    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    O)_ iI2

    i
    Coastal Zone
    Information
    Center
    UNITED
    STATES
    �li;B_;,�
    �i:"-_�_;;`;__��--�i::�
    I�;i;�_::�
    ?af-1__:

    _
    I:h
    DEPARTMENT OF
    COMMERCE
    I I                  DRAFT
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
    ,JAY  911,             STATEMENT

    PROPOSED FEDERAL APPROVAL
    OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
    PROGRAM,
    STATE OF WASHINGTON
    property of CSC Librazr

    V
    X -E,,~,....S TMENT OF CCMMEPCE
    NCA'
    220      SERVICE.   CENT R
    2234 SiuTH HO%:SOCN AVENUE
    CHARLESTON , SC 29405-%2a3

    PREPARED BY
    OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
    NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
    U,S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    HT
    393
    t .W3
    U54
    - 1975
    c.2
    ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
    2085
    2
    INEOR AT10
    CEt'TER

    1776.-91%
    ,  m -"

    Summary

    (X) Draft                            ()Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospherice Administration,
    Office of Coastal Zone Management
    For additional information about this proposed action or this statement,
    please contact:

    Edward T. LaRoe
    Office of Coastal Zone Management
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Rockville, Maryland 20852    Phone (301) 496-8896

    1. Proposed Federal approval of State of Washington Coastal Zone Management
    Program, Olympia, Washington
    (X) Administrative            ()Legislative

    2. It is proposed that the Secretary of Commerce approve the Coastal Zone
    Management Program application of the State of Washington, pursuant to
    P.L. 92-583. Approval would permit implementation of the proposed program,
    allow-ing program administrative grants to be awarded to the state, and require
    that Federal actions be consistent with the program.

    3. Approval and implementation of the program will restrict or prohibit land and
    water uses in certain parts of the Washington coast, while promoting and
    encouraging development and use activities in other pArts. This may affect
    property values, property tax revenues, and resource extraction or exploration.
    The program will provide An improved decision-making process for determining
    coastal land and water uses and siting of facilities of National Interest,
    and will lead to increased long-term protection of and benefit from the state's
    coastal resources.

    4. Alternatives considered:

    A. Federal alternatives to approval of Washington CZM Program:

    1) Delay approval of Washington CZM Program until all coastal city
    and county master programs are completed and approved.
    2) Delay approval until state or national land use legislation is adopted.
    1) Delay approval until Federal policies establishing the national interest
    -n the siting of facilities are developed.

    B. Implementation and Control Alternatives for the State CZM Program

    1) U.se of other authorities for funding and implementation of the program
    2) Increased direct state control over its CZM program
    3) Increased local government control over the state CZM program

    C. Alternatives to Proposed Program Elements

    1) Extend the coastal zone boundary to 500 feet
    2) Extend SMA permit control to presently exempted activities
    3) Compensation for loss of property value resulting from program
    i              INFO-RWATION CENyEg

    5.   List of all Federal, State, and local agencies and other parties from
    which comments have been requested.

    Federal Agencies

    Department of Agriculture
    Agricultural Stabilization and Conservatio-n Service
    Forest Service
    Soil Conservation Service
    Rural Electrification Administration
    Agriculture Research Service

    Department of Defense
    Army Corps of Engineers
    U.S. Navy (Ship Pollution Control)
    Department of the Interior
    Bureau of Land Management (public lands)
    Office of Oil and Gas
    Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
    Fish and Wildlife Service
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (Indian lands)
    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
    Coast Guard
    Transport and Pipeline Safety

    Environmental Protection Agency
    Regional Administrator, Region X

    U. S. Water Resources Council
    Department of Health, Education
    Public Health Service
    and Welfare
    Department of Housing and Urban Development

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    Department of Justice

    Energy Research and Development Administration
    ii

    VI
    Federal Energy Administration

    Federal Power Commission

    General Services Administration

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (remote sensing)

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

    Federal-State

    Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission

    State

    Washington

    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
    J&fferson
    King
    Kitsap
    Mason
    Pacific
    Pierce
    San Juan
    Skagit
    Snohomish
    Thurston
    Wahkiakum
    Whatcom
    iii

    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 Defe-nse Council
    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 Environmental Council
    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
    6. Draft Statement transmitted to the Council on Environmental Quality on
    March 14, 1975, and made available to the public on March 21, 1975. A
    public hearing will be held on this proposal on April 22, 1975, at 7:00 p.m.
    to 12:00 midnight in the Conference Room, General Administration Building,
    Capitol Complex, Olympia, Washington.
    iv

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    I. INTRODUCTION ............................I

    11. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..
    	...............2
    A.	The Federal Coastal Zone Management Program.
    	.........2
    B.	The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program.........	5

    III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED .                          ............18

    IV.   RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS,
    POLICIES AND CONTROLS FOR THE AREA.
    	...............30

    V.    PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT .     .
    	...32
    A.	Impacts Directly Resulting From Federal Approval.
    	.......32
    B.	Impacts Resulting From the State and Local Government Action . .34

    VI. ALTERNATIVES ..                                                           ..........................38
    A. Federal Alternatives to Approval of the Washington
    Coastal Zone Management Program.                                  ..............38
    B. Implementation and Control Alternatives for the State
    Coastal Zone Management Program.
    	..........
    ....39
    C.  Alternatives to Proposed Program Element.
    	...........42

    VII.  PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED . . .	45

    VIII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
    AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY  ..45

    IX.   IRREVOCABLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD
    BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED  . . .	46

    X.	CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS.
    	............47

    XI.	PUBLIC HEARING                             ...........................47

    REFERENCES

    APPEN4DIX
    1. Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583)
    2. Final Guidelines, Coastal Zone M4anagement ProgramR Administrative Grants
    3. Washington Shoreline Management Act ot 1971
    4. Final Guidelines, Shoreline Management Act of 1971
    v

    1
    I.  INTRODUCTION

    In response to the intense pressures upon, the conflicts within, and the
    importance of the coastal zone of the United States, the Congress in 1972
    passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583; 86 Stat. 1280; herein-
    after referred to as the Act; included as Appendix 1). Signed into law by
    President N'ixon on October 27, 1972, the Act authorized a new Federal pro-
    gram 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 a-ny U-nited States coastal state or territory in the development of a
    manageme-nt program for the land and water resources of its coastal zone
    (program developmenat grants). Under Section 306, after developing a manage-
    ment program, the state may submit it to the Secretary of Commerce for
    approval; if approved, the state is then eligible for annual grants to ad-
    minister its management program (program administration grants). A third
    section (Section 312) provides grants for an estuarine sanctuary program,
    to preserve a representative series of undisturbed estuarine areas for long-
    term scientific and educational purposes.

    As an additional incentive for state participation, the Act stipulates that
    Federal actions within the coastal zone shall be, to the maximum extent
    feasible, consistent with approved state management programs (the "Federal
    consistency"~ requirement, Section 307).

    Guidel ines 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). By the end of
    Fiscal Year 1974, 28 of 34 coasa  saes and territories had received pro-
    gram development grants.

    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 award7ed 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 CPR Part 923, Federal
    Register 40(6):1683-1695; see Appendix 2). These proposed criteria and guide-
    lines set forth (a) the standards to be utilized by the Secretary of Commerce
    in reviewing and approving coastal zone management programs developed and sub-
    mitted by coastal states for approval, (b) procedures by which coastal states
    may qualify to receive program administrative grants, and (c) policies for
    the administration by coastal states of approved coastal zone management
    programs.

    2
    Pursuant to the Section 306 guidelines, OCZM has now received for review
    and Secretarial approval, proposed coastal zone management programs, in
    varying stages of completion for all or part of their coasts: Washington,
    Oregon, the mid-coast segment of Maine (seeking segmented approval), and
    the San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (also
    seeking segmented approval).

    The OCZM has determined that approval of a state's coastal zone management
    program, with resultant impacts on potential funding, consistency of Federal
    actions and permits, and ultimately land-use in toto, has the potential for
    causing a significant impact on the environment, and that, therefore, an
    environmental impact statement should be prepared pursuant to the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This environmental impact statement is in-
    tended 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. Because of the nature of the Washington
    program submission, which consists largely of guidelines, regulations, and
    coordinative mechanisms for implementation, as well as the nature of the
    Federal program approval itself, which focuses more upon the procedure which
    the state has used to develop its program and (ensuring for ex.ample -that a
    variety of factors have been adequately considered and that the decisions
    are based on sound information) rather than its substance, this environmental
    statement is necessarily different from and more general than the more usual,
    project-oriented EIS.

    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 concern for the coastal zone and its re-
    sources. Significant national interest can be traced from the Committee on Ocean-
    ography of the National Academy of Sciences' (NASCO) 12-volume report "Ocean-
    ography 1960-1970," (1959) to the Report of the Commission on Marine Science,
    Engineering, and Resources (1969), which proposed that a Coastal Management
    Act be 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 conflicting demands upon our Nation's coasts. To-
    gether these reports stressed the need to protect and wisely use these im-
    portant 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 proposals 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 91-14,91-46, and 92-16; Senate 92-15, 92-753, and 92-1049).

    3
    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 development of the coastal zone."
    (Section 302(a)). The statement of Congressional findings goes on to des-
    cribe 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 "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." The Act then states that the "key to more effective pro-
    tection 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 decisions with more than local significance." (Section 302(h)).

    While local governments and Federal agencies are required to cooperate,
    coordinate and partici-pate in the development of the management programs,
    the state level of government is clearly given the central role and respon-
    sibility for this process. The Act provides a number 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 to receive grants from NOAA to cover two-thirds of the
    costs of developing coastal zone management programs.. Broad guidelines and
    minimum requirements in the Act provide the necessary direction for develop-
    ing 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, including specifically those uses that are undesirable or of
    lowest priority; and areas for preservation or restoration. During the
    planning process, the state is directed to consult with local, regional, and
    relevant Federal agencies and governments, and general public interests.
    These annual grants can be 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 administrative 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
    administative 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 management program. The Department has
    established a formal review process to receive the comments from such Federal
    agencies and by which serious disagreements may be resolved   (15 CFR Part 925,
    Interim Regulations. Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 41, February 28, 1975).

    4
    Evaluation of the statutory requiremaents established in the Act and guidelines
    will concentrate primarily upon the adequacy of state processes in dealing
    with key coastal problems and isGues.  It will niot, in general, deal with
    the wisdom of specific land and water use decisions, 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 knowledge,
    public participation and unified governmental policie,% for making reasoned
    choices and decisions.

    Management programs will be evaluated in the light of the Congressional
    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 enviro-nmental degradation, damage to natural 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 developme-nt. 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 legislative intent. States are encouraged by the Act
    to take into account ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic values as
    well as the need for economic development in preparing and imiplementing
    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 oppor-
    tunity to apply for grants to cover one-half of the costs of acqui sition,
    development and operation of estuarine sanctuaries, wherein natural field
    laboratories are established in order that scientists and students may be
    provided the opportunity to examine over a period of time ecological re-
    lationships 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 subsu-ue 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 apparent action on the land use legislation,
    the President an August 1973, forwarded an amended budget request to Congress
    requesting $5 million to begin implemention of the Coastal Zone Managemant
    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
    program administration within NOAA.

    5
    The OCZM budget for FY 1975 remained at $12 million, distributed however
    as $9 million f or program developmaent, $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 29 of 30 eligible states, and
    two of four elibible territories have received grants under the program.
    Grant awards through February 1975 are summarized in Table I.

    B. The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program

    The coastal zone management program proposed by the State of Washington is
    managed by the State's Department of Ecology (DOE) with a key role in ims-
    plementation provided by city and county governments acting under state
    overview. The principal authority for the programt is provided by the
    state's Shoreline Management Act (SN?A) which was enacted in 1971 prior to the
    Federal CZMA, together with state-established guidelines and regulations
    for its implementation (Appendices 3 and 4). Additional authority necessary
    to establish a comprehensive managemaent program is provided through the
    DOE's administration of air and water pollution control requirements and
    flood zone control. Also important are the State Environmental Policy Act,
    the State Environmental Coordination Procedures Act, and the Thermal Powe
    Plant Site Evaluation Council Act, along with the Department of NaturalRe
    sources control over wetland dredge and fill, which will all be exercised
    in a coordinated fashion to achieve comprehensive management. These
    authorities, taken together, form the adopted body of goals, policies,
    objectives, and statements of problems for the Washington CZM program.__J
    These overall goals and policies will be supplemented and made more specific
    through the development of a planning program and regulatory permit system
    provided for in the SMA.

    The principal problems and issues facing Washington's coast, as identified i-n
    the Shoreline Management Act, are:

    -	the valuable and fragile nature of the state's shorelines
    -	public concern relating to their utilization, protection, re-
    storation, and preservation
    -  unrestricted construction on privately and publicly owned shore-
    lines
    -  need to recognize and protect private property rights consistent
    with the public interest, and need for increased coordination in
    the management and development of the shorelines.

    These problems are addressed specifically through the establishment of policies
    in the SMA and its implementing regulations. However, the broad framework
    within which they are to be addressed is provided by the State Environmental
    4     ~Policy Act (SEPA) of 1971 which closely parallels the National Environmental
    Policy Act in both intent and directive. SEPA declares it state policy to:
    encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment;
    promote effects which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment
    and biosphere; stimulate the health aud welfare of man; and enrich under-
    standing of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the

    6
    TABLE I
    Status of Grant Awards,
    (including amendments
    Office of Coastal Zone Management
    approved through February 1975)
    FY 1974
    Section 305

    State or Territory
    Matching
    Share
    Total
    Program
    Date
    Awarded
    Federal
    Share
    3/13/74
    3/13/74
    3/13/74
    4/23/74
    4/23/74
    4/23/74
    5/10/74
    5/10/74
    5/14/74
    5/16/74
    5/21/74
    6/4/74
    6/5/74
    6/7/74
    6/10/74
    6/13/74
    6/14/74
    6/14/74
    6/20/74
    6/20/74
    6/20/74
    6/21/74
    6/21/74
    6/24/74
    6/26/74
    6/26/74
    6/26/74
    6/27/74
    $154,415
    $230,000
    $250,132
    $720,000
    $101,564
    $330,486
    $198,485
    $280,000
    $388,820
    $360,000
    $200,000
    $210,000
    $194,285
    $78,000
    $250,000
    $188,000
    $166,666
    $450,000
    $208,000
    $150,000
    $100,000
    $99,500
    $300,000
    $206,000
    $600,000
    $260,000
    $250,000
    $275,000
    $77,208
    $115,000
    $141,214
    $371,946
    $50,782
    $203,961
    $100,015
    $185,765
    $194,410
    $191,648
    $166,300
    $105,000
    $130,359
    $39,000
    $125,000
    $115,400
    $83,334
    $285,853
    $145,215
    $75,000
    $50,000
    $49,750
    $200,000
    $103,000
    $300,000
    $134,090
    $125,000
    $137,500
    $231,623
    $345,000
    $391,346
    $1,091,946
    $152,346
    $534,447
    $298,500
    $465,765
    $583,230
    $551,648
    $366,300
    $315,000
    $324,644
    $117,000
    $375,000
    $303,400
    $250,000
    $735,853
    $353,215
    $225,000
    $150,000
    $149,250
    $500,000
    $309,000
    $900,000
    $394,090
    $375,000
    $412,500
    Rhode Island
    Maine
    Oregon
    California
    Mississippi
    Michigan
    South Carolina
    Maryland
    Washington
    Texas
    Ohio
    Massachusetts
    Connecticut
    New Hampshire
    Hawaii
    Georgia
    Delaware
    Florida
    Wisconsin
    Pennsylvania
    Alabama
    Minnesota
    North Carolina
    Illinois
    Alaska
    Louisiana
    Puerto Rico
    New Jersey
    Section 312
    6/27/74
    $823,965
    $823,965
    $1,647,930
    Oregon
    FY 1975
    Section 305
    U-
    8/14/74
    11/8/74
    11/26/74
    2/11/75
    Virginia
    New York
    Virgin Islands
    *Oregon
    $251,044
    $550,000
    $90,000
    $158,811
    $125,522
    $275,000
    $45,000
    $79,406
    $376,566
    $825,000
    $135,000
    $238,217
    *Second grant award.

    7
    state and nation.

    SMA builds upon these statements by declaring it state policy to plan f or
    and foster all reasonable and appropriate uses of the shorelines in order
    to promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates pro-
    tecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegeta-
    tion and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while
    protecting generally public rights of navigation. The Washington SMA depends
    on a blend of state and local authorities and activities to meet these ob-
    jectives.  The      stt's interest is declared predominant in "shorelines
    of statewide significance," which include the entire Pacific Ocean coast;
    the waters of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca; those areas be-
    tween ordi-nary high water and extreme low tide along Nisqually Delta, Birch
    Bay, Hood Canal, Skagit Bay and Padilla Bay; all major lakes and rivers;
    and associated wetlands. Use priorities are established for these areas in
    the following order:

    - recognize and protect the statewide interest over the local
    interest
    - preserve the natural character of the shoreline
    - result in long term over short term benefit
    - protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline
    - increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shore-
    lines, and
    - increase recreational opportunities for the public.
    Local governments have the primary responsibility for inventorying their
    shorelines, developing Mas!,ter Prograras to regulate their use, and initiating
    the permit programa established by the Act. These activities occur within the
    framework of guidelines prepared by the state DOE (Appendix 4) which also
    acts in a supportive and review capacity with principal emphasis on insuring
    compliance with the Act's policy, provisions, and implementing guidelines.
    The local governmeut master program, basic to the implementation of the SMA,
    utilizes the inventory information and is essentially a comprehensive land
    use plan with a strong environmental orientation. It includes basic goals
    and objectives, the designation of all shoreline areas into a categorization
    system, and specific regulatory language.

    The SMA, establishes a regulatory permit system to control "substantial
    development" along the shoreline. Substantial development is defined as
    itany development of which the total cost or fai,r market value exceeds
    $1,000, o r any develop'ment which materially interferes with, the normal public
    u,%e of the water or shorelines, of.the'stlate," wirth-the- e.xception of certain
    private or agri:cultura-1uses'. Permits are granted by local governments con-
    sistent with guidelines promulgated by DOE, and with local Master Programs
    after adoption. Following local action on a permit application, DOE must
    review the application and decision. While lacking veto power, DOE can appeal
    both negative and affirmative permit decisions to the Shorelines Hearings
    Board, as can the applicant, or concerned individuals or organizations. The
    application and appeals procedure are shown in Figure 1.

    Under the DOE established guidelines and with DOE assistance, cities and
    counties are now developing Master Programs for their shorelines. These

    8
    SuORELINE PERMIm PROCEDURE
    Applicant submits
    application to local gov't.

    Applicant publishes
    notice in local newspaper twice
    TIME SCHEDULE

    0
    I
    l

    I
    7 days

    l

    37 days

    i~~~~~

    Per
    app
    by]
    II        +

    No
    furtl
    appe.
    82
    days       I
    Comments by
    interested citizens
    .Lo
    If
    I
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION
    r%

    Permit granted)
    DOE & State Atty. Gen.
    notified

    Permit denied
    I
    AppIicant
    appeals
    Applicant

    %
    revises plans	i
    *
    4

    Permit received
     by DOE
    - IIII~~

    mit not
    ealed
    DOE

    her
    als

    art
    truction
    Pertit	Permit
    appealed	appealed by
    by DOE	aggrieved citizens
    I I
    I        HEARINGS BOARD ACTION         I

    Permit u
    i
    Permit repealed

    Applicant
    appeals     r
    St
    u
    const
    held
    )held

    No further
    appeals

    Start
    construction

    Applicant
    evises plans
    Appeals
    4
    ,

    SUPERIOR COURT ACTION
    Figure 1.

    9
    programs, which must be approved by DOE, will provide a means for guiding
    land and water use decisions consistent with the overall objectives and
    criteria. They are to contain policies on the following elements:

    (1) An economic development element for the location and design of
    industries, transportation facilities, port facilities, tourist
    facilities, commerce, and other developments, the location or
    use of which is particularly dependent on the shoreline of the
    state;

    (2) A public access element making provisions for -public access to
    publicly-owned areas;

    (3) A recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of
    recreational opportunities;

    (4) A circulation element consisting of general location and extent
    of existiug and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation
    routes, terminals and other public utility facilities;

    (5) A land-use element which considers the proposed general distri-
    bution, location and extent of housing, business and other land-
    uses along the shorelines and adjacent land areas;

    (6) A conservation elemeut for the preservation of natural resources,
    including, but not limited to, the scenic vistas, aesthetics,
    and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protection;
    a-nd;

    (7) A historical, cultural, scientific, and educational element for the
    protection and restoration of buildings, sites, and areas having
    historic, cultural, scientific, or educational values.

    In addition to these substantive objectives and policies, the state has es-
    tablished the following administrative and institutional objectives to be
    met through implementation of a comprehensive CZM program:

    - Greater state-Federal cooperation and understanding in the
    planning, siting, design, construction, and operation of devel-
    opments in the coastal zone.

    - Greater ability of local government to control its share of the
    coastal zone aided, supported, and guided by the State and Federal
    governments.

    - Increased coordination and more rapid processing of develop-
    ment permits and licenses, with more state and local input into
    Federally-authorized projects.

    - More centralized state policy and regulation in various coastal
    zone affairs, meaning increased cooperation and communication
    among state agencies.

    10
    - Greater cooperation and understanding among the actual
    managers;.state, Federal, local, Indian, and international;
    of the various coastal resources of the state, such as oil,
    fish, beaches, waterways, etc.

    - Greater cooperation and understanding among the various users
    of coastal resources by virtue of their involvement in the
    managing of these resources.

    - More thorough and meaningful reviews of large-scale projects,
    and thus decisions based on firm environmental and economic
    grounds.

    - Better knowledge of the costs and benefits of various projects
    and proposals.

    One step already taken by the state to meet these objectives was passage of
    the Environmental Coordination Procedures Act of 1973 (ECPA). ECPA requires
    DOE, in cooperation with other state agencies having environmental regulatory
    programs and with local governments, to provide a single master application
    as an optional procedure for the separate, multiple applications traditionally
    required. In addition to simplifying procedures for any applicant, the ECPA
    provides better coordination between state and local regulatory agencies and
    improved opportunities for public understanding and comment.

    Land and Water Uses

    As provided by statute, all shorelines of the state have been inventoried
    by local governments to determine general ownership patterns, natural
    characteristics, present uses and initial projected uses. These inventories,
    together with other inventories and data available at the state level have
    been utilized by DOE in developing its coastal program and in delimiting
    the state's boundary for CZM purposes.

    This boundary is tiered so that the most direct control is provided over
    substantial development in the coastal waters seaward to the three mile
    limit of the territorial sea and landward to a line 200 feet inland from
    the ordinary high tide, or further if necessary to include all "associated"
    wetlands. The boundary is extended up all major rivers draining into the
    coastal waters to the limit of salt water influence. Since the SMA applies
    to all major freshwater rivers and lakes as well as to the coastal area, a
    consistent system of control actually extends upriver of the defined coastal
    zone; this enables extended state control of some uses impacting the coastal
    waters which originate outside the zone.

    Additional management controls beyond the boundary established by the SMA
    are exerted through air and water quality standards and by flood zone
    permits, all administered by DOE. For administrative, financial, and
    coordinative purposes, the boundary is extended to a second tier, the in-
    land limit of the 15 coastal counties, whose plans are to be consistent with
    adopted local Master Programs. Federal lands and Indian controlled lands
    are excluded from control under the management program, but are subject to

    11
    substantial Federal-state consultation. (See Figs. 2 and 3.)

    The DOE has defined uses which have a direct and significant impact on
    the coastal waters as being all "substantial development" as defined
    in the SMA and additionally all uses which have the potential for altering
    water quality. These uses are generally controlled by the DOE through
    its water pollution control permit system, which is administered con-
    sistent with standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency. More importantly, substantial developments within the shorelines
    of the state require the issuance of a permit under the SMA. The local
    government has the original responsibility to review and respond to a
    permit application, and must conduct an inventory, capability-suitability
    analysis and environmental impact assessment prior to the issuance of each
    permit. DOE also conducts a "t-rend-setting" analysis for certain types
    of development i-n order to insure that the potential for proliferation of
    similar developments (cumulative impact) is considered.

    When local Master Programs are completed, an even more precise system for
    delineating permissible a-nd priority uses will exist , since all uses will
    be related to four types of environments (natural, conservancy, rural and
    urban) identified as the basis for each local program. Uses of shorelines
    of statewide significance will always be more stringently ma-naged because
    of the use priorities established by the SMA.

    Use priorities are established for the four environments as follows:

    Natural: This designation is intended to protect unique
    natural or cultural features which are relatively intolerant
    of intensive huma-n use. Any activity which changes the existing
    situation would be desirable only if such change would contri-
    butt_ to the preservation of the area's existing character.

    Conservancy: This designation is intended to protect,
    conserve and manage existing natural and cultural resources
    to insure recreational benefits and sustained resource
    utilization. Preferred uses are those which are non-
    consumptive of the physical and biological resources. Activities
    of a non-permanent nature which do not substantially degrade the
    existing character are permitted.

    Rural: This designation is intended to protect agricultural
    land and to maintain ope-n space. New developments are to
    reflect the surrounding character of the area. Compatible
    public recreation facilities are recommended.

    Urban: This designation is intended to insure optimum utili-
    zation of shorelines within -urban areas. Emphasis should be
    given to development within already developed areas and
    particularly to water depe-ndent industrial and commercial uses.
    Priority should be given to public visual and physical access
    to the water,

    12
    Figure 2 Coastal Zone and Excluded Lands

    13

    VANCOLJVER                                           .
    ISLAND

    ~~~~~~~~~~~-------- - -   -------

    I ~~~~~~~~~~A

    p~~~~~~~~~~~~

    E

    Figure 3 Shorelands of Statewide Significance

    14
    Uses of lowest Driority are those which are inherently dangerous and harmful
    to the shoreline.

    The planniing program is presently underway, with inventories having been
    completed and local Master Programs scheduled for completion by this Fall.

    The state bas defined areas of particular concern, which include all shore-
    lines of statewide significance, state owned tidelands, state parks and wild-
    life refuges, and flood hazard zones. Natural, scientific, or educational
    areas administered by the state DNR are also included.

    Among those areas designated as being of particular concern, areas will be
    identified for preservation and restoration. These areas must be of (or have
    the potential for) biological, natural systems, cultural and/or scenic im-
    portance. Further, a majority of experts in appropriate fields must rank
    the area according to its importance5 the urgency of action,
    and the degree to which the area is pristine. By rating the area numerically
    for each of thiese three factors, a priority ranking or value can be determined
    for a variety of geographic areas. Provision will be made to consider the
    possibility of a group of small areas, each of moderate imrportance which
    in toto might constitute a resource of critical importance. Implementation
    of the priority ranking system will also be affected by the cost of preserva-
    tion or restoration, including maintenance.

    This ranking system will be applied to areas identified as Natural or Con-
    servancy Environments in the local Master Programs, areas identified in
    local or state inventories or surveys, and other areas that may be identified
    by concerned citizens, agencies, etc. Although this task will continue in-
    definitely, an initial review suggests that the following areas are likely
    to be included: mouth of the Skagit River, Nisqually River Delta, Willapa
    Bay Estuary, Grays Harbor Estuary, San Juan Islands. It is expected that
    certain areas of the Ocean coast and certain offshore fishing banks and
    undersea landforms will also be included.

    At the present time, all classes of facilities whose siting may be judged
    to be in the national interest appear to be capable of accommodation under
    the guidelines established by DOE. No potential coastal uses or associated
    facilities are arbitrarily or categorically excluded by the program, but are
    constrained by SMA criteria.

    Power plant siting is managed under the Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation
    Council Act which establishes a state interagency review board and a specific
    time frame for review. Applicants must show compliance with SMA's substantial
    development permit system and with air and water quality standards.

    15
    DOE further has the ability to insure that uses of national, state and regional
    benefit are not unreasonably excluded from the coastal zone through approval
    of Master Programs, which must consider state and local needs, as well as
    by its ability to appeal negative permit decisions by local government.

    A Federal agency task force has been involved for over a year in the
    review of local Master Programs prior to DOE approval. Continuing
    involvement through this task force should help insure that site-specific
    concerns are identified and considered.

    Organization

    The single agency designated to administer the CZM program is the Department
    of Ecology. Within DOE, the Shorelands Division handles CZM, SMA, Flood
    Control and related research. Other divisions are: Operations (permit
    handling and compliance), Air Resource Management, Solid Waste Planning
    and Management, and Water Quality. Other state agencies w-ith direct coastal
    resource management responsibilities are the Departments of Fisheries, Natural
    Resources, and Parks and Recreation. These agencies, together with the
    Departments of Agriculture, Emergency Services, Commerce and Economic
    Development, Highways, Social and Health Servifces, and related offices and
    commissions, sit on DOE's State Agency CZM Advisory Committee which serves
    to coordinate agency activities. Coastal cities and counties are integral
    parts of the CZM program through their SMA and related responsibilities.

    Coordination and Public Participation

    The Washington shoreline management concept first took form from an initiative
    petition circulated by the Washington_Environmental Council. After the Council
    gathered enough signatures for validation ~in-d--acement on the ballot as a
    referendum, the State Legislature itself enacted a modified version as the
    Shoreline Management Act in 1971. This Act was subsequently ratified by
    popular referendum in the November, 1972 elections. From the moment of its
    initiation by public action, through ratification and implementation, the
    SNA has been the subject of intense discussion and public participation.

    The state-established guidelines were subject to puiblic hearings prior to
    promulgation. Through the SEPA requirement, each permit for substantial
    development and each local government Master Program at the time of adoption
    is subject to public review. A state environmental impact statement is
    being filed by DOE to insure that the overall CZM program, too, is subjecti
    to public review. These procedures provide for formal review and comment by
    members of the public and by Federal, state and local agencies.

    Additionally, the public is provided direct involvemient in program develop-
    ment in several ways. At the local level, the development of each Master
    Program is steered by a citizens! advisory committee; procedures for this
    involvement are established under the guidelines. These guidelines supplement

    16
    tlhe SMA requirement that Master Programs be developed in consultation with
    any Federal, state, regional or local agency having special expertise
    with respect to any environmental impact and that Master Programs consider
    all plans, studies, etc., made or being made by Federal, state, regional or
    local agencies, by private individuals, and by orga-nizations.

    Moreover, DOE has established several advisory committees to insure that
    consultation and coordination continue at the state level. A Federal
    agency committee has been established to help deal with the question of
    the national interest in facilities siting, to identify specific agency
    needs and plans, and to review the CZM program. A similar state agency
    committee has also been established. A committee of local planners has
    been created to better coordinate the State programs with local governments.

    An assessment by the-state of the SMA highlighted both strengths and weak-
    nesses. The relative strengths of the SMA include:

    1) Planning and implementation system in one package - the SMA
    provides the criteria for shoreline planning as well as the mea-ns
    for effectuating those plans - the substantial development permit
    system.

    2) The Act is geographically comprehensive - by including freshwater
    streams and lakes, the mechanism is provided for managing the use
    and development of those waterbodies which have a direct and sig-
    nificant impact on the coastal zone.

    3) State/local relationship - an equitable and workable balance
    seems to have been achieved in placing the primary responsibility
    for planning and regulation at-the local level, but subject to
    State overview.

    4) State responsibility in the event of local default - a provision
    of the SMA requires that if a local government fails to comply with
    the planning requirements, the state is responsible for preparing
    and adopting a program for that government. This provision has
    proved to be an effective inducement for many counties to undertake
    a planning program, several of which had no prior experience or
    inclination to plan for and regulate development within their .juris-
    diction.

    5) Citizen participation - Citizen participation was given a high
    priority in development and implementation of the Washington CZM
    Program. All jurisdictions within the state have appointed
    committees to work with local planners (and in some cases have
    undertaken the program themselves). The committees range in size
    from six to sixty and, statewide, there are well over 1,000
    individuals actively i-nvolved in the local shoreline planning programs.

    6) Explicit defi-nitions - The SMA is relatively definitive in establishing
    definitions, time requirements and geographic scope, which reduces the
    opportunity for misinterpretatio-n by landowner or local jurisdiction,
    and provides a firm basis for State overview.

    17
    The State assessment also identified the following weaknesses:

    1) Permit system - The lack of discretion to vary the time require-
    ments on permits creates some administrative problems. Single
    family residences are exempt from the permit system, which weakens
    the program, particularly in those areas where second home develop-
    ment is prevalent. Furthermore, there are not adequate means for
    monitoring illegal activity on the shorelines to insure compliance
    with the law.

    2) Appeal backlog - Because of the time involved in preparing and
    presenting cases to the shoreline hearings board, and frequently
    the length of time in reaching a decision, there has developed
    a considerable backlog of pending appeals. As a result, most
    developers have not been able to obtain a final decision for at
    least 90 days and sometimes for up to one year.

    3) Staff and funding - The shoreline program is being administered
    at the State level with a staff of fourteen, roughly equally
    divided between the planning and the permit functions. There is a
    serious need for additional staff, particularly in the specialized
    scientific fields. An additional shortcoming is the availability
    of grant funding for local governments. To date over $500,000
    has been provided through DOE for planning purposes, matched
    equally by local government, for a total commitment of over
    $1 million. With the large number of jurisdictions involved,
    however, the funding has not been adequate to meet the cost
    of the program.

    4) Areawide planning - While the shoreline act does define a State
    Master Program -as the cumulative total of all local Master Programs,
    it does not provide explicit authority for the Department to under-
    take shoreline planning on a statewide basis to provide a framework
    within which local programs would be encompassed.

    Supplementing the SMA program with the other resource regulatory authorities,
    as mentioned above, to form a more broadly based comprehensive management
    program, and approval of the State CZM program with resultant availability
    of Federal CZM program administrative funds, will aid in overcoming these
    ,weaknesses and in creating a stronger overall program.

    is
    III.  DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED

    Encompassing the Puget Sound-San Juan Islands-Straits of Juan de Fuca 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 boundaries 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
    resources. 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 (Fig.2).
    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 sediments 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 among localities. Precipitation varies
    from up to 200 inches per year in the mountains and western'slope of the Olympic
    Peninsula, to a more moderate 35 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.

    19
    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 different 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  characteristics 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 mount-ains of the Cascade range on the east
    and the Olympic range on the west. About 10 major and 14 minor rivers and
    numaerous sraall streams flow inito Puget Sound and its adjacent waters.

    The Sound is basically a deep body of water with depths of 100 to 600 feet
    less than I maile 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 50 to 500 feet high.

    The climate of Puget Sound is classed as mid-latitude marine with cool, moist
    winters and warm suimmers. The Olympic and Cascade mountain ranges modify the
    weather of Puget Sound. Port Townsend, in the raitn shadow of the Olympic range,
    receives about 17 inches of precipitation atnnually. Seattle has an average
    annual precipitation of about 50 inches. Seventy-five percent of the pre-
    cipitation 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 65"F. Maximum recorded is IOOOF., and the minimnum is 00 F.

    Puget Sound's major freshwater sources are the Nooksack, Skagit, Stillaguamish,
    Skokomish, Cedar, Elwha, Snohomish, Green, Puyallup, and Nisqually Rivers.
    Numerous other streams, both large and small, flow into the Sound. Freshwater
    inflow, as a 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 I hour, 15 minutes after
    a similar change at Port Townsenid, at the north end of the Sound. Tidal amplitude

    20
    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 mi-xed. During periods of conatinuous
    heavy rainfall, the areas near the mouths of major rivers will approach
    freshwater condition. Mixing by stronag 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,
    part facilities and industrial complexes have substantially altered these
    two areas. Other areas, such as Bellingham, Axiacortes, 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 mnajor river valleys add nutrients to the system.

    Puget Sound has historically supported substantial fish and wildlife use,
    Major commercial and recreational fisheries for salmon, bottomfish, 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 decline have been (1) habitat
    degradation brought about by industrial and domestic wastes and unfavorable
    land use practices; (2) direct habitat destruction through diking and la-nd fills,
    as well as construction of upstream water development projects and poor
    timber harvesting practices. The effect of dike and fills on fish populations
    is not clearly understood; however, a loss of nursery and rearing-habitat
    has occurred. Loss of wildlife habitat has not been quantified; however, a
    noticeable deterioration of wildlifei resources has occurred which can be
    attributed to habitat disruption.

    Discharges of waste material, whether of inidustrial, domestic or thermal character,
    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 chiniook, coho, sockeye, chum
    and pink salmon; steelhead and searun cutthroat trout; searun Dolly Varden;
    and eulachon. All of these species use Puget Sound as a migration and nursery
    area. Many spend their entire life cycle in the Sound.

