[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
SHORELINES A COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A@ SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REVIEW WORKBOOK prepared for the WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY T. m@ at, 1975 1%w M. low MAY 22, 19?s SAS IN ND 3 00 IMMIIN No 3,00 WIN .0 3 MILE NO 3 70 MILE NO 3 70 MILE NO 3 70 MAP SCALE 3 so 0 W SCALX 3 so 9 MAP 50 LE 3 ft a 'TTM IftIE MAPPEO A I 79"TE MM"Eb SEW ALM OWNW-3 P11464L -02 A7 &&,. S "7 vaqw, 7 COMMERCIAL1 A A AA A v 46 'A A& A 4 'A :'I- FLU, IWM3 00 SAS NO MILE NO 4,0000 S MOP SCALE ts Armism F.%-Mb COMMERCIAL 1-02 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON CENTER for QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE in FORESTRY, FISHERIES and WILDLIFE rho Prepared f or the @4 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF.ECOLOGY I-L.- -ING SY51" SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REVIEW WORKBOOK- prepared for the--. Washington State Department of Ecology C) County/City LU Reviewer Assigned J-. Date 4J COASTAL ZONE -INFORMATION CENTER Department of Civil Engineering and Center for Quantitative Sc.,-ence University, of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 revised edition 9 January 1974 -7SHORELINE--MASTER.P.ROGRAM REVIEW WORKBOOK CONTENTS 1. Overall review procedure 1.1 Review timetable 1.2 Record of Correspondents. 1.3 Bounding jurisdictions 2. Initial one-Person review 2.1 Initial review questions 3. Detailed one-person review instructions 3.1 Gross program deficiencies 3.2 Master program organization 3.2.1 Environments ENVIRONMENTS MATRIX 3.2.2 Shorelines of Statewide Significance @3.2.3 Other organization aspects 3.3 General'review 3.3.1 Goals 3.3.1.1 GOALS MATRIX 3.3.1.2 Goals auestions 3.3.2 Policies and use regulations 3.3.2.1 through 3.3.2..8 for each combination of environment and shoreline significance type 3.3.2a POLICIES MATRICES- 3.3.2b Policies questions, 3.3.2c USE REGULATIONS MATRICES*.@-- 3.3.2d, Use recrulations auestions 3.3.2e --Interaction questions. 3.3.3@ Shorelines of Statewide Signi-ficance 3.3.4' other creneral considerationa-,-- 3.4 Specific areas review 3.4.1 Environment desiqnations, all shorelines____- 3.4.2 Specific areas of importance 3...4..3 Areal effectiveness,@ 3.5 Regional auestions 3; 6 Implementation 3.6.1 Administrability 3.6.2 '--Variance'and conditional-use permi t procedures 3.7 Program revision questions Citizen involvement questions 3.9 Summary of review .4. Intradeuartment meeting 5.. Shorelines response OVERALL REVIEW PROCEDURE The activity diagram attached (figure 1) gives an outline of the entire master program review procedure. Before the master program is.duplicated and sent out to the Task Force and other DOE sections, it is subjected to the Initial Review of section 2.1. A program failing this quick test can be returned post haste to the county for revision, before DOE spends any more time on it. Once a program passes the Initial Review ' it.goes three ways. Copies are sent to Task Force members and to other DOE sections, and a copy stays with the reviewer, 'who performs the Detailed Review of section 3. herein, to the degree that time allows and the importance the county/ city necessitates. The three branches rejoin at the Intradepartment Meeting outlined in section 4. The reviewer then writes a draft Shorelines Section response to the program (section 5.) and the final disposition (accept', reject, conditionally accept) and final form of the DOE response is hammered out.by the Shorelines @-_olishing committee (again, section 5..). A Guidebook accompanies this workbook under separate- cover, and the reviewer may and should reference it for more. detailed suggestions and comments on the philosophy of the review. Any of the following people at the U.W. may be telephoned- for ouestions on this workbook: Will Betchart 543-2390. Jim Buss 543-1390 or 543-2016 Karin Mesmer. 543-7089 or 543-2016 Katie Swanson. 543-7089 or 543-2016 This workbook does not substitute for the-reviewer's own intuitive and rational powers--in fact it requires considerable thought and effort from the reviewer in order@ to squeeze varied programs into-a relatively uniform format for the review, and to use his or her time most effectively. Rarely will a program require areview as ex-t:ensive as the workbook asks for, but familiarity-with the workbook will enable the reviewer to Dick out the most important sections, matrices and questions for the review of a particular plan. Most important, the reviewer should remain flexible-in his use of the'workbo.ok. 2 ACTIVITY DIAGRAM FOR OVERALL REVIEW Calendar days elapsed Receive program. 0 Assign main reviewer. Initial one-person review by main reviewer. (1/2 to 1 working day) 1 Duplicate and distribute master program--supervised by main reviewer. 7 Task For Detailed one-perrson Intradepartment Review shorelines section Review review by main Task Force reviewer (average 3 Transmit com- meeting working days) ments to main Transmit reviewer comments to main reviewer 37 Dostribute and summarv of detailed review to intradepartment meeting participants, if time and the importance of program allows. Intradepartment meeting, organized by main reviewer. 42 One-person draft of response by main reviewer. (l working day) 49 shoreline section polishing initiated by main reviewer. 54 Revise, type, duplicate and distribute response--done/supervised by main reviewer. 60 3 GUIDEBOOK CONTENTS 1. Explanation of evaluation procedure 1.1 Review log 1.2 Proqram distribution and review input 1.3 Adjacent counties and cities 2. Initial one-person review 3. The detailed one-person review 3.1 Gross deficiencies of the master program 3.2 Organization of the master proqram 3.2.1 Environments 3.2.2 Shorelines of statewide siqnificance 3.2.3 Other organization aspects 3.3 General review 3.3.1 Goals 3.3.1.1 Displaying goals on the goals matrix 3.3.1.2 Questions for reviewing and evaluating goals 3.3.2 Policies and use regulations 3.3.3 Shorelines of statewide significance principles 3.3.4 other general considerations 1.4 Specific areas 3.4.1 Environment designations 3.4.2 Specific areas of importance 3.4.3 Areal effectiveness 3. 5 Regional questions 3.6 Implementation 3.7 Program revision 3.8 Citizan involvement 3.9 Summary of review 4. Intradepartmental review meeting 5. Shorelines section response 6. Summary and conclusion TIMETABLE OF REVIEW .1. County or City 2. Date program received by DOE 3. Person assigned to DOE review 4. Indicate whether or' not a hearing has been held by the county or city, and if so, give the date of same. 5. Results of Initial Review (pass or fail) and, if failed, record of date(s) resubmitted by county and results of further Initia-1 Review. Date draft SEPA received'. 7. Date program sent to Task Force and Intradepartment Revie-v7 neoole. See 1.2. 8. Date Detailed One-person Review finished. (Comments if desired.) 9. Date of Intradepartment meeting. 1-0- Date of one-person draft response. 