shall furnish to the state or its designated agency a copy of the certification with all necessary information and date. Each coastal state shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of all such certi- fications and, to the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in connection therewith. At the earliest practicable time, the state or its designated agency shall notify the Federal agency concerned that the state concurs with or object to the applicant's certification. If the state or its designated agency fails to furnish the required notification within six months after receint of its copy of the applicants certification, the state's concurrence is conclusively presumed, unless the Secretary, on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after providing a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments from the Federal agency involved and from the state, that the activity is consis- tent with the objectives of this title or is other-rise necessary in the interest of national security." 11.2 Pact'sheet, dated: October 1974, Office of Coastal Zone Management, KOAA, Department of Commerce. "Once the Secretary of Connerce approves a state or territory program, all Federal activities in t@e coastal zone, or which may affect the coastal zone including IX-91 Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) grants, loans, licenses, and permits must be conducted in a manner consistent with the approved program." 11.3 In order that orderly business.may procede in an acceptable fashion, the Coast Guard recognizes the desirability for developing a mutually acceptable rapid review system. Reviews, coordination and consultation will utilize the Local Master Program Review Task Force on which the DOT SECREP will be represented, a state CZM notification form and checklist @to be developed, and hopefully USCG partici- pation in the DOE data management program both as a contributor and user. The OMB Circular A-95, NEPA, and Section 10 (1899 River and Harbor Act) review processes will also be utilized. IX-92 Element COORDINATION (cont'd.) HOW THE DOE PROPOSES TO COORDINATE WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES Where possible, the Department will rely on existing systems such as NEPA, A-95, and the Federal Register, as well as on mechanisms already established by your agency or the state. In carrying out its functions as lead CZM agency, DOE will do its best to be cognizant of your programs and responsibilities. The Department intends to maintain an updated file on your agency's plans, activities, developments and so forth, and will inform you as early as possible of actions by others which could affect your agency. As a general device, DOE will publish bulletins or make existing Department publications available which will provide brief notification of all proposed plans, policies, programs, facilities, and developments which relate to the coastal zone. These notifications could provide such information as permits under appeal, regulatory actions (fines), public hearing notices, etc., dependent on the agency's needs. The Department will also assist your agency to develop a summary sheet that will toll applicants for permits or licenese issued by your agency what the state needs to know in order to review certifications for consistency. More precise description of mechanisms will be possible following the formal review of the packets by the involved federal agencies. November 28, 1975 IX-93 Element 5 A LISTING AND DISCUSSION OF "FACILITIES" WHICH YOUR AGENCY DOES NOT CONTROL BUT WHICH AFFECTS THE MISSON OF THE AGEN- CY. THE FACILITIES MAY BE EITHER IN THE COASTAL ZONE, OR NEAR ENOUGH TO IMPACT IT. THIS ELEMENT IS IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE STATE MUST SUGGEST A PROCESS WHICH ALLOWS THE AGENCY TO PARTICIPATE IN, OR AT LEAST BE AWARE OF, FACILITY SITING DECISIONS. The consultants have no knowledge of such facilities as this draft packet is composed. Please provide a listing of such facilities and appropriate documentation if relevant. ELEMENT REFERENCES Adopted Under Section 306 FEDERAL RIGISTIER, VOL 40, MO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9. 1775 RULES AND REGULATIONS 1923.15 National interest in the Siting of facilities. (a) ~Re~qu~irem~en- Arr~i~an~a~.~-er~n~en~t ~nro- ~L ~Ec~t~"~? ~P~t~i~l~d~u~ct~l~O~n ~"d ~f~t~s~m~q=L~@ Oil ~l~u~l~d C~u ~w~el~l~i: ~n~a- ~s~nd d~i~s~tr~i~- ~1~7~1~,~1~1~1~.1 ~U-~n~i~? A~11~@~1~1~1~1-~1~.~% ~W~.U.~. ~f~a,~l~l~l~l~l.~@ -. ~k-~1~1~1~.~j ~I~.-~I ~C--~1~1,~.~!~t~~l~. ~gr~arn which ~IntC~eT~ates (t~hr~Ou~r~h dev~c~L~Qp~- ~t~w~a~l. -~d ~S~y~d- ~n~1~, I -~_ ~,~. -~. c~a~e~nt of a body c~f lnf~Orrn~atl~o~n r~cL~a~t~in~g ~",.~C, ~n~e ~P~.- ~9~1~-~.~; A,, ~P~. ~'~C~r A,:- to the ~n~at~i~o~i~n~1~!n~t~1~r~t~-~!~t ~'~n~-~7~-~h~'~c~a In s~L~:ch ~O~qW~S. s~t~it~i~n~t ~th~r~o~-~t~ch c~On~-ui~t~at~!~o~n ~N~.~a.~. Sant Federal and ~r~c~qk~xna~l bod~l~e~n~. as ~we~il ~k~n~n ~M ~@-~w-~,~, as ~a~c~t~iac~en~t and nearby States) t~-~l~e ~S~lt~l~n~r ~qM- ~Wn~sl re~nu~i~r~e~in~... a which ~2~. ~l~a~t~e~r~n~a~z~e ~tr~a~"~P~u~t~a~u~d~e_ ....... Sid, ~T~1,~1~1~-~1 ~1~1~1~1~h~q-~1 of facilities mect~inf~, ~1~.,-- ~ are of ~urc~;it~er t~han local c~o~..c~e~qm L~int~o to ~-~.~1~t~w~un~; puns and ~a~m~bo~r~s, ~I'~v~i~ef~al Avl,~@~W~*~f~t the determination of ~t~i~@~c~s and areas of ~C-~1 ~1~:_~'~. ~d Statewide concern. w~qU~q1 meet the re- ~qJ~qf~qa~qA~q.~ql- A~ql~ql~q@~ql~q.~q.~q..-~qI-~q. ~qI~qm.. ~qL ~qr~ql~qa~qd~qo~qWL~qI~qM of Said sad ~qd~qb~qa~q.~q-~q,__ rr~ql- _~q4 ~q1_~q1~q1~q1~q. ~qS~8q"~q, ~qqu~qir~qem~qent~qs of Section 30e~q(c) ~q(~q8~q). ~q1~q0"~q: ~qW~qm~qs~qt~qi~q; ~qw~qw~qc~qu~ql~qt~qu~qr~qt o~ql~0ql~q, ~qP ,A -~q.I ~4qz~2q"~q, (b) Comment. Statutory citation: See~q. t~qi~qo~qn, ~q30~q0~qc) ~q(~q8 ~q1 L ~qtr~qa~qs~qa~qv~qa~qu~qs~qi~qs ~qa~qt life sod ~q1-1 .-1 - ~qP--~qi-~ql~qa~qt~qi~ql~ql. C~q.~q,~qr~q,~q, ,~qi ~qU~q.~q; ~qsn~qu~ql,~qg ."A Prior to granting ~qo~qp~qp~qr~qa~q'~qa~ql of ~q4 manage. Went ~qP ~qO~qC~qf~qA~qr~ql~qi submitted by a c~qo~q&~qrj~qt~qaj ~q@~qS~qt~q'~ql~qa~q, ....... SUM." d~q,~ql- - ~qt~qj~q_~qt--~qj NASA. ~ql~qi~qb~qe ~2q&~qC~qt~qC~qt~q3~qr~qr ~qV~q1~q0~q4~q1 find ~q'~qh~q%~qL . . . the ~qM~qa~qn~q- ~qr~qa~ql~q--~qW. ~qs~qa~ql~qb~qn~qi~q, and ~qS~qg~qt~qt~qn~q*~qf~qt~qt P~qr~qO~qC~qr~qA~qM ~qrr~qo~qv~qk~qd~q*s for, d~qe~qqu~qa~qte Can. Ill~q.- itineration of tile n~qat~ql~q.~qn~q.~q1 ~qu~qlt~qe~q"~q.~q.~q. ~ql~qa~q.~qO~ql~qv~qe~qd . . . .. .. . ..... -~qI-., IS ~qth~q* SRI n~qC Of ~qr~qa~qc~ql~ql~qit~ql~q-~qs ~qn~q-Ce-~qt~qj ~qt~qo ~qt~qa~qte~qt Rio ~qW~q.~q.~q,~q- ~q.~q4 Sold ~qU_~ql~qs ~qr~qe~qi~qt~qu~qt~qr~qa~qm Out ~qw~qh~qi~qc~qi~ql are ~qO~ql.~qb~qe~qr ~qt~qb~qa~qn local in L ~qW~qa~qv~qal ~ql~qh~q@~q4~q4~q1~q.L ~6q:-r~q,~q. --.- . ....... -~q&~qd ~qU~q.- ~qw~qi bun-, ~qu~q-~qw~qp~q,~q,~qj ~q5~q_~q.~q". (PLEASE ATTACH & CODE OTHER SHEETS FOR MORE EXPLAN ATION) IX- 94 Element DISCUSSION OF THE TYPES OF "ACTIVITIES" YOUR AGENCY UNDER- TAKES HAVING CZM SIGNIFICAnce AND A PROPOSED METHODOL- 6 OGY FOR DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE PRO- GRAM. THIS PROPOSAL MUST INCLUDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE TYPE OF INFOR- MATION YOU WILL REQUIRE TO DETERMINE CONSISTENCY, AND CONVERSELY A METHOD BY WHICH THE STATE WILL BE MADE AWARE AND CONSIDER THE CON- SISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY. (THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS ARISING FROM SEC. 307(c) (1) FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Marine Recreation: Establishes and maintains coastal and inland water- way aids to navigation, primarily for pleasure craft. Coordinates and participates in search and rescue operations and assists, through the Coast Guard Auxilliary, in the patrolling of marine regattas. Shipping: Is responsible for coordinating and assisting in search and rescue operations at sea and along the coast. Inspects randomly small boats in waters of United States jurisdic- tion for compliance with required safety measures. Oil Spills: Chairs the National Response Team in the event of a spill or potential spill in those areas in which the Coast Guard is to provide for the On-the-Scene Coordinator. Maintains three National Strike Forces (on the Pacific, Gulf, and Atlantic coasts) which are especially trained in pollution control and which can be mobilized in the event of an emergency. ELEMENT REFERENCES $ 920.45 Application for the initial grant. Adopted Under Section 305 The Act provides in section PUBLIC LAW REFERENCE RULES AND REGULAI]ONS 307 (c)(1) that Each Federal Agency conducting or supporting activities di- Pub. L. 97-703; RESOURCE-CONSERVATION (10 201) ftIL L. r) -60.... Wt,r 14,5.11c-s MI) rectly affecting the coastal zone shall 91-343; 74-10 and Development Air Sur-, -J U. -4 conduct or support those activites in a Pub. L. 83-300... Comprehensive Planning (14 303) D6zwcnStf&jgon 6r,nu. manner which is so the maximum ex- Assistance solid IA"t. I. I.M.ng cllr@ 301) pense practicable, consistent with ap- Pub. L.88 -378 Outdoor Recreation State (15 401) untiat'. proved State management programs. Planning wal., Pollution C.-In't (64, 601) To this end, the application shall reflect, Pub. L. 80-304 Ansitrufious Fish Con- (15 800) cora36=ruairo 111.0. and the developed coastal zone manage- servation ment program shall provide, methods to Fish Recreation .........(15 025) -ink integrate the following types of pro- it 4wMac A" 1.0.4- .".1 and f(d am) grams and activities as they affect the Wild ir. J*...n-1.@;..::::0: 1.21 36M, t0l8@6b:44k. coastal zone of the tub. L, 76-2.n... lint-c A an IS-Ld- (L3. w) assisted planning development and man- two. 1. V24M.- W.tr -1ity M.nor- (G& =3) agement programs, such as but not lim- t6wu... _.-n ..... (15 .041 tat t T-h call 6M.- ted in the program numbers and titles tab. L. A.,I,n f@u 343) OJ.c A listed below are those contained in the b. L. 11:1-7r% 3oJ.J %Vau.'J -hnmol AS- ((6304) 1972 Catalog of Federal Domestic As- Pub. L. 10-415: F11-.h..7 il-11h MI.- T' `- sistance as published by OMH): . 01-6M; aa-34. and 0-1 ... ... I.J.-,.on -r12=. KDEO2U ll[GISTU. VOL 36. NO. 229-THURSDAY. NOV9M%tR 29, IVY3 (PLEASE ATTACH CODE OTHER SHEETS FOR MORE EXPLANATIONS) 0I20X-905 Element ACTIVITIES (cont'd.') 06 Assumes the cost of clean-up operations if no liability ca-n be charged. Cooperates with Navy and Maritime Administration in a program to develop reliable oil/water separators for use in public and commer- cial vessels. Residential Development: Constructs off-base housing for military personnel and their dependents. Water Resources ': Chairs theFcoastal Regional Response Team and promul- gates and administers pollution prevention regulations applicable to vessel and marine transportation-related shore facilities. .Flooding: Part icipates in flood relief operations as part of its func- tion of saving life and property in and around the navigable waters of the U.S. Navigation and Communication: Establishes and maintains aids to navi- gation including lighthouses, a uniform state waterway marking system, and long- and short-range electronic aids (LORAN) which provide navigational information to ships and aircraft., The type of information the U.S. Coast Guard needs to deternine consis- tency of its functional activities with Washington CZMP is: A copy of the CZMP; advance copy of each local shoreline master program for review and comment, and approved programs for reference; and CZM notification forms and checklists to be' developed. The method by which the state will be made aware of the consistency of this activity with Washington CZMP is: The OMB Circular A-95, NEPA, and Section 10 (1899 River and Harbor Act).review processes. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES Harbor.and Port Development: Develops all-weather harbor approach and harbor navigation systems. Marine Research: Assists with ships and personnel in other federal agencies' research projects. Shipping: Works toward improved ship design and construction standards to prevent disastrous collisions, groundings and pollution from tanker spills. It is also developing all-weather harbor approach and harbor navigation systems. IX-96 Element 6 ACTIVITIES (contd.) Navigation and Communication: Conducts research on new navigational and communication aids. Water Resources: Conducts an expanded coastal.water quality monitoring system by air and sea surveillance. Oil Spills: Conducts re search and develops methods and instruments for spill control in cases when such methods would constitute a prohib- itive expense for private industry. Researches the feasibil-ity of using remote-sensing techniques for detection of oil slicks. The type of information the U.S. Coast Guard needs to determine consis- tency of its research activities-with Washington CZMP is: A copy of the CZMP; advance copy of each local shoreline master program for review and comment, and approved programs for reference; and CZM notification forms and checklists to be developed. The method by which the state will be made aware of the consistency of this activity with Washington CZMP is: The OMB Circular A-95, NEPA, and Section 10 .11-899 River and Harbor Act) review nrocesses. ADMINISTRATION AND ADVISORY SERVICES Oil and Gas Extraction and Allocation: Establishes regulations concern- ing the marking and lighting of oil extraction structures and artificial islands that are in the navigable water. Weather and Climate Provides meteorological data collected on ocean and coastal stations to the National Weather Service and to trans- oceanic ships and planes. Highways and Bridges: Establishes criteria for the locating, clearance, and lighting of bridges above the navigable waters of the U.S. jhjULn&: Monitors shipping lanes and approaches using Vessel Traffic System in some areas of coastal zone. Marine Recreation: Issues regulations and standards to boatbuilders for the safety aspects of new boats and equipment, and requires tha 't the manufacturer maintain a list of first purchasers to permit product recall or repair in the event that subsequent safety defects come to light. IX-97 Element 06 ACTIVITIES (cont'd.) Educates small boat operators on safety regulati ons and small boat handling. Administers the Coast Guard Auxilliary. Harbor and Port Devel2Rment:@ Carries out an active port security pro- gram to safeguard vessels harbors, ports and wat@rfront facilities. Operates shore and harbor controls to provide fire fighting facil- ities within harbors, supervises anchorage and movement of merchant ships, etc. Marine Mining: Establishes regulations concerning the marking and lighting of mineral extraction structures and artificial islands that are in navigable waters. The type of information the U.S. Coast Guard needs to determine consis- tency of its administration activities with Washington CZMP is: A copy of the CZMP; advance copy of each local shoreline master program for review and comment, and approved programs for reference; and CZM notif- cation forms and checklists to be developed. The method by which the state will be made aware of the consistency of this activity with Washington.CZMP is: The OMB Circular A-95, NEPA, and Section 10 (1899 River and Harbor Act) review processes. REGULATORY ACTIONS Oil Spills: Enforces the laws concerned with spills, either through accident, deliberate actions (flushing bilges), or faulty (unsafe) construction. Determines the responsibility for a spill and what actions are necessary for its containment and clean-up. Operates a monitoring system of sea lanes, etc. Fish and Marine Wildlife: Cooperate with National Marine Fisheries Service on surveillance and enforcement patrols to ensure the effectiveness of negotiated international controls. Highways and Bridges: Regulates the alteration of obstructing bridges above the navigable waters of the U.S. 'Approves the location of bridges over navigable waterways. IX-98 Element ACTIVITIES (cont'd.) Marine Mining: Enforces the regulations concerning the marking and lighting of fixed mineral extraction structures and artificial- islands in the navigable waters. Shipping: Regulates the discharge of all vessel wastes. Is responsible for merchant marine safety which entails: inspea- tion and regulation of vessels, approval of construction, investi- gation and review of marine casualties and acts of incompetency or misconduct, and measurement and documentation of all vessels. Supervises the loading and unloading of explosives and other dan- gerous cargoes. Controls anchorage and movement of merchant vessels within the navigable waters of the country. Regulates the marking and lighting of vessels in navigable waters. Is responsible for safety and law enforcement on the navigable waters, including the enforcement of the rules of the road, proper marking and federal law on the high seas. Is authorized to take-ccmplete control of every.action of a ship within the navigable water of certain ports -- including establish- ing its maximum speed limit, according to weather and marine.c.ondi- tions. Dredging and Filling: 'Monitors dredge spoils sites to determine'if dumping sites are properly maintained. Navigation and Communication: Is responsible for safety and law enforce- ment on the navigable waters, including the enforcement of the rules of the road, proper marking and federal law on those waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Regulates the marking and lighting of all fixed structures and artificial. islands in navigable waters. Protects the navigable waters from the dumping of refuse and ob- structions to navigation. Water Resources: Protects the navigable waters from the dumping of refuse and obstructions of navigation in the navigable waters and their tributaries. IX-99 Element ACTIVITIES (contd.) Enforces standards for discharge of sewage from all vessels. Coordinates both federal and state efforts involving pollution prevention in those areas in which the Coast Guard has authority to provide for the On-the-Scene-Coordinator. Solid Waste Disposal: Monitors the navigable waters for the dumping of refuse to see if it constitutes an obstruction to navigation. Marine Recreation: Inspects-small boats for compliance with regulations and safety measures. Approves vessel waste disposal devices in accordance with Environ- mental Ptrotection,Agency standards. Commercial Fishing: Prevents foreign vessels from fishing within the U.S. territorial waters (usually considered to extend 12 miles offshore). The type of information the U.S. Coast Guard ne@eds to determine consis- tancy cf 41ts regulatory activities with Washington CZMP is: A copy of the CZMT; advance copy of each loc:al shoreline master program for review and comment, and approved programs for reference; and CZM notification forms and checklists to be developed. The method by which the state will be made aware of the consistency of this activity with Washington CZMP is: The OMB Circular A-95, NEPA, and Section 10 (1899 River and Harbor Act) review processes. 4.3 COAST GUARD ACTIVITIES IN PORT AND WATERWAYS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY AUTHORITY 4.31 Enforcement of Pollution Laws 14 USC 2 33 USC 407 33 USC 1001 P.L. 92-500 4.32 a. Provide and-maintain Aids to Navigation 14 USC 81 b. Regulate the establishment of Aids to Navigation by others 14 USC 83 c. Establish and enforce regulations requir- ing the establishment of Aids to Naviga- tion on fixed structures, 14 USC 85 IX@100 Element AC TIVITIES (cont'd.) 06 4.33 Mark obstructions and wrecks 14 USC 86 4.34 Administer Recreational Boating Safety Program 46 USC 256-526 4.35 Conduct search and rescue activities and coordination 14 USC 88 4@36 Enforcement of federal laws concerned with 14 USC 2 the orderly flow of seaborn commerce 14 USC 141-142 4.37 Enforcement of navigation laws 33 USC 154,241, 301, 1051 a. Control the anchorage and movement of any vessel, foreign or domestic, on the terri- torial waters of the United States to in- sure the safety or security of such naval vessels as may be present 14 USC 91 b. Enforce regulations relating to the safe- guarding of vessels, harbors, ports and Exec. Order waterfront facilities of the United States No. 10173 4.38 EsLablishment and enfurcemeriL of auchorage 33 USC 18C, regulations 258, 322, 471 a. Govern the movement and anchorage of vessels and rafts in. Saint Marys River 33 USC 474 4.39 Provide domestic icebreaking service 14 USC 2 The type of information the U.S. Coast Guard needs to determine consis- tency of its activities in port and waterways managementwith Washington CZMP is: A copy of the CZMP; advance copy of each local shoreline master program for review and comment, and approved programs for refer- ence; and CZM notification forms and checklists to be developed. The method by which the state will be made aware of the consistency of this activity with Washington CZMP is: The OMB Circular A-95, NEPA, and Section 10 (1899 River and Harbor Act) review processes. Future activities of the USCG may expand significantly if the "Coastal Zone" expands with expansion of the territorial sea. IX-101 Element (06, ACTIVITIES (cont'd.) STATEMENT ON 200 MILE LIMIT Prepared by: Public.Affiars Division U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 426-1587 October 22, 1974 1. Congress is actively considering legislation to extend the United States' contiguous fisheries zone to 200 miles. Concurrent with Con- gressional'activity this summer, delegations from 148 nation-states have been deliberating over a 200 mile economic zone which would accommodate, among other things, coastal state fisheries interests. These'negotia- tions took place at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in Caracas, Venezuela from June 20 through August 29, 1974. In the closing days of the session, the United States delegation proposed a 11provisional application: of a Law of the Sea Treaty. Under provisional application, the multilateral extension to 200 miles would take imme- diate effect upon signing of the Convention by the conferees. This would have obvious imnact on Coast Guard fisheries operations. 2. Currently, the Coast Guard along with the National Marine Fisheries Service has responsibilities extending to 200 miles and more from shore. These responsibilities stem from various international agreements such as the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean. 3. With respect to a short-run response to any extension of fisheries jurisdiction in the near future, the Coast Guard could increase the number-of personnel on board cutters for,a period of time. If the extension were to come within the next two years, the Coast Guard could reactivate the six high endurance cutters and a number of helicopters which are presently in reserve. The cutters could be reactivated in six to eleven months at a cost of more than $1 million each. The first helicopter could be operational in about six months at a cost of about $100,000. The Coast Guard is not now.in the process of acquiring any additional fisheries patrol vessels. IX-102 Element 06 ACTIV!TIES (cont'd.) 4. The Coast Guard is, however, actively planning the implementation. of various alternatives for increasing its surveillance capability within known active fishing areas off United State's coasts. These alternatives would also improve and extend our current practice of assessment patrols which cover the full range of United States juris- 'diction to determine in what areas changes in present patterns of fish- ing activity are occurring. This would make Coast Guard presence increas- ingly felt throughout the area, and facilitate detection of violation and apprehension. Full implementation of this approach within a 200 mile zone will require the reactivation of the six high endurance cutters and ten shipboard helicopters and the addition of six long range search aircraft, and four medium range search aircraft to the Coast Guard's inventory of active operational facilities. IX-103 A DISCUSSION OF THE CZM-RELATED "DEVELOPMENTS" OF YOUR AGENCY WHICH ARE IN THE COASTAL ZONE AND A PROPOSAL TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME OBJECTIVES AS FOR ACTIVITIES IN (6) ABOVE (THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS ARISING FROM SEC. 307 (c) (2) (The consultants do not have benefit of a list of Coast Guard direct developments as this draft packet is composed. A listing of such developments as is appropriate to be provided by USCG. ELEMENT REFERENCES (3) Any Federally supported national Section 305 (2) Public works land acqusition and land use Program which may be herein, development projects conducted, pro- Liter enacted as specified in section 307 posed to be conducted, proposed to be (g) of the Act: RULES AND conducted or assisted by a Federal (4) Activities in the coastal zone stem- agency, authorized and financed outside ming from the Rural Development Act of the Federal programs listed above, of 1972: REGULATIONS such as activities conducted with respect (5) State programs dealing with land to rivers and harbors, small watershed use controls in the coastal zone or other development. wastewater collection and regulatory, licensing,permit or operating $920.45 (f) treatment facilities, military reserva- Programs in the coastal zone including, tions, wildlife refuges, park and recrea, *but not limited to, activities such as min- tion areas, improvements in navigation, eral extracting, power plant siting and fled control and so forth: harbor construction. FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 34, NO. 229-THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1973 (PLEASE ATTACH & CODE OTHER SHEETS FOR MORE EXPLANAT10N) IX-104 Element A DISCUSSION OF THE "PERMITS AND LICENSES" ISSUED BY YOUR 8 AGENCY WHICH HAVE CZM RELEVANCE, AND PROPOSAL FOR EACH TO PROVIDE: A) THE AGENCY WITH GUIDANCE IN HANDLING THE CZM ASPECTS OF THIS PERMIT SYSTEM, B) THE STATE WITH A METHOD OF CON- CURRING (OR REFRAINING FROM CONCURRING) WITH AN APPLICANT'S CERTIFI- CATION OF CONSISTENCY, AND C) GUIDANCE TO THE AGENCY AND APPLICANT AS TO THE INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE CONSISTENCY (THIS 1S IN RESPONSE T0 SEC. 307 (c) (3) Permits are issued for boating safety along the coast and on inland waterways: (The conslutants are not cognizant of the specific list of permits and associated procedures as this draft packet is composed. A listing of Isuch permits and licenses as is appropriate to be pro- vided by USCG.) USCG regulates location and clearances for bridges and causeways over navigable waters, alteration of obstructive bridges, drawbridge opera- tion, and bridge lighting. A USCG permit for bridge construction can- not be issued prior, to the applicants having a Section 404 FWPA (1972) permit, or vice versa. (Which comes first seems to be in some doubt at this time.) Federal/state coordination where federal assistance is involved will be provided by the OMB Circular No. A-95 review process. ELEMENT REFERENCES certifications and to the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for After final approval by the Secretary of a state's managements public hearings in connection therewith. At the earliest practicable program, any applicant for a required Federal license or permit to time, the state or its designated agency shall notify the Federal agency conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the coastal zone of concerned that the state concurs with or objects to the applicant's that state shall provide in the application to the licensing or permit- certification. If the state or its designated agency fails to furnish the tiny agency a certicication that the proposed activity complies with inquired notification within six months after receipt of its copy of the the state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted applicant's certification, the state's concurrence with the certification in a manner consistent with the program. At the same time, the appli- shall be conclusiverly presumed. No license or permit shall be granted cant shall furnish to the state or its designated agency a copy of by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has con- the certification, with all necessary information and date. Each coastal curred with the applicant's certification or until, by the state's failure state shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of all such to act the concurrence as conclusively presumed. (PLEASE ATTACH & CODE OTHER SHEETS FOR MORE EXPLANATION) IX-105 Element A DISCUSSION 01 ANY "GIANT" 110GIA1111 01 COASTAL ZONE MAN- 9' AGEMENT SIGNIFICANCE OFFERED BY YOUR AGENCY AND A PROPOSAL THAT PROVIDES THE STATE AND THE AGENCY WITH METHODS OF DETER- MINING CONSISTENCY (THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS ARISING FROM SEC. 307 (c) and The consultants have only limited knowledge of such grants as this draft packet is composed. Please provide a listing-of such grants and documentation if relevant. State Boating Safety Assi&tance Financial assistance, as authorized by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 (46 U.S.C. 1474), is provided state boating safety programs. This act provides for a coordinated national boating-safety program to improve boating safety and foster greater development, use, and enjoyment of all U.S. waters by encouraging and assisting participa- tion by the states, th 'e boating industry, and the boating public in development of more comprehensive boating safety programs. State/federal coordination will be through the A-95 reivew process. ELEMENT REFERENCES From PL 92-583, Section 307(d) See Element 8 for (c), (d) follows: (d) State and local governments submitting aFplications for Federal assistance under other Federal programs affecting the coastal zone shall indicate the I views of the appropriate state or local agency as to the relationship of such activities to the approved mana6ement program for the coastal zone. Such applications shall be submitted and coordinated in ac;cordance with the Tro- visions of title'IV of the Inter-governmental Coordination i@ct of 1968 (82 Stat. 1098). Federal agencies shall not approve proposed project5 that are inconsistent Ath a coastal state's management program, exce@t upon a finding by the Secretary that such project is consistent with the purposes of this title or necessary in'the interest of national security. (PLEASE ATTACH & CODE OTHER SHEETS FOR MORE EXPLANATION) IX-106 ?C Element A "MAP" OR SERIES OF MAPS, WHICH SH6W THOSE LANDS AND WATER ARET-SWITHINTHE COASTAL ZONE WHICH YOUR AGENCY OWNS, LEASES, RENTS, HOLDS IN TRUST, MANAGES, REGULATES, OPERATES IN, OR OTHERWISE DIRECTLY INFLUENCES. Maps (statewide) which identify generalized locations for facilities, activities and development-within the U..S. Coast Guard management sys- tem, existing and proposed, including any maintenance operations which appear to have CZM impacts on land, water, or air quality to be pro- vided by USCG. (PLEASE ATTACH CODE OTHER SHEETS FOR MORE. EXPLANATION) IX-107 APPENDIX 10 CONAENTS SUBMITTED BY FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES AND BY INTERESTED PERSONS IN T@M REVIEW PROCESS Appendix 10 contains written comments which were received from the review of the March 21, 1975, draft environmental statement and in connection with the April 22, 1975, public hearing held in Seattle, Washington. An analysis and disposition of the statements pertinent to the environmental impact statement (EIS) follows.the written comments. Some of the cmments are directed towards the substance of the Shoreline Management Act and the adequacy of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. While these comments will.be given every consideration by NOAA in the review of the management program, they will not be addressed unless appropriate in the body of the EIS. The purpose of this EIS is to determine what the environ- mental impacts will be based on the proce 'ss which exists and the further implementation of the process as a direct result of approval, and funding of the program. In addition to the DEIS review process, Federal agencies were invited to review the management program prior to Secretarial approval in order to ascertain if their views have been adequately considered (Section 307(b) Federal agency review of the program proceeded concurrently with the DEIS review and, therefore, some comments from Federal agencies are directed only at the substance of the program and whether or not the State of Washington had met and fulfilled certain requirements of the CZMA. These comments have been included in the FEIS along with NOAA's response. In some cases, comments on the DEIS are included as a single agency response along with the program comments. The DEIS concerns will be addressed separately. It should be noted that the second Washington program document submitted to NOAA after the six month preliminary approval period is substantially different from the first document. It reflects a great deal of work on the part of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP) staff, and is a response to the many constructive comments received during the review process. Most of the concerns have been met in this document. All Federal agencies have received copies of the revised,Washington CZM Program and additional copies can be reviewed at the various libraries noted in this FEIS or by writing the following person: Murray Walsh, CZM Program Coordinator Department of Ecology State of Washington Olympia, Washington 98504 Because of the expense of and demand for this document, there is only a limited supply left. A. The following section, entitled: "Appendix F. Consideration of Federal Agency Views and National Interests in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program," is taken from the program submission'to NOAA. This is a synopsis of Federal agency questions and comments submitted to the State and a response to the same, X-1 APPENDIX F. CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL AGENCY VIEWS AND NATIONAL INTERESTS IN THE WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM** The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) sets course, is equally concerned with the views of its forth reciprocal policies for federal and state co- citizens, local governments, and state agencies. operation and coordination in the development, re- Neveretheless, in response to the specific views of view, and implementation of state CZM programs. federal agencies, the state has prepared synoptic A- specific requirement of the CZMA is the demon- comments on those views. These must be read in stration, by a state that it has' "adequately con- the context of the total management program pre- sidered" the views of Federal agencies principally sented throughout this document, but they are set affected by the program, including their views on forth here for ready reference and in furtherance the national interest involved in the siting of facil- of the mutual state/federal objectives of the CZMA. ities (Section 307(b) and 306(c)(8)). The state, of FEDERAL AGENCY VIEWS RESPONSE Agency was not consulted or adeq uately involved The state has remedied this situation in the development of its cur- in the development of the program. (DOT, FEA, program document. For specific discussion on how this has been EDA,DOD,HUD) dealt -with, see Chapter V, pages 130-134 Boundaries � The boundaries of the coastal zone are inad- Boundaries have been clarified and the policy and operational inter- equately defined. (DOI, DOD) relationships associated with the program inland from the SMA boundary are also redefined in the management program. � Questions the second tier boundary being defined The original identification has been modified. The first tier bound- as the whole state. (USDA) ary is the wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Manage- ment Act of 197 1, which basically includes marine waters and their associated wetlands and. those uplands 200 feet inland from the ordinary highwater mark. The second tier or the planning and ad- ministrative boundary is the 15 coastal counties which abut marine waters including Wahkiakum County on the Columbia River estuary. � Federal lands should be excluded.from Coastal Excluded are those lands owned by the federal government in fee or Zone Management Act jurisdiction. held in trust except where the federal government or a court of law has reserved to state or local governments jurisdiction over land and water uses. The uses of those lands in general are subject to the policies.of the CZMA and the state program. � Questions the state's desire to require federal Substantial development permits do not apply to federal agencies. agencies to obtain a permit for substantial The permit system shall apply to nonfederal activities on nonfederal development on land not owned in fee by the lands which fall within the external boundaries of federal ownership. government. (USDA) Determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis through a joint "Updated by Prograin Supplement consultation. (Appendix XI) F-1 X-2 FEDERALAGENCY VIEWS RESPONSE * Applying the definition of 200' along streams Along shorelines of statewide significance there is a specific provi- to timber operations will have a huge impact on sion that allows for 30 per cent oif-lhe harvestable timber to be taken timber harvest. (USDA) per decade. However, all timber harvesting is controlled by the Forest Practices Act. Development related to logging may be subject to SMA permits and is always subject to the rules of the local master program. a What is the relationship of the program to private It is the policy of the state that the decision to approve or disap- lands within or adjacent to an external boundary prove activities and developments proposed adjacent to excluded of federal land? (USDA) lands, but not on those lands, should be made only after full con- sideration of the potential impact of that activity or development on the excluded lands. Permit systems shall apply to nonfederal activ- ities and developments undertaken on lands subject to nonfederal ownership, lease or easement even though such lands may fall within the external boundaries of a federal ownership. a State permit system should not.apply to Forest Permit systems shall apply to nonfederal activities and developments Service easements. (USDA) undertaken on lands 'subject to nonfederal ownership, lease or ease- ment, even though such lands may fall within the external bound- aries of a federal ownership. e Local master programs should define federal This is a primary responsibility of the state (see Appendix Q. lands in the text and graphically. (DOD) Permissible Uses * Attention should be given to the identification The environmental designations in local-master programs do identify of areas particularly suitable for development areasparticularly suitable for development and exclude or condition as well as those which are unsuitable, in des- other uses. Th@ inventories and analyses accomplished in the develop- ignating permissible uses in the coastal zone (FEA) ment of the local master programs provide the basis for the environ- ment designations. * Information is lacking on specific kinds of per- See Appendix A for a matrices of specific permissible uses and the missible uses. (DOI, EPA) and the description of permissible uses in Chapter V, pages 119-1.20. e Designation of permissible land and water uses See Appendix A for a specific environmental designations and allow- is not specific enough to protect the coastal able uses within each. zone. (EPA) Areas of Particular Concern Coastal areas particularly suited to energy develop- Some such areas are known; adequate processes exist, of which CZM ment should be identified and designated as areas is only one, for determining energy sites. of part.icular concern. (FEA) o Naval land is not identified as a particular state Naval land does not meet the requirement to be s 'o identified. How- concern. (DOD) ever, the naval mission and needs are. The state's policy state. ment emplicitly deals with national defense and security in a positive manner. See Chapter V, page 131 and packet policy in Appendix D. * Areas of particular concern are inadequately Chapter Il explains the rationale for determining and presenting defined. The state should detail the rationale for areas of particular concern. Briefly, such areas must be of greater determining and presenting areas of particular than local interest and offer a live issue of competing uses and man- concern (DOI, EPA) agement options. More specifically, selection of the areas of partic- ular concern have been guided by the following criteria: (1) the area contains a resource feature of environmental value considered to be of greater than local concern or significance; (2) the area is given recognition as of particular concern by state or federal legislation,, administrative and regulatory programs, or land ownership; and (3) the area has the potential for more than one major land or water use or has a resource being sought by potentially incompatible users. F-2 X-3 FEDERAL AGENCY VIEWS RESPONSE Priorities of Use Guidelines on priority of uses tobe established. National defense and energy development are among the highest (FEA) priority of uses of Washington's coastal ione. Priority establishment is ge nerally a function of the shoreline master programs; however, proposals such as the one for the outer continental shelf give emphasis to national energy development needs. Wants a positive statement that national This is done in the packet policy statement, see Appendix D and deMnse is a priority. (DOD) page 131. Information is lacking on the relative priorities The shoreline management and related programs set priorities. Con- of, use, what will be done when conflicts occur, flict resolution is part of the planning, review, and appeals processes, and how priorities will be revised over time. (DOI) Coordinative initiatives between the state and federal agencies win deal with changing circumstances over time. National and Regional Interests * National interests are not sufficiently considered Adequate consideration of national and regional interests is the or defined. (FEA, DOD, DOT, DOI, HUD) primary responsibility of the state. The state coastal zone program accommodates very substantial uses and facilities of national interest. Provisions for changes or amendments in local master pro- grams and state programs are provided by state law and guidelines. 9 The program does not give adequate consid- The state's program will come to address more adequately the issue eration to land and water uses of regional of regional benefit, but the program already contains the basis for benefit. (HUD, DOD, FEA) meeting CZMA's threshold requirements. 9 Program needs a more complete treatment of the Sophisticated planning should originate at the federal level and by range of energy facilities identified in the federal the entities which produce such facilities. The state has and will regulations. (FEA) maintain a means to adequately consider energy needs within the context of its CZM program. e The program should include a long-range The degree of specificity requested exceeds the resource capabil- assessment of energy demand. (FPC) ities of the state as well as its legal requirements under CZMA and should be done by the entities charged with energy research and development. If the state is supplied with a long-range assessment, adequate consideration of needs can be given through the state@ federal coordinative process. Questions the process for determining sites The Washington program provides an adequate framework for for energy facilities. (FEA) dealing with the siting of facilities. State needs a growth policy. (FPC, HUD) CZMA does not require a growth policy. Such a policy may even- tually result from the examination of growth alternatives under the Alternatives for Washington program. See page 89. Consistency � Federal conformance with the state should be See Chapter VI, Chapter V pages 133-134, and the packet policy clarified, and a process for consistency should statement in Appendix D. be defined. (DOD, DOI) � The program does not speak to concurrent The CZMA certification process specifically acknowledges concur- jurisdictions. The certification requirement rent regulatory jurisdiction and does indeed go beyond review and goes beyond the A-95 procedures for direct comment under OMB Circular A-95. federal actions. (DOD) � The certification procedure for consistency See the packet policy statement in Appendix D and Chapter V needs to be spelled out. (USDA) pages 133-134. X-4 F-3 FEDERAL AGENCY VIEWS RESPONSE Prohibitions in local master programs can Local master programs rarely prohibit; they condition uses and sub- adversely affect a federal agency. (DOD, DOT) ject them to development standards. -Consistency is required to the "maximum extent practicable." Federai'laws prevent interference by local governments in a federal age ncy's. carrying out of its lawful function. Neither the state coastal zone management program nor the master program supplants the agency's specific legal responsibilities. Coordination There is no indication of how the state would See Chapters III and V integrate its different legal authorities to manage the coast2I zone. (EPA) e There is no description of how local governments Guidelines under SMA go into extensive detail as to how local were organized to carry out their responsibilities governments should proceed to carry out their responsibilities. under the state program. (EPA) e There is no description of how work under all The State Environmental Policy Act and other integrative measures environmental law would be integrated with the are described in Chapter 111. coastal zone management program. (EPA) A procedure for cooperation among local govern- See Chapter VI. ments, the state, and federal agencies is needed. (USDA,HUD) DOE, and other agencies should have reconciled See integrated local master program maps, Appendix A. The local conflicts among various local master programs and master programs are based on resolution on conflicts, as DOE'S over- between state development and conservation all program. CZMA does not require solution for all problems prior interests. (HUD) to 306 approval but a process to deal with them. Miscellaneous Plan lacks any "substantive" consideration of flood The Shoreline Management Act requires a permit, and in most hazard in coastal and coast al-riverine areas. (HUD) instances master programs prohibit or restrict development in flood plains. DOE is the state's primary agency for floodplains management coordination. Plan lacks specific goals and policies for the protec- The environment designations required by SMA for the local master tion of living marine, estuarine, and anadromous fish programs are one mechanism for assuring the protection of living resources. (NMFS) marine, estuarine, and anadromous fish resources. Specific goals and policies, however, are the responsibility of a variety of state agencies. (See Chapter 111). Implementation dates need to include a transition No HUD-supported programs will be subjected to any "new" require- period for development a) ready underway. (HUD) ments mid-strearn. App'licant fails to give a coherent picture of the over-. See Chapters I and V. all program. (USDA) The state's statutory authorities, guidelines, review processes, and All local master programs should be adopted prior to appeal authorities concerning local master programs are sufficient to the approval of the state's CZM program. (HUD, DOD) meet the basic substantive and program requirements of CZMA. Therefore, not all local master programs need to be adopted prior to program approval. As of November, 1975, all 15 coastal zone counties had completed master programs and eight of them had received approval. F-4 X-5 FEDERAL AGENCY VIEWS RESPONSE The program does not tell how the coastal zone will No development can be undertaken on the shorelines of the state be protected, since only substantial developments except those which are consistent with SMA and its guidelines and are covered by the permit process. (USDA) local master programs. Nor are there significant exemptions from the network of related state controls set forth in detail in Chapter 111. Intent of permits in the coastal zone could be See the response immediately above. circumvented. (NMFS) Impact of the program on Naval operations is This is an acknowledged issue that is provided for by the positive indeterminate. (DOD) intent of the state and the coastal zone management coordination processes set forth in Chapters V and VI. X-6 B. In response to Federal agency comments, a general letter was sent by OCZM to the following agency representatives: Mr. Don Samuelson Mr. Clifford V. Smith, Jr.,Ph.D.P.B. Regional Representative of Regional Administrator the Secretary of Transportation U.S.Environmental Protection Region 10 Agency Department of Transportation Region X Seattled, Washington 1200 Sixth Avenue DATED: July 3, 1975 Seattle, Washington 98101 DATED: September 22, 1975 Honorable Kenneth E. Grant Administrator Honorable Frank G. Zarb Soil Conservation Service Administrator U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Energy Administration Washington, D. C. 20 '250 Washington, D. C. 20461 DATED: July 3, 197S DATED: September 29,,1975' Honorable Charles R. Ford Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Department of the Army Washington, D. C. 20310 DATED: July 9, 197S Dr. Richard Hill Acting Director Office of Energy Systems Federal Power Commission Washington, D. C. 20426 'DATED: July 11, 1975 Honorable David O..Meeker Assistant Secretary Community Planning & Development Department of Housing & Urban Development Washington, D. C. 20410 DATED: August 22, 1975 Honrable George Marienthal, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environmental Quality The Pentagon Washington, D. C. 20301 DATED: September 5, 1975 X@7 UNiTED STATES DEPARTMEPJT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rackvilfe,'Md. 20852 rcs This letter transmits to your agency the response of the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, to your comments submfited regarding the State of Washington"s application to the Secretary of Commerce for approval of its coastal zone management program. Our materials are organized into four parts: (1) this letter; (2) OCZM responses to your agency's comments; (3) a copy of your agency's comments; and (4) a listing ofqfficial head- quarters Federal agency designees to coordinate the develojiment and review of State CZM programs. The letter itself sets forth a background on the current situation, the. actions taken by OCZM concerning the Washington program, the m ajor views and concerns-expressed by a number of Federal agencies, and a statement of overall findings together with our recommendations concerning needed actions on the part ofyour own and other relevant Federal agencies. The response to-your comments parallels the form and content of the review documents submitted to OCM1. This response is found at Attachment 1. In those cases where comments on the Washington management program and on the Draft tnvironmental Impact Statement filed on NOAA's proposed approval action-!were combined, or integrated)by an agency they are both addressed in our response. A cop_y of your agency comments is included as Attachment 2. Although such a response is not required by the Coastal Zone Management Act nor NOAA regulations, it is our opinion that it can play a vital part in the continuing consultation and refinement needed to implement the national CZM program. Specifically, OCZM has attempted to clarify and respond to specific questions, issues and positions reflected in the detailed agency comments. In doing so, it is anticipated that further clarification and mutual understanding can be achieved concerning what the Coastal Zone Management Act may require of the State and Federal agencies, legitimate agency positions that the State should accommodate, and what agency views .T168 51% Ar -2- may be important and desirable, but are either not required by CZMA or are simply not feasible. These responses should provide a focused basis for headquarters interagency dialogue in the coming months, as well as a framework for equally important State/Federal consultations in the field. Background The Act directs that the "Secretary shall consult with, cooperate with, andto the maximum extent practicable, coordinate his activities with other interested Federal agencies" (S.307(a)). The views of rel evant Federal agencies principally affected by the CZM program also must be fladequately considered" (S..307(b)). Other sections of the Act make it abundantly clear that reciprocal State/Federal 'coordination is a keystone in the de-,elopment, review, approval and implementation of the Act. NOAA published Interim Regulations on February 28, 1975, (40 CFR 925) formalizing a significant amount of interagency and State/Federal coordination experience gained during the initial year of CZX program deielopment. At the same time, relevant headquarters agencies were requested'to designate. representative(s) to coordinate the development and review of State CZM programs. Representatives were designated a-ad have provided outstanding staff assistance to the CZM effort. A list of these representatives is enclosed as Attachment 3 for your information. The Washington State coastal zone management program approval application, together with a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed ap- proval action by NOAA, was distributed by the Office of Coastal Zone Management to relevant Federal agencies for review on March 25, and March 21, 1975, respectively. A meeting of designated Federal agency representat@ves was held on April 8, followed by extensive bilateral dis- cussions with interested agency staffs. A meeting with the headquarters agency representatives was again convened on May 21, at which time OCZM presented to them its preliminary reactions to agency comments and the immediate administrative actions taken by OCZM concerning the Washington application. Actions Taken on the Washington Approval Apolication Substantial comment on the Washington application was received from.Federal agencies, State agencies, local governments, interest groups and the general public. OCZM also conducted a thorough in-house programmatic and legal review of the document. After extensive discussions with relevant Federal agencies and with the State of Washington, the State and OC224 agreed to pursue the following course of action: to grant preliminary approval to the State of Washington's - program, continuing eligibility for funding under Section 305 of the Act and delaying approval and funding under Section 306 and the attendant application of the Federal consistency provisions under Section 307 of the Act; to provide an enhanced development grant to the State for a six mouth period to fully complete all requirements for final approval of its CZM program; to develop a work program that is responsive to the key concerns expressed by the Federal agencies, and other interested parties, especially regarding intergovernmental participation, adequate consideration of agency views and clarification and enhancement of the State's mrsanizational network to implement an approved CZM priogram;. and, to suspend the final 30 day period for Federal agency review until such time as the State submits a final.approval document. OCZM believes that this action meets the spirit, in addition to the letter, of the stringent Federal coordination policies in the ict. It should also serve to underscore the principle of reciprocal Federal, as well as State, responsibilities for coordination in the CZK process. Interested Federal agenciesshould now redouble their efforts to participate with t;e State of,Washington during the coming four to six months of its final CZH program development... The Major Views of Federal Agencies Some commonality of Federal agency--concerns emerged.from this initial review of a State-program submitted for approval. They are summarized here because they ate central to our action taken with the State of Washington,iand will continue to be of.major concern in all future State CZM development and review actions. Opportunity for Full Participation States are directed to provide "the opportunity of full participation by relevant Federalagencies" by Section 306(c)(1) of the Act. This State responsibility is a difficult one, as the Washington experience demonstrates. For, although the burden of contacting relevant Federal agencies falls on the State, the parameter of "full participation" must be worked out between the State and a responsive Federal establishment. At a minimum, States must X-10 seek the participation of Federal agencies and provide a forum for consultation. States must proceed with an "open" program development process. Concurrently, Federal agencies should be prepared to assist the'State in negotiating their complex organizational structures and levels of involvement and decision-making. A lack of timely and specific guidance to the State of Washington contributed to some agencies or progr-s not being afforded the opportunity to part�ci- pate in the development of the management program. Some Federal agencies were contacted, but due to a variety of circumstances, did not participate in the program until the formal review process was initiated. Still another cause of inadequate participation rested with the varied range of interests that emerged during the review - many literally unknown to the State or OCZM. On the one hand, OCZM has concluded that the States must enhance their efforts to contact and involve comprehensively, all relevant agencies early in the process of program development. Washington will invest significant additional efforts to consult with relevant agencies during.phe next six months. Also, a structured process of interaction must be on a continuing basis in the future. On the other hand, Federal'agencies must develop coherent systems to participate in the developm6nt and review of State programs and communicate these to OCZM and the States. Consideration of-YedelEal Agency Views State@programs shall not be approved by the Secretary "unless the views of Federal agencies principally affected by such program have been adequately considered," according to Section 307(b) of the Act. Participation of relevant agencies is an obvious precedent to meeting this requirement fully. While Washington solicited many, though not all, agency views, there was insufficient demonstration that those views solicited had been adequately considered. The State has programmed resources to undertake this task, In conjunction with OCZK's continuing interaction with interested agencies. Both efforts will focus*on the formal comments received from your agency as well as others. The "adequacy" of State and OCZM consideration of agency views is inherently a'judgmental criterion. However, it is clear that interested agencies should be provided with-written responses - of which this is a first -- as an integral part of the program development and approval process. X-11 Consideration of the National Interest Section 306(c)(8).of the Act states that the Secretary shall find that . . . the management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities . . . ." NOAA regulations (40 CFR 923) at 923.15 interpret this requirement in the follow- ing manner: "This policy requirement is intended to assure that national concerns over facility siting are expressed and dealt with in the development and implementation of the State coastal zone management programs.