    Bait and forage fish include Pacific herring, smelt and anclhovies. lHerring use
    the shallow end of many inlets and bays of the Sound for spawning purposes.
    All of these species are important food sources for other fishes.

    Major species of marine fish inhabiting the Sound are Pacific cod, 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.

    21
    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 is an important resting place, feeding area and wintering ground
    for many thousands of birds in the Pacific Flyway. 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, and black grant.
    Merganser, scoter and American coot also occur. Gulls and terns are the
    most common shorebirds. Great blue herons are the most 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 discrete area for a portion of the total waterfront 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 comnmonly found in Puget Sound,
    and mammals inhabiting adjacent freshwater areas include beaver, muskrat,
    mink, weasel, otter and racoon.

    Human benefits from natural resources of the Sound include food, industry,
    recreation, research, education and an environment for living. Estimates
    made for specific recreational uses of Puget Sound for 1965 include 800,000
    man-days of hunting, 700,000 angler-days of salmon fishing, 850,000 angler-
    days of bottom fishing, and 100,000 man-days for shellfish sport harvest.
    In addition, commercial fishermen annually harvest over 6 million salmon,
    20 million pounds of bottom fish, and over 6 million pounds of shellfish.
    The total value of sport fish catch 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, Appendix 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 Juan
    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, the State's industries
    have located on the Sound. These industries 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 and can obscure visual landmarks
    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

    22
    certainly be used more heavily in the future, and the lumber mills are also
    major industrial activities in the Sound.

    Agriculture in this region is primarily restricted to the northeast section
    of the Puget Sound Basin, largely 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, manu-
    facturing and forest products, the tourist industry alone may assume the
    number one position by the year 2000. The three industries 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. Because of the increase in tourism and recreation, and
    the number of watercraft, much of the Puget Sound area previously inaccessible
    by land has only 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 biophysically to the
    Straits of Juan de Fuca west of Port Angeles, and consists of narrow,
    steeply sloping rocky beaches 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
    populated and remains largely unaltered. Almost the entire coast and
    most of the uplands are owned by the Federal government or are part of
    Indian reservations, and are therefore excluded from state management under
    the CZMA. There are no 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.

    23
    From the Ouinault 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 W-illapa
    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 storage 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 planned for pasture. An extensive discussion of the resources
    and management of Willapa Bay is presented 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 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 slight horizontal
    and vertical salinity gradients, but no sharp stratification. 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

    24
    :11ingham
    *0
    AO0
    Vancouver
    Island
    -Everett
    A*
    0*
    Ao
    A*0
    Ao+
    Grays
    Harbor
    LEGEND
    Willapa
    Bay
    * Lumber Mills
    o Bulk Petroleum Storage
    a Refinery
    A MUnicipal Waste
    * Food Processing
    + Other Industry Present
    Columbia
    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-
    ington, D.C. 1974.
    Figure 4 Major Industrial Sites

    25
    Bellingham
    Vancouver
    0 Island
    Anacortes
    Everett
    Hood
    0
    1
    Harbor
    LEGEND
    AV

    A
    Rocky Beaches
    Sandy Beaches
    Mud Flats
    Offshore Rock Outcrops
    High Velocity Channels
    Bay
    � Eelgrass, Benthic Algae
    + Shellfish
    * Waterfowl
    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-
    ington, D.C. 1974.
    Columbia
    Figure 5 Selected Natural and Physical Resources

    26
    The climate remains maritime until the Cascades, well beyond the boundaries
    of the state's defined coastal zone.

    Although fishery resources have been adversely affected by upriver activities,
    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 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, s-mall industrial and domestic
    waste discharge sites in the area.

    Socio-Economic Factors

    In general, Washington has experienced a growth rate in excess of the
    national average since World War 11. This increase has been due primarily
    to the employment opportunities 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 demonstrating 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 6 graphically shows that the majority of the state's population is
    concentrated in the central and southern region of Puget Sound. The
    four coastal counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish contain over
    57% 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 28.1%, 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 metro-
    politan Seattle experienced a 4.7% aecline.

    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 slowly declining in Wahkiakum County.

    About 2,075 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
    tidelands. Of the remaining coastline, the Federal government owns about
    155 miles, including the Olympic National Park and various wildlife refuge
    areas. Non-Federal public ownership totals 107 miles, primarily state, county
    and city parks (see Table II). kThen tidelands (between extreme low tide and

    --         1 -.                                                    -      -                       ---                                   .                                          t -
    k                                                                                        I

    I

    I
    I

    i
    I
    I
    I
    i
    I
    i
    I
    i
    I
    I

    I
    I
    i
    i
    i
    i
    i
    i
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I

    I
    POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, WASHINGTON
    ,.... ~ ~~~~  � ,   ,�.' .',.--..-.:;':-
    ,..,c  ... ,J I�,,,...
    ,:�~~~~~~~ '             .
    .~: . '
    �~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    --~~~�- ,    .   ~                              � .
    .~~?  .;; � -..
    ":�	'i.",:�\
    ~'~'-j~    :.~.i.'  ."".:,_   '
    	~.~, ' �	�
    "'..:�i

    ........: :�	�	�/o       �'~"
    L.  ' ';' .'l!: .':,W,
    j~~~7�    r~~~~
    ,,.: .���l~ . ...�.	~ �	. .,;:

    *�   *        1tt	I               .4j:-,.  , .Mt,
    "':  .. """ ':. ." /-
    ,1 r;�'...-,� . <

    a� i
    (I~~~~~:
    '.'~'  '"I                    .....4.....  ,
    *S~,
    *	~AO.* ..~C/t,

    IT'~~~~~~� I	Q"" *.
    �  :�,,   ;   �������~�~1;~  Il~;i;~ll U ...
    \eir  ~       r=.-...---......--
    I
    I
    i
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    i
    i
    I
    I
    1
    ,
    I
    I
    I

    I
    I

    /

    Source:  "Growth of Cities and Towns-Wash." '
    Washington State Planning & Courntty Affairs
    Agency, .Olympia,. 1969          ___

    .    I0O,

    o 10.00
    O o.woo
    0      25.".          .11ri

    900 iRPso
    -1.
    .~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ - _  _    .  .                                                                                                                                                                                    .. I                        - .  ..
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.-                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .     -            .             .           .           .. I � -                   1-              .-                                                                                                                                   -                   .-

    Figure 6
    Symbols used on this map are three dimensional.
    Numbers of people represented by each symbol is
    proportional to the volume following examples
    illustrate scale used on this map.

    SELECTED  II  DAT A
    SELECTED SOC3O-ECONOMIC DATA
    Shoreline
    Ownership
    (in miles)
    1
    Shoreline3
    Use
    (in miles)
    Population

    1_1
    Maj orl
    Industries
    Of Region

    m
    Pegion
    County
    City

    19601     19701      Change
    1980 2
    Forecast
    I
    45,431
    34,77n
    16, 367
    10,661
    5,241

    75, 349
    59,553
    18,4 89
    10,446
    15, 796
    3,126

    165,198
    81, 950
    39,375
    2?164
    52, 381
    8, 804
    4,548
    7,701
    3,856
    27, 11
    9,167

    1,937,370
    1,159,375
    530,831
    61,106
    19,819
    11,020
    101,732
    35,307
    411,027
    154, h^7
    14, 742
    265,2 36
    23,998
    53,622
    16,919

    76,8934
    2 3,206
    14.5
    15 .
    20.4
    ln.r
    3.3

    8.9
    9.3
    (1.3)
    (2.8)
    (7.6)
    (5.3)

    14.6
    16.5
    13.5
    5n.1
    2.0
    11.1
    24.1
    (8.5)
    34.5
    37.5
    132.5

    28.1
    24.0
    (4.7)
    377.R

    672 .8
    20.q
    22.1
    27.8

    22.2
    54.0
    199.4
    33.1
    134.3

    39.7
    27.
    38.3
    North Coast Pegior.
    Clallam
    Fort Angeles
    Jefferson
    Port Townsend

    South Coast Region
    Grays Harbor
    Aberdeen
    Hoquiam
    Pacific
    Rayrond
    - Wahkiakum

    North Puget Sound
    Whatcom
    Bellingham
    Ferndale
    Skagit
    Mt. Vernon
    Sedro Valley
    Anacortes
    San Juai
    Isla~nd
    Oak Harbor

    Central Puget Sound
    King
    Seattle
    Bellevue

    Mecrcer Island
    Pedmond
    Kitsap
    Eremerton
    Pierce
    Taconia
    Puyallup
    Snohomish
    Edmnonds
    Everett
    Lynnwood

    South Puget Sound
    ragon
    Shelton
    Thurston
    Olympia
    Trmwa ter
    39,661
    30,022
    12,653
    9,639
    5,074

    69, 139
    54,465
    18, 741
    10,762
    14,674
    3,301
    3,573

    144,177
    70, 317
    34,688
    1,442
    51, 35n
    7,921
    3,705
    8,414
    2,872
    19,638
    3,942

    1,512,974
    935,014
    557,087
    12,80f

    1,426
    84, 176
    28,922
    321,598
    14 7, 79
    12,063
    172, 14?
    8,016
    40, 304
    7,207

    16,251

    55, 043
    18,273
    3,885
    8.q

    15.6
    6.0	141.1

    2.0	174.2
    Forest Products
    Tourism
    Farming
    Commercial Fishing

    Forest Products
    Fisheries
    Tourism
    Dairy & Cranberry
    Farming

    Forest Products
    Oil Refining
    Aluminum Production
    Logging Equipment &
    Hoist Manufacturing
    Electronics
    Food Processing & Boat
    Building
    Government
    Dairy & Vegetable Farming

    Transportation
    Aerospace
    Shipbuilding & Repair
    Lumber & Wood Products
    Paper & Allied Products
    Metals and Machinery
    Food Processing
    Retail and Wholesale
    Trade
    Government
    40, 348

    11,567

    69,230

    17,066

    4,141

    89, 347

    60, 871

    3,145
    35,414

    I,355,544

    110,405

    467,683

    qQ, 17,

    21,48
    35.4	8.0	112.6

    35.4	3.3	155.3
    0

    2.2
    100.9
    1.1	8.Q	136.0

    35.4	7.9	141.7

    n	0	8
    29,0    8.1        8.0
    46.8	0	1.0	137.2

    n	0	0	8

    8.9	0	5.0	88.1

    4.5	3.5	6.0	113.n

    7.7	0	1.0	350.3
    5.6	3.5	1.0	183.9

    6.7	0	14.0	92.3

    4.5	0	4.0	202.5

    3.3	0	9.0	?22.7

    1.1	0	15.0	26.Q

    3.3	22.7	1.0	147.0

    1.1	0	4.0	84.9
    1.1	11.2

    2.2	3.3
    89.2

    121.5
    4.4	9.1	345.5
    13.4	8.9	171.7

    2,2	12.2	98.6
    11,0	8.9	191.1

    13.4	14.3	207.3

    n3	.?2	40.3

    0	5.5	168.5

    0	3.3	86.7

    Forest Products
    |Agriculture
    |Government
    I
    5,373 1'
    1 - Washington State/The Beauty of It, The Fact of the Matter
    Data:  Fror:      Department of uommerce b Economic uevelopment, Olympia 197i
    2 - "Oil on Puget Sound"
    3 - USCE National Shoreline Study, Washington

    29
    ordinary high tide) which are owned by the state and managed by various
    public agencies are included, the public access shoreline mileage increases
    to 735 miles.  Table III sulmmarizes the approximate   mileage of public
    beaches in the state. Some of the non-Federal public land is owned by port
    districts and utilized for waterbor-ne commerce facilities. Additionally,
    about 40 miles of privately owned shoreline is used for recreational pur-
    poses, such as resort areas and privately owned marinas.

    TABLE III

    APPROXIMATE MILEAGE OF PUBLIC BEACHES

    Number of	Average
    Area                       Beacbes	Length       Total Mileage

    Puget Sound
    (South of Port Townsend)        215        2000 feet         90

    San Juan Islands & Mainland
    (North of Deception Pass)       147        6000 feet        175

    Strait of Juan De Fuca
    (Port Tow-nsend to Cape
    Flattery)                        21         2500 feet        10

    Open Coast
    (From Cape Flattery to
    Mouth of Columbia River-
    including Grays Harbor &
    Willapa Bay)	28	470

    Total	386	735

    The major users of the coastal resources are the residential and development
    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 com-
    mercial and industrial areas. Heavy industry is concentrated 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 loss
    of forest land, nonirrigated agricultural land, and fish and wildlife lands.

    The vast aesthetic resources of the Washingto-n 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.

    30
    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 6tate' 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.

    IV. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES AND
    CONTROLS FOR THE AREA

    In the introduction to the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Congress found
    that "present state and local institutional arrangements for planning and
    regulating land and water uses . . . are inadequate," and that "the key to
    more effective 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 management program substantially
    recognize these objectives, and are in fact designed to provide both a
    more unified approach toward managing the coastal resources and a compre-
    hensive 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.

    Except for areas in Puget Sound, most of the state's shoreline is not presenitly
    zoned. In addition, a variety of land use plans or- projections of varying
    scope and by different local, state and even Federal agencies, have been
    prepared, frequently coincident   to the state's coast, and again primarily
    for areas around Puget Sound. 'The National Estuary Study identifies about
    100 separate institutional organizations, includi-ng state agencies, city
    and county governments, special purpose districts and Federal agencies which in
    some way take part in the management of the coastal resources and users in
    Washington. These agencies, authorities andi policies have gteLierally been
    implemented in a rragmented fashion, frequently to achieve conflicting objectives.

    31
    The Washington coastal zone management program is intended to coordinate
    government and agency A,ctions Into a comprehensive program to achieve common,
    explicit objectives. It will interact with existing or future land-use
    policies and controls in many ways.

    The SMA 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 SMA has also mandated that all coastal county and city governments
    must develop Master Programs regulating the use of land and waters in
    the 200 foot shoreline. The DOE, again after public heaTings, has
    established guidelines setting 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 land-use plans, zoning and other controls. Zoning must be
    made consistent with the new Master Programs. In general, however, the
    Master Programs reflect existing land use and policies, so the impact of
    this requirement should not be great. 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 (Departme-nt 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.

    Finally, approval of the state coastal zone management program by the Secretary
    of Commerce will have implications on other Federal 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 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 guidelines, procedures and program,
    the DOE has maintained close contact with other affected Federal and state
    agencies and local governments. A variety of advisory committees and
    task forces have been established to provide greater cooperation and coordi-
    nation in implementation of the program.

    32
    V. PROBABLE IMPACT 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 context with the overall policy
    guidance. It might be expected that this process, which could affect much
    of the activity along the coasts, would have a substantial environmental
    impact. However, as there have previously been no management programs
    approved, the impact of such an action is difficult to assess. Unlike
    a specific project of activity, there is no real experience upon which
    an analysis of the environmental impact can be assessed.

    Undoubtedly both beneficial and adverse environmental and socio-economic
    effects will derive from Federal approval and state implementation of
    the Washington coastal zone management program. The following appear most
    significant.

    A. Impacts directly resulting from Federal approval

    Impacts associated with the Federal approval of the Washington coastal
    zone management program fall into two categories: (1) impacts due to
    a direct transfer of funds to the state and local governments, and (2)
    impacts from the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

    Federal approval will permit the Office of Coastal Zone Manlagement 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 government
    levels, and provide 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. Increased
    funding should speed up the completion of Master Programs and provide the
    resources for continual improvement of those programs. 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 per-mit review a-nd appeals system and provide better
    enforcement of the program regulations.

    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 of more than local
    co-ncern. As explained earlier, the Federal consistency requirements of the
    Act (Section 307(c) and (d)) require that direct Federal activities or
    development projects must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable

    33
    with approved state programs. Federal agencies issuing licenses or permits
    for any activity affecting the coastal zone ar.e 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 approving proposed projects affecting
    the coastal zone which require Federal assistance unless they are consistent
    with the coastal managemient program.

    Although states have previously had the opportunity to comment upon Federal
    actions, licenses or permits, in the past this comment has not generally
    been required or mandatory. 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 conflicting -nature of activities affecting the coastal zone.

    The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act does require that state governments
    issue or deny a certification of consistency within six months from the
    time of application, or consistency will be presumed. There is some confusion
    in Washington as to how this provision will be implemented at the state and
    local levels, specifically what the sequence of events will be (whether the
    applicant can or will apply for certification prior to or after the
    granting or refusal of a state shoreline management permit) and whether and
    at what point a state environmental impact statement will be required.
    However, some local governments have expressed the fear that responding within
    six months (shoreline management permits now take a minimum of three months
    to process) will impose an insurmountable administrative burden on them.
    Program administrative grants should help to alleviate that burden, if it in
    fact exists.

    In cases where projects are judged inconsistent with the management program
    and the state has objected or denied certification, Federal agencies will have
    to deny permit applications unless the appeal procedures established by the
    OCZM 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.

    The overall thrust of Federal consistency'will be to provide closer cooperation
    and coordination between Federal, state and local government agencies involved
    in coastal zone related activities and management. This will be considered
    to be a desirable impact and indeed, is one of the objectives of the Act as
    discussed earlier.

    Federal approval of a state's program would also signify that the state has
    an acceptable procedure and administrative mechanism 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; inter-
    state transportation; production of food and fiber; preservation of life and
    property; national defense and aerospace; historic, cultural, esthetic and
    conservation values; and mineral resources, to the extent they are dependent
    on or relate to the coastal zone.

    34
    This policy requirement is intended to assure that national concerns over
    facility siting are expressed and dealt with in the development and implemen-
    tation 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 in-
    cluded at an early stage in the state's planning activities and that such
    facilities not be arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably restricted in the
    management program without good and sufficient reason.

    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,
    this requirement will insure they are specifically included. On the other hand,
    the existence and approval of an explicit 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 thoughtf ul -and less f ragmented and wastef ul, siting of
    such facilities in the Nation as a whole.

    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.

    B. Impacts Resulting from the State and Local Government Actions.

    Although the Washington shoreline magnagement program was begun prior to the
    passage of the Federal CZM Act, and would continue even if Federal funds or
    approval were withheld, approval by the Secretary can be expected to affect
    the program (as outlined above) 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. Again, because the proposed action is regulatory
    and goal oriented, rather than proposing actual physical development or specific
    activity in the coastal zone, the actual assessment of impacts is difficult.

    The state has identified twenty desirable environmental effects resulting from
    its implementation of the SNA and from local government preparation of shoreline
    Master Programs. These might be summarized as:

    (1) the recognition and protection of the coastal zone and its
    esthetic, cultural, biological and natural components, as a
    fragile, limited, and valuable resource;

    (2) the protection of public rights, such as public health and
    safety; public access and navigation; recreation; and public
    property, dependent on or related to the coastal zone;

    35
    (3) the promotion of proper and desirable development in suitable
    locations, and the restriction, reduction or prohibition of
    incompatible, undesirable, or unnecessary coastal uses and ac-
    tivities;

    (4) the promotion and enhancement of long-range public benefits,
    especially from renewable resources, at the expense of short
    term benefits; and

    (5) an increase in coordination and cooperation in planning and
    management efforts among state and local governments.

    The designation of all coastal areas into one of the four environmental types
    (natural, conservancy, rural, or urban) in the local government Master Programs
    will have several effects. Until all local government Master Programs are
    developed and approved, it is impossible to assess the ratio of lands in each
    category. DOE representatives have indicated that perhaps I to 5% of the
    shoreline may ultimately be classified as urban, 10 to 15% rural, 2 to 5%
    natural, and the remainder conservancy. Based on the amount of land already
    urbanized (perhaps 3%) the estimate for the first two categories may be low.

    Lands designated as natural, or to a lesser extent conservancv. 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 a-nd benefits, will be perpetuated, which will be generally beneficial
    to the environment. In contrast, lands designated rural and especially urban
    potentially will guarantee the ultimate development of such areas with con-
    comitant 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 of the
    natural environment, a process for determining where development should go, as
    well as where it should not, can be environmentally beneficial, for the desig-
    nation of specific areas for development will focus and restrict such activi-
    ties 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.

    On the other hand, protection of some natural areas may mean that resources
    there, such as timber or minerals, could not be utilized or exploited. No
    large mineral reserves have been identified in the coastal zone, and the impact
    of prohibiting timber harvest in those 'sections of the 200 foot coastal strip
    will be insignificant in view of the overall state timber resources.

    Because the categorization of coastal lands into the four environmental types
    will restrict or reduce the development potential of some properties and en-
    hance the same potential in others, property values and ultimately property
    tax revenues may be affected. Without a great deal of experience it is
    difficult to assess the magnitude of such an impact. Potentially the result
    might be a displacement of property values (losses in some areas and gains in
    others) more than a net loss or gain. The most adversely affected sector
    will be the investment speculators. It is also probable that such changes

    36
    will be short-term only, and that with insured protection of use and
    enhanced protection of the coastal amenities the long-term property values
    in the coast will increase.

    The SMA does specify that where use of land is restricted because of the SMA,
    the "restrictions imposed . . . shall be considered by the county assessor
    in establishing the fair market value of the property." (RCW 90.58-290).
    While providing relief to aggrieved property owners, the decrease in property
    values will decrease the amount of property tax generated revenues received
    by local governments. This could result in: (1) a decrease in public service
    to the cormunity, especially in counties lacking some urban environments
    in which the increase in property value might of fse-t the tax loss, and (2)
    increase taxes in some areas.

    As indicated earlier, however, because the supply of developable lands would
    be reduced, their value and taxes would increase. Further, as the coastal
    aesthetic and resource amenities are protected and preserved adjacent properties
    will become more desirable for residential and recreational uses. The higher
    value of these lands would result in a positive effect on the tax base, which
    may fully compensate for anticipated tax losses.

    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 pro-
    tection or enihancement of the coastal resources. To the extent they occur
    such losses really reflect the external costs of such operations, which have
    traditionally been born by the public but which are now, though 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 coastal zone permit boundary). This will result from two
    causes. First, activities and development prohibited or restricted in the
    coastal zone may simply relocate just outside of its boundaries. In some
    cases developers may relocate simply to avoid the permit procedure.

    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 exemption by the state of certain activities (e.g. agriculture, private
    residence, and private bulkheading) from SMA permit requirements will have
    the potential for an adverse environmental impact on coastal resources.
    Exemption from the SMA permit procedure, however, does not provide exemption
    from other state regulatory authorities, which will be fully utilized to
    minimize the impact of such activities on coastal land and waters.

    37
    The impact of the program on the distribution of people in coastal areas may
    be significant. Future residential 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.
    This would result in the protection and even enhancement of commercial and
    sport fishing industries, and the continuation of other water dependent in-
    dustries. The program is not intended to displace existing non-water dependent
    industries, but with time and the arrival of new industries, gradual shifts
    in industrial patterns may occur. The program is not expected to affect
    employment.

    The state program will also provide for greater coordination of state, local,
    and Federal actions to explicitly identified goals. This will reduce conflict
    and counter-productive activities. Although the new mechanisms and procedures
    will undoubtedly disrupt established procedures, practices, and relationships,
    such disruptions will be only short-lived.

    Finally, 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.

    38
    VI.  ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

    A. Federal Alternatives to Approval of Washington CZM Program

    The Secretary could delay Washington CZM program app roval until all
    coastal city and countV Master Programs are completed and approved by the
    Washington Department of Ecology.

    Since the coastal city and county Master Programs are the basic implementing
    mechanisms for the CZM and SMIA programs, delay of CZM program approval
    until their completion might permit a better determination to be made of the
    ability of the State of Washin'gton and its local governments to meet the
    intention of the CZM Act. Performance could be more thoroughly analyzed
    leading to a better evaluation of specific areas and regulatory activities.
    In addition, completion of all programs would allow time for more effective
    regional cooperative efforts. However, state policies, authorities, appeal
    procedures and management activities are sufficient to meet CZM requirements
    and are and will continue to be in force if local programs do not meet these
    stringent requirements. In addition, the CZM Act and OCZM in administering
    the Act acknowledge that effective management of a state's coastal zone
    necessarily is a continuing process, only one step of which is program
    approval. The State of Washington's SMA and other legislation, together
    with other program elements meet the spirit and letter of the CZM Act.
    All local coastal Master Programs are to be completed by the end of 1975,
    and all applicable state standards, criteria and review authorities will
    be maintained during and after such completion. Even though some delays
    have been experienced in master program development over the last year and
    a half, and some minor additional delays could occur, substantial progress
    has been made. At this time all cities and counties have a Master Program
    in progress at one stage or another. HUD 701 funds which are being used
    for completion of these programs will be diverted to other programs at the
    end of FY 75. The majority of OCZM 306 funds are planned to be used for
    continuing improvement and refinement as well as implementation of these
    Master Programs starting in FY 76. A second year 305 grant could not be
    used for this purpose, since it can only be used to support program develop-
    ment, not implementation.

    Delay in 306 funding until all Master Programs are approved would only serve
    to slow down the implementation and refinement processes. Moreover, such a
    delay of 306 funds would serve to cast a shadow over the efforts to date and
    might seriously jeopardize the enthusiasm and momentum for effective coastal
    management which the State of Washington has initiated.

    Furthermore, if approval is not given for the Washington CZM program, then
    the Federal consistency section (See. 307) of the CZM Act cannot be applied
    within the state. Specifically, this section requires that any Federal
    agency which conducts, supports or undertakes an activity in or affecting
    the CZ shall insure that the activity is "to the maximum extent practicable"
    consistent with an approved state CZM program. The consequence of delayed
    approval is that inconsistent Federal actions in the coastal zone may
    cause disruptions to existing state standards and local Master Programs.

    39
    The Secretarv could delay approval of the Washington CZM program until
    legislation is passed for compreheusive statewide and nationwide land
    use programs.

    Over the past several years there have been attempts both nationally and
    in the State of Washington to enact effective land use legislation. Once
    such legislation is passed, it might be logical to merge the CZM program
    into the broader context of a land and water use program for each state
    and the nation as a whole. Delay of implementation of CZM and the SMA in
    Washington-would allow the state to create one resource management program
    rather than having to go through the policy, administrative and institu-
    tional difficulties of melding CZM with a statewide land use program.

    Delay in CZM program approval for Washington will not terminate the shore-
    line management program which is well underway. Rather, it would serve to
    delay its full implementation. Thus, lack of CZM program approval would
    not cause the State of Washington to await a comprehensive land use program.
    Only a complete reversal of state policy would do that.

    The Washington State CZM and SMAL programs are, in effect, serving as pilot
    programs for   more comprehensive land use program in a critical environ-
    mentally valuable geographic area of the state. Much can be learned from
    their shoreline management experience which could be applied to all the lands
    of the state. In the meantime, Washington's coastal resources, the most
    threatened and perhaps most valuable in the state, are starting to be
    effectively managed on a shared state-local basis. Waiting f or a compre-
    hensive land use program may cause a delay sufficient to allow the loss or
    damage of many of these valuable resources.

    The Secretary could delay CZM program approval until the Federal establishment
    has developed specific policies for the siting of facilities meeting require-
    ments which are of national interest.

    The CZM Act requires that adequate consideration be given to the national
    interest in siting of certain facilities withi-n a state's coastal zone. The
    state has considered and provides for many of these needs including defense
    installations, port facilities, power generating complexes and fisheries
    management. Legislative authority to insure that all such facilities meet
    both state and national needs would be beneficial to the CZM program. However,
    until Federal agencies formulate long-term plans which indicate national and
    regional needs for such facilities within the country, decisions will be
    made largely on a case by case basis and thus state legislation could, at
    best, have a limited impact on promoting the national interest. It is ex-
    pected that until such national policies are promulgated by the Federal
    government, the authorities the State of Washington has in the Thermal
    Power Plant Site Evaluation Council Act, the SMA and the CZM Act, will be
    adequate to provide for the national interest in siting such facilities.
    In addition, DOE will be advised in these matters by the Federal and state
    agency commi ttees established to deal with the national and state interests
    in the siting of facilities.

    B. Implementation and Control Alternatives for the State CZM Program

    The State of Washington could use other existing authorities for ftindinp anA~
    implementation of a state program meeting the objectives of the CZM Act.

    40
    Specifically these include the National Marine Sanctuary provisions
    of the Ocean Dumping Act, the Estuarine Sanctuary provisions of the CZY_
    Act, the HUD 701 Program, Areawide Waste Treatment Management Programs
    (Section 208, PL 92-500), the State Envirormental Coordination Procedures
    Act, the state's Shoreline Management Act (SMA), the Thermal Power Plant
    Site Evaluation Council Act, the National and State Environmental Policy
    Acts (NEPA and SEPA), the Clean Air Act, the Water Pollution Control Act,
    local comprehensive plans, flood zone and other permit authorities, and
    other such activities.

    The proliferation of authorities which place controls upon land and water
    use has questionable utility, especially when they overlap significantly.
    There is no question that the objectives of the proposed CZM program coincide
    to some degree with the objectives of the authorities listed above. The
    state's use of existing authorities, especially the SMA and the SEPA,
    could go a long way to meeting the concepts described in the CZM Act.

    However, the basic purposes of the CZM Act: "to promote effective manage-
    ment, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone"~ and
    to develop "unified policies, criteria, standards, methods and processes
    for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local signif-
    icance" are not completely covered by any of these authorities. Further-
    more, nonae of the existing authorities except the CZM Act have basic require-
    ments for consistency with an approved program of Federal actions affecting
    the coastal zone nor for consideration of the national interest involved
    in the siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other
    than local in nature. Without the CZM framework existing authorities are
    either very general in nature or have a specific or single purpose intent.

    The Estuarine and Marine Sanctuary provisions are designed to preserve
    water areas for specific (research, educational, recreational, historic,
    esthetic, etc.) values but forbid industrial, commercial or residential
    uses. The HUD 701 program has provided some funds for development of Master
    Programs (under the SMA) and for development of local comprehensive plans,
    but after July 1, 1975, these funds will be diverted for other purposes.
    NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and the Water Pollution Control Act and
    SEPA have as their objective adequate consideration and regulation of air
    and water quality. While these are fundame-ntal to and an integral part of the
    CZM program, they are insufficient to direct the effective balance between
    conservation and development that is intended by CZM. Existing permits
    are designed for specific purposes (air quality protection, water quality,
    water table reductions, preservation of food fish resources, wildlife
    protection, compliance with zoning laws, etc.) but cannot be used effectively
    to comprehensively plan and manage the resources of the coastal zone, which
    is one of the major unifying thrusts of CZM. The SMA is the principal
    authority which the state will use to administer the CZM Act, but it does
    not meet all the requirements of the Act. Specifically missing are areas
    of particular concern and designation of areas for restoration and preserva-
    tion. It is clear then, that these other authorities fill many of the

    41
    individual requirements of the CZM Act, but 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 state might exert complete control over the implementation of the CZM
    Program.

    This is essentially Initiative 43, a bill entitled "The Shorelines Protection
    Act," which was rejected by public vote of the people of the State of
    Washington in November 1972 in favor of the existing SNA. Strong support
    for Initiative 43 came from the Washington Environmental Council, while
    opposition came from local governments and many development groups.

    This alternative would result in policies, regulations and control being
    applied statewide. There would be~-less conflict of interest for local
    governments which otherwise would have to regulate development projects
    that-are the prima-ry source for their tax base. Only one plan would have
    to be developed and implemented rather than 15 county and 37 city programs.
    It would meet the intentions of the CZM Act that states effectively exercise
    their responsibilit ies in the coastal zone. It would enable easier inter-
    state and multi-state cooperation and coordination.

    Total state control of the implementation of the CZM Act, however, would require
    new legislation by the State of Washington. Although this certainly is
    possible, the conflicts produced by the existing SMA indicates that such a
    step would not be acceptable to the people of the State. Total state control
    would not put responsibility into the hands of local government, subject
    to state review and approval, and thereby would almost certainly engender
    significant local obstruction of the program.

    In conttast to the above alternative, county and city governments 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.

    In this case local concerns and conditions would be handled by local govern-
    ments. The additional state permits required by the SMA could be eliminated.

    This alternative could not be acceptable under the conditions of the CZM
    Act, which indicates that states must assert their full authorities and
    responsibilities in management of the resources of the coast. Furthermore,
    the Act stipulates that CZM grants must be awarded to states, This alternative
    would essentially imply that local governments could continue to conduct
    "business as usual,'" a condition which is at least in part responsible
    for the degradation of the resources of some coastal areas. In
    essence, total local control is incompatible with the objectives of coastal
    zone management and not allowable under the Act.

    42
    C. Alternatives to Proposed Program Elements

    The state could extend the boundarv 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.

    This alternative was also a part of Initiative 43 which was rejected by
    the voters in November, 1972.

    Increasing the proposed boundary from 200 feet to 500 feet would increase
    the number of acres under the most direct state control from approxi-
    mately 57,000 acres to approximately 142,000 acres, plus the associated
    wetlands. The proportional control over "substantial development" would
    certai-nly enhance coastal resource protection by dlecreasing development
    activities which would significantly degrade the quality of coastal waters.
    In addition, natural areas within the 500 feet would be preserved, providing
    effective natural drainage, contaminment removal and an aesthetically
    pleasing buffer zone between shoreline and development areas.

    While certain benefits, as explained above, would accrue with such increased
    control, a proportional increase in administrative responsibility would be
    necessary. Since the proposed 200 feet boundary includes the first row of
    building lots and often the associated access road as well as many of
    the unstable or dangerous building areas, extension to 500 feet probably would
    not add proportionally to the benefits derived from the shoreline protection
    requirements. Furthermore, since the associated wetlands such as marshes,
    bogs, swamps, estuaries, and mudflats, included with the 200 feet boundary,
    are the principal natural areas in need of preservation, the increase to
    500 feet would not be necessary to protect them. In addition, a 500 foot
    boundary in urban areas would be extr-emely difficult to administer. More-
    over, the state feels that adequate control can be maintained over uses on
    lands inland from the 200 foot boundary by the use of water quality control and
    other regulations. Finally, the voters of the state rejected the 500 foot
    boundary in favor of the 200 foot boundary in November, 1972. There *is no
    evidence that the voters of Washington would find the 500 foot boundary
    acceptable now.

    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
    "1substantial development,"i as well as those included by that definition.

    These additional uses, which are presently exempt from SMA permit requirements,
    are:

    (1) construction of the normal protective bulkhead, common
    to single family residence
    (2) construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure
    on wetlands.

    43
    (3) cons;truction on wetlands by an owner, leasee, or contract
    purchase of a si-ngle-family residence for his own use
    or for the use of his family.

    These additions to the definition of uses which have a direct and significant
    impact would help insure better protection to shoreline and wetland areas.
    Protective bulkheads, due to their frequency of occurrence add significantly
    to changes in the natural physical processes of the erosion and accretion of
    shoreline. While bulkheads provide short term localized erosion protection, they
    disrupt the natural processes, often causing more severe erosion down
    current. Development in wetland areas, whether agricultural, private
    residential or commercial, almost always adds to the degradation of natural
    biological processes and water quality. Non-point source wastes, agricultural
    and private residential waste products (septic tank effluent) as
    well as disruption of the natural surface water and ground water flow patterns
    could be expected to cause significant adverse impact on coastal waters.

    The major adverse impact expected from expanding the definition of "sub-
    stantial development"' to include these additional development activities
    is that pressure for these activities would be great and little tolerance
    would be shown for the time delays caused by the permits required prior to
    construction. Moreover, these uses are only exempt from the SMA permit
    requirements and not other state controls. As with the above alternative,
    the state believes that adequate control cau be maintained over these uses
    by its existing authorities over dredge and fill, water quality, and flood
    control zoning.

    The state could compensate land owners for a drop in property value of
    property or for economic opportunities lost as a result of construction
    permits deprived by the SMA within the 200 foot boundary.

    This is essentially House Bill No. 550 currently in the House Committee on
    Ways and Means - Revenue.

    There is little doubt that implementation of the CZM program in Washington
    will cause a constraint on existing land use and development along the
    shoreline, especially within the 200 foot boundary. This can be expected as
    established procedures are abandoned and new ones are implemented., As a
    result of those constraints, changes in property values will occur and
    allowable methods and locations for construction will change, with a resultant
    economic loss to some and economic gain to others. It can be expected,
    however, that as new procedures, policies and regulations become established
    and accepted, the process of site selection and obtaining construction permits
    will be no more lengthy or costly than at present. It can also be expected
    that as concern for preservation of the natural values of the shorelines and the
    coastal waters increases, there will be an increase in the value of controlled
    coastal property to a point equal to if not exceeding the previously pro-
    jected values.