11, Date of polished response., 12'. Date response sent to county and record of disiDosition (a,ccepted, rejected, conditionally accepted, etc.) -5 1.2 RECORD OF CORRESPONDENTS This page is a record of correspondence between the reviewer and Task Force agencies, and other DOE sections. Use more pages if necessary. TASK FORCE AGENCY OR 'COMMENTS OTHER DOE PERSON IRECEIVED NOTES ON TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS SECTION INVOLVED DATE OR OTHER COMMENTS 6: BOUNDING JURISDICTIONS Check 'a state map and fill in here all counties or cities which adjoin the jurisdiction under review. This chart can be referenced from section 3.5. HAS THEIR PROGRAM ADJACENT D.EEN HAS IT BEEN REVIEWER OF ADJACENT JURISDICTION RECEIVED? REVIEWED? JURISDICTION 7 2 INITIAL ONE-PERSON-REVIEW Instructions: Read through the master r)roqram once, and then. answer the followinq questions from your general impressions, and by referring-back to the table of contents and indicated sections of the proqram. If the questions brinq out an,,,, major shortcomings, these should be more specifical1v described in the comment section. Ilajor shortcomings should mean that the county will be notified that the reviev., will be accomplished, and the 90-day period restarted, when the program is resubmitted with the shortcomings corrected. 2.1 INITIAL REVIEW QUESTIONS Yes No ? COMMENTS a. Is there an ordinance passed for the administration of permits? Is it enclosed? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- b. Is the program accompanied b-,- a letter of submittal signed by an elected of-ficial., Does the master orogram include the com7,onents essential to satisf,., the law and gu-idel-ines? -------------------------------- -------------------------- Documentation of citizen i:-Ivolvement ? ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------- b. Goals--for environments? for elements? ---------------------------------------------- L ----------------------- C. Policies for activities and/or natural sNTstems? ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- d. Regulations for use activities? ------------------------------------------- 7-- ----------------------- e. En\-rironment Designations leqil descriptions thereof ? ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------- 2.1 continued: :Yes No ? COMMENTS- f. Description of pro- cedures for variances and conditional uses? ---------------------------- ---------- --------------------------- Plans for master program revision? ---------------- --------------------------- ------------ h. Does the program recognize and deal with shorelines of state wide significance? -------------------- --------------- -------------------------- i. Are significant departures from the above contents compatible with the j intent of the act? --------------- L ----------------------- ------------------------ j. Do departures from these guidelines appear to be justified? 3. Is the master program devoid of gross irreaularities? Examnles might be: a. obvious inconsistencies i b Compensation plans c. The guidelines were Qarroted without consideration of local c'ondit' ions., 4. @Upon brief examination,. does the plan appear. adrinistrable via the p r- i svstem..? Q ---2.1 continued 'Yes No ?I COMMENTS 5. Are all other documents that the nrograrn. references (such as zon- incr ordinances) included as appendices.or enclosed with the p.rogram?,If not, request a copy of such documents from the county as.soon as possible. If this raises significant auestions, notify the county that receint of the additional information will be considered by DOE to constitute receipt of a complete Dlan. 6. Briefly document here any major questions discussed with the countv over the telephone. - ------ --- 10 3. DETAILED ONE-PERSON REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS _7 This review, consisting of matrices and Questions, -,is to be used to review all master programs consistently. This review workbook is designed for an analysis more complete than the average county's master program will merit, given the time available. Hence some degree of paring will be required by the reviewer for most master programs. Note that the word "county" is used herein to indicate county orcity. ,QUESTIONS. The reviewer should pay at least perfunctory attention to EACH section of Questions. Refer to section 3.9 for a list of the major areas of this review. The reviewer should not, for-instance, completely ignore section 3.6 (Implementation) in order to do a more thorough review of 3.4 (Specific Areas). One good way .to accomplish this without tying up too much time in planning, is for the reviewer to run through the entire workbook Quickly, marking in red each-area where inadequacies appear to arise. The reviewer could then go back through and pay more attention to those areas marked, concentrating on the snecific comments he @@,7ill need to put, down.for later use in writina a possible rejection. In his first ouick run-through of the review, it would pay the reviewer,to note program oaqe numbers to speed up his own future reference. Note that numbered questions are more general, and their flavor more im-oorta:nt, than are-sub-auestions lettered in lower case--that is, nay more attention to the intent of question 3, for instance, than to the specifics of subquestio.ri 3b, for any particul ar.--.set of questions. The auestions are worded such thata "YES" generally indicates an acceptable portion of the program, while a FINOWI or "?" generally indicates either shortcomings or the need for.further examination 6f the plan-.-. MATRICES. The matrices provide sufficient space that the reviewer may write in the provisions of the master program.for Environments (3.2.1), Goals (3.3.1), Policies (3.3.2.i.1) and Use Regulations (3.3.2.i.3) for each environment. However, few counties or cities will be important and controversial enough to merit the review time reauired to write the.program Provisions into the matrices. mence, given Ithe amount of time available, there are several levels of shortcut procedures. 3. continued Theiminimum revrew effort should be to place a check' in boxes- that appear adequate with* respect to the guidelines and to write in the master program page number that deals with the specific topic. A red mark, with *later closer examination. and comments, should in this case be used to mark inadequate squares. Blank squares will then show omissions of the master program, and later examination should show how serious is the omission. Parts of a proqram which are omitted but unnecessary, because of program organization or other reasons, should be marked as such. The reviewer may also use the matrix space to write in unusual items of the master program or shortcomings of the. program, using checks to indicate conformity to the minimum guideline requirements. The matrices include a list of key points in the guidelines. Since these must be severely abbreviated, thev are not intended to substitute for knowledge of the guideline's,-but rather serve as devi'ces to spur the memory. ORG._@@NIZATION. The reviewer should note that the matrices @:,rovide s7i-.ace for-manv tviDes of goals, nolicies and use regulations. '.,"he master program, of course, need not contain all of these tvT.::)es, just as.it need not be organized in any -particular manner... The matrices are designed to have space for most manners in @,jhich.a countv would choose to organize their program, however. The revie@-,-er should feel free to use-only a part of a- matrix,-scr.atching out the rest, to analyze a plan which does not give their goals, policies or regulations in the same @,,Tay as the matrices. However, in such cases the reviewer should be sure to'ask himself when done,-whether the plan is consistent as done, and whether or not the plan is sufficiently complete as-organized.