` Management programs may not arbitrarily exclude.nor unreasonably restrict such facilities, and should make reasonable provision for.such facilities as part of its overall managerial regime. ,In terms of the Act, in its present form, Section 306(c)(8) does not require the State to develop a.compreheusive and site specific elemeii for the loca- :tion of facilities in the coastal zone. Within the overall iontext of the Act, such an element appears desirable and iwould be feas-lble given further' resources and additional legislative mandate. Absent such legislative change, OCZM has encouraged the States to develop such a capability incre- mentally - particularly through supplemental funds recently provided for deaaiug with the iffi@acts of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas development. Refinement of management capability for iocation-specific siting will further develop during CZM program implementation. States are now required to consider siting policies and mechanisms as an integral part of the establishment and implementation of CZM programs where such policies exist. The essential means for addressing the issue of the national,interest in the siting of facilities is in-depth consultation between the State and the relevant Federal agencies.' This process of iden- tification, consultation,-and mutual accommodation'can be served best by Federal agency development of policy statements-and substantive expressions of national and program@ interests as they relate to the State's CZM program. Some of these expressions were set forth in the formal review of the Washington program, and are commented on where applicable, in Attachment l.- Clearly, the utility of this Federal-State procedure would be greatly,enhanced if such expressions are made during the development, rather than the.review, of CZM programs. Nevertheless, it is envisioned that,this will be an iterative process that will and should continue during the implementation phase of CZH programs. X-12 General-Findings and Recommendations Opportunity for full Federal participation, adequate consideration of agency views and the adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities emerged as common themes in Federal agency comments on the Washington program. They are generic concerns that will apply in varying degrees to all State CZH programs. These threefactors are closely interrelated and interdependent; together. they reflect the central con- ceptual objective of the Act: enhancement of State capability and authority to manage the coastal zone, together with adequate consideration of legitimate national and Federal program interests. The State of Washington has agreed to devote priority attention to these three areas of State-Federal interface in the coming mouths$ both in the strengthening of its organizational network, and in the clarification of State and Federal interests. OCZM believes that there are reciprocal and concurrent Federal agency obligations to respond to these State-Federal issues. We therefore request that your agency in the near future: 1. Provide 0CZM with specific guidance concerning the,review and participation structure and contacts that will te used by your agency to interact with Washington and the other coastal States. 2. Develop and provide to 0CZM and the States a general policy framework,for identifying and considering the major program and national interests of your.agency as they relate to the CZM program. 3. Perhaps.through your designated CZM representative, schedule a meeting at the appropriate level and time to discuss with- us your reactions to our response. 40'.- Afid, insure that the initiatives now being taken by the State of Washington are met by the active participation of your selected headquarters, regional or field staffs over the next.few months. We feel strongly that the interactive requirements of our Act have worked and provide a sound basis for achieving the CZMA's basic goals. We also appreci- ate the fine efforts of your agency and staffs in supporting this new and significant national effort to strengthen State-Federal relations. NOAA and OCZM look forward to working closely with you in.the future. Sincerely, Robert W. Knecht Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management X-13 Enclosures C. Federal Agency Comments and NOAA's Response. Department of Agriculture (combined response) Soil Conservation Service Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) U.S. Navy State of Washington Response to Navy Department of Housing and Urban Development (combined response) Department of the Interior (combined response) Department of Transportation (combined response) U.S. Coast Guard Office of Environmental Affairs 'Energy Research and Development Administration Environmental Protection Agency Regional Acbninistrato-r, Region X Federal Energy Administration Federal Power Commission National Aeronautics and Space Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Council on Historic Preservation X-14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFAGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Wa3hington, 0. C. 20250 Rua 1975 *Mr. Robert W. Knecht 14 MAY 1975 Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Rockville, Maryland 20852 InforM Dear Mr. Knecht: Several agencies in the Department of Agriculture have reviewed the State of Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program, submitted March 25, 1975. The following comment s represent the views of the Department. Comments on the draft Environmental..Impact Statement have been,submitted separately and are enclosed for your information. USDA agencies have been involved with the Washington State Department of Ecology and local governments in the formulation, application, and interpretation of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, which forms the basis for the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. Requirements of that Act are being incorporated in USDA project and program proposals in the coastal zone. Continuing coordination between federal,'state, and local ageicies will be,of pa ramount importance as the coastal counties and cities develop and implement local master programs for the coastal area. Washington State has proposed incorporating permit regulations (Chapter 173-14 WAC) that would require the Federal Government to obtain a permit for substantial developments undertaken on land not owned in fee by the Government. The Forest Service believes that its permanent easements are Federal property and should be treated in the same manner as other National Forest"land. As noted on page 6 of the Forest Service sub- mission included in Appendix A of the State of Washington application, this issue has not been resolved. We would hope it could-be resolved prior to approval of the 306 grant application. The program document submitted by the State of Washington for approval under Section 306 has some serious weaknesses which leave us uncertain as to how the state program will operate. The material was organized to illustrate the state's compliance with the statutorial reouirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. It does little, however, to present a coherent picture of the actual operation proposed for the state's Coastal Zone.Management Program. A section which succinctly X-15 2 explains proposed administrative procedures, cites all relevant acts and regulations, and discusses proposed interactions between federal, state, and local governments is needed. Such a section could also allow private land users to more adequately evaluate the implications of the program on their private land use decisions. Some of this information is in the massive document submitted by the state, but nowhere is It set forth in a clear, summary format. The "second tier" boundary, consisting of the entire state,- is a regulatory boundary wherein the state's,air and water quality standards prevent the establishment of land uses which may produce direct and significant impact on the coastal waters. We question whether this is an appropriate boundary concept. It was implied that the Department of Ecology, in incorporating the .enforcement of air and water quality'standards as part of the Coastal 'Zone Management Program, contemplated no new administrative machinery or requirements as a result of adoption of the Coastal Zone Management Program, but this was not directly stated. If current procedures and regulations are considered adequate for the purposes of protecting coastal waters, the-document should say so. If not, and if further pollution control requirements are contemplated in areas outside the 200-foot line marking the shoreline management boundary, the program should set these forth. In a related example, the last paragraph on page 19 indicates a new form on state-federal relationship arising from a "certification of federal projects system that will be established" and an "expanded A-95 review process." The substance of such new administrative mechanisms should be set forth more explicitly. This informatlon is needed to evaluate the program's probable effect on Federal programs. The maps provided with the program document add little to the illustration of the state's program. While it is obviously not feasible to include large detailed maps in the document, improved selection of map scales, drafting technique!s, and reproduction would seem to have been possible. In summary, we feel the program submitted by the State of Washington represents an attempt on their part to demonstrate compatibility with the reguirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. It 'does not present a coherent statement of an important new mechanism for public administration in the State of Washington. X-16 3 A clearer explanation of contemplated administrative procedures is needed to provide a basis for review of the program's impact on production of food and fiber and USDA programs. Sincerely, R NZ:Wn.. I@A enne h E. Grant A * strator Enclosu 4 Jenne h E- Gr. .16 X-17 A . strator Enclos u W1 or UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Md. 20852 JUL 3 1975 MEMORANDUM FOR: Kenneth E. Grant Administrator Soil Conservation Service U. S. Department of Agritultu FROM: Robert W. Knech Assistant Admini tor for Coastal Zone Management SUBJECT: Office of Coastal Zone Management Response to the Department of Agriculture Comments on the State of Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP) Your letter of May 9,'1975 transmitting :the Department*of Agriculture comments on the above WCZMP is acknowledged and appreciated. Our response to these comments is set forth below following the paragraph sequence presented in you@ letter. 1. -OCZM finds it difficult to respond@ to the first issue raised in your letter. As we understand it, the creation of a "permanent easement" generally establishes a well defined legal relationship between-the signatories to the legal instruments which create the lease. The respec- tive rights and responsibilities between the State of Washington and the Department of Agriculture are therefore only ascertainable through a legal review of the documents referenced. In the absence of more specific information on the case in point, it is difficult for NOAA or this Office to give you an opinion at this time. It would be advantageous if the Forest Service could provide us with the necessary details and we could then meet to discuss this.issue in more detail. 2. This Office agrees that the application as'submitted fails to present a coherent picture of the overall program and one that details the full organizational network for program implementation. This deficiency was noted in NOAA's notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER of June 2, 1975 at 40 CFR, No. 106, pp. 23778 and 23779. A specific element of the State's continuing Section 305 grant will address this issue. Agricultu e,@@ t of ipator for Coasta elovi.-@111% too L X-18 3. In its final application the State will define a "two-tier" CZM boundary, including the area encompassed by the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the first tier of coastal counties. The application of associated regulatory systems inland of the S14A and their relationship to the overall program is another task the State has agreed to under- take as part of its supplemental grant. 4. An essential element of the task outlined in paragraph 3 above will be to detail the policy and operational interrelationships of associated programs inland from the SMA boundary. 5. Again, this Office'concurs that the State of Washington's proposed system for applying the consistency provisions of.the Act should be set forth so that Federal agencies z@ay be apprised of potential changes in State-Federal working arrangements. 6. A more detailed mapping effort is a specific work element of the continued grant application. One of this element's products will be clarified and enhanced graphics for the final approval package. We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the particularly outstanding support provided to this Office by your stafi in their review of the Washington program. As is evident from our response, the staff identified what we ourselves considerid to be the central areas of needed improvement in Washington's otherwise lauda'hlx X-19 01C U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration YES MAY 13 1975 4 MAY 1,975 Mr. Robert W. Knecht CZMI Director Triformatio office of Coastal Zone Management National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W. C Washington, D. C. 20235 Dear Mr. Knecht: 7P 'The State of Washington submitted its coastal zone management ,program on March 25, 1975, for approval of the Secretary of Commerce. A 45-day period (ending May 9, 1975) for review and comment by Federal agencies began on that date. The Economic Development Administration received an informal request on April 4, 1975, from Mr. Timothy Alexander of your staff, to review the Washington program. On April 10, 1975, EDA received a single copy of the State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, "Application to the Secretary of Commerce for approval of the State Coastal Zone Management Program under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583), " dated February 14, 1975 and prepared by the Washington Department of Ecology. None of the appendices of the program were included in the delivery. On April 16, 1975, upon EDA request, "Appendix A--Federal Agencies" was received. Approval of a State's coastal zone'management (CZM) program would have two different results: 1) the State becomes eligible for management-assistance grants from the Office of Coastal Zone Management'(Section 306 of the Act) and 2) enforcement procedures 'are invoked involving Federal programs which 'issue licenses or permits for activity affecting land or water use in the coastal zone and Federal programs which provide Federal assistance affecting this coastal zone (Section 307 of the Act). These two results are not separable -- eligibility for management assistance grants cannot be established without also bringing the enforcement procedures into operation. X-20 2. Under Section 307(d) of the Act, approval of a State CZM program would require that an applicant for EDA assistance would have to indicate, in the application, the views of the appr9priate State or local agency (responsible for administering the CZM program) as to the relationship of activities proposed in the application to the approved management program for the coastal zone. EDA would be pro- hibited from funding any project which was certified by such State or local agency to be inconsistent with the coastal zone management program. Initial review of the Washington CZM Program documents revealed that organizations associated primarily with economic development activities were not listed as having been consulted during the development of the program. EDA staff polled-the EDA Western Regional Office, the Executive Director of the Central Puget Sound Economic Development District, the headquarters of the Office of Minority Business, the headquarters and field office of the Pacific Northwest Regional Action Planning Commission, and the Office of the Special Assistant for Regional Economic Coordination to determine whether any of them had been invited to participate but had not done so. With the exception of the field office of the Pacific Northwest Regional Commission (which was involved on a commission studying outer continental shelf oil exploration) none of'the parties contacted had been consulted as a part of the development of the Washington' State CZM Program. Section 303(b) of the Act establishes Congressional policy that States should give "full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic values as well as to needs for economic development. ..." Section 306(c)(1) requires opportunity of full participation in the development of a management plan of Federal agencies, State agencies, local governments, regional organizations, port authorities and other interested parties. Section 306(c)(2) requires - coordination of a management program with local, areawide, and interstate plans applicable to areas within the coastal zone. Section 923.30 of the regulations says, "It is the intent of these requirements for coordination with governmental and private bodies to assure that the State, in developing X- 21 3. its management programs, is aware of the full array of interests represented by such organizations, that opportunity for participation was provided, and that adequate consultation and cooperation has taken place and will continue in the future." It is obvious that the intent of the requirements for coordination with economic development interests were not met in the Washington CZM Program prior to sUSR-Ittal for approval by the Secretary of Commerce. It is EDA's recommendation that the Secretary of Commerce should disapprove the Washington CZM Program pending adequate consultation by the Washington State Department of Ecology with groups and organizations that are primarily concerned' with economic development. Given the present lack of consulta- tion with economic development organizations, the approval of the subject Washington State CZM Program would expose future enforcement procedures under Sections 307(c)(3), and (d) of the Act to law suits charging failure to follow due process set forth in CFR Title 15, Chapter IX, Part 923, Subpart D, "Coordination." At the suggestion of Mr. Richard Gardner of your office, EDA staff has been in contact with the Washington State Department of Ecology to express our concern that there should be thorough consultation with economic development interests before the Washington CZM Program should be approved by the Secretary of Commerce. The Department of Ecology has agreed to convene in mid-May,-1975, a meeting of the appropriate economic development organizations to discuss: 1) The proceduihl requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 for coordination and consultation with the varied interests in the management of coastal zones; 2) the substance of this specific management program which has been submitted for approval of the Secretary of Commerce and how such substance impacts on the economic development needs of the area; 3) the array of research, analyses, plan development, hearings and plan adoption activities which will remain to be accomplished by the State and local government units pursuant to the CZM Program after its approval and X-22 4. 4) the Federal, State, and local government enforcement provisions under the CZM program submitted for approval and how such would impact economic development activities at the Federal, State and local levels., Contingent on a satisfactory consultation by the Department of Ecology with the economic development organizations this month we look foreward to rescinding our recommendation for disapproval on procedural grounds. We reserve the right to make substantive comments and recommendations to the Secretary following reports from EDA field staff who will attend the meeting. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the State of Maine Coastal Zone Management Program, Mid-Coastal Segment has a similar systematic omission of consultation with economic development organizations. The Maine Office of State Planning has agreed to convene a meeting similar to the one Washington will hold, so that consultation can be accomplished prior to the May 22, 1915 ending date for Federal agency review and comment. EDA ha 's alerted the coastal management agencies of the States of Oregon and California about the deficiences found in the Washington and Maine programs, so that Oregon and California CZM Programs soon to be submitted for approval 'can meet the coordination requirements of your regulations. I am sending a memorandum to each EDA Regional Director describing your program and asking them to make contact with each State agency designated for coastal zone management programs and to indicate the need for EDA to be consulted in the development of any CZM program under the Act. This should assure that the problem addressed in this letter should not occur again in the future. si_ncerely, amrick eput ALsistant Secretary for onomic Development Planning X-23 NOAA Response to EDA. 1. Consultative processes have been further developed with interested Federal agencies. Specifically, contacts have been established with the Small Business Administration, EDA, and the Pacific Northwest RE@gional Commission. See Appendix B and D of the Washington Coastal Zone, Management Program. 2. Participation. Economic interests in the development of the Shoreline Management Act, which is the basis for the Washington Coastal Zone Management Progrmn, have had equal opportunity to participate in program development. Their concerns expressed prior to enactment of the Shoreline Management Act and at numerous public hearings have been useful at both state and local levels in developing guidelines and local master programs. These concerns are incorporated in state policies and goals. Local.master program plan elements (WNC 173-16-040(3') ) include an economic development element and a shoreline use element. There is also a continuous opportunity for further input, at hearings on shoreline permit applications. Although there may be temporary impact on the economic community, the state does not appear to have neglected economic interests. See Program Coordination,Objectives, pages 139-140, Washington'Coastal Zone Management Program. X-24 '. Lila DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JUN OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY WASHINGTON.D.C. 20310' 2 1 MAY 1975 Dr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Dr. Galler: The State of Washington's application for approval of a Coastal Zone Management Program under Section 306 of P. L. 92-583, and its associated Environmental Impact State- ment have been reviewed. From the civil works point of view, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommends that the Secretary of Commerce approve the Plan. Sincerely, Charles R. Ford Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 4" M X-25 UMITEO STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville. Md. 20852 JUL 9 1975 MMORANDUM FOR: Charles R. Ford Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Department-of the Army FROM: Robert W. Knech; Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management SUBJECT: Office of Coastal Zone Management Response to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Comments on the State of Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZNP) Your letter to Dr. Sidney R. Galler of May 21, 1975 was also referred to this Office as the administering agency for the Coastal Zone Management Program. Thank you for the review of the Washingto@ Coastal Zone Management Program and your recommendation that it be approved. This continues a fruitful relationship with the Corps, not only in Washington, but with the coastal states as well. We should also like to take this opportunity to inform you that we shall be working with your.Planning Branch in the further refine- ment and enhancement of Corps' guidance to the field concerning coastal zone management. We look forward to continuing our productive relationship with Civil Works,in the future. too X-26 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON. D. C. 20301 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT JUN 197S Mr. Robert W. Knecht JUN Director, Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration czbl U.S. Department of Commerce Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Mr. Knecht: This is to provide the Department of Defense's response to the Department of Commerce's requests of March 21st and 25th on the Washington Stat-e coastal zone management plarf and draft environmental. impact statement. In summary, we have no substantive comments to offer on the draft environmental impact statement, but we do strongly object to the final approval of the state plan at this time. We object to the approval of the plan primarily because national security interests were not adequat ely considered in the program development. Of the four military services, the potential impact on the Navy's operation is of primary concern. Accordingly, specific comments from the Navy are contained in enclosures I - 3 If you have further questions on this subject, they should be directed to Mr. Frances Roche at 695-6744. We appreciate the opportunity to review the plam and the draft environmental impact statement. Sincerely, 04 S>01 George Marienthal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environmental Quality Enclosures joLUT10,V X-27 HAVAL OPERATING AREAS AND TEST RANGES The Navy usage of the following operating, warning or restricted areas includes all facets of readiness training; ordnance firing; research, development, testing and evaluation programs; support oparations; and air, surface and subsurface access to military facilities and installations in support of the na@tional de- fense and national security interests. The importance of continued unobstructed Naval.usage of these areas has been established by categorical evaluation as follows: A Cannot accept interference in any of the areas without loss of major capability or the functions performed in that area would have to be relocated at a major cost. Areas: 3, 11, 13, 16, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32 B Cannot accept interference in a specific portion of a designated OP- AREA for same reasons as.(A) specifying the position that cannot be. Interfered with. Areas: None C Cannot accept interference in any of thearea without loss of a,major capability or the function in that area would have to be relocated at a substantiAl cost. Areas: None D Cannot accept interference in a specific portion of a designated OP- AREA for same reasons as (C) specifying the portion that should not be interfered with.' Areas: None E Interference would result in a degradation of a function performed or would result in a major scheduling or coordination inconvenience. Areas: 5, 6, 7 F Interference would result in a minor scheduling or coordination inconvenience. Areas: 17, 23, 26 G Interference would be of little or no consequence to Naval operations or functions. Areas: 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12i 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 31 H Mutual use of an area or portion thereof would be compatible. Areas: None X-28 1. COMMON NAME: Admiralty Bay (R-6701). LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West- Beginning at: 48 10 00" 122 34 48" to 48 05 45 122 31 30 48 06 06 122 41 12 48 10 00 122 40 56 to point of beginning. DESCRIPTION: Special use airspace with a raked aerial mining range. TYPE EXERCISES AND ORDNANCE: Bombing, mining-miniature practice bombs, practice aerial mines. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Periods of usage Monday thru. Friday, 0800- 163.0 local, VFR conditions OVERLAPPING, 1NCLUDING AND This area encompasses a surface exercise area ADJACENT AREAS, TARGETS: R-6701 2. COMMON NAME: Admirally Bay Surface Exercise Area(R-6701) LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North 'Longitude West 48 10 00" 1220 34' 48 48 05 45 122 31 30 48 06 06 122 .41 12 48 10 00 122 40 56 Land area within above points excluded. DESCRIPTION: Surface operating area in Admiralty Bay TYPE EXERCISES AND ORDNANCE: Individual ship and tactical exercises, tests; non-explosive ordnance, small arms fire. USAGE LIMITATIONS:- Periods of usage; Continuous X-29 3. COMMON NAIC: Oueets* (sea Lion Rock) (R-6707) LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 470 291 00" 1240 '241 15" and the surrounding area within a 3 nautical -tile radius lying between and eastward of the follow- ing coordinates: 470 271 00w 1240 241 00" 47 24 25, 124 24 30 DESCRIPTION: Special use airspace with a water target a barren unmarked rock. See flight informaticn publication, Planning Section 11B, for legal description and boundaries. TYPE EXERCISES AND ORDNANCE: Aircraft bombing,,loft bombing, and rocket firing (inert ordnance only). .USAGE LIMITATIONS: Periods of usage: Sunrise to sunset, VFR conditions. Rocket runs from east to west. No bombing runs toward land. OVeRLAPPiNG, INCLUDED AND Lies east of and contiguous to W-237,. surface. ADJACENT AREAS, TARGETS: exercise area 237, and adjacent to two submarine test and trial areas. 4.*COMMON NAME: Washington Coastal Warning Area (W-237) LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 480 09" 1250 561 48 20 124 54 47 35 124 38 47 35 124 24 47 30 124 24 47 25 124 23 47 00 124 23 .46 50 125 24 to a point of beginning, excluding that portion coinciding with R-6707. W-237 north is that area north of a line between: 470 311 1250 42 arfd 47 41. 124 35 W-237 south lies south of above line. IDESCRIPT16N: Special use airspace over ocean area. TYPE EXERCISES AND ORDNANCE: Air to air gunnery and rocketry; air to surface firing, bombing; conventional ordnance, photoflash. cartridges. (For air missile firing reference COM&rVAQWINGPAC Instruction 8810.1) OVERLAPPING, INCLUDED'AND Overlies Washington Coastal Surface ADJACENT AREAS, TARGETS: Exercise area 237N, 237S STATA 3 and 4. Restricted area R-6707 adjoins the lowex eastern portion of this area. Lies sout of and adjacent.to W-601. X-30- s. CMMON NAME= Washington Coastal Surface Exercise Area 237N and 237S LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 48o 09' 125o 56' 48 20 124 54 47 35 124 38 47 35 124 24 47 30 124 24 47 25 124 23 47 00 124 23 46 so 125 24 to a point of beginning, excluding that portion coinciding with R-6707. 237N is north of a line between 47o 31'N 125o 42'W and 47o 41'N 124o 35W. 237S lies south of the above line. DESCRIPTION= Ocean surface operating area TYPE OF EXERCISES AND ORDNANCE: Surface tactical, gunnery including AA and missile firing; undersea warfare exercises. and combined type exercises. Unrestricted ordnance except as noted in remarks, including rockets, missiles, torpedoes, incendiaries, photoflash, illumination and gun type ammunition may be used. OVERLAPPING, INCLUDED AND Underlies special use airspace W-237. ADJACENT AREAS, TARGETS: Contains two submarine test and trial areas. Lies south of and adjacent to, special use airspace W-601, and surface use airspace R-6707. 6. COMMON NAME: Cape Flaherty, Washington (W-601) LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 48o 27' 00" 125o 15' 00" 48 17 00 125 15 00 48 17 00 125 45 00 48 27 00 125 45 00 DESCRIPTION: Special use airspace over ocean area. TYPE EXERCISES AND ORDNANCE: Air to surface intermediate and low altitude bombing, strafing and rocketry. Conventional ordnance, photoflash cartridges. OVERLAPPING, INCLUDED AND 1. Area encompasses surface exercise area 60l. ADJACENT AREAS, TARGETS: 2. Lies north of and adjacent to W-237. X-31 7. COMMON NAME: Cape Flaherty, Washington, Surface Exercise Area 601 LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 48O 27' 00" 125O 15' 00" 48 17 00 125 15 00 48 17 00 125 45 00 48 27 00 125 45 00 DESCRIPTION: Ocean Surface Operating Area TYPE EXERCISES AND ORDNANCE: Surface Tactical, Gunnery including AA firing and missile firing: undersea warfare exercises and combined type exercises. unrestricted ordnance except as noted in remarks, including rockets, missiles, torpedoes, incendiaries, photoflash, illumination, and gun type ammunition may be used. OVERLAPPING, INCLUDED AND 1. Underlies special use airspace W-601. ADJACENT AREAS, TARGETS: 2. North of and adjacent to special use airspace W-237 and surface exercise area 237. 8. COMMON NAME.: Okanogan A. C. M. Area LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 49o 00' 00" 120o 00' 00" 49 00 00 119 00 00 48 03 30 119 00 00 40 06 00 119 35 00 48 08 30 120 27 30 Direct to point of beginning DESCRIPTION.: Special use airspace designated by Seattle ARTCC for aerial combat maneuvers operations. Protection afforded from known IFR traffic by Seattle Center. TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: Aerial combat maneuver operations and AMTI Training. No ordnance authorized. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Periods of usage: continuous as scheduled with COMATVAQWINGPAC. Joint use airspace with 25th NORAD. OVERLAPPING, INCLUDED AND Lies adjacent to and east of Roosevelt ACM area. ADJACENT AREAS, TARGETS: Underlies 25 NORAD special use airspace. X-32 COMMON NAME: Roosevelt A.C.M. Area. LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 494 001 00w 1190 00, 000 49 '00 00 117 30 00 48 20 00 117 30 ' 00 48 00 00 lie 00 00 Direct to-point of beginning. DESCRIPTION: Special use airspace designated by Seattle ARTCC for aerial combat maneuver operations. Protection afforded from known IFR Traffic by Seattle center. .TYP.EEXERCISES AND ORDNANCE: Aerial combat maneuver operations and AMTI training. No ordnance authorized. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Usage continuous as scheduled with COmmATvAQWING?Ad. 10. COMMONVAME: Olympic A.C.M. Area. LDCATION AND BOUNDARIES.- Latitude North Longitude West 480 151 000 1240. 481 00" 48 00 oe 124 07 00 47 30 00 123 30 00 47 30 00 124 30 00 AS 00 00 124 45 00 Direct point of beginning DESCRIPTION: Special use airspace designated by Seattle ARTCC for aerial combat maneuver operations. Protection afforded from known IFR Traffic by Seattle Center. TYPE EXERCISES AND ORDNANCE: Aerial combat maneuver operations. No ordnance authorized. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Continuous as scheduled with COKXATVAQWINGPAC.- X-33 COMMON NAME: Danger zone, Vicinity Deception Pass LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North. Longitude West North zone: 480 211 53N 1220 401 CON 48 23 -12 122 41 17 48 23 29 122 40 23 48 22 21 122 39 50 Along shoreline to point of beginning. South zone: 48* 201 57" 122* 401 390 48 20 40 122 42 59 48 21 19 122 43 02 48 21 13 122 40 26 Along shoreline to point of beginning. DESCRIPTION: Danger zones off northwest share of Whidbey Island. See Coast Pilot 7 for legal description and boundaries. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Periods of Usage: Continuous. Fh'edang zone described does not have status as a surfacg exercise area. Occasional naval operations nay be requirediincident to aircraft operations. 12 COMMON NAME: Hood Canal, Bango Ir, Naval Restricted Area. LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: That area bounded by a line commencing on the east shore of Hood Canal at latitude 47* 481 28"; thence 2700 true to a point 200 feet from the high tide line; t@jence northerly along the east.share of Hood Canal and within 200 feet of the high tide line to latitude 476 441 11"; thence approximately 3580 true to latitude 470 441 24', longitude 122* 44' 24'; thence approximately 270 true to latitude 47* 45' 47", longitude 122* 431 22"; thence approximately 900 true to latitude .470 451 47", longitude 122* 431 06"; thence northerly along the east shore of Hood Canal and within 200 feet of the high tide line to latitude 470 461 20"; thence 90* true to*t@he high tide line; and thence southerly along the shore line to the point of beginning. DESCRIPTION: A naval security area in vicinity of the Naval Ammunition Annex Bangor for mooring and logistics. TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: In-port exercises, such as'fire drills and com- munication exercises. No tactical, gunnery, or similar 'exercises involving the exploding of ordnance or use of incendiary devices are permitted.- VSAGE LIMITATIONS: Continuous 0VFkLAPPT-NG, INCLUDED AND Adjacent controlled areas include submarine test ADJACENT AREAS, TAIRGETS:. and trial area 1 (STATA 11) and the Hood Canal danger zone and torpedo testiAg area. X-34 13. COMMON NAME: Hood Canal danger zone and torpedo testing-area. LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 470. 46' 000 Shoreline* 47 42 00 Shoreline* *Includes all waters of the,Hood Canal except for % navigational lane 506 yards wide along west 9re, and a similar lane along east shore south of 471 431 28". DESCRIPTION: A danger zone and naval opir4tions area used for non-explosive torpedo-ranging. See Coast Pilot 7 for legal description and boundaries. TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: Exclusive use for torpedo testing and acoustic calibration exercises'. Explosive ordnance of any type is prohibited. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Continuous. (Normal hours 0800 -'sunset Monday through Friday except holidays) 14-COMON NAME: Dabob Bay restricted area (Vicinity Whitney Point) LOCATIONS AND BOUNDARIES: See remarks. DESCRIPTION: Surface operating area, a portion of the Dabob Bay danger zone. TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: See remarks@ USAGE LIMITATIONS: See remarks. REMARKS/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: This sheet is provided for continuity and cross reference purposes. See Dabob Bay danger' zone data which includes the Whitney Point restricted area. OVERLAPPING, INCLUDED AND Adjacent area includes the naval eestricted area ADJACENT AREAS, TARGETS: Bangor (security area) and the Hood Canal Bangor danger zone and torpedo testing*aeea., X-35* COMMON NAME: Dabob Bay danger zone vicinity Quilcene LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude Approximate Longitude Number Location West 470 391 '271 S. Dabob Bay 1220 521 22" 47 40 19 S. Dabob Bay 122 50 10 47 41 34 Tatkutsko Pt. 122 49 52 47 48 DO- -N. Dabob Bay 122 47 12 47 48 00 Bolton Pen. 122 49 06 47 46 52 S. Quilcene Bay 122 Sf 06 47 4S 44 Whitney Pt. 122 51 06 47 44 11 Pulali Pt. 122 51 15 DESCRIPTION: Anaval opeiations and testing area of approximately 102 fathoms on west side of Hood Canal near Bangor. It includes a 'naval restricted area near Whitney Point. See Coast Pilot 7 for legal description and boundaries. Sections 204.222(b) and 207.750(o) apply. TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: Exclusive use for tests, analyses, and operations related to acoustic testing and torpedo testing when required. ISE authorized on a non-interfering basis when approved by Commanding Officer, NAVTORPSTA Y-eyport. No explosive ordnance authorized. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Continuous. (0930 1430 Monday through Friday except holiddy-1) ].6.COMMON NAME- Sinclair'lnlef'Naval restricted area LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: All of Sinclair Inlet from longitude west 122* 361 400 to longitude west 122* 40' 00". DESCRIPTION: a naval security area adjacent to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Bremerton, Washington, mooring piers. TrpE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: Routine ship movements approval by Commander, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, required'for vessels over 100 tons. No ordnance is authorized. USAGE LIMITATIONS: There is an array of seven sonar hydrophone'trans- ducers located on the bottom directly adjacent to, the shipyard piers appioximately 250 vards out from pierhead line. Anchoring of ships in this area is prohibited at all times. X-36 17. COMMON NAME: Port Orchard Naval resit-icted and' operations area. OUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West LOCATION AND P (approximate) 470 421 010 1220 361 48* 47 42 01 122 36 40 47 39 09 122 35 30 47 39 08 122 36 54 Thence along shoreline to point of beginning DESCRIPTION: A naval restricted area west of Bainbridge Island. see Coast Pilot 7 for legal description and boundaries. TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: Exclusive use for non-explosive torpedo testing. No explosive ordnance authorized. 1SE on approval of scheduling authority. No trawling, dragging, or anchoring permitted at any time. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Continuous when so scheduled. (Normal hours are from 0800-1600 Monday through Friday except holidays.) 18.COMMON NAME: Carr Inlet naval restricted area LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 4711 101 27" (Hyde Point) 1220 381 360 47 13 09 (Gibson Point)122 36 02 Thence along shoreline of Fox island northeasterly to 47 16 26 (Hale Passage) 122 * 39 27 47 16 59 (Warren Dock) 122 39 07 Thence along shoreline westerly to .47 16 54 (Green Point) 122 41 33 47 15 57 (Penrose Point)122 4.4 02 Thence along shoreline southerly to 47 13 32 (Pitt Island) 122 43 09 47 13 10 (Pitt Passage) 122 42 37 Thence along shoreline to starting point, DESCRIPTION: A naval operations area for acoustic.research and noise trials. TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: Special noise trials and research studies. No explosives or explosive ordnance shall be used. This is the principal west coast trial area for analysis of radiated and self noise. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Special navigation regulations and restrictions apply to this area. The full legal description of area and the pertinent regulations are pub- lished in the U. S. Coast Pilot 7, Section 207-750. X-37 19. COMMON NAME: Point Jefferson naval restricted area. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: A security area and degaussing operations area currently having inactive status. A small boat fairway is contained within the western portion. The area enclosed by points denoted with * form the small boat fairway. All waters west of the fairway form,the securiiy area. see Coast Pilot 7 for legal description and boundaries. LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West (Approximate) 470 451 400 * 1220 281 140 * 47 4S 40 * 1226 27 31 * 47 -, 45 .33 122 26 50 47 44 36 122 27 12 47 44 43 * 122 27 51 * 47. -44 49 * 122 28 27 * 47 45 09 * 122 27 51 Thence to point of beginning. TYPES OF OPFIZATTONS, EXERCISES, Limited to degaussing operations when activated. AND ORDNANCE ;,UTHORIZED: No exolosive ordnance, trawling, dragging or ancho@inq is permitted at any time. 2 COMMON NAME: -Admiralty inlet entrance naval restricted area. 0. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: A naval restricted area west of Whidbey island but open to navigation at all times'. See Coast Pi:lot 7 for legal description and boundaries. rZCATION AND BOUNDARIES. Latitude North Longitude West tApproximate) 480 081 40" 1220 451 100 48 12 30 122 44 24 Thence along shoreline to- 489 151 00" 1220 451 27" 48 is 00 123 00 00 48 07 00 122- 51 51 Thence along shoreline.to point of beginning. TYPES OF OPERkrIOIJS, EXERCISES, ISE and surface tactical exercises, except any A.ND ORDNANCE AUTHURIZED: dr4ggihg, trawling, anchoring, or use of similar ground tackle is prohibited. The dumping of any con-buoyant material is also Prohibited. No explosive ordnance is authorized. X-38 Elliott Day, Smith Covd, naval restricted area '21. COMMON NAM: L40CATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 470- 37' 54* 1220 231 040 470 371 330 1220 231 040 47 37 33 122 22 36 47 37 .37 122 22, 36 DESCRIPTION: Commercial harbor. (See Coast Pilot 7-for legal description and boundaries.) TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: No ordnan-e authorized. Inport drills, may be conducted. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Continuous for inport exercises. 22.* COKMON NAME: Warning Area 460.- Hoquiam, Washington LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West Beginning at: 470 211 1250 391 to 46 28 125 16 45 50 128 2.7 46 43 128 49 to point of beginning. DESCRIPtION: Special use airspace over ocean area. TYPE EXERCISES AND ORDNANCE: Air to air gunnery, rockets, missiles; air to surface firing, bombing, missiles, conventional ordnance, photoflash cartridges. OVERLAPPING, INCLUDED AND Lies southwest of and adjacent to W-237. ADJACENT AREA, TARGETS: 23 ""t OMMON NAME: Deperming Range, Illahee GENERAL DESCRIPTION: An area occasionally used for the delperming of large Navy ships. When used, an,aRproDriate local notice to mariners is issued, specifying the area and hazards. No statutory authority exists inhibiting other utilization. LOCATION AND BOU14DARIES: Latitude North Longitude West (Approximately) 470 361 456 1220 351 00" and buoys in vicinity. TYPE OF OPERATIONS, EXERCISES, Deperming of ships on a prescheduled basis. No AND ORDNANCE AUTHORIZED: ordnance is authorized. X-39 24. COMMON NAME: Explosive and Chemical Dumping Area Columbia River mouth. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: An at sea explosive and chemical dumping area bearing 272 distant 84 miles from Tillamook Rock in (about) 1300 fathom of water. LOCATION AND B0UNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 46o 00' 00" 126o 00' 00" (and all points lying within area of 5 nautical miles radius.) TYPES OF OPERATIONS, EXERCISES, (1) All non-nuclear ammunition and components AND ORDNANCE AUTHORIZED: thereof, explosive devices, incendiary devices and pyrotechnics. (2) All chemical warfare ammunition and bulk chemicals associated with or used as fillers for chemical warfare ammunition. (3) All explosive materials in bulk may be disposed of in this area. 25, COMMON NAME: Explosive and chemical dumping area Cape Flaherty. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: An at sea explosive and chemical dumping area bearing 265 distant 93 miles from Cape Flaherty light in (about) 1400 fathoms of water. LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 480 15' 00" 127o 00' 00" (and all points lying within area of 5 nautical mile radius.) TYPE OF OPERATIONS, EXERCISES, (1) All non-nuclear ammunition and components AND ORDNANCE AUTHORIZED: thereof, explosive devices, incendiary devices and pyrotechnics. (2) All chemical warfare ammunition and bulk chemicals associated with or used as fillers for chemical warfare ammunition. (3) All explosive materials in bulk may be dis- posed of in this area. X-40 26. COMMON NAME: Submarine Test -and Trial Area 1 (STATA #1) LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 476 461 @000* 1220 441 42"* 47 50 00* 122 40 5 0'* 47 50 00 122 37 58 # 47 46 00 122 42 53 # *Coordinates are connected by line parailel to, but 500 yards off shore. #Coordinates are connected by shoreline. DESCRIPTION: An operating area, surface and sub-surface, in the northern portion of the Hood Canal, a body of water separating Olympic and Great Peninsulas (West of @Puget Sound). TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: Surface and sub-surface tactical exercises and ISE, excluding live firing exercises but including equipment tests and machinery trials. Dummy or practice type (non-explosive) ordnance only will be used. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Continuous, OVERLAPPING, MCLUDED AND The Bangor Security Area (Naval restricted) borders ADJACENT AREA, TARGETS: the eastern navigational laneand the submarine test and trial area 111flies adjacent and north of this area. 27. COMMON NAM: Submarine Test and Trial Area 2 (STATA #2) LOCATION AND BOMDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West Canadian Border i24- 05- oo- 480 121 000 124 '05 00 48 ' 10 30 123 42 00 Canadian Border 123 42 00 Along boundary to starting point. DESCRIPTION: Aj@ occasional use surface and subsurface operating area situated in the Strait of-Juan'de ruca; not contained within a naval restricted area nor does it have statutory authority for Lnftibiting its use -by others. TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE% Surface and subsurface tactical exercises, indepen- dent ship exercisesp equipment tests, and machin-ery trials. No ordnance authorized. USAGE LIMITATIONS: Not contained within a naval restricted area nor does it have statutory authority for inhibiting its use by others. OVERLAPPrNG, INCLUDED Am) Underlies east poriCion of Strait of Juan de Fuca ADJACENT AREAS, TARGE surface exercise area. 1-41 28. COMMON NAME: Submarine Trial and Test Area 3 (STATA #3) LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 48o 18' 00" 125o 02' 48" 48 18 00 125 00 00 48 06 00 124 59 30 48 06 00 125 02 18 DESCRIPTION: Surface and sub-surface operating area TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: Surface/subsurface tactical exercises and ISE, including equipment tests and machinery trials (service ordnance, see remarks). USAGE LIMITATIONS: See remarks/special instructions. OVERLAPPING, INCLUDED AND 1. Underlies the northeastern part of W-237N and ADJACENT AREAS, TARGETS: surface exercise area 237N. 2. Use of the overlying special use airspace must be specifically requested and scheduled: REMARKS/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:. 1. Periods of Usage: Continuous. 2. Exercises, including upper ballistic limits pertaining thereto, must be confined within the space defined above and when scheduled, the designated airspace ceiling. 29. COMMON NAME: Submarine Test and Trial Area 4 (STATA #4) LOCATION AND BOUNDMARIES: Latitude North Longitude West 47o 56' 00" 125o 21' 30" 47 50 00 125 08 00 47 44 00 125 08 00 47 50 00 125 21 30 DESCRIPTION: Surface and sub-surface operating area TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: Surface/sub-surface tactical exercises and ISE, including equipment tests and machinery trials. (Service ordnance, see remarks). USAGE LIMITATIONS: See Remarks/Special Instructions' OVERLAPPING, INCLUDED AND 1. Underlies the northeastern part of W-237N and ADAJACENT AREAS, TARGETS: and surface exercise area 237N. 2. Use of the overlying special use airspace must be specifically requested and scheduled. REMARKS/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Periods of Usage: continuous. 2. Exercises, including upper ballistic limits pertaining thereto, must be confined with the space defined above and, when scheduled, the designated airspace ceiling. X-42 30, COMMON NAME: Submarine Transit Lanes LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: a. SIERRA ALTAIR (See Remarks Note (1)) E-W FROM STRAITS OF JUAN DE FUCA 3.5 MILES EACH SIDE OF A LINE JOINING. 48-20W/125-15W TO 48-O5N/126-40W SIERRA VEGA (See Remarks Note (2)) N-S FROM SIERRA ALTAIR 5 MINUTES EACH SIDE OF A LINE JOINING: 48-07.5N/126-O5W To 39-45N/126-05W (EXCLUDING THAT PORTION WHICH FALLS WITHIN SIERRA ALTAIR) THEN 3.5 MILES EACH SIDE OF A LINE JOINING: 39-45N/126-05W To 37-42N/123-50W THEN MINUTES EACH SIDE OF A LINE JOINING: 37-42N/123-50W To 36-55N/123-50W (AT WHICH POINT IT CONNECTS WITH SIERRA SATURN) SIERRA DENEB (See Remarks Note (2)) N-S FROM STRAITS JUAN DE FUCA S MINUTES.EACH SIDE OF A LINE JOINING: 48-16.5N/125-08W TO 48-07N/125-08W THEN 3.5 MILES EACH SIDE OF A LINE JOINING: 48-07N/125-08W To 47-46N/125-01.5W TO 47-00N/125-05W THEN 5 MINUTES EACH SIDE OF A LINE JOINING: 47-00N/125-05W TO 39-43N/125-05W THEN 3.5 MILES EACH SIDE OF A LINE JOINING: 39-43N/125-O5W To 38-05N/123-15.5W DESCRIPTION: Submarine Transit Lanes TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: Not applicable PERIODS OF USAGE: Daily X-43 COMMON NAME: Strait of Juan De Fuca (R-670SI 31. LOCAYION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude Nort Ih Longitude West 480 141 30" 1230 421 00" to 48 10 30 -123 42 00 Thence one half mile north ofand parallel to the horth coast of W4shington. To 48 18 - -35 124 25 00 48 24 30 124 2S 00 Thence along U.S. - Canadian boundary to point of beginning. DESCRIPTION: Special.use airspace over water area T TYPE EXERCISE AND ORDNANCE: Aircraft ASW and shipping surveillance training evolutions, to include usage of aircraft .1a.unched sonobuoys,'signal underwater sound (SUS), and Marine smoke markers. WAGE LIMITATIONS: Continuous under VFR conditions o AME Whidbey Island .(R-67131 32. -20002 N LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES: Latitude-North Longitude West 480 .251 00" 1230 051 00 .48 23 00 123 06 00 48 16 3& 123 03 00 48 16 30 122 St 30 4 8 18 20 122 50 30 48 22 45 122 50 30 48 25 00 121 53 30 to point of b6ginning. DESCRIPTION: Special use airspace over water area TYPE EXERCISE AND. ORDNANCE: Air to surface firing, night illumination (flare, photoflash, and searchlight) and practice torpedo cirops. Authorized ordnance - rock@ets, water-fill/ miniature bombs, photoflash cartridges, flares, practice mines and torpedoes, practice depth bombs, and standard ASW search.stores. USAGE LIMITJNTIO' NS: 1. Continuous use under VFR conditions with lash) ordnance drops (other than flares and photof restricted to the hours of.0800-1600 local- 2. No ordnance to be expended so as to fall on Smith island. 3. No firing'shoreward. OVERLAPPINGr INCLUDED AND overlies surface danger zone ADJACENT AREAS, TARGETS: X-44 B-670 STATOR -W -84 STAT04 -45' -4w -35. -SW .-90. 0*1 ow w w w BURFACR ADD STATA A RAVAL itf &rATt=hf WE ul uml AND 111-22 *OIL- DUMP AREA TMWICCWTM WAVA16 DISTRICT FLEETOPgRATIMO AREAS ANO OTHER CONTAftLtb PACCS. THIRTEENTH NAVAL 01,STRICT let, as. 124 C4 DECEPTION PASS DANGER ZONES WHINEY 13LANO -2le ESTRICTEO AREA N ADMIRALTY INLET AM BAY R- 6701 480 6ANGOR SECURITY AREA STATA-1 POINT JEFFERSON SECURITY AREA RESTRICTED AREA RESTRICTED AREA DEGA SSING ACTIVITY 6ANCER ZONE --40 ELLIOT DAY SECURITY AREA RESTRICTED AREA PORT ORCHARD DAkr.ER ZONE SINCLAIR INLET RESTRICTED AREA 20! A CARR INLET RESTRICTED AREA 20 12 PUGET SOUND AREAS X-46 @Wl@fl ME y DETAILED COMMENTS ON WASHINGTON . COAST@X ZONE MMAG121ENT PLAN The following specific comments on the Washington Plan are germane. The specific portion of NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Program Approval Regu- lations (15 CFR 923) on which each comment ia based has been listed as appropriate. Citation Comment 923.11 Navy land within the geographic boundary of the state's coastal zone has not been identified for exclusion from the "coastal zone", either in the state program proper -or in the Snohomish County Master Program which is offered as representative of local government supplements to the state program. It is considered that excludable Navy land should be specifically defined in the text of the program as well as graphically. It should be noted that the state's program introduces the concept of a three tiered coastal. zone which extends to the eastern coastal state boundaries. This concept should be clarified to assure no misunder- standing of coastal zone boundaries intended. 923.11 The program defines the coastal zone as including coastal waters, but otherwise neither in the state document nor ivL the appended Snohomish County Plan is the extent of state concern in these waters expressed, nor specific Navy ex- elusion conceded. Thus., the impact of the state's program on Navy operation in coastal waters, at present or in evef.M of statutory change in boundaries of the territorial sea, is indeterminate. � 923.12 Neither' the state nor its Snohomish County supplement fuliy explains the impact of projected land and water uses on installations and operations representative of Navy's defense installations and operations. I:he program speaks to public nee4 and,environment, but not to.defense or Navy. Although it cites many uses of concern, which would impact on Navy, it does not recognize them as such. 923.14 The program does generally acknowledge national defense as being one of the classes of interest to the state, but it is not designated as an important priority. A positive declaration of the priority of national defense and the iv,,-- portance to the state of the Navy presence in the coastal zone, would go a long way toward achieving state and Navy understanding. X-47 Citation Comment @923.14 Inasmuch as the Navy has not been significantly mentioned$ the potential requirement for new or expanded Naval activities on the land, in'the air, on and under the water of the coastal zone has been totally ignored in the state's program. 923.15 The implication in the program (page 53) that at some future date, some activities, presumably of national interest, will be determined to be inappropriate,for location in the state, is of concern. Clarification of this statement is important to the future of Navy interest. � 923.31 Although the state speaks of working with federal agencies in developing the program, there was no representation by Navy. This is a matter of serious concern. Particularly in view of the wording in the second paragraph of page 83 which states, "Should an inappropriate federal action take place, and the agency not be willing to negotiate a com- promise, the state will resolve the matterin the courts." General The program doespot make a clear distinction between projects which are direct actions by federal activities on federally controlled lands and other projects which only require federal approval (i.e., for grants). 17he difference is significant in the federal Coastal Zone Management.Act. General The Snohomish County MAster Program, representative of the primary functionary arm-of the state plan, one of 15 county and 37city programs to follow, does not adequately fulfill the requirements for local administration so as to be con- sistent with the state program and applicable provisions of the federal act. General The general program does not address in detail any specific prohibitions, but the appended Snohomish Cobnty Program, which was the only local government program submitted for review, suggests numerous prohibitions which -- if included in other master plans would have a definite impact on the Navy. X-48 Citation Comment General The program as pLcsented is incomplete, since it invokes local government (county and city) master programs as the single most important component. some 52 in-number, of which only one is submitted for review. This one prograra falls far short of conforming with...basic requirements of the federal act regarding, among other things, the defi- nition of coastal zofie boundaries, exclusion of federal lands, and the concept of federal consistency. If this one local program is representative, it is indicative that the policies of the state's Shoreline Management Act have not been fully resolved with those of the federal act, and casts serious doubt on the validity of the state's program. With this example, it would only be prudent at this time to withhold approval on the state's program until all local government programs are completed and reviewed. X-49 Discussion Paper State National Defense Coastal Zone Interests ,National defense is an essential element of national interest and oPe of the high priority competing use r *equirements for coastal zone air, land and water resources. The Navy, in particular, because of its mission and e:ktent of controlled property, is a significant user of coastal property, air space and offshore public lands and waters. 11.3st of Navy's activities require a coastal zone location to carry out its mission. Lands, the use of, which is by law subject 'solely to the discretion of the Department of Defense, its officers or agents, are excluded from the coastal zone. This applies to all. lands within the coastal zone subject to the juris- diction of the Department of Defense. The Department.oll" Defense conducts, as required by law, careful environmental evaluations of-all proposals which may be likely to'constitute a signif.icant impact on the quality of the environment, and national security requirements are not expected to.conflict witb the coastal zone management program. How- ever, if occasions arise where certain military activities conflict with the state policies and program, state and local officials will consult and cooperate with Department of Defense representatives to the end that such conflicts are resolved. Coastal zone military installations are important components in their local areas, and represent a stable'and substantial contribution to the state economy.- To support some of its installations, the military also requires an economic and industrial base and, to a large extent, depends upon local communiLies for schoolsw housing, recreation and other supportive facilities and services. It is recognized that it is in the national interest for the state to formulate plans which assist where possible to restrict private en- croaching development from preventing or reducing a defense-installation's mission. For example, encroachment of incompatible uses and configurations such as residentihl, high rise, and recreational developments into noise and accident potential zones of military air installations may create substantial problems. Accordingly, developrient within such zones, and similar zones sur- rounding ot)ier Defense installations in the coastal zone will'be closely coordinated with appropriate Department of Defense and local officials to obtain compatibility of uses.. Military activities (operational, coastal or offshore defense, research and development, maintenance, support or training) are conducted in the interest of national defense in various air space, land and water areas. Such'areas are usually designated, in accordance with law, as restricted or operational areas. The requirement for these current military activities, occasionally classified, as well as future new@6r expanded requirements in the interests of national security is recognized. Any plans concerning such areas, in- cluding the siting of energy-related facilities will be coordinated with local Department of Defense representatives. X. 5 Or vo *I C UIUITED STATES DEPARTME[UT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic'and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Md. 20852 SEP 1975 MEMORANDUM FOR: deorge Marienthal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environmental Qualit 'y Department of Defense (DOD) AND: Francis B. Roche Director Real Property and Natural Resources Division Office of the Assistant Secretary. (Installations and Housing) Department of Defense 09D) FROM: Robert W Kaech Assistan; Admini 0 or Coastal Zone an gement SUBJECT: Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) Response to the Department of Defense Comments on the State of Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP) Your letter and.enclosures of June 10, 1975, transmitting DOD comments on the above-referenced-WCZMP is acknowledged and appreciated. Before setting forth our responses to these comments, we would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation of your efforts to coordinate and consolidate DOD's review of the WCZNP. We also would like to note the outstanding sustained and cooperative efforts of the Oceanographer of the Navy staff in the WCZMP review and follow-up consultations. A. 'General OCZM Concerns Your lbtter indicates that the fundamental objection of DOD to the WCZMP is that "national security interests were not adequately considered in the program development." OCZM and the State of Washington agree with this general assessment and, based upon a substantial amount of dis- cussion and additional work, believe that this key issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of relevant DOD interests, those of the State and in terms of the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). g' 0 )aA .1n .n,@ X 2 The central interest of DOD in the CZMA and State programs resides-in the Navy. Because the Navy was the only DOD component to submit detailed comments, and because its-major interests will apply elsewhere, OCZM feels it important to identify and respond to Navy's generic concerns. 1. Understandably,,Navy comments focus upon the responsibilities of the State (and its CZM program) to acknowledge and adequately respond to national security requirements, activities and restrictions. However, there is little if any acknowledgement of the reciprocal nature of the Act's intergovernmental obligations. The Act, in its expression'of national policy, declares in Section 303(c) that "all Federal agencies engaged in programs affecting the coastal zone are to cooperate and participate with State and local governments and region@l agencies in effectuaiing the purposes of this title." At Section 307(c)(1) the Act also states that, "Each Federal agency conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone 'shall conduct or .support those activities in*a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved State management programs." These provisions of the Act establish 'an affirmative duty in Federal agencies to further the objectives of the Act, cooperate with State programs and @seek consistency of their activities with State programs after program approval. In our view, Federal, as well as State recognition of these shared respon- sibilities is critical to the basic participation, consultation, coordination and accommodation requiremenis of the Act. An affirmative statement of Navy policy in this regard, perhaps building upon the "Discussion-Paper" enclosed as Attachment 3, would be a significant con- tribution to the national CZM effort and a sound basis for State-Navy interaction in the future. 2. Repeated references are made to the Act's provision at Section 304(a) "Excluded from-the coastal zone are lands the use of which is @y law subject solely to the di 'scretion of or which is held in trust@ by the Federal Government, its officers or agents." Navy directs that all Navy lands be specifically identified by the State and excluded from the coastal zone. In Attachment 3, the cited provision of the Act is interpreted to mean: "This applies to all lands within the coastal zone subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense." OCZM recognizes that the interpretation and application of the "exclusion clause" has important legal and programmatic implications for both Navy. and the national CZM program. X-52 3 From a legal perspective, the language of the Act "solely to the discretion of" raises a reasonable question concerning the status of State jursidiction over various types of Federal land ownership and activities carried out on them. This has led some States to quest 'ion the meaning of total "exclusion" of Federal lands from their coastal zones. Meetings with NOAA and Navy representatives subsequent to receipt of your letter have begun to clarify and narrow the legal issues and inter- pretations involved. NOAA and OCZM expect to develop and discuss 4ith Navy a more definitive position on this matter within a few weeks, as a basis for resolving the current uncertainty in Washington and elsewhere. The programmatic implications of the "exclusion clause" are equa Ily important issues in need of clarification and resolution. The WCZMP experience highlights these issues. Even if relevant Federal lands are excluded from the coastal zone and.CZM program authorities as a matter of law, the consistency provisions of Section 307(c)(1) nevertheless apply,. Therefore, the policies, priorities, constraints and related contents of an approved CZM program would be applicable to Navy activities "to the maximum extent practicable." Exclusion, therefore, does not mean that a State or Federal-agency can ignore Federal lands and the activities carried out within them and their relationship to coastal zone management. This is a particularly damaging assumption when, as is often the case, policies and activities within Federal lands have effects external to those lands and-when decisions or actions adjacent to Federal lands may affect the appropriate or necessary uses of those lands. In addition, the Act requires reciprocal'Participation, consultation, consideration of views and a means to resolve disputes. These requirements further rein- force the need for sustained interaction between the State and Federal land managers during the development, as well as the implementation, of CZM programs. 3. Finally, there remains a legitimate but difficult issue of how the WCZMP and other States can demonstrate "adequate consideration" of national security interests. Further acknowledgement of these interests by the WCZ14P in terms ofk-the importance of national security and its overriding priority under certain circumstances is warranted. Additional discussion of Washington's contribution to national defense would also fulfill part of this demonstration. In addition, we will suggest that the WCZMP demonstrate that its policies, procedures and continuing coordination mechadisms do not arbitrarily exclude or unreasonably restrict existing, national security missions of the Navy and provide sufficient flexibility to deal with future national security contingencies should they arise. X_S3 B. Responses to Detailed Comments OCZM responses to detailed Navy comments on the WCZHP are set forth below in the order presented in Enclosure 2. We have attempted to respond to each point raised by Navy except those concerns dealt with in A. above. 1. The WCZMP has revised its boundaries to include the Shoreline Manage- ment Act (SMA) jurisdiction and the first tier of coastal counties. The application of the Statets regulatory systems inland'of the SMA,-but supporting its policies and those of the CZMA, is a defined task the State has agreed to undertake as part of its supplemental 305 grant. Clarification of the revised boundary will be included in the final management program submission. 2. The WCZMF will amplify the State's interest in its coastal waters as they relate to the management program. This amplification will be made in light of N.avy op'e-rating areas and their attendant restrictions contained in Enclosure 1. Given the uncertainties concerning extension of the territorial sea and its relationship to the CZMA and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (which may be controlling), the State has no basis upon which'to assess potential future impacts of its WCZMP or other State programs beyond the current three mile limit. 3. We understand that consultations have been initiated with Navy to explore the interface between the WCZMP and Naval installations and operations. The State intends to prepare Federal agency/WCZMP analyses, of which Navy is a first priority, as one tangible means to clarify these interface questions. 4. Our response to this comment is found at A.j above. 5. Our response t9 this comment is also found at A.3 above. 6. Clarification of WCZMP policies and authorities, especialIX as they relate to controls over future developments is an integral part of the State's program refinement effort. OCZM's understanding of the WCZMP, however, indicates that there is no intention to p-rohibit any particular activity from the State or its coastal zone. Rather, the WCZMP seeks to establish objectives, priorities, performance criteria, management environments and controls over uses throughout the zone. A key to addressing yet to be defined future proposals is the development and maintenance of a State-Federal consultation mechanism which the State is strengthening at this time. 'Rem X-54 5 7. Full Navy participation in the WCZMP that was lacking in the past has been remedied and will be assured,in the future. 8. The State will develop a "consistency" section for its final manage- ment program submission which will define the State's position concerning Section 307 of the Act. Concurrently, as noted in A.2 above, NOAA and Navy are seeking to resolve @he issue of activities on "excluded" Federal-lands. 9. The Snohomish County Master Program meets the stringent State standards for implementation of the Shoreline Management Act. The State retains review and appeal authorities 'over these Local Master Programs (UlPs). Seven additional coastal county LMPs have been adopted and approved by the State. Taken together these 1,MPs, and the remaining seven which are substantially complete, provide an augmented perspective of the overall WCZMP. They also, together with the State's organizational and authority network, provide the basis.for meeting the substantive requirements of the CZMA. 10.. A review of the State's standards, criteria; guidelines and processes for the development and approval of LMPs indicates that they meet the threshold requirements of the CZMA. As such, the prohibitions or con- ditions placed upon activities within designated shoreline "environments" appear to be prudent and reasonable.' We suggest that local representatives of the Navy review Approved or submitted LMPs to satisfy themselves that when viewed in a statewide perspective, the LMPs exhibit a broad and balanced application of,State policies and police powers in the coastal zone. 11. In our view ', the State's statutory authorities, guidelines, review processes and appeal authorities concerning the Local Master Programs are sufficient to meet,the basic substantive and process requirements of the CZMA. It is therefore our opinion that not all LMPs need to be adopted prior to approval of the program. However, it became evident that otherrequir6ments of the CZMA, specifically its requirements for full participation, Federal interests and the potential application of a consistency'regime, make it highly desirable to have the majority of LMPs completed prior to program approval. The State has projected that most, if 'not all, coastal LMPs will be completed during the supplemental grant period., We would again like to take this opportunity to compliment and thank you and the Navy for the careful analysis of the WCZMP and your commit- ment to work with the States and ourselves to achieve the objectives of the'Coastal Zone Management Act. cc: Lt. Cmdr. L. A. Yeske Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy Environmental Quality Division X-55 si@'11(' 01'" May 29, 1975 -C Z. i of E(-()I()g')- .0 Rear Admiral Lando W. Zech Jr. Commandant Thirteenth Naval District Seattle, Washington 98115 Dear Admiral Zech- Thank you for sending us your comments on the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. Our coastal zone management people are reviewing the comments now and will provide a detailed response to each point raised as soon as possible. I felt however, that a more immediate response-of a general nature was warranted in light of your concerns. As I indicated in my earlier letter on this subject, we regret that --al zone -a more concerted effort to i:nvoive the Navy in our coast management program was not made, despite our early contact with the Department of Defense. Nevertheless, we have made numerous con- tacts in recent months which are extremely beneficial to this Department in helping us to better understand your concerns. We believe that this communication and understand@fna are the key basis for effective coastai zone management and w-'ill pave the way to resolution of your concerns. To begin with, we have added your office to our Shoreline Master Program Review Task Force which will provide you an opportunity to review and comment on coastal county and cit:y master programs prior to their acceptance by the State. Your part-i-cipation will be timely in that most of the programs of apparent concern to the Navy have yet to be submitted, including King and @'itsap Counties and Seattle. Many of the concerns listed stem from misunderstandings and differ- ences in perception of coastal zone management. AM Letter to Adml ra Page two - May 29, 1975 DelmJ1111clif of fl@ok)g@-' An e-ample of these differences in perception are illustrat d by Le the Navy are e o cornmen s I and otential future requirements of noted as not being addressed in our application." We would perceive coastal zone managem@eent as a process in which Navy requirements would be identified and accommodated within the total management program. In this regard, we recognize that the Navy will have needs to carry on various activities in the coastal zone of Washington Stat-P. In some instances, your activities in pursuit of your responsibilities in the national interest will of necessity conflict with local and state resource management program. When such conflicts occur, it is the intent of the coastal zone process to work toward their resolution. To reflect further on your example, the message indicates need for submarine operating areas. We recognize the Navy to be the only organization capab@e of assessing standards and requirements for submarine operating areas, and a suitable location for such sites. Again, as a component of the total management,program, the needs, would be made known or accounted for within the coastal zone management process. The actual task of selecting operating areas for submarines, how- ever is one tha@ the Navy-would perform itself@ Our role in this example would be to assist the Navy in maintaini6g its submarine operating areas b1v preventing events that could reduce or elimi- nAte the useability of the areas. To this end we would alert the Navy OT anv adverse proposal that other coastal zone users might encounter, and then work wi.th the parties to resolve conflicts. This'process would avoid the coamon pitfall of attempting to pro- ject and forecast all the potential conflicts with the total Navy function. To thoroughly address all such concerns in our application for all governmental Federal functions, would be a monumental task. Rathers.we as the lead coastal zone management agency have the responsibi-lity for establishing and better utili- zing mechanisms to resolve the problems as they arise. This in- -Cludes better utilization of the several existing systems including NEPA, A-95, Section 10 permits, and the consultation/coordination relationship we have established with the Navy and other Federal agencies. X-S7 Letter to Admiral Zech Page Three May 29, 19,75 of Ecoloo\7 Another example of a difference-in perception can be found in the topic: "Local Regulations and Uses of Regional Benefit." According to Coastal-Zone Management requirements, the State must demonstrate that it Can prevent a local government from unreasonably or arbi- trarily excluding a use of regional benefit, which we have done. Through the phrase, a,"use of regional benefit", defined as a "facility necessary to meet requirements other than local in nature" we have met 'Che.requirement. This key phrase is used in discussion of the National Interest for the siting of facilities including Naval facilities (tee page 54 of the application). Because Navy facilities are needed to meet requirements other than local in nature, in this case national defense, these facilities by definition are of regional benefit. Priority of Navy uses over others is another matter of concern here and in your comments in the message. While we have not specifically established priority by type of use, the Act is quite explicit in providing priority to those uses which require or are dependent on @a shoreline location. Clea'rly,-Naval installations are among those of the highest priority within our coastal zone because of their requirement for coastal locations. We trust that this letter has addressed many of your most urgent concerns. I firmly believe that differences in perception, and a lack of sufficient explanation on our part can account for most of your comments. For such matters as listings of Navy properties, leaseholds, and operating areas, we will include them along with the statement of Navy policy in our program as soon as they can be forwarded to us. Please contact me or Mr. Murray Walsh of this Department for any further concerns you may have, and thank you for your participation in the program. Very truly yours, J @0-_ gs Director JAB:sc cc: im Alexander Cmdr. Myers (13th Hav. Dist.) Lcdr. Yeske (CNO-Wash. D.C.) X-58 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410 R IN-two OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 0 1975 FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN REPLY REFER TO: v4 JUN CU Honorable Rogers C. B. Morton Secretary of Commerce CzM Washington, D. C. 20230 Acti n Dear Mr. Secretary: This letter responds to your request for a vice ether or not to approve the-State of.Washington's Coas-tal Zone Manage- ment Program (WCZMP) and its application for administrative funds under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583). Reviews of these materials by HUD's Central Office and HUD's Regional Office in Seattle make it clear that the State of Washington has made commendable progres .s since 1971 toward developing a cohesive Coastal Zone Management Program in the State, and that the State has achieved some momentum in CZM affairs,'for example, in administering the Shoreline Manage- ment Act of 1971 and its implementing regulations. The State has designated the Department of Ecology (DOE) as the focal point for"CZM matters. The State has developed generalized statements of problems, goals, policies, and objectives. The State has. taken the approach of delegating most of the initial CZM planning in the State to local governments for the develop- ment of "local master programs" (LMP's) within counties or cities in or near the coastal zone,'but with the requirement of DOE approval of each LMP after coordination with other State agencies'and Federal agencies and with the possibility of State override by DOE if appropriate. (Only one LMP has been made available for examination.) The Washington State DOE is responsible for achieving the necessary State-level perspective and cohesion for the WCZMP and for presenting the WCZMP in a self-contained format that is easy to understand and to administer. A t'ask force o.f representatives of some Federal agencies has existed for about one year to assist in the field review of varirus WCZMP planning elements. As indicated by the list of discussants on page 00079 of the application and Appendix A, HUD has not been included on this task force and HUD has not advised on the compatibility of the current WCZMP proposal and 306 application with the State's comprehensive plans being developed with assistance from HUD's 701 program. J6 X-59 2 it is our view that in order to have an approvable State CZMP and 306 application ready for "administration" under the approach taken by the State of Washington, (a) all local master programs (LMP's) relating to the coastal zone would have been completed; (b) the DOE would have reviewed each LMP; (c) the DOE with the assistance of other agencies would have reconciled conflicts among various LMP's and between State development and conser- vation interests (and the DOE preferably will have had some approach to Indian lands and Federal lands in or'near the coastal zone even though Federal trust lands are excluded from funding under the CZM Act of 1972); (d) the State would have made and publicized first-round designations of regional and national needs that should be accommodated, would have caused their incorporation in (revised) LMP's and would have established satisfactory procedures and state-level institutions for updating these designations in the face of changing needs; and (e) the'State of Washington would have completed a cohesive, comprehensive, self-contained, State-level WCZMP, including State-level maps and narrative support designating specific permissible uses of CZN lands (and water) and indicating where growth will not be permitted and where growth and development will be permitted, together with guidance on the general charac- ter and densities of this development'and with plans for pro- tecting the CZM against man-made and natural disaster. In short, the State would have completed a careful balancing of developmental and conservation needs and interests and would have aggregated and integrated the LMP's and regional and national needs into a State-level, geographically-specific concept of coastal zone. land and water use for the immediate future with certain. safeguards to be undertaken in State perspective and with an orderly approach for amending the WCZMP when appropriate. FINDINGS: The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development f inds the following critical deficiencies in the WCZMP and its section 306 application: 1. Flood Hazards. HUD's Federal Insurance Administration (FI.A) has noted a serious flaw in the.proposed WCZMP in that there is a "lack of substantive consideration of the flood hazard in the coastal and coastal-riverine flood plains of the State": the proposed WCZMP only makes occasional passing reference to this problem. FIA suggests that any land use management measures for those areas of special flood hazard designated by FIA which are included in Washington's Shoreline Management Act and its extention, the CZMP, should b.e.administered in accordance with the objectives contained in 24 CFR Part 1910 of FIA regulations. The Program should also designate the FIA- X-60 3 identified flood hazard areas and coastal high hazard areas as areas of particular concern as well as any flood-related erosion hazard areas and mudflow hazard areas which may be designated by FIA in the future. This problem alone would seem.to make "'final approval" and access to 306 funds impossible at this stage. 2. Facilities and Use of Regional Benefit. We believe that the proposed WCZMP does not give adequate consideration to land and water uses of regional benefit. The application acknowledges (page 00053) that "the determinations as to the national and regional needs ...for facilities ... have only begun." Although section 923.17(b) of the application claims that the State will avoid unreasonable restrictions, on uses of regional benefit.by following the CZMP's standard procedures i.e., the Department of Ecology's review of proposed local master programs and of local decisions on permit requests; section 923.14 indicates that the State is to conduct these reviews.on the basis of certain State-wide priorities and other unspecified "State-wide concerns a7nd needs." The.list of State-wide priorities does not include "uses of regional benefit" as a general category. In short, the proposed WCZMP does not compel the State to find that a use which is of regional benefi,t also satisfies "State-wide concerns and needs." n addition, the application',s definition o'f "uses of regional benefit" appears to be too narrow. Section 423.17(b) ciontainsIan ambiguous, implicit definition of "uses of regional benefit" which not only fails,to show how "uses of regional benefit" are different from those of "national interest," but also fails to require that certain developments such as new ' residential communities, shopping centers, and other community facilities of a regional character should be considered by the Department of Ecology as "Uses of Regional Benefit." This weakness in approach to regional benefit might stem from the absence of a strong mandate from the State legislature for a State-wide office of community development or for a State housing agency in the advisory process supporting DOE's..final determina- tions. We,are further concerned with a process that apparently approves LXP's before "Uses of Regional Benefit" or "National Needs" within the realm of development or renewal projects administered by HUD are even given preliminary consideration. in State perspective. 3. Land Use and the Designation of Specific Growth and Conservation Areas and Policies. The proposed WCZMP does t have a clear.cut artIculat-1-o-n-7-F policies or delineation of areas in or near the coastal zone with regard to where growth should and should not take place. The proposed WCZMP at this time is little more than a set of procedures and some guiding criteria X-61 4 under which the cities and counties in or near the coastal zone can begin to make some basic land use decisions, subject to State override, on permissible uses that will guide change and orient future population growth. Until geographically- specific determinations of permissible land use in or near the coastal zone are made and approved at the State level in a format that is self-contained and easy to understand by interested parties, land owners and pro- and anti-development forces will remain virtually stalemated and all too often will become embroiled in costly and' unnecessary litigation. This land use problem has an important bearing-on the bilateral coordination agreement between NOAA/OCZM and HUD/.CPD, signed on February 19, 1975. The interdepartmental relationships are of such significance in this prototype case that we are annexing the comments of the (701) Office of Planning and Management Assistance in their entirety. 4. Ef fective date for approval, notification, and minimi- zation of litigation. We-would like at this time to identify _;everal important implementation problems which would be considered before Washin.gton's or any State's CZMP receives "final approval" by the U. S. Secretary of Commerce. These relate to the "Federal consistency requirement" that Federal agencies not engage in direct or support activities that violate that Stat.e's CZMP once it is approved by the Secretary. a. Single effective date for the State CZMP. HUD believes that the effective dates for approval and administration of each state's CZMP should be that for the Secretary's "final approval" of the State CZMP as a whole and it is at this level primarily that HUD seeks review in order to advise the Secretary on whether or not he should approve the CZMP. Although willing to be consulted on special, signi- ficant problems, HUD does not seek involvement in reviews of individual local master programs; HUD does not have the manpower for such involvement. Moreover, administratively it would be impossible to monitor in each coastal state some four or five dozen individual LMP's, all being approved at different times, each having different effective dates, and many having special conditions attached totheir approval. b. Prompt distribution of approved CZMP in comprehensive self-contained format. If Federal agencies are to honor the Federal consistency X-62 5 requirement and to minimize licigaticn, tfiea I'finai approva.111 should be clean and unambiguous and copies of the SLate's CZMP should be distributed to central and field offices of Federal agencies promptly after final approval in a form that is defini- tive, self contained, easy to understand, and feasible to administer. Although the emphasis on Federal review is on process, nevertheless, we believe the process to be approvable should produce a definitive final product against which Federa 1 consistency can easily be measured. Transition phase. A transition phase should be made part of each state's CZMP. Many of HUD's programs are developmental-support programs involving multiple stages of approval along a process of costly land acquisition and holding and subsequent construction activity-- a process which often ties up enormous capital of private and public entities. As a practical matter, if the CZMP is to be administered with equity, a carefully-framed transition phase will be needed to deal with developers who had accumulated land and secured early-stage HUD approval before the Secretary of Commerce approved the State CZMP. Unless there is some such transition phase, developers will sue the State regulatory arm and probably name both the Secretary of Commerce and the Secre- tary of HUD as parties in the litigation. These four matters represent critically important unfinished business that.should be completed before the WCZMP is considered sufficiently mature to be ready for implementation and administra- tion under section 306 of the CZM-Act. The first three are not easily remedied; they are substantive,mattLers which might take months to correct. Beyond these critical deficiencies, we also want to express some reservation about the narrowness (200 feet) of the formal coastal zone strip,and to question whether this is sufficient to deal with the problem at hand. We also have concerns about the cumulative effects deriving from successive exemptions that @would permit unlimited numbers of single family dwellings to be erected one at a time along the coastal strip and from the bulkheading of landholdings there and filling to whatever grade is desired. 5. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We do not have grave problems with the draft EIS which deals reasonable adequately with the proposed WCZMP in its present, somewhat incomplete stage of development. The substantive deficiencies are mainly in the WCZMP itself. However, we do expect that significant revision X-63 6 ,of the draft EIS will be necessary when the WCZMP is given the specificity, maturity of development, and state perspective necessary for "final approval." CONCLUSION*! We believe that the State of Washington has made an excellent ,start in developing its CZMP, and that many'of the initial acti- vities show considerable imagination. There is at least one critical deficiency, the failure to give substantive handling to the floo-d plain hazard, which in the perspective of other Federal legislation precludes "final approval" of the WCZMP and the 306 application. There are several other deficiencies which individually are of a character which would make "final approval" unwise as a precedent and probably inappropriate as an evaluation of current status. Finally, despite many good elements to the proposed WCZMP, there remains a residual lack of cohesion at the State level which probably needs to be overcome to facilitate public understanding and effective administration of the program. On balance, we believe that the State of Washington should be commended for its initial efforts and encouraged to develop its CZMP with the support of section 305 funds,toward the goal of' achieving a CZMP worthy of emulation by other coastal states. My staff and the HUD Regional Office staffs will be happy to furnish additional detail describing the problems outlined above to NOAA/OCZM officials or to officials of the State of Washington. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recommends-that the Secretary of Commerce grant "preliminary approval" to the Coastal Zone Management Program submitted by the State of Washington, as "preliminary approval" is defined in the Federal Register of January 6, 1975, Vol. 40, No. 6, Part I, Coastal Zone Management Program Administrative Grants. 2. The U. S.'Department of Housing and Urban Development further recommends that the Secretary of Commerce advise the State of Washington that "final approval." will be contingent upon correcting the weaknesses identified herein under "Findings" and such other weakness as may be identified elsewhere. 3. The U.-S. Department of.Housing and Urban Development further recommends that additional development funds be made available to the State of Washington for further work.on its important Coastal Zone Management Program. X-64 7 4. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recommends that the State of Washington from the outset place its WCZMP in the context of State-wide growth policies. Sincerely, 2d Jr. , FAIA, AIP @Assistant Secretary ttachment X-65 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMkRCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Md. 20852 AU G 1975 MEKOBAKIDU14 FOR: David 0. Meeker, FAIA, AIP Assistant Secretary Community Planning and Development Depar e of Housing and Urban Development.(RUD) FROM: Robert W Knec Assistan@ Admi strator for Coastal Zone Management SUBJECT: Office of Coastal Zone Management Response to HUD Comments on the State of Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP) Your letter of May 30, 1975, transmitting HUD comments on the WCZHP is acknowledged and appreciated. Our response to these comments is set forth below following the sequence presented in your letter. A. General Comments 1. It is regrettable that HUD's regional office was not Included among the Federal agencies participating in the WCZMP task force. We understand from the Department of Ecology (DOE) that they had worked closely with HUD over the past three years, and that in fact, HUD 701 funds contributed s'ubstantially to the early development of their program. This oversight is being remedied. HUD headquarters designation of its Regional Administrators as key state contact points should,preclude this lack of involvement in the future. 2. The first paragraph of page two sets forth HUD's general criteria for approvability of the Washington program. Since OCZM considers this an essential policy question, we have set forth below our responses to these criteria in some detail. (a) in our view, the Staters statutory authorities, guideliness review processes and appeal authorities concerning the Local Master Programs are sufficient to meet the basic substantive and process requirements of the CZMA. It is therefore our opinion that not all LHPs need to be adopted prior to approval of the program. However, it became evident that other requirements of the CZMA, specifically its requirements for. full participation, uses of regional benefit and the potential V CN tm ntlox 110, Nistra 00%T4 K" 2 application of a consistency regime, make it highly desirable to have the majority of LHPs completed prior to program approval. The State has projected that most, if uot'all, UPs will be completed during the supplemental grant period. By Washington statute, adoption of LMPs involves DOE and other State and public reviews. DOE is charged by State law to assure that-the statewide Interest among UlPs is expressed. We have requested that the cumulative effect of individual LHPabe assessed and addressed In the final application. Not all conflicts can be resolved Mior to program approval; the CZMA directs, however, that an.adequate mechanism for conflict resolution be established. The Federal and State agency committeelstructure now being refined by.WE is designed to meet this requirement. Although not required, the State on its own initiative, is providing planning assistance to coastal Indian tr:Wes in its current CZK grant. National and regionil Interests and needs must be adequately considered by the DOE. Their responses to agency comments Including HUD's, will form a part of the.final application. We would like to underscore our belief that this considera- -tion is the responsibility of the State, and that a State- level institution(s) must be In place prior.to approval. Accommodation of overriding national or regional needs by LMPs must be worked out within a continuing process of State-local interaction, but with the State assuming primary responsibility for this accommodation process. Provisions for changes or amendments in LIMPs are provided by State law and guidelines. Your statements concerning the conditions p be met prior to approval in this subpart are laudible goals that for the most-part parallel those of the CZMA. However,,tbe CZMA as presently constituted contains no requirement for a 11growthtf- 11no-growth" policy. Rather, CZKA requires that appropriate uses of the lands and waters be identified and that controls or conditions be specified to regulate activities in the coastal zone. Although an affirmative program of growth inducement may be desirable, the CZMA does not require such an element. Nor does the CZMA require a prohibition of growth, although Washington's "natural environment" designa- tions appear to fully meet the intent of such a concept. Clearly, this issue underscores the need to interface HUD's land use element and CZM.programs. We would be particularly interested in what specific requirements or degree of X-67 3 performance HUD will place on its constituents to meet the growth--no-growth determination in its 701 land use element. This could provide a constructive basis upon which our two related programs can be dovetailed and made mutually supportive. B. Findings 1. OCZM concurs that there is inadequate consideration given to the problems and issues of flood hazards in@the WCZMP narrative. In discussions with the State we find that DOE is the lead State agency to deal with flood plain management, that the State FIA representative is housed in DOE, and that it will remedy this important gap in the program narrative. FIA should also note that flood plains and flood- ways are specifically included under the Shoreline Management Act and the criteria for designation-of management environments. In addition, OCZM considers it important to meet again with headquarters HUD officials to cl@rify how our programs should coordinate'from both a policy and operational standpoint. 