[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