- ---Section 3.2 should familiarize the reviewer with the particular proqramls..org,-@nization', before the bulk of the review:.. is undertaken. MINIMUM REVIEW. If the reviewer has a thorough familiarity with this review notebook, he or she may condense the effort required by first running through 3.4.1 and then rigorously attacking 3.4.3, using this section to summarize the bulk of the .preceding worldiook content. If this is done, however, the remainder of the workbook'still cannot be ignored,-and at least perfunctor-%T attontion must be paid to all.other sections. 12 3.1 GROSS DEFICIENCIES IN THE MASTER PROGRAM Yes No COMMENTS The Initial One-Person Shorelines, Review (2. above) defines minimum criteria for a program to be accepted for detailed review. Are all discrepancies reported on that form corrected to DOE's satisfaction? These minimum criteria should be satisfied before any further detailed review is undertaken. 13 @.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE MASTER PROGRAM The following questions about environments, Shorelines of Statewide Siqnificance, goals, policies, use regulations and variance policies are included in order to heln the reviewer familiarize himself with the structure of the master program. This will aid the reviewer, in subsequent sections of the review, to squeeze the plan into the appropriate review matrico!-- and submatrices. 3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTS Yes No ? COMMENTS 7 Does the co unt-@, use the four guideline environment names? If different or additional names are used, list them here. 2 .74.re these subdivided? How? (e.g. marine vs. lakes vs. rivers; SSS vs. other shorelines). 3. Does the countv scecifv criteria to be used in the designation of a particular reach of shoreline to a particular environment?-- '4. The guidelines specify four environments; naturalr conservancyr, rural and urban. The county may use different names and/or a different number of environments, or subcategories of environments. On the Environment @Iatrix, categorize the county's environments into groups paralleling the four guideline environments, and examine the county's'criteria and defininq characteristics for environments. 14 3.2.1 continued 4. (continued) Counties are likely to define types of Aquatic or Marine Environments and Suburban Environments that differ from a literal use of the guidelines, and these should be considered within the general flavor of the matrix. Yes No ? COMMENTS 5. Do the county's environment definitions at least cover the range of situations expressed in the four guideline environments? (Except)t where the county obviously has no shore- lines of a particular type, e.g. Seattle has little or no "natural" shoreline.) 6. Very briefly summarize your comments from the Environments Matrix on this table, so that for future reference you will know whether it is necessary to retrieve the matrix. For a quick review or simple plan, this table may be all that is necessary. An Environments Matrix was used and is on file. An Environments Matrix was used for reference. An Environments Matrix was not used. ENVIRONMENT ADEQ. INAD. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Natural Conservancy Rural Urban 15 3.2.2 SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE Yes No ? COMMENTS 1. Does the Dlan differentiate between Shorelines of State- wide Significance and other Shorelines? At what levels (goals, policies; use regu- lations)? If not, then the entire plan must be judged to be a@)-,)licable to Shorelines of Statewide Significance within the county. 2. Does the plan give specific attention to t'ne six guideline princir-les for Statewide Sianificance at the level of goals, policies or.use regulations? which levels? 16 3.2.3 OTHER ORGANIZATION ASPECTS COMENTS 1. Does the county give only general goals? If not, list specific levels for which goals are given (environments, SSS, other shorelines, natural systems). Do the county's goals give specific attention to the eight guidel-1-ne elements? 2. For which levels does the county specify policies (environments, SSS ', other shorelines, natural systems)? Do these give specific attention L-o the eight guideline elements? 3. Do policy statements anPear at first glance to be organized in such a way that thev are indeed used as a bridge between goals and use regulations? 4. For which levels are use regulations given (environments, SSS, other shorelines, natural sN-stems)? 5. Does the Program give different variance Policies for different levels (such as environments, SSS, other shorelines, natural systems)? 17 3.3.1 GOALS A copy of the GOALS MATRIX should be used or referred to in this section of the review (3.3.1.1). The questions of 3.3.1.2 should then be answered about the program's goals. 3.3.1.1 GOALS KATRIX 1. Check off or fill in the goals given by the master program on the goals matrix. If unusual goal elements are included, thev should be written in, in abbreviated form, for future reference. 2. Very briefly summarize your comments or observations from the goals matrix in the follo-.,ing table, for future reference. A Goals ".1atrix was used and is on file. Goals flatrix was used for reference. Oals Matrix was not used. GOAL TYPES ADEQ. INAD. SU@DIARY OF COM1141ENTS Overall Environments Shorelines of State@,:ide Significance Goal Elements 18 3.3.1.2 GOALS QUESTIONS !Yes No I? I COMMENTS 1. If all of the qoal types for @,.,hich the matrix nrovides space are not snecified, are the goals which are given detailed enough so that a realistic appraisal of the extant program goals can be accomplished? 2. Is a goal or purpose statement given for each environment? 3. Are goals given for each relevant master program elemei-t? 4. Within each row or column of the goals matrix, are subgoals consistent ,.,Tith the overall goals for that row or column? 5. Do the collection of goal elements provide a unit% for (or are the"., mutuall',,, consistent ,,-@ithin) each column of the qoals matrix? 6. For each environment, are the qoals and subgoals given consistent with the characteristics and criteria for that envron- ment given in 3.2.1? 7 If other types of goals are included, are the\', reasonable and compatible with the types specified above? 