2. OCZM, as well as the State, acknowledge that the issues involved in dealing with "uses of regional benefit" is a difficult copceptual and legal matter. The major tests of whether ot not a program has met the Act's requirements (306(e)(2)) and NOAA's administrative. regulations (S.923.17) include: (1) the adequacy of a State's method to assure that local regulations will not unreasonably restrict or exclude uses of regional benefit; (2) the absence of unreasonable restrictions or exclusions in a CZM program; and (3) if such restric- tions or exclusions.are in a program, they are accompanied by a reasonable suitability or capacity andlysis. OCZM believes that the WCZMP must more adequately and specifically address the issue of regional benefit, but that the program already contains the basis for meeting the Act's threshold requirements in this regard. In terms-of the three "tests" outlined above, our reasoning is as follows: (a) The State has designated the shorelines of State significance as a region where statewide (more thin local) policies are given particular weight. The Shoreline Management Act, in a provision probably unique to the United States, declares use priorities for these shorelines to which the local gove ents 11shall give preference" and "recognize and protect the state- wide interest over local interest." (Ch. 90.58 RCW) Specific methods and guidance to localities in terms of this policy are contained in the "Final Guidelines: Shoreline Management Act." Further specific attention is given this regional-local issue in@the "Shoreline Master Program Reviewer's Guidebook." In Section 3.5 of that document, DOE recognizes its responsibility to assess the regional implicatijons of LMPs -- and sets up processes and participatory mechanisms.to deal with this issue. X-68 4 (b) An OCZH analysis of nine ad6pted LMPs indicates that there appears to be no unreasonable restrictions or exclusions in these LHPs. Viewed as a group, these LHPs further reinforce the notion that the overall WCZMP provides opportunity for a full range of coastal zone uses, including those of more than local benefit. Perhaps your Regional Administrator could examine the adopted programs to determine if our own analysis meets HUD's concerns in this area. (c) Where uses are restricted or controlled by the WCZMP environ- ments, OCZK believes these restrictions to be based upon broad and prudent criteria. 3. OCZK has attempted to deal with the generic concern for "Where growth should or should not take place" in A.2(e) above. We also have met recently with your NUD/CPD Acting Director of OPMA and your Secretarial representatives to discuss this in further detail. That discussion concluded that there is a need for both agencies to strongly encourage the development of statewide growth policies and that CZH and-MM land use elements be consistent and are unified once such policies are formulated. The potential implementation problems nqted in yodr paragraph 4 are responded to below. (a) OCZM concurs-that the WCZMP shouild be approved as a single, unified.program. Approval will apply to the State's overall program with sufficient adopted LMPs to meet the concerns outlined in A(2)(a) above. (b) OCZK fully concurs with your comments here, and has notified the States that the efficacy of the consistency provisions of the Act is directly dependent upon the clarity, analysis and administrative feasibility of the State's CZMP. .(c). The WCZMP is based upon an integration of existing Washington planning and management authority; thus, HUD supported progr will not be subjected to any "new" requirements in.mid-stream. The application of the consistency routines will be phased in over time and, we trust, will be applied to new applications or activities once a system for consistency is established. The potential deficiencies in the 200 foot SMA boundary and SMA exemptions are a crucial part of the further organizational and regulatory networking effort now underway in the State. 5. We plan to develop a supplement to the DEIS. X-69 C. Conclusion The letter's conclusions are consistent with'those of OCZM, in the context of our responses to the specific concerns in A and B above. D. Recommendations 1. OCZM has taken this action. 2. OCZM has notified DOE of the concerns expressed in your comments and has worked closely with the State in constructing a work program to meet the deficiencies contained in its initial application. 3. An enhanced grant was awarded to the State effective July 1, 1975 and will terminate January 31, 1976. 4. To the extent that statewide growth policies exist, or may be-developed in the future, the WCZMP will seek coordination and compatibility with such policies. We would again like to take this opportunity to compliment and thank you and your staff for the careful and constructive analysis and assistance they have provided to OCZM and the State of Washington's coastal zone management effort. X-70 ,t4T Or A 24 JU -7g; United States Department of the Inter or 0 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY @3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 1975 JU Dear Mr. Secretar-y: Each of the coastal States, including those bordering on the Great Lakes, Act are being encouraged through the Coastal Zone Management of 1972, to develop a program providing for wise and effective management of their coastal resources. As specified in the Act, the States are to submit their / coastal zone management programs to the Department of Commerce for review by the Federal Government and subsequent approval by the Secretary of Commerce. J/4 This approval, among other things, means that Federal actions within the coastal zone must be consistent to the maximum extent feasible with the State program. The State of Washington has submitted as its coastal zone management program a proposal consisting primarily of various guidelines, regulations, and sug- gested methods of implementation, based principally upon its Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Basically, Washington envisions management of the. coastal zone as an aggregate of State law, administrative regulations and programs, with the primary role of implementation resting with the local city and county governments acting under the overall management of the State's Department of Ecology. As.requested, the Department of the Interior has reviewed the Washington coastal zone management programf proposal and the associated draft Enviroh-n mental Impact Statement. Detailed comments and suggestions for improvement of these two documents are contained in the two attachments to this letter. The remaining portion of this letter highlights the principal concerns emanating from our review of these reports. The basis of our review was to judge conformance of the program with the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act and subsequent regulations. We have also provided specific comments on the program 's impact on the Department in order to assist future coordination. Commitment to management of the coastal zone in a coordinated and comprehensive manner is a basic criterion that each coastal State must address. To accomplish this, each State must formulate goals, policies, and methodologies which culminate in a comprehensive, objective, well coordinated approach to guide and regulate public and private uses of the resources in the coastal zone. Ideally, an effective coastal zone management program should be the result of cooperation and interaction among individual citizens, private groups and all levels of government local, regional, State and Federal., '-UT10A1 M ",76 9 .10 r X-71 -2- It should be emphasized to the coastal States that a coastal zone management program is more than the setting forth of policies and management approaches. To produce results, it must formulate a get of procedures and institutional arrangements to implement a program that achieves the stated goals, and accomplishes th@ adopted policies. The Coastal Zone,Management Act is unique in a sense that it sets forth requirements which tend to concentrate on process, leaving,the determination of substance of the management program as a responsibility of the State. This process has two distinct components; (1) process of developing a management program for the coastal zone, and (2) process of actual management through administrative and operational procedures. The process of,management program development is covered in the Act and attendant regulations through the presentation of several specific elements that each State must address the formulation of its program. The process of actual management is con- tained 'in a series of suggested alternatives which are available. to the coastal States. The major elements that must be analyzed in the process of developing a management program for the coastal zone include determination of boundaries, delineation of permissible land and water uses, a prioritization of the uses and a designation of areas of particular concern. Authorities necessary and organizational structures available as a means of exerting control are the focal points in the process of considering actual management of the program. A critical concern in our review of both of these process components has been the extent of involvement and depth of coverage of Federal programs and the means of assuring coordination with and obtaining the cooperation of agencies from the Department of the Interior.. The Washington coastal zone management program proposal was submitted with the intention of providing any necessary additional material to the Federal reviewing agencies in response to any evolving problems surfaced during the review. In its,report, the State expressed that all the authorities, procedures and elements expected of a State program are in place . . . it and that " . . . . all required elements are at least underway, if not already fully accomplished". The proposal also says: "Much effort has been undertaken and will continue during the program development year to better prepare the State to enter the 306 implementation phase. These efforts, while reported in this document, will not be complete at the time of submittal of this document, but should be complete at the time of approval of our WCZMP and the granting of the State's Section 306 funding request". We quote this material from the report to point out a basic dilemma facing our reviewers. It was very difficult to be responsive to something that is undergoing development and change and is, in the words of the State, not complete. X-72 f -3- There is substantial misunderstanding about what the State has accomplished through its Shoreline Management Act and what it intends through development of its management program to accomplish under the Coastal Zone Management Act. For example, there are inconsistencies and a lack of adequate explana- tion in the narrative on the process used in determination of boundaries in the proposal. This had led to many uncertainties about the substantive aspects of the boundary delineation. Instead of repeating what is contained in the Shoreline Management Act, it is our contention that the State should delineate a boundary which relates directly to the Coastal Zone Act. Within the interrelated process of determining permissible uses, prioritizing the uses and ascertaining areas of particular concern, the State admits to incomplete efforts, need for improvements and several on-going activities. In our view, a properly formulated process to effectively respond to these th elements of a management program requires that e State set forth a framework which concisely spells out the mechanism to be used and addresses some of the I concerns anticipated. As it now stands, the process is silent on coordination with Federal agencies regarding common interests on contiguous non-Federal/ Federal lands and inadequately covers the methodology to be used in determining Nat-ional interest. In addition, there isno way to determine if the process lead to balance in the permissible land and water uses. A process to prioritize is alluded to; however, more explanation is needed to permit an will adequate evaluation. In the proposal itself, there is not enough information on criteria for designation of areas of particular concern or on representative 41 types. Generally, areas of particular concern could be viewed as areas-where interests of various entities are likely to be in conflict, or where a use would significantly affect State or National interests. For example, the report does not touch upon the problems of hazard areas and the process the management program would pursue in attacking the problem; i.e. floodplains zones with associated safety considerations, danger of damages both to the natural environ- ment and to man-made features and the unnecessary costs associated with improper development. Another very important concern is the inconsistent and in some instances total lack of coordination with agencies from the Department of the Interior in the process of developing the management program. Contrary to what is mentioned in the report, two Interior agencies, Bonneville Power Administration And Bureau of Mines have.had no direct contact by the Department of Ecology. Our review also generated concern regarding the process being proposed by the v State to actually manage its coastal zone program. It is our contention that most of the existing acts, policies, and procedures of the various State agencies which are proposed to be brought together with the Shoreline Management Act do not appear to constitute a uniform and comprehensive system of regulation ancl control which satisfies the letter and the intent of the act. Bv its own admission (page 20 of the draft) the State neither sees nor plans anything, substantially new or different in policies or regulations,. in our view, these X-73 -4- several authorities do not combine to form an integrated, coordinated, efficient, comprehensive system for management of the Coastal Zone. We would suggest that a means to actually implement the coastal zone management program cannot be examined and finalized until.the process of developing the program is better analyzed and the results presented. We realize that the Washington coattal zone management proposal is the first effort-submitted under the CZM Act. The State is to be commended for its efforts in preparing this proposal under rather difficult time constraints. However, because of the concerns addr6ssed'earlier in this letter, the lack of coordination in the process of developing the proposal, and our uncertainties about the very critical additions presently being developed to,supplement the Washington draft, we would urge that approval to permit implementation not be granted at this time, and that a revised environmental statement covering the improved submission be circulated to give reviewers an opportunity for a more meaningful review. We recommend that the State be encouraged to continue to expend its efforts to improve this proposal under the program development authority of the Act. Agencies from the Department of the Interior are ready to help the State in its efforts to produce an adequate and viable coastal zone management program. Sincerely yours, JLnistar, See tary of the Interior Honorable Rogers C. B. Morton Secretary of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Enclosures X-74 @Seq @tary of .rior4 Attachment #1 Comments on Washington's Proposal for Coastal Zone Management Our review of the State oll" Washington's draft Coastal Zone Management program discerned major inadequacies in the proposal. Many of the comments raise issues about the extent or lack of information on the process employed by the State in their Coastal zone programming efforts. Others concern certain substantive issues and are presented primarily as questions and as adld--@`onal information available to the State in their reconsideration of thepmposal. Briefly our major concerns and suggestions for their elimination are: 1 - Inconsistencies and inadequate explanations regarding the process used in determination of boundaries and uncertainty as to what the actual boundaries to be used in coastal zone management are. The State should define a boundary which, relates directly to the Coastal Zone Act. 2 - Lack of information on specific kinds of permissible uses and no means to determine balance in the program. The State should amplify on how the proposed methods to determine permissibility will work and initiate a determination of the Federal role in establishing permissible uses and in a continual review process. 3 - Lack of information on relative priorities of lze, what will be done when conflicts occur, and means of revising priorities over time. The State should develop mechanisms to respond to these concerns and present them in the proposal. 4 Inadequate delineation of areas of particular concern making it impossible to track the approach to be used. The State should detail the rationale for determining and presenting areas of particular concern and present in the proposal what is presently known. 5 - Lack of adequate explanation on obtaining and using expressions of National interest in the development and implementation of the coastal zone program. The State should modify the proposal to specifically recognize the expression of National interest and the importance of the Federal role in natural resources activities. 6 - Lack of information on whether the State can actually enforce its authority and what the criteria and guidelines are for program implemen- tation. The State should provide a more thorough explanation of the mechanisms to be used to meet the intent of the Coastal Zone Act. 7 Lack of specific information on means of coordinat ion with various entities. The State should spell out in specific terms what it proposes in coordinating its program activities internally, with regional organi- zations and with the Federal Government. X-75 -2- Further details on these major points are presented in the rest of this attachment. Agencies from the Department are ready to help the State through actions of the Federal Advisory Committee, the Review Task Force, and any other means necessary to make the proposal adequate for final, approval by the Secretary of Commerce. (1) Identification of Coastal Zone Boundaries Considerable difficulties were experienced by many reviewers in analyzing the process of boundary determination and the selected boundaries as presented in the Washington proposal. It appears that the'State estab- lished a series of boundaries using basically the boundary definitions of the Shoreline Management-Act. In the proposal, the boundary definitions should be more precisely worded to avoid ambiguities. Coastal Zone is defined in the Act as the coastal waters and the adjacent shorelands . . .,strongly influenced by each other and in proximity to the shorelines . . . " Further, "Ihe zone extends inland from the shoreline only to the extent necessaiy to control shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters . . ." For the first tier boundary the use of a fixed measure, 200 feet horizontal distance from the high water mark, raises a concern that it may 4ot be totally responsive to the CZM Act. On page 26, the State says that its first tier boundary will be usedtD demonstrate control over development which has a direct physical impact on the coastal waters. Perhaps a more meaningful boundary for the first tierwould be a line encompassing shore- line vegetative zones intact. Such a boundary would be sensitive to ecological system of the coastal zone. The second tier boundary presents somewhat more of an interpretive problem. On page 26 it is stated: "Another boundary is the rest of the State". The map an page 29 portrays a second tier boundary that appears to be an extension of the first tier boundary upstream from the salt water intrusion zone. Yet the text at the bottom of page 26 seemsto imply that another chosen boundary, the eastern edge of the 15 coastal counties is the second boundary. In the revision of the Washington program, a single definitive boundary which meets the requireinents.of the Act should be shown. As the report points out, the bulkiness of available maps depicting location of Federal and Indian lands, prohibits a wide distribution with the program., Too, the scale of the summary map in the report does not lend towards an accurate identification of these lands, specifically excluded from the coastal zone by law. In the eventual implementation of Washington's program, an accurate record of location of Federal and Indian lands in the coastal zone would be needed. Land records, available in the Bureau of Land Manage- ment's Land Office in Portland, Oregon, could be used to precisely delineate these lands. Legal descriptions could be provided. Many of the 22 Indian -reservations in the State are situated at the mouths of a number of rivers. emptying into Puget Sound and along the Western coast. Accurate descriptions of the boundaries of these reservation areas can also be provided. X-76 -3- Another concern is the interstate boundary shared with the State of Oregon. The State should include as a part of its boundary determination process, a mechanism to coordinate its efforts with Oregon. The report makes no mention of Washington coordinating its boundary determination with Oregon relative to the Columbia River, and conceivably there could be substantial problems of disparity. When coastal zone boundaries involving a shared resource are not compatible or similarly derived, then the difference in degree of use of the shared resource can have an adverse impact. This potential problem could also have international implications in Washington's shared boundary an Puget Sound with British Columbia. (2) Permissible Land and Water Uses The State of Washington defines three methods by which permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone are determined. These three methods, the SMA, its guidelines, and the local master program development process would all act together to list allowable uses. One major concern, not readily apparent, is the extent of Federal involvement in this deter-, mination, especially in the coordination needed for common interests on contiguous Federal and non-Federal lands within the coastal zone. Four separate tasks can be identiAed in a process of determining permissible uses having a direct and significant iuvact on coastal waters as outlined in Section 305 (b) (2). They are (1) determining of land and water uses which will be assessed for impact of identified coastal environ- ments; (2) determining of criteria and measures to assess impacts; (3) categorizing permissible and non-permissible uses; and (4) continuing compilation, verification and assessment of the information. The State of Washington feels it meets the requirements of Section 305 and says on page 38: "General permissibility is now established in the Final Guide- lines and local master programs." However, elsewhere on that page it says: 'The processes we have described for permissibility determination constitute a threshold level of achievement, that is a reasonable job can be done with'the present system. However,. we believe that significant improvements can be made . . ." The report goes an to point out that several additional work items have been started to make better use of the existing information. Although the State maintains it has accomplished much inventory effort, there is no evidence in the report of the specific kinds of information on permissible uses available. In addition, it is not possible to measure the degree of balance in the program or relate aspects of Federal agency programs to either the State's process or its permissible use determinations. For example, there has been no attenpt to discuss the future recovery of mineral resources that are known or potentially existin the program area. It is our contention that an analysis of the future development potential of mineral resources and the probable impact of this kind of program on such development is essential to the Washington program proposal'and the environmental statement. This becomes particularly important in instances X-77 where the State would prohibit future development through.zoning or other action without fully understanding,what is to be prohibited. Also, a number of important processing related operations are located in the coastal zone shore areas,, manyat or near the tidewater zone in the Puget Sound inland waterway. Operations for refining petroleumand for producing cement, lime, aluminum, copper, steel, ferroalloys, and sulferic acid are located in the tidewater zone in the Seattle-Tacoma, Everett, Anacortes, and Ferndale industrial complexes. The largest sand and gravel operations in the State are presently mining in the tidewater.coastal shoreline. None of these operations are-described or acknowledged as permissible uses in the program or environmental statement. We point out this exanple to illustrate the lack of communication between the State and the Federal agencies. Neither the report nor'the 94A presents the State's process for deterndning permissible uses in such a way that it is clear which uses are to be permitted and which are not to be permitted. Our suggestion is that these must be more explicitly defined'prior to pro- gram approval,and not left open-ended or to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The report does admit togaps in the.proposal which are supposedly in the process of being eliminated, but it is difficult for us to see how the application can be.approved at this juncture with these,inportant requirements not yet fulfilled. We,@ould strongly urge that.a determination.of Federal role in the process of establishing permissible land and water uses and subsequent review be initiated. The review task force concept (page 46) seem a logical entity to be involved in this determination. '(3) Priority of Use The State has used the Shoreline Management Act and WAC 173-16 guidelines to establish priority for land and water uses by type and effect of use as well as by location or area. The,reprinted paragraph from the S?,IA on page 50 of the draft proposal seems to say that the State is striving to prevent damage to the natural environment,,control pollution and enhance the public's opportunity-to enjoy the natural shorelines. But the listing of priority uses of activities that will be allowed in altering the natural condition of the shoreline d the-State in those limited instances where authorized seems to be all encompassing and not really prior- itized in,terms of relative high or low priority. Aprocess which includes specific guidelines to cover relative priorities based on both State and local needs should be provided in the Washington program. The report is silent about what will be done in those instances where conflicts do occur among considerations. The State is responsible for developing an evaluation system to accomplish this and establishing pro- cedures for trade-off decisions. This process should also be presented in the program. X-78 No mention is made about a procedure for revising priority use designatio-.s over time. As goals and objectives change, priorities will change. The State must keep information concerning uses and their impacts updated and readily available for inter-actions with the'public, local agencies and the Federal government. Here again we would suggest that the established review task force or the Advisory Committee could be used effectively to help the State in their efforts. As Washington points out in their SMA, the basic principle of selection of objectives for the coastal zone is the concerns by people. (4) Areas of Particular Concern The Washington proposal an page 44 states: 7he implementation of the Shoreline Management Act will identify areas of particular concern" (emphasis added). The im-pTidation is that the identification of areas of particular concern has not been'done or at the least, is incomplete. It is our contention that the State's approach to this very critical step should be better explained, especially in terms of the interrelated steps necessary to reach a delineation of aieas of particular concern The process for designating and therationale for presenting the areas of concern, and an identificationaid presentation of what is known to date should be a part of this proposal. Federal agencies could then have the opportunity to better provide input directly to the determination- effort and also have more understanding of their role in couparing their programs and missions to the identified results. To auplify,,the draft report states on page 41: the Zone contains areas of particular concern to Federal agencies and worthy of State cooper- ation with Federal agencies in the management and maintenance of such areas". However, as now-spelled.but, it is difficult to assess if the program pro- vides an adequate inventory of these areas for the various Federal Agencies to make comparisons. For example, in accordance with the Land,and Water Conservation Fund Act (P.L. 88-578) an approved State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) must exist in order for a State to be eligible for grants-in-aid to acquire and develop public outdoor recreation facilities. The proposed Washington program states on page 48, "The State Outdoor Recreation Plan calls for both the protection of coastal zone resources and the provision of adequatc@ facilities for public enjoyment of these resources." However, there is no indication that the SCORP and the proposed coastal zone plan are in accord. Additionally, since the SCORP is not a static plan but is subject to revisions over a period of time; we feel that the proposed plan should include a mechanism or procedure to insure that the plan and the SCORP will remain in accord in the future. We,are pleased to note that the draft proposal reflects a concern for historic and cultural resources., particularly at the stage of locally written master programs. To assure that the requirements of Section 106 of the National' Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Procedures for Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties listed in 36 CFR Part 800, and Executive Order 1159-31 are met, the process should indicate that in both the coastal zone program X-79 and the local master program, consultation with the State Historic Pre- servation Officer will occur. Washington State planners may be aware of these requirements. However, we believe that the legal responsibilities of the Department of Commerce associated with coastal zone management shotild be specifically identified in the Washington program. One of the, important elements missing *in the draft program is the -process by which Washington will identify, designate and then manage areas of high hazard such as flood plains, areas susceptible to hurricafies or other areas which because of their location, present special dangers. This gap in the draft program especially weakens the Washington coastal zone management.proposal. To summarize, we heartili endorse the establishment of a review task force of local, State and Federal agencies to assist the Department of Ecology in the interrelated process of determining areas of particular concern. It would be helpful if the report presented details on the process this task force will employ, its membership, and a summary of what it has accomplished thus far. Apparently, the, task force is one means of seeing that: "The Department of Ecology will be encouraging .a more -thorough effort for the designation of areas of particular concern. . . (5) Determination of National Interest On page 18 of the Washing ton- proposal, it says:' 'The Coastal Zone Management Act requires a high degree of Federal participation." . 9 While there was considerable Federal participation in shoreline manage- m@pnt, it was felf that some of the statewide and national issues needed'more treatment, so a Federal Agency Advisory Comffiittee has been formed, with representatives from all the Fqderal agencies that are -interested or have interest in the Coastal Zone." It goes on to say: "The basic piirposes are to help us determine the Natiohal interest in Washington's Coastal Zone, determine the needs and plans of the Federal agencies involved, and for the Federal agencies to review our coastal zone management efforts and participate in those that they choose to participate In our view, the expression of National interest provides a necessary perspective and direct input to the development of a coastal zone program and some very important guidance in the actual implementation of that program. The Washington draft proposal lacks adequate explanations of their use of expressions of National interest in both of these processes. Section 307 of the CZMA requires that the Secretary of Commerce not approve a state coastal management program "unless the views of ReTeral agencies principally affected by such program have been adequately considered." The legislative history of Section 307 is quite clear that "principally affected" Federal agencies are to be included in the development of state coastal zone management programs. Yet to the best of our knowledge, two X40 -7- interior agencies, Bonneville Power Administration and Bureau of Mines, have never been consulted in the preparation of the proposed Washington program. Nor does the state's application acknowledge these agencies as one of the 25 separate Federal agencies which "participated in our-(the State of Washington's) Coastal Zone Shoreline Management Program:". (See state's application at page 79). We suggest that the iTmportant Federal role in developing and participating. in the management of t@e water resources of the Pacific Northwest be recognized. We note that although the Washington Shorelines Management Act of 1971 acknowledges that "nothii@g in this chapter shall affect any rights established by treaty to which the United States is a party" (RCK 90.58.350); there is no language in the program mcognizing the CZMA provision: "that nothing in that Act should be construed to diminish or interfere with Federal jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control of water resources or superseding, modifying, or repealing existing laws and treaties including"'the Columbia River Basin Treaty". There should be a recognition that no action taken as-a part of the state's .program would supersede, modify, or repeal existing Federal jurisdiction responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control of water resources,,submergedlands, or navigable water, nor interfere with the United States operating entity or entities established pursuant to the Columbia River Treaty. We also believe that the right of Federal agencies to carry out scientific investigations in those areas of the coastal zone of Washington that are not Federal property or held in trust by the Federal goverment be recog- nited. Although there is no suggestion that Federal agencies would not have this right, we do feel that it is a right that needs to be protected, and that there should be a clear understanding that the right will not be abro- gated through subsequent action. (6) Authority, Coordination and Means of Control The CZM Act is strucItured to achieve a State-level program that has sufficient legal authority to implement a coastal management program. To develop a plan that does not have implementing authority is not sufficient. Under the Act, the State's overall objective must be, to implement laws, procedures and enforcement mechanism to improve the manner in which decisions about coastal management are made. The statement is made that the State can promote its interests in the Coastal Zone through functions of the Shoreline Management Act, especially for Shorelines of Statewide significance. The permit system, program review (including Federal agencies), and approval of the master program are vehicles by which the State hopes to promote its interest. A discussion X-81 about how the State will go about getting the local governnvent and public to accept or include the State's imposition may be helpful. As we see it, this imposition could be a standoff, particularly if the local governments followed the guidelines that the 91A provided. As presently written, the Washington proposal merely represents the fact. that the State master program is essentially the cumulation of local master program . It is explained that the State has identified as one of the coastal zone management objectives a greater ability for local government to control its share of the coastal zone. What is missing, however, is any indication that the State can enforce its authority where required. Further., the process does not provide assurance that State criteria and guidelines; exist by which local governments will'be guided. A more thorough explanation of the actual mechanism to be employed by the State to meet the intent of CaIA is needed. Further, there is also uncertainty about whether the authorities as expressed areaiequate for the State to do what they imply can be done. For example, are the authorities of the State adequate to implement the national interest needs? Since the power of eminent domain is apparently not@needed (see page 71), the State must show what means of control authorities are available, h6w.they can be used, and who will use. them. The program of control needs a better explanation for presentation to the potentially involved public and the interested Federal and local entities. Included could be an explanation of how one agency, the Department of Ecology, will use where necessary, the services and authorities of other State agencies as a part of the control mechanism. 1here also 'appears to be a need for coordination with regional entities. We see no evidence that the State Department of Ecology coordinated or consulted with adjacent States.and provinces and interstate and -regional agencies in the preparation of the Washington program. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires coordination with regional agencies. We believe that effective management of the coastal zone along the shores of C, the Columbia River would require coordination with the State of Oregon and management of the coastal zone along the shores of the Juan de Fuca strait and the San Juan Islands area would require coordination with the province of British Columbia. Also, there is no indication that the Pacific Northwest River Basins Comm-ission has been consulted regarding the impacts of its various regional and river basin.planning studies. Notably deficient is a description of the process by which Federal actions will be judged for consistency with the Washington coastal zone management program. This actually provides the linkage from the State process to a decision on substantive activities. This phase, including the selected institutional approach, must be presented before the Washington coastal zone management proposal mn be considered complete. Finally, it is our contention that the Washington proposal should be developed in concert with all affected agencies. Interior agencies stand ready to work with the StaTt-ein developing an adequate and compatible program for the coastal zone. The State could make more efficient use X-82 of the established Federal Coastal Zone Advisory Committee and the Review task force. The first tasks should be to complete the membership of these Co7mnittees and then to spell out their specific roles in both the process of developing the programs and in continual review of the overall effort in the implementation phase.. The DOE may want to work again with the Federal Regional(buncil on.the various relationships of the Federal and.State agenciesi regarding the coastal zone program. X-83 Attachment 2 Comments on the Envirortmental Impact Statement Major revisions and additions appear necessary to the Washington coastal zone management proposal before it complies with the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act. It is our belief that when the Droposal has more information on the specific processes being employed and of the substantive results, then an EIS can be prepared to discuss them and possible alternatives- and the general impacts of implementation. Once -the program is revised, the Department of Commerce will have an adequate basis on which to prepare an EIS that will be sufficient for interagency review in accord with CEQ guidelines. The draft EIS does not recognize or fully spell out what are likely to be the impacts of the Washington coastal zone management proposal on the coastal environment, on ecological systems, and on various resource uses, amenities, and values of national interest. These were the uppermost coucerns of the Congress in enacting P.L. 92-583 (Coastal Zone Management Art).. The following comments are presented for consideration2during EIS revisions. On page 1 it is noted that Federal actions within.the coastal zone are icequired by the CZH Act to be consistent with the approved State manage- ment program. Neither here nor elsewhere in the document, however, does NOAA explain what actions are or are not affected. There is no reference to Federal responsibilities and jurisdiction in coastal and navigable waters, even of those specifically identified in P.L. 92-583 which are not affected or diminished by the Act. The Washington draft program*makes no mention of these responsibilities, of Federal Jurisdiction and pre- eminence, or of such specific program as the Federal permit program administered by the Corps of Engineers. It is stated that Federal ( Department of Commerce) program approval focuses more upon the procedure whiqb the State has used to develop its program rather than on its. substance. The paragraph concludes that it is there- fore necessary to discuss environmental matters in generalities. We can appreciate the emphasis on procedure when dealing with several different possible techniques of management in various States or segments of the coast. Nonetheless, the impacts of a given State program cannot be prop- erly assessed in accordance with NEPA by a superficial and general treat- ment. The ramifications of adopting this administrative procedure for review of program applications has widespread sigrUficance environmentally and those impacts must be addressed. X7- 84 -2- On page 3 reference is made by statutory citation and interpretation to the fact that the intent of the Act is that States exercise full authority over the coastal zone and in making usedecisions other than those which are of no more than local significance. The EIS states that the State level of ----rnment is clearly given the central,role and responsibility for this process, aided by Federal and local levels. Yet elsewhere in the EIS (page 16) and also in the draft proposal it is stated that primary responsibility is now (under Shoreline Management Act, SMA) and would be upon implementation of Washington's program bestowed upon the local- ,- .--nments. These seemingly conflicting Toles need further clarification. What is needed is a discussion of how and through what means the State will exercise its authorities through local governments. The misleading statement is made on page 5 that the SMA program is not yet in effect. It is stated that goals and policies will be supplemented Z_ and made more specific through the development of a planning program and regulatory permit system provided for in the SMA. Except for a few local master program which are in the final stages of writing@or adoption, the State has essentially completed its planning program under SEPA and has had the permit system in effect since 1971. The statement on page 7 that the SMA guidelines are a framework for permit decisions is true only in the sense that local programs were approved (or will be) on the basis of,the guidelines; although ihe guidelines will still 3- have reference value in permit appeal hearings. The guidelines in some respects failed to address certain kinds of development and point out existing legal constraints in coastal waters. They would not appear sufficient to meet needs of coastal zone management for the future. The excepted uses (page 7) require further clarification. In addition to the above, the State's Shoreline Management Act of 1971, sections 90.58.1.40.(8) and 90.58.140.(9) (d), also appear to indicate possible loopholes which could result in potentially significant adverse environ- mental impacts. Permissible use is not defined in such a way that it is clear which uses are to be permitted and which are not to be permitted. Our belief is that rd these must be explicitly defined for program approval and not left open-ended. The use of the "substantial development" criterion does not aid in the matter since it gives no indication as to how categories of uses impact the shorelines and waters and what control is appropriate. This definition does have the capability for applying a test of navigational interference except that this is not explained or defined. X-85 We are pleased to note on pages 9 and 14 that the master programs developed by the cities and counties will contain policies regarding the protection and restoration of historical and cultural resources. Historical, archaeo- logical, and architectural resources are fragile and non-renewable elements of the environment and 7n@;4r receive consideration prior to granting development permits. Unfortunately, the statement contains no information on historical and cultural resources which might be affected by the proposed program. Did the inventories in"1i_-__zd on p. 10, paragraph 3, include historical and cultural resources? If not, plans for such surveys should be dis- cussed. The presence of National Register properties within the designated coastal zone should be determined and procedures for complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 indicated. Cooperative,planning on the interstate and international levels is absent from the list of objectives on page 9. Coordination with Canada and the State of Oregon would appear to be particularly important in implementing Washington's coastal zone management plans. Section X of the draft environ- mental statement (p. 47ff) does not indicate consultation with these interests in either development or review of the State program. P. 12-13. Figure 2 shows counties containing lands in the coastal zone, rather than the coastal zone itself as defined in page 10, paragraph 4. The title of the figure therefore is misleading,'as it does not indicate that the boundary is drawn solely for "administrative, financial, and coordinative purposes." Figure 2 indicates that Puget Sound and certain included islands are excluded from the coastal zone. This seems to conflict with statements made elsewhere in the statement. Figure 3 is not keyed tightly to the text and its significance is diffi@ult to determine. On page 7, paragraph 1, the entire Pacific Ocean coast, Puget Sound, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca are all identified as "shorelines of statewide significance." These same a,eas, or large portions of theim, are not given this designation in Figure 3. This, and other apparent discrepancies.(i.e., the river in Lewis County which is of "statewide significance" in Figure 3 but is not included in the coastal zone of Figure 2) reduce the value of this figure. It is.suggested that all areas indicated on Figure 3 be identified in the text. Figure 3 probably should be specifically discussed and referenced on page 7 rather than page 13, where its presence is confusing. We note that lands administered by the National Park Service have been excluded, as required, from the State coastal zone -nagement program (i.e.,'Olympic N.P., North Cascades N.P., Mt. Rainier N.P., and Ross Lake N.R.A.) X-86 -4- P. 14, paragraph 5. It would be desirable to present a map showing the areas of particular concern initially determined to be especially suitable for preservation and restoration. P. 15, paragraph 5. It is implied that the master programs of local governments and permits fr-- "substantial development" prepared ift accordance with the Sr-- -:- coastal zone management program will require environmental statements in accordance with the Washington State Environ- mental Policy Act of 1971. It would be desirable to indicate more @pecifically under what conditions.this riquirement will be applied to such actions. In view n' -"Ie lack of detailed impact analysis in this Federal programmatic statement, the State environmental statements assume Potentially great importance. According to page 16, a supposed strength of SMA is that it incorporates explicit definitions. On this point we disagree and express.the opinion that one of the major sources of problems and possibly of disenchantment with the Shoreline Management program stems from insufficient and illog- ically defined terms. The EIS describes the SMA as "relatively definitive" in establishing definitions, time requirements, etc. The terms in SMA (and in the draft proposal, contrary to the statement in the EIS, are a major source of misunderstanding to the general public, potential applicants, and local government officials. The EIS indicates that the Department of Ecology (DOE) does not have the Authority to accomplish Statewide planning. Contrary to the statements at the bottom of page 17, we do not see that surrounding the SMA with other existing authorities in any meaningful way supplements and augments the authorities of DOE in a clearly legal sense to enable DOE to function more effectively as a central administrative and managerial entity for coastal zone matters. The subsection dealing with Puget Sound should indicate the critical significance of the belt of tidelands around the entire Sound. We take exception to the statement on page 20 that the effect of dikes and fills on fish populations (and other biological forms, presumably) in this narrow strip is not clearly understood. The Fish and Wildlife Service report on Hood Canal.11 discusses many of the known impacts of these alterations. Also pertinent is a 1972 publication'by the Washington Department of Fisheries entitled ','Food of Juvenile Pink and Chum Salmon in Puget Sound, Washington." Some effects are clearly severe and profund, while others are more subtle. The statement on page 20 that some anadromous fish species spend their entire life cycle in Puget Sound requires correction, since by definition they do not. Mention should be made in this subsection of the importance to surf smelt spawning of certain beach areas having particular substrate composition and water regime. Reference could be made to a 1973 Washington Department of Fisheries report on surf smelt spawning beaches. l/ Yoshinake, M.S. and N. J. Ellifrit. 1974. Hood Canal - Priorities for Tomorrow. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 97 p. 7 figures. X-87 The great blue heron (page 21) is a conspicuous shorebird but is vastly outnumbered in mosr placed by sandpipers, plovers, and other -small shorebirds that are highly dependent on the intertidal landstr1D for food and for other activities. These species should be listed. The redundancy of "living, population" on page 21 should be corrected. On page 17, the statement is made that the State Master Program is the cumulative total of all local programs. On page 38 it is stated that local Master Programs are the basic implementing mechanisms for the CZM and SMA programs. It follows that the draft proposal. cannot be implemented until*local programs are completed and approved by DOE and NOAA. it would seem premature to issue grants for administering a program which at this time cannot be effectively implemented and is uncertain of completion. We thus find it difficult to accept the apparent predetermination in the EIS that the spirit and letter of CZM have already been,met. The deadline for completion of local Master Programs has already been exceeded twice. In view of the stated expectation that all local programs w-111 be completed by,Fall of 1975, it does not seem unreasonable to delay program approval at least that long to insure program completion. Under State CZM program alternatives, the third paragraph on page 40 needs additional clarification. it seems to argue that the existing State authorities do not cover the purposes of CZM, yet the CZM framework, it is stated, will provide necessary authorities. We do not understand how the draft proposal can broaden authorities if it does no more than bring existing ones under an administrative umbrella. The second alternative in Section C involves incorporation of uses presenily exempted under SMA. We believe the question is not so much one of bringing them under the permit system as it is whether or not by this means effective control can-be achieved where needed for the protection and proper develop- ment of the coastal waters and shorelands. We do not think it is valid to excuse removing these exemptions on the basis that -pressures of objections would mount, particular if it is true that they are subject to other State, controls anyway, as claimed on page 431'. The third alternative discusses the question of compensation for opportunities lost. To the extent that actual legal property rights are involved, 'we cannot T. argue against compensation. However, it should be pointed out that within navigable waters of the United States where Federal permits are required, the claimed rights usually do not exist. The EIS does not adequately consider both sides of the argument. Regarding the alternatives to the proposed action, NOAA has considered some options which are not viable for considerlation. while not considering other alternatives which are logically required to be considered. We have suggested some others. In addition, NOAA has discussed at length alternatives for the State which are inappropriate for consideration of action at the,Federal level. These are alternative actions which are incapable of implementation under the authority of the Department of Commerce and P.111. 92-538. The last paragraph on page 40 of the EIS seems to make compelling arguments for denial of the draft proposal. It states that existing authorities and permits,cannot be used effectively to comprehensively plan and manage the resources of the coastal zone. It also states that SMA is the PrinCiDal authority of the State for administering the CZ,4 Act, and that the SMA does not meet all the requirements of the Act. We do not understand how NOAA can state on page 38 that the State already meets the requirements for CZM when its program is not established and yet, on page 40 declares that the SMA does not meet all the requirements of the CZM Act. The EIS specifically states that areas of particular concern, areas for restoration,and for preservation, are missing under SMA. They are not found, except in a suggestive sense, in the draft proposal. We do not understand how the various existing State authorities which do not individually and separately provide a comprehensive program will suddenly become integrated through program approval. P. 38-44. The tone of many of the. discussions on alternatives is justif i- catory. it would be desirable to rework the section, as necessary, to ensure that only the alternatives and objective analyses of their impacts are presented. Local and State implications are covered on Pages 45 and 46, but what are some of the national implications (e.g., energy development) of the program? The EIS states that adoption of" the.State management program will assure intense and "irrevocable" develoDment in some areas. There should be an attempt to identify where this intense development will occur and what its effects on the environment might be. Environmental impacts, some of,which could be specified, are not adequately discussed in the section on probable adverse environmental effects,which cannot be avoided or other sections of the EIS. We question whether-it is correct to view restriction of resource extraction and timber harblesting on the whole as adverse environmental.effects. It should be remelbered that the rationale for doing this is protection of fragile environments and other resources. We find it difficult to believe that the section on irrevocable and irretrievable commitments of r1esources that would be involved in the proposed action should be implemented can be satisfactorily covered in two sentences. Again, this is probably dile to the fact that actual- and specific environmental effects which might be uncovered from an analysis of the history of SMA, experience with all- the local Master Programs, and analysis of the contents making up the WCZMP have not been fully identified. X-89 -7- Additionally, we offer comments in subject areas not covered by your draft EIS. Indian Lands An area of concern for the tribes and BIA is in water quality and water rights. As you are aware reservations are situated at the mouth of a number of the large rivers in Western Washington. You may wish to include in your draft a section on Indian water rights and their impact under Doctrine on the waters of the State of Washington and hence the impact in the Coastal Zone. A number of tribes in the Western Washington Agency have completed or are working on various land use plans, they are as follows: 701 Plans and Similar Plans Makah, Tulalip, Squaxin Island, Muckleshoot, Nisqually, Skokomish, Lummi, Swinomish, Quileute, Port Gamble, Quinault and Shoalwater. Water Resource Inventories. Chehalis, Lummi, Muckleshoot, Nisqually, Quinault, Skokomish, Squaxin Island and Tulalip have completed inventories or inventories presently in progress. It .is planned to conduct water resource inventories on all reservatiohs. Housing Authorities Makah, Swinomish, Quinault, Quileute, Lower Elwha, Port Gamble, Tulalip, Lummi, Muckleshoot, Chehalis, Nisqually, Shoalwater, Skokomish and Squaxin Island presently have established Housing Authorities. A demonstration housing project is ongoing at Qu 'ileute and is planned to continue construction for the next 10 years. There are additional trust land areas and Indian communities that should be identified, these are: Tribe County Location Puyallup Pierce Tacoma Area Nisqually Thurston Nisqually River Port Madison Kitsap North End of County Port Gamble Kitsap Near Poulsbo Quileute Jefferson Pacific Ocean coast Lower Elwha Clallam East of Port Angeles Shoalwater Pacific East of Cape Shoalwater Nooksack Whatcom. Near Demning and Nooksack Rivers X-90 In respect to Indian fishermen at the present time, the following groups have been accepted by Federal Court as having fishing rights: Quinault Makah, Lumi, Hoh, Muckleshoot, Squaxin Island, Skokomish, Yakima, Quileute, Nisqually, Puyallup, Sauk-Seattle, Upper Skagit, Stillauamish, Tulalip, Swinomish, Port Nadison, Port Gamble, Lower k1wha Nooksack. Water Development, In addition to operation of the' dams, over 130 irrigation districts are responsible for serving irrigation water to some 2.7 million acres of land in the Columbia River drainage basin. Return flows from those lands contain suspended solids and soluble salts that are normal in irrigated agriculture. Although problems from those sources are insignificant as they pertain to quality of water in the Columbia River and the estuary, they should be mentioned. Recreation The environmental impact statement does not discuss the recreation facilities in the coastal zone or the possible impacts thereon of imple- mentation of the management plan. We realize that the statement covers a plan, not a site specific project, And thus a detailed discussion of possible impacts under every conceivable contingen6y may not be possible. lJowever, more detailed information concerning the guidelines under which the management.program would operate should be possible. While the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is not a land managing agency and therefore has no holdings of littoral land which the proposed plan would impact directly, it does have programs which will have to be considered in a coastal zone management program. It is our opinion that the restrictions placed upon both Land and Water Conservation Fund projects and Federal Surplus properties transferred for recreation purposes, may, in certain instances, be constraining factorsupon State land use planning and zoning through coastal zone management,programs. We further believe that these factors should be acknowledged and addressed in the EIS. In summary, the statement is basically deficient in not recognizing or fully spelling out what are likely to be the impacts of its implementation on the coastal environment, on ecological systems, and on various resource uses, amenities, and values of national interest. These, it seems to us, were the uppermost concerns of the Congress in enacting P.L. 92-583 (Coastal Zone Nanagement Act). X-91 NQAA Response to Department of Interior A. General Letter 1) Boundaries: The process of boundary determination and how it functions to meet the spec-ific goals,and objectives of the C3% are more thoroughly described in Chapter V of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. 2) Coordination/National Interests: The Department of Ecology and their consultants have taken various steps to improve coordina- tion with Federalagencies. The Federal "packet" system described in Appendix D of-the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program describes the beginning of-a continuous process to better understand Federal agency concerns on such matters as coiamon interests on contiguous non-Federal/Federal lands and determining national interests in the coastal zone. Discussion appears on pages 131-133. 3) The process of prioritizing permissible land and water uses described in Chapter V of the WCZMP isconsidered adequate to meet the requirements of the CM@% and providesIOT balanced consideration of the various needs and interests found among coastal zone users. 4) Chapter II of the Program elaborates on how areas may be designated as areas of particular concern over time. The State already has policies and controls over flood plain areas, the Shoreline Management Act contains a permit system and master programs which usually prohibit or restrict development in flood plain. 5) See comment 2 above. This situation is being remedied and both concerned agencies of the Department of Interior have been contacted. 6) A more thorough description on haw the state proposes to manage the coastal zone institutionally has been provided in Chapters III and VI. The State plan does not contain new or different policies or regulations because the existing aggregate of laws and policies is basically sufficient. The review indicated, however, that the State needed further work to' coordi- nate the WCZW with other state agencies and local governments as well as Federal agencies. This effort has been under way since June of 1975. The development of institutional relation-: ships and coordination of effort-takes time and, as,well, must be continuous. Section 306 grant monies are clearly intended to assist in this effort. X-92 B. Attachment #1 Many of DOI's concerns have been addressed in the new Washington Coastal Zone Management Program submitted for review.' 1) Page 115 of the WCZMP contains further information on boundaries. 2) The question of balance is a difficult one.. The State has @stablished regulations and guidelines and set priority of uses within specific areas of the State. In this process, much of which has been based on scientific and economic investigations, the issue of balance has been addressed. See pages 118-120 and A9-A45. 3) The process of determining priorities.of uses is not an inflexible process. "The Shoreline Regulatory Process," is described on page 40 of the WCZMP. See pages 118-1'20. 4) Chapter II of the Program presents the approach and rationale for determining areas of particular concern. 5) The State has established a process and specific tool in an attempt to alleviate these concerns to the maximum extent practicable. This system, commonly known as the Federal "Packet" system, identifies agencies missions and responsibilities, points of contact, mechanisms for coordination, howconsistency will work between agencies and a number of other elements. A sample packet is included in the WCZMP, Appendix D, and in the FEIS. Further information can be found-in the WCZMP, pages lOS-111 and Appendix B. 6 & 7) Chapters III and IV address more specifically how the various authorities will be utilized and coordinated to implement the Program. Specific Comments 1) Identification of Coastal Zone Boundaries: Boundary determina- tions have been clarified. The Coastal Zone includes the 2001 resource zone, transitional areas, and the first tier of coastal counties and cities adjacent to salt water. This two-tiered landward boundary approach in conjunction with the State authori- ties and the organizational network developed are deemed adequate to meet CZMk requirements. Federal and Indian lands maps have been improved and included in Appendix C of the document. Coordination of the boundaries with Oregon has taken place. The difference between their common boundaries is now minimal not only with respect to the Columbia River, but inland to the X-93 county and crest of the coastal mountain range (see page 137, WCDT). Discussions have also taken place with Canada. 2) Permissible Land and Water Uses: Efforts to improve Federal consultation and coordination,have been addressed in previous replies to comments. -Chapter V, "Uses in the Coastal Zone", describes how the State will more explicitly determine permis- sible uses and involve Federal agencies. 3) Priority of Uses: Chapter VI of the WGZMP describes the process of establishing priority of uses, adapting to changes, and resolving conflicts.' 4) Areas of Particular Concern: The State does have a program that deals with historical properties, hazardous areas, recreation elements, and others. In this respect, it is a comprehensive program. 5) Determination of National Interest: The State has addressed this issue on pages 130-134 of the WCZMP. With respect to the CZMA provision, "...nothing in the Act ... laws and treaties," as part of the CZ?AA,is an automatic inclusion of any coastal zone management program. The possibility exists'that scientific investigations and manipulative research may not..be:,contistent with the WCZNP., In each instance coordination between the Federal and state oi local agency should take place. 6) Authority, Coordination and Mearis of Control: The response' to the various questions raised in this section can be found in Cahpters III, V and VI of the WCZMP. C. Attachment #2 - Comments on the EIS DOI has submitted many excellent comments which have been given consideration and either incorporated into the FEIS or can be found in the WCZMP. The following summarizes the responses to these comments: - A more thorough description is included of the impacts that will take place. - Clarification of which Federal actions are td be con- sistent with the state program. - The EIS does not list all the responsibilities of Federal agencies; this is done, however, in the WCM and in the Federal "packet" system. - Specific technical errors were corrected. - Maps have been improved for clarity. X-94 Specific comments correspond to the numbers in the left column. 1. This is not necessarily inconsistent. On page 3, reference is made to the fact that the CZMA encourages all states to exercise their full authority and may do so under one or a combination of three ways. Section 306(e)(l)(A-C) states: "(e) Prior to granting approval, the Secretary shall also find that the program provides: (1) for any one or a combination of the following general techniques for control of land and water uses within the coastal zone; (A) State establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation, subject to administrative review and enforcement of compliance; (B) Direct state land and water use planning and regulation; or (C) State administrative review for consistency with the management program of all development plans, projects, or land and water use regulations, including exceptions and variances thereto, proposed by any state or local authority or private developer, with power to approve or disapprove after public notice and an opportunity for hearings." Washington has chosen the first way, and while the State assumed the major role in the development of the program, ldcal govern- ments will carry out the provisions of the program based upon their local master programs. 2. Eliminated in rewrite of program description. 3. Conversely; the majority of permits appealed to the Shoreline, Hearing Board point out that the guidelines'and policies are very much considered. A summary of the Board's decisions is included in the FEIS. 4. The impacts of the excepted uses were addressed in the DEIS and the FEIS. S. Appendix 6 and pages 118-120 in the WCZMP should clarify the permissible uses subject to the management program. 6. This is a statement dealing with the substance of the process of defining permissible uses. The impacts of the uses under the- permit program have been determined prior to being included in the legislation. The impacts are well documented as well as the types of controls necessary to minimize impacts. In some cases, it means prohibition of use within a certain environment. It X-95 is obvious that the State has chosen the $1,000 figure as a basis for,letting people know when they need to apply for a permit. 7 & 8. Chapter V contains new information on the "Impacts on Historic Properties." 9. Consultation and coordination have taken place between Canada, Oregon and Alaska. Both the WCZMP and the FEIS will be sent to the appropriate contacts. 10. This was an assessment made by the State. It is difficult to clarify,terms unless some indication of the nature of confusion is illustrated. Perhaps theadditional information in the Program document will provide sufficient baqkground to aid in understanding the reference terms. 11. The CZMA does not require statewide planning. How the State plans to exercise comprehensive planning for the coastal zone following integration of previous comment is contained in Chapters 11, IV and VI of the WCZMP. 12. The program has been effectively administered during the interim period of local master program approval. It is not required that all local master programs be completed and approved prior to Federal program approval. The State has an adequate process which is being implemented with the knowledge that all counties in the end must have',an approved local master program. 13. This alternative was eliminated.as it was not really viable under the CZMA. 14. The question here is one of requiring a legislative amend- ment only. 15. This alternative has been deleted since the CDA.does not provide for compensation funds and H.B. No. 550 has not been approved. Such an action would be feasible pending the approval of such legislation. 16. This is true and several alternatives have been deleted from the FEIS and others considered. 11'. This was both an error in description and a misreading. ."Specifically missing are areas of particular concern and designation of areas for restoration and preservation'! (page 40). The Shoreline Management Act does not meet all the requirements of the CZMA, but it has been supplemented by the WCZMP and. approved by the Governor. The WCZMP consists of more than the Shoreline Management Act and alone it would not be enough, but that does not imply that.the WCZMP does not meet.the require- nents of the CZMk. X A-96 18. NOAA sees no real discrepancy in this statement; see the prior statement-. 19. This sentence has been deleted since it was not totally correct. See Chapter III, Areas of Particular Concern, and Chapter V, page 129, for further clarification. X-97 MAY 1 075 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 10 REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY Z Alaska 3112 FEDERAL BUILDING Idaho TES 915 SECOND AVENUE Oregon SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98174 Washington. May 7, 1975 Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology U. S. Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: The U. S. Department of Transportation has completed its review of your draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Federal approval of the Coastal Zone Management Program, State of Washington. This review is coordinated with Region 10 U.S. DOT agencies, including the U. S. Coast Gil@rd, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aviation-Administration. Significant comments have been provided only by the Commander, 13th Coast Guard District, in his letter of May 7, 1975 to the Region IO'DOT Secretarial Representative. This letter is enclosed. You may wish to consider these comments in the preparation of your final EIS. It should be noted also that these comments should be considered in addition to those provided by the Department of Transportation's Office oflEnvironmental Affairs in their letter to you of March 27, 1975. Sincerely, N SAMUELSON Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation, Region 10 cc: COMDT(G-WEP) AM FHWA, Region 10 FAA, Northwest Region COM13 Coast Guard District Enclo sure X-98 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAILING ADDRESS: UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COMMANDER (mep) THIRTEENTH COAST-GUARD DISTRICT 915 SECOND AVE. SEATTLE. WASH. 96174 PHONE: 442-5850 5922/19-1 Ser mep 0504 U. S. Department of Transportation 7 MAI 1975 Regional Representative of the Secretary Re: (draft) EIS, NOAA/OCZM. ATTN: Governor Don Samuelson Proposed Federal 3112 Federal Building Approval of the 915 2nd Avenue Coastal Zone Management Seattle, Washington 98174 Program, State of Wash. Dear Governor Samuelson: The following comprise the Thirteenth Coast Guard District's comments for inclusion in a DOT Regional.reply: We have reviewed the proposed coastal zone management program and the related draft EIS. While we endorse the program in concept, we have some definite concerns regarding implementation details: - How will the.program affect the Strait of Juan de Fuca, where we have an agreement with Canada regarding vessel traffic separation? What specific requirements or restrictions will be placed on the Coast Guard? - How will the term "national interest" be defined? - Who will determine if the.Coast Guard has complied "to the maximum extent practiable"? Washington's Shoreline Management Act appears to provide for delegation of authority to various levels of local government. We fear that the Coast Guard will-be required to deal with a morass of governmental bodies rather than a single state level point of contact. The proposed program, based on the CZM Act, provides for inter.ruption/veto of federal actions. When this occurs, what specific procedures will be used to settle disagreements and within what time limits? We feel that the proposed program is unacceptably general in that answers to the above questions are not apparant. Consequently, we can only recommend that the program not be X-99 approved until clarification is provided and any resulting conflicts are satisfactorily resolved. Additionally, we feel that this program is of sufficient importance to require the circulation of a supplemental or amended draft EIS containing the necessary clarification. To date we do not feel that the Coast Guard has had sufficient opportunity for the "full participation" required by 306(c)(1) of the CZM Act. Sincerely, 417,Z C. M. MAY S Captain, U.., Coast Guard Chief of St f, 13th Coast Guard District Copy to: COMDT(G-WEP) FHWA Region X COM13 Naval District 2 X-100 ,@'Si,n 71 C U.S. OEPARTMENT'OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Md. 201352 Date JUL 3 1975 Reply to Attn. of: Department of Transportation (DOT) TO Regional Representative of the Secretary Region 10 From Office of Coastal Zone Manag n Subiect: Office of Coastal Zone Management's Response to DOT Comments on the State of Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP)r By a letter dated 7 May 1975 to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, U. S. Department of'Commerce, the Regional Representative (Region 10) of DOT transmitted the comments of the Chief of Staff, 13th Coast Guaed District on the above-cited program. Although the comments were directed to the Draft Environmentdl Impact Statement accompanying the proposed approval action, they are programmatic in nature and are therefore responded to below i@ the order set forth in the Coast Guard letter. Traffic Separation A careful review by this Office of the Coastal Zone Management Act and th4' Washington Coastal Zone Management Program reveals no material impacts on the agreement with Canada relative to marine traffic separation in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Specific legislation in the Act stipulates that "Nothing in this title shall be construed - (1).to diminish either Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control of . . . navigable waters; nor to displace, supersede limit, or modify any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally established joint or common agency of two or more States and the Federal Government . . . " or as " (2) super- seding, modifying, or appealing existing laws applicable to the various Federal agencies . . ." Reference Section 307(e)(1)(2). Neither the WCZ11P nor the Local Master Programs can supplant the Coast Guard's specific legal responsibilities and jurisdiction for marlnersafety.@ Federal Consisten5j. After final approval of the Washington program is given, the Coast Guard actions, as well as all other Federal agencies, will be'required to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Washington program. However, there are safeguards within the CZM Act and other applicable Federal laws which prevent interference by local government1sl with a Federal agency in carrying out of its lawful mission(s). X-101 2 Our review of the CZM Act, the WCZMP, and your comments and statements indicate the degree of compliance required under Section'30 of the Act is well within the bounds of practical acceptance. Should there be specific discrepancies orareas of unaccountability which are not readily apparent, then you should bring these to che immediate attention of Washington's Department of Ecology and this Office for,discussion and resolution. The degree and spirit-of cooperation this Office, and the State, can expect from the Coast Guard will, we are certain, reflect very favorably on your agency. This cooperation with the State will be further enhanced by the Coast Guard's @isable presence in the coastal areas, your diversi- fied enforcement powers for pollution control and the Coast Guard's well deserved reputation for expertise in marine affairs and safety. The National Interest The expression of "national interest" as it is relevant to the Coast Guard and coastal zone management should be part of the Washingtoll program. As suggested in our cover letter under Consideration of the'National Interest the Coast Guard should develop a statement of.its understanding of national concerns and major programmatic matters-for discussion with the State and subsequent responses in the Washington p-ogram. Ppint of Contact The Washington State Department of Ecology will be the focal point of contact for Federal agencies. To underwrite this relationship we have asked the State to establish, staff, and maintain a State-Federal Committee structured to handle affairs of Federal interest. This doeApreclude the possibility of working at the county level of government, but the State retains final authority for review and administration and is in the best position to work in a continuing fashion with your agency. Federal Actions and Cop@liance with CZM Disagreements and disputes concerning Federal actions which cannot be resolved locally can be tendered to the Administrator of NOAA for consideration. The procedures for appeal are contained in Section 307 Interim Regulations published in the Federal Register, 28 February 1975, Vol. 40, Number 41. A reprint is enclosed for your convenience. X-102 Your consideration in responding to the Washington management plan is appreciated. Your comments on organization, procedures, and implemen- tation of the plan underscore some of our own apprehensions in an otherwise outstanding State management plan. We encourage you to continue your discussions with the State as this will help to.insure mutual understanding and adequate consi@eration 'of the Coast Guard's views in the final application for approval, and in the future. If there are any further questions or clarifications please contact Commander Phillip Johnson of OCZM at (202)634-42Sl, or Mr. Robert W. Knecht, Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management directly. Or X-.103 p OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION Z WASHINGTON. D.C. 20590 March 21,.1975 Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Office of the Assistant CZ71 Secretary for Science and Technology U.S. Department of Commerce Wor-1- Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: Z' Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environ- mental impact statement on the Proposed Federal Approval of the Coastal Zone Management Program, State of Washington. On review of the statement, we made particular'note of the following: f_v (A) Local Master Programs for shoreline areas will supersede all existing land use plans, zoning and other controls (p. 31). (b) Federal agencies shall insure that activities .supported or undertaken in the coastal zone are to the maximum extent consistent with the approved state manage- ment plan (p. 31). (C) Except in the'interest of national security, Federal agencies shall not issue licenses or permits for any activity affecting the coastal zone unless the state issues a certification that the activity complies with the approved program (p. 31). (d) The state must have an acceptable procedure to insure the adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities such as interstate transportation (p. 33)., X-i04. (e) The state has solicited participation by state, local, and Federal agencies including the Federal Regional Council, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, and Federal Highway Administration (p. 47). (f) U.S. Department of Transportation units from which comments on the environmental imnact statement have been requested are Coast Guard and Transport and Pipeline Safety (p. ii). on review of the statement., we do not find the procedure jL indicated in (d) above.* We suggest that all affected Federal agencies be given opportunity to review and comment on such procedure. With respect to item (f) above, on future coastal zone program environmental impact statements, we suggest that requests for comments from the Department of Transportation be directed to the Secretarial Representat-ive in the appropriate Regional Office for coordination of the Depart ment's coru-nents (ref: Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines, 38 FR 147, August 1, 1973, p. 20561). We look forward to continuing our coordination with your Office of Coastal Zone Management on administration of the Coastal Zone Program.. Sincerelyt Mar n Convisser,,Director Office,of Environmental Affairs office of Environment, Safety, and Consumer Affairs NOAA''Response to comments above. I. The State of Washington has further elaborated its procedures regarding national interests in the Washington Coastal Zone. Management Pro4@am dtd January 1976, pages 130-134. 2. AppropriAte steps will be taken. -X-105I@n @Co UNITED STATES N I;zM ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION Ice WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545 Ush mAy 3 o 1975: JUN 3 1W 3 v4 JUN Mr. Sidney R. Galler 1,01 Deputy Assistant Secretary for ZU2101u, Environmental Affairs U.S. Department of Commerce NZO Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: This is in response to your letters of March 21 and 26, 1975, in which you invited the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) to review and comment on the Department's Draft Environmental Statements-- prepared by NOAA to support the proposed Federal Approval of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Programs for the State of Washington and the mid- coast segment of the State of Maine. We have reviewed these statements and have determined that at the present time, Federal approval of these programs may result in the establishment of..undesirable procedures for the 32 CZM programs yet to be proposed. In addition, we feel that final Federal agency reviews for both these programs should be delayed until after the Administrator has presented ERDA's comprehensive plan for energy research, development and demonstra- tion to Congress on or before June 30, 1975, as required by Public Law 93-577. The delay would, in'addition to providing the much needed additional time for a more thorough review of the proposed subject programs, assure that all prospective ERDA and ERDA/industry cooperative programs are considered as to their potential conflict with the proposed CZM programs. We base the foregoing upon our concern that the CZM's clearly offer an array of resources which make them particularly attractive to a variety of energy industries, as well as for ERDA research and development and commercialization activities and programs. More specifically, we are not clear whether Federal approval of the Washington CZM program might provide an additional conflict between the State and ERDA in the Richland area, since applications of the Washington Shoreline Management Act (SMA), which provides the authority for the State's CZM program, is interpreted to extend upriver frowthe defined coastal zone. If the interpretation is correct, this enables the State of Washington to exercise@control of uses outside of the zone which impact the coastal'area. AOWT 7-4 M Tiiiv X. J X-106 Mr. Sidney R..Galler, 2 Furthermore, it is not cl ear whether Federal approval and State implementation of either or both of the proposed CZM programs will have substantial implications for ERDA in the siting of energy related- research and development, and demonstration facilities, It is our understanding that Federal agencies are restricted by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act from approving projects affecting coastal zones which require Federal assistance unless these projects are consistent with applicable State CZM1 programs. This is the case for Washington and Maine coastal zones. The State of Maine has establAshed -State Coordinator's Office to determine consistency; however, a Federal we cannot determine how the consistency provision of the Act will be implemented in the State of Washington. For this reason, we would recommend withholding Federal approval of the Washington CZM program pending a determination by ERDA, and other concerned Federal agencies that acc@ptable procedures and administration mechanisms have been established to ensure adequate consideration of the national interests in siting energy related facilities. In summary, we do not feel that sufficient information is at hand, nor has there been proper consideration given to potential conflicts with other Federal agencies should these CZM programs be approved. We would like to repea -t our concern that the brief review period provided for these proposed programs has not been consistent with the scope of implications of CZM programs if approved, and do not endorse these programs at the present time. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Sincerely, a s L. Liverman A sistant Admihistrator for Environment and Safety cc: CEQ (5) X-107 d a Pe L Li Vey s si mi A stant Ad fnr Fnvirn nm" NOAA Response to Energy Research and Development Administration. 1. Program'approval was delayed to allow for more time to meet various concerns. 2. The second tier of the coastal zone boundary is no longer the whole state, but the eastern end of the coastal counties. Although this puts Richland outside the new boundary, it is the intent of the CZMA for the state to exercise control over those inland uses that impact coastal waters. 3. The state has elaborated on how the consistency provisions will be implemented in its policy statement dated November 10, 197S. See pages D-4 and D-5 of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. X-108 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE LU SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101, VW0 0 MAY 3 1975 27 MAY 14@lqt PROO'cr REP1Y TO CZM ATM OF- lOFA - M/S 623 Informatio r1l Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Admi ni s trati on SP Department of Commerce 2001 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D. C. 20235 ATTN: Mr. Timothy Alexander Dear Mr. Alexander: We have completed our review of the State of Washington's applica- tion for approval of its Shoreline Management Program as a Coastal Zone Management Program, under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1911, We have also completed our review of the draft environ- mental.impact statement on the proposed approval of this application by NOAA. As we understand the current situation, NOAA is delaying its approval of the proposed program for approximately four to six months in order to.allow the Department of Ecology to amend its application so that it responds to constructive criticisms offered by NOAA and numerous other Federal Agencies. We assume that as a part of this delay NOAA will be extending Washington State's Section 305 program development grant. All of the following comments on the proposed program and the draft environmental impact statement are based on this.perception of the existing situation with respect to the timing of NOAA's program approval. The Proposed_Program We believe that the State of Washington has submitted an incomplete application for program approval under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (herein after referred to as "CZMA"). The missing'elements, cited below, are, in our opinion, central to any assessment of the pro- gram's compliance with the terms of CZMA and its ability to meet the objectives of the CZMA. We recognize that in assembling the application the Department had to make some value judgements regarding the subjects which should be covered in detail and that the Department might consider the excluded subjects as being basic background knowledge with which most reviewers woul'd already be familiar. However, we believe that the X-109 2 elements discussed below merit extended discussion in the application because most people 'reviewing the application are and will be individuals whose involvement in Coastal Zone Management planning to date has been minimal and they therefore cannot be expected to have that background. Permissable Land & Water Uses: Section 305(b)(2) of the CZMA requires that the program contain a "definition of what shall constitute permissable land and water uses within the coastal zone." Although the proposed program and its final guidelines define a series of shoreline environments, coastal zone natural systems and land use activities, the program does not indicate which land use activities or water use activities are permissable in any of the numerous natural systems or shoreline environments. We believe that the CZMA requires that the State, or local governments acting under State authority, specify which land use activities are permissable in'each of the natural systems defined in the State guidelines and the kinds of restrictive conditions which, should be included in substantial development permits that local governments issue for each type of use activity in each natural system. We recognize that this requirement of Section 305(b)(2) is subject to different interpretations and we are also aware that the definition of permissable land and water uses does appear in at least some of the local shoreline master programs approved by the Department, for example the Snohomish County program attached to the application. However, given that it has taken slightly over three years to get 25% of the local programs approved, we believe that the application should, as a minimum, discuss the major causes for the lengthy delays in program development and approval and the measures which it will take to expedite the completion of the local shoreline master programs. If this were accompanied by an operational description of how the guidelines.serve to protect the coastal zone from detrimental land and water uses, the reviewer and the decision maker could function without the complete specific designation of permissable land and water uses. Designation of Areas of Particular Concern Section 305(b)(3) of the CZMA requires that the program contain "an inventory and designation of areas of particular concern." It does not ask for or imply that Congress would accept, as a substitute, a description. of how the State or local governments plan to make such designations. All that the application shows us is the procedure that local governments will probably use to make such designations. Admittedly, the State Shorelines Management Act designates Shorelines of Statewide Significance, but we have no idea, from the application, how effective'this designation and the associated portions of the State Final Guidelines have been in protecting these shorelines from detrimental substantial developments. Such an X-110 3 effectiveness analysis would go a long way towards assuring NOAA and the other concerned Federal Agencies that the "substitute" designation would serve the objectives of the 305(b)(3) designations during the. indefinite period in which the remaining local Shoreline Master Programs are completed. Land & Water Use Control: Section 305(b)(4) requires "an identification of the means by which the state proposes to exert control over the land and water uses" referred to in 305(b)(2). The application limits its discussion of state control to a description of the legally mandated permits system under the Shorelines Management Act. Given that one of the stated objectives of the CZMA and the Section 306 financial assistance is to encourage the states to exercise their "full authority" over the coastal zone, reviewers of the application (especially NOAA) need to be able to assess the adequacy of that permits system, in the context of related State level and local level legal authority, in terms of that objective and the environmental protection objectives of the CZMA. The simple incorporation of related legal authoritites is not adequate in this context and we believe that the following expansions should be made to the application's content before the program is approved and funded under Section 306: - 1. a description of how the Depart ment screens proposed substantial development permits in order to flag those that merit detailed review by its technical staff and an assessment of how effective that screening, review and appeal process has been in preventing and limiting detrimental substantial developments. 2. a description of the major State level related legal authority and how the Department proposes to integrate the implementation of that legislation with the implementation of the coastal zone manage- ment program. This description Should give special attention to legislation being implemented by other state agencies such as the State Forest Practices Act. 3. a description of typical organization structures for the local governments which will be preparing and implementing the local shoreline master programs and a description of how these local governments will coordinate their work with that of State and Federal Agencies that have management mandates within the coastal zone. 4. a description of how work, carried out under Federal, State and local environmental laws, will be integrated with the work local governments perform under the Coastal Zone Management Program. This is particularly crucial given that the environmental laws often provide more stringent and more easily implemented environmental protection "tools" than either the Coastal Zone Management Act or the Shorelines Management Act. We believe that special attention should be paid to,air quality maintenance planning, new stationary air pollu- X-111 4 tion source reviews, complex/indirect source reviews, Section 208 Area-Wide Wastewater Management Planning and permits issued by the U.S. Amy, Corp of Engineers-under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement The environmental impact statement makes an explicit assumption that one cannot assess the specific environmental effects of program approval and implementation because there are no approved programs that can be used as a basis for projecting said environmental effects. The logic of this assumption is highly questionable. The program, for which Washington State seeks OCZM approval and Section 306-funding, has been operational for over three years. There is a lengthy history of local shoreline master program approvals, within the state, and of shoreline permits and appeals. OCZM should examine that history carefully to determine (1) whether the bulk of the shoreline master programs approved to date contain the restrictive zoning and land use constraints necessary to protect the Henvironments" identified in the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Shoreline Management Act, (2) whether the bulk of the shoreline master programs adequately identify and protect areas of particular concern (as required by the CZM Act), (3) whether shoreline permits issued under the state program contain "restrictive convenants" which are adequate to. protect the "environment", (4) whether DOE's appeals were an adequate mechanism for the state to use in exercising its "full authority" to protect the coastal zone from environFfientally damaging developments and to protect public uses of and public access to the coastal. zone. This examination would be the basis for projecting the environmental effects of approving the program and increasing its budget through Federal financial assistance under Section 306 of the CZM Act. This would be orders of magnitude better than the current approach of making an un- substantiated assumption that the Shoreline Management Program will,meet its objectives and the objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act and will therefore protect the environment, Recommendations Given that NOAA has apparently decided that the Department needs more time in order to complete its-application and program description, we plan to assist the Department in filling the information gaps identi- X-112 5 fied in our comments on the program. We also hope to assist them in defining the "organizational relationships" and environmental program coordination mechanisms which we have cited, above, as missing from the program description. We recommend that, as the application is completed over the next four to six months, the Office of Coastil Zone Management make an analysis, like that described in our comments on the draft environmental impact statement, of the Shoreline Management Program's performance to date and then proceed to evaluate the specific environmental effects of approving it as a Coastal Zone Management Program. This analysis should then be written up as a new draft environmental impact statement, which properly addresses each o-fthe questions noted in the National Environmental Policy Act and in CEQ's implementing guidelines. With adequate contractor support NOAA could complete this task within the four to six month time frame that is apparently available. Our comments on this draft statement have been classified 3, (In- adequate Information). The classification of the Environmental Protection Agency's comments will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility to inform the public of our review on proposed Federal actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for the review of statements, which explain our rating system. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sinc y Cliffo Smi th Jr'. , Ph. D. , P Re i nal Administrator Attachment X-113 10 .,Wr 01 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT GF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmi-ospheric Administrati on Rockville. Md. .20852 22. SEP 1.975 MEMORANDUM FOR: Clifford V. Smith, Jr. Regional Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X Seattle, Washington FROM* Robert W. Knecht LU E.,U@ 66%_Lsistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management SUBJECT: Office of Coastal Zone Management Response to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Comments on the State of Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program Your letter of May 27, 1975 provided this Office with constructive criticism of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP). It also provided a basis for EPA's.Office of Federal Activities, in consultation with OCZM, to prepare "Guidance for EPA Participation in.the Development and Review. of State Coastal Zone Ma@iagement Programs." We have also discussed your views with the State of Washington as they developed a specific work pro- gram to deal with perceived deficiencies in their initial submission of the WCZMP. This has caused some delay in,responding formally to your critique, which by no means should be construed-at a lack of inteirest or responsiveness to your concerns. On the contrary, your comments have served to clarify a number of issues and solutions that were unclear at the time Washington submitted its program. We are particularly pleased with EPA's Region X offer to assist the WCZMP "in filling the information gaps identified" in your analysis. Our responses follow the sequence of comments presented'in your letter. The Proposed Program A major effort is being undertaken by the Department of Ecology (DOE) to address many of the concerns raised in this section*of your letter. A major focus of that effort will be to construct a program narrative that is self- contained and comprehensive to a reviewer unfamiliar with the operating details of the Shoreline Management Program and its Coastal Zone Management Act amplification. _C1 2 Permissible Land and Water Uses We believe that the WCZMP, including the SMA, water quality, flood plain management and related standards and processes, contains sufficient analysis, procedures and policies to meet the "permissible uses" requirements of the Act. As EPA proceeds to assist the WCZMP, particular reference should be made to the "Final Guidelines: Shoreline Management Act," the "Shoreline Master Program Reviewer's Guidebook" and the adopted or submitted Local Master Programs (LMPs) to assess this really quite strong aspect of their program., Half of the coastal county LMs (which we consider most important to fleshing out the WCZMP) are now approved. DOE projects that the great majority of the remaining county LMPs will be either adopted or approved by January, 1976. In our view, the complex array of reasons for delay in approval of LNPs serve to highlight the stringent policies of the SMA and related Washington legislation.and their administration by DOE. In short, we feel that the delays are directly associated with the environmentally responsive-nature of the program. Your suggestion for a description of how the WCZMP has served to protect the coastal zone is one that should strengthen the program narrative. Designation of Areas of Particular Concern We concur that the WCZMP narrative was inadequate to meet the requirements-.of Section 305(b)(3) of the CZMA. Washington has developed a specific Task 4 in its supplemental 305 grant designed to unify the results of several past programs, including "natural area environment designations." This work should result 'in A display-of areas by type of concern and levels of concern i.e., local, state, national. Your suggestion that an assessment be made of the effectiveness of shoreline environment designations, has been transmitted to the State. Land and Water Use Control The need for a more fully developed organizational and managerial network was the single most determinant factor in granting preliminary rather than final' approval of the WCZMP. The major focus of the additional seven months of program development work will be directed to addressing the,sorts of issues raised in this portion of your letter. However, OCZM working together with the WCZMP, will have to judge the degree of operational detail that is both necessary and desirableto meet the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Draft Environmental Impact Statement The suggestions for amplifying the DEIS are constructive and are being considered as this Office-prepares its supplement to that document. We thoroughly appieciate the obvious timq and effort your Region put into the comments on the Washington management program. They have been and will be of substantial value in strengthening their CZM effort. X-115 FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20461 MAY 19 1975 OFFICE Of THE ADMINISTRATOR Mr. Robert Knecht 20 MAY Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management Office of Coastal Zone Management The Page Building 1 C48114 2001 Wisconsin Avenue,N.W. ZVO qton, D. C. 20235 2721cit)'O, Washin' Dear Mr. Knecht: The Federal Energy Administration (FEA) has reviewed the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. Although the program has much to commend, its treatment of energy concerns is cursory. We recommend that it not be*approved 1,411@ as submitted. FEA's position is based on two points: first, that energy facilities usually have significant environmental impacts; and second, that certain energy facilities are particularly dependent upon the utilization of or access to coastal waters. We urge more detailed treatment of the substantive matters included in the enclosed statement. FEA will be pleased to cooperate with your staff and officials from the State of Washington in developing additional materials for the program. S'ncerely, k Zarb A strator Enclosure X-116 ncerel A st FEA COMMENTS ON STATE OF WASHINGTON'S PROPOSED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PART A Section 923.4--Problems, Goals, Policies and Objectives The Washington Program provides no explicit and detailed statement of policy concerning the siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone. There are occasional references to "power generation," "deep draft port facilities," "petrochemical facilities," and "oil and gas drilling." These references indicate that the drafters of the program are aware of the need for policy and procedures pertaining to energy facility siting questions. A more-detailed treatment is needed, however, covering the full range of types of energy facilities identified in the published Federal regulations. Given the environmental concern frequently associated with the development of energy facilities and the importance of adequate energy facility capacity, the enunciation of a detailed policy on this subject should be a major objective of the program. PART B Section 923.12--Permissible Land and Water Uses FEA wishes that attention be given to the identification of areas particularly suitable for development, as well as those which are unsuitable, in designating permissible uses of the coastal zone. Achievement of this objective requires the develop ment (presumably in Section 923.12) of objective criteria and procedures to be used in the decision process, including methods to be used in assessing the environmental impacts of resource utilization and those to be used in calculating anticipated energy facility requirements in the coastal zone. As indicated in the Federal regulations (CFR 923.12), an inventory of natural and man-made coastal resources is indispensable to the designation of permissible uses. We note that county and local governments have conducted inven- tories of their respective segments of the coastal zone, in accordance with Washington's Shoreline Management Act. However, this information has not yet been consolidated into a single inventory--such consolidation is to be completed after approval of the program has been obtained. Accordingly, FEA is not able to adequately assess the program in terms of permissible uses. Section 923.13--Areas of Particular Concern As noted in the preceding section, FEA wishes to see coastal areas particularly suitable for energy development identified X-117 2 as such, and encourages that they be designated as "areas of particular concern." Clarification on this point would be a contribution to both environmental protection and orderly development of facilities.. Pertinent regulations (CFR 923.13) strongly suggest (if not require) that areas in the coastal zone especially suited for development be designated as "areas of particular concert." Section 923.14--Guidelines on Priority of Uses Federal regulations require that state programs must provide for@analyzing state needs which can be met most effectively and efficiently in the coastal zone. The Washington program neither provides data concerning anticipated energy facility requirements in the coastal zone, nor a method for obtaining such data. The Washington Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council is presumably the administrative system for resolution of issues pertaining to establishment of priorities for siting of thermal power plants. This concept is not clearly stated, however, and with respect to other categories of energy facilities, the Washington program is virtually silent. This is a significant deficiency. In general, only the "urban environment" category provides for high intensity land use consistent with the requirements ofenergy facility development. Clarification of the intent of this material is needed. -It would be appropriate to pro- vide evidence of consideration of the alternatives for siting energy facilities in locations not within urbanized areas. Section 923.15--National Interest in the Siting of Facilities FEA's principal reservation concerning Washington's proposed program is that it does not sufficiently evidence consider- ation of the National interest in energy facility siting in planning for uses'of the coastal zone. The program is already in place at the state level based on the Shoreline Management Act, which was primarily designed to protect state and local interests. One of the requirements of the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act is to insure that state and local government adequately conside@ National and regional interests in management of the coastal zone. Articulation and representation of the National interest in energy facility siting in the coastal zone, it appears, would be a responsibility of the Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council. The program-fails, however, to provide a clear statement of how the Council is to participate in coastal- zone management. The program also does not recognize the X-118. 3 National interest in types of energy facilities not within the jurisdiction of the Council. FEA believes it is.most important to fully involve the Council, and other energy agencies and interests, to establish an evaluation of the needs for siting of energy facilities. FEA would appreciate the opportunity to review and provide assistance with regard to developing projections of energy facility requirements in the coastal zone. FEA's viewpoint on'this matter coincides with the Federal regulations (CFR 923.15).which seek to assure that National interests are included at an early stage in the planning process, but not to compel specific programs with respect to certain facilities. The Shoreline Management Act gives major planning responsibili- ties to local governments., The guidelines promulgated by the Department of Ecology for use by counties and cities, therefore, should include consideration of National interests. One possible approach would be to expand the section of the guide- lines pertaining to "Shorelines of Statewide Significance" (WAC 173-16-040(5)). PART C Section 923.21--Means of Exerting State Control over Land and Water Uses The concerns of FEA with respect to this-subpart are that the means of control established are consistent with Federal regu- lations (CFR 923.21),requiring that the "means must be capable of actually implementing the objectives, policies, and individual components of the management program." The management program contains a provision which would allow the Department of Ecology, or an applicant in a permit case, to appeal the determination of a local authority to an objective state hearing board, and further to Superior Court in the State of Washington. Decisions of original jurisdiction and appeal will be based on the content of the program and the detailed guidelines of the Washington Administrative Code promulgated pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act. We believe that the means of control thus established will be "capable of actually implementing" concerns of National interest if these interests are adequately defined in accordance with FEA comments on Section 923-.15. Section 923.25--Authorities for Property Acquisition The program states that "It is not foreseen that the power of eminent domain is needed to effectuate the Management X-119 4 Program since no specific areas have been identified as critical to the implementation of the program" As noted earlier, FEA believes that the program should identify areas which are especially suitable for energy development, and designate them as "areas of particular concern." In addition, the State should also have the legal capacity to acquire such lands. Section 306 (d)(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires that, as a condition of Federal approval of a State Program, the State shall obtain authority "to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in lands, waters, and other property through condemnation or other means when necessary to achieve conformance with the management program." PART D Section 923.30-32@--Coordination The program does,not adequately document coordination with energy company officials or with public officials responsible for energy planning. Much planning for energy development .is done by energy companies rather than by public agencies. The Federal regulations pertinent to this section require that both public and private agencies and organizations be consulted and their interests be reflected in order to adequately comply with coordination requirements relevant to energy matters. X-120 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Md. 20352 25 SEP 1975 MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank G. Zarb Administrator Federal Energy Administration FROM: Robert W. Knecht Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management SUBJECT: Response to Federal Energy Administration Comments on the State of Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP) Your letter of May 19, 1975, provided this Office and the WCZMP with a basis for reassessing and supplementing the initial WCZMP submitted for review. The major thrust of our response is to set forth our understanding of what the Coastal Zone Management Act requires of the States in terms of the concerns raised in your letter. We also indicate where the WCZMP should adequately consider FEA interests and views during the. refinement and completion of its program. Our responses follow the sequence of comments presented in your letter which is attacbed for convenient reference. Part A We concur that the WCZMP should give more detailed treatment to the siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone. State policies and procedures regarding energy development will be set forth in the context of the WCZMP, with particular reference to the Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council and related State programs. Part B The WCZMP, throuqh its Shoreline Management Act, "Final Guidelines" and Shoreline Master Program Reviewer's Guidebook" (criteria for Local Master Program (LMP) approval) makes significant provision for a wide range of immediate coastal zone uses. Basic to the designation of management environments was the conduct of a joint State-local inventory of resources (which will continue) and the application of suitability and capability standards for resource uses. X-121 -2- Further, the State has agreed to undertake a major effort to integrate and coordinate a far broader range of State policies and programs into a final "managerial network" that will address developmental as well as environmental management in greater detail. One product of this effort will be a consolidated assessment of IMPs, including their overall develop- mental characteristics. States are afforded a good deal of latitude in designating "areas of particular concern." OCZM has little directive authority, under current law, to require a State to designate specific development sites as areas of particular concern. The State has agreed to a specific task to develop and refine the determination of areas of particular concern, by levels of governmental interest and by diverse types of concern, for inclusion in their final program submission. The initial submission did not address the points set forth in your comments on "priority of uses." The WCZMP will address the policies and procedures of the Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council in relationship to their program. Further, we have requested that the results of collateral efforts to deal with ports, oil transmission and related matters be included in the final program submission. Both the affirmative and constraining qualities of the four management "environments" as well as the other elements of the managerial network will be described in further detail by the State. FEA concern about adequate consideration of the national interest by the WCZMP is acknowledged by the State and this Office. The State must play a central role in this consideration and i recognition of this has committed itself to a "State-Federal Relationship and Interaction Program." This major effort is now underway and will involve FEA regional personnel on a first priority basis. A facility element establishing a process for consultation and resolution of differences is part of this effort. We welcomed FEA's offer to provide assistance to the WCZMP in this regard and trust that your inputs are being received and considered by the State. Part C The State must meet the requirements pertaining to State control over land and water uses. In our view, the Shoreline Management Program, together with an expanded and operational managerial network, will meet these authority requirements. We do not, however, consider the Coastal Zone Management Act, at least in its present form, to be the means by which specific energy (or other developments of Federal agency interest) are imposed upon the States. We have discussed the issue of property acquisition with the State and have been assured that the State and the local governments have authority to acquire lands if necessary to carry out the objectives of the WCZMP. Again, however, this provision, in our view, was not envisioned as a means to establish an affirmative energy siting program -- although a State could choose to utilize this provision for such a purpose if it so desired. X-122 Part D We concur that the State must adequately document coordination with pri-.,ate and public energy officials as part of its overall strengthening of this dimension of its program. I would,like to express my personal thanks for the excellent support and ccnstructive critiques of FEA in the past. We look fon@,ard to continuing our productive relationship with you in the future. X-123 FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20461 19 JUN 1975 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FEA 75-115 24 JUN 197@ JUh 2 4 1975 Mr. Sidney R. Galler CZM Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs ti-or T'L, 1?/m 'U.S. Department of Commerce Inf 0'rip-0 Washington, D.C. 20230 t4lZI lav- I-M 4 Dear @@ller: This is in response to your request for review and comment on the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Federal approval of the State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. Our comments are presented according to subject. Energv Development State coastal zone management plans could have an important impact upon energy development. Therefore, we suggest that the environmental statement contain 6 separate energy section which would-provide an analysis of the impact of the plan upon energv use and development. The energy section should contain the following analysis. 1. The energy demand within the state through the year 2000. 2. The energy facilities needed to meet this demand. 3. The impact of energy conservation measures on the demand for energy within the state. 4. The regulation of land use in the coastal zone area as it allows or restricts energy production transmission facilities, such as oil and gas wells, storage and distribution facilities, refineries, nuclear, conventional,and hydro- electric powerplants, and deepwater ports. X-124 2 5. The development of alternative energy sources with less adverse impact. Energy Conservation According to the impact statement, urban sprawl will be reduced through the implementation of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Plan. The effects of this reduction should be elaborated upon in the final statement in regard to factors such as energy consumption. Increased energy conservation will be realized through the concentration of development in selective areas. According to a recent study, The Cost Of s2rawl., undertaken by CEQ, HUD, and EPA, urban sprawl accounts for 14 to 44 percent more energy use. We hope our comments will be helpful to you in the pre- paration of the final statement and in your consideration of the program. S' cerely, Roge W. Sant Ass' tant Administrator Energy Conservation and Environment X-125 cere'Ly' r .R@oge W. Sa., ss tant A NQA.A Response to Federal Energy Administration. The current Washington Coastal Zone Management Program provides for a more detailed treatment of the siting of energy facilities. The modified policies and procedures regarding energy development are set forth in the text of the program. With respect to accrual and analysis of energy demand, production and utili- zation, the state's plan contains an awareness of the needs'and the mechanism to integrate such information. It is anticipated that as the result of FEA carrying out its normal function, most of the requested infor- mation will be developed and made available to the states either as a statement of national interest or for use in the state work effort to identify areas of particular concern. X-126 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 May 12, 1975 Mr. Robert W. Knecht Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear 1@@ht: Our staff has reviewed the State of Washington's pro- posed coastal zone management program and'your relevant environmental impact statement. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to commit the necessary staff to this review effort.to give..thes.e documents the detailed review that they deserve. However, our preliminary assessment indicates that there are setious shortcomings because of a lack of long range enerzy- and energy sys7e;rplanning _a_t_1_ea:@_i_a lack of demonstration of same). Enclosed is a preliminary staff analysis that addresses this problem more directly. Because this plan is the first of a long series and because of our inability as of yet to address the documents in more detail, we request that as much time as possible to give further review to the documents and hopefully some opportunity to discuss the plan in an open meeting with the State planners. Please advise as to the specific steps you will be taking for review of this plat and the associated schedule. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this important program. S* cerely, _UT10tv IIZ Z, .40;k 49 L Richar F. Hill Acting Director, Office of Z %O@ Energy Systems X-127 Office of Energy Systems Preliminary CZM Program Review for Washington The Federal Power Commission is charged with review of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, and is also bound to consistency with Coastal Zone Plans which emerge from that Program. In addition, the Federal Power Commission is charged by the Federal Power Act to achieve and assure "an abundant supply of electric energy throughout the United States with the greatest possible economy and with regard to the proper utilization and conservation of natural resources," and we have comparable responsiblities under the Natural Gas Act. We must therefore try to be certain that each Program provides for its own future energy needs and its fair share of regional and national needs. To perform an adequate review, we need to understand how the Management Program addresses the following questions: (1) what state/reqion economic growth is anticipated? (2) What energy needs will follow from this growth? (3) How will state and regional energy needs be met? (4) How does the Coastal Zcne accomodate these needs? To place some of these issues in their proper perspective, the FPC Office of Energy Systems has made coarse estimates of the growth in some of the energy needs of Washington on the basis of the Bureau cf Economic Analysis Area Projections to 1990. These estimates, and those for the Pacific Region, are attached, They show the heaviest 1971 energy demand in the BEA groups 491 (Paper & Allied Products -- SIC 26) and 493 (Primary Metals -- SIC 33) -- hut groups 495 (Other Manufactures -- SIC 21,30,31,32,38,39) and 472 (Electrical Machinery -- SIC 36) have the highest rate of increase through 1990.. Cverall energy needs in these manufacturing sectors will grow 91 percent through 1990, which bears comparison with the regional growth of 79 percent and the national growth of 62 percent in energy needs in the same period. We cannot determine the energy demand or supply for Washington or the Pacific Region. But our future actions must help meet those demands, and still remain consistent with the Coastal Zone Plan. We therefore will use the following guidelines in reviewin, the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program: (1) The Program must specify the planned growth of the sta and regional economies by detailed energy-usinq sector. (2) She Program must specify a methodology for estimating th energy needs (by energy source, especially for ratural gas a electricity) associated with the planned economic growth. (3) The Program must specify methods for planning to balan- Washington and Pacific energy needs with its energy supplie including its share of energy transfers throughout the regi and the rest of the Nation. X-128 CZM Proqram Guidelines for washingtcn cont. (4) The Proqram must detail the impact of energy supplies and shipments on its Coastal Zone, and describe how the Coastal Zone Plan will provide for state, regional, and Naticnal needs. The Froqram must explain how ports, LNG storage facilities, refineries, power plants, pipelines and hydro-electric facilities are presently treated, and how the Plan will ensure that the needed facilities can be accomodated. (5) Since Washington appears to have a projected energy qrowth which is hiqher than the rest of its region, increased imports of fuel may be expected by the State. The Program must give explicit consideration to the problem of defininq and tearinq a "fair share" of energy transactions, and evaluating trade-offs by which Washinqtcn can maintain some balance of resource flows with the rest of the Pacific Region and the Nation. The attached estimates were produced by methods which are still under development by FPC/OES, and which we hope to make more thorouqh and helpful in the near future. The starting point is the "Area Economic Projections" by BEA; these assume that regional growth tbroughout the ccurtry will be a function of national demand for the products of particular regions. The State's own Projections of economic growth are preferable as part of the Program, as long as they are sufficiently detailed by fuel-usinq sector to permit adequate consideration of future energy demand. We have used the state-level projections tc forecast energy demands on the assumption that each industry will use the same fuel per dollar's output as at present. Residential and commercial demand is estimated on the basis of projected population, income, and climate. We expect to include some effects from national and local conservation efforts in the future. Specific local effects, such as changes in rate or distribution of economic growth or the nature of fuel use, can certainly be reflected if such effects are indeed being planned by the State. In short, the Program must indicate the kind of economic growth planned by the State and the energy needs which this growth implies; FPC will help in making this projection if the State wishes such help. At the Federal level, there is very little information on the supply side of local energy equations. Coastal Zone Plans clearly need to consider how much of a State's fuel moves acrcss its own Coastal Zone or that of some other State, as well as how much fuel other States expect to acquire across its Coastal Zone. The Program must therefore describe specifiC methods by which a Plan can reflect these needs. We recognize that this is a severe problem, but if less is done row, the future energy problems will be even more severe. X-129 Fnf?r(IY Needs for Washington DRAFT 1971 1971 19130 199n Pct. 1990 1990 FCt . Req. Nat. PEA Industry Group sic Sa 1 (Is Fuel Sales Fue I G r f h Sales Fuel Grth Pct. Pct. 493 PrimirV Metals 33 137. 35.5 173. 50.5 42. 206. 65.1 83. 12C. 36. .45C Chumicalq r, Allied Prd. 2q 'foe . 2 1 . 0 P. 31 .0 11 Jr. I . 40.0@ 84. 127. 82. 492 P--trroleum Pef ininq 29 22. 3.9 26. 5.9 54. 34. 10.5 172. 31. 45. U95 Ot h-ir 2 1 U , 3 1, 32, 38 , 39 80. 5.1 IU4 . 14.3 M. 210 . 2;e. 6 346. 67. 61. 491 Paner r, Allied Products 26 170. 74.0 265. 1 13.7 54. 155.8 110. 149. 126, 40 FooJ 6 Kindred Products 21 219. 24.5 259. 28.0 14. 30 1. 31.5 29. 30. 33. 480 Transportation Equip. 37 591, 19.1 833. 25.7 34. 1040. 31.4 64. 69. 75. 420 Textile Hill Products -)2 4. r-. 2 5. 0.3 53. 6. 0.5 115. 104. 55. 471 Machinery, Non-Elec. 315 91. 3.2 152. 5.0 57. 23 6. 7.6 137. 17@. 91. 494 Fatr.M-itals & Ordn. 19,34 69. 2.7 97. 3.9 44.@ 131. 5.1 89. 80. 88. 472 Electr'i=al Machinery .16 43. 1.4 76. 2. S 14 . 123. 4. 1 194. 156. 118. 460 Lunbpr Furniture 24,25 393. 23.9 516. 36.5 27. 647. 37.4 56. 41. 55. 440 Printing Publishinq 27 85. 1.7 133. 2.4 43. 187. 3.1 88. 104. '81. 43C Apparel Fabric Prods. 23 28. 0.6 47. .0.9 55. 74. 1.4 130. 107. 57. 4ro TOTAL MANUFACTURES 1988. 217.5 2807. 314.7 45. 3656. 415.9 91. 79. 62. Values s@own above arp for illustrative purposes only. Salc--; in SA based on BEA "Area Economic Projections 199011 Fuels in T5TU Lased on 1972 Census of Manufactures SR-6 !:aptive, feedstock & State elec.shares estimated by OES Data covers some 75% of ind ustrial. fuels,@. 32% of all fuel Data has the following significant omissions: (1) Puels in Residential 1; Transport Sectors: (2) Effects of post-1971 Prices and technology; .(3) Fuels used by Non-Manuficture industries. Energy Needs for Pacific DRAFT 1971 1971 1900 11)80 Pct. 1990 1990- Pct. Req. Nat. BEA iiidustry Group sic sales Fuel Sales Fuel Grth sales Fuel Grth Pct. Pct. 493 Primiry Metals 31 7 It 6. 1119. 9 982. 246.2 64. 1179. 330.1 120. 120. 36. 450 Citewicals E-- Allied Prd. 21) 608. 143.3 946. 229.1 60. 1345. 324.8 127. 127. 82. 492 --troleum Pefininq 29 465. 314. 2 573. 361.0 15. 685. 1110-4 31. 31. 45. 495 other 2 1, 3C , 3 1. 32, 38, 39 1533. 177.3 2515. i36.9 34. 3647'. 296.3 67. 67. 61. 491 Paper 3, Allic-d Products 26 587. 163. 1 894. 276.8 70. 1225. 407.0 149. 149. 12 6. 410 Food 1. Kindred Prodiicts 20 1889. 186.8 2303. 214.4 15. 2752. 243.2 30. 30. 33. 480 Transportation Equip. 37 2919; 70.4 3867. 97.7 39. 4609. 119.1 69. 69. 75. 420 -extila Mill Products 22 91. 9.C 13n. 12.) 44. 184. 18.3 104. 104. 55. 471 Machinery, Non-Elec. 35 1466. 32@1 2307. 58.4 82. 3258. 88.4 175. 175. 91. 494 Fabr.Metals & Ordn. 19,34 1704. 49.8 2289. 69.0 @9. 2924. d9*. 5 80. 80. 88. 472 Electrical Machinery 36 2228. 44. 2 3935. 79.0 79. 5693. 112.9 156. 156. 118. 460 Lumber & Furnitur.e 240125 1722. 108. 2 2250. 130.5 21. 2786. 152.8 41. 41. 55. 440 Printing & Publishing 27 923. 14.9 1470. 22.5- 51. 2067. 30.4 104. 104. al. 43r Apparel k; Fabric Prods. 23 445. 5.7 656. 8.5 49. 920. 11.9 107. 107. 57. 40C TOTAL MANUFACTURES 17324. 1468.9 25118. 2042.9 39. 33273. 2634.9 794 79. 62. values shown above are ior illustrative purposes only. Sales in $11 based on BEA "Area Economic Projections 199061 Fuels in TBTU based on 1972 Census of Manufactures SR-6 Captive, feedstock & State elec.shares estimated by OES Data covers some 75% of industrial fuels, 32% of all fuel 'Data has the following significant omissions: (1) Fuels in residential G Transport Sectors: (2) Effects of post-1971 prices and technology; (3) Fuels msed by Non-manufacture industries, Dr. Richard-F. Hill Acting Director Office of Energy Systems Federal Power Commission 825 North Capitol Street, N. E. Washington, D. C. 20426 Dear Dr. UM: We appreciate the preliminary review afforded the State of OiAingtonls proposed management program by your staff and would.-like to take this opportunity to respond to -your staff analysis following the.sequence of comients in your letter. The awarding of preliminary approval and a second 305 grant, as outlined in the covering letter, should provide your staff with'an_p@e opporttmity to review the program further. I.' We agree that there is a need for comprehensive and long-range energy planning, but it is our opinion that the degree of sophisticated planning indicat,ed in your letter should originate from the Federal level, particularly ia@terms of regional and national evaluations. It is our opinion that the degree of specificity proposed in your letter regarding energy projections exceeds both the resource capability of the State and legal requirements placed upon it by our Act. At least two other Federal energy agencies, FEA and ERDA,, are In the process'of assessing national and regional energy issues, and the results of these should be considered by coastal States in the development, and during implementation, of their CZM programs, Without such guidance from the Federal en ergy establishment, it appears unreasonable to expect a State with limited resources and mandate to produce the breadth and detail of the analyses suggested by FPC. 2. It is our opinion that Washingtonis program provides an adequate, if not entirely sufficient, framework for deal 'ing with tho siting of facilities. The Thermal Power Plant Siting Act, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and associated legislation contain sufficient policies and guidelines to assess the economic need and environmental acceptability of energy facilities. However, It is cleat that the application should be X-;132 -2- amplified to further consider the interrelationships of the CZK program with energy development interests and anticipated requirements. FPC can clearly assist in this effort by providing whatever supplementary views it may have directly to this Office and to the State. Tn coU- tinuing consultations with the State, it should be borne in mind that Washington's Puget Sound is anticipated to be a main destination- distribution point for a large percentage of Alaskan oil and that the coastal area supports numerous nuclear generating, hydroelectric power and associated facilities. In short, the.State and its coastal resources are already contributing sigaificantly to regional, as well as local, energy needs. 3. We command and encourage your further efforts to develop guidelines from which FPC review of management programs will be based. However, we do have some.reservations regarding your preliminary guidelines. In general,, these concerns parallel our earlier comments, but are crucial to program review,and warrant further comment. 9 Your first proposal that the State must sp ecify the planned growth of both the-State-and region by detailed energy-using sectors exceeds the requirements of our guidelines and the State's resources. Although conceptually sound from a planning perspective, it is uot a requirement for approval of the State's management program under our Act at present$ nor does there appear to be alternative requirements in other Federal laws. In our view these energy growth policies will be developed incrementally; State CLX programs are designed to evolve over time to respond to changing conditions of this sort. � It is our opinion 'that the State does have a methodology for evaluating energy needs and acceptability from an economic and environmental basis in accordance with Policies established in State law. Although these evaluations.tend to be site specific, rather than based an an overall State plan, they Orovide a basis for further'@refinement, addition or change as circum tances warrant. It should be noted that the State intends to utilize its share of CZM funding to specifically address the anticipated effects and need to accommodate.the off-loading and through-put.of Alaskan oil in.the future. � Your suggested technical data and analysis requirements as,a minimum basis for program approval - exceed what we have con- sidered adequate to meet our Act's requirements. This is not to deny that there may be a desirable of even a necessary basis for rational energy planning. We can and shall encourage the coastal States to consider and develop this sort of information as a continuing part of CZM managerial efforts. X-133 In view of the concerns you have raised and our responses to them, we suggest that a meeting of our top level staff be planned for the near future. Please contact Timothy Alexander or Michael Payne of my staff to develop the timing, agenda and proper representation foi such a session. We appreciate your careful review of the Washington program and look forward to working with you closely in the future. Sincerely, A-Y Robert W. Knecht Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management Enclosures X-134 JT: NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20546 Q REPLY TO ATTN OF: ADA-1 May 2, 197-55 Dr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 Dear Dr. Galler: This letter responds to yours of March 21, 1975, addr-::-.s;i;e-A to the NASA Comptroller, requesting that NASA review the draft environmental statement, "Proposed rederal [email protected] of the Coastal Zone Management Program, State of The interested offices within this Agency have reviewed the draft environmental statement and have no comments, As you know, we have an extensive research prograi,,, to develop the technology of remote sensing systems ultimately contribute to improved coastal zone manaa&itient techniques. I have suggested to the responsible group in our office of Applications that they contact the State of Washington for the purpose of acquz@inting them with these developing technologies. Thank you for affording us the opportunity to review this draft environmental statement. Si3jcerely, Nathaniel B. Cohen, Director Office of Policy Analysis cc: CEQ/Mr. Russell Peterson X-135 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 MAY 6 1975 Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment Affairs U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, to A Giambusso, inviting our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Related to Proposed Federal Approval of the Coastal Zone Management Program and the Proposed Coastal Zone Management Program for the State of Washington. We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement and the pro- posed coastal zone management program for the state and determined that the proposed action does not have radiological health or safety impacts nor will it adversely affect any activities subject to regulation.by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Accordingly, we have no significant comments or suggestions to offer.. According to NRC records five nuclear power plants are in operation or under. construction which can possibly affect the proposed coastal zone management program of the State of Washington. We are listing the locations of the existing plants for your,information. Two of the plants are actually located on the borderline in Oregon State. 1. Pebble Springs (I & 2) Between Rt. 19 and Rt. 74, a few miles from Arlington (Oregon) on Columbia River. 2. Washington Nuclear Plant (1, 2 and 4) U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration - Hanford Site near Camp Hanford, near Richland, Washington (Columbia River). 3. Skagit (I & 2) Near Rt. 20 (Washington) and Sedro Valley. 4. Washington Nuclear Plant (3 & 5) Near Rt. 12 (Washington) and Montesano 5. Trojan (1 & 2) Near Rt. 30, St. Helens (Oregon) Columbia River. 'J01-UT'0'V X-136 Sidney R. Galler 2 Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review this draft environmental impact statement and the coastal zone managment program. Sincerely, Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Division of Reactor Licensing X@137 Advisory Council On Preservation APR 1 1975 Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology Washington, D.C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: This is in response to your request of March 21, 1975, for comments on the environmental statement for proposed Federal Approval of the Coastal Zone Management Program, State of Washington. Pursuant to its responsibilities under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environ- mental Policy Act of 1969, the Advisory Council on Historic Pres- ervation has determined that while you have discussed the historical, architectural, and archeological aspects related to the undertaking, the Advisory Council needs additional information to evaluate adequately the effects on these cultural resources. Please furnish additional data indicating: I. Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470[f]). The Council must have evidence that the most recent listing of the National Register of Historic Places has been consulted (see Federal Register, February 4, 1975 and monthly supplements each first Tuesday thereafter) and that either of the following conditions is satisfied: A. If no National Register property is affected by the project, a section detailing this determination must appear in the environmental statement. B. If a National Register property is affected by the project, the environmental statement must contain an account of steps taken in compliance with Section 106 and a comprehensive discussion of the contemplated effects on the National Register property. (36 C.F.R. Part 800 details compliance procedures.) II. Compliance with Executive Order 11593 "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment" of May 13, 1971. A. Under Section 2(a) of the Executive Order, Federal agencies are required to locate, inventory, and nominate eligible historic architectural and archeological properties under X-138 their control or jurisdiction to the National Register of "Historic Places. The results of this survey should be included in the environmental statement as evidence of compliance with Section 2(a). B. Until the inventory required by Section 2(a) is complete, Federal agencies are required by Section, 2(b) of the Order to submit proposals for the transfer, sale, demolition, or substantial alteration of federally owned properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register to the Council for review and comment. Federal agencies must continue to comply with Section 2(b) review requirements even after the initial inventory is complete, when they obtain jurisdiction or control over additional properties which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register or when properties under their jurisdiction or control are found to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register subsequent to the initial inventory. The environmental statement should contain'a determination as to whether or not the proposed undertaking will result in the transfer, sale, demolition or substantial alteration of eligible National Register properties under Federal jurisdiction. If such is the case, the nature of the effect should be clearly indicated as well as an account of the steps taken in compliance with.Section 2(b). (36 C.F.R. Part 800 details compliance procedures.) C. Under Section 1(3), Federal agencies are required to establish procedures regarding the preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned historic, architec- tural, and archeological properties in the execution of their plans and programs. The environmental statementshould contain a determination as to whether or not the proposed undertaking will contri- bute to the preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects of historical, architectural or archeological significance. 2 X-139 III. Contact with the State Historic Preservation Officer The procedures for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order 11593 require the Federal agency to. demonstrate consultation with the appropriate State,Aistoric Preservation Officer. The State Historic Preservation Officer for Washington is Charles H. Odegaard, Director, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, P,,.@ 0. Box 1128, Olympia, Washington 98501. Should you have any questions or require any additional assistance, please contact Brit Allan.Storey of the Advisory Council staff at P. O..Box 25085, Denver, Colorado 80225, telephone number (303) 234-4946. Sincerely yours, John D. McDermott Director, Office of Review and Compliance 3 X-140 A J r Doi t NOAA Response to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The FEIS has an added section entitled: "Impact on Historic Properties," Chapter V, Section C, whi6 addresses the concerns of the Council. X-141 D. Coments frm the State Agencies. Governor Daniel J. Evans Office of Community Development Department of Ecology Department of Fisheries Department of Game Department of Natural Resources 'Washington State Parks and Recreation Comission Department of Highways X-142 VIA STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE *OF THE GOVERNOR OLYMPIA DANIEL J. EVANS May 6, 1975 GOVERNOR Mr. Edward T. LaRoe b MAY 19'1 Z@ Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Maryland 20852 czm_ Dear Mr. LaRoe: Informall1cZ-20 D@@ L"- r, 0 A It is my pleasure to submit the response of the State of Washington to the @'t Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program. All Washington's citizens historically have displayed concern for management of coastal zone resources through support of advanced, innovative resource man- agement programs. This support culminated in 1971 with the Shoreline Manage- ment Act which resuited froin an initibLtive to the legislature and was later ratified by a popular vote of the people in 1972. We point with pride to the accomplishments of our environmental programs and to the lead role assumed by Washington in Coastal Zone Management. The state program you now have under review evolved after nearly four years of specific experience in the management of coastal zone resources. At this time our local governments have completed development of comprehensive local shoreline plans, actively involving over 2,000 citizens in program development as members of local advisory committees. Thousands of other citizens participated through public meetings and hearings in every locality of the state. An accessible appellate body, the Shoreline Hearings Board, has been established and has effectively dealt with administrative and policy conflicts. For.these reasons, we feel that our Shoi-eline Management Act, along with existing state authorities, will enable the state to provide policy direction for an effective coastal zone program. Administrative approval under Section 306 will provide ad- ditional resources to implement the Coastal Zone Act and an incentive to hasten the implementation of the goals and policies of the State Shoreline Act. My staff and the staffs of the several concerned state agencies have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We found the quality of the document and the accuracy of its information to be sufficient to assess the effects for this proposed administrative action. Your staff is to be complimented for the preparation of this quality report within so severe a time constraint. X-143 Mr. E#ward T. LaRoe Page'Two May 6, 1975 I have attached the individual review comments from each of the reviewing state agencies in order that you may have the benefit of their direct reaction. Most of the comments are minor concerns which can be corrected in the final statement or that will be addressed in the development and refinement of the state's program. I look forward to working with you and your staff in successfully implementing Coastal Zone Management. Sin@y, Daniel J. Evans Governor DJE:ks Attachment X-144 STAT IS75 N! M 0 DANIEL J. EVANS RICHARD W. HEMSTAD GOVERNOR DIRECTOR STATE OF WASHINGTON Offtce of the Governor OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OILYMPtA, WASHINGTON 06504 "4/753-a200 May 2, 1975 Dr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Department of Commerce Fourteenth Street, Constitutional Avenue and E Street N. W. - Rom 3425 Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Dr. Galler: The Office of Community Development has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Washington's proppsed Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program and requests approval of the program. Of particular concern to this office in the implementation of the CZM program is the need to assist in coordination of the various planning and environmental regulation programs which impact local goverment. The formalization of an agreement between the Department of Commerce and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, coupled with the new HUD requirements for a land-use planning element within the "701" program, require a more intensive coordination effort between this office, the Department of Ecology, and the local level. The Office of Community Development COCD) has submitted a request to the Department of Ecology that funding for one additional staff person to assist OCD's coordination activities be included in DOE's grant proposal for funds under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Aside from the concern that coordination between state and local govern- ment agencies be adequately addressed in the administration of the CZM program, OCD feels that approval of the program is desirable as it will financially assist local governments in the implementation of the shoreline management programs which are now underway. Attached are two letters from affected local governments responding to the draft EIS and the CZM program. OCD staff contacted 9 of the 12 other counties affected by the CZM program who generally indicated that X-145 Dr. Sidney R. Galler May 2, 1975 Page Two they would like to see the program approved as it would fund the adminis- tration of the local goverment substantial development permit process. Sincerely, Richard W. Hemstad Director RWH:jc Attachment cc: Paul@Pritchard National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration John Biggs, Director Department of Ecology X-146 April 30, 1975 state, (I N(Vasl I iligtol I Oq)artnictit Of L@C(*)@,)Y Jerome F. Parker Policy Analyst Office of Program Planning & Fiscal Management 101 House Office Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Re: DEIS, Coastal Zone Dear Mr. Parker: Management The subject impact statement has been reviewed by our staff. Our comments have been directed at correcting technical errors and misinterpretations of the Shoreline Management Act in its relation- ship with the Coastal Zone Management Program. Page 14 (4th Paragraph) In addressing the process for ranking the designated areas of particular concern," a statement should be in- cluded which indicates that in some instances only portions of the designated areas will meet the criteria for the priority ranking. Page 15 (2nd Paragraph) The Master Program review task force includes representa- tives from state agencies and local*government as well as federal agencies and this representation should be indicated in this statement. Page 15 (3rd Paragraph) The second occurrence of the word "division" should be changed to "sections". Also, the Department of Game is another agency which is involved in resource management in the coastal area and should be included in this section.. Page 19 (5th Paragraph) Seattle has approximately,36 inches of rainfall annually, not 50 inches. Page 30 (3rd Paragraph) The first sentence of this paragraph is inaccurate. In regard to traditional zoning, the majority of the coastal shore- lines are zoned in one fashion or another, but when you are re- ferring strictly to zoning under the Shoreline Management Act, then all the shorelines could be considered zoned. X-147 Daniel Evans, Governor John A. Biggs, Director Olympia, Washington 98504 Telephone @206) 753-2800 Letter"' to,Mr. Parker Page two April 30, 1975- Page 31 (2nd Paragraph) The third sentence should read as follows must develop Master Programs regulating the use of land and water in all associated wetlands and the 200 foot upland area of the shoreline." Page 31 (3rd Paragraph) The statement the "zoning must be made consistent with master programs" may be misleading. Local zoning is the implementing tool for comprehensive land use planning. The Goals and Policies of comprehensive plans and master programs should be made compatible. It would then follow that the implementing regulation for both programs would be consistent. Page 35 (Paragraph following #5) The ratio of.lands in each category should be changed to read as follows: Urban - 15% Rural - 20% Conservancy - 55% .Natural - 10% Page 35 (3rd Paragraph following #5) Timber harvesting has not been prohibited within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction. It has been regulated and, to some degree, curtailed on Shorelines of Statewide Significance, but not prohibited. Timber harvesting on Shorelines of State- wide Significance must adhere to the 30%.every ten years or to more stringent specifications promulgated in the local master program. Page 36 (5th Paragraph) Reference is made to a "...coastal zone permit...", there is no such permit. This should be replaced by "Shoreline Management Act substantial development permit." Page 36 (Last Paragraph) The second sentence should read, "Exemption from the Shoreline Management Act permit procedure, however, does not provide exemption from the policies and regulations of the Master Programs, the Shoreline Management Act or from other state regulatory authorities..." X-148 Letter to Mr. Parker Page three April 30, 1975 Page 38 (Ist,Paragraph) In mid-paragraph a statement indicates a deadline has been established for the submittal of all Master Programs, this is inaccurate. The Department anticipates the completion of all Master Programs by the end of 1975. Page 39 (3rd Paragraph) Coastal Zone Management and Shoreline Management Act are not pilot land use programs. Both programs have supportive land use elements, but are resource management oriented and not neces- sarily intended as forerunners of land use management. Page 45 (2nd Paragraph) It is not axiomatic that a loss of environmental amenities will occur by virtue of more rapid development. No existing controls are lost and where a shoreline is involved the pro- tection, which is afforded by the Shorelifi'e Management Act, still applies and any permitted development must cause the least possible amount of damage to the environment. Page 45 (5th Paragraph) Again, concomitant destruction is not automatic. Sincerely, mes P. Behlke ecutive Assistant Director JPB:sc NOAA Response to Department of Ecology All comments were incorporated as appropriate. @ mes cut e X-149 X Sv WA S W SHI, GTO''N A, N r m @Z w DANIEL J. EVANS ROOM 115, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 0 PHONE '75.3-6600 DONALD W, MOOS GOVERNOR OLYMPIA. WASHINGTON Re504 DIRECTOR April 28, T975 INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Mills Office of Program Planning 8, Fiscal Management FROM: Cedric Lindsay :Z, Washington Department of Fisheries SUBJECT: REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS OF PROPOSED FEDERAL CANAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. The Washington Department of Fisheries has reviewed the draft EIS on this proposal. We concur with much of the contents but will comment on several sec- .tions as related to protection and utilization of the food fish and shellfish resources. On page 4. paragraph 2, we are pleased to note "the urgent need to protect and give high priority to the protection of natural systems in the coastal zone", and the expression of concern for loss of living marine resources and wildlife. This is commonly interpreted to mean that there is loss of habitat through physical alteration or pollution. However, this connotation is frequently used to prohibit or discourage commercial or recreational harvest of renewable re- sources on a sustained yield basis, the basic assumption being that a stock of living organisms should best be left in a totally undisturbed state and that ar!y commercial activity that upsets the pristine balance should be prohibited. We suggest that emphasis be given here, and in other appropriate parts of .the EIS, that natural systems should be vigorously protected in order to achieve the levels of productivity of animals and plants that the area is capable of growing. Further, that harvest management should be permitted and controlled so as to provide a continuing supply of food and fiber in perpetuity through wise utilization. While the presence of a variety of marine and estuarine species is of value, utilization on a sustained basis provides further positive recognition that maintenance of natural systems in a healthy state has long- term implications in the world food supply. A continuing problem is the relationship between private property rights and the public interest. Rational procedures for defining the public interest need to be developed and implemented, but they should not result in de facto confiscation of private property and certainly without appropriate mitigation and reimbursement. In the aquatic regime, this assumption is somewhat unique X-150 Mr. Mi ke-4i 11 s April Z8, 1975 Page 2 to the state of Washington. since a significant proportion of the tidelands of this state are privately owned in fee simple, and in many instances are the only lands that contain balanced populations of edible species. We concur with the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Washington Shoreline Management Act as stated. However, we wish to emphasize that individuals and groups with purely local interests from time to time have been able to subvert the intent of the Shoreline Management Act through legal maneuvering or pressure on local government to prohibit activities already fully regulated by agencies charged with management of living aquatic resources. A case in point is the ongoing controversy regarding use of mechanical clam har- vesters on privately owned or leased aquatic lands. These particular activities are already.stringently regulated state-wide by Department of Fisheries in a scientific. even-handed manner. They should not be further regulated by local government except in aspects not directly related to fisheries harvest manage- ment. Although in several places the document refers to Ion 'g-range rather than short-range benefits, actions which result primarily from a veto by a vocal minority group, result in short-range benefits by maintaining status quo. The Department suggests that a Federal Coastal Zone Management Program in concert with the State of Washington's Shoreline Management Act specifically recognize the productive capacityof the state's quatic habitats, and that sustained utilization of these renewable resources be actively encouraged for both com- ,mercial and recreational purposes. A viable and continuing harvest-provides concrete evidence of the economic value of the,waters and aquatic lands. Such uses will serve as a positive brake on developmental pressures to degrade the aquatic habitat. Another impact that we believe has not received adequate recognition is the impact of Shoreline Management Act regulations as well as the related State Environmental Policy Act on natural,resource management agencies themselves. Most of the relevant data on shoreline and aquatic resources inspecific areas are available only from these sources, and the demands of a broad spectrum of clientele including citizenry. other agencies. and consultants have placed an extremely difficult burden on these agencies. The result has been that agencies can provide only partial data or background information on which to base inter- pretations, as well as'inordinate delays in making the material available to those who need to use the information. Allocation of funds, available as a result of the Coastal Zone Act, for employment of technically trained assistance, would improve the decision-making process in a rational manner, and will hopefully improve the quality and com- pleteness of data. We wish to draw your attention specifically to the section on Puget Sound F-r- which appears to be quite superficial and contains a number of technTca errors as well as incorrect interpretations. We suggest that an up-to-date and more X-151 Mr. Mike Mills April 28, 1975 Page4 Pa ge 21, paragraph 6, line 4: 1.3 million angler days of salmon fishing. Page 21, paragraph 6, line 5: 1.2 million man-days for sport shellfish harvest. Page 21, paragraph 6, line 8: "The total value of recreational fishing effort exceeds that of We commercial fishery.... Page 22, paragraph 2, line 1: "....restricted to the northeast and Southeast sections...." X-152 Mr. Mike Mills April 28, 1975 Page 3 detailed discussion on the aquatic resources of Puget Sound can be found in Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission's Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters. Appendix XI. Fish and Wildlife, March 1970. Some specific chances can be sug- gested but at best they correct the most glaring errors that we have noted. This section should receive further attention. Suggested alterations are as follows: Page 19, paragraph 6. lines I and 2: Should read...."are the Nooksack, Skagit, StIllaguamish, 5nohomish, Lake Washington, Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually systems." Page 20, paragraph 4t line 2: Add herring and smelt between bottomfish and oysters. Page 20, paragraph 4, lines 3. 