    44

    Compensation to property.owners f or loss due to this disruption would be
    a controversial, costly and an extremely complicated and difficult admin-
    istrative problem. The state is not exerting eminent domain, but rather
    restricting uses of the land for the public health, safety and welfare
    under its legitimate regulatory powers. It is difficult to establish
    exactly now how uses to which the property could be put would affect its
    value. General trends can be predicted, but specific property values
    are subject to too many influences to predict future price. Claims, if
    House Bill No. 550 or a similar compensation measure passed, could be
    expected to be in the order of one hundred million dollars for the coastal
    lands adversely influenced by the CZM and SMA programs, but in the lack of
    similar experience, the state would not have the ability to judge how realistic
    or excessive these might be. While few would question the fact that short-
    term economic losses would occur, others would question its magnitude and
    would claim that long-term economic gain would offset such losses.

    45
    VII.  PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH 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 detiving from the Master Programs and
    the state management program will assure that some areas will be
    developed more fully and more swiftly than if development were to proceed
    in a fragmented, less controlled fashion. This will 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.

    Resource extraction or exploitation, especially timber harvest, may be
    restricted or prohibited in some (a small percentage) of the coastal lands.

    Development pressures may increase on la-nds adjacent to but immediately
    inland from the 200 foot shoreline permit zone, with concomittant destruction
    of environmental resources in that zone.

    Finally, population'and industrial growth will be limited to specific
    areas, with the result that both will ultimately become more densely
    concentrated.

    VIII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AN]) THE
    MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEM,ENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

    While approval of the proposed state coastal zone 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 use
    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 because of degradation of the environment.
    Without proper management the traditional conflicts between 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 segments of the natural system, the management program will
    directly contribute to the long-term maintenance of the environment.

    46
    IX.     IRREVOCABLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD
    BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE INPLEMENTED

    The approval of the state coastal zone management program, and
    implementation of the local government Master Programs, will
    lead certain areas of the Washington coastline to be intensely,
    and for all practical purposes, irrevocably developed. This
    will cause the loss of some environmental resources. A limited
    amount of timber and perhaps mineral resources will also be re-
    moved from direct commercial exploitation.

    47
    XI CONSULTATION AN1D 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 prepar-
    ation 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 Highway 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 Administration, 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 cooperation in development of the program.

    As the state received Federal CZM funds to develop its program, repre-
    sentatives from the Office of Coastal Zone Management also met with a
    variety of Federal and state agencies to ensure coordination. These
    included meetinW,,generally with the regional representatives, between
    OCZM and FEA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Soil Conservation
    Service, the-Economic Development Administration, the Pacific North-
    west River Basins Co-mmission, the Federal Regional Council, and the
    Department of the Interior, HEW and HUD. Meetings were also held with
    the Puget Sound Governmental Conference and the Pacific Northwest
    National Seashore Alliance.

    XI.    PUBLIC HEARING

    As a part of the review and comment process pursuant to this proposal,
    a public hearing for the purpose of receiving information and comments
    from concerned public and private organizations and citizens will be
    held from 7:30 p.m. to 12:00 midnight on April 22, 1975, at the:

    Conference Room
    General Administration Building
    Capitol Complex
    Olympia, Washington

    Persons wishing to make a statement at the hearing should so inform
    the
    Edward T. LaRoe
    Office of Coastal Zone Management
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Rockville, Maryland 20852 (phone: 301 496-8896)

    of their desires. It may be necessary to impose a time limit o-n
    speakers.

    48
    Both written and oral statements will be accepted. Comments should
    address the adequacy of the draft Environmental Impact Statement as
    well as the desirability of the proposed action.

    Copies of the complete state application, with supporting documents,
    will be available f or public inspectio-n at the following locations:

    CLALLAM COUNTY

    North Olympic Library System
    2210 S. Peabody Street
    Port Angeles 98362
    206 457-4464 -- James H. Kirks, Jr.

    GRAYS HARBOR

    Aberdeen Timberland Library
    121 E. Market Street
    Aberdeen 98520
    206 533-2360 -- Rosalie Spellman

    ISLAND CO.

    Snow Isle Regional Library
    P.O. Box 148
    Marysville 98270
    206 259-8177 -- Mae L. Schoenrock

    JEFFERSON CO.

    Port Townsend Public Library
    1228 Lawrence Street
    Port Townsend 98368
    206 385-3181 -- Madge M. Wallin

    KING COUNTY

    King County Library System
    300 8th Ave., North
    Seattle 98109
    206 344-7465 -- Herbert F. Mutschler

    KITSAP COUNTY

    Kitsap Regional Library
    612 5th Street
    Bremerton 98310
    206 377-3955 -- Irene Heninger

    49
    MASON COUNTY

    Timberland South Mason Library
    Rt. 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 Ave., S
    Tacoma 98402
    206 572-6760 -- Carolyn J. Else

    SAN JUAN CO.

    Eastsound (Meyers) Library
    Orcas Island
    P.O. Box 165
    Eastsound 98245 -   Polly Klauder

    SKAGIT CO.

    Anacortes Public Library
    1209 9th Street
    Anacortes 98221
    206 293-2700 -- G. Douglas Everhart

    SNOHOMISH CO.

    See Island Co.

    THURSTON CO.

    Olympia Public Library
    7th and Franklin
    Olympia 9850.
    206 352-0595 -- Margaret Coopinger

    WAHKIAKUM CO.

    Cathlamet Public Library
    P.O. Box 337
    Cathlamet 98612
    206 795-3254 -- Eleanor A. Taylor

    50
    WHATCOM CO.

    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.

    Office of Coastal Zone Management
    NOAA

    From March 21 to March 31
    11400 Rockville Pike
    Room 306
    Rockville, Maryland 20852

    From April 2 to May 21
    3300 Whitehaven St., N.W.
    Page I Building
    Room 301
    Washington, D. C. 20235

    Department of Commerce
    Main Commerce Building
    14th & Constitution, N.W,.
    Room 7046
    Washington, D.C. 20230

    51
    AEFERENCES

    .Crutchfield, James A., et al 1969. Final report. Socioeconomic, Institutional,
    and Legal Considerations in the Management of Puget Sound.
    University of Washington. FWCA Contract No. 14-12-420.

    Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, 1973, Grays Harbor Erosion Manage-
    ment Study.

    Odum, H. T., et al, Editors, 1974. Coastal Ecological Systems of the United
    States, Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 4 volumes.
    Oregon State
    University, 1971. Oceanography of the Nearshore Cciastal Waters
    of the Pacific Northwest Relating to Possible Pollution. Water
    Quality Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Administration,
    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 Wild-
    life, 1970. National Estuary Study, U.S. Government Printing
    Office, Washington, D.C., 7 volumes.
    Wiashington,

    Washington,

    Washington,
    State of, Department of Natural Resources, 1974. Washington Marine
    Atlas,. 6 volumes.

    State of, Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management, 1974.
    Pocket Data Book, 1973.

    .State University, 1972. Oil on Puget Sound, An Interdisciplinary
    Study in Systems Engineering. Washington Sea Grant Publication,
    University of Washington Press, 629 pages.

    APPENDIX I

    PUBLIC L.AW 92-583

    COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

    ACT OF 1972

    Public Law 92-583
    92nd Congress, S. 3507
    October 27, 1972
    ,Ln aLt
    86 STAT. 1280
    To establish at nltiolnal pollicy and develop a national program for the mlanage-
    lient. beneficial use, protection, and development of the land anld water
    resources of the VNation's coastal zones, and for other purposes.
    I1e it enacreted by the Senate and Ihouse of Representatiices of the
    l'United States of A.merica in Cong/re.s assembled. That the Act entitled	Marine Re-
    "A\n Act to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated	soures and
    national programl in marine science, to establish a National Council on	Engineering
    .Marine Resources and Engineering Developnment, and a Commission	DevelApent
    on Marine Science. Engineering and Resourlces, and for other pur- Ae t of' t66
    poses", apllr'oved June 17. 1966 (80 Stat. 203:), as amended (33 U.S.C.
    114)1-1124), is further amended by adding at the end thereof the fol-	80 Stat. 998;
    lowing nelw title:	84 Stat. 865.

    TITLE,I I I-I-MIANAGEMENT OF TIlE COASTAL ZONNE

    SIHORT TITLE
    SE('. 30()1. This title mnay be cited as the "Coastal Zone 'Management
    Act of 1972".
    CONGRESSIONAL FINDISNOS
    Szc(. :30. The Congrless finds that-
    (a) There is a natiolnal interest in the effective management, bene-
    ficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone;
    (b) The coastal zone is rich in a v[ariety of natural, commercial, rec-
    reational. indulstrial, and esthetic resources of immediate and potential
    value to the p)resent and future wvell-being of the Nation;
    (c) T'lie lncreasilng and  .omnpeting demands ulpon the lands and
    wvaters of our coastal zone occasioned by population growtth and eco-
    nollic ideve:opment, including reqnuirelllments for industry, conmmerce,
    residlential development, recreation, extraction of mineral resources
    and fossil fuels, transportation and navigation, waste disposal, and har-
    vesting of fish, slhellfish, and other living marine resolrces. have
    resulted in the loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich
    areas, l)einlanent and adverse chllanges to ecological systems, decreasing
    open space for public use, and sloreline erosion;
    (d) Tile coastal zone, and the fisl, shellfish, otlher living marine
    resolurces, and wildlife therein, are ecologically fragile and conse-
    quently extlemnely vulnerable to dest.ruction by nman's alterations;
    (e) Important ecological, cnltllral. histolic. and esthetic values in
    the coastal zone whlich are essential to the well-being of all citizens are
    being irretrievably damaged or lost;
    (f) Special natural andl scenic characteristics are being damaged by
    ill-planned development that threatens these values;
    (g) In light of eom)peting demlands and the urgent need to protect
    and to give high priority to natural systems ip the coastal zone, pres-
    ent state and local institutional arrangements for planning and regu-
    lating land and water uses in suchl areas are inadequate; and
    (h) The key to niore effective protection and use of the land and
    water resoulrces of the coastal zone is to encour.age the states to exercise
    tlheir full authority over thei lands and waters in the coastal zone by
    assisting the states. in cooperation witll Federal and local governments
    and otllher vitally affected interests, in developing land and water use
    progrlanls for the coastal zone, including unified policies, criteria.
    ~?~'Tc.    o       standards. methlods, and processes for dealing with land and water
    Iuse decisions of more than local significance.

    /"':',6 -~ a~'~       83-081  0

    86 STATe 1281    Pub. Law 92-583                 - 2 -           October 27, 1972

    DECLARATION OF POLICY
    SEc. 303. The ('ongress finds and 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 the land and water resources of the coastal zone giving full
    consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as
    well as to needs for econonlic development, (c) for all Federal agencies
    engaged in programs affecting the coastal zone to cooperate and par-
    ticlpate with state and local governments and regional agencies in
    effectuating the purlposes of this title, and (d) to encourage the par-
    ticipation of the public. of Federal, state, and local governments and
    of regional agencies in the development of coastal zone management
    programis. With respect to implenientation of such managament pro-
    grams, it is the national policy to encourage cooperation among the
    various state and regional agencies including establishment of inter-
    state and regional agreemlents, cool)erative procedures, and joint action
    paiticularly regarding envirollnental problems.

    DEFI N ITIONS
    SEc. 304. For the purposes of this title-
    (a) "Coastal zonle" Illeans the coastal waters (incliding tile lands
    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 coastal states, and includes
    transitional and inltertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches.
    The zone extends, in Great L,akes waters, to the international bound-
    ary between the lUnited States and ('anada and, in other areas, seaward
    to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea. The zone extends
    inland from thle shorelines onlly to tho extent necessary to control
    shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on
    the coastal waters. Excluded fronl the coastal zone are lands the use
    of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in
    trust by the Federal Goverlullelt. its officers or agents.
    (b) "Coastal waters" meanls (1) in the Great ,nakes area, the waters
    within the terrlitorial juris(lictionl of the ITnited States consisting of
    the (ireat Lakes, their connecting waters, harbors, roadsteads, an(d
    estuary-type areas sucih as hays, shallows, and marshes and (2) in
    other areas, those waters, adjacent to the shorelines, which contain a
    mleasurable quantity or percentage of sea water, including, but not
    limited to, sounds, bays, lagoons. bayous, ponds, and estuaries.
    (c) "Coastal state" means a state of the ITnited States in, or bor-
    dering on, the Atlantic, Pacific. or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico,
    Long Island Solundl. or one or more of tile Great Lakes. For the pur-
    poses of this title, the term also incluldes Puerto Rico, the Virgin
    Islands, Guam, alid American Samoa.
    (d) "Estuary" means that part of a river or stream or other body
    of water having uninlpaire(l connection with the open sea, where the
    sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land
    drainage. The term includes estuarv-type areas of the Great Lakes.
    (e) '"Estuarine sanctuary" means a research area which may include
    any part or all of an estuary, adjoining transitional areas, and adja-.
    cent uplands, constituting to the extent feasible a natural unit. set

    October 27, 1972
    -3-
    Pub. Law 92-583  86 STAT. 1282
    86 S?A?, 1282
    aside to provide scientists and students the opportunity to examille
    over a period of time the ecological relationships withinl the area.
     f ) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Commerce.
    g) "Management program" includes but is not limited to, a com-
    prehensive statement in words, maps, illustrations, or other media of
    eommunication, prepared and adopted by tle state in accordance wvith
    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 on the
    water; but does 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
    are incorporated in any program as required by the provisions of
    section 307(f).
    (i) "LTand use ' means activities which are conducted in or on the
    shorelands within the coastal zone, subject to the requirements out-
    lined in section 307(g).

    MIANAGEMENT PROORtAM 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 a
    management program for the land and water resources of its coastal
    zone.
    (b) Such 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;
    (3) an inventory and designation of areas of particular con-
    cern within the coastal zone;
    (4) an identification of the means by which the 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 responsibili-
    ties and interrelationships of local, areawide, state, regional, and
    interstate agencies in the management process.
    (c) The grants shall not exceed 662% per centum of the costs of the
    program in any one year and no state shall be eligible to receive more
    than three 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 used to develop a management program consistent with the require-
    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-
    opini such management program.
    (d) Upon completion of the development of the state's management
    program, the state shall submit such program to the Secretary for
    Limitation.

    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 progiranm by the Secretary, the state's eligibility for further grants
    ulnder this section shall terminate, and the state shall be eligible for
    grants un(ler section 306 of this title.
    Grants,	(e) Grants un(ler tllis section shall be allocated to the states based
    allooation.	on rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary: Provided,
    ihowuever, That no management program development grant under this
    section shall be made in excess of 10 per centum nor less than 1 per
    centum of the total amount appropriated to carry out the purposes of
    thlis section.
    (f) Grants or portions thereof not obligated by a state during the
    fiscal vear for which thev were first authorized to be obligated by the
    state, or during the fiscal year immediately following, shall revert to
    the Secretary, and slhall be added by himn 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
    82 Stat, 208.	grant under this section, for the purpose of carrying out the provi-
    42 USC 3334.	sions of this section.
    Expiration	(h) The authority to make grants under this section shall expire on
    date.	.June 30, 1977.
    ADMTINISTRATIVE GRANTS
    Limitation.      SEC. 306. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make annual grants to
    any coastal state for not mlolre than 662/3 per centum of the costs of
    administering the state's management programn, if he approves such
    program in accordance with subsection (c) hereof. Federal funds
    rece\ived fromI1 otlher soIurces shall not be used to pay the state's share
    of costs.
    Allocation.       (b) Such grants shall be allocated to the states with approved pro-
    grams based on rules anti regulations promulgated by the Secretary
    w-hich shall take into account the extent and nature of the shoreline
    and area covere(l by the plan, population of the area, and other rele-
    vant factors: Providead, however, That nio annual admilnistrative grant
    unlder this section shall be madle in excess of 10 per centurn nor less than
    1 per centunl of the total amount appropriated to carry out the pur-
    poses of this section.
    Program	(e) IPrior to grlanting approval of a nianagemuent program submitted
    requirements.	by a coastal state, the Secretary shall find that:
    (1) The state ,has develop)ed 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 Fedelral 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 vwith 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
    bv a local government, an areawvide agency designated pursulant to
    regulations established under section 204 of the Demonstration

    - 5 -       Pub. Law 92-583
    October Z7, 1972
    86 STAT. 1284
    Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, a regiolal
    agency, or an interstate agency; and
    (B) established an effective mechanism for continuing con-
    sultation and coordination between the malnagement agency desig-
    nate( pursualnt to paragraph (5) of this subsection and witll local
    governments, interstate agencies, regional agencies, an(l areawide
    agencies within the coastal zone to assure the full palrticipatiol
    of such local governments and agencies in carrying out the pur-
    poses of this title.
    (3) The state has hleld public hlearings in the development of thle
    management plrogram.
    (4) Tile management plogramnl an(l any challges tllereto hlave been
    reviewed alld approved by the Governor.
    (5) The (Governor of tile state hlas designated a single agency to
    r eceive and administer the grants for implementing tile management
    program  required under paragraph (1) of this subsectionl.
    (6) The state is organized to impllement the management program
    required under paragraph (1) of thils subsectioln.
    (7) Tile state hlas thile authlorities necessary to implement tile pro-
    gram, including the authority required under subsectionl (d) of this
    section.
    (8) Tile management program provides for adequate consideration
    of tile national interest involved in tlhe siting of facilities necessary
    to meet requirements which are other than local in nature.
    (9) The management program makes provision for procedures
    whereby specific areas may be designated for thle purpose of preselv-
    ing or restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological,
    or esthetic values.
    (d) Prior to granting approval of the management program, thle
    Secretary shall find that the state, acting tllroug  its chosen agency ol,
    agencies, including local governlents. 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 zonle in accordance withl
    tlle management program. Such autllority shall include power-
    (1) to administer land and water use regulationls, control devel-
    opment in order to ensure compliance with the management pro-
    gram, and to resolve conflicts among competing uses; and
    (2) to acqulire. fee simple anud less than fee simple interests in
    lands, waters, and other property thlrough condemnnation or other
    means when necessary to anclliev'e confornlance 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 and enforce-
    ment of compliance;
    (B) Direct state land and water use planning and regula-
    tion: or
    (C) State administrative review for consistency witll 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.
    80 Stat. 1262;
    82 Stat. 208.
    42 USC 3334.

    86 TA. 185Pub. Law 92-583    - 6 -      Otbr2,17
    October 27, 1972
    86 STAT. 1265
    (-,) for a liethlod of assurin-ig thiat locitl laind arid( water Ilse
    reguilations wNith iin tilt coastal zonle (lo riot nresrib -estr-ict
    orm1 I ile laI and fiw tliNater Iuses of regrionl Ib Ienlefit.
    (f) I'With thte approval of the Secreta ry, II state ilray a] locatee to a
    local government, anl areawvide agency desi-nated ttiider section 204
    of~~~~ Ih  I )eos-to   iisar  Metropolitan D)evelopment Act o
    119)trh a regrionial agenicy, or- an Interstate agrency, at portion of the gr-ant
    un1der this sectionl for thle purpose of carrying-out the provisions of thils
    sectionl : Proc0vid(/. That siich allocation shall riot relieve tile state of
    tlie responrsibi lit y for- ens uring that anly fundics So allocat4ed arireil)p1lied
    in fuit heliranice of suc(1 sta te'S appr-ovedmanaen1     programl.
    'I)'lie  state slriall be authorized to auedi  tihe iatgerntprO-
    gra t~~od   if ic ohiat ion shiall be, in accorda nce wvith the p)roce(lr s
    reqirtired u ridert subsection ( e) of thils sect ion. Any aruendirnenit or,
    ilod Iilicat ionl of tire p)rograilii lutist be a )piroved  by tile Secretarty before
    aIddit total admuinistrartive grants are miadle to tIre state iiteinde tIte pro0
    grain as amiendled.
    (Ii) At, the discretioni of the state aridi withi the approval of the,
    Secretary, a, iana-rugenent prograin titmy be developed anid adopted in
    seguriletts so that ituillediate attention may be devoted to those ar-eas
    with in1 tilie coastal Zone Nvilich imost ur-ently' need nianagenient pro-
    grams: Provcided. Thlat ttie state adlequaitely provides for the tlt'iniate
    coordinration of the v-ariouis se-gments of the imnanageniient programi iiito
    a sin,gle imiifiedi progrian a11(1 that the  niiifiedi program wNill be coml-
    1)rheteu kS soon as is reasonably praet icabile.
    I i,.\rRAGCF.(Y COORI H!NATIO N A ND COOPirERATION
    80 Stat. 1262;
    82 Stat. 209.
    42 USC 3334.

    Programn
    mo di fieat ion.

    S egniental
    development.
    iE.3,. (a) In catriyirig outt hiis ftriticionis and( responsibilities
    11i1der thisi title, the Sevretar -v shial  consult wvithi, coopferate wvit Ii, arid,l
    to the inaxitnuni extent p)ract icable, coordlinate his activ-ities witli
    othier interested Federal a4rencies.
    b )) The Secretary shiall I tot approve tire nimanaement priograrir sruh-
    Iliffittd ria tte p)ilsustiat to sect ion 36 mi uless, tlIte views of Federal
    II0,111Ve's prutrcipally affected 1bs suchi prograuirl have 1)eell adelluatelN.
    considrlerel. In ria(ru, of !'etiolrs disagr(emrienit bet veenl anyv Federal
    a geinc  ar1iu  the state ill thre developlrminrt of the progralutir  Ie Se(re-
    tarr.y. III cooperat iol wvithI the Execit iv O      ffice oif tIre I 'residlet t. shllr
    seek to mttediate thle hiftieteirevs.
    (c ))    Each  Federal  ag-risy corr(oettiirr  oi- -upportingi  if-t ivities
    directlyv affiectilig the voastaul zone shvihl cotdulrut or, support those
    ;wt I%-t,es  III aI riairWhich  is. to tlIre nIaxiuirIIIII extentlit prati(ruIle,
    e(IIS'Steirt wi-thj qppIrtove(l Staite intinuraetiteiit progyrrrns.
    (2) Anv  Feder-al ageric v wlrichi shllr undertake any development
    p)roject iln the coastiri zone of a state sliall inisurie thant theo project is,
    to the irra1XIrmIturI extenit practicilrlie, cousistent wNithi approved state

    Certification. (3) A fter finial aprova)(irl by the SperetarYv of a state's mamiageornerit
    ptrogrniitiI.. app ric)lli(rt for a required Federal license or peoriut to
    iotlitan activ-ity a flect inmg land or wvater rises tinlte coastal zonle of
    tltrt state shall provide Ill tIhe ap~plivation to tbre licensing or pernrit-
    tiri  agetury(l  al cetlu -hta'itit  thiat tIre pitoposed  icivt    complies  NN-itlr
    the stute's ap~provedl pr-rarmn andl thart sucb  aetivity wvill be coriductedi
    iln a rTr:rrrir(r vonisisterit wvith tle prtoirrairi. At till, Samle timie, tire ip
    ia nt shirt 1  furn-iish  to thie strate or its uljjuae    ge(I(ncy  a coipv of
    tile cv1rt iftcattort. AIt itliall necessarrv  rifotrintio irir ind (lata. Each  coastal
    tteSluill1 estaNrishi ptrocedrrres for- publici notice tinltIe case of all silch

    October 27, 1972
    - 7 -      Pub. Law 92-583
    86 STAT. 1286
    certifications and, to the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for
    public hearings in connection therewith. At the earliest practicable
    time, the state or its ldesignated agency shall notify the Federal agency
    concernedl that tile state concurs with or objects to the applicant's
    certification. If the state or its designated agency fails to furnish the
    required notification within six months after receipt of its copy of the
    applicant's certification, 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 hlas con-
    curred with the applicant's certification or ulntil, by the state's failulre
    to act, thle 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 is 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 sucll activities to the approved management pro-
    gram for the coastal zone. Such applications shall be submitted and
    coordinated in accordance with the provisions of title IV of the Inter-
    governmental Coordlination Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1098). Federal agen-
    cies shall not approve proposed projects that are in.consistent with a
    coastal state's management program, except 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.
    (e) Notlhing in this title shall be construeld-
    (1) to diminish either Federal or state jurisdliction. responsi-
    bility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control
    of water resources, submerged lands, or navigable watels; 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 or of two or more states and
    the Federal Governlment; nor to limit the authority of Congress
    to authorize and fund projects;
    (2) as superseding, modifying. or repealing existing laws appli-
    cable to the various Federal agencies; nor to affect the jurisdiction,
    powers, or prerogatives of the International .Joint Commission,
    United States and Canada. the Permanent Engiineerinig iBoard,
    and the IUnited States operating entity or entities established pur-
    suant to the Columbia River IBasin Treaty, signe(l at Washington,
    JTanuary 17. 1901. or the International Boundaly and Water Com-
    mission. United States and Mexico.
    (f) Notwithstanllding any other provision of this title, nothing in this
    title shall in any way affect any requirement (1) established by the
    Federal VWater Pollution Control Act, as amended, or the Clean Air
    Act, as amended, or (2) established by the Federal Government or by
    any state or local government purstlanlt to such Acts. Such require-
    ments shall be incorporated in any program developed pursuant to
    this title and shall be the water pollution control and air pollution
    control requirements applicable to such program.
    (g) Wlhen any state's coastal zone management program, submitted
    for approval or proposed for modification pulsuant to section 306 of
    this title, includes requirements as to shorclands wllich also would be
    subject to any Federally supported national land use program which
    may be hereafter enacted, the Secretary, prior to approving such pro-
    Notifioation.

    42 USC 4231.

    Ante, p. 816.
    81 Stat. 485;
    84 Stat. 1676.
    42 U!SC 1857
    note.

    Pub. Law 92-583        - 8 -       Otbr2,17
    October 27, 1972
    86 S-AT. 1287
    VIgram, shtall obtainl thte conceurr-etce of the Secretary of thte Initerior, or
    s'ucti otlher Federal official as niay be deigae  to administer the
    liatio]ial lanid use progr-am, withl respect to thiat portioni of tile coastal
    zoiie managcuieut program affectinig suchi inliand areas.

    PIIBLIC HEARINGS
    SF,c. "'os' All p)ublic hearings requiriied iiud(er this title imuist be
    :1nnounc1fed at least. thirity diays prior- to the hearing date. At tile timle
    of tlie annouincement, all agency materials pertinent to the liearings,
    ineluiding documents, studies, and other data, must, he nmade available
    to the I)IIhhIC for reviewv siid stuidy. AS similar maiiterials are subse-
    quientlv developed, they shall 1be miade available to thie publc ;is they
    herone vaiabl totheag-ency.

    RFN'[F.W OF IVIRFOflMANXIE
    sIa.- If09  Il Te Secej-tarv sliall conduct a conitinuiing review of
    thle wanagement. programs of the coastal states and of the performance
    of each) state.
    (1)) The Secretary shiall have the authority to terminate anyv financial
    a-'sistaiiie extendled itindlev' s(toti 306 aii(l to withdraw any uniexpended
    po It io o such assistance if (1) lie determiiines thiat the state is failing
    to adhere to and is nAot justi.fied in deviating fr-omi the p~rogrank
    ;ipproved by tile Secretary; and (2) thie state lhas been given nioticet
    of tlhe propo`sed termination anid withdrawal anid giveni ani opportunity
    to present t-vidence of adlherence or juistificationi for altering its

    St.:;io. (a) Each recipient of a lgrant unider this title shlliee
    <11ch riwords as the 'Secretary slhall picpibe,. incliuding r-ecordis wbich
    full 1v d isclose the a moun11t and d1isposit ion of thie fundits r-eceived uinder
    the(- gatilte totall cost of thle project or- un1dertak-ing suipplied bv
    other Son creS. Mid suchl othler r-ecords as will facif itate an effective
    auidit.
    'i' hie Secretaryv and1 the Comptroller General of the United
    S~tates. or anly of thleir- duly authorized representatives, shall have
    0 ceSS for thet puirpose- of auidit andt examination to any books, docu-
    uIlnts. papers. and( records of the recipient of the, grant thtat are perti-
    iiciit to the determination that fundi(s gYranted are uised in accordance
    xi-iti this fitle.

    SI.c  11. ( a) '['lie Socretariv is authorized antd directed to establishi
    it Coastal Zone Management Adlvisory Committee to advise, conisult
    wvit Ii. and imake recomImendations to the Seeretar 'v on inatters of policy
    co0I)IrI0ilig- thle toastal zonep. Siieh  -ommilttee shall he composed of not
    mlore thaxti fifteen persons desig-nated by the Secretatry anid slhall per-
    forml siit-I fiunction's aInd operate iII sulch a manner as thie Secretary'
    inav direct. Thxe Serretary shall insurev that the committee member-
    Ahip) as a g-roup) possesses 'a broad rang-e of experience and( k,nowledge
    relatingf- to problems involvingninaeii-t  usc, conservation, pro-
    ti-ctioli. and developnuciit of Coastal Zone rcsouu rces.
    00 Members of the conmriiitte(e who are niot reglmar fulli-time
    ciiiloly(,e of the United States. -while serving- oni the buisiness, of the
    ommttee. in(Iluding traveltime, mnav receive- compensation at rates
    not exceeding $100 per diem; and   whl so serving, awvay frorm their
    Fnanc ial.

    assistanze$

    t ern  m rat  i  n

    ""Idit.

    C-,stal Zcne

    Manager~ e i-t

    AJvisory

    IO.mni ttee ,

    establ-ishneryti

    n embership.

    travel cx-

    .efl)ssB.

    - 9 -       Pub. Law 92-583
    October 27, 1972
    86 STAT. 1288
    iho0ies or relgular places of business may be allowed travel expenses,
    including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section
    5703 of title 5, United States Code, for individuals in the Govern-
    ment serv-ice employed intermittently.
    80 Stat. 499;
    83 Stat. 190.
    ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES
    SEC. 312. The Secretary, in accordance with rules and regulations
    promulgated by him, is authorized to make available to a coastal state
    grants of up to 50 per centum of the costs of acquisition, 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
    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 306 shall be used for the purpose of this section.
    Grants.

    Federal share.
    ANNUAL REPORT
    SEC. 313. (a) The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Presi-
    dent for transmittal to the Congress not later than November 1 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) an identifi-
    cation of the state programs approved pursuant to this title during
    the preceding Federal fiscal 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 status of each state's programs ahd 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 regulations issued by the Secretary or in
    effect during the preceding Federal fiscal year; (7) a summary of a
    coordinated national strategy and program for the Nation's 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 nmay be appro-
    priate.
    (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall contain such recom-
    mendations for additional legislation as the Secretary deems necessary
    to achieve the objectives of this title and enhance its effective operation.

    RULES AND REGULATIONS
    SEC. 314. The Secretary shall develop and promulgate, pursuant
    to section 553 of title 5, United States Code, after notice and oppor-
    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 rules and
    regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
    title.
    80 Stat. 383.

    Pub. Law 92-583        - 10 -
    October 27, 1972
    86 STAT. 1289
    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
    ending 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, 1974, 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 and for each of the four succeed-
    ing fiscal years, as may be necessary for administrative expenses
    intcident to the administration of this title.
    Approved October 27, 1972.

    LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

    HOUSE REPORTS: No, 92-1049 acoomparving H,R. 14146 (Conm. on Merohant
    Marine and Fisheries) and No, 92-1544 (Comm, of
    Conferenoe).
    SENATE REPORT No, 92-753 (Comm. on Commerce).
    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 118 (1972):
    Apr. 25, oonsidered and passed Senate.
    Aug.  2, oonsidered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 14146,
    Oot. 12, House and Senate agreed to conferenoe report.
    WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 8, No. 44:
    Oot. 28s Presidential statement,
    0

    APPENDIX 2

    COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

    PROGRAM APPROVAL REGULATIONS

    Reprinted from FEDERAL REGISTER
    THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975
    WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Volume 40 E Number 6

    PART I

    OI 194

    DEPARTMENT OF
    COMMERCE
    National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration

    COASTAL ZONE
    MANAGEMENT
    PROGRAM
    ADMINISTRATIVE
    GRANTS

    I
    NOTICE OF FINAL
    RULEMAKING

    RULES AND REGULATIONS
    1683
    was amended to reflect the requirement
    of the National Environmental Policy
    Act environmental impact statement
    requirements.
    3. Several comments indicated that the
    States did not have a clear understand-
    ing as to what was meant under � 923.11
    (b) (4) which refers to Federal lands sub-
    ject solely to the discretion of, or which
    is held in trust by, the Federal govern-
    ment, its officers and agents. This section
    has been amended in order to provide a
    procedure for identifying those lands
    which are within the framework of this
    section.
    4. Several commentators indicated
    that there was uncertainty as to what the
    requirements of the national interest
    were pursuant to � 923.15. This section
    has been amended in order to more suc-
    cinctly state what the requirements are
    pursuant to this section and how a
    State must meet these requirements dur-
    ing the development and administration
    of its coastal zone management programn
    At the request of several commentators,
    several additions have been made to the
    list of requirements which are other than
    local in nature.
    5. Several commentators indicated
    that � 923.26, which pertains to the de-
    gree of State control needed to imple-
    ment a coastal zone management pro-
    gram, did not offer sufficient guidance in
    interpreting the legislation. In response
    to these comments, � 923.26 has been ex-
    panded to include specific examples of
    how a State may implement this section.
    6. Comments received indicate there
    was some misunderstanding in interpret-
    ing � 923.43, which deals with geographi-
    cal segmentation. This section has been
    substantially amended in order to indi-
    cate that the segmentation issue refers to
    geographical segmentation of a State's
    coastal zone management program. The
    requirements for a State to receive ap-
    proval on a segmented basis are clearly
    set forth in the amendment to the regu-
    lations.
    7. Extensive discussions have taken
    place with various elements of the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    concerning the applicability of air and
    water pollution requirements to the
    development, approval and implemen-
    tation of State management programs
    pursuant to � 923.44 of the proposed reg-
    ulations. State coastal zone management
    programs have also been surveyed in or-
    der to determine current and anticipated
    problems, issues and opportunities asso-
    ciated with carrying out the require-
    ments of section 307(f) of the Coastal
    Zone Management Act, and � 923.44 of
    the draft approval regulations. Con-
    solidated EPA comments have been re-
    ceived, together with State reviews, and
    one comment from the private sector.
    Specific clarifications and changes as a
    result of these reviews are contained in
    �� 923.4, 923.12, 923.32 and � 923.44 of
    these regulations.
    8. One commentator objected to the
    amount of detail required in section 306
    applications and the undue administra-
    tive burden proposed pursuant to Sub-
    The regulations below set forth (a)
    criteria and procedures to be utilized in
    reviewing and approving coastal zone
    management programs pursuant to sec-
    tion 306 of the Act, and (b) procedures
    by which coastal States may apply to
    receive administrative grants under sec-
    tion 306(a) of the Act. The criteria and
    procedures under (a) constitute the
    "guidelines for section 306" referred to
    in 15 CPR 920.
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration is publishing herewith
    the final regulations describing proce-
    dures for applications to receive adminis-
    trative grants under section 306 of the
    Act. The final regulations and criteria
    published herewith were revised from the
    proposed guidelines based on the com-
    ments received. A total of thirty-two (32)
    States, agencies, organizations and indi-
    viduals submitted responses to the pro-
    posed section 306 guidelines published in
    the FEDERAL REGISTER on August 21, 1974.
    Of those responses received, nine (9)
    were wholly favorable as to the nature
    and content of the guidelines as they ap-
    peared  in the  FEDERAL  REGISTER  on
    August 21, 1974. Twenty-three (23) com-
    mentators submitted suggestions con-
    cerning the proposed Section 306 guide-
    lines.
    The following analysis summarizes key
    comments received on various sections
    of the draft regulations and presents a
    rationale for the changes made:
    1. Several commentators asserted that
    the guidelines did not adequately reflect
    the environmental considerations con-
    tained in the Act. No changes were made
    in response to these comments since the
    guidelines more than adequately reflect
    the environmental concerns in the legis-
    lation as evidenced in part by the com-
    ment section under � 923.4:
    Management programs will be evaluated in
    the light of the Congressional findings and
    policies as contained In Section 302 and Sec-
    tion 303 of the Act. These sections make It
    clear that Congress, in enacting the legisla-
    tion, was concerned about the environmental
    degradation, damage to natural 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 develop-
    ment. The Act thus has a strong environ-
    mental thrust, stressing the 'urgent need to
    protect and to give high priority to natural
    systems in the coastal zone.
    2. Several comments were received on
    the necessity of the Secretary of Com-
    merce preparing and circulating an en-
    vironmental impact statement on each
    individual State application as required
    by � 923.5. The National Environmental
    Policy Act, 42 USC 4332, and imple-
    menting regulations, 38 FR 20562, August
    14 1973, require an environmental im-
    pact statement be prepared and cir-
    culated on each Individual State's ap-
    plication. An environmental impact
    statement shall be prepared on each in-
    dividual State's application by the Sec-
    retary, primarily on the basis of an
    environmental assessment, and other
    relevant data, prepared and submitted
    by the individual States. This section
    Title 15--Commerce and Foreign Trade
    CHAPTER IX-NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
    ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN~STRATION
    -PART 923--COASTAL ZONE MANAGE-
    MENT PROGRAM APPROVAL REGULA-
    TIONS
    The National Ooeanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) on August 21,
    1974, proposed guidelines (originally
    published as 15 CPR Part 923), pursuant
    to the Coastal Zone Management Act of
    1972 (Pub. L. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280),
    hereinafter referred to as the "Act," for
    the purpose of defining the procedures by
    -which States car. qualify to receive ad-
    ministrative grants under the Act.
    Written comments were to be sub-
    mitted to the Office of Coastal Zone
    Management, National Oceanic and At-
    mospheric Administration, before No-
    vember 22, 1974, and consideration has
    been given these comments.
    The Act recognizes that the coastal
    zone is rich in a variety of natural, com-
    mercial, recreational, industrial and
    esthetic resources of immediate and po-
    tential value to the present and future
    well-being of the nation. Present State
    and institutional arrangements for plan-
    ning and regulating land and water uses
    in the coastal zone are often inadequate
    to deal with the competing demands and
    the urgent need to protect natural sys-
    tems in the ecologically fragile area. Sec-
    tion 305 of the Act authorizes annual
    grants to any coastal State for the pur-
    pose of assisting the State in the devel-
    opment of a management program for
    the land and water resources of its
    coastal zone (development grant). Once
    a coastal State has developed a manage-
    ment program, it is submitted to the Sec-
    retary of Commerce for approval and, if
    approved, the State is then eligible under
    Section 306 to receive annual grants for
    administering its management program
    (administrative grants).
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6--THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