19 3.3.1.2 continued Yes No ? COMMENTS 8. Are means provided within the goals to eliminate conflicts among goals which overlap? 9. Do the stated goals se-em to be representative of the desires of local citizens? !10. Do the goals conform to the intent of the act? Use your subjective judgment based on the language cf 90.58.020 RCW. exr-ressions of the public @11. Are the goals reasonable interest and of the interests of future generations? 12. Do the goals seem to reflect the particular biophysical and deveiopmental properties and circumstances of the local jurisdiction? 13. @-@re the goals as specific (non-vaque) as can reasonably be expected? Can the planned I future condiLions be stated @,-,,ith reasonable certainty? 20 3.3.2 POLICIES AND USE REGULATIONS The next task for the reviewer is to undertake a series of detailed analvses concerning policies and use requlations. These are best analyzed by considering the policies and use regulations for each environment, wit 'hsubtopics being (1) Shorelines of Statewide Siqnificance, and (2) Other Shorelines. The vehicle for this analysis consists of a pair of matrices: 3.3.2a Policies detailed for every combination of plan elements and use activities for each environment. 3.3.2c Use regulations detailed for every combination of natural systems and use activities for each environment. The number of matrix oairs obtained, then, if the master nrogram is-organized in this manner, and if the reviewer does a revie@%7 in maximum detail, will be eight-two for each recommended environment desianation (natural, conservancyr rural, urban), i.e. one for each subtopic .@.-ithin an environment desianation (Shorelines of Statewide Significance, other Shorelines) If more than four environment designations are used by the countv, the reviewer may choose to develop a corresponding number of matrix pairs. Alternatively, he mav choose to pool certain designations into one matrix pair . The revie,,.,er's organization of the use of the matrices, and .the number used, will de 'L-end uoon the organization of the particular master program, the amount of time allotted to- it, and the reviewer's program. The deqree of completeness of matrices is also a matter of revie,@,,er choice. It is ex-oected that the subtonic "Shorelines of Statewide Significance" will be emphasized. Each-matrix pair can then be used to help answer sets of analvtic auestions regarding policies and use regulations pertaining to a oarticular subtopic i,@7ithin a particular environment. one set of analytic questions should be applied to each combination of environment and shoreline type, either implicitly or explicitly. It is recommended that the reviewer choose one environment and subCopic at a time, com 'plete the pair of matrices applicable to it, and answer the corresponding set of analytic qLICStions at once, before proceeding to the next pair of matrices. Hopefully, this will minimize confusion of matrices. 21 3.3.2 continued 1. Use this table to check off matrix pairs completed, and to very briefly summarize your comments and observations on them for future reference. .SHORELINE DIATRIX SUM1,1ARY OF ENVIRONMENT TY.PE !LEVEL COMPLETED',) ADEQ. INAD. COMMENTS Natural or SSS !Policie Use Reg OS @Policies Use Recr. Conservancv SSS Policies or Use Reg OS Policies Use Reg. Rural or S S Policies Use Reg. 0S Policies Use Reg. Urban or SSS Policies Use Reg Olq Polic-ies Use Reg. Other SSS Policies Use Req. 0S Policies Use Req. 22 County/City_______________________________________________________ Environment___________________________________________________________________ Shorelines of Statewide Significance Other Shorelines 3.3.2a POLICIES MATRIX For each environment and for Shorelines of Statewide Significance and other Shorelines (if the program breaks policies down in these ways), a policy matrix should be filled in or checked. Note that if policies are given for natural systems, these may be entered on the Use Regulations Matrix. 3.3.2b POLICIES QUESTIONS Use additional pages for each matrix completed. Yes No ? COMMENTS 1. Are the policies specifically suited to the county, rather than being vertabim copies of the quidelines? 2. Are the policies consistent with RCW 90.58.020? (state policy & use preference) 3. Do the policies specifically relate the shoreline management goals to the master proqram use requlations? 4. Do the policy statements provide an indication of needed use regulations? 5 Do the policies provide guidance and support to local governments actions reqarding shoreline management? 6. Are the policies based on principles of rcsource management which reflect the state-wide public interest in all shore- lines of statewide significance? 23 County/City_____________________________________________________ Environment _______________________________________________________________ Shorelines of Statewide Significance Other Shorelines 3.3.2c USE REGULATIONS MATRIX Fill out a Use Regu1ations Matrix for each environment/ Shoreline Significance type relevant to the county's program organization. 3.3.2d USE REGULATIONS QUESTIONS Use additional pages for each matrix rompleted. Yes No ? COMMENTS 1. Does the master program impose regulations on those developments and uses which would tend to affect adverselv the natural characteristics of the natural systems? 2. Are justifiable departures from use activity guide- lines compatible with the intent of the Act? 3. Are any activities, for which guidelines are given, but which are not explicit1v defined, in the Act as developments, and which qenerally cannot be regulated through the permit system, dealt with in a manner consistent with the policy and intent of the Act? 4. Are all guideline use activities covered by regulations? Does the program also regulate other potential use activities? 5. Does the program make it clear that any use activity not specifically regulated must be considered a con- ditional use and satisfy the requirements thereof (see 3.6.2.2)? 24 County/City Environment Shorelines of Statewide Siqnificance Other Shorelines 3.3.2e POLICY AND USE REGULATION INTERACTIONS Use both matrices already prepared to answer these questions. Use additional pages for each matrix pair completed. Yes No ? COMMENTS l. Are policies for each use activity internally consistent, overall and within elements? Note discrepancies. 12. Are policies for each use activitv mutuallv consistent with the characteristics and goals of the environment being considered? Note discrepancies here or on the matrices. 3. Are use regulations for each use activity internally consistent? Ncte discrepancies. 4. Are use regulations for each use activity consistent with the appropriate program policies? Note discrepancies. 5. Are use regulations for each use activity consistent with the characteristics and goals of the environment being considered? Note discrepancies. 6. If natural system policies are given, are the use regulations for each natural system consistent with these policies? If natural system policies are not given, are use regulations for each natural system mutually consistent? Note discrepancies. 