4. and 5: Delete entire sentence and add new sentences: "Uecline In shellfish production In southern Puget Sound has occurred but is related to economic conditions. The shellfish stocks in this region are increasing and could be significantly expanded for commercial and recrational harvest." Page 20, earagraph 4, lines 9 and 10: The effect of dikes and fills on 7rish populations is understood, and affects nursery, rearing, and 12Lwn- inn habitat. Parle 20, @araqraph 5. lines 1 and 2: "....or thermal character including the effects of logging provides...." Page 20, paragraph 6. line 3: Delete eulachon. Page 20, paraqraph 6.,line 4: Many individuals spend the entire salt- water Phase of their life cycle in the Sound. Page 21, between paragraphs 1 and 2: Insert: "Puget Sound has long been recoqnized by oceanographers as a unique body of water characterized by great fertility and food producing potential. Primary productivity rates are among the highest observed in marine waters around the world. Because of thehigh rates of primary productivity, Puget Sound has the potential to produce an estimated 6 billion pounds of bivalve mollusk meats per year. "Shellfish stocks support major recreational fisheries in Puget Sound. Approximately 1 millionuser trips are spent harvesting intertidal shellfish during the low tides of spring and summer each.year. The recreational harvest of crab,and shrimp with traps (pots) accounts for an estimated 250,000 user trips each year." X-153 NOAA Response to Department of Fisheries. 1. The connotation was not intended. 2. The EIS attempts to assess state policies as they apply to natural systems. 3. This statement was based on the adequacies of the state process. The process may not be infallible and this sta.ternent has been incorporated in the impacts section. 4. This is addressed in the FEIS under impacts. S. The technical corrections have been incorporated into the FEIS. X-154 Game Commission Director/ Carl N. Crouse Arthur S. Coffin, Yakima. Chairman Assistant Directors/ Ralph W. Larson James R. Agen, Elmer C. Gerken Quincy Ronald N. Andrews Claude Bekins, Seattle Glenn Galbraith, Wellpine Frank L. Cassidy,Jr., Vancouver DEPARTMENT 0F GAME 600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504 May 5 1975 Jerry Parker Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management House Office Building Olympia, Washington 98504 ATTENTION: Sidney R. Galler, Deputy Asst., Secretary for Environmental Affairs and Dennis Lundblad, Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington Gentlemen: Your draft environmental impact statement - Proposed Federal Approval of the Coastal-Zone Management Program, State of Washington, Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce - was reviewed by our staff as requested. We understand that this draft impact statement is submitted to fulfill requirements of both the National and State Environmental Policy Acts (NEPA and SEPA)(see page 00021) Application to the Secretary of Commerce for Approval of the State Coastal Zone Management Program under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92.583), State of Washington This draft generally follows the recommended format for draft environmental impact statements under NEPA. However, we were unable to get a clear understanding of the issues in our review of this draft. We hope our comments will help determine where clarification may be desirable and thus aid in preparation of the final draft. There is a notable deficiency in this draft. Throughout the statement the impacts associated with existing Washington State laws are confused with impacts stemming from the proposed action. For example, the summary states that federal approval and implementation of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (WCZMP) will "restrict and prohibit land and water uses in certain parts of the Washington coast, while promoting and encouraging development and use activity in other parts." (page i, point 3). Is this not an impact generally attributable to the Washington State Shorelines Management Act (SMA) rather than the proposed action? Would it 2- not be experienced regardless of whether WCZMP were adopted? X-155 Jerry Parker -2- May 5, 1975 Another deficiency is the statement's failure to distin guish between impacts attributable to the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and those stemming from WCZMP. Throughout early sections of the statement, it was implied that WCZMP establishes a "comprehensive management program" under which all State laws included under WCZMP will be "exercized in coordinated fashion to achieve comprehensive management" as explained on page 5. To our knowledge the laws and processes included under WCZMP have not, in the past, been subject to a control mechanism which allows all of them to'be exercized in a coordinated way. The section, Probable Impact of the Proposed Action on the Environment, does not discuss WCZMP, as a whole. No impacts are assigned to this "comprehensive management program". Rather existing impacts associated with SMA are discussed. SMA comprises one of the primary components of WCZMP, but taken alone may not constitute an acceptable coastal zone program under CZM1 (page 40, bottom). If we understand this section correctly the only new impacts expected are those associated with federal approval of the State .@sapplication to participate in CZM. These are defined as impacts stemming from direct transfer of federal funds, and impacts associated with implementation of CZM procedura 'I requirement such as federal consistency provisions of sections 307(c) and (d) (page 32). if the explanation of impacts included above is valid, then we question the omission of a discussion concerning impacts which CZM sections 306 and 307 (c) and (d).will-sustain on the individual elements of WCZMP. These elements are described on page 5 (under point B). The following questions can beasked. 1., What mechanism has been established by the State of Washington, Department of Ecology (DOE) to channel section 306 funds among the various governmental processes included in the laws associated with WCZMP (Shoreline Management Act, Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council (TPPSEC) Environmental Coordination Procedures Act (ECPA) etc.)? 2. What impacts are associated with the above, if there is such a mechznism. 3. What effect will these monies have on the various components of WCZMP (SMA, ECPA, SEPA, etc.)? For example, various state-and local entities are required to review SEPA statements prepared for substantial development permits; will funds be channeled to such reviewing agencies to lessen the financial burden posed by this responsibility? Will funds be channeled to TPPSEC, Department of ,Ialural Resources (ONR), or other bodies associated with the laws included under WCZMP? What protective mechanisms has the State established to insure section 306 7 funds will be for purposes directly related to the coastal zone? X-156 41 Jerry Parker -3- May 1975 4. What effect will the federal consistency requirements have on the various components of WCZMP (TPPSEC, SEPA, SMA, etc)? What mechanisms have been set up to resolve impacts stemming from federal consistency @equirements? What are the impacts of these mechanisms? Additional comments are included below, parallel to your report format. Summary (page i) As stated, we question whether the effects,currently being sustained under SMA and associated processes can validly be attributed to approval or disapproval of the proposed action. Therefore deletion of the first sentence made under point 3, may be desirable. Introduction (pages 1-2) Shouldn't it be mentioned here that the National Oceantc and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) statement is offered to fulfill both SEPA and NEPA requirements? Description of the Proposed Action - The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program TP-ages 3-5) In explaining CZM this section states, "... while loca 1 governments and Federal agencies are required to cooperate, coordinate and participate in the development of the management programs, the state level of government is clearly given the central role and responsibility for this process ." (page 3, paragraph 3). We question whether-there are other segments of the Act or pursuant regulations which allow approval of programs, such as Washington's where the basic mechanism of shoreline planning and regulation is centralized around local government. Inclusion of a discussion of parts of CZM, such as these, may provide for better understanding of CZM as it-relates to Washington State. Grants awarded under CZM to cover development and operation of estuarine sanctuaries are mentioned (page 4, paragraph 3). A history of Washington's participation in this facet of CZM processes would be constructive. Description of the Proposed Action - The Washington Coastal Zone Management Frogram pages 5-17) At the beginning of this section a conglomeration of legislation and legislative authorities are defined in relation to WCZMP. Although indication is given that these laws and pursuant regulations will-be "exercised in a coordinated fashion". we could find no mechanism offered for such coordination. We request tLthe final impact statement explain how Washington State proposes to accomplish the objective cited above. Al-though all these separate legislative processes may be somewhat complementary in intent, we feel the day-to-day governmental procedures which seek to carry out that intent are sometimes in conflict. We submit that remrding or reiterating the goals, policies, regulations, and processes associated with these separate laws so as to constitute a program may not in itself constitute a means to exercise such authorities in a coordinated way. X-157 Jerry Parker -4- May 5, 1975 You have noted that the' State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) closely parallels the intent and directive of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Are the mechanisms included in SEPA to insure that such intent isfully realized also in parallel to those included in-NEPA? Although the local government master program is addressed in this section, no indication is included about specific problems which remain to be resolved with the local program approach. Under "Land and Water Uses" (pages 10 and 11) the report claims that SMA process enable extended state control over uses impacting the coastal waters which originate outside the coastal zone. We question whether it would not be the county with jurisdiction outside the coastal zone which would exercise such control (page 10, 3rd paragraph). Our purpose behind making this point is to show an example of how the 'statement tends to make it difficult to understand just what authority (local, state, or federal) is primarily responsible for effects discussed in the statement. In explaining the local government's responsibility for approval or disapproval of shoreline substantial development permits, you have indicated that local government must conduct an inventory (page 11, paragraph 1). Is 114 this inventory in addition to that performed by local government in preparation of their county shoreline management program? You also mentioned the requirement for a capability-suitability analysis. What is this and how does it differ from the envirqnmental assessment reqVirements? Agencies with direct coastal resource management responsibilities are listed in the segment "Organization" (page 15).Washington State Department of Game is not listed. It should be recognized that the Hydraulics Act charges Department of Game with a field of jurisdiction which does extend into the Coastal Zone, and which does include fishery resources (steelhead and cutthroat trout) which utilize both inland and coastal waters. The section "Coordination and Public Participation" says that DOE will file a state environmental impact statement on the CZM program (page 15, paragraph 2). s that this'environmental statement (authored by NOAA) ,117he WCZMP application state is to serve both NEPA and SEPA requirements (page 00021, WCZMP Applicati'on). There @eems to be some confusion on this issue; clarification should be made in the final statement. In addition, we tend to question the implication made in this section that the public was provided direct involvement in WCZMP by virtue of participation in county shoreline management plan formulation under SMA. You have established that WCZMP is composed of more that SMA, and indeed that if it only involved SMA it would not be acceptable for approval by the Secretary of Commerce. Even at that, is it'not the case that most county master programs, formulated under SMA, are complete and that citizens who worked on thee programs had little, if'any, understanding of CZM, much less WCZMP? X-158 Jerry Parker -5- May 5, 1975 A situation which was not addressed in this section is the interests which Idaho and Oregon have in proper management of Washington's Coastal Zone. For example the continued productivity of anadromous sport and commercial fisheries and the productivity of the Columbia River estuary concern not only Washington State, but also Idaho and Oregon. Washington's effectiveness (or lack thereof) in managing their coastal zone will affect other states; this overlapping of impacts should be acknowledged. Description of the Environment Affected The description of Puget Sound, Pacific Coast, and Columbia River resources is brief and accurate for the most part. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls for the Area The first paragraph of this section addresses SMA and WCZMP. The last sentence of this paragraph states that the proposed action is expected to have a significant impact on existing land use plans, policies, and controls in the state's coastal zone. It is not clear what is meant by "the proposed action". We question whether this section means to attribtite the significant impacts on land use associated with SMA to the adoption of WCZMP. We assume SMA will continue to impact Washington State with or without adoption of WCZM1P (unless the Washington State legislature changes the SMA). The next paragraph talks about the WCZ.MP.'s intent to coordinate government and agency actions into a comprehensive program. This is to be done to achieve 11common explicit objectives". As noted, we could not find a description of how Washington State tends to integrate all the laws included under WCZMP sothat they can be exercised in a coordinated way. Probable Impact of the Proposed Action on the Environment We have the following questions concerning information presented in this section. 1. Are we to conclude from this information that the WCZMP, as proposed for adoption by the Secretary of Commerce, contains no mechanisms for coastal zone management which do not exist and operate in Washington at this time? 2. If impacts associated with existing Washington legislation affecting the coastal zone are not considered, are the impacts of the proposed federal adoption of WCZMP limited to impacts associatedwith transfer of funds and those associated with Implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as such (sections 306, 307 (c) and (d) etc.). X-159 Jerry Parker -6- May 5, 1975 Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be 'Avoided In our mind this section does not address impacts of the proposed action, but rather impacts associated with existing Washington State Laws and procedures (SMA, etc.). Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity and Irrevocable or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources that Wou?d Be Involved In the Proposed Action It is our feeling that these sections also fail to address the 'effects of proposed federal adoption of WCZMP, but rather discuss effects which will be experienced regardless of whether the proposed action is implemented. Thank you for the opportunity to review your statement. We sincerely hope our comments will be helpful to you. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT G; OF @ S@ Nq- 1c Eugene S. Dziedzic, Asst. Chief Environmental Management Division ESD:jb cc: E. A. Chitwood Fred Hosea Frank White Agencies X-160 NOAA Response to Department of Game. 1. This is correct. 2. NOAA has attempted to include its action that that of the state. Federal funds will help the state manage its shorelines and, therefore, impacts associated with implementation of the Shoreline Management Act have been used as a base. 3. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program is in the process of implementation. There is a great deal of coordination that needs to take place over the years. Section 306 grants are designed to help states administer a CZM program. 4. This is NOAA's best assessment of the situation. S. The state Section 306 grant application is the mechanism for the distribution of funds. The Department of Ecology, responsible for administering the funds, will pass through grant money as appropriate to state and local government agencies. 6. These impacts were briefly discussed in the DEIS and have been supple- men.ted in the FEIS. 7. Contract approval and audit controls. 8. The effects of Federal consistency have been elaborated in the FEIS. 9. Yes, included in the FEIS summary page. 10. This is not inconsistent with the requirements of the CZMA. Section 306(e)(1) states that the state may establish criteria and standards for local implementation,ssubject to administrative review and compliance. 11. Further information may be found in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, page 17. A separate DEIS and FEIS is required for each Section 312 application. 12. This has been done in both the FEIS and the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. 13. The constant use of "state" is perhaps at times confusing. In this case, "state" means both the state executive agencies and the local governments. 14. Local units of goverment carry out the requirements of SEPA. 15. The Department of Game has been added. The Department's responsibilities are discussed in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, pages 9i-92. X-161 16. This was an error and has been deleted. 17. Implications to other state agencies are addressed in the FEIS. 18. There are no new legal authorities, but there have been some administrative changes within the Department of Ecology, Office of Land Programs. 19. Narrowly construed, yes. X-162 STATE OF WASHINGTON MAY I 1JI4 2)"e*neae COMMISSIONER BERT COLE - LE. FRASER supgavloon OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 May 2, 1975 1 MIY 1975 Sidney R. Galler CZY1 C,1 LJ Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Infor m; Affairs Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: Following are some of our basic comments relating to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Federal Approval of the Coastal Zone Management Program, State of Washington- 1. It appears upon reading this draft that the Coastal Zone Management Program will closely parallel the State of Washington's existing Shoreline Management Act. 2. Area Designation for Preservation and Restoration, Pages 35 and We note references to the effect that natural resources such as timber and minerals which could not be utilized or exported so will be insignificant in view of the overall state timber re- sources." Our concern is we must be aware of the incremental approach the environmental planning process seems to progress. The sum of 200 feet strips, fragile areas, scenic points, historic places will quickly add,to the total area. There is reference to House Bill 550 in the Washington State Legislature regarding the state compensating land owners for property vaiue,impact "loss" as a result of the SMA. To date, this Bill is still in Committee and the likelihood of it passing is remote. However, we would like to comment on fund- ing and the Coastal Zone Management Act and the guidelines in Section 306, (d). The Federal Act states that "prior to grant- ing approval of the states management program, the secretary shall find that the state acting through its chosen agency or agencies..., has authority for the management of the coastal zone in accordance with the Management Program such authority shall approve power.... to assure fee simple and less than fee simple interest in lands, waters and other property through Sidney R. Galler -2- May 2, 1975 condem nation or other means when necessary to achieve con- formance with the Management Program.". To us this appears to be an obvious recognition of the fact that government does not intend that lands be classified for preservation purposes without those lands being acquired. Another point to be considered is that in the proposed rules in the CZM Act, Paragraph 923-16, (b), (3), states that "the requirement of the statute goes to the procedure rather than the substance; the fact that a state may be unable to move rapidly ahead without a program of preservation or restoration will not prevent the program from being approved. The staie should also rank in order of relative priority, areas of its coastal zone which have been designated for the purpose set forth in this section." This includes preservation and re- storation for the conservation, recreational, ecological, and aesthetic values. The rules further states that as funds be- come available such ranking will provide a set of priorities for selecting areas to be preserved or restored. When we see this kind of language in the Act and the guidelines, this, suggests to us that the Federal Government has acknowledged the need to compensate areas that have been set aside in a preservation or conservation category. 3. Offshore Oil and Gas Lease Program As Senator Jackson pointed out in his National Land Use Bill, it is essential to tie energy facilities siting and land use planning. The two should not be separated. it seems to us thatoffshore oil exploration will obviously-have a tremendous impact on onshore facilities siting, if substantial oil pools or energy sources are found under the beds of the ocean. lit seemsto us that a planning process begun now on our coastal J1 zone could be substantially revised, if such a "bonanza" is found off our shores. IW?,7?te' on page 4, reference to the final appropriation of 12 ml ion dollars for Fiscal Year 1974. Of this total, 4 million dollars was for estuarine sanctuary grants. We are curious as to how this was applied to our State. It seems to us that in lieu of spending more money for planning, since this state already has a Comprehensive Shoreline Planning process, that this money could be better spent in acquiring fragil estuarine areas. X-164 Sidney R. Galler -3- May 2, 1975 These are our basic comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, BERT L. COLE Commissioner of Public Lands Don e Fraser Supervisor DLF:gpe cc: Ralph Beswick Administration Bill Johnson Surveys and Marine Land Management Division X-165 NOAA Response to Department of Natural Resources. 1. The economic incremental impacts have been addressed in the' FEIS. 2. Coastal zone management grants are for administering the program and cannot be used for land acquisition. Compensation, when required, is the responsibility of the state and local governments. 3. The state has applied for a supplemental Section 305 grant to plan for the impacts associated with OCS developments (CFR Vol. 40, No. 104, Thursday, May'29, 197/5). 4. Washington has applied to the Office of Coastal Zone Management for an estuarine sanctuary in the Puget Sound and Hood Canal area. No affirmative .action has taken place. Section 312 estuarine sanctuary grants are for the express purpose of providing natural laboratories for scientific and educational field studies and data collection of the natural and human processes occurring in estuaries. X-166 -A- - GOVERNOR DAN16L J. EVANS WASHINGTON STATE COMMISSIONERS: JEFF 0. DOMASKIN THOMAS C. GARRETT 3Pj&RXS & RIECIRBAT1014 COMMISSXOM KAY GREEN BEN HAYES LOCATION! THURSTON AIRDUSTRIAL CENTER PHONE 753-575S RALPH E. MACKEY ELISTACE VYNNE WILFRED R. WOODS P, 0. BOX 1128 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 DIRECTOR: CHARLES H. CDEGAARD April 8, 1975 IN REPLY REFER TO: APR lax, 35-2650-1820 Draft EIS - CzM Proposed Federal Approval of the Coastal Zone Mgnt. Program, State of Washington Mr. Edward T. LaRoe Office of Coastal Zone Management /7@ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Mr. LaRoe- Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft statemIent. Our comments follow: Page 22 - Paragraph 5 - 2nd Sentence: It is stated that "Almost the entire coast and most of the uplands are owned by the Federal Government or are part of Indian Reservations, and are excluded from state management under CZMA". This statement is grossly in error concerning the ownership status of Pacific Coast beach lands if it is truly referri.ng to the Pacific JL Coast of Washington which actually contains approximately 68 percent federal beach ownership and approximately 32 percent state beach ownership (administered by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission). Perhaps you meant to say "Almost the entire (north coast and uplands adjacent to the north coast) are owned by the Federal Government". This statement would be closer to the facts although the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission does administer approximately 7,percent of the beach in this "north coast" area. The uplands adjacent to this state beach are primarily owned by others with only approximately one-half mile of frontage in State Parks' ownership and an unknown amount administered by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. X-167 Mr. LaRoe -2- April 8, 1975 Page 40 Paraqraph 4 3rd Sentence: - It is stated that NEPA . . . and SEPA have as their objective adequate consideration and regulation of air and water quality." The Purpose of SEPA is specified in RCW 43.21C.010 and is reprinted here as follows: "Cha oter 43.21C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 43.21C.010 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are: (1) To declare a state r)olicy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; (2) to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere; (3) and stimulate the health and welfare of man; and (4) to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the state and nation (1971 lst exs. c." The purpose of NEPA is found in Public Law 91-190 and is reprinted here as follows: "The ourposes of this act are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment: to promote efforts which Will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimu- late the health and welfare of man. to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources-important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. It is obvious that both NEPA and SEPA concern themselves with much more than air and Walter quality and, in fact, concern themselves with a wider scope of environmental concerns than the proposed CZM implementation for Washington State. Both SEPA and NEPA are used effectively to comprehensively plan and manage the resources of the entire state of Washington, not just the narrow coastal zone as is proposed by CZM. There is no indication that the National Register of Historic Places was consulted to determine potential project effects on Register properties nor does there seem to be an assessment of effects on Droperties,which may be eligible for inclusion in the Register. Si rely, David W. Heiser, Chief Environmental Coordination David Hansen, Chi'ef of Archaeology and Historic Preservation sg X=168 NOAA Response to Parks and Recreation Commission. 1. The statement is basically correct, but was misinterpreted. The rocky north coast refers only to the shoreline from Cape Flatery to the Quinault River. The coment is appropriate, however, for the entire Pacific coast. 2. This is a good point and is well,understood. NEPA and SEPA were inappropriately and inadvertently included with the Clean Air Act and Water Pollution Control.Act. They have been deleted from the FEIS. 3. A new section has been included in the FEIS on impacts on historic properties. X-169 WASHINGTON STATE Daniel I. Evans-Governor HIGHWAY COMMISSION G.H. Andrews-Director DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Highway Admistration Building 0lympia, Washington 98504 (206) 753-6005 April 28, 1975 09 MAY 1975 Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 Re; U.S. Department of Commerce Proposed Federal Approval of the Coastal Zone Management Program for the State of Washington Draft Environmental Statement Dear Mr. Galler: Reference is made to your letter of March 21, 1975, requesting our review of the draft environmental statement for the above project. We have completed our review and find no conflicts with existing or proposed highways in the area. Thank you for the opportunity to review this information. Sincerely, G. H. ANDREWS Director of Highways By: H. R. GOFF Assistant irector for Planning, Research and State Aid GHA:aa HRG cc: W. C. Bogart V. W. Korf R. L. Carroll E. I. Roberts X-171 Baker Ferguson, Chairman V.H. Parker Howard Sorensen Virginia K. Julia Butler Hansen Harold L. Walla Walla Bremerton Ellensburg Seattle Cathlamet Secretary E. Regional and Local Agencies. Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission Mason Regional Planning Council City of Aberdeen Assistant Attorney General, State of Washington, Response to Mayor of Aberdeen Relevant letter regarding authorities to.implemerit Washington Coastal Zone Management Program Clallum County Planning Department Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Governmental Conference Skagit County Planning Department X-172 .it Pacific nonthwest I colUMBIA QlVeR P. 0. BOX 908 RiveR Basins commission vancouveR, washinQton gs66o May S. 1975 office of the chainmAn Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs U. S. Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact statement for the State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. This program is responsive to the needs identified in the Commission's com- prehensive framework study of water and related lands for the Columbia-North Pacific Region which has been approved by the U. S. Water Resources Council and transmitted to the President and to the Congress. The framework study implementation program stated in part: "The coastal zone and each estuary needs coordinated plans to insure that these resources continue to perform their natural function in maintaining ecological balance and yet provide esthetic, recreational, and economic benefits . . . The studies would integrate the expertise of educational institutions, State and Federal agencies, and managerial techniques into a program flexible enough to meet changing future conditions and backed by legislation to permit full implementation." The State of Washington's program is consistent with this approach, and appears to be a substantial step toward its implementation. It will provide valuable input to the comprehensive, coordinated joint plan for water and related land resources development which is currently being prepared by the Commission. During the past year we have been working with the States of Washington and Oregon, federal and local governmental agencies to assist in development of a coordinated program for the Columbia River estuary. Approval of Wash- ington's coastal zone management program should enable them to participate more actively and extensively in this needed effort. X- 173 r 1 M ffL__ fts 206/696-3601 503/2,35-0467 0 '200/694-2581 Mr. Sidney R. Galler May 5, 1975 Page 2 The foregoing comments-are my views as Chairman of the Commission and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission as a whole or the other individual members., Sincerely, nel J. La Chairman DJL:PB:bg X-174 D PHONE 426-1351 JAMES E. CONNOLLY DIRECTOR AREA CODE 206 ..XX MASON REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL P.O. BOX 400 COURTHOUSE SHELTON. WASHINGTON 98584 U April 15, 1975 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Sir: This office has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the pro- posed Federal approval of the Coastal Zone Management Program, State of Washington, and find it adequate and acceptable. Approval of the program is requested. Funding then available under Section 3.06 would particularly assist the many focal governments which have been hard pressed financially to do an adequate job on the State Shoreline Management Act. This de- ficiency is noted on Page 17. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, James E. Connolly Mason Regional Planning Director, JEC:ve CC: Office of Community Development X-175 ABERDEEN W SHINGTON OFFICE OF THE MAYOR HON. WALTER FAILOR CIETY oip ABERDEEN 1NC0RP0_R'jATE0 1886 ABERDEEN. WASHINGTON 98520 April 24, 1975 Richard Hemstad Office of Community Development State of Washington Olympia, Washington 98504 Attn: Jennifer Parker Re: NOAA EIS Coastal,Zone Management Program, State of Washington Dear Ms. Parker: @he City of Aberdeen obj.ects to the approval of the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program.' The Department of Ecology does not have authority to define what shall constitute permissible.land and water uses nor to exert control over them as called for in Sec. 305, PL 92-583. The authority for land use regulation in the State of Washington resides in the counties, cities, towns and townships in accordance with Article XI, Section 11 of the State Constitution. -The regulation of land use in the City of Aberdeen is by a "special law" (Zoning Ordinance) and not by a general law. Article XI, Section 10 of the Washington State Constitution prohibits the Legislature from enacting "special laws". The State of Washington can undertake a Coastal Zone Management Program under PL 92-583 only after amendment of the State Constitution. Also, as is apparent in referenced EIS, the State has failed to meet the requirements of Section 923.41, 15 CFR Part 920, Fede ral Register 38(229):33044-33051) published November 29, 1973. X-176 Ms. Jennifer Parker April 24, 1975 Page -2- In fact, it- appears that the cities of the State of Washington and their citizens were specifically excluded from the.development of.the proposed program. Sincerely, Walt Failor Mayor WF/ac cc: NOAA X-177 1@75 M A Y 1975 iA -ir. William 11orrison, General Counsel Office of Coastal Zone I'lanaaement i%l -I-- -inistrat ational Oceanic and A,.-iospheric Adm @ion U. S. Dept. of Cor-rmerce Rockville, Naryland 293'2 Dear Mr. '.iorrison: As per your request we have revi&@ied the letter from the City oil L Aberdeen jate April 24, 1975, which pertains to this State's 'Coastal Zone Management Program. We shall comment on the legal interpretations made in that letter regarding the State Constitution, and also we should comment on an apparent misunderstanding of the Department of Ecology's approach to fulfillment of certain Coastal Zone Nlanagement requirements. The Department of Ecology has not defined what shall constitute permissible land and water uses except insofar as it has provided guidelines for such definition by local g3vernment. No further effort to define permissibility is@'intendad by the Department of Ecology. The work of the local governments 'kin preparation of their shoreline master programs)@constitutes a definition of permissibility, and that definition, combined with'the Department of Ecology's guidelines, is used to meet the Coastal Zone Management requirements for definition of permissible land and water uses. Further, the permit system acts as a definition device and both state and local government participate in this system. Authority for making police, sanitary and other regulations is indeed granted to municipal corporations in Section 11, Article XI of the State Constitution, but that enabling sect-son specifically limits that power to those reg,dlations that "...are not in conflict with general laws". The Shoreline Management Act is a comprehensive land use statute for shorelines, applicable statewide. As such it is general, as opposed to special law. Counties and Cities are creatures of the State and exercise only those Dowers and duties giver. by the State. The State Constitution is enclosed for your information. X-178 Mr. William Morrison, General Counsel Page two May 9, 1975 The State is undertaking Coastal Zone Management based on existing authorities, primarily the Shoreline Management Act, which is presumed to be constitutional. Thus far, no court in this state has declared the Act 'to be unconstitutional. The City of Aberdeen has been quite involved in all phases of Shoreline Management and the Department of Ecology is confident that this involvement, including public meetings and hearings held in Aberdeen, constitutes compliance with the require- ments of Section 41 of 15 CFR,, part 923. Aberdeen has been in receipt of periodic informational mailings sent front the Department of Ecology. The City has recently made a tentative request for funding from the .State's anticipated Section 306 grant. In conclusion it appears that the City of Aberdeen may have interpreted the actions of the Department of Ecology to mean that the State is planning to undertake efforts to regulate land and water uses, beyond what is permitted in the Shoreline Management Act. That is simply not the case. We hope this clarifies matters pertaining to this letter. Please call me or Murray Walsh if you have any further concerns. Sincerely, R. V. Jensen Assistant Attorney General, cc: Walt Failor, Mayor - City of Aberdeen Edward T. LaRoe - NOAA Richard Hemstad - OCD Murray Walsh - Dept. of Ecology John Farra - City Attorney, Aberdeen Enclosures: (2) X-179 @i E .1 0 TO: JOHN L. FARRA FROM: GORDON LOGAH DATE: April 21, 1975 ------------------------- Dear John -in an application for approval of the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program, pursuant to PL@2-583, the Depart- ment of Ecology has represented to the Federal Government that the DOE has authority to define what shall constitute permissible land and water uses and authority to exert control over such uses. This ,is a fraudulent application in that its purpose is to obtain a Federal Grant. The Department of Ecology does not legally have such authority. in the State of Washington the determination of permissible land uses and their control is a function of the police power of the state under Art. XI, Sec. 11 of the'State Constitution. "Sec. 11, Police and Sanitary Regulations. Any county, city, town or township may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary And other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws." The Constitution of the State of Washington cannot be amended by statute, rules, regulations or administrative procedures. It can only be amended by a vote of the people. The illegal arrogation of land use regulatory power by the Dep@Lrtment of Ecology has damaged the City of Aberdeen and its citizens and has had deleterious effect on the environment of the City. The assembly of an array of.state and federal regulatory agencier in support of the Department of Ecology's effort to seize the police power, of land use regulations is in the nature of a conspiracy to violate the Constitution of the State of Washington. The NOAA Environmental Impact Statement states that the principal authority for land use control is the Shorelines Management Act and that additional authority to establish a comprehensive management program (land use regulation) is contained in the Air and Water Pollution Control Actst X-180 Page -2- Flood Zone Control, SEPA, and the Forest Practices Act Thus, the Water Pollution Act is being utilized on a selective basis for land use regulation rather than improving the quality of the state's waters. The United States Army has an administrative procedure of not issuing the required permits if any of the contacted agencies do not respond or if they have a negative response. The Department of Ecology has utilized this device to delay and prevent land uses approved by the City of Aberdeen. The Federal Fish and Wildlife Service has also utilized this procedure to aggressively insert. itself into the regulation of land use in the City of Aberdeen. Both the Congress and the Legislature have refused to pass land use legislation in the recent past. For the Department of Ecology to attempt to arrogate this is reminiscent of the arrogant disregard of the law and the Constitution recently revealed in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Yours very truly, Gordon Logan Development Coordinator GL/ac AFTER 5 DAYS RETURN TO CITY OF ABERDEEN OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT CO-ORDINATOR ABERDEEN. WASHINGTON 98520 Mr. Wm. Morrison, General Counsel office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adr U. S. Dept. of Commerce Rockville, Maryland 29852 X-181 NOAA Response.to Mayor Failor, City of Aberdeen. 1. There appears to be a misunderstanding of what the Department of Ecology' has or has not done. -The Shoreline Management Act provides for a system of local master programs, a permit system, and the responsibility for overview of uses of the coastal zone. Local goverments are responsible for exerting control in accordance with the process-set up under the Shoreline Management Act. 2. The central authority of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program is the Shoreline Management Act. However, other existing state authorities are incorporated and a number of administrative additions have been under- taken (i.e., increased efforts at Federal'coordination, state managerial network, and others), Thus, the 'Office of Coastal Zone Management believes the state program meets the requirements of the CZMA. X-182 CLALLAM COUNTY 4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 127 East First'Street PORT ANGELES. WASHINGTON ga362 March 260 1975 Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs U. S. Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: I have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement prepared by the Department of Commerce for the Office of Coastal Zone Management for the p.roposed Federal Approval of the State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. It.appears that the draft statement provides an accurate and com- plete analysis of the proposed action, the effects of the proposed action and the alternatives. There are certain questions raised by the statement on page 33 under Subsection A, "Impacts directly resulting from Federal approval." I would agree that a six month limitation for consistency certification could present an insurmountable administrative burden for local government, particularly if the environmental impact statement is to be prepared by the unit of local government prior to passing on the substantial development permit. This is an area that should receive -careful attention and consideration. The fifth paragraph on page 33 concerning closer cooperation and coordination between federal, state and local government is indeed a worthwhile objective. I would hope that.Washington's Coastal Zone Management program could accomplish this purpose. Sincerely, Kenneth W. Sweeney KWS:jml Planning Director X-183 r ne th Ken Planning NTOAA Response to Clallam County Planning Department. The question'raised by the Clallam County Planning Department appears to be founded on a slight misunderstanding. Sections 307(c) and (d) of the CZMA set forth the duties and general process'for Federal agency consistency with the state's program. The state as a matter of policy has determined that "for coastal zone management purposes, determination of consistency and-any determination relating to the process of permit and license certification shall be undertaken . . . with the Federal agencies involved . . . " (Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, page 134). This does not negate local governments' meeting the requirements of the state permitting system, which may include the preparation of an EIS. X-184 COWLITZ -WAHKIAKUm GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE COWLITZ COUNTY COURTHOUSE FIFTH AVENUE ANNEX KELSO. WASHINGTON 98626 PHONE 425-6905 COWLITZ COUNTY April 30, 1975 CITY OF LONGVIEW CITY OF KELSO Mr. Sidney R. Galler CITY OF CASTLE ROCK Deputy Assistance Secretary for Environmental Affairs, Department of Commerce CITY OF WOODLAND Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: CITY C F KALAMA After intensive review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the P 'roposed Coastal Zone Management Program for the State of TOWN OF CATHLAMET Washington, it is found that the general concept and intention of this program will be most favorable and promising. PORT OF LONGVIEW There is, however, one statement that causes particular concern, as it possesses the possibility of local frustration. This is .1 found on page 33, paragraph 6; "Federal approval of a* state's PORT OF WOODLAND program would also signify that the state has an acceptable pro- cedure and administrative mechanism to insure the adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of PORT OFKALAMA facilities necessary to-meet requirements which are other than local in nature. Such facilities might include energy production and transmission; recreation; interstate transportation; production COWLi rz COUNTY of food and fiber; preservation of life and property; national P.U.D.NO.1 defense and aerospace; historic, cultural, aesthetic and conserva- tion values; and mineral resources, to the extent they are dependent on or relate to the coastal zone." LONG% IEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 122 Local government is asked to give similar consideration to state interests along rivers of statewide significance under the Shorelines KELSO Management Act. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 NOW, herein lies the concern and confusion: the state has designated the Columbia River as "Statewide Significance", however, Wahkiakum BEACON HILL County does not have any information outlining the long-range state SEWER DISTRICT interests which may supersede local plans for development along this river. Without;such information, local government is placed in the awkward position of "second-guessing" st@te interests. This tends VVAHKIAKUM COUNTY to undermine the long-range planning efforts at the local level. PORT DISTRICT NO. 2 WAHKIAKUM COUNTY X-185 Mr. Sidney R. Galler April 30, 1975 Page 2 It is hopeful that the federal government can achieve greater strides towards alleviating this problem under the Coastal Zone Management Program, than has so far been experienced with the Shorelines Management Act at the state level. Until the local,g9vernment planning agencies acquire the long-range plans of interest at both the state and federal levels, we must assume you have no interest and plan accordingly until requested to do otherwise, which may cause major alterations and additional expense, which adds up to a total waste of everyone's previous efforts'and is contrary to the planning process. Once this problem is solved and close coordination between agencies established, the administration of the Coastal Zone Management Program will increase its efficiency and the overall effectiveness of this program will greatly enhance the Coastal Zone Areas of Wahkiakum County. Thank you for presenting this program for our review and comment. Sincerely, COWLITZ-WAHKIAKUM GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FRED L. DAYHARSH, DIRECTOR Don Mathison Associate Planner lp X-186 NOAA Response to Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Governmental Conference The concern raised is very important and may not easily be resolved. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program approval may be able to minimize this concern. Federal agencies are to express the national interests with regard to their specific missions((i.e., energy, parks, defense, etc.). As these statements at the national level are formulated, they are to be submitted to the states. In turn, the state should be able to integrate the national interests and state interests into a form useful to local planners. In addition, the Section 306 administrative grants will enable more coordination to occur between state and local governmental agencies, and updating of plans and programs. X,187 TELEPHONE 1206) 336-21 8 ROBERT C. SCHOFIELD DAVID C. HOUGH 120 W. KINCAID. COURT HOUSE ANNEX it DIRECTOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MOUNT VERNON. WASHINGTON 98273 May 6, 1975 Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Department of Comerce 14ashinnton, D.C. 20230 near Mr. Galler: This deDartment is presently engaged in the development of the Skaoit County Shoreline Master Program, based upon the cuidelinies and require- ments of the Shorelines Management Act and the nepartment of Ecology. Upon approval by DOE, this program potentially will become part of a statewide master program and subsequently Part of the state's Coastal Zone Management Proaram. At this time, we wish to address certain items discussed in your draft environmental impact statement for Federal approval of Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program. Our concerns are primarily directed at aspects of the Federal CZM Act and Program which are, unfortunately, predetermined, existing "facts of life" at this time. Specifically, our concerns are: 1. The necessity of producing and distributing an environmental impact statement for a purely administrative action such as this program approval. 