    1684
    RULES AND REGULATIONS
    part F of the proposed regulations. The
    revisions attempt to both clarify and re-
    duce those requirements, while still re-
    quiring sufficient information  for the
    Office of Coastal Zone Management to
    approve management programs and
    make sound funding decisions.
    Accordingly, having considered the
    comments and other relevant informa-
    tion, the Administrator concludes by
    adopting the final regulations describing
    the procedure for application to receive
    administrative grants under section 306
    of the Act, as modified and set forth
    below.
    Effective date: January 8, 1975.
    Dated: January 6, 1975.
    ROBERT M. WHITE,
    Admi?zistrator, National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administra-
    tion.
    Subpart A-General
    Sec
    923.1	Purpose.
    923.2	Definitions.
    923.3	Submission  of  management  pro-
    grams.
    923.4   Evaluation  of  management  pro.
    grams--general.
    923.5   Environmental impact assessment.
    Subpart D-Land and Water Uses
    923.10	General.
    923.11	Boundary of the coastal zone.
    923.12 Permissible land and water uses.
    923.13	Areas of particular concern.
    923.14	Guidelines on priorities.
    923.15	National interest facilities.
    923.16	Area designation for preservation and
    restoration.
    923.17  Local regulations and uses of re-
    gional benefit.
    Subpart C-.Authorities and Organization
    923.20	General.
    923.21	Means of exerting State control over
    land and water uses.
    928.22  Organizational structure to Imple-
    ment the management program.
    923.23	Designation of a single agency.
    923.24	Authorities to administer land and
    water uses, control development
    and resolve conflicts.
    923.25	Authorities for property acquisition.
    923 26	Techniques for control of land and
    water uses.
    Subpart D-Coordination
    923.30	General.
    923.31	Full participation by relevant bodies
    in the adoption of management
    programs.
    923.32  Consultation and coordination with
    other planning.
    Subpart E-Miscellaneous
    323.40	General.
    923.41	Public hearings.
    923.42	Gubernatorial review and approval
    923.43	Segmentation.
    923.44	Applicability of air and water pollu-
    tion control requirements.
    Subpart F-Applications for Administrative
    Grants
    Avrrnosrry: 86 Stat, 1280 (16 U.S.C.
    1451-
    1464).
    Subpart A-General
    � 923.1 Purpose.
    (a) This part establishes criteria and
    procedures to be employed in reviewing
    and approving coastal zone management
    programs submitted by coastal States
    and for the awarding of grants under
    Section 306 of the Act.
    (b) The Act sets forth in sections 305,
    306 and 307 a number of specific re-
    quirements which a management pro-
    gram must fulfill as a condition for ap-
    proval by the Secretary. These require-
    ments are linked together as indicated
    in the subparts which follow. Presenta-
    tion of the State management program
    in a similar format is encouraged since
    it will enable more prompt and sys-
    tematic review by the Secretary. How-
    ever, there is no requirement that a
    State present its management program
    in the format which corresponds exactly
    to the listing of categories below. The
    broad categories are: Land and Water
    Uses, Subpart B; Authorities and Orga-
    nization, Subpart C; Coordination, Sub-
    part D; and Miscellaneous, Subpart E.
    Subpart F, Applications for Administra-
    tive Grants, deals with applications for
    administrative grants upon approval of
    State coastal zone management pro-
    grams which will be subject to periodic
    review by the Secretary in accordance
    with Section 309 of the Act. In addition
    to providing criteria against which State
    coastal zone management programs can
    be consistently and uniformly Judged
    in the approval process and establish-
    ing procedures for the application by
    States for administrative grants, it is
    the intent of this part to provide guid-
    ance to coastal States in the develop-
    ment of management programs. There-
    fore, many of the sections dealing with
    approval requirement in the subparts
    are followed by a "comment" which re-
    fers to a section or sections of the Act
    and indicates the interpretation placed
    upon the requirements of the Act or the
    regulation by the Secretary.
    � 923.2 Definitions.
    In addition to the terms defined in
    the Act and 15 CFR 920.2, the following
    terms shall have the meanings indicated
    below:
    "Final approval" means, with respect
    to a coastal zone management program,
    approval of a program which terminates
    the eligibility of the State for grants
    mlnder Section 305 of the Act and makes
    the State eligible for grants under Sec-
    tion 306 of the Act. In cases where a
    State has elected to follow the geo-
    graphical segmentation option pursuant
    to � 923.43, final approval will appl
    only to that specific geographical seg-
    ment. The State will continue to remain
    eligible for development grants pursuant
    to Section 305 of the Act for the re-
    mainder of the State's coastal zone.
    "Preliminary approval" means, with
    respect to a coastal zone management
    program, approval of a program which
    does not terminate the eligibility of the
    State for further grants under Section
    305 of the Act, and which does not
    make the State eligible for grants under
    Section 306 of the Act.
    "Use of regional benefit" means a land
    or water use that typically provides
    benefits to a significant area beyond the
    boundaries of a single unit of the lowest
    level of local, general-purpose govern-
    ment.
    � 923.3  Submission   of  management
    programs.
    (a) Upon completion of the develop-
    ment of its management program, a
    State shall submit the program to the
    Secretary for review and final approval
    in accordance with the provisions of
    these regulations. A program submitted
    for final approval must comply with all
    of the provisions set forth in Subparts
    A-E of this part, including, in partic-
    ular, Subpart C, which requires that cer-
    tain authorities and plans of organiza-
    tion be in effect at the time of the sub-
    mission.
    (b) Optionally, the State may submit
    for the preliminary approval of the Sec-
    retary a program complying with the
    substantive requirements of this part,
    but for which the proposed authorities
    and organization complying with the
    provisions of Subpart C are not yet legal-
    ly effective. In reviewing a program sub-
    mitted for preliminary approval, the
    Secretary may grant such approval sub-
    ject to establishment of a legal regime
    providing the authorities and organiza-
    tion called for in the program. If the
    State elects this option, it shall continue
    to be eligible for funding under Section
    305 but it shall not yet be eligible for
    funding under Section 306 of the Act
    until such time as its program is finally
    approved. Upon a showing by the State
    that authorities and organization neces-
    sary to implement the program which
    has received preliminary approval are in
    effect, final approval shall be granted.
    Comment. The purpose of the optional
    procedure is to provide a State with an op-
    portunity for Secretarial review of its pro-
    gram before State legislation is enacted to
    put the program into legal effect. Some
    States may prefer not to utilize the optional
    procedure, especially those which have leg-
    islative authority enabling the coastal zone
    agency of the State to put the program into
    effect by administrative action. In any event,
    the Office of Coastal Zone Management will
    be available for consultation during all
    phases of development of the program.
    (c) States completing the require-
    ments set forth in Subpart B-Land and
    Water Uses, and Subpart D-Coordina-
    tion, will be deemed to have fulfilled the
    statutory requirements associated with
    each criteria. If, however, a State chooses
    to adopt alternative methods and proce-
    dures, which are at least as comprehen-
    sive as the procedures set forth below,
    for fulfilling those statutory require-
    ments contained in Subparts B and D,
    they may do so upon prior written ap-
    proval of the Secretary. The States are
    encouraged to consult with the
    Office of
    Coastal Zone Management as early as
    possible.
    Comment. The thrust of the Act is to en-
    courage coastal States to exercise their full
    923.50
    923.51
    923.52
    923.53
    923.54
    923.55
    923.56
    923.57
    923 59
    General.
    Administration of the program.
    State responsibility.
    Allocation.
    Geographical segmentation.
    Application for the initial adminis-
    trative grant.
    Approval of applications.
    Amendments.
    Applications for second and subse-
    quent year grants.
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

    RULES AND REGULATIONS
    1685
    and considered. In this connection, develop-
    ments outside the coastal zone may often
    have a significant impact within the coastal
    zone and create a range of public problems
    and issues which must be dealt with in the
    coastal zone management program.
    The Secretary encourages the States to
    develop objectives toward which progress can
    be measured and will review program sub-
    missions in this light. While it is recognized
    that many essential coastal zone manage-
    ment objectives are not quantifiable (e.g.
    public aspirations, "quality of life"), others
    are, and shourd be set forth in measurable
    terms where feasible (e.g. shore erosion,
    beach access, recreational demand, energy
    facility requirements). Identifying and an-
    alyzing problems and issues in measurable
    terms during the program development phase
    will facilitate the formulation of measur-
    able objectives as part of the approval sub-
    mission.
    � 923.5  Environmental  impact  assess-
    ment.
    Individual   environmental    impact
    statements will be prepared and circu-
    lated by NOAA as an integral part of the
    review and approval process for State
    coastal zone management programs pur-
    suant to the National Environmental
    Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 USC 4321
    et seq) and its implementing regulations.
    The Administrator of NOAA will circu-
    late an environmental impact statement
    prepared primarily on the basis of an en-
    vironmental impact assessment and other
    relevant data submitted by the individual
    applicant States.
    Subpart B--Land and Water Uses
    � 923.10 General.
    (a) This subpart deals with land and
    water uses in the coastal zone which are
    subject to the management program.
    (b) In order to provide a relatively
    simple framework upon which discus-
    sion of the specific requirements asso-
    eliated with this subpart. may proceed,
    it may be helpful to categorize the vari-
    ous types of land and water uses which
    the Act envisions.
    (1) The statutory definition of the
    landward portion of thb coastal zone
    states that it "extends inland from the
    shorelines only to the extent necessary
    to control shorelands, the uses of which
    have a direct and significant impact on
    the coastal waters." Thus, the coastal
    zone will include those lands and only
    those lands where any existing, pro-
    jected or potential use will have a "di-
    rect and significant impact on the coastal
    waters." Any such use will be subject to
    the terms of the management program.
    pursuant to Section 305(b) (2).
    (2) There mav well be uses of certain
    lands included within the coastal zone
    which will not have such "direct and sig-
    niflcant imnact." Such uses may be sub-
    ject to regulation by local units of gov-
    ernment within the framework of the
    management program.
    (3) The Act also reauires that man-
    agement nrograms contain a method of
    assuring that "local land and water use
    regulations within the coastal zone do
    not unreasonably restrict or exclude
    land and water uses of regional benefit."
    This requirement is described more fully
    in � 923.17.
    authority over the lands and waters in the
    coastal zone by developing land and water
    use programs for the zone, including uni-
    fied policies, criteria, standards, methods
    and processes for dealing with land and
    water uses of more than local significance.
    While the Act mandates a State to meet spe-
    cific statutory requirements in order for the
    State to be eligible for administrative grants,
    it does not require the State to follow spe-
    cific processes in meeting those require-
    ments. The Secretary will review any State
    management program that meets the re-
    quirements contained in Subparts B and D
    in addition to the other subparts contained
    herein.
    � 923.4 Evaluation of management pro-
    grams--general.
    (a) In reviewing management pro-
    grams submitted by a coastal State pur-
    suant to � 923.3, the Secretary will eval-
    uate not only all of the individual pro-
    gram elements required by the Act and
    set forth in Subparts B-E of this part,
    but the objectives and policies of the
    State program as well to assure that they
    are consistent with national policies de-
    clared in Section 303 of the Act.
    (b) Each program submitted for ap-
    proval shall contain a statement of prob-
    lems and issues, and objectives and poli-
    cies. The statements shall address:
    (1) Major problems and issues, both
    within and affecting the State's coastal
    zone;
    (2) Objectives to be attained in inter-
    agency and intergovernmental coopera-
    tion, coordination and institutional ar-
    rangements; and enhancing manage-
    ment capability involving issues and
    problem  identification, conflict resolu-
    tion, regulation and administrative effl-
    ciency at the State and local level;
    (3) Objectives of the program in pres-
    ervation, protection, development, resto-
    ration and enhancement of the State's
    coastal zone;
    (4) Policies for the protection and con-
    servation of coastal zone natural sys-
    tems, cultural, historic and scenic areas,
    renewable and non-renewable resources,
    and the preservation, restoration and
    economic development of selected coastal
    zone areas.
    (c) The Secretary will review the
    management program for the adequacy
    of State procedures utilized in its devel-
    opment and will consider the extent to
    which its various elements have been
    integrated into a balanced and compre-
    hensive program designed to achieve the
    above objectives and policies.
    Comment. Evaluation of the statutory re-
    quirements established in this subpart will
    concentrate primarily upon the adequacy of
    State processes in dealing with key coastal
    problems and issues. It win not, in general,
    deal with the wisdom of speific land and
    water use decisions, but rather with a deter-
    mination 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 knowledge,
    _public participation and unified govern-
    mental policies, for making reasoned choices
    and decisions.
    Management programs will be evaluated in
    the light of the Congressional 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 degrada-
    tion, damage to natural and scenic areas, loss
    of living marine resources and wildlife, de-
    creasing open space for public use and shore-
    line erosion being brought about by popula-
    tion 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 pro-
    tection is vital In carrying out this legis-
    lative intent. States are encouraged by the
    Act to take into account ecological, cultural,
    historic and esthetic values as weU as the
    need for economic development in preparing
    and implementing management programs
    through which the States, with the partici-
    pation of all affected interests and levels of
    government, exercise their full authority over
    coastal lands and waters.
    Further assistance in meeting the intent
    of the Act may be found in the Congression-
    al Committee Reports associated with the
    passage of the legislation (Senate Report 92-
    753 and House Report 92-1049). It is clear
    from these reports that Congress ftended
    management programs to be comprehensive
    and that a State must consider all subject
    areas which are pertinent to the particular
    circumstances which prevail in the State. A
    comprehensive program should have con-
    sidered at least the following representative
    elements:
    (1) Present laws, regulations, and appli-
    cable programs for attainment of air and
    water quality standards, on land and water
    uses, and on environmental management by
    all levels of government;
    (2) Present ownership patterns ot the land
    and water resources, including administra-
    tion of publicly owned properties;
    (3) Present populations and future trends,
    including assessments of the impact of pop-
    ulation growth on the coastal zone and es-
    tuarlne environmenits;
    (4) 'Present uses, known proposals for
    changes and long-term requirements of the
    coastal zone;
    (5) Energy generation and transmission;
    (6) Estuarine habitats of fish,shellfish and
    wildlife;
    (7) Industrial needs-
    (8) Housing requlrements:;
    (9) Recreation, including beaches, parks,
    wildlife preserves, sport fishing, swimming
    and pleasure boating;
    (10) Open space, including educational
    and natural preserves, scenic beauty, and
    public access, both visual and physical, to
    coastlines and coastal estuarine areas;
    (11) Mineral resources requirements;
    (12) Transportation and navigation needs;
    (13) Floods and flood damage prevention,
    erosion (including the effect of tides and cur-
    rents upon beaches and other shoreline
    areas), land stability, climatology and me-
    teorology;
    (14) Communication facilities;
    (15) Commercial fishing; and
    (16) Requirements for protecting water
    quality and other important natural re-
    sources.
    The list of considerations is not meant to be
    exclusive, nor does It mean that each con-
    sideration must be given equal weight. State
    initiative to determine other relevant factors
    and consider them in the program is essen-
    tial to the management of the coastal zone
    as envisioned by Congress.
    In assessing programs submitted for ap-
    proval, the Secretary, in consultation with
    other concerned Federal agencies, will ex-
    amine such programs to determine that the
    full range of public problems and issues ai-
    fecting the coastal zone have been identified
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

     1686
    RULES AND REGULATIONS
    the Act regardless of whether those uses
    are found, upon analysis, to be "per-
    missible." The coastal zone must include
    within it those lands which have any
    existing, projected or potential uses
    which have a direct and significant im-
    pact upon the coastal waters and over
    which the terms of the management
    program  will be exercised.  In  some
    States, existing regulations controlling
    shoreland uses apply only in a strip of
    land of uniform depth (e.g. 250 feet,
    1,000 yards, etc.) behind the shoreline.
    Such a boundary will be acceptable if
    it approximates a boundary developed
    according  to the procedure  outlined
    above and extends inland sufficiently for
    the management program to control
    lands the uses of which have a direct
    and significant impact upon coastal
    waters. States may wish, for administra-
    tive convenience, to designate political
    boundaries, cultural features, property
    lines or existing designated planning and
    environmental control areas, as bound-
    aries cq the coastal zone. While the Sec-
    retary will take into account the desir-
    ability of identifying a coastal zone
    which is easily regulated as a whole, the
    selection of the boundaries of the coastal
    zone must bear a reasonable relation-
    ship to the statutory requirement. Noth-
    ing in this part shall preclude a State
    from exercising the terms of the man-
    agement program in a landward area
    more extensive than the coastal zone
    called for in this part. If such a course
    is selected, the boundaries of the coastal
    zone must nevertheless be identified as
    above and the provisions of the Act will
    be exercised only in the defined coastal
    zone. It should be borne in mind that the
    boundary should include lands and
    waters which are subject to the manage-
    ment program. This means  that the
    policies, objectives and controls called
    for in the management program must be
    capable of being applied consistently
    within the area. The area must not be so
    extensive that a fair application of the
    management program becomes difficult
    or capricious, nor so limited that lands
    strongly influenced by coastal waters
    and over which the management pro-
    gram should reasonably apply, are
    excluded.
    (2) Inasmuch as the seaward bound-
    ary of the coastal zone is established in
    the Act, the States will be required to
    utilize the statutory boundary, i.e. in the
    Great Lakes, the international bound-
    ary between the United States and Can-
    ada, and elsewhere the outer limits of the
    United States territorial sea. At present,
    this limit is three nautical miles from the
    appropriate baselines recognized by in-
    ternational law and defined precisely by
    the United States. In the event of a stat-
    utory change in the boundary of the ter-
    ritorial sea, the question of whether a
    corresponding change in coastal zone
    boundaries must be made, or will be
    made by operation of law, will depend on
    the specific terms of the statutory change
    and cannot be resolved in advance. In
    the waters of Lake Michigan, the bound-
    ary shall extend to the recognized bound-
    aries with adjacent States.
    (3) A State's coastal zone must in-
    clude transitional and intertidal areas,
    salt marshes, wetlands and beaches.
    Hence the boundary determination pro-
    cedure must include a method of ldenti-
    fying such coastal features. In no case,
    however, will a State's landward coastal
    zone boundary include only such areas
    in the absence of application of the pro-
    cedure called for herein or in � 923.43.
    (4) Since the coastal zone excludes
    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 and agents, the coastal zone
    boundary must idenltify such lands which
    are excluded from the coastal zone. In
    order to complete this requirement, the
    State should indicate those Federally
    owned lands, or lands held in trust by the
    Federal government, and over which the
    State does not exercise Jurisdiction as to
    use. In the event that a State fails to
    identify lands held by an agency of the
    Federal government as excluded lands,
    and the agency, after review of the pro-
    gram under Section 307(b), is of the
    opinion that such lands should be ex-
    cluded, the disagreement will be subject
    to the mediation process set forth in said
    section.
     923.12 Permissible land and water
    uses.
    (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill
    the requiremerits contained in Section
    305(b) (2), the management must show
    evidence that the State has developed
    and appUed a procedure for defining
    "permissible land and water uses within
    the coastal zone which have a direct and
    significant impact upon the coastal wa-
    ters," which includes, at a minimum:
    (1) a method for relating various spe-
    cific land and water uses to impact upon
    coastal waters, including utilization of
    an operational definition of "direct and
    significant impact,"
    (2) an inventory of natural and man-
    made coastal resources,
    (3) an analysis or establishment of
    a method for analysis of the capability
    and suitability for each type of resource
    and application to existing, projected or
    potential uses.
    (4) an analysis or establishment of a
    method for analysis of the environmen-
    tal impact of reasonable resource utili-
    zations.
    (b) Comment. Statutory citation:
    Section 305(b) (21:
    Such management program shall include
    * * * a definition of what shall constitute
    permissible land and water uses within the
    coastal zone which have a direct and sig-
    nlficant impact upon the coastal waters.
    Useful background information concern-
    ing this requirement appears in 15 CFR
    920.12, which is incorporated into this
    part by reference. Completion of this re-
    quirement should be divided into two
    distinct elements: a determination of
    those land and water uses having a di-
    rect and significant impact upon coastal
    waters, and an identification of such
    uses which the State deems permissible.
    (1) Section 305(b) (4). In identifying
    those uses which have a "direct and
    sig-
    (c) As part of the State's manage-

    t
    ment program, it must address and ex-

    X
    ercise authority over the following:

    I
    (1) Land and water uses which have
    a direct and significant impact upon e
    cofsstal waters. These uses are described  v
    more fully in � 923.12.
    (2) Areas of particular concern. Sec-
    tion 305(b)(3) specifies that the man-
    agement program include an inventory
    and designation of areas of particular
    concern within the coastal zone. Section
    923.13 deals more thoroughly with this
    statutory requirement. Such areas must
    be considered of Statewide concern and
    must be addressed in the management
    program.
    (3) Siting of facilities necessary to
    meet requirements which are other than
    local in nature. The management pro-
    gram must take "adequate consideration
    of the national interest involved in
    the
    siting of facilities necessary to meet re-
    quirements which are other than local
    in nature" (Section 306(c) (8)). This re-
    quirement is more fully discussed in
    � 923.15.
    � 923.11 Boundaries of the constal zone.
    (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill
    the requirement contained in Section 305
    ('b) (1), the management program must
    show evidence that the State has devel-
    oped and applied a procedure for iden-
    tifying the boundary of the State's
    coastal zone meeting the statutory defi-
    nition of the coastal zone contained in
    Section 304(a). At a minimum this pro-
    cedure should result in:
    (1) A determination of the inland
    boundary required to control, through
    the management program, shorelands
    the uses of which have direct and sig-
    nificant impacts upon coastal waters,
    (2) A determination of the extent of
    the territorial sea, or where applicable.
    of State waters in the Great Lakes,
    (3) An identification of transitional
    and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wet-
    lands and beaches,
    (4) An identification of all Federally
    owned lands, or lands which are held in
    trust by the Federal government, its of-
    ficers and agents in the coastal zone and
    over which a State does not exercise any
    control as to use.
    (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
    tion 305(b) (1):
    Such management program shall include
    * * an identification of the boundaries of
    the coastal zone subject to the management
    programs.
    Useful background information con-
    cerning this requirement appears in Part
    920.11, which is incorporated into this
    part by reference.
    (1) The key to successful
    completion
    of this requirement lies in the
    develop-
    ment and use of a procedure designed
    to
    identify the landward extent of the
    coastal zone. Included in this
    procedure
    mnust be a method for determining
    those
    "shorelands, the uses of which have
    a
    direct and significant impact upon
    the
    coastal waters." These uses shall be
    con-
    sidered the same as the "land and
    water
    uses" described in � 923.12,
    reflecting the
    requirements of Section 305(b) (2)
    of
    FED'Er.AL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

    RULES AND REGULATIONS
    1687
    nificant impact," the State s!hould define
    that phrase in operational terms that
    can be applied uniformly and consist-
    ently, and should develop a method for
    relating various uses to impacts upon
    coastal waters, Existing, projected and
    potential uses should-be analyzed as to
    the level and extent of their impact, be
    it adverse, benign or beneficial, intra-
    state or interstate. These impacts should
    then be assessed to determine whether
    they meet the definition of "direct and
    significant impact upon coastal waters."
    (These are the ones by which the bound-
    aries of the coastal zone are defined.)
    Those uses meeting that definition are
    automatically subject to control by the
    management program.
    (2) In determining which land and
    water uses may be deemed permissible,
    a State should develop a method for as-'
    suring that such decisions are made in
    an objective manner, based upon evalua-
    tion of the best available information
    concerning land and water capability and
    suitability. This method should inqlude
    at a minimum:
    (i) An inventory of significant natural
    and man-made coastal resources, includ-
    ing but not limited to, shorelands,
    beaches, dunes, wetlands, uplands, bar-
    rier islands, waters, bays, estuaries, har-
    bors and their associated facilities. This
    should not be construed as requiring
    long-term, continuing research and base-
    line studies, but rather as providing the
    basic information and data critical to
    successful completion of a number of re-
    quired management program elements,
    States are encouraged, however, to con-
    tinue research and studies as necessary
    to detect early warnings of changes to
    coastal zone resources. It is recognized
    that in some States a complete and de-
    tailed inventory of such resources may
    be expensive and time consuming in re-
    lation  to  the  value  of  information
    gathered in the development of the man-
    agement program. Much information, of
    course, already exists and should be in-
    tegrated into the inventory. The Secre-
    tary, in reviewing this particular
    requirement, will take into account the
    nature and extent of the State's coast-
    line, the funding available and existing
    data sources:
    (Ui) An analysis or establishment of
    a method for analysis of the capabil-
    ities of each resource for supporting
    various types of uses (including the
    capability for sustained and undimin-
    ished yield of renewable resources), as
    well as of the suitability for such re-
    source utilization when evaluated in
    conjunction with other local, regional
    and State resources and uses. Resource
    capability analysis should include
    physical, biological and chemical param-
    eters as necessary.
    (iii) An analysis or establishment of
    a method for analysis of the impact of
    various resource uses upon the natural
    environment (air, land and water).
    Based upon these analyses and appli-
    cable Federal, State and local policies
    and standards, the State should define
    permissible uses as those which can be
    reasonably and safely supported by the
    resource, which are compatible with
    Useful background information concern-
    lng the requirement appears in 15 CFR
    920.13, which is incorporated here by
    reference. It should be emphasized that
    the basic purpose of inventorying and
    designating areas of particular concern
    within the coastal zone is to express some
    measure of Statewide concern about
    them and to include them within the
    purview of the management program.
    Therefore, particular attention in re-
    viewing the management program will be
    directed toward development by the State
    of implementing policies or actions to
    manage the designated areas of particu-
    lar concern.
    � 923.14 Guidelines on priority of uses.
    (a) Requirement. The management
    program shall include broad policies or
    guidelines governing the relative priori-
    ties which will be accorded in particular
    areas to at least those permissible land
    and water uses identified pursuant to
    � 923.12. The priorities will be based upon
    an analysis of State and local needs as
    well as the effect of the uses on the areas
    Uses of lowest priority will be specifically
    stated for each type of area.
    (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
    tion 305(b) (5)
    Such management program shall in-
    clude * * * broad guidelines on priority of
    uses in particular areas, including speciflcally
    those uses of lowest priority.
    As pointed out in 15 CFR 920.15, the
    priority guidelines will set forth -the
    degree of State interest in the preserva-
    tion, conservation and orderly develop-
    ment of specific areas including at least
    those areas of particular concern identi-
    fled in � 923.13 within the coastal zone,
    and thus provide the basis for regulating
    land and water uses in the coastal zone,
    as well as a common reference point for
    resolving conflicts. Such priority guide-
    lines will be the core of a successful
    management program since they will
    provide a framework within which the
    State, its agencies, local governments
    and regional bodies can deal with
    specific proposals for development activ-
    ities in various areas of the coastal zone.
    In order to develop such broad guidelines,
    the management program shall indicate
    that a method has been developed and
    applied for (1) analyzing State needs
    which can be met most effectively and
    efficiently through land and water uses
    in the coastal zone, and (2) determining
    the capability and suitability of meeting
    these needs in specific locations in the
    coastal zone. In analyzing the States'
    needs, there should be a determination
    made of those requirements and uses
    whiGh have Statewide, as opposed to
    local, significance. Section 302(h) of the
    Act states in part that land and water
    use programs for thb coastal zone should
    include "unified policies, criteria, stand-
    ards, methods and processes for dealing
    with land and water use decisions of
    more than local significance." The in-
    ventory and analyses of coastal resources
    and uses called for in � 923.12 will provide
    the State with most of the basic data
    needed to determine the specific loca-
    tions where coastal resources are
    capable and suitable for meeting State-
    surrounding resource utilization and
    which will have a tolerable impact
    upon the environment. These analyses,
    In part, will be provided through exist-
    ing information on environmental pro-
    tection programs, and should be sup-
    plemented to the extent necessary for
    determining the relationship between
    land uses and environmental quality.
    Where a State prohibits a use within
    the coastal zone, or a portion thereof, it
    should identify the reasons for the pro-
    hibitlon, citing evidence developed in
    the above analyses. It should be pointed
    out that uses which may have a direct
    and significant impact on coastal
    waters when conducted close to the
    shoreline may not have a direct and
    significant impact when conducted
    further inland. Similarly, uses which
    may be permissible in a highly indus-
    trialized area may not be permissible in
    a pristine marshland. Accordingly, the
    definition may also be correlated with
    the nature (including current uses) and
    location of the land on which the use Is
    to take place. The analyses which the
    State will undertake pursuant to this
    section should also be useful in satisfy-
    ing the requirements.of i 923.13 through
    � 923.17.
    ' 923.13  Areas of particular concern.
    (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the
    requirements contained in Section 305
    (b) (3), the management program must
    show evidence that thaeState has made
    an inventory and designation of areas
    of particular concern within the coastal
    zone. Such designations shall be based
    upon a review of natural and man-made
    coastal zone resources and uses, and
    upon consideration of State-established
    criteria which include, at a minimum,
    those factors contained in 15 CER 920.13,
    namely:
    (1) Areas of unique, scarce, fragile or
    vulnerable natural habitat, physical fea-
    ture, historical significauice, cultural
    value and scenic importance;
    (2) Areas of high natural productiv-
    ity or essential habitat for living re-
    sources, including fish, wildlife and the
    various trophic levels in the food web
    critical to their well-being;
    (3) Areas of substantial recreational
    value and/or opportunity;
    (4) Areas where developments and
    facilities are dependent upon the utiliza-
    tion of, or access to, coastal waters;
    (5) Areas of unique geologic or topo-
    graphic significance to industrial or com-
    mercial development;
    (6) Areas of urban concentration
    where shoreline utilization and water
    uses are highly competitive;
    (7) Areas of significant hazard li de-
    veloped, due to storms, slides, floods, ero-
    sion, settlement, etc.; and
    (8) Areas needed to protect, maintain
    or replenish coastal lands or resources,
    including coastal flood plains, aquifer re-
    charge aras, sand dunes, coral and other
    reefs, beaches, offshore sand deposits and
    mangrove stands.
    (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
    tion 305(b) (3).
    Such management program shall include
    * * an inventory and designation of areas
    of particular concern within the coastal zon.
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

    1688
    RULES AND REGULATIONS
    can be supplled only through the use of
    facilities in the coastal zone in order
    to make reasonable provision for such
    facilities in light of the size and popu-
    lation of the State, the length and char-
    acteristics of its coast and the contribu-
    tion such State is already making to
    regional and national needs. This will
    require the State to enter into discus-
    sions with appropriate Federal agencies
    and agencies of other States in the re-
    gion, a process which should begin early
    in the development of the management
    program so that the full dimensions of
    the national ln~erest may be considered
    as the State develops its program
    (� 923.31 and 1923.32). The management
    program should make reference to the
    views of cognizant Federal agencies as
    to how these national needs may be met
    in the coastal zone of that particular
    State. States should actively seek such
    guidance from these Federal agencies,
    particularly in view of the fact that all
    management programs will be reviewed
    with the opportunity for full comment
    by all affected Federal agencies prior to
    approval. It is recognized that Federal
    agencies will differ markedly in their
    abilities to articulate policies regarding
    utilization of individual State's coastal
    zones. NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone
    Management will encourage Federal
    agencies to develop policy statements re-
    garding their perception of the national
    interest in the coastal zone and make
    these available to the States. The States
    should also consult with adjacent and
    nearby States which share similar or
    common coastal resources-or with re-
    gional interstate bodies to determine how
    regional needs may be met in siting fa-
    cilities. Specific arrangements of "trade-
    offs" of coastal resource utilization
    should be documented with appropriate
    supporting tvidence. The importance of
    this type of interstate consultation and
    cooperation in planning cannot be over-
    emphasized for It offers the States the
    opportunity of resolving significant na-
    tional problems on a regional scale with-
    out Federal intervention.
    wide needs. In addition, these analyses
    should permit the State to determine
    possible  constraints  on  development
    which may be applied by particular usea
    The program should establish special
    procedures for evaluating land use deci-
    sions, such as the siting of regionl
    energy facilities, which may have a sub-
    stantial impact on the environment. In
    such cases, the program should make
    provision for the consideration of avail-
    able alternative sites which will serve the
    need with a minimum adverse impact.
    The identifying and ordering of use pri-
    orities in specifit coastal areas should
    lead to the development and adoption of
    State policies or guidelines on land and
    water use in the coastal zone. Such pol-
    icies or guidelines should be part of the
    management program as submitted by
    the State and should be consistent with
    the State's specified management pro-
    gram  objectives.  Particular  attention
    should be given by the State to applying
    these guidelines on use priorities within
    those "areas of particular concern" des-
    ignated pursuant to � 923.13. In addi-
    tion, States shall indicate within the
    management program uses of lowest
    priority in particular areas, including
    guidelines associated with such uses.
    � 923.15 National interest in the siting
    of facilities.
    (a) Requirement. A management pro-
    gram which integrates (through develop-
    ment of a body of information relating
    to the national interest involved in such
    siting through consultation with cogni-
    zant Federal and regional bodies, as well
    as adjacent and nearby States) the siting
    of facilities meeting requirements which
    are of greater than local concern into
    the determination of uses and areas of
    Statewide concern, will meet the re-
    quirements of Section 306(c) (8).
    (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
    tion 306(c) (8):
    Prior to granting approval of a manage-
    ment program submitted by a coastal State,
    the Secretary shall find that * � * the man-
    agement program provtdes for adequate con-
    sideration of the national interest involved
    In the siting of facilities necessary to meet
    requirements which are other than local in
    nature.
    This policy requirement is intended to
    assure that national concerns over fa-
    cilty siting are expressed and dealt with
    in the development and implementation
    of State coastal zone management pro-
    grams. 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 State's planning
    activities and that such facilities not be
    arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably re-
    stricted in the management program
    without good and sufficient reasons. It
    is recognized that there may or may not
    be a national interest associated with
    the siting of facilities necessary to meet
    requirements which are other than local
    in nature. Requirements which are other
    than local in nature shall be considered
    those requirements which, when ful-
    filled, result in the establishment of fa-
    cilities designed clearly to serve more
    than one locality (generally, the lowest
    unit of local, general-purpose govern-
    ment, excluding situations such as with
    cities and counties which exercise con-
    current jurisdiction for the same geo-
    graphic areas). In order to provide as-
    sistance to the States In completing this
    requirement, a listing is presented below
    which Identifies those requirements
    which are both (1) other than local In
    nature, and (2) possess siting character-
    istics in which, in the opinion of the
    Secretary, there may be a clear national
    interest. For each such need, there Is a
    listing of associated facilities. In addi-
    tion, the principal cognizant Federal
    agencies concerned with these facilities
    are also listed. This list must not be con-
    sidered. inclusive, but the State should
    consider each requirement and facility
    type in the development of its manage-
    ment program. Consideration of these
    requirements and facilities need not be
    seen as a separate and distinct element
    of the management program, and the
    listing is provided to assure that the
    siting of such facilities is' not overlooked
    or ignored. As part of its determination
    of permissible uses in the coastal zone
    (1 923.12). as well as of priority of uses
    (� 923.14), the State will have developed
    a procedure for inventorying coastal re-
    sources and identifying their existing or
    potential utilization for various purposes
    based upon capability, suitability and
    impact analyses. The process for re-
    sponding to the requirements of Section
    306(c) (8) should be identical to, and
    part of, the same procedure. No separate
    national interest "test" need be applied
    and submitted other than evidence that
    the listed national interest facilities have
    been considered in a manner similar to
    all other uses, and that appropriate con-
    sultation with the Federal agencies listed
    has been conducted. As a preliminary to
    adequate consideration of the na-
    tional interest, the State must determine
    the needs for such facilities. Manage-
    ment programs must recognize the need
    of local as well as regional and national
    populations for goods and services which
    Requirrnent, wtich are other han local In  ature and in the ating of whtd  itre rnma  be a dear national Interest (toflS
    atsociated facllitia and cognizant  Federal atenca )