7. If different variance and conditional use policies are given for different environ- ments, natural systems or shore- line significance types, are these consistent with the applicable goals, characteristics and policies? Note discrepancies. 25 3.3.3 SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE PRINCIPLES The guideline principles for Shorelines of Statewide Significance are summarized below. If the program differ- entiates goals, policies and/or use regulations for Shore- lines of Statewide Significance, the reviewer should go over the appropriate matrices to assure himself that these principles have been satisfied. If no separate distinction for Shorelines of Statewide Sic-nificance is made in the program, then the revie%-.7er will have to check the county's environment designations for these shorelines and analyze the goals, policies and use regulations for these environment@_-- to be sure thev satisfy the guideline principles. Yes No ? COMMENTS GUIDELINE PRINCIPLES A. STATEWIDE INTEREST 1. Solicit comments and opinions from grouic-s and individ-uals renresenting statewide interest. 2. Recognize and take into account state agencies' programs, 1poli- cies and recommendations. 3. Solicit comments from experts in various concerns. 4. Consider agriculture, recreation, and water-dependent uses of urban areas. B. PRESERVE NATUR.AL CHARACTER 1. Designate environment and use re,gulations to minimize man- made intrusion. 2.- Reduce expansion of intensively developed areas to minimize environmental imoact and intrusion to low-intru.sion areas. 3. Insure RCW 90.58.150 is enforced if timber harvest- ing is allowed. 4. Provide for uT-qrading and use alreadv developed or degraded areas. 26 3.3.3 continued Yes No COMMENTS C. LONG TERM BENEFIT 1. Preserve shorelines for the use of future generations, i.e. check for irreversible damage. 2. Evaluate the short term environmental gain in relation to long term cost to environ- ment. 3. Protect against irreversible uses and those which would deqrade the environment. i 4. Promote aesthetic consider- ation. D. PROTECT RESOURCES AND ECOLOGY 1. Environment designations aimed at leaving unique and fragile areas undeveloned. 2. Prevent erosion and sedimen- tation .,.,hich ,,?ill alter system. 3. Restrict human use in area cannot i.ake the strain of human use. 4. Have use requlations %."hich prevent aegradation of shore- line resources. E. INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS 1. State oolicies for recreation. 2. !,-i,.e priorit%- to developing paths and upland parking. 3. Locate develonment inland from highwater line so as to enhance access. j 4. Provide use regulations for commercial developments to provide for access. F. INCPEASE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 1. Provide policies for public acquisition for recreation. 2. Plan policies will provide for recreational tyres of use. 3. Plan and encouraqe develonment of facilities for recreation. 4. Reserve areas well urland for lodqinq and related facilities. 27 3.3.4 OTHER GENEPAL CONSIDERATIONS Yes No I? COMMENTS 1. Do the goals, policies and use regulations of the master program recognize the special suitability of publicly owned land on all Ehorelines for providinq public use and uses of public interest? 2. Does the overall master program provide for protection of the TDublic health? 3. Does the overall master program 7,rotection navigation rig-hts and p=.7ide for' minimum impairment to naviqation? 4. Does the overall -orogram provide for the orotection of wat@r rights? 5. Does the overall program provide for the protection, maintenance and restoration of @,,@ater aualit@,'? 6. Does the overall program -orovide for minimizing and mitigating f lood damage, @.,7hile recogniz- inq that floods are a natural occurrence and protecting down- stream areas from unnatural flooding brought about or in- creased as a result of upstream developments? 7. Does the overall program aim to achieve hiqh-quality land use in its provisions for restora- tion of blight, orderly planned develoj--,ment, concern for aesthetics, and oncouragement of natural shorelines? 28 3.3.4 continued !Yes No ? COMMENTS 8. Does the program show evidence of coordination with other comnrehensive planning in its regicn? Does it 'show evidence of coordination with the various local, regional and state agencies that will be living under the plan and helping to administer it? 3.4 SPECIFIC AREAS zit this point the reviewer should get out the county's environment designation maps, inventory, and other material pertaining to specific areas rather than just the regulatory text of the program. Environments should have been dosignated to soecific areas and legal descriptions of their boundaries given. The entire shorelines of the county should be briefl-,- checked over by the revie@-.,er, to check for r-verall consistency in environmental designation, obvious discrepancies and the like (3.4.1). Then all-s-oecific areas of im-oortanc e: Shorelines of Statewide Significance, "Critical Areas," and Publicly 0,1..,ned Lands, should be closely examined for --.-----en-,,-ironment desiqnation -(3.4.2). A sample of these should be checked back through use regulations, policies and goals to make sure the entire program, as it applies to selected specific areas, is workable, administrable, internally consistent, and reflects the intentions of the act and guidelines (3.4.@). Consultation with someone who is familiar with the local area mav be desired here, such as the Shorelines Regional people. Reference to the Inventory, draft Environmental Impact Statement, and other sources may be desirable. 29 3.4.1 ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS--ALL SHORELINES Yes No ? COMMENTS 1. If the county uses anv unusual boundaries, such as boundaries parallel to the shoreline, are the boundary definitions legally workable? 2. Has the county assigned an environment to all obvious portions of their shorelines? 3. Guidelines ask that environment designations reflect long- range goals as well as present uses. Does the county appear to have considered this in its environment resignations? (Refer back to section 3.2.1 if necessary.) Does the county appear aware of its reasonable planning power over privately owned land? 4. Does the overall allocation of shorelines to environments appear to reflect the priorities given in the county's goals? (Refer back to Section 3.3.1 if necessary) For example, does the county list industry as a primary goal and then allocate very little shore- line to urban environments? 5. Does the distribution of environments appear tenable? Are there any obvious boundary conflicts such as a natural environment adjoining an urban environment? Are there 30 3.4.1 continued Yes No ? COMMENTS open space and green belt environment designations within and between urban designations? Does the distribution of environments appear to reflect the county's goals? 