2. Actions and projects of Federal aciencies within the defined Coastal Zone should be subject to direct county review and co- ordination. This may be affected tFirough the implementation and adherence to the Skagit C6unty Master Program. 3. EIS, p. 15, para, 2 - We had no idea federal agencies were directly involved in review of local Master-Proqrams prior to DOE approval. We are curious as to the degree of impact or influ- ence such a review capacity will have on approval and implementa- tion of local Master Programs. 4. FIS, p. 45 V11. - Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided. Another unavoidable. probable adverse effect could be from, Federal facilities or activities established on the basis of national interest X-188 Page two May 6, 1975 Sidney R. Galler or security, or, in the event of local and/or state nonconcurrence, by Secretarial override. However, we realize this provision is already an established part of the CZMA, but it is a critical policy to be of concern to local governments. We have no other comments on this EIS at this time and appreciate the oppor- tunity to review and, somewhat belatedly, comment unon your work. Also, we support and urge the adoption of a Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program based upon the existing, comprehensive Shorelines Management Act and Master Proqram guidelines. If you have'any comments or questions concerning this correspondence or wish input from the local government SMA implementation point of 'view, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, R. C. Schofield, Dir tor SKAGIT COUNTY PLANNING, DEPARTMENT cc: D. Rodnev Mack, DOE John Biggs, DOE X-189 'y chofield. nir @tor NOAA Response to Skagit County Planning Department. 1. NOAA, in conjunction with CEQ, has determined that an EIS should be required because of the transfer of Federal funds, implementation of Federal consistency, and the impacts (both favorable and non-favorable) program approval will have. 2. The State Department of Ecology will handle all matters of Federal consistency and consult with local units of government. The procedure is more thoroughly explained in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, page 134. 3. Federal review has occurred for several years, although riot all Federal agencies have chosen to participate. 4. This is a good point and has been addressed in the FEIS. X_'190 wash-t- 98225 April 18, 1975 TO: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs 9 A PIR 19 7 5 Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 C I z N, FROM: Thomas R. Randall, Director Whatcom County Council of Governments Ind 0. rinci ti V_ SUBJECT: Draft E.I.S. - Federal Approval of the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program Members of the W.C.C.D.G. have been actively engaged in prepar- ing!and implementing Shoreline Management Program in response to the Washington Shoreline '-Ianagement Act. We believe this act is one of the most important pieces of legislation passed in this state with its objective to enhance the uses of shorelines and Protect the public interest. Implementation and administration of the Shoreline Haster Pro- gram is an expensive and difficult task. The objective of the Wash- ington Coastal Zone Management Program is to aid the state 'a'nd local governments in thei@ efforts to preserve our shoreli.ne areas. Table 11 and Table III present a certain degree of inconsistency. Table 11 shows the relatively small amount of beach area accessible to the public. By adding tidelands as in Table III it would appear that there is available to the public 735 miles of beaches. In effect this is not true. Much of this tideland fronts on privately owned backshore, where access is limited. One of the main goals of the SMP is to provide greater public access to beach area. The beneficial imoact of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program should greatl,y exceed any adverse impacts. The W.C.C.O.G., therefore, endorses this program. Sincerely Thomas R.' gan TRR:mIm X-191 cc: D.O.E., Shoreline Division NOAA Response to Whatcom County. 1. Due to the questionable nature of Table III, it has been deleted from the final EIS. The point is that public access is important to the citizens of the state and to the state's economy, and that access has generally declined as population increased and develojxnents have increased along the shoreline. X-192 Public Interest Groups Envirormental Defense Fund League 'of Women Voters of'Washington National Audubon Society Tahoma Audubon Society Black Hills Audubon Society Northwest National Seashore Alliance X-193 ENVIRONMENTAL 17. M DEFENSE OD Inic)rmation, e- --- FUND 1525 18th STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036/202 833-1485 May 19, 1975 Dr. Edward T. LaRoe Office of Coastal Zone Management A NOAA 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, D.C..20007 Re: Mid-Coast Maine and Washington State CZM Programs Dear Ted: Attached are a set of very sketchy comments on the above. I'll be happy to talk with you in more detail about our concerns if you want to call. With best personal regards, Very truly yours, d ar Thompson, Jr. X-194 @d@wardThor OFFICES IN: EAST SETAUKET, NY (MAIN OFFICE); NEW YORK CITY (PROGRAM SUPPORT OFFICE); WASHINGTON, DC; BERKELEY, CALIF.; DENVER, COL. Printed on 100% Recycled PaPer CO@IMENTS OF EDF ON PROPOSED FEDERAL APPROVAL OF COASTAL ZOTIE MANAGE1,1ENT PROGRAMS FOR STATE OF WASHINGTON & MID-COAST MAINE 1. Approval of state programs by NOAA is the critical stage in Federal administration of the CZM Act since it is at this point, presumably, that primary responsibility for-carrying out the substantive goals of the Act shifts somehow from Federal to state authorities. See, Section 307(c). How and to what degree this responsibility shifts is not clear, however, from the Act. Section 307(e). 2. The basic substantive goals of the Act appear to be prctecti-o,n of coastal ecosystems. This is borne out by both explicit language and the legislative history of the Act. Section 302. This is not to say that development should be excluded from the coastal zone but, rather, that it must respect critical estuarine and marine resources without which the coastal zone would lose much of its rich diversity and unique appeal. In our view, the substantive purpose of the Act can be carried out only if states assume responsibility for guiding development away from intolerant land and water resource areas and into areas which are more tolerant to the particular activity and its expected secondary effects. In effe'ct, what we believe the Act should achieve is a compre- hensive scheme of "natural zoning,!' whereby the natural ecosystems determine,where development should go to minimize environmental harm. This is only a small step from traditional zoning which, in response to easily observable harmfl.il effects of particular activities such as noise or smoke, attempts to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by separating, for example, industrial and residential areas. where scientific method can predict remote, and not necessarily ?bservable environmental harm as a result of a particular land use, it seems entirely reasonable to attempt to protect the public from Z-21ucl-l us"-s in appropriate ways. 3. To achieve the substantive goals of the Act, we believe that states must meet three general requirements. First, they must have the technical competence and funding to do the baseline inventory studies necessary as the foundation of a coastal management program. Second, they must be willing and able to develop and implement a plan and policies which 1) harmonize the efforts of land use planners and marine biological experts (the discipline most nearly-familiar with functions of coastal ecosyztems) and 2) put the public on notice that specific areas are suitable for only particular activities. And third, they must ena *ct and implement legal mechanisms which are able both to control nonconforming uses and to deal fairly with vested property interests which may have attached to particular resource areas. X-195, 2 4. Since we feel that the scope of NOAA review should encompass not only compliance with the letter of its regulations ,but also the ability of state programs to comply with the subs ,tan- tive, environmental protection goals of the Act, we cannot sbe how NOAA can finally approve state programs which lack, as do the Maine and Washington programs, both site-specific planning guidelines and comprehensive legal mechanisi-,is to guide development. We suggest, therefore, that NOAA come up with a mode of conditional approval, perhaps fcr @)zie year, while wduld enable states to make additional progress touaru impleraenting the Act's substantive goals through an infusion of Federal funds, while, at the same time, preserving existing relationsh.ins between PeAieral and state resp.:@,--'.'ility. 5. Further, we suggest that NOAA encouraae all Federal agencies with program or regulatory authority over coastal resources to define precisely how and to what degree they expect to allow primary responsibility for coastal zone management to shift to the sta-es upon approval, how they anticipate coordination of Federal and state administration with respect to permit approvals, and what they regard as the distinctly national interest in coastal resources which they seek to protect 6ven'l-i-737tE-means overriding state deter- minations of public interest in particular actions. See, Section 307(e). Federal. agencies might develop'their ideas on these subjects in coordination with the states and interested members of the public and present them in their comments on the states' programs. 6. We are troubled by the approaches to coastal zone manage- ment taken by both Maine and Washington which regulate development only within a uniformly defined, narrow strip of land adjacent to the shoreline. If-a coastalmanagement program is to be truly successful in guiding development not only away from intolerant areas but into tolerant ones, we think that it must be able to transfer property use rights beyond a narrow strip of shoreland. J'[email protected] does not appear to be sufficient merely to prohibit development in one, r)articularly inadvisable location; one rust also be able to encourage development elsevhere by legal systems such as tax incen- tives, transferable development rights, etc. Shorelands and uplands, which may be necessary to absorb devialopment which otherwise would be sited in the "coastal zone," should be administered under the same coastal management authority which would have the power to control. the entire region, not merely a strip of land. We do not wish to derrogate from the considerable efforts which these states seem to have made to date, but we stress that the narrow approach which they have taken does not seem to us to meet the sub- stantive goals of the Act. 7. There are other, more specific shortcomings of both states' programs, such as the exemption of single-family units from the Washington permit system which might perpetuate, rather than ameliorate the problem of "piecemeal" degradation of coastal ecosystems. We agree with the positions of the environmental impact statements that these are, indeed, weaknesses; but we would go further in X-196 3 suggesting that these weaknesses may be enough to disqualify the state programs, as presently considered, from NOAA approval. 8. Finally, we conmiend NOAA on the excellent job it has done in preparing environmental impact statements on agency action relating only to programs rather than specific development proposals. However, we think that it might be more profitable, in the future, t-o prepare an overall 2rogram EIS on the CZM program, with suppler-ants on dach state program as it is submitted. The supplements would be riost- useful as a vehicle for public infor-. mation and comment if they outlined, in graphic'form if desirable, the specific coastal resource regime of each Ptate. (The degree of d ail f Lhe Maine EIS with respect to the Town of Bucksport may not be necessary, but the general maps which are found in the Washington EIS are much too vague to be very useful.) Further, a more thorough attempt to outline the specific manner -in'which the state program functions--in terms of both control and transfer of uses--should be included in the EIS supplements. Respectfully, Edw rd Th pson, Jr. Iln v Wet ands nitor May 15, 1975 X-197 NOAA Response to Environmental Defense Fund. 1. The State of Washington does have a system of "natural zoning" based upon scientific methods as well as other factors. The initial baseline studies will be followed by additional field efforts and an improved system for data retrieval is being developed. An in-depth explanation can be found in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, January 1976, Appendix E, "Recent and Current Data. Management Activities within the Washington Coastal Zone." 2. NOAA has made the determination through its review process that the state has effectively dealt with the concern outlined. 3.' The state has both site-specific planning guidelines (i.e., Shoreline Management Act Guidelines, 173-161VAC, Procedures for Shoreline Inventory, Environmental Designations, and uses within these environments) and legal mechanisms to guide development (Local Master Programs, State S?.,,TA policies, permit review, process). 4. Appropriate steps have been taken. 5. NTOAA has determined that the new boundary/legal authorities/managerial network approach of Washington can be a successful method of meeting the ob ectives of the CZMA. Shoreline development is encouraged to take place in specific environmental designations of Urban and Rural Classifications and away from the natural and conservancy areas. 6. This has been attempted in the FETS. The program contains a more complete description of how it is to function. The FEIS attempts to summarize this aspect of the program. X-198 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WASHINGTON April 30, 1975 05 MAY 1975 Edward T. LaRoe CZM Office of Coastal Zone Management Information National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Mr. LaRoe: Having actively supported the development of the Shoreline Management Act in the State of Washington, the League of Women Voters of Washington strongly endorses the proposed. Coastal Zone Management Program of the Federal Government. The CZM program supplements our state Plan and should help ameliorate some of the administrative problems, such as funding and overall state responsibility. The League particularly supports the concept of placing major responsibility and authority for controlat the affected level of government, as this Program does. Requiring state certification before federal permits can be issued within the affected areas further sustains this concept. The impacts on local government administration of the Shoreline Management Act and the CZM Program are mentioned only briefly. The chart on the draft shows "Local Government Action" as a major event in the procedure, yet it does not indicate that there should be any formalized citizen review and recommendation for permit applications. The mandated an excellent citizen participation program for the development of plans, which should be continued during the implementation phases. Because local planning commissions have busy schedules already, it may be preferable to tap the talent of those who worked so long on the Shoreline Management Plans by creating Shoreline Permit Review Commissions at the local levels. In addition, to avoid confusion, review procedures should be more specifically spelled out with criteria for office review only or for citizen review. The second alternative under "C" on page 42 should. be reconsidered. A planning department has a more difficult time knowing what is happening and setting standards for comprehensive planning when single family dwellings and barns are excluded from its purview. Large sections of the coastal shoreline would remain completely outside the consideration of planning bodies if permits are not required for these exempted uses. The CZM Program should specify clear- ly that some kind of permit is required for all uses to insure the legal authority for local regulations. Not all of the other controls mentioned on page 43 are being enforced or coordinated. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed program. Sincerely, Maxine Krull, President 1406 - 18TH AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 329-4646 X-199 NOAA Response to League of Women Voters of Washington. 1. The alternative was reconsidered and remains a viable alternative at the state's option; however, it is not required to meet CZMA requirements. The state is not required to control all uses of the coastal zone, but rather those uses that it determines have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. An increase in Federal assistance can help in the enforcement and coordination of regulations. X-200 NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY 950 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022 (212) 832-3200 Cable: NATAUDUBON April 29, 1975 MAY VVS Dr. Edward T. LaRoe Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Dr. LaRoe: qli Enclosed are the conments of the National Audubon Society on NOAA's draft impact statement on proposed federal approval of the State of W4shington's proposed coastal zone management program. We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft state- ment and to submit our views for your consideration. Si@cerely, J Elvis.J. Stahr Prmj@@ent EJS:SMS c.c.: Dr. Robert M. White X-201 AMERICANS COMMITTED TO CONSERVATION NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY 950 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022 (212) 832-3200 Cable: NATAUDURON April 29, 1975 Comments of the National Audubon Society On NOAA's Draft Impact Statement on Proposed Approval Of Washington State's Coastal Zone Management Program The Coastal Zone Management Act and NQAA's regulations for the approval of state coastal zone management programs declare that a state's proposed coastal zone management program must meet several requirement's in order to be approved by the federal government and in order to be eligible for federal grants to help administer the program. Among the requirements are the following: * That the state be "organized to implement the management program." * That the state have "the authorities necessary to implement the program." That the management program make provision "for procedures whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values." That a single state agency be designated "to receive and administer the grants for implementing the management program." That the state have authority "to administer land and water use regulations, control development in order to ensure compliance with the management program, and to resolve conflicts among competing uses." That the state have authority "to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in lands, waters, and other property through condemnation or other means when necessary to achieve conformance with the management program." That the state have authority for "direct state land and water use planning and regulation" or, if such authority is delegated to local government, that the state have authority to review and the "power to approve or disapprove" local government decisions on development plans, X-202 AMERICANS COMMITTED TO CONSERVATION -2- projects r land and water use regulations; including exceptions and varianceLo That the coastal zone to be managed "extends inland sufficiently for the management program to control lands the uses of which have a direct and significant impact upon coastal waters." That the coastal zone to be managed should not be "so limited that lands strongly influenced by coastal waters and over which the management program reasonably apply are excluded." Also, the Coastal Zone Management Act declares that "the key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over the lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the states ... in developing land and water use programs for the coastal zone, including unified policies, criteria, standards, methods and processes for dealing with land and watq@r use decisions of more than local significance." (Emphasis added.) Based on our review of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), we reluctantly conclude that the State of Washington's proposed coastal zone management program does not appear to meet some of the requirements for approval. We say we have reached this conclusion "reluctantly," for we appreciate and salute-the progress made by the State of Wash-ington in moving toward sound management of its coastal areas through enactment of v rious laws in recent years. a But the State's proposed program clearly does not fulfill some re- quirements set forth by Congress for program approval and grants under Section 306. Moreover, some provisions of the State's proposed program raise questions that should be resolved before the program is approved. For example: 1. On Page 7, the DEIS notes that the State lacks veto power over permits.issued by local governments. But Section 306 (e)(1)(C) of the Act requires that the State must have power "to approve or disapprove" such actions. 2. On Page 7, the DEIS notes that cities and counties "are now developing Master Programs for their shorelines." How can the federal government consider approving the'program until those city and county Master Programs are com- 1pleted and reviewed forconsistency with the letter and spirit of the CZMA? 3. On Page 10, the DEIS notes that "direct control" of the coastal zone has been established "to a line 200 feet inland from the ordinary high tide, or further if necessary to include all 'associated' wetlands." We find it difficult to believe that the 200-foot inland boundary is sufficient "to control lands the uses of which have a direct and significant impact upon coastal waters," as required. 4. On Page 10, the DEIS notes that "additional management controls beyond" the 200-foot inland line "are exerted through air and water quality X-203 -3- standards and by flood zone permits." How do those "indirect" controls give the State the authority required by the federal CZMA "to administer land and water use regulations, control development ... and to resolve conflicts among competing uses" beyond the 200-foot line? We fear that compliance with air and water quality standards will not necessarily provide proper regulation, as required by the federal CZMA, beyond the 200-foot boundary. We fear that reliance on air and water quality standards beyond the 200-foot boundary will inevitably produce unwise development of that portion of thR State's coastal zone -- and after-the-fact controversy. 5. On'Page 17, the DEIS notes that the State's assessment of its Z, Shoreline Management Act identified several "weaknesses." The DEIS adds that supplementing the SMA program with other State programs and approval of the State's proposed coastal zone management program "will aid in over- coming these weaknesses and in creating a stronger overall program." Approval of the State's proposed program and an infusion of federal grant funds under Section 306 may well help the State overcome some weaknesses in the program. But the question is this: Do the admitted "weaknesses" in the Statels'proposed program constitute failure to meet requirements of the federal CZMA? And how caii federal approval of the State's proposed program overcome the State's lack of "ex- plicit authority" to undertake shoreline planning on a statewide basis? 6. On Page 30, the DEIS notes that "except for areas in Puget Sound, most of the State's shoreline is not presently zoned." On Page 31, the DEIS notes that zoning "must be made consistent with the new Master Programs" but that "the Master Programs reflect existing land use and policies, so the impact of this requirement should not be great." How can a system that reflects "existing land use and policiesil enable the State to meet the requirements mandated by Congress for approval of a state management program? And if the Master Programs will indeed "Veflect existing land use and policies," it seems all the more important t 'o with- hold approval of the program until those Master Programs are completed and reviewed for compliance with the federal CZ,MA. 7. On Page 33, the DEIS notes that "there is some confusion" as to how the State "certification of consistency" provision of the federal CZMA will be implemented at the State and local level. We suggest that this "confusion" should be cleared away before a State. program is approved. 8. On Page 36, the DEIS notes that certain activities -- agriculture, private residences, and private bulkheading -- are exempt from the State Shoreline Management Act permit requirements. This, says the DEIS, "will have the potential for an adverse environmental impact on coastal resources." The DEIS then notes that "other state regulatory authorities" will be "fully 0 utilized to minimize" this adverse environmental impact. X-204 -4- This raises several questions: A. What are the "other state regulatory authorities" mentioned on. Page 36? B. How will the "other state regulatory authorities" be utilized to meet the requirements of the federal CZMA? C. And since the Shoreline Management Act is, according to Page 5 of the DEIS, "the principal authority" for the State's proposed program, how can a program containing such exemptions be deemed to meet the require- ments of the federal CZMA? 9. On Page 38, the DEIS says that the State's SMA and other legislation, together with the other program elements, "meet the spirit and letter of the CZM Act." That statement is contradicted by other findings in the DEIS. For instance, on Page 40 the DEIS says: "The basic purposes of the CZK Act... are not completely covered by any of these authorities." The DEIS also says on Page 40: "The SMA ... does not meet all the requirements of the Act. Specifically missing are areas of particular concern and designation of areas for restoration and preservation." And on Pages 40-41, the DEIS says: "These other authorities ... do not individually or separately provide for the comprehensive land and water use management program called for by the Act and implemented through program approval." The DEIS sums up the State's proposed coastal zone program in these words on Page 40: The state's use of existing authorities, espe.cially the SMA and the SEPA, could go a long way to meeting the concepts described in the CZM Act." Perhaps so. But is the "long way" far enough in terms of meeting the requirements of the federal CZMA? We think not. And while we praise the State of Washington for its efforts to date to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of its coastal zone, we can only conclude on the basis of the facts presented in the DEIS that the State's proposed management program should not be approved until it complies with the requirements of the federal CZMA. The State of Washington's proposed program is apparently the first to be submitted to the,federal government for approval. We suggest that the federal government's decision on this first program will establish precedents that other States may seek to follow in preparing their own pro- grams. The Coastal Zone Management Act is difficult enough to administer, what with its declaration of what are often contradictory, mutually exclusive objectives: the preservation and,development of coastal resources. NOAA will compound its problems and establish unfortunate precedents if it approves a program containing the shortcomings that NOAA itself has X-205 noted in the DEIS no matter what disclaimers to the contrary NOAA might make. The National Audubon Society therefore respectfully urges NOAA not CJ to approve the State of Washington's proposed program until that program 11s strengthened and until it meets the requirements of the CZMA. We wish to commend NOAA for its ve ry fine draft impact statement on this first proposed state coastal zone management program. Preparing an impact statement on a proposed program'. rather than on a proposed'proJect, is a difficult assignment. NOAA has performed that assignment exceedingly well. However, we would like to suggest some revisions in the "alternatives" section of the DEIS. on Page 39, the DEIS says one alternative tothe proposed action is: "The Secretary could delay approval of the Washington CZM program until legislation is passed for comprehensive statewide and nationwide land use programs." We question whether that is truly an alternative. The CZMA may well 1b be integrated'with a nationwide land use program in time, should Congress enact a national land use law. But the planning and protection of coastal resources envisioned under the CZMA stand by themselves and can and should be undertaken as rapidly as possible, consistent with the requirements of the Act. There is no legal basis for delaying appzoval of a state program until nationwide or statewide land use programs are enacted. We therefore suggest that NOAA delete this "alternative" from the impact statement. On Page 39, the DEIS says another alternative is to "delay CZM approval until the federal establishment has developed specific policies for the siting of facilities meeting requirements which are of national .1.nterest." J.L- Again, we question whether that is truly an alternative. W e see no legal basis for such an action in the CZMA. We do see the potential for great mischief by a federal agency that may desire to frustrate the CZM program if this is made a valid alternative. We suggest that this "alter- native" be deleted from the impact statement. On'Page 41, the DEIS says another alternative is to give local govern- ments control and CZMA funds to run the CZM program. But on the same page the DEIS notes that "total local control is incompatib.le with the objectives of coastal zone management and not allowable under the act." We suggest that this too is thus not a true or valid-alternative and that it too be deleted from the "alternatives" discussion. Some final comments: In its regulations implementing Section 306 of CZMA,NOAA said, in Section 923.5, that the impact statement on a proposed state program will be "prepared primarily on the basis of an environmental impact assessment and other relevant data submitted by the individual applicant s ta r-e s. X-206 -6- We suggest that it would be helpful to reviewers if,a state's environ- mental assessment would be included as an appendix in NOAA's impact state- ment on each proposed state program. And we also suggest that NOAA-include in future impact statements on proposed state programs a summary.of the program geared to the requirements for approval contained in the CZMA and guidelines for program approval. We appreciate the fact that the DEIS describes elements of the state program in various 'places. But the structure of an impact statement does not necessarily lend itself to program review as such. We recognize that it would be financially difficult and physically cumbersome, if not impossible, to circulate a copy of a state's complete program with each impact statement. Similarly, it is simply not possible for each reviewer to examine the complete state application and supporting documents. Hence our recommendation for inclusion of a program summary in the impact statement, perhaps as an appendix. The summary could be prepared in outline form, or table form -- a brief statement of the statutory or guideline requirement, followed by a brief comment that the state program does or does not meet the requirement. This type of information would enable reviewers to obtain a capsule view of the structure of a proposed program. The summary might also help NOAA determine if a proposed state program should be approved. X-207 NCAA Response to National Audubon Society. 1. Section 306(c)Cl) calls for any one'or a combination of the three techniques. Washington falls under the first: "(A) state establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation, subject to admin- istrative review and enforcement of compliance." This is what has happened in the case of the Shoreline Management Act and the development of local master programs. While the Department of Ecology checks for consistency, the state has established a Shoreline Hearing Board to make the decision to approve or disapprove. 2. NOAA has determined the procedures required to develop a master program as adequate. While it was not required that all local master programs be in because the state had interim procedures, part of the delay and the granting of preliminary approval was caused-by NOAA's and other interested parties' concerns that more local master programs be-completed. This has been done. 3. The state has a second tier boundary which includes the coastal counties. It is anticipated that a large number of uses can be controlled in the 200 foot boundary and most of the remaining within the county boundaries. In addition, the Shoreline Management Act directs that other developments, even though outside these boundaries, be consistent with the goals and policies of the SMA as it affects the shoreline and waters of the state 4. NOAA feels that these weaknesses are not prohibitive to program approval. Some of the problems can be minimized through 306 funding. While the Department of Ecology does not have authority for statewide planning, other state agencies do. Further efforts at,intragovernmental coordination aretaking place. In addition, the state Department of Ecology had the cumulative programs of a,11 local master programs to help assess the total state coastal zone situation. S. The EIS.did. not explain the Washington coastal zone management program in total, and, therefore, additional information for clarity is in order. The first statement is correct that "zoning must be made consistent with the new master programs." However, in developing the master programs, existing land use is only one element of determining environments, etc. Ownership patterns, natural characteristics, and other plans that have a bearing are also included. 6. This has been clarified in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program, pages 133-134, and the,FEIS. 7. Responses to these programmatic questions are found in the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. It should be noted, however, that the Department of Ecology, the "principal authority," is not the whole state and CZM is a state effort. It is practically impossible for any one state agency to administer the entire CZM program without eliciting the help and authorities of other government agencies. X-208 8. This section was not clearly written. The statement "specifically missing . . . 'preservation' " is not correct and has been deleted. However, the point is that the state needed to add a cohesive factor to those various pieces of legislation, authorities, and institutional networks in order to meet all the CZMA requirements. 9. Washington was granted preliminary approval only and has spent the last 8 months in strengthening its program. 10. NOAA agrees with this reasoning. This alternative has been deleted. 11. This is not a necessary alternative and has been deleted. However, nothing prevents a state CZM program from changes and amendments over time. As other legislation is passed or particular Federal interests are expressed, these items can be incorporated. 12. This alternative has also been deleted. 13. The state's EIA will be included as part of any further EIS's submitted. 14. This may be done for future programs. NOAA will use a threshold deter- mination outline for the following seven program elements: Boundaries Uses Areas of Particular Concern and Preservation and Restoration Federal Consultation and National Interest Public Participation Authorities Organizations X-209 0 3024 North 25th Tacoma, Washington 98406 0 22 April 1975 TAHOMA AUDUBON 0 STATE2,1ENT FOR THE HEARING RECORD, PROPOSED FEDERAL APPROVAL OF TEE C-0-ASTIL ZONE MANAGEM[W PROGRAM, STATE OF WASHINGTON 0 We are pleased to submit comments on the Washington Coastal Zone Management V 0 Program and on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement therefoi. 10 4) The Tahoma Audubon Society recommends that the Secretary of Commerce approve the proposed Coastal Zone Management Program of the State of Washington. We believe that the proposal is consistent with the fundamental requirements of CZM; we emphasize that it reflects a statewide referendum by Washington voters and thereby incorporates broad popular recognition and support of.the U) need for special coastal area protection. GENERAL COMMENTS: SYA as written seems to offer essentially the same goals and poll-ccies as CZM. It also has at present an administrative mechanism able to achieve the objectives of CZM with the possible exception of eminent domain. Eminent domain was originally part of S14A but Was amended out by the leeiBlature. 0 There may be some problems with SKA as a,CZM vehicle due to the difficulty in state coordination of multiple local master programs.' SMA appeared to function more efficiently during the pre-master program period when the guidelines set a statewide standard for uniform application. The State has M also identified this as a wealmess. (See page 17, EIS-) fli However, overall S14A does offer reasonably effective means for local, state E and federal coordination with the state as "lead agency." This will be true 0 only as long as the state continues to have 1) review powers, 2) jurisdiction to accept or deny variances and conditional uses, 3) ability to accept or reject amendments to local master program on the basis of consistency with SMA and CZM. Concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, we find it generally accurate and containing adequate information. SPECIFIC C%MITS: II DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION B. The Washin on Coastal''Zone Management Program .9t Page 9, third paragraph from the bottom needs claxification. Does X-210 taho;:a audubon society statement Page 2 22 April 1975 "greater ability of local government to control its share of the coastal zone" mean more legislative or administrative control to local govern- ment or better tools to accomplish existing administrative responsibi- lities? We would oppo--e further delegation of state's responsibility to local governments as non-compliance with CZK, but we support financial and technical assistance to achieve the best Dossible master programs. V PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT B. Impacts Resulting from State and Local Government Actions Page 36, par. 2: Since each local government drew up its master pro- gram with healthy self-interest in mind, it seems unlikely-that there will be a long-term net loss in services due to tax reduction in any jurisdiction. Page 36, par. 4:. Reference to increased operating or capital costs reflecting the external costs traditionally borne by the public, but. now charged to the responsible individual, is an excellent comment. which has not been emphasized often enough as a benefit of SMA.and now oP CZM. Page 36, par 8: Exemptions are a serious concern in SMA; legislative action to increase ixemptions in response to special interests could further reduce the value of the state plan. EIS should also note that existing federal regulatory authorities control such activities as filling and bulkbeading. VI ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION A. Federal Alternativesto Approval of Washington CZK Program Adoption of any of these alternatives either presumes that certain legislative actions will take place, which in .fact may not,, or discounts the concept of Coastal Zone Management as an on-Going, ever-changing and improving process. Adoption of the currently proposed action in no way precludes future modifications. We believe the Washington proposal substantially complies now with the requirements of C2X; therefore, delay in adoption would serve no useful purpose. B. Implementation and Control Alternatives The EIS is probably correct in asserting that complete state control would 1) be more effective as a CZM coordinating tool, and 2) is poli- tically unfeasible. However, any further erosion of state jurisdiction at the request of special interests could well disqualify Washington for CZM participation, since coordination with the mission of federal agencies would become impossible. The BCope of exempt activities i.- X-211 tP%oma audubon society statement Page 3 22 April 1975 dangerously broad at present and in case of bulkheads and small docks even exempts actions which are subject to existing federal permit re- quirements. Complete local control would not comply with See. 306 (e) (1) of CZMA. C. Alternatives to proposed Prograr, Elements The compensation alternativeLWOU'd be an unwarranted and costly,,Attempt to broaden the constitutional definition of a taking as determined by the courts. We feel that CZM and SMA are legitimate exercises of the police power and specific instances where a taking may occur should be adjudicated, not legislated. ,d The dollar value cited in this section is totally hypothetical and has *T no validity in the EIS. VII PRO13ABLY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EF7ECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED. The limitation on resource extraction or exploitation is not an unavoidable adverse effect since limitation on exploitation of some resources, i.e. timber and minerals is intended to protect other resources, :L.e. public water supply, commercial and sport fisheries. Therefore a 5' balance or a net environmental benefit should result. Additionally, any adverse effect would be economic, not environmental, and would be the result of rightlyplacing the burden of avoidine harmful externalities on the responsible individual. Densely concentrated population and industrial growth are not necessarily "adverse environmental effects" since such concentration makes feasible such expensive urban amenities as theatres, libraries, sports centers and museums. Continued strip development in the coastal zone, prevented by this proposal, would be an adverse effect. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the EIS and to endorse approval of the Washington Coastal Zone Management program. THE TAHOMA AUDUBON SOCIETY by A7 41" First Vice-president X-212 NOAA Response to Tahoma Audubon Society. 1. This statement refers to the "tools" (financial, technical, etc.) needed by local governments to adequately manage the coastal zone. 2. This EIS is based on the current exemptions. Further exemptions will need to be evaluated as they occur. 3. NEPA requires a Federal agency to consider all feasible alternatives even if jurisdictions and authorities are transcended. The alternatives in the DEIS were considered to be the conceptual possibilities, and for this purpose they were evaluated and included. They do not appear in the FEIS. 4. The hypothetical dollar figure was esed to show a possible order of magnitude. However, the point is well taken and the reference to the dollar figure was deleted. 5. This is not an unavoidable adverse environmental effect and has been deleted from the text. 6. This statement was not meant to indicate that all aspects of urban densities are adverse environmental effects. X-213 CZMP- DEIS RE%'11:-,,1- )"JBI.LC My name is Maurits, Sm yth and I am here tonight to represent the Black Hills Audubon Society. In essence, the society feels that final approval of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program be withheld pending modification and improvement of the plan as it now stands. We believe that the basic problem with the Washington plan lies in the philosophical viewpoint underlying it. Fundamentally, Washington, bases its CZMP on the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. In this Act, we have the following as recognized fact about the coastal zones that they are " the most fragile and valuable of its natural resources." But the result of this recognition is a demand for concerted effort for DEVELOPMENT of the state's shorelines. This to us implies a great emphasis on people use and its attendant constructions. These of course minimize the protection and preservation angle of the situation consistent with the idea of shoreline fragility. Wheh we peruse the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, we find the following: sect. 302b The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial, recreational, indus- trial and esthetic resources." This statement is definitely consistent with the SMA, but the federal act con- tinues: 302d The coastal zone, and the fish, shellfish, other living marine resources and wildlife therin, are ecologically fragile and con- sequently, extremely vulnerable to destruction by man's alterations" 302e Important ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic values in the coastal zone 'which are essential to the well-being of all citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost." It would seem obvious that these last statements imply a minimum of people use with greater emphasis put on protection of these delicately balanced natural resources& In light of this, this society can not feel assured that the tenor of the Washington Management Program will assume the same emphasis and responsibility y toward shoreline preservation as does the Coastal Zone Management Act. Continuing in the same line of thought, we make reference to sections 302 g and h which recognize, respectively, the inadequacy of state and local,regula- tions regarding land and water use in coastal zones, and which encourage STATE AUTHORITY over coastal zones incorporating cooperation among state, local and federal agencies and including 11 unified policies, criteria, standards, methods and processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance". (emphasis added) We ask: "Can Washington's CZMP, as based on the Shoreline Management Act, achieve this with the piece-meal process of state re- view of local government's Master Plans. This process has not only proved cum- bersome but time-consuming, and in the final analysis can not yield a state purview of total coastal zone management because of the inherent and irresolvable conflicts of interests among local governments which share a homogenous stretch of shoreline but demand opposing priority uses. X-215 In light of these facts, we ask, minimally, that Washington first complete its review of Master Plans, and then, after deliberation and study, present a comprehensive State Oriented Coastal Zone Management Program. Finally, we take offense at the slipshod reasoning of the Draft Environ. mental Impact Statement on p. 41 re; ALTERNATIVE: The state exert complete control over implementation of the CZM Program The DEIi argues that this alternative be rejected because the residents of Washington failed to accept an alternative shoreline management act, entitled SHORELINE PROTECTION ACT, and this supposedly reflects a general consensus that the program as it now stands under the SMA is more than acceptable. This is n fther here nor there considering that the Coastal Zone Management Act demands el a Comprehensive STATE management program. And if it be the case that Washington needs to propose new legislation consistent with the CZMA let that not deter us from our primary concern here tonight - Does Washington's CZMP fulfill its requirements as set forth by the federal act of 172? Perhaps it was wrong of Washington to equate its SMA and its CZMP`7 Considering the facts I have discussed, Black Hills Audubon feels that Washington's plan has fallen short in this fulfillment and consequently should not be approved in its present state. We thank you. X-216 NOAA Response to Black Hills Audubon Society. 1. NOAA has determined that the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program meets the requirements of the CZMA and Section 306 regulations. The reasons for passage of the Shoreline Management Act are the same as those of the CZMA. Thus, the policies towards the natural resources of the coastal zone are, if not in the same language, s1milar in tone. The fact that a state is willing to designate parts of its shoreline as natural and conservancy areas and limit uses in those areas is a milestone. People will always criticize individual decisions that take place; however, the history of the Shoreline Hearing Board decisions can be a good indicator of whether the state's policies regarding its natural resources are being protested. 2. The Office of Coastal Zone Management believes the current program ful- fills the requirements of the CZMA. However, approval of the program does not preclude further refinement by new or modified legislation., X-217 NORTHWEST NATIONAL SEASHORE ALLIANCE Box 107 La Conner, Washington 98257 Chair: Barbara James Vicechair: Phil Zalesky Third Officer: Pat Sieisma May 4, 1975 Secretaries: Pat Johnston Elmer Ned Johnston 13 May 1975 CZM Information Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary For Environmental Affairs United States Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: The Northwest Seashore Alliance is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Coastal Zone Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the State of Wash- ington. The goal of Coastal Zone Management, as stated on page 40, paragraph 3, to promote unified policies for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance, will be of major importance in the future development of this state. The Alliance suggests that a means of eliciting and implementing citizen input in promoting these policies be established. There could be a conflict between policies developed through Coastal Zone Management for the coastal areas covered by the Act and use policies in Federal lands, Indian Reservations, and other exempted areas. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not deal with means of resolving such possible conflicts. It seems that a method should be developed whereby Federal lands and reservations should also be in compliance with Federal, as well as state, regulations. Briefly mentioned are some significient coastal areas such as the Nisqually Delta. This inventory is limited to areas mentioned by the Shoreline Management Act. However, not all fragile on significant areas in this state are named by SMA. Provisions for inventorying these areas should include active participation by interested groups and individuals. The Alliance has had an especial concern for protection, preservation, and restoration of some of the significant, fragile coastal areas of the state. Among them are Dungeness Spit, the shore-lands and bluffs of Ebey's Landing on Whidbey Island, certain estuarine areas in Hoods Canal, and the ocean strip from south edge of the Makah reservation to the Ozette River. This ocean strip is in large part privately owned and yet is adjacent to the Olympia National Park. The Alliance is very much interested in further participation in the process of developing Coastal Zone Management. It is our hope to be of continued assistance, particularly in the inventory and designation of coastal areas of special significance. Yours very truly, PAT JOHNSTON X-218 NOAA Response to Northwest National*Seashore Alliance 1. The process of program development has been an open process from the beginning and continues to be so.. See sections on pp. 52 $5, and pp. 125 - 126. 'Special interest groups such as the Alliance are welcome to contact the local goverments in dealing with special areas within their jurisdiction or with the State Depart- ment of Ecology. 2. See sections dealing with excluded lands and Federal consis- tency in this FEIS. 3. The State has designated areas of particular concern, and areas for preservation and restoration, which include many of the areas mentioned. Interested groups and individuals should also be in contactwith local goverments in expressing concern for these types of areas. While certain areas have been mentioned, it should be clear that the State has established a process whereby other areas can be selected if and when the need arises. X-219 kL 3 6668 00003 1098