    Requirements                        Associated facillties	Cognutant Federal Agencies

    1. Energy production and transmns-	Oil and gas wells; storage and distil-	Federal   Energy   Administration,
    aeon.	button  facilities;  refneries: nl-	Federal iPower Commission, Btt-
    clear, conventional, and	hydro-	reau of Land Management. Atomic
    electric powerplants;	deepwater	Energy Commission, Maritime Ad-
    ports.	ministration,  Geological  Survey,
    Department of Transportation,
    Corps of Engineers.
    2. ecreation (ofaninterstatenature)..  National seashores, parks, forests;	National Park Service, Forest Serv-
    large and outstanding beaches an,d	Ice, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
    recreational waterfront; wildlifo
    reserves.
    . Interstate transpojtatlon- .......... Interstate highways, airports, aId	Federal  Highway  Admlilstratlof,
    to navigation; ports and harbors,	Federal Aviation Administration,
    railroads.	Coast Guard. Corps of Engineers,
    Marilime Administration, Inter-
    state Commerce Commission.
    .L Production of food and fiber........ Prime agricultural land and faclli- Soil Conservation  Service, Forest
    ties; forests; mariculture facilities;	Service. Fish and W,ildlife Service,
    fisheries.	National Marine Fisheries Service.
    5. Preservation of ife and property .... Flood and storm  protection  acill-	Corps of Engineers, Federal Insur-
    tiles; disaster warning facilities. once Administration, NOAA, Soil
    Conservation Service.
    &  Nationai  defense and aerospace ......   illitary installations; defense man-  Department of I)efenso, NASA.
    ufaeturing facilities; aerospace
    launching and tracking faclities.
    7. Historic, cultural, esthetic and con-	Itlstoric sites; natural areas; areas of	National Register of Historic Places,
    servation values.	uiique cultural significance: wild-	National Plark Service, Fish and
    life refuges; areas of species and	Wildlife Service, National Marine
    habitat preservation.	Fisheries Service.
    8. MIneral resources ..-   ...............   Mineral extraction facillties needed	Bureau of Mines, Geological Survey.
    to dlrectll support activity.
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

    RMES AND RVCULATSON`,_
    - 2.1 6Ar,  4m-, d   ztkln ?-,,pr--
    lion and resl?inriian

    requirement contained in Section SOO(c)
    (9), the management program musd show
    evidence that the State has developed
    and applied standards a-nd criteria for
    the designation of -area.s of conservtion,
    recreational, ecological or esthetic valum.
    fo,r the purpose of preserving and restor-
    ing them.
    (bhI Comment. Statutory citation: See-
    tion 300(c) (9):
    Prior to granting approvaLi of a ixaEnage-
    meat program submitted by a cosastl State.
    the BElcretary shall fld that - I  the man-
    Aagment program meak" provision for pro-
    cedurea wbereby spectfic areas may bo desig-
    slated for the purpose of progervlng or
    restoring themi tor their conservation, recre-
    atiou, ecological or esthetic values.
    (1) This requirement is closely linked
    to that contatrteo In � 923.13. dealling with
    designation of areas of' particular con-
    cern. Unless the State can make a6 comn-
    pelling case to the contrary, all areas
    designated according tg the methods
    called for In this part shall also be con-
    sidered as, areas ol particular concern.
    (2) This requirement ia reasonably
    self-explanatory. The State roust de-
    velop Procedures for the designiation of
    areas wlth certaizi characterist4cs. The
    Btate, in doing so, must:
    (I Establish standards and criteria for
    the possible designation of coastal areas
    Intezided for preservation or restoration
    because of their cornservation, recrea-
    tional, ecological or esthetic values, and
    (11) Apply those sftandardr, and crite-ria
    to the State's coastal resources. (In this,
    the inventory associated with the re-
    Quirerment of ; 923-13 will be most help-
    (3) The requirement of the statute
    goes to the proc-edures rather than sub-
    stance; the fact that a State may be
    unable to mnove raLpidly ahead with a
    program of preservation or
    restoration
    will not prevent the girogram from being
    approved. The State should also rank In
    order of relative priority areas of Its
    coastal zo-ne which have been designated
    for the purposes set forth In this scttIon.
    As funds become available, such a rankc-
    ing will provide a set of prioritias for
    velecting areas t-o be preserved or rL-
    stored.
    � 923.17 L-ocal regislatiousi and uses of
    regional bsenefit.
    (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill
    the requirement contained in Sectioni
    306(e) (2), the management program
    must show evidence that the State has
    developed a-nd applied a, method for de-
    terniining uses of regional benefit, and
    that It haa established a mnethod for as-
    suigthat local land and  water use
    conros in the coasta  zone do not un-
    reasonably or arbitrarily restrict or ei-x
    elude those uses of regional benefit.
    (b) Commtent. Statutory citation: Sec-
    tion 306 (e) (2)
    Prior to granting approval, the secretary
    shall 9.lso find thait the program provides
    4    for a mnethod of assuring that loeal
    land and water use regualations within tho
    coastal zone do not unroasonably restrict or

    locw land and water usei decisions Irorn
    arbttrwriy excluding certain land
    and
    water uses which are deemed of ipr
    tance to more than a single unit of local
    government. For the purpose~s of this r-
    quiremnent. a usec of~ regional beneal.  rz1'
    be one which prov Ides servIces or et-hcr
    benefits to citizens of more than one unt'
    of  local,  g"eneral-pu_r-posegenl:
    (excluding situations such as In ctties.
    and coiuntAes which exercise
    juris,dicttion
    over the same geographic areas). Ta
    order to assure that arbitrary
    exclusio-,
    does not occur, the State musgt 'irst
    identify those use-, which  it  c-i'
    wil affect or produce some- reciro-~nl
    benefit. This designation woultd no-mally
    be 6erived from the inventor-y and anal-
    ysi% of the uses Contained in 4 923 12. Kn
    any event, howevpr, these use_ should
    include thos~e Contained In the, table, of
    1 923.15. Tr, additioni, the State ma,
    determine that enrtain land and -watp:-
    uises mnay be of reRion-I hentn'.~c
    certatin sets oif crtrem%tRnrwe~   -Rz ih    ~c'
    shlouldc  t h-1i , stri !1
    Criteria for de-terninzing n~-
    ditions e-xtRt. Thorp Phould he "f'
    exclusion or r-"trivtlons cif th"oe  -  1
    ftreas Of the eoaStf.l 70o re '" i-V-s
    latlon Unless it, con be shown~ fhat. Ih,
    excclusion or restrIction Is hasect upi:"
    reasonable considerations of the suit-
    ability of, the are.a for the u~~-, -" th."
    carrytng capacitt of the arva, Tli' re-
    quirement of this, section does not es7-
    elude the rossibilitV that,t iZn eeiic r9
    certain uses of reginnal benef1t ra.- b
    prohibited.  Howev,-r.  such	prrc'pIonr
    inar not he Ca,prlcious'M The	tbN'
    which  the management  rnroram	nil]
    assure thamt suich  n"s.rbi	-
    tionm or exclusion nnt orrcur It' lorr'i,
    and wator us,,e decisions Tvil -1 '-'"-5"
    be up to the State. buzt it 'bhofllflr'~?
    the preparation of ;-,xrAard!- ne'rct'-
    reclating to St.at', 1rtnrr e1nt--t f'
    reason,able restri,tIon r f I~"rr"r
    we'll asr the atbibetr.
    Mechantisms, fo,r sc      "rlai

    � 923.201 tenoe,:&

    that the 6tat,sep's    os5r- ro'"..-
    ties to cortrol landc anri wqtv- 7ise
    that it he- occrganedo -(, !ne~I:
    mnanagerment~ Tt zhnuld be ernT-hF)sI11e
    that before final qnT)rrv.sl of a  -o-e
    zone management prnvc-arn crqr hi, glw"'
    by the Secretary of ("e~rnmier-r' tne aii-
    thorittes Rndi nrznn17,,t(,ral "rt
    Called for in the mamwcmerno'  p&-,   -
    must be In place. Prel;rrinarv. apnr-1
    however, can beF~ giv, to ai ;'rl
    'Which vv111 rk-quire subse'ount' lec-'fli'.-e
    or executis". ncflon	'r"ilt-i:
    and eligibflit': for	dnis-,:'
    Under Section 306.
    �923.21Man  i JrinNo-
    over land andwnr  '.
    (a) Requirement. In order to flf
    the requirements contained In 'Sfctiorls
    305(b) (4) and 3O6ci 7), the mannec-
    Maent Program must show evdc'c   a~n

    ir"
    -- - 1,	_ , - I I _ - _ I I- - - I "I _11 _	I I I _ ,
    ,  'k - I                  - A , , 1_	? I ! I . I ,	,	, -	- z	, I
    11 ' !,v I -	,	i t    ,   ,-  ,  , ,                                                                                                 , . . . , ,
    	"	i	.

    II -,   _                  - -    ;	I -	,	.

    "C.- "C  -' -0             " ,   4
    "	-	7 - - ,	'

    , --	i_	11 I . _	I
    - I . I ,	-	-1	,	. - ,

    ,  1,   - ,	7	,	. '.	.	,	i
    	,

    0.' 0	5"' -       T

    ~~q..   ~2O,.	,. .**...~~
    FiVERAL IISGISTER, VOL  40, NO. &-TR'UIISAY, JANUARY  0  1 5"'

    RULES AND REGULATIONS
    1691
    sultation and cooperation with such
    bodies has taken place and will continue
    in the future.
    � 923.31 Full participation by relevant
    bodies in the adoption of manage-
    ment programs.
    (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the
    requirement contained in section 306(c)
    (1), the management program must
    show evidence that:
    (1) The  management  program  has
    been formally adopted in accordance
    with State law or, in its absence, admin-
    istrative regulations;
    (2) The State has notified and pro-
    vided an opportunity for full participa-
    tion in the development of its manage-
    ment profam to all public and private
    agencies and organizations which are li-
    able to be affected by, or may have a
    direct interest in, the management pro-
    gram. The submission of the manage-
    ment progra'm shall be accompanied by a
    list.identifying the agencies and organi-
    zations referred to in paragraph (a) (2)
    of this section, the nature of their in-
    terest, and the opportunities afforded
    such agencies and organizations to par-
    ticipate in the development of the man-
    agement program. These organizations
    should include those identified pursuant
    to � 923.32, which have developed local,
    areawide or interstate plans applicable
    to an area within the coastal zone of the
    State as of January 1 of the year in which
    the management program is submitted
    for approval; and
    (3) The management program will
    carry out the policies enumerated in sec-
    tion 303 of the Act.
    (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
    tion 306(c) (1):
    Prior to granting approval of a manage-
    ment program submitted by a coastal State.
    the Secretary shall find that * *�  (t) he 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 op.
    portunity of full participation by relevant
    Fgderal agencies, State agencies, local gov-
    ernments, regional organizations, port au-
    thorities, and other interested parties, pub-
    lic and private, which is adequate to carry
    out the purposes of this title and is consist-
    ent with the policy declared in seotion 303
    of this title.
    This requirement embodies the actual
    approval by the Secretary of Commerce
    of a State's coastal zone managemeln
    program pursuant to all of the terms
    of the Act, plus associated administrative
    rules and regulations. As the operative
    section, it subsumes all of the require-
    ments included in this part, which shall
    be considered the "rules and regulations
    promulgated by the Secretary" men-
    tioned in section 306(c) (1). The citation,
    however, also includes some specific ad-
    ditional requirements, for which guid-
    ance and performance criteria are
    necessary. These additional requirements
    include:
    (1) Adoption of the management pro-
    gram by the State. The management pro-
    gram must demonstrate that it repre-
    sents the official policy and objectives of
    the State. In general, this will require
    quisitlion of such transportation corri-
    dors, then the State should have the
    power to acquire corridors for such pur-
    poses through condemnation. It is not
    necessary that the power to acquire real
    property be held by any one particular
    agency involved in implementing the
    management program. The authority
    must, however, be held by one or more
    agencies or local governments with a
    statutory responsibility to exercise the
    authority without undue delay when
    necessary to achieve conformance with
    the management program.
    � 923.26 Techniques for control of land
    and water uses.
    (a) Requirement. The management
    program must contain documentation by
    the Governor or his designated legal of-
    ficer that all existing, projected and po-
    tential land and water uses within the
    coastal zone may be controlled by any
    one or a combination of the techniques
    specified in Section 306(e) (1).
    (b) Comment. Statutory citation:
    Section 306(e) (1):
    Prior to granting approval, the Secretary
    shall also find that the program provides
    * * * for any one or a combination of the
    following general techniques for control of
    land and water uses within the coastal
    zone:
    (1) Section 306(e) (1) (A) "State es-
    tablishment of criteria-and standards for
    local implementation, subject to admin-
    istrative review and enforcement of com-
    pliance." This option requires the State
    to establish general criteria and stand-
    ards within the framework of the coastal
    zone program for implementation by
    local government. Such criteria and
    standards would provide for application
    of criteria and standards to specific local
    conditions. Implementation by a local
    unit of government would consist of
    adoption of a suitable lacal zoning ordi-
    nance or regulation, and enforcement
    on a continuing basis. Administrative
    review at the State level requires pro-
    vision for review of local ordinances and
    regulations and local enforcement ac-
    tivity for consistency with the criteria
    and standards as well as programs, not
    review of specific cases on the merits. In
    the event of deficiencies either in regu-
    lation or local enforcement, State en-
    forcement of compliance would require
    either appropriate changes in local reg-
    ulation or enforcement or direct State
    intervention.
    (2) Section 306(e) (1) (B) "Direct
    State land and water use planning and
    regulation." Under this option the State
    would become directly involved in the
    establishment of detailed land and water
    use regulations and would apply these
    regulations to individual cases. Initial
    determinations regarding land and water
    use in the coastal zone would be made
    at the State level. This option pre-
    empts the traditional role of local gov-
    ernment in the zoning process involving
    lands or waters within the coastal zone.
    (3) Section 306(e) (1) (C) "State ad-
    ministrative review for consistency with
    the management program of all develop-
    ment plans, projects, or land and water
    regulations, including exceptions and
    variances thereto proposed by any State
    or local authority or private developer,
    with power to approve or disapprove af-
    ter public notice and an opportunity for
    hearings." This option leaves the local
    unit of government free to adopt zoning
    ordinances or regulations without State
    criteria and standards other than the
    program itself, but subjects certain ac-
    tions by the local unit of government to
    automatic State review, including public
    notice and a hearing when requested by
    a party. Such actions include:
    (I) Adoption of land and water use
    regulations, ordinarily in the form of a
    zoning ordinance or regulation.
    (ii) Granting of an exception or vari-
    ance to a zoning ordinance or regulation.
    (iii) Approval of a development plan
    or project proposed by a private develop-
    er. This may be defined to exclude ap-
    proval of minor projects, such as small
    residences or commercial establish-
    ments, er those which do not have a
    significant impact.
    (4) It should be noted that State re-
    view is for consistency with the manage-
    ment program, not of the merits or of
    the facts on which the local decision is
    based.
    (5) The State may choose to utilize
    only one of the specified techniques, or
    more than one, or a combination of them
    in different locations or at different
    times. Within the parameters set forth
    in the requirement, there is a large va-
    riety of tools which the management
    program could adopt for controlling land
    and water uses. The program should
    identify the techniques for control of
    land and water uses which it intends to
    use for existing, projected and potential
    uses within the coastal zone. This re-
    quirement will be reviewed in close con-
    junction with those contained in �� 923.
    21, 923.24 and 923.25, dealing with State
    authorities to implement the manage-
    ment program.
    Sobpart D--Coordination
    � 923.30 General.
    One of the most critical aspects of the
    development of State coastal zone man-
    agement programs will be the ability of
    the States to deal fully with the network
    of public, quasi-public and private bodies
    which can assist in the development
    process and which may be significantly
    impacted by the implementation of the
    program. Each State will have to develop
    its own methods for accommodating, as
    appropriate, the varying, often conflict-
    ing interests of local governments, water
    and air pollution control agencies,
    regidnal agencies, other State agencies
    and bodies, interstate organizations,
    commissions and compacts, the Federal
    government and interested private
    bodies. It is the intent of these require-
    ments for coordination with govern-
    mental and private bodies to assure that
    the State, in developing its management
    program, is aware of the full array of
    interests represented by such organiza-
    tions, that opportunity for participation
    was provided, and that adequate con-
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40,-NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

    1639
    2
    RULES AND REGULATIONS
    documentation in the management pro-
    gram that the State management entity
    has formally adopted the management
    prograin in accordance with either the
    rules and procedures established by
    statute. or in the absence of such law,
    administrative regulations.
    (2) Opportunity for full participation
    by relevant Federal agencies, State agen-
    cies, local governments, regional orga-
    nizations.  port authorities, and  other
    interested parties. public and private. A
    major thrust of the Act. is its concern for
    full parlscin:ation and cooperation in the
    developlmerlt andl implementation of
    management proarcams by all interested
    and affected agencies, organizations and
    individuals. This is specifically included
    in the statement of national policy in
    section 3n0'- c. The St, te nust provide
    evidenc: thli  the listed agencies and
    parties w1xere, in farct. provided with an
    opportunl : ior fuill participation. It will
    be left to lle States to determine the
    method and form of such evidence, but
    it should conitain at a minimum:
    (iX A 'i.iild,. as comprehensive as pos-
    sible, of all Federal and State agencies,
    local governments.  regional  organiza-
    tions, port aLuthorities and public and
    private organizations which are likely to
    be affected by. or have a direct interest
    in, the development and implementation
    of a management program  including
    those identified in � 923.32), and
    (ii) A listing of the specific interests
    of such organizations in the development
    of the management program, as well as
    an identification of the efforts made to
    involve such bodies in the development
    proce::s.
    (ar  "On!ortumity for full participa-
    tion" is ilr:rprcted as requiring partici-
    pation at ::11 appropriate stages of man-
    agement program development. The as-
    sistance wlhich can be provided by these
    public  andl  private organizations  can
    often be significant, and therefore con-
    tact witll them should be viewed not
    only as a requirement for approval, but
    as an opportunity for tapping available
    sources of information for program de-
    velopment. Ear,,lv and continuing con-
    tact with these agencies and oiganiza-
    tions is both desirable and necessary. In
    many cases it may be difficult or impos-
    sible to identil'y all interested parties
    early in the development of the State's
    program. However, the public hearing
    requirement of . 923.41 should afford an
    opportunity to participate to interested
    persons aqd organizations whose interest
    was not in'mtally noted.
    (3) Consistency with the policy de-
    clared in section 303 of the Act. In order
    to facilitate this review. the State's man-
    agement progranm must indicate specifi-
    cally how the program will carry out the
    policies enumerated in section 303.
    � 923.32  (i ullihaltioan andl coordination
    - ith other phl;nning.
    (a, Rcqcircmcnt. In order to fulfill the
    requirements contained in section 306(c)
    (2), the management program must in-
    clude:
    (1) An identification of those entities
    mentioned which have plans in effect on
    January 1 of the year submitted,
    (2) A listing of the specific contacts
    made with all such entities in order to
    coordinate the management program
    with their plans,
    (3) An identification of the conflicts
    with those plans which have not been
    resolved through coordination, and con-
    tinuing actions contemplated to attempt
    to resolve them, and
    (4) Indication that a regular consul-
    tive mechanism has been established and
    is active, to undertake coordination be-
    tween the single State agency designated
    pursuant to 1 923.23, and the entities in
    paragraph (B) of Section 306(c) (2).
    (b) Comment.   Statutory   citation:
    Section 306(c) (2):
    "Prior to granting approval of a imanage-
    ment program submitted by a coastal State,
    the Secretary shall find * * * that the State
    has:
    (A) Coordinated its program with local,
    areawide and interstate 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 estab-
    lished under section 204 of the Demonstra-
    tion Cities and Metropolitan Development
    Act of 1966, a regional agency, or an inter-
    state agency; and
    (B) Established an effective miechanism
    for continuing consultation and coordina-
    tion between the management agency desig-
    nated pursuant to paragraph (6) of this
    subsection and with local governments,
    Int;erstate agencies, regional agencies and
    arelwide agencies within the coastal zone to
    assure the fuU participation of such local
    governments and agencies .n earrying out
    the purposes of this title."
    Relevant background information on
    this requirement appears in 15 CFR
    920.45(f), and is incorporated by refer-
    ence herein. While the State will exercise
    its authority over land and water uses of
    Statewide significance in the coastal zone
    by one or more of the techniques set
    forth in � 923.28, the State management
    program must be coordinated with exist-
    ing plans applicable to portions of the
    coastal zone. It should be noted that this
    section does not demand compliance of
    the State program with local plans, but
    the process envisioned should enable a
    State not only to avoid conflicts and am-
    biguities among plans and proposals, but
    to draw upon the planning capabilities
    of a wide variety of governments and
    agencies. Coordination implies a high
    degree of cooperation and consultation
    among agencies, as well as a mutual will-
    ingness on the part of the participants
    to accommodate their activities to the
    needs of the others in order to carry out
    the public interest. Perceptions of the
    public good will differ and it is recognized
    that not all real or potential conflicts can
    be resolved by this process. Nevertheless,
    it is a necessary step. Effective coopera-
    tion and consultation must continue as
    the management program is put into
    operation so that local governments, in-
    terstate, regional and areawide agencies
    can continue to participate in the carry-
    ing out of the management program. The
    "plans" referred to in (A) shall be con-
    sidered those which have been officially
    adopted by the entity which developed
    them, or which are commonly recognized
    by the entity as a guide for action. The
    list of relevant agencies required under
    � 923.31 will be of use in meeting this
    requirement. It will enable the State to
    identify those entities mentioned in (A.
    which have such plans and to provide
    evidence that coordination with them
    has taken place. The process envisioned
    should not only enable a State to avoid
    conflicts between its program and other
    plans applying within its coastal zone.
    but to draw upon the planning capabili-
    ties of a wide variety of local govern-
    ments and other agencies. In developine
    and implementing thbse portions of the
    program dealing with Dower transmission
    lines, pipelines, interstate transportation
    facilities and other facilities wvhich till
    significantly  impact  on  neighborinc
    States of a region, particular attention
    should be paid to the requirements of th i
    section.
    Subpart E-Miscellaneous
    � 923.40 General.
    The requirements in this subpart (do
    not fall readily into any of the above
    categories but deal with several impor-
    tant elements of an approvable man-
    agement program. They deal with pulblic
    hearings in development of the mananre-
    ment program, gubernatorial review and
    approval, segmentation  of State prn-
    grams and applicability of water and
    air pollution control requirements.
    � 923.41 Public hearinrs.
    (a) Requirements. In order to fulfill
    the requirement  contained in section
    306(c) (3), the management progranm
    must show evidence that the State has
    held public hearings during the devel-
    opment of the management  program
    following not less than 30 days notifica-
    tion, that all documents associated with
    the hearings are conveniently available
    to the public for review and study at
    least 30 days prior to the hearing, that
    the hearings are held in places and at
    times convenient to affected populations.
    that all citizens of the State hate an
    opportunity to comment on the total
    management program and that a report
    on each hearing be prepared and made
    available to the public within 45 days.
    tb) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
    tion 306(c) (3):
    Prior to granting approval of a rmnanatwle-
    ment program submitted by a coastal State.
    the Secretary shall findt that * * I (t)he
    State has held public hearings on the de-
    velopment of the management proglraln
    Extensive discussion and statements of
    policy regarding this requirement ap-
    pears in �� 920.30, 920.31 and 920.32.
    which is incorporated herein by refer-
    ence.
    � 923.42 Culsernatorial reNiew anll ap-
    proval.
    (a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the
    requirement contained in section 306,c)
    (4), the management program must con-
    tain a certification signed by the Gover-
    nor of the coastal State to the effect that
    he has reviewed and approved the man-
    agement program and any amendments
    thereto. Certification may be omitted in
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-IHURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

    RULES AND REGULATIONS
    � 923.44 Applicability of air and water
    pollution control requirements.
    (a) Requirement. In order to fulflN
    the requirements contained In Section
    307(f) of the Act the management pro-
    gram must be developed in close coordi-
    nation with the planning and regulatory
    systems being implemented under the
    Federal Water Pollution Control Act and
    Clean Air Act, as amended, and be con-
    sistent with applicable State or Federal
    water and air pollution control stand-
    ards in the coastal zone. Documentation
    by the official or officials responsible for
    State implementation of air and water
    pollution control activities that those re-
    quirements have been incorporated into
    the body of the coastal zone management
    program should accompany submission
    of the management program.
    (b) Comment: Statutory citation:
    Section 307(f):
    Notwithstanding 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 Act, as amend-
    ed, or (2) established by the Federal govern-
    ment, or any State or local government pur-
    suant to such Acts. Such requirements shall
    be incorporated In any program developed
    pursuant to this title, and shall be the water
    pollution control requirements and air pol-
    lution control requirements applicable to
    such program.
    (1) The basic purpose of this require-
    ment is to ensure that the management
    program does not conflict with the na-
    tional and State policies, plans and regu-
    lations mandated by the Federal Water
    Pollution Control Act, as amended, and
    the Clean Air Act as amended. The pol-
    icies and standards adopted pursuant to
    these Acts should be considered essential
    baselines against which the overall man-
    agement program is developed. This is a
    specific statutory requirement that re-
    flects the overall coastal zone manage-
    ment objective of unified state manage-
    ment of environmental laws, regulations
    and applicable standards. To this end,
    management programs should provide
    for continuing coordination and cooper-
    ation with air and water programs dur-
    ing subsequent administration of the ap-
    proved management program.
    (2) There are also significant oppor-
    tunities for developing working relation-
    ships between air and water quality
    agencies and coastal zone management
    programs. These opportunities include
    such activities as joint development of
    Section 208 areawide waste treatment
    management planning and coastal zone
    management programs; consolidation
    and/or incorporation of various plan-
    ning and regulatory elements into these
    closely related programs; coordination
    of monitoring and evaluation activities;
    increased management attention being
    accorded specifically to the coastal
    waters; consultation concerning tle de-
    sirability of adjusting state water quality
    standards and criteria to complement
    coastal zone management policies; and
    designation of areas of particular con-
    cern or priority uses.
    the case of a program submitted for pre-
    liminary approval.
    (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
    tion 306(c) (4):
    Prior to granting approval ofr  manage-
    ment program submitted by a coastel Stat,
    the Secretary shall find that * * * the man-
    agement program and any changes thereto
    have been reviewed and approved by the
    Governor.
    This requirement is self-explanatory.
    � 923.43 Segmentmtion.
    (a) Requirement. If the State intends
    to develop and adopt its management
    program in two or more segments, it shall
    advise the Secretary as early as prac-
    ticable stating the reasons why segmen-
    tation is appropriate and requesting his
    approval. Each segment of a management
    program developed by segments must
    show evidence (1) that the State will
    exercise policy control over each of the
    segmented management programs prior
    to, and following their integration into
    a complete State management program,
    such evidence to include completion of
    the requirements of � 923.11 (Boundaries
    of the coastal zone) and 1 923.15 (Na-
    tional interest in the siting of facilities)
    for the State's entire coastal zone, (2)
    that the segment submitted for approval
    includes a geographic area on both sides
    of the coastal land-water interface, and
    (3) that a timetable and budget have
    been established for the timely comple-
    tion of the remaining segments or
    segment.
    (b) Comment. Statutory citation: Sec-
    tion 306(h):
    At the discretion of the State and with
    the approval of the Secretary, a manage-
    ment program may be developed and adopt-
    ed in segments so that immediate attention
    may be devoted to those areas within the
    coastal zone which most urgently need man-
    agement programs: Provided, That, the State
    adequately provides for the ultimate coordi-
    nation of the various segments of the man-
    agement program into a single, unified pro-
    gram, and that the unified program will be
    completed as soon as reasonably practica-
    ble.
    (1) This section of the Act reflects a
    recognition that it may be desirable for
    a State to develop and adopt its man-
    agement program in segments rather
    than all at once because of a relatively
    long coastline, developmental pressures
    or public support in specific areas, or
    earlier regional management programs
    developed and adopted. It is important
    to note, however, that the ultimate ob-
    jective of segmentation is completion of
    a management program for the coastal
    zone of the entire State in a timely
    fashion. Segmentation is at the State's
    option, but requires the approval of the
    Secretary. States should notify the Sec-
    retary at as early a date as possible re-
    garding intention to prepare a manage-
    ment program in segments.
    (2) Continuing involvement at the
    State as well as local level in the de-
    velopment and implementation of seg-
    mented programs is essential. This em-
    phasis on State participation and co-
    ordination with the program as a whole
    should be reflected in the individual seg-
    ments of a management program. Re-
    dgional agencies and local governments
    may play a large role in developing and
    carrying out such segmented programs,
    but there must be a continuing State
    voice throughout this process. This State
    involvement shall be expressed in the
    first segment of the management pro-
    gram in the form of evidence that (i) the
    boundaries of the coastal zone for the
    entire State have been defined (pursuant
    to � 923.11) and (ii) there has been ade-
    quate consideration of the national in-
    terest involved in the siting of facilities
    necessary to meet requirements which
    are other than local in nature (pursuant
    to � 923.15) for the State's entire coast-
    al zone. These requirements are de-
    signed to assure that the development of
    a Statewide coastal zone management
    program proceeds in an orderly fashion
    and that segmented programs reflect ac-
    curately the needs and capabilities of
    the State's entire coastal zone which are
    represented in that particular segment.
    (3) The Act's intent of encouraging
    and assisting State governments to de-
    velop a comprehensive program for the
    control of land and water uses in the
    coastal zone is clear. This intent should
    therefore apply to segments as well, and
    segmented    management    programs
    should be comprehensive in nature
    and deal with the relationship between
    and among land and water uses. No ab-
    solute minimum or maximum geographic
    size limitations will be established for
    the area of coverage of a segment. On
    the one hand, segments should include
    an area large enough to permit compre-
    hensive analyses of the attributes and
    limitations of coastal resources within
    the segment of State needs for the util-
    ization or protection of these resources
    and of the interrelationships of such util-
    izations. On the othee hand, it is not
    contemplated that a segmented man-
    agement program will be developed sole-
    ly for the purpose of protecting or con-
    trolling a single coastal resource or use,
    however desirable that may be.
    (4) One of the distinguishing features
    of. a coastal zone management program
    is its recognition of the relationship be-
    tween land uses and their effect upon
    coastal waters, and vice versa. Segments
    should likewise recognize this relation-
    ship between land and water by includ-
    ing at least the dividing line between
    them, plus the lands or waters on either
    side which are mutually affected. In the
    case of a segment which is predominant-
    ly land, the boundaries shall include
    those waters which are directly and sig-
    nificantly impacted by land uses in the
    segment. Where the predominant part
    of the segment is water, the boundaries
    shall include the adjacent shorelands
    strongly influenced by the waters, includ-
    ing at least transitional and inter-tidal
    areas, salt marshes, wetlands and
    beaches (or similar such areas in Great
    Lake States).
    (5) Segmented management programs
    submitted for approval will be reviewed
    and approved in exactly the same man-
    ner as programs for complete coastal
    zones, utilizing the same approval cri-
    teria, plus those of this section.
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