6. Does the county assign environments to the beds of water bodies? If not, is it likely that this lack produce violation of the intent of the act and guidelines? If so, does it appear to be done in a manner consistent with DNR management of Aquatic Lands? 7. Does the county assign env1ronments to the water surface or to the water volume or both? If not, it is likely that this lack wi11 produce violation of the intent of the act and guidelines? If so, does it appear to be done in a manner consistent with the remainder of the master program, the guidelines and the act? 8. Is the manner in which the master program considers natural systems consistent with the man- ner in which environments are designated? Are all important natural systems occurring within the county dealt with? 9. In the manner in which environments are designated on Floodplains consistent with Washington law and DOE guidelines? Do environment boundaries in 31 3.4.1 continued Yes No I? COMMENTS intruded floodplains and estuaries appear workable? Do the environ- ment designations and their extent reflect the type of dikes present? 10. In general, do the environment designations given in Estuaries and large Marshes, Bogs and Swamps appear workable and respect the ecoloqical uniqueness, fragility and value of these areas? 11. Do the environment designations for the perimeters of Islands and Lakes appear to respect the viability of these relatively closed ecosystems? 12. Are unintuded estuaries desig- nated to an environment which will protect them from intrusion? Is the area upstream of unintrud- ed estuaries sufficiently regulated so as to avoid destruc- tion of the unique and fragile character of the estuary? 13. If the county has marine beaches, dunes, spits or bars within its boundaries, are these adequately Protected considering their value as resources? 14. Do the environment designations and associated regulations, policies and goals assure that rivers and streams are preserved for the intense multiple use they support, while beinq kept natural as feasible? 32 3.4.1 continued Yes COMMENTS No ? 15. Examine all ecologically sensitive or important areas thati are near, downstream of, or down-! current from anv areas in which heavy industry, ports, or other uses with similar impacts are allowed. Are applicable regula- I tions and environment designa- tions adequate to assure the viability of the sensitive areas? 16. Conceivably, a master program may assign policies to distinct contiguous geograp 'hic regions %-.,ithin its borders. If so, are these consistent with the remainder of the program and the intent of the guidelines and ;ct? 17. The quidelines specifically direct counties to identify locations for marinas. Is this done in a manner consistent with the remainder of the guidelines? 18. Does the county implicitly or explicitlN assign potential -.locations for marinas and other such recreational and commercial uses with an eve to@,,:ard local demand? 3.4.2 SPECIFIC AREAS OF IMPORTANCE The reviewer should make a list of all specific areas of imTDortanre within the county. These may include Shorelines of Statewide Significance, publicly owned land, "critical" areas (PCAA or otherwise), specific ecosystems found in 3 .1.4.1 to be 1:)oorlv treated, unicrue and fragile areas, and intensively used areas. The following general questions chould be al-.)r:)lied to such areas to evaluate the effectiveness of the environment desiqnations and ar-)plicable rogulations, TDnliCiCS and goals. Note discrepancies, using extra sheets if necessary. 33 3.4.2 continued Yes No ? COMMENTS 1. Based on the inventory and any other pertinent sources, is the natural si,stem designation an accurate description of the area. 2. Is the environment designation compat-ible with the natural SVstem designation for the area. 3. Are there an'v boundarv conflicts concerning environment designations -.rith the immediatelv adjacent areas? 4. @,re use act-ivities requlated in such a manner as to minimize adverse effects on the natural characterisLics of the area? 5. --@re there any sizecific goals or t ,)olicies sta ed %.v-ithin the olan that are incomratible @,-.,ith the important characteristics of the area? 6. Is the overall master program as it applies to snecific Shorelines of Statewide. Significance consistent with the guideline principles of 3. 3.3? 7 7. Are all shorelines of Statewide Significance, as defined by the Act, defined and treated as such bv the county? 8. Are all environment designations realistic in that existing uses do not conflict so much that achie,,rement of the intentions of the plan is imT-ossible? 34 3.4.2 continued use additional paqes as necessary. SPECIFIC AREA OF COMMENTS ON CONSISTENCY OF NATURAL SYSTEMJ IMPORTANCE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION, INIVENTORY, REk3u- LATIONS, CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGULATIONS OF OTHER AGENCIES 35 3.4.3 AREAL EFFECTIVENESS Take one or two of the areas chosen for 3.4.2 and work backwards through the regulatory text-of the program--use regulations, policies, goals--to test the consistency, effectiveness, and administrability of the program. Scan the instructions for section 3.6 prior to doing this. 'AREA TESTED RELEVANT PROGP-AM PROVISIONS I COMMENTS 3 3. 5RE,-:;IO'Ji,L OTIESTIONS A county or city's program should fit in with the proqrams of adjacent jurisdictions and, for some issues, with other programs for an entire reqion. Questions concerning these issues, however, will be hard to answer, especially when neighboring plans come in to D.O.E. at widely serarated times. a.s far as feasible, however, these cruestions should be attended to. The reviewer should keep a list of areas queried under these questions and compare programs when timing permits, possibly noting a contlition to the acceptance of the program when ti@ing doe-s not nermit and the area is of sufficient imoortance. See section 1.3 for reference. COMMENTS 1. Programs for cities should be examined to assure that the location, allocation and distribution and implications of environment designations are not qrossl-..- inconsistent i--7ith the Orogram of the surrounding count-,7 2. Examine the program ma-s for Possible ecologicall\7 sensitive areas lying on or verv near county or cit,,- boundaries, such as marshes, lakes, estuaries, flood- clains, river basins, islands, sensitive beaches or dunes, or other important areas from 3.4.2. The programs of both jurisdictions involved in such boundarv auestions should be examined to assure neither jurisdiction assigns environ- ments that will threaten the viability of the neiqhborinq jurisdiction's natural systems and their olanned usage. Particular attention should be devoted to Shorelines of State%-17ide Significance. 0 37 3. 5continued COMMENTS :3. If the environment designations and use regulations permit the establishment of superports and/or heavy industry, these should be evaluated on the basis of possible impact on neighboring jurisdictions and on the basis of regional supply and demand. 