    1694
    AULES AND  fEtiULATIONS

    � 923.53 Allocation.
    Section 306(f) allows a State to al-
    locate a portion of its administrative
    grant to sub-State or multi-State entities
    if the work to result from the allocation
    contributes to the effective implementa-
    tion of the State's approved coastal zone
    management program. The requirements
    for identifying such allocations are set
    forth in � 923.55(e).
    � 923.54 Geographical segmentation.
    Authority is provided in the Act for a
    State's management program to be de-
    veloped and adopted in segments. Addi-
    tional criteria for the approval of a seg-
    mented management program are set
    forth in Subpart E � 923.43. Application
    procedures for an administrative grant
    to assist in administering an approved
    segmented management program will be
    the same as set forth in this subpart for
    applications to administer an approved
    management program for the entire
    coastal zone of a State.
    � 923.55 Application for the initial ad-
    ministrative grant.
    (a) The Form CD-288, Preapplica-
    tion for Federal Assistance, required
    only for the initial grant, must be sub-
    mitted 120 days prior to the beginning
    date of the requested grant. The pre-
    application shall include documentation,
    signed by the Governor, designating the
    State office, agency or entity to apply for
    and administer the grant. Copies of the
    approved management program are not
    required. The preapplication form may
    be submitted prior to the Secretary's
    approval of the applicant's management
    program provided, after consultation
    with OCZM, approval is anticipated
    within 60 days of submittal of the
    preapplication.
    (b) All applications are subject to the
    provisions of OMB Circular A-95 (re-
    vised). The Form CD-288, Preapplica-
    tion for Federal Assistance, will be
    transmitted to the appropriate clear-
    inghouses at the time it is submitted to
    the Office of Coastal Zone Management
    (OCZM). If the application is deter-
    mined to be Statewide or broader in na-
    ture, a statement to that effect shall be
    attached to the Preapplication form
    submitted to OCZM. Such a determina-
    tion does not preclude the State clear-
    inghouse   from   involving   areawide
    clearinghouses in the review. In any
    event, whether the application is con-
    silered to be Statewide or not, the Pre-
    application form shall include an attach-
    ment indicating the date copies of the
    Preapplication form were transmitted to
    the State clearinghouse and if appli-
    cable, the identity of the areawide clear-
    inghouse(s) receiving copies of the Pre-
    application form and the date(s)
    tralsmitted. The  Preapplication  form
    may be used to meet the project notifi-
    cation and review requirements of OMB
    Circular A-95 with the concurrence of
    the appropriate clearinghouses. In the
    absence of such concurrence the project
    notification  and  review  procedures,
    established State and areawide clearing-
    houses, should be implemented simul-
    Subpart F--Applications for Administrtht
    Grants
    � 923.50 General
    The primary purpose of administrative
    grants made under section 306 of the Act
    is to assist the States to implement
    coastal zone management programs fol-
    lowing their approval by the Secretary of
    Commerce. The purpose of these guide-
    lines is to define clearly the processes by
    which grantees apply for and administer
    grants under the Act. These guidelines
    shall be used and interpreted in con-
    junction with the Grants Management
    Manual for Grants under the Coastal
    Zone Management Act, hereinafter re-
    ferrcd to as the "Manual." This Manual
    contains procedures and guidelines for
    the administration of all grants covered
    under the Coastal Zone Management
    Act of 1972. It has been designed as a
    tool for grantees, although it addresses
    the responsibilities of the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
    tion and its Office of Coastal Zone Man-
    agement, which is responsible for admin-
    istering programs under the Act. The
    Manual incorporates a wide range of
    Federal requirements, including those
    established by the Office of Management
    and Budget, the General Services Ad-
    ministration, the Department of the
    Treasury, the General Accounting Office
    and the Department of Commerce. In
    addition to specific policy requirements
    of these agencies, the Manual includes
    recommended policies and procedures for
    grantees to use in submitting a grant
    application. Inclusion of recommended
    policies and procedures for grantees does
    not limit the choice of grantees in select-
    ing those most useful and applicable to
    local requirements and conditions.
    � 923.51 Administration of the pro-
    gram.
    The Congress assigned the responsi-
    bility for the administration of the
    Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to
    the Secretary of Commerce, who has des-
    ignated the National Oceanic and Atmos-
    pheric Administration (NOAA) as the
    agency in the Department of Commerce
    to manage the program. NOAA has estab-
    lished the Office of Coastal Zone Man-
    agement for this purpose. Requests for
    information on grant applications and
    the applications themselves should be
    directed to:
    Director, Office of Coastal Zone Management
    (OCZM)
    Natuonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnis-
    tration,
    U9. Department of Commerce
    RFockville, Maryland 20852
    � 923.52 State responsibility.
    (a) The application shall contain a
    designation by the Governor of a coastal
    State of a single agency to receive and
    have fiscal and programmatic responsi-
    bility for administering grants to imple-
    ment the approved management pro-
    gram.
    (b) A single State application will cover
    all program management elements,
    whether carried out by State agencies,
    areawide/regional agencies, local govern-
    ments, interstate or other entities.
    taneously with the distribution of the
    preapplication form.
    (e) Costs claimed as charges to the
    grant project must be beneficial and
    necessary to the objectives of the grant
    project. The allowability of costs will be
    determined in accordance with the provi-
    sions of FMC 74-4. Administrative grants
    made under section 306(a) of the Act
    are clearly intended to assist the States
    in administering their approved man-
    agement programs. Such intent precludes
    tasks and related costs for long range
    research and studies. Nevertheless it is
    recognized that the coastal zone and its
    management is a dynamic and evolving
    process wherein experience may reveal
    the need for specially focused, short-term
    studies, leading to improved management
    processes and techniques. The OCZM will
    consider such tasks and their costs, based
    upon demonstrated need and expected
    contribution to more effective manage-
    ment programs.
    (d) The Form CD-292, Application for
    Federal Assistance (Non-Construction
    Programs), constitutes the formal appli-
    cation and must be submitted 60 days
    prior to the desired grant beginning date,
    The application must be accompanied by
    evidence of compliance with A-95 re-
    quirements including the resolution of
    any problems raised by the proposed
    project. The OCZM winl not accept appli-
    cations substantially deficient in adher-
    ence to A-95 requirements.
    (e) The State's work program imple-
    menting the approved management pro-
    gram is to be set forth in Part IV, Pro-
    gram Narrative, of the Form CD-292 and
    must describe the work to be accom-
    plished during the grant period. The
    work program should include:
    (1) An identification of those elements
    of the approved management program
    that are to be supported all or in part
    by the grant and the matching share,
    hereinafter called the grant project. In
    any event, activities related to the es-
    tablishment and implementation of State
    responsibilities pursuant to Section 307
    (c) (3) and Section 307(d) of the Act, are
    to be included In the grant project.
    (2) A precise statement of the major
    tasks required to Implement each ele-
    ment.
    (3) For each task, the following should
    be specified:
    (i) A concise statement of how each
    task will accomplish all or part of the
    program element to which it is related.
    Identify any other State, areawide, re-
    gional or interstate agencies or local gov-
    ernments that will be allocated respon-
    sibility for carrying out all or portions of
    the task. Indicate the estimated cost
    of  the  subcontract/grant  for  each
    allocatiorf.
    (ii) For each task indicate the esti-
    mated total cost. Also indicate the esti-
    mated total man-months, if any, allo-
    cated to the task from the applicant's
    in-house staff.
    (iii) For each task, list the estimated
    cost using the object class categories 6.a.
    through k., Part III, Section B-Budget
    Categories of Form CD-292.
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 6-THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1975

    lULISAND REGUILATWOS
    &en  d c *
    proved ememdmsatsW I o8Ig*h, uh
    act beematerialls ulters4 'Is state-
    mesnt will provide the bsis or n  nnual
    OC=     cert,lit,lon that .U   approved
    management program remms In ebl ct
    thus fulflling. in part, the nrsqu Memot
    of section -309(a) for a continuing re
    view of management program.
    (3) The Oovernor's document dedg-
    nating the applicant agency is not re-
    quired, unleu there has bee a change
    of designation.
    (4) Copies of the approved manage-
    ment progranm or approved amendments
    thereto are not required.
    [PA Dlo.7-788 Md 14- I--7Y;s:U am]
    (4) Thp sm of all the tast ooe hi
    sub-paragraph  (3) of this   PI
    should equal the total Welmated grant
    project costs.
    (5) Using two categories, Promisloni
    and Clerical, Indicate the total number
    of personnel In each category on the ap-
    plicant's In-house, staff, that will be as-
    signed to the grant project. Additionally
    indicate the number asigned full time
    and the number assigned less than full
    time in the two categories.
    (8) An identification of those manage-
    ment program elements, If any, that will
    not be supported by the grant project,
    and how they will be implemented.
    � 923.56 Approval of appliationa.
    (a) The application for an adminis-
    trative grant of any coastal Btate with a
    management program approved by the
    Secretary of Commerce, which complies
    with the policies and requirements of the
    Act and these guidelnes, shall be ap-
    proved by OCZM, assuming availabl
    funding.
    (b) Should an application be found
    deficient, OCZM will notify the applicant
    in writing, setting forth in detail the
    manner in which the 'application fails to
    conform to the requirements of the Act
    or this subpart. Conferences may be held
    on these matters. CorreCtions or awlust-
    ments to the application will provide the
    basis for resubmittal of the applicatlon
    for further consideration and review.
    (C) OCZM may, upon finding of exten-
    uating circumntances relating to ~appUca-
    tions for assistance, waive appropriate
    administrative requirements contained
    herein.
    � 23.57 Amendments.
    Amendments to an approved applica-
    tion must be submitted to, and approved
    by, the Secretary prior to initiation o: 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 OCZM, 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 worklng
    days of date of postmark of the request.
    � 923.58 Applications for second and
    Suleequent year grants.
    (a) Second and subsequent year ap-
    plitcations 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 g 023.55
    (b) will be foUllowed and the preapplca-
    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
    FIDEUl. REIST'I   VOL 40, NO. 6--THURSDAY, JNUARY 9, 1975

    APPENDIX 3
    WASHINGTON SHORELINE
    MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971

    STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON (RCW)
    SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971
    Chapter 90.58 RCW
    Amended effective February 14, 1974

    Chapter 61, laws of 1974, amended one section.
    Index
    Sections
    90.58.010
    90.58.020
    90.58.030
    90.58.040

    90.58.050

    90.58.060
    90.58.070

    Amd 90.58.080

    90.58.090

    90.58.100

    90.58.110

    90.58.120
    RCW Short title.
    RCW Legislative findings--State policy
    enunciated--Use preference.
    RCW Definitions and concepts.
    RCW Program applicable to shorelines of
    the state.
    RCW Program as cooperative between local
    government and state--Responsibilities
    differentiated.
    RCW Timetable for adoption of initial
    guidelines--Public hearings, notice of.
    RCW  Local governments to submit letters of
    intent--Department to act upon failure
    of local government.
    RCW Timetable for local governments to com-
    plete shoreline inventories and master
    programs.
    RCW Approval of master program or segments
    thereof, when--Departmental alterna-
    tives when shorelines of state-wide
    significance--Later adoption of master
    program supersedes department program.
    RCW Programs as constituting use regula-
    tions--Duties when preparing programs
    and amendments thereto--Program contents.
    RCW Development of program within two or
    more adjacent local government juris-
    dictions--Development of program in
    segments, when.
    RCW Adoption of rules, programs, etc., sub-
    ject to RCW 34.04.025--Public hearings,
    notice of--Public inspection after
    approval or adoption.
    i

    90. 58.o130
    RCW Involvement of all persons and entities
    having interest, means.
    RCW Development permits--Grounds for grant-
    ing--Departmental appeal on issuance--
    Administration by local government, con-
    ditions--Rescission--When permits not
    required--Approval when permit for var-
    iance or conditional use.
    RCW  Selective commerical timber cutting,
    when.
    RCW Prohibition against surface drilling for
    oil or gas, where.
    RCW  Shorelines hearings board--Established--
    Members--Chairman--Quorum for decision--
    Administrative and clerical assistance--
    Expenses of members.
    RCW Shorelines hearings board may adopt rules.
    RCW Appeals from granting, denying or rescind-
    ing permits, procedure--Board to act,
    when--Local government appeals to board--
    Grounds for declaring master program
    invalid--Appeals to court, procedure.
    RCW  Review and adjustments to master programs.
    RCW Rules and regulations.
    ROW Court actions to insure against conflict-
    ing uses and to enforce.
    RCW General penalty.
    RCW Violators liable for damages resulting
    from violation--Attorney's fees and costs.
    RCW Additional authority granted department
    and local governments.
    RCW Department to cooperate with local govern-
    ments--Grants for development of master
    programs.
    RCW State to represent its interest before
    federal agencies, interstate agencies
    and courts.
    RCW Nonapplication to certain structures,
    docks, developments, etc., placed in
    navigable waters--Nonapplication to cer-
    tain rights of action, authority.
    RCW Application to all state agencies,
    counties, public and municipal corpora-
    tions.
    RCW Restrictions as affecting fair market
    value of property.
    RCW Department as regulating state agency--
    Special authority.
    RCW Designation of shorelines of state-wide
    significance by legislature--Recommenda-
    tion by director, procedure.
    RCW Height limitation respecting permits.
    RCW Study of shorelines of cities and towns
    submitted to legislature--Scope.
    90.58.140

    90.58.150
    90. 58.160
    90. 58.170

    90.58.175
    90.58.180

    90.58.190
    90.58.200
    90.58.210
    90.58.220
    90.58.230
    90.58.240
    90. 58.250

    90.58.260

    90.58.270

    90.58.280

    90.58.290
    90.58.300
    90.58.310

    90. 58.320
    90.58.330
    ii

    90.58.340
    90.58.350
    90.58.360
    90.58.900
    90.58.910
    90.58.920
    90.58.930
    RCW Use policies for land adjacent to shore-
    lines, development of.
    RCW Nonapplication to treaty rights.
    RCW Existing requirement for permits, certi-
    ficates, etc., not obviated.
    RCW Liberal construction.
    RCW Severability.
    RCW Effective date.
    RCW Referendum to the people--1971 act--
    Determining if act continues in force
    and effect.

    iii

    h'

    :ii
    !: J

    <X :::

    <iL
    ::

    , h

    h

    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."1
    [1971 Ist ex.s. c 286 S 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 coordination 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 governiments, 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-
    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 thei 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 the
    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:
    -l -

    (1) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest 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.
    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 pre'served to the
    greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best
    interest of the state and the people generally. To this end
    uses 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, industrial and commercial
    developments which are particularly dependent an 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.
    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 environiment
    of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's
    use of the water. (1971 Ist ex.s. c286 S 2.]
    Reviser's note: In subsection (7), a literal translation
    of the session law's reference I. . . section 11 of this 1971
    act . .." would read "RCW 90.58.110". The above reference to
    "RCW 90.58.1000 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;
    -2-

    (b) "Director" means the director of the department of
    ecology;
    Cc) "Local government" means any county, incorporated
    city, 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) nordinary 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 significance" 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:
    (i) 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;
    -3-

    (iii) 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 be 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 nature which 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
    the state; except that the following shall not be considered
    -4-

    substantial developments for the purpose of this chapter:
    (i) Normal maintenance 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 marker s 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 of 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 S 1; 1971 lst ex.s. a 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
    Ist ex.s. a 286 S 4.]

    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 Ist ex.s. c 286.5 5.]

    90.58.060 TIMETABLE 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 goverzments proposed guidelines 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. [1971 Ist ex.s. c 286 S 6.3

    90.58.070 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO SUBMIT LETTERS OF INTENT
    --DEARTENTTO 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 ado-pt
    a master 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 Ist ex.s. c 286 S 7.]

    90.58.080 TIXETABLE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO COMPLETE
    SHORELINE INVENTORIES AND XASTER PROGRAMS. Local governments
    are directed with regard to shorelines of the state within
    their various jurisdictions as follows:
    (I) 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-
    SI, 1971 Ist ex.s. c 286 S 8.]
    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 S 2.]
    -6-

    90.58.090 APPROVAL OF MASTER PROGRAM OR SEGMENTS THEREOF,
    WHEN--DEPARTMENTAL ALTERNATIVES WHEN SHORELINES OF STATE-WIDE
    SIGNIFICANCE- -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 appropriate. 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
    local government suggested modifications 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 suabmission 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 alter-
    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 Ist ex.s. c 286
    s 9.]
    -7-

    90.58.100 PROGRAMS AS CONSTITUTING USE REGULATIONS---
    DUTIES WHEN PREPARING PROGRAMS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO--PROGRAM
    CONTENTS. (1) The master programs provided for in this chap-
    ter, when adopted and approved by the department, as appropriate,
    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, modern
    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
    shorelines 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;
    -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 affect. 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). 11971 Ist ex.s.
    c 286 S 10.1

    90.58.110 DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM WITHIN TWO OR MORE ADJA-
    CENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT JURISDICTIONS--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 thereof. 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 lst ex.s. a 286 5 11]1

    90.58.120 ADOPTION OF RULES, PROGRAMS, ETC., SUBJECT TO
    RCW 34.04.025--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:
    -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, des'ignations 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 Ist
    ex,s. c 286 � 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-
    oped 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 ana entities showing an
    interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and
    (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies
    of federal, state, and local govprnment, 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. [1971 Ist ex.s. c 286 S 13.1

    90.58.140 DEVELOPMENT 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 applicablet
    master program has become effective, only when the development
    proposed is consistent with: (i) The policy of RCW 90.58.020;
    -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;
    (b) 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
    proqram 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 governiment 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 Washinqton, until all review proceedings are ter-
    minated if such proceedinqs 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:
    -11-

    (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 government,
    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 community 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
    (e) 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 S 1, 1971 1st ex.s. c 286 S 14.]
    90.58.150  SELECTIVE COMMERICAL TIMBER CUTTING, WHEN.
    With respect to timber situated within two hundred feet abutting
    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.
    (1971 1st ex.s. a 286 S 15.]

    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 1st ex.s. c 286 S 16.]

    90.58.170 SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD--ESTABLISHED--
    MEMBERS--CHAIRMAN--QUORUM FOR DECISION--ADMINISTRATIVE AND
    -12-

    CLERICAL ASSISTANCE--MEXPENSES OF MEM4BERS. 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 Washington 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 zmay 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 Ist ex.s. c 286 S 17.1
    90.58.175 The shorelines hearings board may adopt rules
    and regulations governing the administrative practice and
    procedure in and before the board. [1973 2nd ex.s. c 203-
    S3.1
    90.58.180 APPEALS FROM GRANTING, DENYING OR RESCINDING
    PERMITS, PROCEDURE--BOARD TO ACT, WHEN--LOCAL GOVERNM4ENT APPEALS
    TO BOARD---GROUNDS FOR DECLARING MASTER 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 copy 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 othexwise, review the matter covered
    by the requestor: Provided, That the failure to obtain such
    certification shall not preclude the requestor from obtaining
    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 the, requestor.
    (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.
    -13-

    (3) The review proceedings authorized in subsection (1)
    and (2) of this section are subject to the provisions of chapter
    34.04 RCW pertaining to procedures in contested cases. Judicial
    review of such proceedings of the shorelines hearings board may
    be had as provided in chapter 34.04 RCW.
    (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
    Cv) was not adopted in accordance with required procedures;
    the board shall enter a final decision declaring the program
    invalid, remanding the master program to the department with
    a statement of the reasons in support of the determination, and
    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 programs 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 S 2;
    1971 1st ex.s. c 286 S 18.]
    -14-

    90.58.190 REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENTS TO MASTER PROGRAMS. The
    department and each local government shall periodically review
    any master programAs under its jurisdiction and make such adjust-
    ments thereto as are 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 Ist ex.s.
    c 286 S 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 S 20.]

    90.58.210 COURT ACTIONS TO INSURE AGAINST CONPLICTING
    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 Ist ex.s. c 286 S 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 of the 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 days,. or by both such fine and imprisonment: Pro-
    vided, That the fine for the third and all subsequent violations
    in any five-year period shall be not less than five hundred nor
    more than ten thousand dollars. [1971 Ist ex.s. c 286 S 22.]

    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 cost of 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,
    -15-

    the court in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs
    of the suit to the prevailinq party. [1971 Ist ex.s. c 286S
    23.1

    90.58.240 ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY GRANTED DEPARTMENT AND
    LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. In addition to any other powers granted
    hereunder, the department and local govexnments 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 cannot be performed by its employees. [1972
    Ist ex.s. 53 S 1; 1971 ex.s. c 286 S 24.]

    90.58.250 DEPARTMENT TO COOPERATE WITH LOCAL GOVERMEMNTS
    - -GRANTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER PROGR~MS. The department is
    directed to cooperate fully with local governments in discharg-
    ing their responsibilities under this chapter. Funds shall be
    available 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
    make 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 Ist ex.s.
    c 286 S 25.]

    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 comimission,
    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 S 26.]
    -16-

    90.58.270 NONAPPLICATION TO CERTAIN STRUCTURES, DOCKS,
    DEVELOPMENTS, 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 removal 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
    or developments 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. [1971 1st ex.s. c 286 S 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
    1st ex.s. c 286 5 28.]

    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. [1971 1st ex.s. c 286 S 29.]

    90.58.300 DEPARTMENT AS REGULATING STATE 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 the United States when-
    ever enacted which relate to programs of this chapter. [1971
    1st ex.s. c 286 S 30.]

    90.58.310 DESIGNATION OF SHORELINES OF STATE-WIDE SIGNI-
    FICANCE BY LEGISLATURE--RECOMMENDATION BY DIRECTOR, PROCEDURE.
    -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 desiq-
    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. [1971 Ist ex.s. 286 S 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 Ist
    ex.s. c 286 5 32.]

    90.58.330 STUDY OF SHORELINES OF CITIES AND TOWNS SUB-
    MITTED TO 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 he 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 regjulation of uses and activities pertaining to the
    area of study.
    The report shall be submitted to the leqislature not later
    than December 1, 1972. [1971 lst ex.s c 286 � 33.]

    90.58.340 USE POLICIES FOR LAND ADJACENT TO SHORELINES,
    DEVELOPMENT OF. All state agencies, counties, and public and
    -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 the shorelines 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.
    [1971 1st ex.s. c 286 $ 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 1st ex.s c 286 S 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 1st ex.s. c 286 S 36.]

    90.58.900  LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION--1971 1st ex.s. c 286.
    This chapter is exempted from the rule of strict construction,
    and it shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the
    objectives and purposes for which it was enacted. [1971 1st
    ex.s. c 286 S 37.]
    90.58.910 SEVERABILITY--1971 1st 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 1st ex.s. c 286 S 40.]

    90.58.920 EFFECTIVE DATE--1971 1st 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
    1st ex.s. c 286 S 41.]

    90.58.930 REFERENDUM TO THE PEOPLE--1971 ACT--DETERMIN-
    ING IF ACT CONTINUES IN FORCE AND EFFECT. This 1971 act con-
    stitutes an alternative to Initiative 43. The secretary of
    -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 Ist ex.s. c 286 S 42.1
    -20-

    APPENDIX 4
    FINAL GUIDELINES FOR
    THE WASHINGTON SHORELINE
    MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971

    State of
    w~sirgon
    FINAL GUIDELINES
    SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT
    OF 1971
    June 20, 1972

    STATE OF WASHINGTON
    ODFF ICE OF THE GOVERNOR
    OLYMPIA

    DANIEL J. EVANS
    GOVERNOR

    The State of Washington possesses shoreline area s 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 ouir cold, clear mnountain 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 of the Act, with the Department of Ecology acting in a supportive
    and review capacity.

    Another important feature 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. I urge you to accept
    these guidelines and use them in moving toward a level of environmental
    quality in our shoreline areas which we can share with pride.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel J.
    .Governor

    ~Sl-atc(Of
    June 2, 1972                            WashinI'gtonl
    Dc)epxrtnivnt

    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 an 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,

    Director
    JAB : gk

    State of Washington
    DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
    ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. DE72-12
    (1) I, John A. Biggs, Director, Department of Ecol-
    ogy of the' State of Washington, by virtue of the
    authority vested in me, after clue notice and in a
    meeting 6pen to the public, held in the City of Olym-
    pic Commission Chambers, City Hall, 8th and Plum,
    Olympia, Washington, on June 20, 1972, do promul-
    gate and cadopt 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.
    212 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

    PURPOSE
    WAC 173-16-010 PURPOSE. This regulation is
    adopted pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, in order to:
    11) 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.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Washington Administrative
    Code Number
    Page
    1
    INTRODUCTION            .                .  ..
    THE MASTER PROGRAM
    CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
    POLICY STATEMENTS
    MASTER PROGRAM ELEMENTS
    ENVIRONMENTS
    Natural Environment
    Conservancy Environment
    Rural Environment
    Urban Environment
    SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
    2
    2
    3
    3
    4
    4
    5
    5
    5
    6
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    173-16-040
    173-16-040(1)
    173-16-040(2)
    173-16-040(3)
    173-16-040(4)
    173-16-040(4)(i)
    173-16-040(4)(ii)
    173-16-040(4)(iii)
    173-16-040(4)(iv)
    173-16-040(5)

    . .   -        .II
    THE NATURAL SYSTEMS
    MARINE BEACHES
    SPITS & BARS
    DUNES
    ISLANDS .........
    ESTUARIES
    MARSHES, BOGS AND SWAMPS
    LAKES
    RIVERS, STREAMS AND CREEKS             .    .      ...
    FLOOD PLAINS.        .
    PUGET SOUND ...........
    PACIFIC OCEAN ..... ...................
    6	WAC
    6	WAC
    7	WAC
    7	WAC
    8	WAC
    8	WAC
    8	WAC
    8	WAC
    8	WAC
    9	WAC
    9	WAC
    9	WAC
    173-16-050
    173-16-050(1)
    173-16-050(2)
    173-16-050(3)
    173-16-050(4)
    173-1 6-050(5)
    173-1 6-050(6)
    173-16-050(7)
    173-16-050(8)
    173-16-050(9)
    173-16-050(10)
    173-16-050(11)
    THE USE ACTIVITIES. .....
    AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
    AQUACULTURE .  .......
    FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
    COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
    MARINAS
    MINING
    OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, SIGNS AND B;LLBOARDS
    RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .
    UTILITIES  ................
    PORTS AND WATER-RELATED INDUSTRY.
    BULKHEADS ............... ..........
    BREAKWATERS ...
    JETTIES AND GROINS .
    LANDFILL
    SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
    DREDGING  ...... ......
    SHORELINE FLOOD PROTECTION .
    ROAD AND RAILROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
    PIERS  ..
    ARCHEOLOGICAL AREAS AND HISTORIC SITES
    RECREATION  ...       .....................
    ...  10
    10
    11
    11
    .  11

    12
    12
    12
    3
    13
    13
    13
    4
    14
    .	14
    ..

    	15
    15
    15
    � 15
    16
    16
    16
    17
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    WAC
    173-16-060
    173-16-060(1)
    173-16-060(2)
    173-16-060(3)
    173-16-060(4)
    173-16-060(5)
    173-16-060(6)
    173-16-060(7)
    173-16-060(8)
    173-16-060(9)
    173-16-060(10)
    173-16-060(11)
    173-16-060(12)
    173-16-060(13)
    173-16-060(14)
    173-16-060(15)
    173-16-060(16)
    173-16-060(17)
    173-16-060(18)
    173-16-060(19)
    173-16-060(20)
    173-16-060(21)
    WAC 173-16-070
    WAC 173-16-030
    WAC 173-16-200
    VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES .   .      - .	. 17
    GLOSSARY
    	1.....
    ..  ..              I.....	18
    APPENDIX
    -........   19

    INTRODUCTIO
    N
    The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 is based
    on the philosophy 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, resto-
    ration, and preservation. Therefore, coordinated plan-
    ning 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 public interest. This
    planning is to be a rational and concerted effort,
    jointly performed by federal, state and local govern-
    ment. It is further felt that the interest of all of the
    people shall be paramount in the management of
    shorelines of statewide significance, and that the pub-
    lic should have the opportunity to enjoy the physical
    and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the
    State.
    The express purpose of the Shoreline Management
    Act is to provide for management of Washington's
    shorelines by planning for and fostering all reason-
    able and appropriate uses. This policy is directed at
    enhancement of shorelines rather than restriction of
    uses.
    As required by the Shoreline Management Act of
    1971, these guidelines have been written to serve as
    standards for implementation of the policy of this
    legislation for regulation of uses of the shorelines,
    prior to adoption of master programs, while also pro-
    viding criteria to local governments and the Depart-
    ment of Ecology in developing master programs.
    The guidelines have been written in r6latively gen-
    eral terms so that they can be used by all local
    governments, regardless of size or geographical loca-
    tion. The critical point of the entire program is the
    manner in which local governments interpret and uti-
    lize these guidelines in the development of their mas-
    ter programs.
    The information in this guideline package has
    been presented in three parts: The Master Program,
    which sets forth the procedures required for comple-
    tion of the master programs; The Natural Systems,
    which provides a brief look at each of the natural
    phenomena which is part of the total shoreline envi-
    ronment; and, The Use Activities, which presents the
    actual standards for the establishment of master pro-
    grams and provides direction for shoreline develop-
    ment until master programs are completed. Each of
    the parts is preceded by an explanatory paragraph
    which relates that part to the others in the program.
    These guidelines are the beginning of a program
    which will become more meaningful as our knowl-
    edge of our environment increases. Our knowledge is
    not yet sophisticated enough to precisely determine
    the nature of the complex and interrelated chemical,
    biological, physical and aesthetic factors within our
    environment.
    The guidelines were written with a spirit of opti-
    mism, with the hope that our legacy of natural gran-
    deur in. Washington will be used more wisely in the
    brief period of time it is entrusted to us, so that
    succeeding generations may have it to enjoy and ex-
    tend our concern into their future,
    I

    THE MASTER PROGRAM
    (WAC 173-16-040)
    The master program is to be developed by local
    government to provide an objective guide for regulat-
    ing the use of shorelines. The master program should
    clearly state local policies for the development of
    shorelands and indicate how these policies relate to
    the goals of the local citizens and to specific regula-
    tions of uses affecting the physical development of
    land and water resources throughout the local govern-
    ments' jurisdiction.
    The master program developed by each local gov-
    ernment will reflect the unique shoreline conditions
    and the development requirements which exist and
    are projected in that area. As part of the process of
    master program development, local governments can
    identify problems and seek solutions which best sat-
    isfy their needs.
    A  master program, by its definitibn, is general,
    comprehensive and long-range in order to be applica-
    ble to the whole area for a reasonable length of time
    under changing conditions.
    "General' means that the policies, proposals and
    guidelines are not directed towards any specific sites.
    "Comprehensive" means that the program is di-
    rected towards all land and water uses, their impact
    on the environment and logical estimates of future
    growth. It also means that the program shall recog-
    nize plans and programs of the other government
    units, adjacent jurisdictions and private developers.
    "Long-range" means that the program is to be
    directed at least 20 to 30 years into the future, look
    beyond immediate issues, and follow creative objec-
    tives rather than a simple projection of current trends
    and conditions.
    Finally, chapter 90.58 RCW requires that the mas-
    ter program shall constitute use regulations for the
    various shorelines of the state. Specific guidelines are
    outlined in RCW 90.58.100(1) for preparing the master
    programs to accomplish this purpose. It is the inten-
    tion of these guidelines, especially those related to
    citizen involvement, and the inventory to aid in carry-
    ing out this section of the act.
    To facilitate an effective implementation of chapter
    90.58 RCW throughout the state, the procedures on
    the following pages shall be observed while develop-
    ing master programs for the shorelines. Exceptions to
    some of the specific provisions of these guidelines
    may occur where unique circumstances justify such
    departure. Any departure from these guidelines must,
    however, be compatible with the intent of the Shore-
    line Management Act as enunciated in RCW
    90.58.020. Further, in all cases, local governments
    must meet the master program requirements specified
    in the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.

    Citizen Involvement (WAC 173-16-040(1))
    While public involvement and notification is re-
    quired of the master program at the time of adoption
    by the act, the general public must be involved in the
    initial planning stage during formulation of the mas-
    ter plan.
    The act requires that prior to approval or adoption
    of a master program, or a portion thereof, by the
    department, at least one public hearing shall be held
    in each county affected by the program for the pur-
    pose of obtaining the views and comments of the
    public.
    The act charges the state and local government
    with not only the responsibility of making reasonable
    efforts to inform the people of the state about the
    shoreline management program, but also actively en-
    courages participation by all persons, private groups,
    and entities, which have an interest in shoreline man-
    agement.
    To meet these responsibilities, the local govern-
    ment agencies responsible for the development of the
    master program should establish a method for obtain-
    ing and utilizing citizen involvement. The extent of
    citizen involvement in the formulation of the master
    program will be considered by the department in the
    review of the program. A failure by the local govern-
    ment to encourage and utilize citizen involvement, or
    to justify not having done so, may be noted as a
    failure to comply with the act.
    Though the department recognizes various forms
    of citizen involvement as viable approaches for in-
    volving the public in the master program, the local
    government will be encouraged to utilize the method
    as suggested in these guidelines. If a local government
    does not follow these guidelines, it should provide an
    explanation of the method used. The department will
    be available to explain and help organize the sug-
    gested approach to citizen involvement upon request.
    The suggested approach to citizen involvement to
    be utilized by the local government agency responsi-
    ble for the development of the master program in-
    cludes the following:
    (a) Appoint a citizen advisory committee whose
    function will be to guide the formulation of the master
    program through a series of public evening meetings
    and at least one public hearing. The committee mem-
    bers should represent both commercial interests as
    well as environmentalists. However, the advisory com-
    mittee itself is not to be a substitute for general citizen
    involvement and input. The aim of the committee will
    be to utilize citizen input in:
    (i) Studying existing public policies related to
    shorelines.
    (ii) Defining the needs to satisfy local demands for
    shorelines.
    (iii) Studying the type and condition of local
    shorelines relative to needs.
    (iv) Developing goals and policies for the master
    program with the local government fulfilling the
    specifications of the master program, including des-
    ignation of the environments.
    (v) Identifying use conflicts.
    (vi) Proposing alternatives for the use of shore-
    lines.
    (vii) Examining the effects of the master program
    on the environment.
    (b) The citizen advisory committee should hold at
    least three public meetings during development of the
    master program and designation of the environments
    according to the following guidelines:
    (i) Public notice (as stated in subsection 1 below)
    2

    must be provided seven days prior to the evening
    meeting.
    iii) All meetings must be open to the public for
    free discussion.
    (iii) Meetings should be held in the evening at a
    location accessible to the general public.
    liv) Record of all meetings should be filed with
    the local government and made available to the
    public.
    (v) Local government should provide resource per-
    sons to assist in the preparation, organization
    and diffusion of information.
    (vi) The final evening meeting should be held at
    least seven days prior to the public hearing.
    (c) A newsletter should be published by the advi-
    sory committee in cooperation with the local govern-
    ment.
    (i) The information sheet should be available to
    the public at posted locations.
    (ii) It should be available after-the first evening
    public meeting and prior to the sec6nd.
    [iii) The date, time, and location of future meet-
    ings and hearings should be stated.
    (iv) A phone number should be provided to obtain
    further information.
    (v) Public notice should be made of the availabil-
    ity of the newsletter as stated in subsection (d)
    (d) Publicity of the master program should utilize:
    (i) Public notice postings as per subsection (i)
    below.
    (ii) Newsletter.
    (iii) Radio, T.V. and local news media.
    (iv) A local paper of general circulation.
    (v) Announcements to community groups.
    (e) At least one public hearing should be held by
    the local government after the three public meetings
    have been held to discuss the proposed master plan.
    (i) Public notice (as stated in subsection Ii) below)
    must be made a minimum of once in each of three
    weeks immediately preceding the hearing in one
    or more newspapers of general circulation in the
    area in which the hearing is to be held.
    (ii) The master program should be available for
    public inspection at the local government office and
    available upon request at least seven days prior to
    the public hearing.
    (f) Prior to adoption of the master program, all
    reasonable attempts should have been made to ob-
    tain a general concurrence of the public and the advi-
    sory committee. The method of obtaining or measur-
    ing concurrence must be established by the local gov-
    ernment and must provide a clear indication of how
    citizen input is utilized.
    (g) If the level of concurrence on the master pro-
    gram-is not considered adequate by the advisory com-
    mittee at the conclusion of the public hearing, the
    local government should hold subsequent public meet-
    ings and public hearings until such time as adequate
    concurrence as per subsection (f) above is reached.
    (h) Attached to the master program upon its sub-
    mission to the department of ecology shall be a rec-
    ord of public meetings and citizen involvement. A
    discussion of the use of citizen involvement and mea-
    surement on concurrence should be included.
    (i) Public notice shall include:
    (i) Reference to the authority under which the rule
    is proposed.
    (ii) A statement of either the terms or substance of
    the proposed rule or a description of the subjects
    and issues involved.
    (iii) The time, place and manner in which inter-
    ested persons may present their views thereon (as
    stated in RCW 30.04.025).

    Policy Statements (WAC 173-16-040(2)1
    Each local government shall submit policy state-
    ments, developed through the citizen involvement
    process, regarding shoreline development as part of
    its master program. Because goal statements are often
    too general to be useful to very specific decision prob-
    lems, the policy statements are to provide a bridge for
    formulating and relating use regulations to the goals
    also developed through the citizen involvement proc-
    ess. In summary, the policy statements must reflect the
    intent of the act, the goals of the local citizens, and
    specifically relate the shoreline management goals to
    the master program use regulations.
    Clearly stated policies are essential to the viability
    of the master programs. The policy statements will not
    only support the environmental designations ex-
    plained below, but, also being more specific than goal
    statements, will provide an indication of needed envi-
    ronmental designations and use regulations.
    The following methodology for developing policy
    statements is recommended:
    (a) Obtain a broad citizen input in developing
    policy by involving interested citizens and all private
    and public entities having interest or responsibilities
    relating to shorelines. Form a citizen advisory commit-
    tee and conduct public meetings as outlined in WAC
    173-16-040(1) to encourage citizens to become in-
    volved in developing a master program.
    (b) Analyze existing policies to identify those pol-
    icies that may be incorporated into the master pro-
    gram and those which conflict with the intent of the
    act. Further, identify constraints to local planning and
    policy implementation which are a result of previous
    government actions, existing land-use patterns, ac-
    tions of adjacent jurisdictions or other factors not sub-
    jectto local control or influence.
    (c) Formulate goals for the use of shoreline areas
    and develop policies to guide shoreland activities to
    achieve these goals.
    The policies should be consistent with RCW
    90.58.020 and provide guidance and support to local
    government actions regarding shoreline management.
    Additionally, the policies should express the desires of
    local citizens and be based on principles of resource
    management which reflect the state-wide public inter-
    est in all shorelines of state-wide significance.

    Master Program Elements (WAC 173-16-040(3))
    Consistent with the general nature of master pro-
    grams, the following land and water use elements are
    to be dealt with, when appropriate, in the local mas-
    ter programs. By dealing with shoreline uses, system-
    atically as belonging to these generic classes of activi-
    ties, the policies and goals in the master programs
    can be clearly applied to different shoreline uses. In
    3

    and urban) which provide the framework for imple-
    menting shoreline policies and regulatory measures.
    This system is designed to encourage uses in each
    environment which enhance the character of that envi-
    ronment. At the same time, local government may
    place reasonable standards and restrictions on devel-
    opment so that such development does not disrupt or
    destroy the character of the environment.
    The basic intent of this system is to utilize per-
    formance standards which regulate use activities in
    accordance with goals and objectives defined locally
    rather than to exclude any use from any one environ-
    ment. Thus, the particular uses or type of develop-
    ments placed in each environment must be designed
    and located so that there are no effects detrimental to
    achieving the objectives of the environment designa-
    tions and local development criteria.
    This approach provides an "umbrella" environ-
    ment class over local planning and zoning on the
    shorelines. Since every area is endowed with different
    resources, has different intensity of development and
    attaches different social values to these physical and
    economic characteristics, the environment designations
    should not be regarded as a substitute for local plan-
    ning and land-use regulations.
    The basic concept for using the system is for local
    governments to designate their shorelines into envi-
    ronment categories that reflect the natural character of
    the shoreline areas and the goals for use of character-
    istically different shorelines. The determination as to
    which designation should be given any specific area
    should be made in the following manner:
    (i) The resources of the shoreline areas should be
    analyzed for their opportunities and limitations for
    different uses. Completion of the comprehensive in-
    ventory of resources is a requisite to identifying
    resource attributes which determine these opportu-
    nities and limitations.
    (ii) Each of the plan elements should be analyzed
    for their effect on the various resources throughout
    shoreline areas. Since shorelines are only a part of
    the system of resources within local jurisdiction, it
    is particularly important that planning for shore-
    lines be considered an integral part of area-wide
    planning. Further, plans, policies and regulations
    for lands adjacent to the shorelines of the state
    should be reviewed in accordance with RCW 90-
    .58.340.
    (iii) Public desires should be considered through
    the citizen involvement process to determine which
    environment designations reflect local values and
    aspirations for the development of different shore-
    line areas.
    The management objectives and features which
    characterize each of the environments are given below
    to provide a basis for environment designation within
    local jurisdictions.

    Natural Environment (WAC 173-16-040(4)(b)(i)) The
    natural environment is intended to preserve and re-
    store those natural resource systems existing relatively
    free of human influence. Local policies to achieve this
    objective should aim to regulate all potential develop-
    ments degrading or changing the natural characteris-
    tics which make these areas unique and valuable.
    the absence of this kind of specificity in the master
    programs, the application of policy and use regula-
    tions could be inconsistent and arbitrary.
    The plan elements are:
    (a) Economic development element for the location
    and design of industries, transportation facilities, port
    facilities, tourist facilities, commercial and other devel-
    opments that are particularly dependent on shoreland
    locations.
    b) Public access elements for assessing the need
    for providing public access to shoreline areas.
    (c) Circulation element for assessing the location
    and extent of existing and proposed major thorough-
    fares, transportation routes, terminals and other public
    facilities and correlating those facilities with the shore-
    line use elements.
    (d) Recreational element for the preservation and
    expansion of recreational opportunities through pro-
    grams of acquisition, development and various means
    of less-than-fee acquisition.
    (el Shoreline use element for considering:
    (i) The pattern of distribution and location require-
    ments of land uses on shorelines and adjacent
    areas, including, but notlimited to, housing, com-
    merce, industry, transportation, public buildings
    and utilities, agriculture, education and natural re-
    sources.
    (ii) The pattern of distribution and location re-
    quirements of water uses including, but not limited
    to, aqcluaculture, recreation and transportation.
    If) Conservation element for the preservation of
    the natural shoreline resources, considering such char-
    acteristics as scenic vistas, parkways, estuarine areas
    for fish and wildlife protection, beaches and other
    valuable natural or aesthetic features.
    (g) Historical/cultural eelment for protection and
    restoration of buildings, sites and areas having his-
    toric, cultural, educational or scientific values.
    (h) In addition to the above-described elements,
    local governments are encouraged to include in their
    master programs, an element concerned with the res-
    toration of areas to a natural useful condition which
    are blighted by abandoned and dilapidated struc-
    tures. Local governments are also encouraged to in-
    clude in their master programs any other elements,
    which, because of present uses or future needs, are
    deemed appropriate and necessary to effectuate the
    Shoreline Management Act.

    Environments (WAC 173-16-040(4))
    In order to plan and effectively manage shoreline
    resources, a system of categorizing shoreline areas is
    required for use by local governments in the prepara-
    tion of master programs. The system is designed to
    provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use
    regulations within distinctively different shoreline
    areas. To accomplish this, the environmental designa-
    tion to be given any specific area is to be based on
    the existing development pattern, the biophysical capa-
    bilities and limitations of the shoreline being consid-
    ered for development and the goals and aspirations
    of local citizenry.
    The recommended system classifies shorelines into
    four distinct environments (natural, conservancy, rural
    4

    spaces and opportunities for recreational uses compat-
    ible with agricultural activities.
    The rural environment is intended for those areas
    characterized by intensive agricultural and recrea-
    tional uses and those areas having a high capability
    to support active agricultural practices and intensive
    recreational development. Hence, those areas that are
    already used for agricultural purposes, or which have
    agricultural potential should be maintained for pres-
    ent and future agricultural needs. Designation of rural
    environments should also seek to alleviate pressures of
    urban expansion on prime farming areas.
    New developments in a rural environmert are to
    reflect the character of the surrounding area by limit-
    ing residential density, providing permanent open
    space and by maintaining adequate building setbacks
    from water to prevent shoreline resources from being
    destroyed for other rural types of uses.
    Public recreation facilities for public use which can
    be located and designed to minimize conflicts with
    agricultural activities are recommended for the rural
    environment. Linear water access which will prevent
    overcrowding in any one area, trail systems for safe
    nonmotorized traffic along scenic corridors and provi-
    sions for recreational viewing of water areas illustrate
    some of the ways to ensure maximum enjoyment of
    recreational opportunities along shorelines without
    conflicting with agricultural uses. In a similar fashion,
    agricultural activities should be conducted in a man-
    nerwhich will enhance the opportunities for shoreline
    recreation. Farm management practices which prevent
    erosion and subsequent siltation of water bodies and
    minimize the flow of waste material into water
    courses are to be encouraged by the master program
    for rural environments.
    Urban Environment (WAC 173-16-040(4)(bMiv)) The ob-
    jective of the urban environment is to ensure optimum
    utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by
    providing for intensive public use and by managing
    development so that it enhances and maintains shore-
    lines for a multiplicity of urban uses.
     The urban environment is an area of high-intensity
    land-use including residential, commercial, and in-
    dustrial development. The environment does not nec-
    essarily include all shorelines within an incorporated
    city, but is particularly suitable to those areas pres-
    ently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as
    well as areas planned to accommodate urban expan-
    sion. Shorelines planned for future urban expansion
    should present few biophysical limitations for urban
    activities and not have a high priority for designation
    as an alternative environment.
    Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a
    limited resource, emphasis should be given to devel-
    opment within already developed areas and particu-
    larly to water-dependent industrial and commercial
    uses requiring frontage on navigable waters.
    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
    and planning for the acquisition of urban land for
    permanent public access to the water in the urban
    environment should be accomplished in the master
    program. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum
    public use, industrial and commercial facilities should
    flit. mfrUt r  r.niplihl,iis of regulition in these arecls
    should be on natural systems and resources which
    require severe restrictions of intensities and types of
    uses to maintain them in a natural state. Therefore,
    activities which may degrade the actual or potential
    vwlur of this environment shoulrl be strictly regulated.
    Any cirtivity which would bring about a change in the
    existing situation would be desirable only if such a
    change would contribute to the preservation of the
    existing character.
    The primary determinant for designating an area
    as a natural environment is the actual presence of
    some unique natural or cultural features considered
    valuable in their natural or original condition which
    are relatively intolerant of intensive human use. Such
    features should be defined, identified and quantified
    in the shoreline inventory. The relative value of the
    resources is to be based on local citizen opinion and
    the needs and desires of other people in the rest of
    the state.

    Conservancy Environment (WAC 173-16-040(4)(b)(ii))
    The objective in designating a conservancy environ-
    ment is to protect, conserve and manage existing nat-
    ural resources and valuable historic and cultural areas
    in order to ensure a continuous flow of recreational
    benefits to the public and to achieve sustained re-
    source utilization.
    The conservancy environment is for those areas
    which are intended to maintain their existing charac-
    ter. The preferred uses are those which are noncon-
    sumptive of the physical and biological resources of
    the area. Nonconsumptive uses are those uses which
    can utilize resources on a sustained yield basis while
    minimally reducing opportunities for other future uses
    of the resources in the area. Activities and uses of a
    nonpermanent nature which do not substantially de-
    grade the existing character of an area are appropri-
    ate uses for a conservancy environment. Examples of
    uses that might be predominant in a conservancy
    environment include diffuse outdoor recreation activi-
    ties, timber harvesting on a sustained yield basis,
    passive agricultural uses such as pasture and range
    lands, and other related uses and activities.
    The designation of conservancy environments
    should seek to satisfy the needs of the community as
    to the present and future location of recreational areas
    proximate to concentrations of population, either ex-
    isting or projected. For example, a conservancy envi-
    ronment designation can be used to complement city,
    county or state plans to legally acquire public access
    to the water.
    The conservancy environment would also be the
    most suitable designation for those areas which pre-
    sent too severe biophysical limitations to be desig-
    nated as rural or urban environments. Such limitations
    would include areas of steep slopes presenting ero-
    sion and slide hazards, areas prone to flooding, and
    areas which cannot provide adequate water supply or
    sewage disposal.

    Rural Environment (WAC 173-16-040(4)(b)iii)) The
    rural environment is intended to protect agricultural
    land from urban expansion, restrict intensive develop-
    ment along undeveloped shorelines, function as a
    buffer between urban areas, and maintain open
    5

    be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities.
    Where practicable, various access points ought to be
    linked to nonmotorized transportation routes, such as
    bicycle and hiking paths.
    Shorelines of State-wide
    Significance (WAC 173-16-040(5))
    The act designated certain shorelines as shorelines
    of state-wide significance. Shorelines thus designated
    are important to the entire state. Because these shore-
    lines are major resources from which all people in the
    state derive benefit, the guidelines and master pro-
    grams must give preference to uses which favor public
    and long-range goals.
    Accordingly, the act established that local master
    programs shall give preference to uses which meet the
    principles outlined below in order of preference.
    Guidelines for ensuring that these principles are incor-
    porated into the master programs and adhered to in
    implementing the act follow each principle.
    (a) Recognize and protect the state-wide interest
    over local interest. Development guidelines:
    (i) Solicit comments and opinions from groups and
    individuals representing state-wide interests by
    circu!ating proposed master programs for review
    and comment by state agencies, adjacent juris-
    dictions' citizen advisory committees, and state-
    wide interest groups. (See appendix, Reference
    No. 32.)
    (ii) Recognize and take into account state agencies'
    policies, programs and recommendations in devel-
    oping use regulations. Reference to many of these
    agencies' policies are provided in the appendix.
    This information can also be obtained by contacting
    agencies listed in the Shoreline Inventory Supple-
    ment Number One.
    (iii) Solicit comments, opinions and advice from
    individuals with expertise in ecology, oceanog-
    raphy, geology, limnology, aquaculture and other
    scientific fields pertinent to shoreline management.
    Names of organizations and individuals which can
    provide expert advice can be obtained from the
    department's resource specialist listing.
    lb) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
    Development guidelines:
    ii) Designate environments and use regulations to
    minimize man-made intrusions on shorelines.
    (ii) Where intensive development already occurs,
    upgrade and redevelop those areas to reduce their
    adverse impact on the environment and to accom-
    modate future growth rather than allowing high
    intensity uses to extend into low intensity use or
    underdeveloped areas.
    (iii) Ensure that where commercial timber-cutting
    is allowed as provided in RCW 90.58.150, refor-
    estation will be possible and accomplished as
    soon as practicable.
    (c) Result in long-term over short-term benefit. De-
    velopment guidelines:
    (i) Prepare master programs on the basis of pre-
    serving the shorelines for future generations. For
    example, actions that would convert resources into
    irreversible uses or detrimentally alter natural con-
    ditions characteristic of shorelines of state-wide
    significance, should be severely limited.
    (ii) Evaluate the short-term economic gain or con-
    venience of developments in relationship to long-
    term and potentially costly impairments to the
    natural environment.
    (iii) Actively promote aesthetic considerations when
    contemplating new development, redevelopment
    of existing facilities or for the general enhancement
    of shoreline areas.
    Id) Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines.
    Development guidelines:
    (i) Leave undeveloped those areas which contain
    a unique or fragile natural resource.
    (ii) Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would
    alter the natural function of the water system. In
    areas where erosion and sediment control practices
    will not be effective, excavations or other activities
    which increase erosion are to be severely limited.
    (iii) Restrict or prohibit public access onto areas
    which cannot be maintained in a natural condition
    under human uses.
    (e) Increase public access to publicly owned areas
    of the shorelines. Development guidelines:
    (i) In master programs, give priority to developing
    paths and trails to shoreline areas, linear access
    along the shorelines, and to developing upland
    parking.
    (ii) Locate development inland from the ordinary
    highwater mark so that access is enhanced.
    (f) Increase recreational opportunities for the pub-
    lic on the shorelines. Development guidelines:
    (i) Plan for and encourage development of facilities
    for recreational use of the shorelines.
    (ii) Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities
    on uplands well away from the shorelines with
    provisions for nonmotorized access to the shore-
    lines.

    THE NATURAL SYSTEMS
    (WAC 173-16-050)
    This section contains brief and general descriptions
    of the natural geographic systems around which the
    shoreline management program is designed. The intent
    of this section is to define those natural systems to
    which the Shoreline Management Act applies, to high-
    light some of the features of those systems which are
    susceptible to damage from human activity, and to
    provide a basis for the guidelines pertaining to hu-
    man-use activities contained in WAC 173-16-060.
    It is intended that this section will provide criteria
    to local governments in the development of their
    master programs, as required in RCW 90.58.030(a).
    (1) Marine Beaches-Beaches are relatively level land
    areas which are contiguous with the sea and are
    directly affected by the sea even to the point of origin-
    ation. The most common types of beaches in Washing-
    ton marine waters are:
    Sandy beaches: Waves, wind, tide and geological
    material are the principal factors involved in the forma-
    tion of beaches. The beach material can usually be
    traced to one of four possible sources: The cliffs behind
    the beach; from the land via rivers; offshore wind;
    and finally from longshore drifting of material. Long-
    shore-drifting material must have been derived ini-
    tially from the first three sources. Most beach material
    6

    in Puget Sound is eroded from the adjacent bluffs
    composed of glacial till.
    The effect of wave action on the movement and
    rdeposition of beach material varies depending upon
    the size of the material. Hence, in most cases, beaches
    composed of different sized material are usually char-
    acterized by different slopes and profiles. The entire
    process of beach formation is a dynamic process re-
    suiting from the effect of wave action on material
    transport and deposition. Initially, wave action will
    establish currenrits which transport and deposit material
    in various patterns. However, once a particular beach
    form and profile is established it begins to modify the
    effects of waves thus altering the initial patterns of
    material transport and deposition. Hence, in building
    beach structures such as groins, bulkheads or jetties, it
    is particularly important to recognize that subsequent
    changes in wave and current patterns will result in a
    series of changes in beach formation over time. [See
    WAC 173-16-060(6), (11), 1121 and 113)].
    In the process of beach formation, sand particles
    are transported up the beach by breaking waves that
    wash onto the beach in a diagonal direction and
    retreat in a vertical direction. At the same time, long-
    shore currents are created in the submerged intertidal
    area by the force of diagonally approaching waves.
    Beach material suspended by the force of the break-
    ing waves is transported in one direction or another
    by the longshore current. Longshore drifting of mate-
    rial often results in the net transportation of beach
    material in one direction causing the loss of material
    in some areas and gains in others.
    The profile of a beach at any time will be deter-
    mined by the wave conditions during the preceding
    period. Severe storms will erode or scour much material
    away from the beaches due to the force of retreating
    waves. During calm weather, however, the waves will
    constructively move material back onto the beach. This
    destructive and constructive action, called cut and fill,
    is evidenced by the presence of beach ridges or
    berms. New ridges are built up in front of those that
    survive storm conditions as sand is supplied to the
    beach in succeeding phases of calmer weather. In
    time, the more stable landward ridges are colonized
    by successional stages of vegetation. The vegetation
    stabilizes the ridges, protects them from erosion and
    promotes the development of soil.
    Rocky beaches:   Rocky beaches, composed of cob-
    bles, boulders and/or exposed bedrock are usually
    steeper and more stable than sandy shores. Coarse
    material is very permeable which allows attacking
    waves to sink into the beach causing the backwash to
    be reduced correspondingly. On sandy shores a strong
    backwash distributes sand more evenly, thus creating
    a flatter slope.
    On rocky shores a zonal pattern in the distribution
    of plants and animals is more evident than on muddy
    or sandy shores. The upper beach zone is frequently
    very dry, limiting inhabitants to species which can
    tolerate a dry environment. The intertidal zone is a
    narrow area between mean low tide and mean high
    tide that experiences uninterrupted covering and un-
    covering by tidal action. One of the major characteris-
    tics of this zone is the occurrence of tidal pools which
    harbor separate communities which can be considered
    subzones within the intertidal zone. The subtidal zone
    is characterized by less stressful tidal influences but is
    subject to the forces of waves and currents which
    affect the distribution and kinds of organisms in this
    zone.
    Muddy shores:  Muddy shores occur where the
    energy of coastal currents and wave action is mini-
    mal, allowing fine particles of silt to settle to the bot-
    tom. The result is an accumulation of mud on the
    shores of protected bays and mouths of coastal
    streams and rivers. Most muddy beaches occur in es-
    tuarine areas. However, some muddy shore areas may
    be found in coastal inlets and embayments where
    salinity is about the same as the adjacent sea.
    Few plants have adapted to living on muddy
    shores. Their growth is restricted by turbidity which
    reduces light penetration into the water and thereby
    inhibits photosynthesis. In addition, the lack of solid
    structures to which algae may attach itself and silta-
    tion which smothers plants effectively prevents much
    plant colonization of muddy shores. While the lack of
    oxygen in mud makes life for fauna in muddy shores
    difficult, the abundance of food as organic detritus
    provides nutrition for a large number of detritus feed-
    ers.
    (2) Spits and Bars-Spits and bars are natural forma-
    tions composed of sand and gravel and shaped by
    wind and water currents and littoral drifting. Generally
    a spit is formed from a headland beach (tall cliff with
    a curved beach at the foot) and extends out into the
    water (hooks are simply hookshaped spits). While
    spits usually have one end free in open water, bars
    generally are attached to land at both ends. These
    natural forms enclose an area which is protected from
    wave action, allowing life forms such as shellfish, to
    reproduce and live protected from the violence of the
    open coast. [See WAC 173-16-060(16)].
    (3) Dunes-Dunes are mounds or hills of sand which
    have been heaped up by wind action. Typically,
    dunes exhibit four distinct features:
    Primary dunes:  The first system of dunes shore-
    ward of the water, having little or no vegetation,
    which are intolerant of unnatural disturbances.
    Secondary dunes:  The second system of dunes
    shoreward from the water, with some vegetative
    cover.
    Back dunes:  The system of dunes behind the sec-
    ondary dunes, generally having vegetation and some
    top soil, and being more tolerant of development than
    the primary and secondary systems.
    Troughs:  The valleys between the dune systems.
    Dunes are a natural levee and a final protection
    line against the sea. The destructive leveling of, or
    interference with the primary dune system (such as
    cutting through the dunes for access) can endanger
    upland areas by subjecting them to flooding from
    heavy wave action during severe storms and destroy
    a distinct and disappearing natural feature. Removal
    of sand from the beach and shore in dune areas
    starves dunes of their natural supply of sand and may
    cause their destruction from lack of sand. [See WAC
    173-16-060(16)]. Appropriate vegation can and should
    be encouraged throughout the entire system for stabil-
    ization. [See WAC 173-16-060(21)].
    7

    (4) Islands--An island, broadly defined, is a land
    mrnas surrounded by water. Islands are particularly
    irportint to the stote of Washington since tvAo entilre
    counties are made up of islands and parts of several
    other counties are islands. A fairly small island, such
    as those in our Puget Sound and north coast area, is
    an intriguing ecosystem, in that no problem or area of
    study can be isolated. Every living and nonliving
    thing is an integral part of the functioning system.
    Each island, along with the mystique afforded it by
    man, is a world of its own, with a biological chain,
    fragile and delicately balanced. Obviously it does not
    take as much to upset this balance as it would the
    mainland system. Because of this, projects should be
    planned with a more critical eye toward preserving
    the very qualities which make island environments
    viable systems as well as aesthetically captivating to
    humans.
    (5) Estuaries-An estuary is that portion of a coastal
    stream influenced by the tide of the marine waters
    into which it flows and within which the sea water is
    measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land
    drainage.
    Estuaries are zones of ecological transition be-
    tween fresh and saltwater. The coastal brackish water
    areas are rich in aquatic life, some species of which
    are important food organisms for anadromous fish
    species which use these areas for feeding, rearing and
    migration. An estuarine area left untouched by man is
    rare since historically they have been the sites for
    major cities and port developments. Because of their
    importance in the food production chain and their
    natural beauty, the limited estuarial areas require
    careful cittention in the planning function. Close scru-
    tiny should be given to all plans for development in
    estuaries which reduce the area of the estuary and
    interfere with water flow. [See WAC 173-16-060(14)].
    Special attention should be given to plans for up-
    stream projects which could deplete the freshwater
    supply of the estuary.
    (6) Marshes, Bogs and Swamps-Marshes, bogs and
    swamps are areas which have a water table very
    close to the surface of the ground. They are areas
    which were formerly shallow water areas that grad-
    ually filled through nature's processes of sedimenta-
    tion (often accelerated by man's activities) and the
    decay of shallow water vegetation.
    Although  considered  abysmal  wastelands  by
    many, these wet areas are extremely important to the
    food chain. Many species of both animal and plant
    life depend on this wet environment for existence.
    Birds rind waterfowl choose these locations for nesting
    places. Wet areas are important as ground water
    recharge areas and have tremendous flood control
    value.
    The high-water table and poor foundation support
    provided by the organic soils in these areas usually
    prevent development on them. The extraction of peat
    from bogs is possible when it is accomplished in such
    a manner that the surrounding vegetation and wildlife
    is left undisturbed and the access roads and shore-
    lines are returned to a natural state upon completion
    of the operation.
    The potential of marshes, bogs and swamps to
    provide permanent open space in urbanizing regions
    is high because of the costs involved in making these
    areas suitable for use. Unlimited public access into
    them.  ho" ,t-X mt't,  ,1,1, \  ~, , '  I ,- I ,J0',111'I  t'I  t I, ,, I I r,
    plant and animal life residing there.
    (7) Lakes-A lake can be defined broadly as a body
    of standing water located inland. Lakes originate in
    several ways. Many lakes are created each year by
    man, either by digging a lake basin or by damming a
    natural valley. Natural lakes can be formed in several
    ways: by glaciers gouging basins and melting and
    depositing materials in such a way as to form natural
    dams; by landslides which close off open ends of
    valleys; extinct craters which fill with water; changes
    in the earth's crust, as can happen during earth-
    quakes, forming basins which fill with water; or by
    changes in a river or stream course which isolate parts
    of the old course forming lakes, called oxbow lakes.
    A lake, like its inhabitants, has a life span. This
    lifetime may be thousands of years for a large lake or
    just a few years for a pond. This process of a lake
    aging is known generally as eutrophication. It is a
    natural process which is usually accelerated by man's
    activities. Human sewage, industrial waste, and the
    drainage from agricultural lands increases the nu-
    trients in a lake which in turn increases the growth of
    algae and other plants. As plants die, the chemical
    process of decomposition depletes the water's supply
    of oxygen necessary for fish and other animal life.
    These life forms then disappear from the lake, and the
    lake becomes a marsh or swamp.
    Shallow lakes are extremely susceptible to in-
    creases in the rate of eutrophication resulting from
    discharges of waste and nutrient-laden-runoff waters.
    Temperature stratification does not normally occur in
    shallow lakes. Efficient bottom-to-surface circulation of
    water in these shallow lakes moves nutrients to the
    surface photosynthetic zone encouraging increased
    biotic productivity. Large quantities of organic matter
    are produced under these conditions. Upon decompo-
    sition, heavy demands are made on the dissolved
    oxygen content of shallow lakes. Eventually, the oxy-
    gen level drops and some fish and other life forms
    die.
    The entire ecosystem of a lake can be altered by
    man. By removing the surrounding forest for lumber
    or to provide a building site or farm land, erosion into
    the lake is accelerated. Fertilizers, whether agricultural
    or those used by homeowners, can enter the lake
    either from runoff or leaching along with other chemi-
    cals that interfere with the intricate balance of living
    organisms. The construction of bulkheads to control
    erosion and filling behind them to enlarge individual
    properties can rob small fish and amphibians of their
    habitats. The indiscriminate construction of piers,
    docks and boathouses, can deprive all of the water-
    front owners and the general public of a serene nat-
    ural view and reduce the lake's surface. [See WAC
    173-16-060(5), (8), (11), (12), (13)].
    (8) Rivers, Streams and Creeks-Generally, rivers,
    streams and creeks con be defined as surface-water
    runoff flowing in a natural or modified channel. Runoff
    results either from excessive precipitation which can-
    not infiltrate the soil, or from ground water where the
    water table intersects the surface of the ground.
    Drawn by gravity to progressively lower levels and
    eventually to the sea, the surface runoff organizes into
    8

    a system of channels which drain a particular geo-
    graphic area.
    The drainage system serves as a transportation
    network for nature's leveling process, selectively erod-
    ing materials from the higher altitudes and transport-
    ing the materials to lower elevations where they are
    deposited. A portion of these materials eventually
    reaches the sea where they may form beaches, dunes
    or spits.
    Typically, a river exhibits several distinct stages as
    it flows from the headwaters to the mouth.  In the
    upper reaches where the gradient is steepest, the hy-
    draulic action of the flowing water results in a net
    erosion of the stream bed and a V-shaped cross sec-
    tion, with the stream occupying all or most of the
    valley floor.
    Proceeding downstream, the gradient decreases
    and the valley walls become gentler in slope. A point
    is eventually reached where erosion and deposition
    equalize and the action of the stream changes from
    vertical cutting to lateral meandering. As the lateral
    movement continues, a flood plain is formed, over
    which the river meanders and upon which materials
    are deposited during floods. Finally, when the river
    enters a body of standing water, the remaining sedi-
    ment load is deposited.
    Extensive human use is made of rivers, including
    transportation, recreation, waste and sewage dump-
    ing and for drinking water. Rivers are dammed for the
    production of electric power, diked for flood control
    and withdrawn for the irrigation of crops. Many of
    these activities directly affect the natural hydraulic
    functioning of the streams and rivers as well as the
    biology of the water courses. [See WAC 173-16-060
    (17)].
    (9) Flood Plains-A flood plain is a shoreland area
    which has been or is subject to flooding. It is a
    natural corridor for water which has accumulated
    from snow melt or from heavy rainfall in a short
    period. Flood plains are usually flat areas with rich
    soil because they have been formed by deposits from
    flood waters. As such they are attractive places for
    man to build and farm until the next flood passes
    across the plain. In certain areas, these plains can be
    "flood proofed" by diking or building levees along
    the adjacent river or stream, but always with provi-
    sions for tremendous amounts of water that will
    sooner or later be generated by weather conditions.
    Streamway modifications can be placed in such a way
    to cause channelization. Channelization tends to de-
    stroy the vital and fragile flood plain shoreline habi-
    tats and increase the velocity of waters in times of
    extreme flow. [See WAC 173-16-060(17)]. This may
    cause considerable damage downstream even in
    areas already given some flood protection. In unpro-
    tected flood plains, land-use regulations must be ap-
    plied to provide an adequate open corridor within
    which the effects of bank erosion, channel shifts and
    increased runoff may be contained. Obviously, struc-
    tures which must be built on a flood plain should be
    of a design to allow the passage of water and, wher-
    ever possible, permanent vegetation should be pre-
    served to prevent erosion, retard runoff, and contrib-
    ute to the natural beauty of the flood plain.
    (10) Puget Sound-Puget Sound is a complex of inter-
    connected inlets, bays and channels with tidal sea
    water entering from the west and freshwater streams
    entering at many points throughout the system. Most
    of what is known as Puget Sound was formed by
    glacial action that terminated near Tenino in Thurston
    County. The entire system, of which Puget Sound is
    actually a small portion, also includes the Strait of
    Georgia and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The large
    complex may be divided into nine oceanographic
    areas which are interrelated: Strait of Juan de Fuca,
    Admiralty Inlet, Puget Sound Basin, Southern Puget
    Sound, Hood Canal, Possession Sound, Bellingham
    Bay, San Juan Archipelago, and Georgia Strait (from
    Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters, Appendix XV, Plan
    Formulation).
    The economic development of the central Puget
    Sound Basin has been stimulated by the fact that the
    sound is one of the few areas in the world which
    provides several deepwater inland harbors. The use of
    Puget Sound waters by deep-draft vessels is on the
    increase due to its proximity to the developing Asian
    counties. This increased trade will attract more indus-
    try and more people which will put more use pressure
    on the Sound in the forms of recreation (sport fishing,
    boating and other water-related sports) and the re-
    quirements for increased food supply.
    Puget Sound waters are rich in nutrients and sup-.
    port a wide variety of marine fish and shellfish spe-
    cies. An estimated 2,820 miles of stream are utilized
    by anadromous fish for spawning and rearing
    throughout the area. Some of these fish are chinook,
    coho, sockeye, pink and chum salmon, steelhead, sea-
    run cutthroat and Dolly Varden trout. All these fish
    spend a portion of their lives in the saltwaters of
    Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean before returning to
    streams of origin to spawn. The juveniles of these fish
    spend varying amounts of time in the shore waters of
    the area before moving to sea to grow to. maturity.
    Aquaculture or sea farming is now in the process of
    becoming reality in the Puget Sound complex. The
    mass production of seaweed, clams, geoducks, scal-
    lops, shrimp, oysters, small salmon, lobsters and other
    possibilities looms as an important new industry.
    Shoreline management is particularly crucial to the
    success of sea farming. Aquaculture on any scale can
    be compatible and coexist with maritime shipping
    and shoreland industrial activities only by careful
    planning and regulation.
    The shoreline resources of Puget Sound include
    few beach areas which are not covered at high tide.
    Bluffs ranging from 10 to 500 feet in height rim
    nearly the entire extent of the Sound making access to
    beach and intertidal areas difficult. Because of the
    glacial-till composition of these bluffs, they are sus-
    ceptible to fluvial and marine erosion and present
    constant slide hazards. Although Puget Sound is pro-
    tected from the direct influence of Pacific Ocean
    weather, storm conditions can create very turbulent
    and sometimes destructive wave action. Without rec-
    ognizing the tremendous energy contained in storm
    waves, development of shoreline resources can be
    hazardous and deleterious to the resource characteris-
    tics which make Puget Sound beaches attractive. [WAC
    173-16-060(11), (12), (1 3)1].
    (11) Pacific Ocean-From Cape Flattery on the north
    to Cape Disappointment on the south, there are ap-
    9

    or types of natural systems las described in WAC
    173-16-050) within which a use is proposed and
    should impose regulations on those developments and
    uses which would tend to affect adversely the natural
    characteristics needed to preserve the integrity of the
    system. Examples would include but would not be
    limited to proposed uses that would threaten the char-
    acter of fragile dune areas, reduce water tables in
    marshes, impede water flow in estuaries, or threaten
    the stability of spits and bars.
    These guidelines have been prepared in recogni-
    tion of the flexibility needed to carry out effective local
    planning of shorelines. Therefore, the interpretation
    and application of the guidelines may vary relative to
    different local conditions. Exceptions to specific provi-
    sions of these guidelines may occur where local cir-
    cumstances justify such departure. Any departure from
    these guidelines must, however, be compatible with
    the intent of the act as enunciated in RCW 90.58.020.
    It should be noted that there are several guide-
    lines for certain activities which are not explicitly de-
    fined in the shoreline act as developments for which
    substantial development permits are not required (for
    example, the suggestion that a buffer of permanent
    vegetation be maintained along water bodies in agri-
    culture areas). While such activities generally cannot
    be regulated through the permit system, it is intended
    that they be dealt with in the comprehensive master
    program in a manner consistent with policy and intent
    of the Shoreline Act. To effectively provide for the
    management of the shorelines of the state, master
    programs should plan for and foster all reasonable
    and appropriate uses as provided in RCW 90.58.020.
    Finally, most of the guidelines are intentionally
    written in general terms to allow some latitude for
    local government to expand and elaborate on them as
    local conditions warrant. The guidelines are adopted
    state regulations, however, and must be complied
    with both in permit application review and in master
    program development.

    Agricultural Practices
    (WAC 173-16-060(1))
    Agricultural practices are those methods used in
    vegetation and soil management, such as tilling of
    soil, control of weeds, control of plant diseases and
    insect pests, soil maintenance and fertilization. Many
    of these practices require the use of agricultural chem-
    icals, most of which are water soluble and may wash
    into contiguous land or water areas causing signifi-
    cant alteration and damage to plant and animal habi-
    tats, especially those in the fragile shoreline areas.
    Also, large quantities of mineral and organic sedi-
    ments enter water bodies through surface erosion
    when proper land management techniques are not
    utilized. Guidelines:
    (a) Local governments should encourage the main-
    tenance of a buffer of permanent vegetation be-
    tween tilled areas and associated water bodies
    which will retard surface runoff and reduce
    siltation.
    (b) Master programs should establish criteria for
    10
    proximately 160 miles of beaches, rocky headlands,
    nlets and estuaries on Washington's Pacific Coast. The
    shoreline south of Cape Flattery to the Quinault River
    generally characterized as being rugged and rocky,
    with high bluffs. The remaining shoreline south of the
    Quinault River is predominantly fiat sandy beaches
    with low banks and dunes.
    During the winter, Pacific currents set toward the
    north, while during summer months they set to the
    south. Associated with the summer currents is a gen-
    eral offshore movement of surface water, resulting in
    upwelling of water from lower depths. This upwelled
    water is cold, high in salinity, low in oxygen content
    and rich in nutrients. It is this latter characteristic
    which causes upwelled water to be extremely signifi-
    cant in biological terms, since it often triggers
    'blooms' of marine plant life.
    Directions of wave action and littoral drift of sedi-
    ments shift seasonally with Pacific Ocean storms. Al-
    though very little data are available on the net direc-
    tion of littoral transport, the University of Washington
    has offshore data which indicate a northerly offshore
    flow. RCW 43.51.650 declares:
    "The beaches bounding the Pacific Ocean from the
    Straits of Juan de Fuca to Cape Disappointment at
    the mouth of the Columbia River constitute some of
    the last unspoiled seashore remaining in the United
    States. They provide the public with almost
    unlimited opportunities for recreational activities,
    like swimming, surfing and hiking; for outdoor
    sports, like hunting, fishing, clamming, and boat-
    ing; for the observation of nature as it existed
    for hundreds of years before the arrival of white
    men and for relaxation away from the pressures
    and tensions of modern life. In past years, these
    recreational activities have been enjoyed by count-
    less Washington citizens, as well as by tourists
    from other states and countries. The number of
    people wishing to participate in such recreational
    activities grow annually. This increasing public
    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
    seashore may be saved for our children in much
    the same form as we know it today." (See Appendix
    Reference Nos. 30 and 31).

    THE USE ACTIVITIES
    (WAC 173-16-060)
    This section contains guidelines for the local regu-
    lation 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 provide the
    basis for the develupment of that portion of the mas-
    ter program concerned with the regulation of such
    uses.
    In addition to application of the guidelines in this
    section, the local government should identify the type

    thc location of confined animcil feeding opera-
    tions, retention and storage ponds for feed lot
    wastes, and stock piles of manure solids in
    shorelines of the state so that water areas will
    not be polluted. Control guidelines prepared by
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should
    be followed. (Also see Reference Nos. 3, 4, 5,
    6, 7 jirin 8.)
    (c) Local governments should encourage the use
    of erosion control measures, such as crop rota-
    tion, mulching, strip cropping and contour cul-
    tivation in conformance with guidelines and
    standards established by the Soil Conservation
    Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    Aquaculture
    (WAC 173-16-060(2))
    Aquaculture Ipopularly known as fish farming) is
    the culture or farming of food fish, shellfish, or other
    aquatic plants and animals. Potential locations for
    aquacultural enterprises are relatively restricted due to
    specific requirements for water quality, temperature,
    flows, oxygen content, and, in marine waters, salinity.
    The technology associated with present-day aquacul-
    ture is still in its formative stages and experimental.
    Guidelines for aquaculture should therefore recognize
    the necessity for some latitude in the development of
    this emerging economic water use as well as its poten-
    tial impact on existing uses and natural systems. Guide-
    lines:
    (a) Aquacultural enterprises should be located in
    areas where the navigational access of upland
    owners and commercial traffic is not signifi-
    cantly restricted.
    (bl Recognition should be given to the possible
    detrimental impact aquacultural development
    might have on the visual access of upland
    owners and on the general aesthetic quality
    of the shoreline area.
    (c) As aquaculture technology expands with in-
    creasing knowledge and experience, emphasis
    should be placed on underwater structures
    which do not interfere with navigation or im-
    pair the aesthetic quality of Washington shore-
    lines.

    Forest Management Practices
    (WAC 173-16-060(3))
    Forest management practices are those methods
    used for the protection, production and harvesting of
    timber. Trees along a body of water provide shade
    which insulate the waters from detrimental tempera-
    ture change and dissolved oxygen release. A stable
    water temperature and dissolved oxygen level provide
    a healthy environment for fish and other more delicate
    forms of aquatic life. Poor logging practices on shore-
    lines alter this balance as well as result in slash and
    debris accumulation and may increase the suspended
    sediment load and the turbidity of the water. Guide-
    lines:
    (a) Seeding, mulching, matting and replanting
    should be accomplished where necessary to
    provide stability on areas of steep slope which
    have  been   logged.  Replanted  vegetation
    should be of a similar type and concentration
    as existing in the general vicinity of the
    logged area.
    (b) Special attention should be directed in logging
    and thinning operations to prevent the accu-
    mulation of slash and other debris in contig-
    uous waterways.
    (c) 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-
    tices, including road construction and debris
    removal, should be closely regulated so that
    the quality of the view and viewpoints in
    shoreline areas of the state are not degraded.
    (d) Proper road and bridge design, location and
    construction and maintenance practices should
    be used to prevent development of roads and
    structures which would adversely affect shore-
    line resources.
    (e) Timber harvesting practices in shorelines of the
    state should be conducted to maintain the
    state board of health standards for public
    water supplies. (See Reference No. 34).
    (f) Logging should be avoided on shorelines with
    slopes of such grade that large sediment run-
    off will be precipitated, unless adequate resto-
    ration and erosion control can be expeditiously
    accomplished.
    (g) Local governments should ensure that timber
    harvesting on shorelines of state-wide signifi-
    cance does not exceed the limitations estab-
    lished in RCW 90.58.150 except as provided in
    cases where selective logging is rendered eco-
    logically detrimental or is inadequate for prep-
    aration of land for other uses.
    (h) Logging within shoreline areas should be con-
    ducted to ensure the maintenance of buffer
    strips of ground vegetation, brush, alder and
    conifers to prevent temperature increases ad-
    verse to fish populations and erosion of stream
    banks.