4. In areas neighborinq, or possibility impacted by, shorelines exempt from the act, the environment designations should acknowledge planned and potential uses for the exempt shorelines. 5. Consideration of regional supply and demand should be given to any other uses of urban or regional nature, such as ports, light industry, utilities, major transportation routes, historic sites, etc. At the same time the program should provide for upland location of non-water dependent uses and adequate regulations. Note that regional issues, if of sufficient import, may be a basis for rejection or conditional acceptance of the program 38 3.5 continued Use additional pages as necessary. AREZ". IMPACTED RELEVANT NATURE OF BY !-:EIGHBORING ADjACENT POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONS JURISDICTIONS IMPACT COTVIMENTS 0 39 3.6 IMPLEMENTATION A master program should be understandable to a layman off the street---he should be able to pick up the plan and find out, without excess confusion or study, what regulations, policies and goals apply to a particular parcel of property. The program must also be administrable via the permit system and be sufficiently clear and free of contradition to stand up to legal proceedings. The review will want the advice of the Shorelines Permit section before finalizing this part of the review. 3.6.1 ADMINISTRABILITY Yes No ? C0MMENTS 1. Does the program contain a section of instructions detailing how it should be used, ,..,hat sections take priorities over other, etc.? If so, is it clear, useable and applicable to the remainder of the program? Does it suffice to make the program inter- pretable and administrable via the permit system? 2. Is the master program arranged and organized in such a way as to facilitate its use in administering it via the Permit system? Can vou take a specific use in a specific environment on a given natural system and easily find the regulations, policies and goals that are applicable? 3. Is there provision in the program that would indicate how conflicts: that arose in such a process might be resolved? 0 40 3.6.1 continued :Yes No ? COMMENTS 4. If the plan does-not give specific instructions and priorities for implementation and resolution of conflicts, is it arranged in such a way that these appear unnecessary? Does the program srecifically spell out when a permit is required, how and through whom it shall be applied for, and what appeals are available? Are these in agreement with the law and guidelines? Does the plan include a severence clause" providing that, if part of the program is found illegal, the rest of the program will retain validity? Does the wording of the program make it clear that the program takes precedence over existing zoning and that zoning must be changed -to conform with the program ? 8. Does the program make it clear that single family residences,- while exempt from the permit procedure must follow the intent of the master program? Such uses may legally be regulated by subdivision covenants, building permits and platting regulations. Does the program take advantage of this? If not, is. it a serious breach of the program's goals not to? 9. Is the wording of the program qeneral1v clear and concise? 10. Does the program provide procedures for the granting of permits for variances and conditional uses? 41 3.6.2 VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCEDURES 3.6.2.1: VARIANCES The master program should pay close attention to these questions: Yes No ? COMMENTS 1. Does the Plan provide that Permits for variances must be approved by DOE? 2. Does the plan provide objectives for variance permits? --------------- ---- ---- -------------------- -------------- a. Relief from practical difficulties or un- necessary hardship imposed by strict administration of Plan. ------------------------------------------- b. Assure a person fair and equitable use of his property while protect ing the environment. Does the plan provide specific conditions that an applicant for a variance must demonstrate? ------------------------------------------ ------- a. Reasonable use of property cannot be made. ------------------------------------------ ------- ---------------- b. Hardship is specifically related to applicant's property. ------------------------------ ------------ ----------------------- c. Hardship results only from applicant's of the act and plan. ----------------------------------------- ----------------- d. Variance will be in harmony with the intent of the plan. ----------------------------- ------------- ------------------------- e. Public welfare and interest will be preserved. -------------------------------- --------- -- ----------------------- f.Other 42 1.6 .2.1- continued iYes No ? COMMENTS 4. Are any insufficient reasons for the grantinq of variances given? ----------------------------- ------------ ----------------------- Profit 3.6.2.2: CONDIT-TONAL USES The master program should pay close attention to these -,uestions: (Revie-e., the master program z@rocedures for the granting of conditional conditional use permits here. If the proqram discusses specific conditional'uses, e.g. per environment, t@ese whould be reviewed under USE RE,-7ULATIONS.) Yes No ? COM2,1ENTS 1. Does the olan nrovide that permits for conditional uses must be ann-roved bv DOE? 2. Does the olan Provide objectives Lor conditional use permits? --------------------------------------- -------------------------- a. Provide more control and flexibility for implement- inq regulations of-the plan. ----------------------------------------------------------------- b. Assure a -aerson fair and ecruitable use of his nroperty while protect- ina the environment. 3. Does the olan include provisions to control undesirable effects? 4. Does the plan require conditional uses to meet performance standards that make the use compatible with 1--lermitted uses? 43 3.6.2.2 continued !Yes No ? COMMENTS Does the Plan provide snecific condition's that an applicant for a conditional use permit must demonstrate? ---------------------------- ------------------------------------ a. No unreasonably adverse effects on environment or on other uses. ----------------------------------------------------------------- b. No interference with public use of public shorelines ---------------------------------------------------------------- c. Design of site compatible with surroundings and with master plan. --------------------------------------------------------------- d. Proposed use not contrary to intent of master plan 3.7 PRO13P-z@li REVISION QUESTIONS Yes No COMMENTS Does the nrogram recognize that rlannincr such as this is an evolutionary nrocess and therefore Provide for oossible major revision over the next several -,--ears? 2. -*-.re procedures on guidelines for citizen involvement, etc. included in such-provisions for revision-@, 3. Does the plan provide for DOE: approval of all revision, major and minor? 4. Does the plan JDro'Jide that repeated permits for variances of a part]-cular I:ind should I reflect the need for minor revision, and provide the means bv which such minor r( vision should be und,:--rtaken? 