    Commercial Development
    (WAC 173-16-060(4))
    Commercial developments are those uses which
    are involved in wholesale and retail trade or business
    activities. Commercial developments range from small
    businesses within residences, to high-rise office build-
    ings. Commercial developments are intensive users of
    space because of extensive floor areas and because of
    facilities, such as parking, necessary to service them.
    Guidelines:
    (a) Although many commercial developments ben-
    efit by a shoreline location, priority should be
    11

    r,l'-n to thos  cornnmerc'al  developments which
    (irll   rticulcirly dep.rndient on their location
    and/or use of the shorelines of the stote and
    other development that will provide on oppor-
    tunity for substantial numbers of the people to
    enloy the shorelines of thOe stite
    Xl,)   ' Jt w  ( (r ullfi. ,( .11v. ({It'1>. f*l)II.i t .  ,,,    '." I ,t'hI, "..
    .h ol o. m'eouluigIdl to lo.ulte in those ureus
    where current commercial uses exist.
    Icl An assessment should be moade of the effect a
    commercial  structure will have  on  a scenic
    view significant to a given area or enjoyed by
    a significant number of people.
    (dl Parking facilities should be placed inland
    away from the immediate water's edge and
    recreational beaches.

    Marinas
    (WAC 173-16-060(5))
    Marinas are facilities which provide boat launch-
    ing, storage, supplies and services 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-
    lines:
    (a) In locating marinas, special plans should be
    made to protect the fish and shellfish resources
    that may be harmed by construction and oper-
    ation of the facility.
    (bl Marinas should be designed in a manner that
    will reduce damage to fish and shellfish re-
    sources and be aesthetically compatible with
    adjacent areas.
    Ic) Master programs should identify locations that
    are near high-use or potentially high-use areas
    for proposed marina sites. Local as well as
    regional "need" data should be considered as
    input in location selection.
    (dl Special attention should be given to the design
    and development of operational procedures for
    fuel handling and storage in order to minimize
    accidental  spillage and  provide  satisfactory
    means for handling those spills that do occur.
    (el Shallow-water embayments with poor flushing
    action should not be considered for overnight
    and long-term moorage facilities.
    if) The Washington state department of fisheries
    has prepared guidelines concerning the con-
    struction of marinas. These guidelines should
    be consulted in planning for marinas. (See Ref-
    erence No. 16).
    (g) State and local health agencies have stand-
    ards and guidelines for the development of
    marinas which shall be consulted by local
    agencies. (See Reference No. 18).
    Mining
    (WAC 173-16-060(6))
    Mining is the removal of naturally occurring mate-
    rials from the earth for economic use The temovcil of
    ,:rrt (Iri(f gr-(vel fi froilli .llo,iline (Irte(l nf Wo(ldllrn1ton
    ,',ukilly ritiult, In er ',,oii of land and silting of water.
    These operations can create silt and kill bottom-living
    animals. The removal of sand from marine beaches
    can deplete a limited resource which may not be
    restored through natural processes. Guidelines:
    (a) When rock, sand, gravel and minerals are re-
    moved from shoreline areas, adequate protec-
    tion against sediment and silt production
    should be provided.
    (b) Excavations for the production of sand, gravel
    and minerals should be done in conformance
    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.
    Outdoor Advertising, Signs
    and Billboards
    (WAC 173-16-060(7)1
    Signs are publicly displayed boards whose pur-
    pose is to provide information, direction, or advertis-
    ing. Signs may be pleasing or distracting, depending
    upon their design and location. A sign, in order to be
    effective, must attract attention; however, a message
    can be clear and distinct without being offensive.
    There are areas where signs are not desirable, but
    generally it is the design that is undesirable, not the
    sign itself. Guidelines:
    (a) Off-premise outdoor advertising signs should
    be limited to areas of high-intensity land use,
    such as commercial and industrial areas.
    (b) Master programs should establish size, height,
    density, and lighting limitations for signs.
    (c) Vistas and viewpoints should not be degraded
    and visual access to the water from such vistas
    should not be impaired by the placement of
    signs.
    (d) Outdoor advertising signs (where permitted
    under local regulations) should be located on
    the upland side of public transportation routes
    which parallel and are adjacent to rivers and
    water bodies (unless it can be demonstrated
    that views will not be substantially ob-
    structed).
    (el When feasible, signs should be constructed
    against existing buildings to minimize visual
    obstructions of the shoreline and water bodies.
    12

    Residential Development
    (WAC 173-16-060(8))
    The following guidelines should be recognized in
    the development of any subdivision on the shorelines
    of the state. To the extent possible, planned unit
    developments (sometimes called cluster developments)
    should be encouraged within the shoreline area.
    Within planned uni; developments, substantial por-
    tions of land are reserved as open space or recrea-
    tional areas for the joint use of the occupants of the
    development. This land may be provided by allowing
    houses to be placed on lots smaller than the legal
    minimum size for normal subdivisions, as long as the
    total number of dwellings in the planned unit devel-
    opment does not exceed the total allowable in a
    regular subdivision. Guidelines:
    (a) Subdivisions should be designed at a level of
    density of site coverage and of occupancy
    compatible with the physical capabilities of
    the shoreline and water.
    (b) Subdivisions should be designed so as to ade-
    quately protect the water and shoreline aes-
    thetic characteristics.
    (c) Subdividers should be encouraged to provide
    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-
    lines dealing with marinas, piers, and docks.
    In planning for floating homes, local govern-
    ments should ensurethat waste disposal prac-
    tices meet local and state health regulations,
    that the homes are not located over highly
    productive fish food areas, and that the homes
    are located to be compatible with the intent of
    the designated environments.
    If) Residential developers should be required to
    indicate how they plan to preserve shore vege-
    tation and control erosion during construction.
    (g) Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water
    supply facilities, must be provided in accord-
    ance with appropriate state and local health
    regulations. Storm drainage facilities should be
    separate, not combined with sewage disposal
    systems.
    (h) Adequate water supplies should be available
    so that the ground water quality will not be
    endangered by overpumping.

    Utilities
    (WAC 173-16-060(9))
    Utilities are services which produce and carry elec-
    tric power, gas, sewage, communications and oil. At
    this time the most feasible methods of transmission
    are the lineal ones of pipes and wires. The installation
    of this apparatus necessarily disturbs the landscape
    but can usually be planned to have minimal visual
    and physical effect on the environment. Guidelines:
    (a) Upon completion of installation/maintenance
    projects on shorelines, banks should be re-
    stored to pre-project configuration, replanted
    with native species and provided maintenance
    care until the newly planted vegetation is es-
    tablished.
    (b) Whenever these facilities must be placed in a
    shoreline area, the location should be chosen
    so as not to obstruct or destroy scenic views.
    Whenever feasible, these facilities should be
    placed underground, or designed to do mini-
    mal damage to the aesthetic qualities of the
    shoreline area.
    (c) To the extent feasible, local government should
    attempt to incorporate major transmission line
    rights of w'ay on shorelines into their program
    for public access to and along water bodies.
    (d) Utilities should be located to meet the needs
    of future populations in areas planned to ac-
    commodate this growth.
    The Washington State Thermal Power Plant Siting
    Law (chapter RCW 80.50) regulates the location of
    electrical generating and distribution facilities. Under
    this law, the state preempts the certification and regu-
    lation of thermal power plant sites and thermal power
    plants. (See Reference No. 28).

    Ports and Water-Related Industry
    (WAC 173-16-060(10))
    Ports are centers for water-borne traffic and as
    such have become gravitational points for industrial/
    manufacturing firms. Heavy industry may not specific-
    ally require a waterfront location, but is attracted to
    port areas because of the variety of transportation
    available. Guidelines:
    (a) Water-dependent industries which require front-
    age on navigable water should be given prior-
    ity over other industrial uses.
    (b] Port facilities should be designed to permit
    viewing of harbor areas from viewpoints,
    waterfront restaurants and similar public facili-
    ties which would not interfere with port opera-
    tions or endanger public health and safety.
    (c) 'Sewage treatment, water reclamation, desalini-
    zation and power plants should be located
    where they do not interfere with and are com-
    patible with recreational, residential or other
    public uses of the water and shorelands.
    Waste treatment ponds for water-related in-
    dustry should occupy as little shoreline as pos-
    sible.
    (d) The cooperative use of docking, parking, cargo
    handling and storage facilities should be
    strongly encouraged in waterfront industrial
    areas.
    (e) Land transportation and utility corridors serv-
    ing ports and water-related industry should
    follow the guidelines provided under the sec-
    tions dealing with utilities and road and rail-
    road design and construction. Where feasible,
    transportation and utility corridors should be
    located upland to reduce pressures for the use
    of waterfront sites.
    13

    If) Master program planning should be based on
    a recognition of the regional nature of port
    services. Prior to allocating shorelands for port
    uses, local governments should consider state-
    wide  needs  and  coordinate  planning  with
    other jurisdictions to avoid wasteful duplica-
    tion of port services within port-service re-
    gions.
    (gl Since industrial docks and piers are often
    longer and greater in bulk than recreational or
    residential piers, careful planning must be un-
    dertaken to reduce the adverse impact of such
    facilities on other water-dependent uses and
    shoreline resources. Because heavy industrial
    activities are associated with industrial piers
    and docks, the location of these facilities must
    be considered a major factor determining the
    environmental compatibility of such facilities.

    Bulkheads
    (WAC  173-16-060(11))
    Bulkheads or seawalls are structures erected paral-
    lel to and near the high-water mark for the purpose
    of protecting adjacent uplands from the action of
    waves or currents. Bulkheads are constructed of steel,
    timber or concrete piling, and may be either of solid
    or open-piling construction. For ocean-exposed loca-
    tions, bulkheads do not provide a long-lived perma-
    nent solution, because eventually a more substantial
    wall is required as the beach continues to recede and
    layer waves reach the structure.
    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
    front of the structures.
    The following guidelines apply to the construction
    of bulkheads and seawalls designed to protect the
    immediate  upland area. Proposals for landfill must
    comply with the guidelines for that specific activity.
    Guidelines:
    la) Bulkheads and seawalls should be located
    and constructed in such a manner which will
    not result in adverse effects on nearby beaches
    and will minimize alterations of the natural
    shoreline.
    (b) Bulkheads and seawalls should be constructed
    in such a way as to minimize damage to fish
    and shellfish habitats. Open-piling construction
    is preferable in lieu of the solid type.
    (c) Consider the effect of a proposed bulkhead on
    public access to publicly owned shorelines.
    (d) Bulkheads and seawalls should be designed to
    blend in with the surroundings and not to
    detract from the aesthetic qualities of the
    shoreline.
    (e) The construction of bulkheads should be per-
    mitted only where they provide protection to
    upland areas or facilities, not for the indirect
    purpose of creating land by filling behind the
    bulkhead. Landfill operations should satisfy
    the guidelines under WAC 173-16-060(14).
    Breakwaters
    (WAC 173-16-060(12))
    Breakwaters ciare anotliher protective structure usually
    built offshore to protect beaches, bluffs, dunes or
    harbor areas from wave action. However, because off-
    shore breakwaters are costly to build, they are sel-
    dom constructed to protect the natural features alone,
    but are generally constructed for navigational pur-
    poses also. Breakwaters can be either rigid in con-
    struction or floating. The rigid breakwaters, which are
    usually constructed of riprap or rock, have both bene-
    ficial and detrimental effects on the shore. All break-
    waters eliminate wave  action and thus protect the
    shore immediately behind them. They also obstruct the
    free flow of sand along the coast and starve the
    downstream beaches. Floating breakwaters do not
    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-
    ment and fish habitat.
    (b) Solid breakwaters should be constructed only
    where design modifications can eliminate po-
    tentially detrimental effects on the movement
    of sand and circulation of water.
    (c) The restriction of the public use of the water
    surface as a result of breakwater construction
    must be recognized in the master program and
    must be considered in granting shoreline per-
    mits for their construction.

    Jetties and Groins
    (WAC 173-16-060(13))
    Jetties and groins are structures designed to mod-
    ify or control sand movement. A jetty is generally
    employed at inlets for the purpose of navigation im-
    provements. When sand being transported along the
    coast by waves and currents arrives at an inlet, it
    flows inward on the flood tide to form an inner bar,
    and outward on ebb tide to form an outer bar. Both
    formations are harmful to navigation through the
    inlet.
    A jetty is usually constructed of steel, concrete or
    rock. The type depends on foundation conditions and
    wave, climate and economic considerations. To be of
    maximum aid in maintaining the navigation channel,
    the jetty must be high enough to completely obstruct
    the sand stream. The adverse effect of a jetty is that
    sand is impounded at the updrift jetty and the supply
    of sand to the shore downdrift from the inlet is re-
    duced, thus causing erosion.
    Groins are barrier-type structures extending from
    the backshore seaward across the beach. The basic
    purpose of a groin is to interrupt the sand movement
    along a shore.
    Groins can be constructed in many ways using
    timber, steel, concrete or rock, but can be classified
    14

    into basic physical categories as high or low, long or
    short, and permtribale or impermenahl.
    I,ll,,!I ,I(,   ..,1 ifl lIy (I gaoi iII   done act the ex-
    rJer:n.r	ol thelr rljcicent downdrift shore, unless the
    rjroin	.y'.trmr  i', FilIler with sand to its entrapment
    rlpcr ity. Gjirleli'nes:
    (ca} Master programs must consider sand move-
    ment and the effect of proposed jetties or
    groins on that sand movement. Provisions can
    be made to compensate for the adverse effects
    of the structures either by artificially transport-
    ing sand to the downdrift side of an inlet with
    jetties, or by artificially feeding the beaches in
    case of groins.
    (b) Special attention should be given to the effect
    these structures will have on wildlife propaga-
    tion and movement, and to the design of these
    structures which will not detract from the aes-
    thetic quality of the shoreline.

    Landfill
    (WAC 173-16-060114))
    Landfill is the creation of dry upland area by the
    filling or depositing of sand, soil or gravel into a
    wetland area. Landfills also occur to replace shoreland
    areas removed by wave action or the normal erosive
    processes of nature. However, most landfills destroy
    the natural character of land, create unnatural heavy
    erosion and silting problems and diminish the existing
    water surface. Guidelines:
    (a) Shoreline fills or cuts should be designed and
    located so that significant damage to existing
    ecological values or natural resources, or alter-
    ation of local currents will not occur, creating a
    hazard to adjacent life, property, and natural
    resources systems.
    (b) All perimeters of fills should be provided with
    vegetation, retaining walls, or other mecha-
    nisms for erosion prevention.
    (c) Fill materials should be of such quality that it
    will not cause problems of water quality.
    Shoreline areas are not to be considered for
    sanitary landfills or the disposal of solid
    waste.
    Id) Priority should be given to landfills for water-
    dependent uses and for public uses. In eval-
    uating fill projects and in designating areas
    appropriate for fill, such factors as total water
    surface reduction, navigation restriction, imped-
    iment to water flow and circulation, reduction
    of water quality and destruction of habitat
    should be considered.
    collection, transportation and disposal are of vital
    conrprnt to nll prlionsn nnd crntntlnitirs  If tlhe, ik
    IJt.1Ofl ul 'lu11 W(i.li W' IhLl'ltIlUl iS [lot ztIICIully plcrlrled
    and regulated, it can become not only a nuisance but
    a severe threat to the health and safety of human
    beings, livestock, wildlife and other biota. Guidelines:
    (a) Local master programs and use regulations
    must be consistent with approved county or
    multicounty comprehensive solid waste man-
    agement plans and regulations of jurisdic-
    tional health agencies.
    (b) Local governments must regulate sanitary
    landfills and solid waste handling in accord-
    ance with regulations for solid waste handling
    when adopted by the department of ecology.
    New regulations restricting sanitary landfills
    within any water course and within flood
    plains of any water course have been pro-
    posed for adoption by the department.

    Dredging
    (WAC 173-16-060(16))
    Dredging is the removal of earth from the bottom
    of a stream, river, lake, bay or other water body for
    the purposes of deepening a navigational channel or
    to obtain use of the bottom materials for landfill. A
    significant portion of all dredged materials are depos-
    ited either in the water or immediately adjacent to it,
    often resulting in problems of water quality. Guide-
    lines:
    (a) Local governments should control dredging to
    minimize damage to existing ecological values
    and natural resources of both the area to be
    dredged and the area for deposit of dredged
    materials.
    (b) Local master programs must include long-
    range plans for the deposit and use of spoils
    on land. Spoil deposit sites in water areas
    should also be identified by local government
    in cooperation with the state departments of
    natural resources, game and fisheries. Deposit-
    ing of dredge material in water areas should
    be allowed only for habitat improvement, to
    correct problems of material distribution affect-
    ing adversely fish and shellfish resources, or
    where the alternatives of depositing material
    on land is more detrimental to shoreline re-
    sources than depositing it in water areas.
    Ic) Dredging of bottom materials for the single
    purpose of obtaining fill material should be
    discouraged.
    Shoreline Protection
    (WAC 173-16-060(17))
    Flood protection and streamway modifications are
    those activities occurring within the streamway and
    wetland areas which are designed to reduce overbank
    flow of high waters and stabilize eroding stream-
    Solid Waste Disposal
    (WAC 173-16-060(15))
    Generally, all solid waste is a possible source of
    much nuisance. Rapid, safe and nuisance-free storage,
    15

    should be done after the environmental impact
    of the transportation facilities needed to serve
    those areas have been assessed.

    Piers
    (WAC 173-16-060(19))
    A pier or dock is a structure built over or floating
    upon the water, used as a landing place for marine
    transport or for recreational purposes. While floating
    docks generally create less of a visual impact than
    those on piling, they constitute an impediment to boat
    traffic and shoreline trolling. Floating docks can also
    alter beach sand patterns in areas where tides and
    littoral drift are significant. On lakes, a proliferation
    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
    boaters and fishermen will not be created.
    (b) Open-pile piers should be encouraged where
    shore trolling is important, where there is sig-
    nificant littoral drift and where scenic values
    will not be impaired.
    (c) Priority should be given to the use of commu-
    nity piers and docks in all new major water-
    front subdivisions. In general, encouragement
    should be given to the cooperative use of piers
    and docks.
    (d) Master programs should address the problem
    of the proliferation of single-purpose private
    piers and should establish criteria for their lo-
    cation, spacing, and length. The master pro-
    grams should also delimit geographical areas
    where pile piers will have priority over floating
    docks.
    (e) In providing for boat docking facilities in the
    master program, local governments should
    consider the capacity of the shoreline sites to
    absorb the impact of waste discharges from
    boats including gas and oil spillage.

    Archeological Areas and Historic Sites
    (WAC 173-16-060(20))
    Archeological areas, ancient villages, military
    forts, 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 transportation. 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 edu-
    cational link they provide to our past, these locations
    should be preserved. Guidelines:
    (a) In preparing shoreline master programs, local
    governments should consult with professional
    16
    banks. Reduction of flood damage, bank stabilization
    to reduce sedimentation, and protection of property
    from erosion are normally achieved through water-
    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) Riprapping and other bank stabilization meas-
    ures should be located, designed and con-
    structed so as to avoid the need for channeli-
    zation and to protect the natural character of
    the streamway.
    (b) Where flood protection measures such as dikes
    are planned, they should be placed landward
    of the streamway, including associated swamps
    and marshes and other wetlands directly inter-
    related and interdependent with the stream
    proper.
    (c) Flood protection measures which result in chan-
    nelization should be avoided.

    Road and Railroad Design and
    Construction
    (WAC 173-16-060(18))
    A road is a linear passageway, usually for motor
    vehicles, and a railroad is a surface linear passage-
    way with tracks for train traffic. Their construction can
    limit access to shorelines, impair the visual qualities
    of water-oriented vistas, expose soils to erosion and
    retard the runoff of flood waters. Guidelines:
    la) Whenever feasible, major highways, freeways
    and railways should be located away from
    shorelands, except in port and heavy industrial
    areas, so that shoreland roads may be re-
    served for slow-moving recreational traffic.
    (b) Roads located in wetland areas should be de-
    signed and maintained to prevent erosion and
    to  permit  a  natural  movement  of ground
    water.
    (c) All debris, overburden, and other waste mate-
    rials from construction should be disposed of
    in such a way as to prevent their entry by
    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.
    (el Scenic corridors with public roadways should
    have provision for safe pedestrian and other
    nonmotorized travel. Also, provision should be
    made for sufficient view points, rest areas and
    picnic areas in public shorelines.
    (f) Extensive loops or spurs of old highways with
    high aesthetic quality should be kept in service
    as pleasure bypass routes, especially where
    main highways, paralleling the old highway,
    must carry large traffic volumes at high
    speeds.
    (g) Since land-use and transportation facilities are
    so highly interrelated, the plans for each
    should be coordinated. The designation of po-
    tential high-use areas in master programs
    4e

    the preservation and enhancement of scenic
    views and vistas.
    (f) To avoid wasteful use of the limited supply of
    recreational shoreland, parking areas should
    be located inland away from the immediate
    edge of the water and recreational beaches.
    Access should be provided by walkways or
    other methods. Automobile traffic on beaches,
    dunes and fragile shoreland resources should
    be discouraged.
    (g) Recreational developments should be of such
    variety as to satisfy the diversity of demands
    from groups in nearby population centers.
    (h) The supply of recreation facilities should be
    directly proportional to the proximity of popu-
    lation and compatible with the environment
    designations.
    Ii) Facilities for intensive recreational  activities
    should be provided where sewage disposal
    and vector control can be accomplished to
    meet public health standards without ad-
    versely altering the natural features attractive
    for recreational uses. (See Reference No. 35).
    (ji In locating proposed recreational facilities such
    as playing fields and golf courses and other
    open areas which use large quantities of ferti-
    lizers and pesticides in their turf maintenance
    programs, provisions must be made to prevent
    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
    regulations which apply to recreation facilities,
    recreation watercraft and ocean beaches which
    should be consulted by local governments in
    preparing use regulations and issuing permits.
    (See Reference Nos. 30, 31, 35, 36, 37).

    VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES
    (WAC 173-16-070)
    The act states that each  local master program
    shall contain provisions covering conditional uses and
    variances. Any permit for a variance or a conditional
    use granted by the local government under approved
    master programs must be submitted to the department
    for approval or disapproval.
    This provision of the act should be utilized in a
    manner which, while protecting the environment, will
    assure that a person will be able to utilize his prop-
    erty in a fair and equitable manner.
    (1) Conditional uses. The objective of a condi-
    tional use provision is to provide more control and
    flexibility for implementing the regulations of the mas-
    ter program. With provisions to control undesirable
    effects, the scope of uses within each of the four
    environments can be expanded to include many uses.
    Uses classified as conditional uses can be permit-
    ted only after consideration by the local government
    and by meeting such performance standards that
    archeologists to identify areas containing po-
    tentially valuable archeological data, and to
    e'rJtblish procedures for salvaging the data.
    (b) Where possible, sites should be permanently
    preserved for scientific study and public obser-
    vation. In areas known to contain archeologi-
    ccil data, local governments should attach a
    special condition to a shoreline permit provid-
    ing for a site inspection and evaluation by an
    archeologist to ensure that possible archeologi-
    cal data are properly salvaged. Such a condi-
    tion might also require approval by local gov-
    ernment 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 ar-
    cheological data are uncovered during excava-
    tions.
    (d) The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
    and chapter 43.51 RCW provide for the protec-
    tion, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruc-
    tion of districts, sites, buildings, structures and
    objects significant in American and Washing-
    ton history, architecture, archeology or culture.
    The state legislation names the director of the
    Washington state parks and recrection com-
    mission as the person responsible for this pro-
    gram.

    Recreation
    (WAC 173-16-060(21))
    Recreation is the refreshment of body and mind
    through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. Wa-
    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
    area. Guidelines:
    (a) Priority will be given to developments, other
    than single-family residences which are ex-
    empt from the permit requirements of the act,
    which provide recreational uses and other im-
    provements facilitating public access to shore-
    lines.
    (b) Access to recreational locations such as fishing
    streams and hunting areas should be a combi-
    nation of areas and linear access (parking
    areas and easements, for example) to prevent
    concentrations of use pressure at a few points.
    (c) Master programs should encourage the linkage
    of shoreline parks and public access points
    through the use of linear access. Many types
    of connections can be used such as hiking
    paths, bicycle trails and/or scenic drives.
    (d) Attention should be directed toward the effect
    the development of a recreational site will
    have on the environmental quality and natural
    resources of an area.
    (e) Master programs should develop standards for
    17

    make the use compatible with other permitted uses
    within that cirec
    Col(litionil use permits will he grcntedl only after
    t:  (i)pl it (n (ciln  lerl:on strclte ill of I te followinJ:
    (a) The use will cause no unreasonably adverse
    effects on the environment or other uses.
    (b) The use will not interfere with public use of
    public shorelines.
    Ic) Design of the site will be compatible with the
    surroundings and the Master Program.
    (d) The proposed use will not be contrary to the
    general intent of the master program.
    (2) Variances. Variance deals with specific require-
    ments of the master program and its objectiv.e is to
    grant relief when there are practical difficulties or
    unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the
    strict letter of the master program. The property owner
    must show that if he complies with the provisions he
    cannot make any reasonable use of his property. The
    fact that he might make a greater profit by using his
    property in a manner contrary to the intent of the
    program is not a sufficient reason for variance. A
    variance will be granted only after the applicant can
    demonstrate the following:
    (a) The hardship which serves as basis for grant-
    ing of variance is specifically related to the property
    of the applicant.
    (b) The hardship results from the application of
    the requirements of the act and master program and
    not from, for example, deed restrictions or the appli-
    cant's own actions.
    (c) The variance granted will be in harmony with
    the general purpose and intent of the master pro-
    gram.
    (d) Public welfare and interest will be preserved;
    if more harm will be done to the area by granting the
    variance than would be done to the applicant by
    denying it, the variance will be denied.

    GLOSSARY
    (WAC 173-16-030)
    DEFINITIONS. As used herein, the following words
    and phrases shall have the following meanings:
    (1) "Act" means Shoreline Management Act of
    1971, chapter 90.58 RCW.
    (2) "Department" means state of Washington,
    department of ecology.
    (3) "Development" means a use, consisting of
    the construction or exterior alteration of structures;
    dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any
    sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading; driving of pil-
    ing; placing of obstructions; or any project of a per-
    manent or temporary nature which interferes with the
    normal public use of the surface of the waters overly-
    ing lands subject to the act at any state of water
    level.
    (4) "Director" means the director of the depart-
    ment of ecology.
    (5) "Extreme low tide" means the lowest line on
    the land reached by a receding tide.
    (6) "Guidelines" means those standards adopted
    to implement the policy of this chapter for regulation
    of use of the shorelines of the state prior to adoption
    of r1mastel progc(lais. Scu(i stlndtrds shiill (also pliovidct'
    (ititli( to loc(lI govitllllecrltt; aind the ldep,crtrntnt itl
    developing mclstt  progl  i rns.
    (7) "Hearings board" means the shorelines hear-
    ings board established by the oct.
    (8) "Local government" means any county, incor-
    porated city, or town which contains within its bound-
    aries any lands or waters subject to the Shoreline Act
    of 1971.
    (9) "Master program" means the comprehensive
    use plan for a described area, and the use regula-
    tions, 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 section 2 of the act.
    (10) "Ordinary high-water mark" means the mark
    on all lakes, streams, and tidal waters, which will be
    found by examining the beds and banks and ascer-
    taining where the presence and action of waters are
    so common and usual, and so long continued in all
    ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character
    distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to
    vegetation, as that condition exists on the effective
    date of this chapter, or as it may naturally change
    thereafter: PROVIDED, That in any area where the
    ordinary high-water mark cannot be found, the ordi-
    nary high-water mark adjoining saltwater shall be the
    line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high-
    water mark adjoining freshwater shall be the line of
    mean high water.
    (11) "Permit" means that required by the act for
    substantial development on shorelines, to be issued
    by the local government entity having administrative
    jurisdiction and subject to review by the department
    of ecology and the attorney general.
    (12) "Shorelines" means all of the water areas of
    the state, including reservoirs, and their associated
    wetlands, together with the lands underlying them,
    except:
    (a) Shorelines of state-wide significance;
    (b) Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of
    a point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet
    per second or less, and the wetlands associated with
    such upstream segments; and
    (c) Shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres in size
    and wetlands associated with such small lakes.
    (13) "Shorelines of state-wide significance" means
    the following shorelines of the state:
    (a) 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 in-
    lets;
    (b) 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:
    (i) Nisqually Delta-from DeWolf Bight to Tatsolo
    Point;
    (ii) Birch Bay-from Point Whitehorn to Birch
    Point;
    18

    (iii)l Hood Canal-from Tala Point to Foulweather
    P,hiff:
    (IVI  ',,.  jrl  I',Wy   ,l  ni t llf,  t' lll  (i.tln Irui  3ruO nn
    Point to Yokeko Point; and
    (v) Padilla  Bay.-from  March  Point to William

    (r) Tho',, cJrr:cv, of Puget Sound and the Strait of
    Juutri   (i'f, (  (Ir(n (i rlic(ullf ,t (llw(lers naiolti  Io tflhe
    Canadiacn line and lying seaward from the line of
    "     extreme low tide;
    (d) Those lakes, whether natural, artificial or a
    combination thereof, with a surface acreage of 1,000
    acres, or more, measured at the ordinary high-water
    mark;
    (e) Those natural rivers or segments thereof, as
    follows:
    li) Any west of the crest of the Cascade range
    downstream of a point where the mean annual flow
    is measured at 1,000 cubic feet per second, or more;
    (ii) Any east of the crest of the Cascade range
    downstream of a point where the annual flow is
    measured cit 200 cubic feet per second, or more, or
    those portions of rivers east of the crest of the
    Cascade  range downstream  from the first 300
    square miles of drainage area, whichever is longer;
    (f) Those wetlands associated with (a) through (e)
    above.
    (14) "Shorelines of the state" means the total of
    all "shorelines" and "shorelines of state-wide signifi-
    cance" within the state.
    (15) "State master program" means the cumula-
    tive total of all master programs approved or adopted
    by the department of ecology.
    (16) "Substantial development" means any devel-
    opment of which the total cost, or fair market value,
    exceeds $1,000, or any development which materially
    interferes with normal public use of the water or
    shorelines of the state 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;
    (b) Construction of the normal protective bulk-
    head, common to single-family residences;
    (c) Emergency construction necessary to protect
    property from damage by the elements;
    (dl) Construction of a barn or similar agricultural
    structure on wetlands;
    (e) Construction or modification of navigational
    aids, such as channel markers and anchor buoys;
    (f) 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 resi-
    dence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above
    average grade level and which meets all requirements
    1     of the state agency or local government having juris-
    diction thereof.
    (17) "Wetlands" or "Wetland areas" means those
    lands extending landward for 200 feet in all direc-
    tions, as measured on a horizontal plane from the
    ordinary high-water mark  and  all marshes,  bogs,
    swamps, floodways, river deltas, and flood plains as-
    sociated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters
    which are subject to the provisions of the act.
    APPENDIX "A"
    (WAC  173-16-200)
    Agricultural Practices
    1. Chapter 15.57 RCW, Washington Pesticide
    Act. Formulation, distribution and sale of ag-
    ricultural pesticides.
    2. Chapter 17.21 RCW, Washington Pesticide Ap-
    plication Act. Application equipment, licen-
    sing, records, handling of and enforcement.
    3. Agricultural Extension Service, Washington
    State University, Pullman, June 1964, Cattle
    Manure Handling and Disposal.
    4. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag-
    riculture, Washington State University, Pull-
    man, October 1965, Guideline for Sanitary
    Handling of Animal Manure.
    5. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag-
    riculture, Washington State University, Pull-
    man, June 1969, Guidelines for Handling An-
    imal Wastes as Related to Water and Air
    Pollution Control.
    6. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag-
    riculture, Washington State University, Pull-
    man, June 1971, The Stockman's Role in
    Water Pollution Control.
    7. Eric B. Wilson, University of Idaho, A Pacific
    Northwest Cooperative Extension Publication,
    PNW Bulletin 53, January 1963, Your Feedlot
    -Build It-Mechanize It.
    8. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Ag-
    riculture, Washington State University, Pull-
    man, June 1971, Livestock Waste Manage-
    ment Guidelines.

    Forest Management Practices
    9. Chapter 76.04 RCW, Forest protection, fire and
    burning control, permits and enforcement.
    10. Anonymous, Pacific Northwest Cooperative Ex-
    tension Publication, March 1971, Building
    Woodland Roads, distributed by Washington
    State University Cooperative Extension Serv-
    ice, College of Agriculture.
    11. State of Washington Departments of Fisheries,
    Game and Natural Resources, Agreement, re-
    lated to management of projects affecting
    land and fisheries resources.
    12. Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Council,
    Task Force Report, August 1971, Log Storage
    and Rafting in Public Waters.

    Aquacu Iture
    13. Chapter 75.16 RCW, Food fish and shellfish
    conservation and propagation.
    14. Chapter 248.58 WAC, State Board of Health,
    Shellfish.

    Archeological Areas and Historic Sites
    15. RCW 43.51.750-820, Preservation of sites and
    funding requirements.

    Bulkheads and Breakwaters
    16. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Cri-
    teria governing the design of bulkheads,
    landfills and marinas.
    19

    26.  WAC 248.50.100 State Board of Health Regu-
    lation, Disposal of Human Excreta.
    27.  Chapter 248.96 WAC, State Board of Health
    Regulation, Individual Sewage Disposal (to
    be adopted).
    Utilities
    28. Chapter 80.50 RCW, Thermal Power Plants--
    Site Locations.
    29. Ports and Water Related Industries, Washing-
    ton Department of Natural Resources, Pro-
    posed Harbor Area Guidelines.
    Pacific Ocean Beaches
    30. RCW 79.16.160 Declared a Public Highway.
    31. RCW 79.16.172 Declared a Public Recreation
    Area.
    Environmental Impacts
    32. Chapter 43.21C RCW, Washington State Envi-
    ronrmental Policy Act of 1971 requires all
    branches of government to include in every
    recommendation or report on proposals for
    legislation and other major actions signifi-
    cantly affecting the environment, a detailed
    statement by the responsible official on the
    environmental impact of the proposed action.
    Public Health, State Board of Health
    33. WAC 248.50.140 Stagnant Water.
    34. Chapter 248.54 WAC, Public Water Supplies.
    35. Chapter 248.72 WAC, Camps and Parks.
    36. Chapter 248.92 WAC, Public Sewage Dis-
    posal.
    37. Chapter 248.98 WAC, Swimming Pools, Bath-
    ing Beaches and Wading Pools.
    Landfill
    17. Wilbour v. Gallagher 77 Wn.2d 306, 462 P.
    2d 232 (1969). See Bulkheads, this page.
    Marinas
    See Bulkheads, this page.
    18. Chapter  248.148  WAC,  Marinas  (to  be
    adopted).
    Mining
    19. RCW 43.51.685, Accreted lands, sale of sand
    and lease and removal permits.
    20. Chapter 78.44 RCW, Surface Mining Act. Re-
    clamation requirements, site inspection and
    permits.
    Outdoor Advertising
    21. Chapter 47.42 RCW, Highway Advertising
    Control Act. Sign locations, scenic areas and
    permits.
    Residential Development
    22. Bach v. Sarich. 74 Wn.2d 575, 445 P. 2d 648
    (1968).
    23. Washington State Department of Social and
    Health Services, Health Services Division,
    Standards for Individual Sewage Waste Dis-
    posal Systems.
    24. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva-
    tion Service, June 1967, Know the Soil You
    Build On, Bulletin No. 320.
    25. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva-
    tion Service, (September 1968) Soil Conserva-
    tion, "Soil and Water Conservation in Subur-
    bia" reprints available.
    A.
    20