44 3.8 CITIZEN IN-VOLVEMENT QUESTIONS Note: If these guidelines are not followed, an explanation of the method used should be provided, and tho method used should be compatible with the intent of the Act and Guidelines. Each major question (1,2 .... ) should receive some attention by the reviewer. Subquestions (a,b,...) may be attended to if time allows. Yes No' ? COMMENTS 1. was a citizen advisory committee appointed? ---- ---------- a. Did it re.present both commercial and environ- mental in'--erests? 2. Did the citizen advisory committee hold at least 3 public meetinqs durina develoment of the TDIan and desiqnation of envi'ronments? ----------------------------------------- ----------------------- T a. Nas cublic notice 'crovided days nrior to meeting? ------------------------------------------------------------------ b. 1,-Iere all meetinqs oPen to Public? ------------------------------------------- 7 ----------------------- C. Were all meetincTs held in the e-,,7enincf at a location accessible to the general public? ------------------------------------------------------------------ d. Was a record-of all meetings filed @,,7ith the local government and made available to the public? ------------------------------ e. were resource persons provided by local government to assist in preparation, organization, and diffusion of information? ---------------------- ---------------- f. Was the final evening meetinq field at least 7 days prior to IDLIbliC hearing? 45 -3.8 continue. I- Yes No COMMENTS 3. Was a ne@-.,sletter-published I)-,, advisory committee in coop,2ration with local qovernment? ----------------------------------------- ----------------------- a. Was it availahle to public at posted locations? -------------------------------------- -------------- b. was il,: available after first evening nublic meetina and before the second? ---------------------------------------- C. Were the date, time and location of future Public meetings and hearincrs stated? ------------------------------------------- ------------------------ d. Was a phone number c,rovided to obtain further information? -------------------------------------------- ---------------------- e. Wa s ublic notice made of the availabilitv of the ne-..;sletter? 4. Was the master program publicized? ------------------------------------ -7 ----------------------- a. Bv oublic notice Postings? ------------------------------------------------------------------- b. B,@,' ne,,...-s letter? ----- L------------------------------------------------------------ C. B-,,- radio, TV, and local news media? -------------------------------------------------------------------- d. By local naper of general circulation? ----------------------- ---- ----------------------- e. B%7 announcements to community groups? 46 3.8 continued Yes No ? COMMENTS 5. Was at least 1 public hearing held by the local government after 3 public meetings had been held to discuss the T-)Proposed master program?' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- a. 2 Was public notice made at least once in each 3 weeks qnreceding the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation in the area in which hearing was held? ----------------------------------------- ----------- ------------ h. Was master program made a-, -ailabl\e for 7--Public inspection at the local qovernment office and available u-,-on recuest at least "/'da-,,sorior to the ,cublqic- hearing? 6. Prior to adortion of the master program were all reasonable attempts made to obtain a general concurrence of the public and the advisorv committee? ----------------------------------------------------------------- a. Is method of btaining or measuring concurrence described? --------------------------------------------------------------------- ,b. Does it provide.a clear indication of how citizen input was utilized? 7. If level of concurrence on mastqcr qnroqrqa8qwq. was not considered adequate by advisorN q'q.q- committee at con- clusion of 8qJDU8qIq-q-q@qIiC hearing did local qq4qn8qvqerqnment hold subsequent Public mqcotin20qqs & hqoqarinqs until such time ade24qqUqatqC C6q0q1q1CUrrqencqe was reached? 47 3.8 continued Yes No ? COMMENTS. 8. Did public notice include: ----------------------------------------- ----------------------- a. Reference to authority under which rule was proposed? ------------------------------------------------------------------- b. Statement of either terms or substance of proposed rule or description of subjects and issues involved? ------------------------------------------------------------------ C. Time, place, and manner in which interested persons could oresent. vieye,,s thereon? (as stated in-RCW 30.04.025) 48 3. 9 SU2qMqPq1-,'\qPY OF REVIEW This section may be used by the reviewer as a reverse table of contents to the content of his review. He should leaf throuqh his review, and mark here a very brief summarv (i.e. a few key words) of the presence and seriousness of major shortcomings which he has commented upon in each section. SUMMARY OF SECTION MIDEQ. INAD. ? INADEQUACIES MINOR MAJOR: -2.1 Environments 3.q3.1 'q@qoals .3.2 - policies and use rq&7-ulations in general. See attached table for .,:@ecif8qic r--n,2pon,- men t s -and shorelines 49 3.9 continued SUNIMARY OF SECTION ADEQ. INAD. ? INADEQUACIFS MINOR MAJOR 3.3.3 Shorelines of Statei-Ade Significance. 3.3.4 Other General Considerations 3.4 Soecific Areas 3.5 Regional Questions 3.6 Imclementation 3-7/ Program Revision 3.8 Citizen Involvement 50 3.9 continued Summar%, of Review of Section 3.3-2 policies and use- regulations for environments Mark with a check adeauate sections and summarize very briefly comments as to possible inadequacy of specific sections. SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE OTHER SHORELINES ENVIRONMENT POLICIES USE POLICIES USE REGULATIONS REGULATIONS NATURAL OR CO','SER',..7.kNCY OD RUPAL OR URBi'@N OR OTHER OTHER OVERALL 51 4. INTRADEPARTMENT MEETING It will be the responsibility of the reviewer to chair the intradepartment meeting, to present major comments brought out by his or her review and by the Task Force, to encourage discussion of these, to coax additional comments from the intradepartment people, and to collect notes from the meeting and collate them with his or her other sources. 5. SHORELINES RESPONSE It will also be the reviewer's responsibility to write up a draft DOE response to the Droqram, using all the sources available to him. This %..7orkbook is arranged such that section 3.9 can serve as.a sort of backwards table of contents for his or her own review of the program, to be collated ,-jith other comments. This done, it is expected that the reviewer will meet with several other shorelines people to discuss the DOE (@ecision and response to the T@,rociran and write the final draft response accordingly. Further comments on these stens (4. and 5.) are given in the guidebook, under sen@rate cover. NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14112838 1 p